Sitting of 13 February 1979

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

  WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Motion made,
  That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 109, the West Midlands County Council Bill [Lords] shall not stand referred to the Committee of Selection in respect of Clause 99, and that Clause 99 of the Bill be committed to a committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.]
  Hon. Members: Object.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    National Defences
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he is satisfied with the state of Great Britain's national defences.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Frederick Mulley): Britain's defences are based on the collective effort of the North Atlantic Alliance. There is no evidence to suggest that the Alliance's policies of defence and deterrence do not remain fully capable of preserving the security of all its members.
    Mr. Jessel: In view of the massive growth in the potential of the Russian forces, when will the Government strengthen the morale of our own Armed Services by honouring their pledge to bring the Forces' pay to proper comparability levels?
    Mr. Mulley: The pay day for the Armed Services is 1 April. It is the Government's intention fully to honour the undertakings given last year to restore
    934
    full comparability in two roughly equal stages this year and next.
    Mr. Crawshaw: Is not my right hon. Friend being a little complacent on this issue? In view of the continual buildup of the Eastern bloc, does he not agree that the greatest danger to the peace of the world lies not in our having arms, but in our not having them in sufficient numbers to deter aggression from anybody who thinks in that way?
    Mr. Mulley: I accept my hon. Friend's great interest and concern in these matters. However, I am sure that he will agree that today no nation is able to secure its own safety by its own efforts. That is why we are—and have been—in the North Atlantic Alliance. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish us to change that posture. We make a substantial and important contribution to that alliance.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the Secretary of State confirm that from 1 April the Forces will he paid not only the first instalment that he mentioned but the full comparability element for the rise in civilian earnings which occurred in the current year?
    Mr. Mulley: We have frequently made this clear and given that assurance. Half of the arrears will be paid fully updated in the light of the recommendations that we are due to receive from the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which alone can evaluate the movement of the comparators.
    Mr. Grocott: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in a recent answer to me he said that every man, woman and child contributed the equivalent of £125 a year to our defence costs? This represents about £10 per week for the average family. Does he think that this is good value for money? Has he made any estimate of how much each family would pay if he acceded to the numerous requests for increased expenditure being made by the Opposition?
    Mr. Mulley: I am in some difficulty in answering my hon. Friend. We have not been given any indication of what spending, if any, the Opposition would advocate. We hear suggestions of vast increases in defence expenditure, unspecified in the same breath as calls for vast reductions in public expenditure generally. That

    935
    is a problem which I have never yet been able to solve.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: In view of the continuing drain of skilled men from the Armed Forces and the importance of keeping up their morale, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that 14½ per cent., which is what The Guardian today reports Whitehall sources as saying is the kind of sum the Forces can expect, would not come anywhere near meeting the Government's inadequate pledge of last year? Does he agree that if the present outward public posture of the Government on pay is taken at its face value, about 20 per cent. will be the bare minimum that they should expect?
    Mr. Mulley: It is difficult, without the completion of the normal operations of the review body, to give a percentage. The 14½ per cent. arises because 5 per cent. has been added to 9½ per cent. I made clear, as did my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister last year, that the two stages to comparability would be fully updated. Already, as their pay dates came earlier in the round, similar commitments to the police and firemen have been fully honoured.

    Harrier Aircraft (China)
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to enter into negotiations for the sale of the Harrier aircraft to China.
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Defence if the sale of Hawker jump jet planes to the People's Republic of China is to go ahead; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mulley: Negotiations between British Aerospace and the Chinese authorities have already begun. Whether or not the sale goes ahead will depend on the outcome of these negotiations.
    Mr. Arnold: Yes, but what precise timetable does the Secretary of State envisage for the completion of these negotiations? On the last occasion when we had defence questions, he seemed to imply to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) that the sale of the Harriers to China was in some measure dependent upon the sale of civil aircraft, and probably on other
    936
    projects as well. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether this is the case?
    Mr. Mulley: I cannot, obviously, give a date when the negotiations could be completed, because there are two parties to the negotiations. Since it has been dealt with by British Aerospace, I am not fully apprised of all the issues that may arise. But it is clear—and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear—that we do not wish simply to sell arms to China but want this to be part of a wider trade relationship.
    Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether our decision is definitely to sell Harrier jump jets to China? Are we taking into account the question of detente and the fact that this could spell—[Interruption.]—Will my right hon. Friend accept from me that Conservative Members are not bothered about detente but that Labour Members are bothered about it? Will my right hon. Friend try to read Victor Zorza's article in The Guardian of a fortnight ago, in which it was pointed out that there is undoubtedly an approaching detente between the Soviet Union and China, and take this into account?
    Mr. Mulley: I would not recommend the sale of Harrier if I thought for a moment that this would be disadvantageous to the development of detente, which I believe hon. Members in all parts of the House would wish to see develop. In particular, I think it would be quite wrong if this could be prejudicial to SALT II, but there is no indication whatever that such a sale would have that effect.
    Mr. Townsend: Would the Secretary of State be in favour, as part of a wider agreement, and in order to improve relations with China, of Britain's becoming involved in improving China's tank army?
    Mr. Mulley: We have had no request to provide tanks to China and I think that there would be substantial difficulties about that propostion.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Will my right hon. Friend say what the value of the proposed Harrier contract is likely to be?
    Mr. Mulley: I cannot, because it depends on various factors, such as numbers, delivery dates, and so on, which

    937
    are currently under negotiation. It would not be very helpful to British Aerospace, in its negotiations as to price, if I were to make a public utterance now as to the expected value.
    Mr. Pattie: Have the Government yet had discussions with the unions at Kingston, Dunsfold and Filton about the desirability of selling Harriers to China?
    Mr. Mulley: I have not had any such discussions myself, but I have no reason to suppose that there would be opposition from that quarter.

    NATO Defence Ministers
    Mr. Blakerasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he last met the other NATO Defence Ministers.
    Mr. Mulley: At the last ministerial meeting of the defence planning committee in December.
    Mr. Blaker: What consultation has taken place between member countries of NATO about the proposed SALT II agreement? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the present draft allows the Western Alliance to take appropriate steps to deal with the increasing Soviet nuclear threat to Western Europe?
    Mr. Mulley: There has, throughout the SALT negotiations, been full consultation between the United States and our NATO allies. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the agreement is not yet finalised, but from the trend I am quite satisfied that there should be no inhibitions in the SALT II treaty of the kind that he fears.
    Mr. Clemitson: As, according to the Defence White Paper, we are to increase defence spending over the next four years by 3·4 per cent., which is higher than the average for all public spending, may we take it that the other member States of NATO will be increasing their defence spending by a far greater proportion than our own in order to achieve parity of commitment?
    Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend's point is one that I have made in the NATO ministerial discussions. The position, as I think he knows, is that we are committed to increase our defence expenditure by 3 per cent. in real terms in the forthcoming financial year, and again in 1980–81. The position thereafter has to be considered
    938
    in the light of economic and other considerations. The amount of additional expenditure of NATO members varies. Some are spending more than 3 per cent. and others will have some difficulty in meeting that target next year.
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Defence when the next North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers' meeting will be held.
    Mr. Mulley: I shall be meeting some of my colleagues at the nuclear planning group in the spring of this year and will meet my colleagues collectively at the ministerial meeting of the defence planning committee later in the spring.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: In view of what has happened in Iran and is happening to CENTO, does not the right hon. Gentleman think it at least advisable that he discuss with his NATO colleagues the future of the geographical boundaries of NATO? Will he undertake to raise that matter with them?
    Mr. Mulley: There will clearly be some discussion of developments since the previous meeting. I cannot give any assurance that that will lead to a reconsideration of the NATO boundaries which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have been in force for the past 30 years.
    Mr. Goodhart: At the next NATO meeting will the right hon. Gentleman be able to answer allegations by the German Ministry of Defence that delays of up to 15 months have been caused in the Tornado multi-combat aircraft production schedules by the failure of Rolls-Royce to produce engines on time, thus adding tens of millions of pounds to the cost of the contract?
    Mr. Mulley: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that he is putting an unreasonable amount of responsibility on to Rolls-Royce. It is a joint development. It is most unlikely to be brought up at the NATO meeting. The German Government, along with the Italians, are jointly responsible and fully participate in all decisions on the Tornado programme. They know the situation only too well.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the contiguity of Turkey to the North Atlantic has never been entirely clear? Doubtless that is what

    939
    the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) had in mind.
    Mr. Mulley: For many years Turkey has been a member of the Alliance. I see no reason why it should not remain so.

    Workshops (Four-year Apprenticeships)
    Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what he estimates would be the total cost per person of four-year apprenticeships in tool-making and other engineering trades with full day release if such additional places were to be made available in Ministry of Defence workshops.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Dr. John Gilbert): The cost of four-year engineering apprenticeships with the MOD is about £18,000 gross. If due allowance is made for the apprentice's contribution to production, this figure falls to around £16,000. We have substantially increased our apprentice intake over the last two years. Our 1979 entry should be of the order of 2,300, as compared with the 1,700 to 1,800 originally planned in 1976. We consequently have no capacity for additional training of this sort.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, now that there is overwhelming pressure for the defence workshops, like the railway workshops, to take in work not directly connected with defence contracts, the time has come to double the intake of 2,000 scheduled for next year if the Ministry of Defence is to make its contribution towards the provision of craftsmen practising engineering skills?
    Dr. Gilbert: I think that in this direction the Ministry of Defence has a record with which even my hon. Friend would be satisfied. The ratio of apprentices to craftsmen in Ministry of Defence establishments is about one to five, as compared with one to eight in the engineering and shipbuilding industries as a whole. At present we have about 8,000 apprentices under training, of whom about 7,000 are craft apprentices. We train far more young people than we are able to use ourselves, and provide a constant supply to the rest of industry, for which it is very grateful.
    Mr. Cryer: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that if the Ministry is to
    940
    exercise its responsibilities towards apprentices and other workers inside the Ministry of Defence it ought to be developing alternative programmes to move away from the manufacture of weaponry and towards the manufacture of peaceful items? Does not the contract for Iran, which now appears to be prejudiced, with the loss of about £2 billion worth of work, bring it home at long last to the Ministry of Defence that it ought to look at alternative programmes instead of the production of weapons for extermination?
    Dr. Gilbert: I had an exchange with my hon. Friend on the subject on the last occasion that we had Ministry of Defence questions. I pointed out then that, with his experience he had of the Department of Industry, I thought that he would have appreciated that, while these are very important questions, they are questions for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. However, having said that, I think that my hon. Friend ought to recognise that the range of skills that we give to apprentices in Ministry of Defence establishments is suitable for a wide range of activities. It includes fitting trades, shipwrights, boilermakers, coppersmiths, plumbers, joiners, carpenters, pattern makers, welders, instrument makers, sail makers, printers and lithographers. That is a pretty good record.

    Iran (Defence Co-operation)
    Mr. Newensasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on defence co-operation with Iran in the light of recent developments.
    Mr. Mulley: We are watching developments in Iran closely, but in present circumstances it is difficult to predict the future course of our defence relations.
    Mr. Newens: Yes, but does not the success of the mass uprising of the Iranian people show the crass folly of previous British and American policies in supporting an appalling tyranny, in supplying it with huge quantities of arms, and utterly disregarding all the expressions of opinion by opposition and progressive forces within the area? In these circumstances, does my right hon. Friend recognise that both his policies and those of the Opposition are now in utter ruins, and that to attempt to revive them or continue them elsewhere in the Gulf will leave

    941
    Britain in the long run without a single friend in the Gulf region?
    Mr. Mulley: It would be unwise for me to pronounce on the present situation in Iran. As I recall, my hon. Friend has uttered these observations previously. I do not think that in the past it was wrong to supply our CENTO ally with the arms that she sought.
    Mr. Goodhart: As production of the Shir Iran tank is about to start in particular at the Royal Ordnance Factory, Leeds, does the Secretary of State have any plans to take over the contract for the tank for the British Army or other potential foreign buyers?
    Mr. Mulley: In the confused circumstances of the past few weeks, it has not been possible to have the necessary discussions on the complex contractual arrangements with Iran. All the options are under consideration, and we must await a view from Iran before reaching final decisions.
    Mr. Hooson: As the British Army of the Rhine is equipped with outdated tanks and the Shir Iran tank is the most modern design, has not the Secretary of State considered taking over the contract so that the tanks can be used for the defence of this country and the West? In that event, he might have the support of his hon. Friends below the Gangway.
    Mr. Mulley: I should welcome such support. But the Shir Iran tank was designed for conditions in that country. We have under development for the British Army a tank that is designed for the European theatre. We shall have to consider this matter further.
    Miss Joan Lestor: In reply to a written question by me, my right hon. Friend last week said that, although arms supplies to Iran were stopped in December, nevertheless some would probably still have gone because licences had been issued. Can he therefore tell me who will bear the financial cost of those arms if the Iranian authorities do not?
    Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend should know that most of the contracts with Iran were pre-financed. If one of the subcontractors supplied equipment to Iran, it would be against payments already received.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Despite the glee shown by the Tribune Group about the difficulties caused to our arms contracts with Iran, does not the Secretary of State agree that the employment implications are extremely serious? Unless he is prepared to take the tank for the British Army, will not this mean the closure of ROF Leeds?
    Mr. Mulley: I do not think that the question of closing ROF Leeds will arise. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a difficult situation with complex contractual negotiations. He probably had knowledge of these when he had my job, because the negotiations pre-dated this Government. Until we can disentangle the complications about cancellation charges, and so on, it would be premature to make a pronouncement.

    Nuclear Missiles
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Defence what agreement was reached at the Guadeloupe Summit regarding the development of a new nuclear missile to be stationed in Europe.
    Mr. Mulley: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement to the House on 16 January about the meeting which he attended at Guadeloupe earlier that month. I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend's statement.
    Mr. Evans: In his statement the Prime Minister said that the Summit conference was designed to create greater stability and to further the cause of detente. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should seek to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and not join in to create more sophisticated nuclear weapons such as the neutron bomb and the SS20?
    Mr. Mulley: I can assure my hon. Friend that we have no part in the development of the SS20. On many occasions I have made the Government's position clear on the neutron bomb, in supporting President Carter's decision not to proceed to its production last year. I also confirm that it is an important part of our policy to do our best to avoid proliferation of nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Wall: As the mobile SS20 has a range of about 3,000 miles and can therefore be fired from inside Russia, and as the maximum range of the present

    943
    new tactical nuclear weapons in NATO is 450 miles, is it not essential that we should either have a cruise missile or a new intermediate range ballistic missile in the NATO arsenal as soon as possible?
    Mr. Mulley: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the question of the theatre nuclear weaponry is under consideration in NATO. We are awaiting a report, and until that is received and decisions taken. I can add nothing further.

    Submarine Service
    Mr. Viggersasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he proposes to take any steps to draw public attention to the importance of Her Majesty's submarine service to the defence of the United Kingdom.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. A. E. P. Duffy): I am happy to take every opportunity to draw public attention to the importance to the defence of the United Kingdom of the Royal Navy as a whole, of which the submarine service is a vital part.
    Mr. Viggers: Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the trustees of the Submarine Memorial Appeal museum which is to be in Gosport? Will he confirm that, as the trustees have raised £295,000 of the £350,000 that is needed for the museum, HMS "Alliance" will form part of the museum and will be donated by the Royal Navy on the terms already suggested?
    Mr. Duffy: I am anxious to associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. I confirm that the Admiralty Board, with Parliament's approval, has made a gift of HMS "Alliance." the last of the A-class submarines, on a 60-year loan to the museum trustees. The response to the appeal fund has been so good that the trustees have announced their intention to go ahead with the major part of the scheme.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Can my right hon. Friend find space in the museum for the submarine at present located in Scotland?
    Mr. Trotter: Will the Minister give consideration to ordering a new class of conventional submarine, having regard not
    944
    only to the need to replace those that exist in the Royal Navy but to the export opportunities for this type of ship, which would be of great assistance to British shipbuilders?
    Mr. Duffy: I confirm that we are considering a possible requirement for a new class of diesel-powered conventional submarine; and we are mindful of the export potential.

    Textile Contracts
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many textile contracts went overseas, and to which countries, in 1978; and what was their value.
    Dr. Gilbert: No contracts for textiles or finished garments were placed by the Ministry of Defence direct with overseas firms, but for 14 contracts the cloth was obtained from overseas, in some cases in an unfinished state. The total value of clothing and textile contracts placed by the Ministry of Defence in 1978 was £51 million. The overseas element amounted to £370,000, split between Hong Kong—£245,000, Holland—£115,000 and Eire—£10,000.
    Mr. Hoyle: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, but does he agree that there is an added danger to the textile industry? By directive, we have to advertise textile contracts worth over a certain amount throughout the EEC, yet other EEC countries are not complying with this directive. Is not this another bad deal for us in the Common Market? Will he advise his friends in the Treasury unilaterally not to comply with the directive until all other EEC countries are obeying it?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomed the fact that over 99 per cent. of our textile contracts are placed with this country. On his second point, during the last defence Question Time I was able to inform him that the Chief Secretary was taking up the question of advertising public contracts in other EEC countries. I am sure that he is vigorously pursuing it.
    Mr. Noble: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that his Department suffers from the same disability as any other in purchasing textile goods, because the marks or origin refer only to final processes? Will

    945
    he join other Departments in trying to change the scheme so that we know where the cloth has been spun, woven and finished, as well as made up?
    Dr. Gilbert: I am not sure about the practicalities of what my hon. Friend suggests. I shall look into them.

    Arms Control Negotiations
    Mr. Hoosonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what policy he has regarding the inclusion of theatre nuclear weapons and especially British strategic forces in future arms control negotiations.
    Mr. Mulley: Together with our NATO allies we are considering whether those nuclear weapons not at present covered in the strategic arms limitation talks should be included in future arms control negotiations, but no decisions have yet been taken. Our aim will be to achieve the right balance between the need to maintain sufficient forces to preserve NATO's deterrent strategy and the need to secure lower levels of armaments.
    Mr. Hooson: What is the Government's policy on this? Are the Polaris fleet and RAF Strike Command to come within the arms control negotiations at the next stage? Alternatively, are we first to take a decision on the cruise missile before a decision is taken on Government policy?
    Mr. Mulley: I said that no decisions had been taken, and what the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to are the matters about which no decisions have been taken. Until the SALT II negotiations are concluded, it is premature to become too involved in subsequent or similar SALT negotiations. No decisions have been taken, but obviously preliminary discussions within the alliance on some of these matters have been held.
    Mr. Alan Lee Williams: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever case there might be in the future for the deployment of the cruise missile as a tactical weapon, the Russians might respond in that area, which would cause difficulties about arms control? Does he further agree that the cruise missile, deployed strategically, is no replacement for the A3, which is now on British Polaris submarines?
    Mr. Mulley: Many hon. Members hold that view. The whole of this area is a
    946
    matter for future decision in the light of studies within the Alliance and of discussions between the allies. It is impossible to state a position on behalf of the Government until events move a little further.
    Mr. Goodhew: Can the Secretary of State tell the House of any arms control agreement with the Soviet Union which has not resulted in advantage to the Soviet Union and disadvantage to the West?
    Mr. Mulley: The SALT I agreement was—as I hope that the SALT II agreement will be when it is realised—highly beneficial in lowering the general level of nuclear development.
    Sir Ian Gilmour: Since the British nuclear deterrent has not declined in use or importance over the years, will the Secretary of State take this opportunity of repudiating the Labour Party's absurd policy of opposing in all circumstances a follow-on to our Polaris system?
    Mr. Mulley: As I have said on many occasions, as the Polaris missiles will continue to be effective into the 1990s it is too early to take a decision as to a possible successor, if it is decided that that would be a proper course to take in the light of arms control, defence and economic considerations.

    Defence Budget
    Mr. Nelsonasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he proposes to increase the proportion of the defence budget allocated to the Royal Air Force.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force (Mr. James Wellbeloved): The share of the defence budget allocated to each Service reflects the requirements of the Government's defence policy. This will continue to be the principle on which future allocations are made.
    Mr. Nelson: Is it not a fact that the allocation of the defence budget between the Services has hardly changed on a year-by-year basis over the last 20 years, and certainly not over the last four years? Are there good objective reasons for this, or is it a convenient way of trying to avoid inter-Service bidding for the defence budget? In view of the substantial programme for re-equipping the Air Force

    947
    over the next decade, is there not a good case for increasing the proportion of the defence budget which is attributable to the Air Force?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: There has been some fluctuation in the division of expenditure from the defence budget between the three Services in the period to which the hon. Member referred. I can foresee that with the substantial improvements being made in the RAF's capability there could be an argument for a greater allocation to be made to the RAF. But I am sure that my hon. Friends the Under-Secretaries of State for the other two Services and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would have to make some careful balanced judgments on the priorities between the three Services.
    Mr. George Rodgers: Is it true that an additional 4,000 recruits have been accepted into the RAF in excess of the number forecast in the defence review? If money has been made available for this vast additional number, why is it necessary to consider making additional funds available?
    Mr. Wellbeloved: It is true that there has been an increase in the manpower strength of the RAF. This has necessitated an increase in the defence Vote for the RAF. We are examining carefully future manpower requirements with the aim of containing the situation within the Government's defence policy.

    Arms (Export)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had concerning the export of arms.
    Dr. Gilbert: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has frequent discussions with a wide variety of individuals, firms, organisations and representatives of foreign Governments about the export of arms.
    Mr. Jenkins: I have no doubt about that. But does not my right hon. Friend have discussions with the Foreign Office? Is it not the Foreign Office which makes the final decision? Was not the instability of the regime in Iran known by the Foreign Office at least a year ago? Why does my right hon. Friend persist in these sales when he and the Foreign Office should have known long ago that the regime was tottering?
    Dr. Gilbert: Many considerations are taken into account in any request for the export of defence equipment. We examine security, financial considerations, and political considerations, which primarily are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Adley: Will the Minister consider following the doctrine of the late Mao Tse-tung that "My enemy's enemy is my friend"? When the question of the price of the Harrier to the Chinese Government arises, will the Minister take into account the strategic advantage to the West of having the Chinese in a position to defend themselves on their border with the Soviet Union?
    Dr. Gilbert: It has been made clear from this Dispatch Box on many occasions that we are prepared to entertain applications for the export of defensive equipment—and I emphasise the word "defensive"—to China.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Have not both the American and German Governments refused to export arms to China, although they have secured huge non-military contracts? Why cannot we do the same? I refer specifically to the Harrier.
    Dr. Gilbert: I am not aware that an announcement has been made by the German Government. I am not saying that it has not, because I know that my hon. Friend is well informed about these matters. The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that we do not intend to be solely an exporter of arms equipment to China and that any sale of arms to China must be part of a balanced package and include a major proportion of civil equipment.
    Mr. Pattie: Can the Minister confirm that the Government will continue to support new projects such as the type 24 frigate which will be of interest to our own Services as well as having considerable export potential?
    Dr. Gilbert: The question of the type 24 frigate is under consideration. I cannot say more than that. I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate that.

    Central Treaty Organisation
    Mr. Rifkindasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement as to what effect recent

    949
    developments in Iran have had on the future of the Central Treaty Organisation.
    Mr. Mulley: It is too early to make a firm assessment.
    Mr. Rifkind: Does the Secretary of State accept that the withdrawal of Iran from CENTO is a death blow to an organisation which already appeared to be moribund? Does he accept that there is a need for an urgent review by Britain and the Western allies about the form of defence assistance that they can give to Iran's neighbours and to other Persian Gulf States which feel threatened by Soviet subversion?
    Mr. Mulley: I agree that, in the light of events that have occurred, even since the hon. Member tabled his Question, the future of CENTO must be reviewed with our allies. I believe that the alliance has been a factor for stability, but its military importance should not be overestimated because there was no declaration of forces to the alliance by any of the partners.
    Mr. Litterick: Since the main effective purpose of CENTO was to provide the Secretary of State's Department with a means of reducing its overhead costs, and since that is now disappearing rapidly, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is time for his Department to study seriously the alternatives to manufacturing armaments? Is it not time in particular to study the proposals of the Lucas Aerospace shop stewards' committee?
    Mr. Mulley: My right hon. Friend has already dealt with that to some extent. All the firms that are dealing with contracts with Iran are able if they wish—most of them have both civil and military work—to diversify. We shall, with the Department of Employment and the sponsoring Departments, do our best to find alternative work for any whose jobs are threatened as a result of cancellation of contracts with Iran.

    Officers (Retired Pay)
    Sir David Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to complete his consideration of the anomalous position now prevailing with
    950
    regard to the retired pay of officers of the Armed Forces under the 1976 and 1977 pension codes; and when his decision will be announced.
    Mr. Duffy: The position referred to is not confined to Armed Forces' pensions but exists throughout the public services. The studies so far undertaken suggest that the implications for the whole system of public service superannuation schemes should be considerable. I cannot, therefore, at this stage predict whether or when any practicable or acceptable solution will emerge.
    Sir D. Renton: Is there not a serious anomaly? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the autumn of 1977 officers approaching retirement age in the next two or three years were told that it would be to their advantage to retire before 1 April 1978, and that those who retired at that time found that they were in a worse position than those who retired the year before and the year after? When will he remove the anomaly?
    Mr. Duffy: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate from the correspondence that we have shared that I appreciate his concern. The problem is not confined to the Armed Services. It applies throughout the public services. It affects teachers, policemen, firemen, Health Service and local authority workers. A detailed study is in hand. The fact that different groups of public servants have been affected in the way that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has described must make for a slow, difficult and complicated study.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Surely the Minister is responsible for the Armed Forces. Does he realise that there are glaring anomalies for which he is responsible? Will he please take an early opportunity to make a statement to the House on this admittedly complicated subject?
    Mr. Duffy: I take the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point. He will understand that the introduction of an arrangement only for the Armed Forces would have repercussions throughout the public services. Therefore, such an arrangement could not be introduced only for the Armed Forces.

    Cruise Missile Technology (Research Studies)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Defence what additional expenditure, beyond the £120,000 already contracted for with Aerospace and other firms, it is proposed to incur on research studies connected with cruise missile technology.
    Mr. Mulley: No further expenditure on such studies is planned at present.
    Mr. Allaun: I am glad to hear that. Will my right hon. Friend give a firm undertaking that we shall not either singly or jointly develop or deploy the cruise missile, which would wreck detente? I ask the question because there have been so many precedents where there has been a step-by-step approach to new nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Litterick: In secret.
    Mr. Mulley: My hon. Friend expresses undue concern and anxiety. I assure him that one can buy very little of a cruise missile programme for £120,000.

  TUC
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister when he expects next to meet the Trades Union Congress.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I hope to meet the general council of the TUC tomorrow.
  Mr. Ridley: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall the social contract whereby he conceded long-term privileges to the trade union movement in return for a guarantee of what may be called industrial peace in our time, since when there have been 34 days of industrial chaos following his return from sunny Guadeloupe? Will he therefore eschew entering into a concordat with the TUC? Why does he not stop feeding the hand that bit him?
  The Prime Minister: The social contract led to a period of substantial industrial peace. The number of days lost through industrial disputes between 1975 and 1978 were far fewer than those lost during the lifetime of the Conservative Administration, especially during its last year. Secondly, the effect of the social
  952
  contract was to enable us to overcome some of the follies of the previous Administration through its excessive use of money supply, which led to inflation. Thirdly, it enabled us to ensure that low-paid workers, both through the £6 a week increase and the 5 per cent. increase, had a greater improvement in their standard of life than some had ever obtained before by free collective bargaining.
  Mr. David Steel: When the Prime Minister meets the Trades Union Congress tomorrow, will he point out to it some of the similarities—I put it no higher than that—between the proposals in the pamphlet "A Better Way" produced by some trade union leaders and the proposals published this morning in the CBI's booklet on pay policy? Will he tell the TUC that, although he will encourage the further development of that consensus, at the end of the day Parliament cannot subcontract its responsibilities on these matters to any outside body, and that he will bring the consensus back to the House and place whatever he has before us?
  The Prime Minister: I am glad to say that there is much reflection and thinking about the way in which we handle wage claims and the need for establishing proper relativities and comparability. I welcome such views from wherever they come, from the CBI or members of the TUC. I hope that we are all agreed that the present method does not look as if it is being very satisfactory. I hope that the position of Parliament will be safeguarded. Initially, I should like to see an analysis made between the Government and all interests concerned, whether they be unions, employers, managers or anybody else, on what the economy can do and the likely consequences for wages, investment and consumer expenditure.
  Mr. Bidwell: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to study the Tribune Group's wise statement on wages and inflation? Will he accept that many of us believe that if he accepts the message contained in the statement he can still be Britain's best Prime Minister after the next general election?
  The Prime Minister: I am grateful for that testimonial. I will ask my hon. Friend to give me a signed statement to that effect. I have not yet had a chance of

  953
  studying this latest series of proposals. I would only say that, if the level of wage settlements gets out of hand, it will not be possible to accelerate further the growth of the economy. These two things are just not possible if one is to keep a stable currency and ensure that the balance of payments does not get out of hand, and if we are not to lose our competitive position. There must be some restraint in these matters. We cannot do it all.
  Mr. Marten: On a more optimistic note, can the Prime Minister give any indication when he sees an end to his winter of confrontation?
  The Prime Minister: There is no confrontation that I am aware of. It takes two to effect a confrontation. The Leader of the Opposition has already declared that she will confront anybody. My view is that the best thing for this country is to try to secure the support and the agreement of the people of this country. That is the right way forward.

  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  Mr. McCrindleasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 13 February.
  The Prime Minister: In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
  Mr. McCrindle: Although the Prime Minister did not say so, am I correct in understanding that this morning he entertained His Royal Highness at No. 10 Downing Street? May I express my pleasure at the fact that this has been done but inquire whether this was an open-dated invitation or whether the Prime Minister insisted that it had to be now for fear that later this year the person greeting him would be my right hon. Friend?
  Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the beginning of the hon. Gentleman's question. If I had, I would have pulled him up. It is not customary to make such references in questions.
  Mr. MacFarquhar: Will my right hon. Friend, with reference to comparability and relativity, give consideration to the
  954
  way public sector wages are settled? Will he take up with the Trades Union Congress the inadvisability of continuing a system whereby wages are settled by different bodies at different times when they should be settled altogether in an integrated manner to avoid constant leapfrogging?
  The Prime Minister: Yes. This is a great problem. In my discussions and those of other Ministers with the TUC, we have covered this matter. I believe that there is growing agreement that some continuing arrangements are required in order that we should be fair to those who are employed in the public services. At the same time, we should avoid leapfrogging claims. My own view—I have not yet got full agreement to this—is that some body is needed to analyse what is taking place and, as soon as we can get agreement, to deliver its views on what is necessary in these matters. I warn Conservative Members that one must proceed by agreement.
  Mrs. Thatcher: As there have been tragic events today in Rhodesia which will have engaged the Prime Minister's attention, may I take the opportunity to put to him two brief questions?—[HON. MEMBERS: "There is a PNQ."] Indeed, there was a PNQ on former President Bhutto last week, but that did not prevent the Prime Minister from answering at Question Time. Is the Prime Minister aware that we on this side of the House wholly and utterly condemn the callous act of the Patriotic Front in shooting down a civilian aircraft with the loss of 59 lives, some of them British as well as those who were Rhodesian? May I also ask the Prime Minister what is his policy regarding democratic elections in Rhodesia on 20 April? Is he aware that the result of the Rhodesian referendum was one of the most heartening results for a long time—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady must be heard.
  Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that the result of the Rhodesian referendum, which gave actual proof for the first time that the white Rhodesians welcome and wanted black majority rule was one of the most heartening we have had for a long time? What arrangements is he making to secure—
  Mr. Buchan: On a point of order—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There can be no point of order now. I will take it at the end of Question Time.
  Mr. Buchan: With respect—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows our custom. He is only wasting Prime Minister's Question Time. I will take his point of order at the end of Question Time.
  Mrs. Thatcher: What arrangements is the Prime Minister making to ensure that those elections are held in as peaceful conditions as possible? Will he send observers from this country?
  The Prime Minister: As regards the tragic news from Rhodesia today, there can be no excuse and no sympathy for those who shoot down a civilian airliner. It is a barbaric act, the latest of a series of barbaric acts which I regret to say have not been confined to one side. There is strong evidence to this effect. It is no use blinding ourselves to this fact. Her Majesty's Government appeal to both sides to avoid civilian atrocities by whoever they may be committed.
  It is our view that the best way forward is for the leaders of the internal settlement to get together with the leaders of the Patriotic Front in order that they should put an end to this war that is taking place. I know of no way of ending this war unless there are conversations and negotiations between both sides. It is clear that neither side has the capacity to secure a victory in this situation. That is why both sides of this House should be encouraging all of them to come together in discussions.
  As regards the question of elections, it will be for the House, if it wishes later, to take a view on whether it wishes to send observers to elections, if, indeed they are held. But it is certainly not within the power of the House or of the Government, as the right hon. Lady knows, to ensure that those elections are peaceful.
  On the last point, I note, if I may, that the practice in relation to private notice questions seems to have altered within the last week or two.
  Mr. Newens: Between his engagements today, my right hon. Friend must have been considering developments in Iran.
  956
  Will he make clear that many of us who utterly deplore the torture, executions and repression of the previous regime wish the new regime well but hope that it will base its policies on a respect for human rights which was conspicuously absent from the Government of the Shah?
  The Prime Minister: Whatever expectations any Opposition Members may hold, I believe that we all share my hon. Friend's hope that the new Government will accept their obligations to ensure that human rights are properly observed in Iran. Her Majesty's Government have today asked our ambassador in Tehran to make contact with the new Government of Dr. Bazargan and to say to him that we look forward to establishing good relations with the new administration. This constitutes an act of recognition on the part of the United Kingdom Government of the Government of Iran.
  Mrs. Knight: Will the Prime Minister spend some time considering the serious implications of a report issued today by the British Chamber of Commerce in France warning of the severe loss of British exports to France because of constant delays, price rises and other difficulties connected with industrial unrest? Can the Prime Minister do anything about this situation? Is he aware that France is our third biggest market?
  The Prime Minister: On the question of price rises, I am glad to have the hon. Lady's support for the Government's fight to keep inflation down. I wish that it had been expressed a little more practically by her voting for us when the Price Commission Bill was going through the House. As regards the question of exports, I agree with what the hon. Lady said. I expressed last week the great concern felt by the Government about the interruption to our exports which resulted from industrial action during January. There must be a very big effort to overtake the delays that occurred then and to ensure that we do not lose orders.
  Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, it is rarely that I try to interrupt Question Time, but, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister remarked, there has been a change of practice in relation to questions to the Prime Minister when they are followed by a private notice question.

  957
  Last week, we were faced with the possibility of a tragic event occurring and a statement from the Prime Minister was obviously vital. The whole House accepted that. On this occasion, we are to have a private notice question dealing with a tragic event that has occurred. That event cannot be pre-empted by a statement by the Prime Minister.
  Even apart from the general precedent, it has been the custom that when such a private notice question is put down, all hon. Members, including the Leader of the Opposition, are able to ask questions. It seems to be an abuse of Question Time when advantage is taken of that situation, especially given the length of the right hon. Lady's question, which took the form of a statement. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reconsider that position.
  Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that he is going to help the House?
  Mr. Faulds: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am eager to help the House in this matter of the abuse of some of its practices. It is clear that in the old days the Leader of the Opposition would have come in on the private notice question. Her action today is yet another glaring example of what has happened because of the introduction of microphones. As the House knows, I have been opposed to the introduction of these things since the inception of the scheme. We have seen yet another glaring example of what happens when they are introduced. Before we agreed to the broadcasting of the House, the right hon. Lady would have waited for the PNQ to make her point and would not have come in on Prime Minister's questions. She wanted her point of view to be broadcast.
  Mr. Speaker: There is no doubt that microphones, like telephones, are a mixed blessing. As for the questions that the right hon. Lady asked, they are her responsibility and not mine.

EDUCATION (SCHOOL EXAMINATIONS)
Mr. Carlisle Mr. Carlisle (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what advice her Department is giving to local education authorities to safeguard the position of children taking O and A-level and CSE examinations from disruption of their education as a result of industrial action.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science and Paymaster General (Mrs. Shirley Williams): About 1,200 schools in England are closed. That is 4·6 per cent. of the total number. Two-thirds are in the areas of seven local education authorties in Greater London and the North-East. My aim is to get normal education restored for all children as soon as possible, but those taking public examinations this year deserve priority. At the outset of the present dispute, following representations from me, the public sector unions agreed together to give guidance to their members under which they would give 48 hours' notice of any industrial action, use their good offices to call off unauthorised local action of which notice had not been given and refrain from any action that would impede the conduct of public examinations. I asked them to extend similar protection to all teaching examination classes, but they were unwilling to do so. Nevertheless, most of the authorities badly affected are managing to provide some teaching for examination clases, often in schools or on restricted timetables, in makeshift accommodation or by setting and marking homework.
My Department is in regular touch with all the local education authorities affected, which have been asked to supply details of any breaches of this guidance. Any reports of breaches are taken up immediately, locally or, if necessary, nationally with the trade unions concerned.
Yesterday, I held a meeting with chairmen and the chief education officers of the 12 authorities that had been hardest hit or threatened. I asked them to make every effort to keep schools open and where this proved impossible to take immediate steps to mitigate the consequences of the closure of schools on children's education, especially that of young people in their examination years.

959
They told me at first hand about the situation in their areas and the steps that they were taking to deal with it. I promised that if necessary I would call them together again to discuss further action.
Mr. Carlisle: The right hon. Lady will be aware of the very grave concern being expressed by many parents about their children's examinations and the concern that was clearly expressed by one of the leading teaching unions over the weekend. Will she accept that my hon. Friends and I believe that action aimed at affecting children in the run-up period to public examinations—failure at which, or the inability to do as well as might otherwise be the case, may mean that those children will suffer for the rest of their lives—is on any basis totally unacceptable?
As the right hon. Lady has responsibility to see that local education authorities effectively carry out their duty of providing proper education, does she agree that it is not sufficient merely to say that she has had talks with the unions and the leaders of local education authority bodies but that she should issue today a circular to all local education authorities reminding them of their duty to ensure that education is provided and advising them that if those who normally open schools are on strike and are not opening them, other arrangements for their opening must be made?
Mrs. Williams: It is as effective to see the authorities concerned as it is to send them circulars, and it also enables them to put to me the precise position in their own areas. That has been done. I explored yesterday, with the authorities seriously affected, what steps they can take to open their schools, but the hon. and learned Gentleman must appreciate that that depends on what co-operation will be extended to them locally by teachers and head teachers. The advice of the National Association of Head Teachers to its members was that they should not undertake work normally undertaken by members of other unions, which would include the normal opening of schools by caretakers. I have pointed out to all authorities that they have a legal right to seek access to their schools, but it is crucial to make sure that teaching will take place if the schools are reopened.
960
If circumstances in any authority were to justify a direction under section 68, which would, I am advised, be more appropriate than section 99, I would not hesitate to make such a direction. However, I should draw attention to the fact that since the Tameside judgment it requires a very stringent test to establish that unreasonable action is being undertaken by a local authority.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that all of us on the Government side share her anxiety to do whatever is possible to secure a return to school for all those youngsters throughout the country who are suffering as a result of the dispute? Is she aware that we particularly recognise that, because in most London authorities the half-term break occurs next week, most of our children will then have been out for five weeks? Because of that, will she pay tribute to those teachers and head teachers who have made provision for tutorials and examination classes in other than school premises for the effort that they are making to encourage our children to succeed?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way of ending this dispute must be to come to a satisfactory agreement with the unions concerned? This would achieve the opening of all schools throughout the country. Therefore—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The question is almost as long as the original answer, but I shall let the hon. Member conclude.
Mr. Atkinson: The question is in direct ratio to the importance of this matter. Instead of my right hon. Friend telling one story in those places where these matters are discussed, thereby preventing a settlement of the dispute, would she encourage her Cabinet colleagues to conclude a satisfactory agreement?
Mrs. Williams: My Cabinet colleagues and I are anxious that there should be a satisfactory agreement, but that is not the same thing as meeting any claim that may be made. We must consider the effects of inflation on the nation as a whole. Having said that, I pay tribute to those teachers and head teachers who are dealing with very difficult conditions. But it would be dishonest of me to pretend that studying for examinations in church halls is any substitute for studying

961
for examinations in school. I appreciate the efforts that have been made, particularly by one of the public service unions in the North-East, to enable schools to be reopened for young people in their examination years. I would like the same attitude to be taken in London, where three boroughs have so far been unable to get children in their examination years back into school.
Finally, I hope that my hon. Friend and all other hon. Members will use their influence to encourage the upholding of agreements made both nationally and locally, and whenever possible to encourage the mitigation of closures where they cannot be offset.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an extension of Question Time. I shall call two hon. Members from each side. I remind hon. Members that we have another private notice question and an application under Standing Order No. 9.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Surely the phrase "impossible to open a school" is one that the Secretary of State has no right to use. Are we not discussing access to public property? Is it not wholly improper and unconstitutional for those who have the responsibility of maintaining access to public property to negotiate with those who have no right to deny that access?
Mrs. Williams: The hon. Member has understandably misunderstood my answer. In the case of at least three authorities every effort has been made to reopen the schools, but the authorities in Gateshead, Barking and Newham have found that they have not sufficient co-operation to turn the schools back into teaching institutions. I am satisfied that these authorities have taken extensive steps to try to reopen the schools. It is my job to discover whether that is so. In the case of the majority of the authorities affected by closures—Newcastle, North Tyneside, Sunderland and Durham—the examination year children are entering school and taking regular instruction. I am grateful to those authorities for their efforts to bring this about.
Mr. Flannery: As one who has taught in the past, I am very sad about the present situation and would like children to take their examinations. Many of us
962
warned repeatedly from public platforms for months before this occurred that it would happen. Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of those taking action are low-paid people caught in the poverty trap, and that the only way to ensure that the children take their examinations is to see that these people are made a special case and are given a decent standard of living? That will get them back to work, and that will enable the children to take their examinations.
Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend is a member of the teaching profession. I am grateful to the three teaching organisations for making it clear that their members should cross picket lines to teach children. It is important to put that on the record in this House. The Government have already made it clear that there is a substantial element of underpinning for the low paid, which covers all those people earning less than £70 a week. I do wish that my hon. Friends and the House generally would recognise that an attempt is being made to help the low paid in the public services.
Mr. Beith: What did the chairman of the Haringey education authority say about the fact that his authority is virtually on strike against its statutory responsibilities? Did the Secretary of State consider testing out those statutory responsibilities in that case'?
Mrs. Williams: I have seen members of the Haringey authority on one occasion on their own and on one occasion together with other authority members. While I believe that it was unwise of them earlier to associate themselves with the claim being made by the public service unions, I am satisfied that there is no question that the schools have been closed for that reason. Haringey has made efforts to try to reopen the schools, and I have further urged this.
Mr. Pavitt: Will my right hon. Friend seek to avoid the tremendously emotional build-up that tends to present these problems in terms of victory and defeat, like some kind of huge game? Will she be prepared to show flexibility and common sense in reaching a settlement at an early opportunity? At the same time, will she take urgent and immediate action on the dispute that is building up on the teachers' front?
Mrs. Williams: I recognise the wisdom of what my hon. Friend says. In his authority area of Brent the caretakers returned to work yesterday, and now all the schools are open. That followed some very careful contact between the local authority and the unions concerned.
On the second question, I have every reason to believe that the teachers will act responsibly over their own pay claim. I am sure that they would not wish to impose further industrial action upon children who have already suffered so much disruption this year.
Later—
Mr. Speaker: Earlier this afternoon, during the private notice question to the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Education and Science, I made a mistake. I want to tell the House of that mistake, because I always try to be fair to hon. Members where matters affect their constituency interests. During the exchanges there were several references to Haringey. I called one hon. Gentleman from that area, but I did not call the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi). I want the hon. Gentleman and the House to know that if an hon. Member's constituency is referred to, as it was by two hon. Members in this instance, I usually call those hon. Members who represent the area concerned.
Mr. Rossi: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for putting that on the record. This is a matter of interest to my constituents.
As the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Education and Science has kindly remained in her place, may I ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, whether it is in order for me to ask her, in the fourth week of the closure of schools, whether she is aware that the Haringey council is refusing willing teachers access to obtain papers—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman asked me to deal with a point of order. The answer is that unfortunately that would not be in order at this stage.

RHODESIA (AIR CRASH)
Mr. Ronald Bell Mr. Ronald Bell (by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the shooting down of a Viscount airliner near Kariba in Rhodesia yesterday evening.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): Fifty-nine people were killed including, according to press reports, at least two United Kingdom citizens when a Rhodesian civilian airliner crashed near Kariba yesterday. According to the news agencies, the Patriotic Front claims to have been responsible. I am sure that the whole House will deplore this senseless attack, involving further tragic loss of innocent lives in Rhodesia. The escalation of the war reinforces our determination to continue our efforts to bring an end to the fighting by negotiations within a framework likely to prove acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. Until that happens, we fear that the drift into uncontrolled violence and chaos will continue.
Mr. Bell: Is that all that the Minister has to say about this tragic occurrence? Was this not most foul murder, unredeemed by any mitigation of sudden anger or instant provocation? Was it not just cold, barbarous, satanic butchery of 29 men, 26 women and four children? Has the Minister no word of condemnation for Nkomo, who claimed responsibility for the shooting down of an aircraft in September and who must be thought responsible for this one?
Was not this attack launched from Zambia? Is the Minister of State proposing to protest to President Kaunda about this murderous attack? Are these nests of pirates in Zambia still protected by British arms?
Mr. Rowlands: I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman can have even been listening to my reply. This attack has been deplored. It is deplorable. It was a senseless attack. It has no purpose or value in promoting freedom, justice or liberty in Rhodesia. I made that very clear.
As to the other aspects of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, we

965
have at present only news agency reports about the responsibility. The Patriotic Front claims responsibility for the attack. We know of no further details of what has happened, and we shall obviously await further news on the matter.
Mr. David Steel: Does the Minister of State have any information which confirms or denies the report that has appeared that this was an attempt on the life of General Walls? Irrespective of whether that was so, will he accept that we on the Liberal Bench regard the shooting down of a civilian aircraft as utterly to be deplored? Does he accept that the senseless loss of civilian life that is occurring daily in Rhodesia will go on until there is an acceptable settlement; that the elections to be held in April are really irrelevant to that; and that the search for a settlement will have to continue both before and after those elections?
Mr. Rowlands: Again, I cannot confirm or deny that the motive for the shooting down was to attack General Walls. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that as this was an attack on a civilian airliner, aboard which there were large numbers of innocent people, it is irrelevant to the nature of the action that has been taken.
I agree very much with the last part of what the right hon. Gentleman said. The elections in April will not really solve this problem. There is a war going on in Rhodesia. What is needed is a ceasefire and a negotiated solution.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Does my hon. Friend accept that daily in Rhodesia there is a mass killing of civilians? Does he further accept that the way in which Opposition Members show a callous lack of concern for anyone except people who are not black simply exacerbates the situation?
Is it not a fact that the declaration by the Opposition that they will support the internal settlement, irrespective of what happens, is simply making it quite certain that there can be no solution, because the black people of Rhodesia believe that they have been deserted by people in this House, when we ought to support them in their struggle for freedom, which is just and which ought to be won?
Mr. Rowlands: I agree with my hon. Friend. Atrocities have been committed
966
by all sides in Rhodesia. The Rhodesian security forces have committed atrocities, which hon. Members—on both sides of the House, I hope—will condemn equally with this sort of barbaric act.
I agree with my hon. Friend in one other respect. I believe that the internal settlement cannot solve the problem of the growing violence within Rhodesia and that only a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement between all parties can achieve that.
Mr. Tebbit: First, would the Minister mind if I do what he forgot to do, and express the condolences of all people in this country to the relatives and friends of those who were murdered in this attack?
Secondly, does the Minister remember that after the previous outrage I wrote to the Prime Minister, and the Minister himself dealt with the question that I raised? That was to back a request from the British Air Line Pilots' Association that the British Government should help with technical aid and should help to try to get an international inquiry into that previous disaster. Does the Minister realise that by not giving that technical aid he may have denied the possibility of modifications either to the aircraft or to operating techniques which would have lessened the chance of another of these disasters?
Mr. Rowlands: The insinuations behind the last part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks were disgraceful and cheap. From our exhaustive correspondence, the hon. Member will know that we looked very hard at the matter and discussed in correspondence very seriously the issues that he raised. We have no effective means of mounting our own investigation into this tragedy, or, indeed, into the last occasion of an attack on a Rhodesian civilian airliner in September. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] The possibilities for productive investigations by the International Civil Aviation Organisation are limited. Neither the Rhodesians nor ZAPU are national authorities recognised by the ICAO.
Mr. Grocott: Will my hon. Friend confirm for the benefit of the Opposition, who do not seem to understand these matters, that there is a war going on in Rhodesia at present, in which innocent civilians are being killed every day, many

967
of them being children, and many of them killed by Smith and his cronies? Will he confirm that he has had no representations from the Opposition on the murder, by Smith and his gang, of villagers, including those in the village of Nyamaropa recently?
Does my hon. Friend share my condemnation of an Opposition who seem to show selectivity between black and white, even in their attitudes to death?
Mr. Rowlands: I believe that there are a number of Opposition Members who show selectivity in their indignation, consternation and disgust about acts of barbarism or atrocities that have occurred in Rhodesia. However, I also believe that many hon. Members on both sides of the House condemn atrocities whenever and wherever they occur.
Mr. Gow: Does not the ill-informed statement that the Minister has made to the House underline the need for a high-powered British mission in Salisbury? If there were such a mission, would not the Minister be able to make a statement that was much more comprehensive than that which he made today?
Secondly, is it not clear that this attack on the civilian airliner was mounted from Zambia? What protest has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Zambia, and what representations are being made to the Patriotic Front in order to condemn this outrage?
Mr. Rowlands: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman must have information which even the Rhodesian regime has not been able to obtain fully as yet. Even the Rhodesian authorities have not yet formally and officially published their findings on the investigation into this crash. The hon. Gentleman's remarks are ill founded and ill conceived. Therefore, any speculation on the question of the territory from which this attack was mounted must await further investigations being conducted.
Mr. Pym: Apart from the horror of this incident, which I am sure all hon. Members will share, does not the Minister think it most unfortunate that such a provocative act as this should have taken place, quite probably with the intention of escalating the war, in circumstances in
968
which the people of Rhodesia are trying to hold an election in April?
We on the Opposition Benches do not think that it is at all right to write off that election. In fact, we think that is absolutely reprehensible. The Minister himself has talked about the parties negotiating together, with which we agree. He talks about a test of acceptability and a negotiated peace. What is the Government's policy to attain that objective?
Mr. Rowlands: In response to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, I do not think that it is unfortunate. I think that the act carried out yesterday—claimed to be by the Patriotic Front—was deplorable and senseless.
As to the question about the internal elections, my right hon. Friend has made our position very clear. When 90 per cent. of the country is under martial law, when the press and radio are censored and when the external parties are banned, we find it very difficult—indeed, almost impossible—to talk of free and fair elections.
Our policy must be to seek to get a negotiated solution between all the parties involved. My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) has reported to the House his immediate findings. We shall continue to work with our American colleagues to see whether we can bridge the gap and build a process towards a successful conclusion of a conference that will bring all the parties together.
Mr. Pym: I think that that was a statement of some despair. What action are the Government taking to try to help bring about the conditions in which elections can take place? What is the policy to achieve a negotiated settlement?
Mr. Rowlands: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members on both sides of the House acknowledged, recognised and accepted the findings of my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey in his report—that the immediate calling of a conference would lead only to an unsuccessful conference and create greater danger. So what now? We must have patient negotiations and discussions. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary had discussions with Secretary of State Vance only in the last week or so to see whether we can build up, through

969
quiet and undramatic diplomacy, and prepare the way for a successful conference. We shall judge that and tell the House when we think that the opportunity is right.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call one more hon. Member. I have had notice of an application under Standing Order No. 9 on this very question.
Mr. Amery: Is the Minister aware that Her Majesty's Government have given licences for the substantial and continuing export of arms to Zambia, from where the Nkomo guerrillas operate, and that at the same time we maintain sanctions against Rhodesia, thus preventing it from acquiring the same defensive equipment as the Zambians are acquiring?
Is he further aware that repeated statements by his right hon. Friend have virtually conferred belligerent status on the Patriotic Front? Therefore, he and his colleagues cannot escape some responsibility for the murder that recently took place.
Mr. Rowlands: The insinuations in what the right hon. Gentleman said are disgraceful. The military assistance that has been given to Zambia has been for the protection of Zambia. The implications or insinuations in what the right hon. Gentleman said about this equipment being used in support of Mr. Nkomo or acts of this kind are disgraceful.
One of the reasons why 59 people were killed in Rhodesia yesterday was that, for a decade or more, over 5 million Rhodesians have been deprived of their freedom and liberty as a result of Mr. Smith's actions.

LOBBIES
Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to draw your attention to this week's "All-Party Notices". Under the heading "Mass Lobbies", it reads:
"1. 500 members of the Communist Party on Wednesday 14 February at 2.30 p.m.
2. 2,000 members of the Licensed Victuallers' Association—Lobby to ban the thugs."
What arrangements have been made to protect hon. Members in this ensuing battle? Is it not unparliamentary to refer even to members of the Communist Party as thugs?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am no expert on that matter.

STANDING ORDER NO. 9
Mr. Molloy: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that, in my opinion, should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the possible abuse by hon. Members in making applications to Mr. Speaker under Standing Order No. 9 which brings this House into disrepute, detracts from the genuine objective of Standing Order No. 9 and therefore fails to serve this House and the people of this nation."
As Back Benchers, we have certain facilities of which we are very jealous—for example, parliamentary questions, private notice questions and Adjournment debates. We can question Ministers, as we have done over the recent industrial troubles. Ministers come to the House to make statements and we can subject them to our questions on those statements. Then, of course, we have the procedure under Standing Order No. 9.
The gravamen of my case is that in the past few weeks there have been no fewer than 37 applications under Standing Order No. 9–32 by Conservative Members. Yet there appears to be no instance of any hon. Members who have so applied later having sought to get an Adjournment debate. They might have been unlucky, but it might also have been that they were running a political charade.
It is important that we maintain our Standing Order No. 9 procedure for genuine emergency debates. The status of Standing Order No. 9 must not be devalued by the Tory Party, particularly when it is used in an attempt to obtain party political advantage.
This is a serious and important issue. I believe that it is in the interests of all Members of the House and of the nation that we should attempt to examine what has been going on and be able to debate the issue.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) gave me notice before 12 o'clock this morning that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important

971
matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the possible abuse by hon. Members in making applications to Mr. Speaker under Standing Order No. 9 which brings this House into disrepute, detracts from the objective of Standing Order No. 9 and therefore fails to serve this House and the people of this nation."
I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said and I have given careful consideration to his observations, but I fear that I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

RHODESIA (AIR CRASH)
Mr. Ronald Bell: After that circular operation, Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a definite and important matter which ought to have urgent consideration, namely,
"the shooting down of a Viscount airliner near Kariba in Rhodesia yesterday evening."
It is indeed important that Standing Order No. 9 should not be devalued. I think that this is a most suitable occasion for invoking it. I should point out to the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) that on the only two subjects on which in the past I have sought to use Standing Order No. 9 I have succeeded.
I do not think that I need to say anything about the definite nature or importance of the episode to which I draw attention. The question of its urgency alone arises.
Last September a similar incident occurred. A civil airliner was shot down in almost exactly the same position—again by Russian missiles—with the loss of 48 civilian lives. That happened in the middle of the Summer Recess. In consequence, it was not raised in Parliament and no reference to it is to be found in Hansard. If it had been raised in the House we might not be in this situation today, because the voice of this House is heard in Africa and its views are taken into account.
Since that incident in September, British arms have been pouring into Zambia for the express and expressed purpose of guarding against retaliatory
972
raids the bases where we know the terrorists live and train and from which undoubtedly both attacks came.
I claim that, while the victims of this latest atrocity are still unburied, we are entitled to know where the Foreign Office stands in this matter, in terms of the future. Last September no word of condemnation was uttered by a Foreign Office Minister about the role of the Patriotic Front in that episode. There was no room for doubt, because Nkomo claimed responsibility for it.
Mr. Jessel: He has done it again.
Mr. Bell: I believe that he may well have done it again. On that occasion he undoubtedly did. There followed what has been well called a deafening silence from the British Government and from this House—not a word.
On this second occasion, last night, the attack was again launched from Zambia—a neighbouring territory, which is a member of the Commonwealth—with weapons supplied by Russia. Again, there was not a word of condemnation by the Minister of State this afternoon. Nor, on past form, can one expect any condemnation of the Patriotic Front leaders.
I seek to move the Adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order No. 9, which is the recourse of the private Member who wishes to call the Executive to immediate account and, indeed, the only recourse open to a private Member for that purpose. I ask that the Foreign Secretary should tell the House in the immediate future whether he is yet sickened by the fruits of his own policy of collaboration with the Patriotic Front, or whether the Foreign Office must still be glutted with more English blood and how much, and whether—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must not now make the speech that he would make if the application were granted. I always allow a certain amount of latitude, but the hon. and learned Gentleman has reached the end of it.
Mr. Bell: I felt, Mr. Speaker, that on a subject of this kind it was my duty to go fairly near to the end of your latitude. My purpose is to show why this matter is not only definite and important but urgent. It is essential that the House

973
should pronounce on this matter at the earliest possible moment.
We live in extremely troubled times, when you, Mr. Speaker, in recent weeks have considered 37 applications under Standing Order No. 9, all matters dealing with our domestic affairs. If this matter is not given the attention of Parliament in the immediate future, it will undoubtedly be brushed aside by further crises in our internal affairs.
I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, on this occasion to exercise your discretion under the Standing Order in my favour.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the shooting down of a Viscount airliner near Kariba in Rhodesia yesterday evening."
I listened, as did the House, with anxious concern to the hon. and learned Gentleman's application. The House is aware that I have a limited choice in this matter and can decide only whether the matter should be debated tonight or tomorrow. I regret to have to inform the hon. and learned Gentleman that his submission does not fall within the submission of the Standing Order and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

RESOLUTION OF TRADE DISPUTES (LIFE AND DEATH SERVICES)
4.17 p.m.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill resolve trades disputes in industries or services where industrial action causes emergencies affecting life and death; to set up arbitration procedures which come into effect after the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has certified that all normal negotiating procedures have been exhausted; to make provisions for an independent arbitration tribunal; and to define circumstances in which the decisions of this tribunal may, by prior agreement, be binding on the parties thereby withdrawing the trade unions' right to call a strike; and to give guidelines to the tribunal as to the criteria it should take into account when making an award including special recognition for the agreed withdrawal of the right to strike.
I seek leave to bring in this Bill against a background of widespread public anxiety at the way in which some groups of workers in recent weeks have used the strike weapon to inflict pitiless misery against those members of the community who are least able to defend themselves.
The House will readily recall that in recent weeks we have had reports from Ministers about bereaved families having been obstructed in burying their dead, about accident victims who have not been rescued by ambulances, about cancer patients who have been denied treatment, and about hospitals whose telephone switchboards have been shut down and whose medical supplies have been interrupted.
Strike action which inflicts that kind of human suffering in life-and-death situations is a stain upon the honour of civilised society. Yet, however strongly we may condemn the action of some strikers, we ignore their legitimate grievances and frustrations at our peril. Men who have spent loyal careers in emergency services do not suddenly refuse to answer 999 calls out of bloody-mindedness. They are driven over the brink because they are filled with desperation—a desperation which those of us who have not tried supporting a family on less than £40 a week can only guess at and sympathise with.
Unfortunately, the Government so far have appeared to be unable either to soothe the public's growing indignation

975
at the disruption of the life-and-death services, or to redress the legitimate grievances of the strikers. We seem to be stuck in an impotent vacuum from which there emerges a great deal of largely irrelevant noise about voluntary codes and concordats. Yet, paradoxically, there is a deafening silence from Her Majesty's Government when it comes to proposing specific constructive and lasting remedies.
I believe that the time has come when Parliament must seek to create a legislative framework which keeps open the basic emergency and humanitarian lifelines of our community, which puts an end to pitiless abuse of the strike weapon, and which at the same time offers some help to those desperately low-paid workers who carry out specialist duties in the life-and-death services.
I do not believe that it is an impossible task to reconcile these objectives. There seems to be a growing awareness on both sides of the House of the fact that the answer to these problems may be found in the concept of no-strike agreements. What the Bill seeks to do is to provide a legal framework encouraging groups of workers in the light of their services to enter into no-strike agreements with their employers.
Under the terms of the Bill those workers who have undertaken to guarantee a strike-free service to the community will be entitled to extra financial recognition. They would receive this either as a result of negotiations with their employers or, in the last resort, as the result of a decision by an independent arbitration tribunal.
I make it clear that this Bill will apply only to those workers who have voluntarily entered into no-strike agreements. But is a voluntary agreement of any kind enough? Unfortunately, in today's unhappy and undisciplined world of industrial relations, we have become all too familiar with the dishonourable spectacle of maverick shop stewards who call their members out on strike in breach of agreements, and even while negotiations are still in progress.
Perhaps given the sea change in public opinion on union matters that is now sweeping through the country, and given the good sense and decent values of the overwhelming majority of trade unionists,
976
one might be optimistic about the chances of seeing no-strike agreements honoured in the future. But, in dealing with life-and-death services, Parliament cannot afford to take any chances. For the sake of common humanity and of common sense, the time has surely come to enshrine in law some clear and mandatory procedures for settling these particular trade disputes.
Under the terms of the Bill, any dispute in the life-and-death services covered by a no-strike agreement would, in the last resort, be referred to an independent arbitration tribunal which would sit once ACAS had certified that all the normal negotiating procedures had been exhausted. I suggest that the arbitration tribunal should be set up on a "three wise men" basis, with a High Court judge as chairman. It would take into account all the usual factors in wage disputes—low pay, unsocial hours, Government policy at the time, specialist training and skills, the cost of living, relativities, differentials, the lot. But, in addition, under the terms of the Bill, the tribunal would be empowered by statute to include in its award an extra recognition of the fact that the workers had voluntarily entered into a no-strike agreement.
I find it hard to envisage a fairer system for settling trade disputes in the life-and-death services, since it must result in workers, who under the Bill register their no-strike agreements, getting some extra money, while as a quid pro quo the community gets a guarantee that its vital lifelines will no longer be disrupted.
Unfortunately, I am enough of a realist to understand that there will probbably be some doctrinal, Left-wing objections to the principles of the Bill. It is to those that, in conclusion, I now briefly turn. These objections are likely to fall under three headings. First, the Bill introduces "the law" into trade union matters, particularly if the tribunal's award—which under the Bill is binding on the parties—is still not accepted and strike action then follows. Secondly, it introduces the principles of compulsory arbitration procedures. Thirdly, in certain circumstances it takes away a man's right to strike.
As to the law, the Bill would in no way seek to invoke the criminal law. In the unlikely event of workers refusing to

977
be bound by the tribunal's findings, they would not be liable to be fined or imprisoned. What sanctions would then exist? In civil law, a formidable range of immunities is granted to acts done in furtherance of lawful trades disputes. These immunities would be suspended if workers in the life-and-death services made their dispute unlawful by refusing to honour the tribunal's findings. In short, an aggrieved party, such as a hospital denied medical suplies, could seek an injunction and perhaps recover damages under the civil law of tort and contract. I believe that would be a sufficient legal sanction.
I turn to the question of the introduction of compulsory arbitration procedures. I do not think that Parliament should shrink from such an approach. I remind the House that compulsory arbitration procedures have at various times operated satisfactorily in this country as a result of Acts passed in 1915, 1940, 1951 and 1959. Moreover, compulsory arbitration procedures exist today in other parts of the world, notably Australia, and do not appear to operate to the detriment of workers' interests.
With regard to the withdrawal of the right to strike, I reiterate that the Bill would come into effect only when unions had voluntarily entered into no-strike agreements. Moreover, the right to strike, although an important freedom, should never overrule the right to live. As a civilised community, we simply cannot continue to tolerate a situation in which the rights of the sick and injured to medical survival treatment are dependent upon the dispensations of a picket line, which may or may not be granted by a strike committee.
It has become necessary to introduce a Bill of this nature because of recent sad events in our hospitals, emergency services and even in our graveyards. Those events have disgraced Britain in the eyes of the world and here at home they have shamed most of us. On behalf of the whole community, Parliament must act soon to remedy this wretched situation. As a first step along this road, I ask the leave of the House to bring in the Bill.
4.23 p.m.
Mr. George Rodgers: I oppose the Bill because I believe that it is ill-conceived, unenforceable and un-
978
democratic. It is ill conceived, because its intention is to utilise the present concern brought about by industrial disputes as an emotional bludgeon with which to attack the trade union movement.
The terms of the Bill are specifically directed at trade unionists. It contains no proposals whatever to restrict the activities of professional bodies. Hospital consultants and other senior medical practitioners, who, more than any trade unionist, can surely influence a life-and-death position, will not be affected. Despite the Bill's title, it does not attempt to define a life-and-death circumstance. For example, would it apply to lorry drivers, refuse collectors or school crossing attendants? Where would the line be drawn? What criteria would be taken into consideration? We are not told; we do not know.
In his haste to exploit the difficulties brought about by the action of low-paid workers who provide essential services to the community, the hon. Gentleman has produced a concoction of proposals which, if implemented, would undermine years of effort to establish a voluntary code of industrial relations between Government and trade unions. The formula for a compulsory element in negotiations would be clearly unenforceable. Indeed, if we recall the infamous Conservative Industrial Relations Act 1971—
Mr. Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to oppose my hon. Friend's Bill. Is it in order for him to do so by reading something that he has prepared before he has listened to the speech and does not know what is in the Bill?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): When I first entered the House, it was not the custom to read from documents, but that practice appears to have crept in. I cannot rule the hon. Gentleman out of order.
Mr. Rodgers: The infamous Conservative Industrial Relations Act 1971 actually recognised the position. It repealed restrictions upon the right to strike in public utilities, including electricity, gas and water. The House may recall that the same Act introduced a compulsory ballot procedure with regard to strike action, although this was invoked on only

979
one occasion—during the 1972 British Rail dispute. On that occasion the ballot was overwhelmingly in favour of industrial action. Significantly, the procedure was never used subsequently.
Compulsory arbitration has been invoked in this country only during times of war, under defence regulations, but even in such extreme circumstances it did not prevent strikes taking place. Even a modified version of the war-time arbitration system was abandoned in 1959, not only with the consent but with the overwhelming approval of the employers' associations.
The Royal Commission on trade unions and employers associations, which reported in 1968, considered the peacetime use of compulsory arbitration but did not recommend its use in the fashion that has been recommended today. Of course, in recent years considerable advances have been made towards a voluntary code of conduct. This has been achieved by a network of conciliation services through ACAS. An independent arbitration can now be arranged by the Central Arbitration Committee as a result of the Employment Protection Act.
However, we are surely being invited into the realms of fantasy. A programme is now proposed that would come into effect only if all the normal processes of negotiation were exhausted. Although the Bill refers to life-and-death circumstances, it advocates a system by which it may be years or for ever before a result is achieved. It certainly recommends procedures that could bring the law into disrepute.
Let us be quite clear about what is being proposed. It is suggested that a tribunal should be established with powers to impose a decision upon one party regardless of the wishes of the other. Far
from assisting industrial relations, this would make collective bargaining completely impossible. Negotiations would become meaningless if either party knew that in the end a solution could be imposed on the other by an outside body.
It is apparent that the scheme that has been outlined is totally undemocratic. We in this place talk much about democracy, but many hon. Members are obviously reluctant to face the reality of living in a democratic society. Democracy often brings inconvenience, and it sometimes imposes hardships on both those who take advantage of the right to withdraw their labour and those who feel the impact of such action. Those who take strike action frequently directly experience the hardship that is brought about as a result of their own policy. None the less, the right of workers to withhold their labour is enshrined in the democratic principle.
All too often Conservative Members concentrate their minds upon the consequences of strike action rather than on the causes. It would be better by far if they examined the reasons why decent people who provide valuable services feel compelled to take strike action in order to draw attention to their cause.
The Division that is about to take place will identify and separate those hon. Members who genuinely seek a good relationship with the trade union movement from those whose first reaction at times of industrial difficulty is to abandon the whole concept of democracy.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 207.

Division No.77]

AYES

[4.30 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Alison, Michael

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Brittan, Leon

Cope, John

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Costain, A. P.

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Brotherton, Michael

Critchley, Julian

Baker, Kenneth

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Crouch, David

Beith, A. J.

Buck, Antony

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Bell, Ronald

Budgen, Nick

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Bulmer, Esmond

Drayson, Burnaby

Benyon, W.

Burden, F. A.

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Berry, Hon Anthony

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Durant, Tony

Biffen, John

Carlisle, Mark

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Biggs-Davison, John

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Emery, Peter

Blaker, Peter

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Fairgrieve, Russell

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Farr, John

Lawrence, Ivan

Rifkind, Malcolm

Fell, Anthony

Lawson, Nigel

Roberts, (Michael (Cardiff NW)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Le Merchant, Spencer

Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Forman, Nigel

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Lloyd, Ian

Royle, Sir Anthony

Fox, Marcus

Luce, Richard

Sainsbury, Tim

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

McAdden, Sir Stephen

At. John-Stevas, Norman

Freud, Clement

McCrindle, Robert

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Fry, Peter

Macfarlane, Neil

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

MacGregor, John

Shepherd, Colin

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Shersby, Michael

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Silvester, Fred

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Sims, Roger

Goodhart, Philip

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Sinclair, Sir George

Goodhew, Victor

Marten, Neil

Skeet, T. H. H.

Goodlad, Alastair

Mates, Michael

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Mather, Carol

Speed, Keith

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Mawby, Ray

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Stanbrook, Ivor

Grey, Hamish

Mayhew, Patrick

Stanley, John

Griffiths, Eldon

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Steel, Rt Hon David

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Grist, Ian

Moate, Roger

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Grylls, Michael

Monro, Hector

Stokes, John

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Hampson, Dr Keith

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Tapsell, Peter

Hannam, John

Morgan, Geraint

Tebbit, Norman

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Temple-Morris, Peter

Haselhurst, Alan

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Hastings, Stephen

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Mudd, David

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Hawkins, Paul

Neave, Airey

Townsend, Cyril D.

Hayhoe, Barney

Nelson, Anthony

Trotter, Neville

Higgins, Terence L.

Neubert, Michael

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Hodgson, Robin

Newton, Tony

Viggers, Peter

Holland, Philip

Onslow, Cranley

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Wakeham, John

Howell, David (Guildford)

Page, John (Harrow West)

Wall, Patrick

Hurd, Douglas

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Walters, Dennis

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Page, Richard (Workington)

Warren, Kenneth

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Pardoe, John

Weatherill, Bernard

James, David

Parkinson, Cecil

Wells, John

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

Pattie, Geoffrey

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Jessel, Toby

Percival, Ian

Whitney, Raymond

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Wiggin, Jerry

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Wigley, Dafydd

Jopling, Michael

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Winterton, Nicholas

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Ralson, Timothy

Younger, Hon George

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

Rathbone, Tim

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken and

Knight, Mrs Jill

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Mr. Patrick Cormack.

Lamont, Norman

Rhodes James, R.

NOES

Allaun, Frank

Carmichael, Neil

Eadie, Alex

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Cartwright, John

Edge, Geoff

Ashley, Jack

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Ellis, John (Brig & Scun)

Ashton, Joe

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

English, Michael

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

Cohen, Stanley

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Coleman, Donald

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Evans, John (Newton)

Bates, Alf

Corbett, Robin

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Bean, R. E.

Cowans, Harry

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Flannery, Martin

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Bidwell, Sydney

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Cryer, Bob

Ford, Ben

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Davidson, Arthur

Forrester, John

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

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

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Deakins, Eric

George, Bruce

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Buchan, Norman

Dempsey, James

Golding, John

Buchanan, Richard

Dewar, Donald

Gould, Bryan

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Dormand, J. D.

Graham, Ted

Campbell, Ian

Duffy, A. E. P.

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Canavan, Dennis

Dunn, James A.

Grant, John (Islington C)

982

983

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Maynard, Miss Joan

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Meacher, Michael

Silverman, Julius

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Skinner, Dennis

Heffer, Eric S.

Mikardo, Ian

Snape, Peter

Home Robertson, John

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Spriggs, Leslie

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

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Stallard, A. W.

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Molloy, William

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Huckfield, Les

Moonman, Eric

Stoddart, David

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Strang, Gavin

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Hunter, Adam

Morton, George

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Tierney, Sydney

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Newens, Stanley

Tilley, John

John, Brynmor

Noble, Mike

Tinn, James

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Oakes, Gordon

Tomlinson, John

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

O'Halloran, Michael

Torney, Tom

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Orbach, Maurice

Tuck, Raphael

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Ovenden, John

Urwin, T. W.

Judd, Frank

Palmer, Arthur

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Park, George

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Kelley, Richard

Parker, John

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Kerr, Russell

Parry, Robert

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Kinnock, Neil

Pavitt, Laurie

Watkins, David

Lambie, David

Pendry, Tom

Watkinson, John

Lomond, James

Perry, Ernest

Wellbeloved, James

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Leadbitter, Ted

Price, William (Rugby)

White, James (Pollok)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Radice, Giles

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Litterick, Tom

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Richardson, Miss Jo

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Luard, Evan

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

McCartney, Hugh

Roderick, Caerwyn

Wise, Mrs Audrey

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Woodall, Alec

McElhone, Frank

Rooker, J. W.

Woof Robert

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Ryman, John

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Sedgemore, Brian

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Selby, Harry

Mr. Bruce Grocott and

Madden, Max

Sever, John

Mr Ivor Clemitson.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jonathan Aitken, Mr. Hugh Fraser, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Andrew MacKay, and Mr. Peter Temple-Morris.

RESOLUTION OF TRADE DISPUTES (LIFE AND DEATH SERVICES)
Mr. Jonathan Aitken accordingly presented a Bill to resolve trades disputes in industries or services where industrial action causes emergencies affecting life and death; to set up arbitration procedures which come into effect after the
984
Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has certified that all normal negotiating procedures have been exhausted; to make provisions for an independent arbitration tribunal; and to define circumstances in which the decisions of this tribunal may, by prior agreement, be binding on the parties thereby withdrawing the trade unions' right to call a strike; and to give guidelines to the tribunal as to the criteria it should take into account when making an award including special recognition for the agreed withdrawal of the right to strike; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday next and to be printed. [Bill 83.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [7TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

INDUSTRIAL SITUATION
4.43 p.m.
Sir Keith Joseph: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the Government's disastrous industrial policies which have stifled enterprise, destroyed the hope of new and worthwhile jobs, and left the nation poor and divided.
The motion criticises the Government, and criticises the Government sharply, but it is not our case that the entire cause of our economic decline flows from the Government. After all, we have had economic decline now for nearly a century, and there are problems which flow, perhaps, from an anti-industry snobbery in this country, for which, at least in the earlier stages, we cannot blame the Labour Party or Labour Governments.
No one pretends that the problems facing industry or Governments in this country at this time are easy to solve, particularly at the start of the aftermath of the Persian disaster. But it is our case—that is why we have tabled a very sharp motion—that much of the fault that lies behind our decline has been the fault of the Labour movement, and that the recent sharp acceleration in our industrial decline has been almost entirely the fault of the Labour movement.
I do not, of course, propose to suggest that all is bad in our industry. There are many excellent firms, there is much excellent management, and there are many trade union leaders, officials and shop stewards who work admirably with management in the interests of their members. But the general position is, alas, not like that.
The last five years have revealed a very steep increase in our industrial decline. Production was the same in 1978 as it was in 1973, and yet pay has doubled. Let us look at productivity growth, from which all hopes of rising prosperity and improved standards of living must flow. In recent years, while the Labour Gov-
986
ernment have been in office, from 1974 to 1978, according to the last figures that I have, there has been an increase in productivity, output per man per year, of no more than 1 per cent. per annum. The Secretary of State should not laugh at that point. I know that he was talking to his right hon. Friend, but the productivity growth of 1 per cent. per annum is a disastrous judgment on Labour Party policies.
Indeed, the real net income of a married man, with two children under 11, on average adult male earnings, has actually fallen from June 1973 to June 1978. The period during which the Labour Government have been in office has seen a fall in the real buying power of the net income of a married man with two children under 11, on average adult male earnings.
Real profits have fallen very sharply—catastrophically in real terms.
It is not open to Ministers to blame entirely the oil price rise which occurred just before they came to office, because all our competitors suffered from the same oil price rise. The Government have benefited from the arrival on our shores of the bonus of North Sea oil during their period in office. In our neighbouring countries and in competitor countries the standard of living, productivity and output have all risen sharply during the five years when, under a Labour Government, they have languished here.
Industrial confidence is low, there are rising worries on liquidity and cash flow, stemming from the tendency of inflation to rise, from disruption, from the cost of strikes, and from all the problems of the involuntary holding of stock.
There are two factors that the Government can pray in aid. They can say that all this may be true, and they cannot deny any of it, but that during one year of their period in office the British share in the world trade in manufactured goods actually went up a little. Well, we are delighted that it did. The long-standing annual decline in our share of world trade in manufactured goods desisted for one year under the Labour Government, and we rejoice that it did. We suspect that it is only because during that year the devaluation of sterling came to the aid of our hard-working manufacturing traders.

987
The Government can also claim that, despite all the discouragement, investment in real terms has held up surprisingly well. It has not been a great success, but it has at least held up. That would be even more of a comfort if it were not far too often true that the investment, when installed, was continuously overmanned by restrictive labour practices. But, inasmuch as investment that is intended to serve the consumer at home and abroad has been installed, we rejoice with the Government.
It is not surprising that under a Labour Government the results have been as bad as the figures and trends show. However sincere Labour Ministers may be in wishing to preside over an expanding industrial base, they do not understand the climate needed for high levels of employment and a rising standard of living.
To begin with, they give a positive virtue to State spending. They do not believe that the taxpayers' money should be spent only when necessary and for a good cause. They judge their virility and quality by the amount of taxpayers' money that they spend. They spend far more than the money that they raise from the taxpayer. Ever since this Government came to office we have had grossly excessive State spending. It has far exceeded what the Government have been willing to raise from the taxpayer. They have therefore indulged in excessive printing, borrowing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".] I see that there is awareness that there are lessons to be learnt from what has happened in the past. We have learnt that lesson, but I am not sure that Labour Members have. The pressure from the Benches behind the Government is to repeat the performance of the past and accelerate State spending, borrowing and printing.
Not only has excessive State spending led to vast increases in borrowing, but the burden of direct taxation on the taxpayer is almost uniquely heavy. Moreover, in grasping at least the bare essential of the need for monetary discipline, the Government have committed the folly of expanding State spending while contracting the money supply. That focuses the entire shock of the contraction of the money in the economy on the private sector. While State spending and the public sector
988
increase, the private sector, whence our world trade flows, is and has been strangled. In jargon this process is called "crowding out". It is conceived that, because the Government borrow a great deal of money and raise the cost of interest, the private sector finds that its own desires to expand, invest and initiate is aborted by the cost of money.
But it is not as simple as that. There is crowding out, but there is also the threat of price control to jeopardise plans made by the private sector. There is the lavish use of resources by the public sector without the discipline of a profit and loss account that can bid away scarce management and labour skills at prices that the private sector cannot afford. In the telecommunication and microprocessor world we have constant complaints that the Post Office is paying people at levels that the private sector cannot afford. That poaching of labour by the Post Office was in periods of pay control.
The combination of excessive Government spending, borrowing, high interest rates, price control and the other burdens, plus inflation, has not only crowded out projects conceived by the private sector as profitable to serve the consumer at home and abroad; it has prevented the private sector from even conceiving many projects. As the private sector saw it, its only task was to survive in the hostile economic climate.
Those are some of the reasons why it is not surprising that the Government have presided over this period of industrial stagnation. Additionally, there is the level of direct taxation, capital transfer tax and the burden of capital gains tax. In our constituencies we have all heard of businesses whose most talented staff and management want to go abroad. Once abroad they cannot be enticed home, because the net take-home pay in this country is so much lower. More and more people are either going abroad or departing from the taxed economy to the moonlit cash economy. There is also the endless cataract of legislation, regulation and the constant pressure of increased nationalisation, subsidisation and politicisation of business.
We do not criticise those engaged in nationalised industries. As people they are just the same as anyone else. [SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I

989
wish hon. Members on the Government Benches would always treat those who work in the private sector the same as everybody else. We do not criticise those who work in the public trading sector, but we say that the immunity from bankruptcy that nationalisation and subsidisation bring creates an unhealthy climate for management and wage earners. It teaches people to ignore consumer interests and to adopt a take-it-or-leave-it attitude to consumers at home and abroad. They believe that their jobs are secure and that they will not suffer. But that is no longer true. Jobs in the public sector are not all that secure.
The cumulative effect of these factors is to discourage the enterprise and effort on which industry depends. Companies believe that expansion and the risks involved are not worth while. The Secretary of State may say that he does not recognise the picture that I am painting. He can point to Sir Freddie Laker, who, against all discouragement and by his initiative and risk-taking enterprise, is providing a service to air passengers across the world. We honour Sir Freddie Laker. Mercifully, there are hundreds of mini Sir Freddie Lakers who, despite the discouraging climate, are innovating and taking risks.
But we need scores of thousands of these people. If the climate were more encouraging, we should have them. They exist in this country, but too many of them go abroad or into the cash economy. There is ample entrepreneurial talent in the country which would be encouraged if the climate were right.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: In general terms, when speaking on the entrepreneurial aspect, is it not true that those who make money seldom make anything else? The right hon. Gentleman's analysis is totally wrong. About 50 per cent. of our manufacturing industry is multinational, and the multinationals say that the performance of their companies in this country compares with their equivalents overseas. The remaining 50 per cent. of private enterprise depends on Government procurement for 38 per cent. of its activity. The right hon. Gentleman says that there is far too much subsidisation, but cutting subsidies will cut down the work and demolish further the efforts of that sector.
Sir K. Joseph: One cannot invest, employ people or expand employment on a loss. Only profit enables one to do that. The subsidy of which the hon. Gentleman is so fond comes directly or indirectly from the profits of the profitable private enterprise sector.
Not only management and entrepreneurs are discouraged; so are wage earners. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Howell) is constantly and effectively pointing out, the "why work" syndrome spans the whole of society. Earnings are heavily taxed and benefits are untaxed. The gap between net earnings and net benefits is too small. It is a miracle that so many people work on relatively low earnings when under this Government the tax on earnings is so high. Yet we have the paradox of high unemployment but shortage of skills. I suspect that plenty of skilled people in the country have deserted their skills because pay control and high taxation have so greatly compressed pay differentials that they have departed to more lucrative activities.
On top of that cumulative discouragement there is the growing power of the unions. It is such that we now have employers who are afraid to take on labour and afraid to dismiss it. This combination is in itself adding to the discouragement of job creation.
In the last couple of months I have met individuals who once employed several hundred wage earners manufacturing goods but who, because of the combined effects of all these discouragements, and especially the slog of persuading labour in their factories to be co-operative, have given up manufacturing. They have closed down their units and have kept on a dozen staff to import the goods that they once made. They have turned themselves into warehousing and distrfibutive business men. That is a direct result of the climate created by the Government and trade unions.
For a long time our bane in this country has been the anti-enterprise climate, low productivity and lack of adaptability. Our argument is that the Labour Government and the trade union movement between them have made those weaknesses worse during the last five years.

991
The Labour Party and the trade union movement are close allies. They do not seem to recognise that the source of prosperity, jobs and, indirectly, of social services, defence and everything that we need is serving the customer. They do not recognise that the way to serve the customer, at home and abroad, is by constant adaptation. It is the first time that I have used the phrase, but I shall use it again: we are now witnessing the chickens coming home to roost—the chickens that result from Labour and trade union indifference to the importance of serving the customers by adaptation. [Interruption.] The Labour Party must recognise that Korea and Singapore—
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend is making an extremely interesting speech. Will you ask Labour Members to cease making noises, because it is extremely discourteous to my right hon. Friend?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I have no doubt that hon. Members will have heard that appeal and that they will respond to it accordingly.
Sir K. Joseph: The Koreans are only the vanguard of the developing world which will compete with us at home and abroad. They represent our market for the future. If we do not recognise that adaptability is the essence of industrial success, we shall continue to decline.
Many people express fears about the effect on employment of the microprocessor. But we in Britain have experienced 200 years of innovating and labour-saving inventions. Today we have six or eight times more jobs than we had at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. If we are adaptable, these inventions are methods by which we can increase our standards of living.
The Labour movement and the trade union alliance are intent upon saving existing jobs and preserving low-paid, vulnerable jobs for a short time instead of facilitating new jobs. By their policies and attitudes they have paralysed the adaptation which is the heart of industrial success.
992
According to the leak in The Daily Telegraph yesterday, the concordat that the Government are intending to produce with a flourish tomorrow includes the word "adaptability" a number of times. It is an advance that the trade unions and the Labour Party have recognised that adaptability is the heart of industrial success. But, alas, all their policies and attitudes are in conflict with their words.
The over-spending, the over-taxing, the over-borrowing, the over-regulating and the over-manning inhibit adaptability and thus inhibit new jobs and competitiveness. However much Labour Members may mock, I repeat that we are witnessing the chickens coming home to roost from Labour and trade union misunderstanding of where prosperity comes from.
Economic policy should facilitate change. It is the job of social policy to cushion the impact of change. For many years I have had the privilege of being a member of a group in the House which has published several pamphlets. One of the earliest, which was published before I became a member, was called "Change is our Ally". I believe that change still is our ally.
The constant slow process of adaptation is vital to keep us competitive and to avoid the disruptive shocks that occur when there is an attempt by trade unions or a Government to resist change. Deferring change only makes its impact worse when it comes.
In the United States 50 per cent. of all industrial jobs vanishes every eight years. Prosperity and a rising standard of living—which happens in that country, despite all the problems—come from incessant movement from lower paid, lower value added jobs to higher paid, higher value added jobs.
Labour adopts precisely the wrong policies by subsidies and rescues. They discourage adaptation, they discourage firms and labour forces from putting their own houses in order, they make us less competitive, less well paid and less fully employed. Subsidies for the uncompetitive achieve the opposite of what I believe the Labour Party sincerely wants—full employment and a rising standard of living.
Mr. Eric Moonman: Does the right hon. Gentleman concede that

993
there is an obvious gap in his argument? He is giving weight to the problems of Government involvement and interference, but he is not dealing with the competence and skills of management. The right hon. Gentleman should pay attention to that important aspect.
Sir K. Joseph: I ventured to say last week that management has tried to do the right thing and, alas, all too often has not succeeded. I said that some trade union leaders and shop stewards all too often have tried to do the wrong thing by obstructing efficiency and productivity and all too often, alas, have succeeded. There is no symmetrical balance between management and the work force.
I wish to quote from a poem, in the context of the Labour Party applying policies which do not achieve the results which it seeks:
"Yet each man kills the thing he loves,
By each let this be heard,
Some do it with a bitter look,
Some with a flattering word,
The coward does it with a kiss,
The brave man with a sword‡"
In this case the kiss is a subsidy. We do not know whether the Labour Party is cowardly and provides subsidies because it cannot summon up the moral courage to tell a firm to put its own house in order. We do not know whether it is cowardly or ignorant. We do not know whether the Labour Party has yet understood how much damage to the prosperity process is done by its subsidies.
Even Labour is now being forced to de-man in the nationalised industries. It is happening in British Steel and British Leyland, and it will happen even in shipbuilding. I hope that the Minister will explain what is happening about the corporate plan for British Shipbuilders. A leakage occurred and we were told that British Shipbuilders was proposing to de-man to the tune of 12,000 people. The Government are hesitating about whether to publish the corporate plan. Union members can see it, but the House of Commons cannot. I hope that the Government will say that the corporate plan is to be published.
Here again, the Government are being forced belatedly to accept reality and de-manning is to occur. The chickens are coming home to roost.
Mr. Arthur Palmer: I understand how much the right
994
hon. Gentleman is opposed to subsidising industry. Will he explain why the last Conservative Administration, of which he was a member, did so much subsidisation of industry?
Sir K. Joseph: We have learnt the lessons from the past. There may be cases where what are known in Germany as "digressive" subsidies are justified. But the wholesale, indiscriminate subsidy policy of this Government is totally wrong and damaging.
In a world in which we have widespread overmanning and the need and fact of demanning, it is absurd that the Labour Government. by their vicious taxation of successful business men, should block the creation of new firms that could absorb some of the unemployed and some who are demanned. Many businesses could and would expand and take on new labour, including some that are now being demanned, if the view were not taken "It is not worth while because of excessive taxation."
It is an illusion to think that little NEDCs, sector working parties, the National Enterprise Board, nationalisation and planning agreements or any other panaceas can make up for the loss of vitality and adaptability caused by over-taxing, over-regulation and uncomprehending trade unions in hundreds of thousands of workplaces where motivation matters so crucially.
Socialists do not seem to grasp that the business of government is to create a framework of competition, taxes and safety nets so that people do in their own and their families' interests what is in the national interest.
Let us judge by results. If we take the past 15 years—I am not choosing any especially favourable month—from shortly before the 1964 election to the last measured period in 1978, 11 years of which saw Labour Governments, and consider average male adult earnings in October 1963 and October 1978, we find that over the 15 years in 1963 money—constant money—the average male adult net income for a married man with two children under 11 years was £15·73 in October 1963 and £18·53 in October 1978. It is necessary to deflate average adult male industrial earnings for a married man with two children from about £80 to £18·53 to take account of inflation and changes in taxation and so on.

995
In the 15 years from 1963 to 1978 there has been an increase in real buying power of £2·80, meaning about 19p per year. The total growth of the average real buying power of the average male adult inrustrial worker has been no more over the past 15 years, 11 of which have been under Labour Governments, than 19p a year. I was shocked by the figures. I do not know whether the House is equally shocked. It may be that it is familiar with the figures. Meanwhile, our neighbours have witnessed an enormous leap in the standard of living of all their peoples. Again, the chickens are coming home to roost.
Apparently the Labour Government want to go on with more of the same. They want more nationalisation, more power for the National Enterprise Board and planning agreements. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Industry says that the Labour Party stands for the extension of public ownership. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says "I will offer you proper Socialism when we get a decent majority." It is still the same poison. The Labour programme for 1976 contained a rampant expansion of the public sector. It was described by the Prime Minister as
"The total sum of all our hopes."
The headlines nowadays are dominated by present miseries. They refer to workers fighting the whole country, including every other worker, for larger shares of a static national product. They refer to workers hurting everybody else, including other workers and their families. They tell us about workers hurting other workers as patients, customers and parents of schoolchildren. However, the present miseries that dominate the headlines are not the real problem. They are merely an extra on top of our real problem. Our real problem is low output per head and low adaptability resulting in low real profit and low real pay. Our real problem is high misunderstanding. These are the root causes of our economic decline. These problems will not be cured overnight even by a Conservative Government. I shall explain what will be necessary to cure them, or to try to do so.
Hostility to rising productivity and to co-operation to achieve higher rising productivity is the greatest obstacle to
996
all our aims. Where does hostility to rising productivity and co-operation on the shop floor come from? Why is it much worse in Britain than in other countries? The Labour movement has been propagating anti-business mythology for decades. It has taught that employers are the class enemy. That is taught even now, even when employers are in many instances nationalised. It has taught that what is good for the employer is bad for the wage earner. It has taught that Socialism is good and free enterprise is bad, that nationalisation solves all problems and that employers steal the wealth that is made by the workers.
All that mythology may have been understandable once, but Socialist and trade union philosophers tend still to ignore customers, enterprise and productivity. They have taught workers to resist efficiency, to obstruct management, to insist on overmanning, to resent profit and to ignore customers. I say again that the chickens are coming home to roost.
Most wage earners and their wives no longer believe all that rubbish. However, something of the misunderstanding and hostility lingers. I believe and fear that many activists still believe it all. These beliefs and assumptions make the task of management in many industries nearly impossible. Prosperity for all comes from new invention, good management, a co-operative work force and rising productivity. Rising productivity can come from nowhere else. However, the sources of rising prosperity are obstructed all too frequently.
All too often workers find themselves resisting their own prospect of improvement and fighting an enemy who is on their side. All too often union and Labour Party spokesmen pander to or even believe the rubbish that has been taught. As a result, many wage earners are prisoners of a set of false assumptions that have been taught over decades by the Labour movement. The chickens are coming home to roost.
Wage earners, pensioners, the sick and disabled and the low paid are beginning to pay the real price of the Labour movement's long years of anti-business propaganda and its frightening ignorance of the economic and commercial processes that alone raise the standard of living and reduce poverty.

997
Many Labour Members on the Benches below the Gangway are false prophets. Many of the Labour Members on the Benches above the Gangway are allies of false prophets. Adversary politics make some sense when there is a shared set of assumptions and values. Adversary politics are necessary when there is not a shared set of assumptions and values. There is nothing to be said for adversary economics. It is adversary economics, economics that deny the real source of a rising standard of living and more jobs, that we get from the Labour movement.
There is nothing like that abroad. There is no lethal alliance between a Labour Party, a Labour Government and a trade union movement that is dominated by Socialist belief and half-beliefs to be found abroad. That is the millstone that is dragging us down. It is no excuse that some of the beliefs are sincerely held. The attitude that I have described infects people's behaviour towards not only the economy but education and law and order.
It is not enough to get the law right. It is not enough to reduce State spending as a proportion of national income. It is not enough to reduce direct taxation, to prune regulations, to slow down legislation and to open up the gap between net benefits and net earnings. All that is indispensable but not enough.
We shall not prosper as a country until the Labour movement grows up and faces the truth as its social democratic colleagues have done in so many countries abroad. That should be done not merely occasionally, as the Prime Minister bravely and rightly did at Blackpool at the 1976 Labour Party conference, but consistently and systematically. It should be brought to the knowledge of constituents whom Labour Members influence.
There is a century of error and illusion to reverse, however sincere and well meant it may be. Britain desperately needs to give up adversary economics, to share and spread understanding of the economic process and to share common ground on how prosperity and jobs are increased. The Conservative Party has made mistakes but it has tried to learn from them. We wish that the Secretary of State and his colleagues would learn, too. They seem to have
998
learnt so little. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the motion.
5.17 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I beg to move to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"welcomes the general objectives of Her Majesty's Government's industrial strategy and in particular the fostering of growth industries such as micro-electronics, the measures to ease the difficulties of industries like steel, textiles and ship-building which face cyclical and structural problems, and the promotion of industrial ventures on a national and regional basis through the National Enterprise Board and its regional boards, the Scottish Development Agency, the Welsh Development Agency and the Northern Ireland Development Agency.".
The motion that was moved by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) is out of date and aimed at the wrong target. At the beginning of his speech, he was fair. He said that the relative decline in our industrial performance had not taken place recently. That is perfectly true. The measurable decline in our relative industrial performance can be traced precisely over the past 30 years and unquantifiably over the past 100 years. But the right hon. Gentleman then went on disingenuously to suggest that our problems are the result of the Labour Party and the trade unions over the past five years. No one would believe that the right hon. Gentleman was a leading member of a Government which introduced statutory incomes policy, statutory price control and statutory dividend control and that his was the party that introduced the 1972 Industry Act, which provided for the Government to take equity in and make loans to private industry.
I know that the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who will wind up for the Opposition, did not actually vote against, but I do not think that he gave full-hearted consent to that measure when it was before the House. No one would believe that it was the party of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East that falsified the finances of the nationalised industries. The right hon. Gentleman now tells us that he has learnt all his lessons, that he is now repentant and that everything will come right if only we give him and his right hon. Friends the chance again.
I will not go into the theory of his hon. Friend, the Member for Norfolk,

999
North (Mr. Howell), who always bellyaches about social security benefits and payments. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East never used that argument particularly in relation to strikers. I remember well the speeches that he made at the 1972 and 1973 Conservative Party conferences. Let me give one example. The right hon. Gentleman was addressing the 1973 Conservative Party conference about the question of withdrawing social security benefits. [HON. MEMBERS: "He never mentioned it."] No, he never mentioned it. But his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North always mentions and refers to it. What he said is extremely illuminating. He said:
"We do not start with a clean slate. We have a system. Withdrawing a bone from a dog's mouth has its difficulty, particularly when the dog has a wife and children. Ministers
—that is, Conservative Ministers—
"are still reviewing what the right action is or whether the right action is no action."
I think that the right hon. Gentleman was right in 1972 and 1973. He should have a word with some of his hon. Friends whom he now sees fit to praise in the House of Commons.
During this Parliament we have heard the right hon. Gentleman steadily dissociating himself from the policies of the Cabinet of which he was a member. If I understand him correctly, he has now come to the point of condemning those policies outright. The motion that he has moved today is the most accurate description not of this Government's industrial policies but of the policies pursued by the Tory Government of 1970–74. It is true that they were disastrous. It is true that they stifled private enterprise.
The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) often used to lament—I can hear his cries now—in wounded bafflement how his Government had failed to stimulate investment. That Government destroyed the hope of new and worthwhile jobs. No new industries rose up during that period. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East gives the impression that it was an entrepreneurial Government supporting industry, but no new industries rose up during those three years and eight months. No innovatory measures were taken.
1000
At the end of the period of office of the Conservative Government we had slid down the international table of industrial competitiveness, of productivity and of world trade. When they bolted for cover exactly three years and eight months ago, it was against the background of a nation—[Interruption.] When they bolted from office exactly five years ago—I am sorry, after three years and eight months in office—they left a nation that was much more divided than ever before and ever since.
In that period of office, during which the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady who now leads the Opposition sat in the Cabinet, the only resolute industrial policy that they carried out was to nationalise Rolls-Royce in a single day. That is the only resolute Industrial policy that I can identify during the whole period. To measure against that, we had year-on-year inflation at 13 per cent and rising, and the money supply out of control. Bank notes were being printed by the bucketful. The hon. Member for Oswestry knows that. I was interested to hear the hon. Member on the radio this morning bleating about how money supply under this Government, which has reasonable money control, was getting out of control.
Goodness knows what the hon. Gentleman was saying privately to his right hon. Friends at that time. Five years ago, we could have moved the motion which the right hon. Gentleman has just moved with every justifiable reason and certainly with more reason than he could conceivably muster.
Mr. Nigel Forman: Before the right hon. Gentleman chokes on his own propaganda about the period from 1970 to 1974, will he recognise what was made clear in the Government's own publication, namely, the recent issue of Social Trends, that while our national productivity fell on a steady decline from 1950 to 1978, the latest year for which we have figures, the only period during which it consistently did as well as that of our main competitors in Western Europe was during the period 1970–73?
Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman should know that the reasons given for that achievement were the high levels of investment that took place in the last period of the Labour Government's term

1001
of office from 1964 to 1970. That investment fed through into the period that he mentioned.
The Opposition, during their period of office, could never have moved the kind of amendment that I have moved today. During the five years that we have been in office, we have started—that is all I claim—a whole series of policies aimed at achieving what the Conservatives so signally failed to attempt, namely, to reverse the relative decline in Britain's international competitive position and to strengthen and rebuild the economy both of the United Kingdom as a whole and of its constituent countries and regions.
Every measure that we have taken has been bitterly opposed by the Tory Party. At a time of international recession unparalleled for almost half a century, we have taken measures to protect the most vulnerable industries. The Tories have always voted against them. They are measures that affect shipbuilding in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland; textiles in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland; and steel in England, Scotland and Wales. Every time, on everything that we have done, they have niggled and knocked. They have obstructed and opposed.
Mr. Michael Grylls: I wish to help the Secretary of State. I think that he must have made a mistake when he said that no new industries started between 1970 and 1974. He cannot have meant that. Surely he realises that new small and medium-sized firms are starting up all the time. He mentioned microprocessing and word processors, but I know firms in those industries that started in the early 1970s. What is the right hon. Gentleman talking about?
Mr. Varley: Of course new companies started up. I shall refer to microprocessors and microelectronics later. I recall that there was a great property boom between 1970 and 1974. Money that ought to have gone into manufacturing industry went into property.
When we have brought measures before the House, the Conservatives have protested that they want to assist jobs and want innovative practices, policies, agencies and instruments, but they have almost always voted against them. They
1002
have opposed every measure that we have taken to help the shipbuilding industry. They opposed nationalisation, and if it had not been for nationalisation we should have hardly any shipbuilding industry left by now. The Conservatives opposed the measure that we took to help the industry win orders when there were few shipbuilding orders to be had.
The Conservatives have voted against providing the money that the steel industry needs, even though they know that the primary cause of the industry's difficulties is the world recession in steel which has affected producers all over the world. One has only to see what is happening in the European steel industry. We are tackling the difficulties and the House knows that substantial progress has been made.
We have provided assistance to the textile industry under a number of selective assistance schemes brought forward under the Conservatives' own legislation. All our schemes, that are now being condemned by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, who suggests that they represent unlimited subsidies, have been brought forward under the legislation that he supported as a member of the last Conservative Government. Each time that we have come to the House to ask for money for schemes that create and safeguard jobs, the Tories have opposed them.
It is not just in textiles that we have set up schemes, opposed by the Tories, to stimulate investment. We have made available nearly £50 million in the footwear, clothing and wool textile schemes, which have brought forward investment at a time of serious difficulties in those industries. We have made available £105 million in the drop forging, ferrous and non-ferrous foundries schemes. That has done a great deal for those industries. Industrialists who know about these matters appreciate what we have done. For example, Mr. Kilpatrick, the chairman of the foundries sector working party, is a man of great distinction in the Sheffield steel industry and he has told us that without that assistance our foundry industry would not be competitive in a few years' time. We have helped to provide new equipment in an industry which urgently needed modernisation.

1003
We have made available another £100 million under the electronic components, instrument and automation and microelectronics scheme. As the House will know, the technology of microelectronics is vital to our industrial future, and the Government are determined that we shall catch up with the world leaders.
We have provided £65 million to modernise the machine tools, printing machinery and textile machinery industries and £23 million to the paper and board industry.
At the same time as providing assistance to help some of our most important industries to modernise, we have made available assistance under the accelerated projects scheme and the selective investment scheme. The accelerated projects scheme, which closed in mid-1976, provided £85 million to companies to enable them to bring forward their investment plans.
The successor to the accelerated projects scheme is the selective investment scheme. We have made available a total of £150 million to encourage companies to undertake commercially viable investments which they otherwise would not have undertaken. The scheme has made a positive contribution to strengthening our industrial base.
I know that the energy conservation scheme is welcomed by the Opposition's energy spokesman. Altogether, under these schemes, we have offered assistance of almost £400 million, which has triggered off investment by private manufacturing industry of more than £2,500 million—the sort of investment that the right hon. Member for Sidcup despaired of achieving. That has safeguarded and created many thousands of jobs.
The growth of investment in manufacturing industry in 1977—as the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East acknowledged, though he ran over it very quickly—was higher in real terms than for three years and, on the basis of estimates confirmed by performance in the first nine months of 1978, the growth of investment last year is estimated to be higher than at any time for seven years. Yet the Opposition motion has the brass neck to say that we have stifled enterprise.
Mr. Robert Adley: Is the right hon. Gentle-
1004
man aware that his speech is falling sadly below the level of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph)? We had hoped that the Secretary of State would at least turn his mind to some of the problems besetting us.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of the workers at Vosper Thornycroft are sure that they were thoroughly misled by the Minister of State in the extravagant claims that he made about nationalisation? Would the Secretary of State like to come with me to Southampton, on a date convenient to him, to talk to some of the workers—not the union leaders—whom he probably never meets, so that they can tell him what they think of nationalisation?
Mr. Varley: I would not care to go anywhere with the hon. Gentleman. If I need to go to Vosper Thornycroft, I shall go and I shall inform the hon. Gentleman if it is in his constituency. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State is going to Vosper Thornycroft and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will ensure that he makes whatever representations he wishes.
If the shipbuilding industry had not been nationalised, it would have collapsed by now. I would be coming to the Dispatch Box month after month asking whether the House wanted unco-ordinated rescues. When we announced the decision about the ship repair yard at Falmouth, Tory after Tory asked us to save that yard, which is losing about £3½ million a year.
Why does the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East not have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd), who, I bet, wants to speak in the debate and ask the Government to save the Falmouth ship repair yard? The Conservatives should sort these matters out and the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East should not misrepresent our policies as he does.
Last month we debated the Second Reading of the Industry Bill, which increases the funding of the three development agencies. We are trying to stimulate enterprise in the public and the private sectors. That is why we established the Scottish Development Agency, the Welsh Development Agency and the Northern Ireland Development Agency,

1005
together with the National Enterprise Board, which operates throughout the United Kingdom. The limit in Northern Ireland has been increased separately by an order moved by my right hon. Friend a few weeks ago.
During our debate on the Industry Bill there were weasel words from the Opposition spokesmen, who tried to pretend that they meant no harm to the NEB. Their commitment to abolish it is still in their documents, such as "The Right Approach to the Economy", and it depends which official spokesman one follows whether they intend that the NEB should stimulate enterprise, be abolished completely or be a repository for what they describe as lame ducks. They are not at all clear about it.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East pretended that the Conservatives meant no harm to the NEB. It seems that they have learnt to love the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, though they voted against them when they were introduced. They have crabbed and criticised, and when the crunch comes they vote against them all—just as they voted against the Second Reading of the Industry Bill. Yet these agencies are accepted by objective opinion as indispensable instruments for industrial advance and innovation.
In Northern Ireland 2,000 workers depend on the Northern Ireland Development Agency. In Wales 3,000 new jobs have been created and many more jobs safeguarded by the Welsh Development Agency and by the investment that has taken place in firms in Wales. In the Principality last year more than 100 Government factories were let to private industry. That was a record.
In Scotland there are 13,000 jobs directly dependent on the Scottish Development Agency and throughout the whole of the United Kingdom 300,000 jobs exist within National Enterprise Board companies. It is these agencies and the Government's other industrial instruments which are playing their part in fostering the industries of the future.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East mention INMOS. It is true that the NEB has launched this—Britain's publicly-owned venture in standard silicon chips—
Sir Keith Joseph: I did not mention it.
Mr. Varley: The right hon. Member should have mentioned it. I am going to mention it. Actually, the right hon. Gentleman sent me a letter in which he said:
"You must be well aware that I am sceptical as to whether it is really wise to try to leapfrog into the 64K RAM chip. Many informed people do not consider it prudent to attempt, at this stage, to catch up the Japanese and Americans in volume production of general purpose computer chips without multinational backing."
Very enterprising, What a commentary. Here is a leading member of the Conservative Party—the party that wants to take over the reins of Government—suggesting that we leave silicon chips to the Japanese and the Americans. Again, of course, there is public money backing the GEC-Fairchild silicon chips venture, which will be established on Merseyside—
Mr. Norman Lamont: Perhaps the reason why my right hon. Friend thought it prudent not to go into the 64K chip was that these are already being manufactured in this country at the rate of 600,000 a month.
Mr. Varley: The right hon. Gentleman wrote to me saying that he was very upset that the NEB was going into this new venture. He said that it was very doubtful whether we should be in this. The implication was that we should leave it to the Japanese and the Americans.
Mr. Doug Hoyle (Nelson and Colne): My right hon. Friend knows that the silicon chips we are producing are specialised chips. The NEB has gone into the mass production type of silicon chip. Without the NEB's intervention, Weinstock himself would not have gone into that field. That is the innovation of the NEB, and full tribute should be paid to it.
Mr. Varley: The only tribute that the NEB is likely to get for its innovative processes is from the Government side of the House and perhaps from one or two exceptions on the Opposition Benches. Do the Opposition really believe that we should not back ventures of this kind? I agree that it is taxpayers' money, but it is not unusual for taxpayers' money to be used by Conservative Governments. For example, does the right hon. Gentleman think that we should not use taxpayers' money for the GEC-Fairchild venture,

1007
which will bring jobs to Merseyside? Of course the Opposition believe we should back this, but they are not prepared to say so and they niggle and knock at every opportunity.
I turn to British Aerospace. Here again this industry has been attacked, derided and obstructed by the Conservatives. British Aerospace has saved Scottish Aviation and given a new lease of life to Jetstream. British Aerospace has made it possible for this country to launch the 146, with all that that means for Hatfield and Filton. British Aerospace has made it possible for Britain to re-enter the international big league in civil aircraft manufacture by rejoining Airbus Industrie, with all that that means for jobs in North Wales. Then there is the SD 3–30, the civil aircraft launched by Short Brothers and Harland in Northern Ireland. This record is not just confined to the public sector.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East acknowledged that last year overall investment had not been too bad, but he said that generally the picture was depressing. What did he have to say about chemicals, for example? Last year, investment in chemicals showed a real increase of 19 per cent. over the previous year. That was done under the Labour Government. Pretty hard-nosed business men at that time decided that they wanted to invest.
We have had successes as well in new mixed economy companies in which private and public enterprise are joined. An example of this is International Computers Ltd., which is now growing into a world leader with profits of almost £40 million last year. That was an increase of 24 per cent. on the previous year. The company's exports total almost £100 million and the turnover is more than £500 million—more than half of that earned overseas. This record shows what can be done in partnership between private investors and the NEB. The NEB is now the largest single shareholder in ICL.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Varley: No, I will not give way. The debate is already truncated, and many hon. Members want to speak. I have gone on too long already. I shall not give way again.
1008
These are success stories that I have just outlined—success stories under a Labour Government. They are success stories which the Tory Opposition try to pretend never happened in the crude and untruthful caricature which they draw of British industry today.
Of course we have troubles, difficulties and industrial problems. These difficulties are not least in the local government system, which the Conservatives created The right hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Walker) had a great deal to do with that. We have difficulties and troubles in the National Health Service, the structure of which is the responsibility of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East. He is the guilty and culpable progenitor of that structure. Talk about Satan casting out sin. Here, today, the right hon. Gentleman, the arch-creator of unwieldy bureaucracy, attacks us for stifling enterprise—and that after what he did to the National Health Service. The mind boggles at the havoc that he would create if he were ever let loose on British industry.
The Conservatives have no policies that have not been tried before and failed. They are now offering this magic cure of taxation cuts. That was tried by Lord Barber, and it led to the dramatic about-turn and the Industry Act of 1972. Napoleon's retreat from Moscow left fewer bloodstained footprints in the snow than Heath's retreat from Selsdon.
The British people want constructive policies, painstaking and undramatic, but policies with the prospect of getting results. It is because we are responding to those aspirations that I feel justified in calling upon the House to vote for our amendment tonight.
5.49 p.m.
Mr. David Mudd: I must congratulate the Secretary of State on a masterly performance. Indeed, as I listened to him unleashing his soul of many of the things that he had to say, I found myself believing absolutely that he believed in what he was saying—other than in the moments when I caught his impish smile and realised that it was another superior performance on his part.
What is important is not what the right hon. Gentleman had to say but what he

1009
studiously avoided saying. I refer specifically to a challenge thrown down by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who suggested that jobs in the public sector were not all that secure under a Labour Government. Certainly there was no response to that. My right hon. Friend raised the question of the public announcement of the corporate strategy of British Shipbuilders, and again there was no response.
The Secretary of State raised the matter of the ship repair industry. That was very significant, first, because it was not in the amendment, and, secondly, because it was certainly not in the text of his prepared brief. I suspect that he would not have adverted to this issue had it not been for the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and the fact that I caught the eye of the Secretary of State across the Table earlier in the debate.
I should like, briefly, to return to some of the issues that arose during a rather heated and excited exchange on a private notice question last Thursday reported at columns 557 to 560 of the Official Report. From that it may well have seemed that many of my colleagues were upset that the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) dared to raise a matter affecting my constituency. I have no objection whatsoever to any Member of Parliament helpfully raising any matter in the interests of my constituents. I was certainly in no way put out of joint or upset by the hon. Member for Truro raising this matter. However, let me qualify that by saying that had the hon. Gentleman asked my permission, or consulted me on this matter, I should have told him that at the very moment he was raising this private notice question I had in my pocket a letter from British Shipbuilders which, among other things, said this in relation to the future of Falmouth docks:
"We do not expect to make an announcement until the end of February or the beginning of March. I am sure therefore that you will appreciate the importance of treating this letter in the utmost confidence. Premature release of this information would be extremely damaging to the Corporation and to the prospects of the workforce of finding alternative employment."
That is why I resent the action taken by the hon. Member for Truro in raising this matter.
I shall refer to two other points that I raised during that particular session on
1010
the private notice question. I sought to ask the Minister of State if he would confirm that the cessation of ship repair facilities at Falmouth was with Government approval. I knew it to be so, he knew it to be so, but I could not get him to show the courage to admit it. I hope that tonight the Government will admit that the closure of the ship repair facility could not go ahead without Government approval. Equally, I hope that the Government will admit that if Government approval is withdrawn or rescinded, similarly the closure must be withdrawn or rescinded.
The second thing that I asked the right hon. Gentleman to clarify on Thursday afternoon was again something that he and I knew to be a fact, namely, that Falmouth docks was on the original ship repair list for nationalisation but was deleted when that section of the Bill was withdrawn, and that British Shipbuilders then set out to buy Falmouth docks into the State network.
These were perfectly reasonable questions, and there was no reason whatsoever for the right hon. Gentleman not to give positive replies. Perhaps he was fearful about how I would be developing my point of attack, because his subsequent reply suggested that at the time British Shipbuilders bought Falmouth docks they were already known to be losing a great deal of money and, indeed, had a record of sustained and substantial losses.
What an amazing thing it is that a Labour Government, who set up a nationalised corporation in the interests of good public spending and social employment, then go out trotting merrily to buy what they know is a white elephant. The Government cannot have it both ways. Either they did their research on the yard and knew they were buying a bad deal with public money, or they failed to do their statistical homework.
When British Shipbuilders actually bought the yard voluntarily in 1977, was it not aware of the prospect that, perhaps with reshaping and restructuring, it would be possible for the Falmouth ship repair activities to return to profitability within the foreseeable future? If that is so, and if the losses of the pre-nationalisation decade were as bad as had been suggested, we do not have a criticism of the

1011
running of Falmouth docks under private enterprise but, indeed, a vindication of a system in which private enterprise employers will run a yard at a loss to provide social employment for those who have little alternative employment prospects. Therefore, once again the Government cannot have it both ways.
If we accept that the former owners were running the yard to provide social employment in an area of little employment activity, surely we are entitled to ask whether a Socialist Government have the same social obligation in exactly the same area when unemployment has already increased.
I think that the Secretary of State has anticipated that I am going to say this: cannot the Government, at this stage, step in and attempt to influence British Shipbuilders to change its mind? I do not do that because I want to see an open-ended commitment of good money being thrown after bad. I think that it is accepted that the actual cost of closing Falmouth docks—one thinks of the loss of facilities and the redundancy payments, which would be very substantial on a work force of 1,100 men, many of whom have been there all their working lives—would be about £51½ million or £6 million over the first 12-month period. Yet on British Shipbuilders' estimates it would cost only £5 million to keep the place open and give it another 12 months to see how it works out. Therefore, I hope very much that, even at this late stage, we can have a close appraisal of the costings and the actual decision to end this facility.
I must criticise the seeming unbelievable speed with which Falmouth docks are apparently being axed. Are there perhaps two reasons here, the first being that because of the crisis in the British ship repair industry it is regarded as logical and fair that Falmouth's work load should be reallocated to those shipyards remaining in operation? If that is a fact, it is an honourable position and one would not criticise it provided that somebody had the courage to stand up and say that it is so. That is all we ask. The second point—and this is more fundamental—is that of course we know that the Government are keeping their corporate strategy for the shipbuilding and ship repairing industries under wraps.
1012
In Falmouth, which has a record of good industrial relations and is not a militant yard, the feeling must exist that the closure is being brought about there literally to test the wind to see how far British Shipbuilders can go in accelerating redundancies and closures in other parts of Britain. How else can we explain a situation where a yard—which according to the Government's claim had a massive record of sustained losses—is bought by British Shipbuilders in August of one year and the next September it is apparently telling the shipyard negotiating committee of trade unions that it is probably going to close it anyway? Miraculously, within 15 months, British Shipbuilders decides that it has wasted its money and it is time to pull out.
I shall remind the Minister of State of something that he said on 7 December 1976 when replying to the Points that I made on security of employment at Falmouth docks. He said:
"The industrial case for nationalising ship repairing is that the badly-needed improvements in investment, productivity and industrial relations are unlikely to come about otherwise."—[Official Report, 7 December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 317.]
What an amazing forward projection for the right hon. Gentleman, who normally sees with great clarity the ultimate projection and realisation of all his beliefs.
What investment actually took place in Falmouth docks under British Shipbuilders during the time it was in its keeping? We have the classic situation of a crane that miraculously caught fire in the early part of September. That crane is still not back in action. It is a crane that is needed for the productivity of the yard, yet it is still out of action. Apparently the spare parts are not available to repair it. One wonders whether it is the will that is missing rather than the spare parts. Also, one of our dry docks has been out of action because the dock gates have not been repaired. What investment has gone into Falmouth docks to give them the opportunity to provide the productivity and to move towards the profitability that British Shipbuilders wants?
When we talk about industrial relations, we are very proud of the fact that at Falmouth there has not been a strike of any sort for the last three years. Indeed, the only industrial problems have

1013
been unofficial action against the Government's own policy. Therefore, if indeed there has been a downturn in industrial relations, it has been that aspect of industrial relations directly attributable to the Government themselves.
Therefore, I ask the Minister of State to say just a few words, when he winds up the debate, on two specific topics. In view of the reported interest of a private enterprise operator in taking on Falmouth docks, will the Department of Industry at least be prepared to meet him? I ask for no greater commitment than that the Department is prepared to meet him and at least to look through his figures.
The second thing I ask is that since there is a private enterprise interest—indeed, a private enterprise interest in bailing out the State is quite a novelty these days—and since there is an admission on the part of British Shipbuilders that certainly 15 months ago it thought that Falmouth could move into a level of profitability, will the Department get together with British Shipbuilders and its experts to see whether even now there is a possibility of reaching a productivity deal?
The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): As the Minister responsible for regional aspects of this situation, I can assure the hon. Member that I am always willing to see anyone who brings forward a project that might save jobs in assisted areas.
Mr. Mudd: I am very grateful indeed to the right hon. Gentleman, whom, I should say in fairness, I have always found more than willing to discuss anything that would be of help to the people of Cornwall. I appreciate his offer on this occasion.
I conclude on two further references to words already on record. On the first, I say why I think the present Government have a specific responsibility to do something to find a solution on Falmouth even now. I quote from the October 1974 general election manifesto of the Labour Party in Falmouth. I shall not actually embarrass right hon. Members on the Government Front Bench by suggesting which of their colleagues were heard to speak in support of the campaign in the constituency. However, the words upon which I draw are these rather beautiful and memorable ones:
1014
"Cornwall needs more employment and existing jobs must be safeguarded. This is one of the reasons for including the ship repairing activities of Falmouth in the strictly defined extensions of public ownership."
That promise apparently was worth 18,000 votes. I doubt whether today it is worth the scrap paper on which it has been rejected.
The second set of words, with which I conclude my remarks, comes from the Official Report of our proceedings on 7 December 1976:
"Personally I do not care who owns Falmouth Docks at the end of the day. The only thing that matters to me and to the people who work there is that there should be 1,500 reasonably secure jobs and a sustained and maintained programme of investment, and that its strategic importance to NATO and European shipping should not be undermined, diminished or lost to world shipping, the people of Britain or those who work there."—[Official Report, 7 December 1976; Vol. 922, c. 293–4.]
With all due modesty, those were my words. Today I care not a fig who owns the yard. What I care about are 1,100 people who are now within 89 days of industrial devastation and desolation.
6.3 p.m.
Mr. Douglas Jay: It is rather fascinating that the first speech which we have from the Tory Back Benches today is an appeal to the Government to save a ship repair yard in Falmouth. The speech of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) seems to have so embarrassed the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) that he had to leave the Chamber before his hon. Friend had finished speaking.
I did not disagree with everything said by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East today. However, having listened to him, I shudder to think what would be the effect of his industrial policy on the shipbuilding industry, the National Enterprise Board, British Leyland, Rolls-Royce and large parts of the motor, steel and aircraft industries in Britain. Apparently we are to have subsidies and public investment withdrawn from them and, incidentally, from the Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency as well. I think that the House will very soon understand what that would mean.
I was also rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman said so little this

1015
afternoon about pay policy. I should have thought that it needs only a very casual look at British industry today to see that pay policy is one of the dominant issues, if not the dominant issue, at the present time. I note that the CBI pamphlet issued today says almost exactly the same thing. Therefore, I shall try to remedy the omission of the right hon. Gentleman to say anything on that subject.
We in the Western world are now allowing a monetary illusion or monetary disorder—although it is a different one from that of the 1930s—to obstruct the production of real wealth and employment. Since I believe that there is a great deal of genuine misunderstanding about this, I shall accept the right hon. Gentleman's invitation to abandon what he called adversary economics this afternoon.I am not in favour of adversary economics. At his invitation, I shall indulge for a very few minutes in what I regard as a little serious economics, rather than politics.
What we are up against in the 1970s is this hard economic fact. Since the total value of all goods and services sold in any community must be equal to the total of the money that is spent on them, it follows that if the total money demand rises faster than the supply of real goods and services available, prices generally must rise. That is simply arithmetic, and I think that no one will disagree with it.
Secondly, since full employment, which is what I care about in this issue, can be maintained only if the total money demand covers all costs, including some reasonable profits, it also follows that if money costs rise faster than output, either demand must be correspondingly increased—in which case prices will rise—or, if it is not so increased, unemployment must result—or a little of both of them put together.
That is how "stagflation" comes upon us. It began here in 1974 and 1975 and in most of the Western world in the 1970s. One mistake of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East today was that he never noted that a great many of the Western industrial economies today are in this respect suffering from exactly the same difficulties as we are. Even in the United States prices are rising at the
1016
same rate today and the rate of unemployment is about the same.
It is true that the oil cartel in 1974–75 intensified the process, but if one looks at the figures one sees that it had started several years earlier. It is an extremely difficult situation to get out of once one has slipped into it.
I come to the heart of the problem from the point of view of policy. The process imposes this inescapable dilemma on those, whoever they are, of whatever party, who are trying to manage the economy. If costs are rising faster than output, the authorities must either increase demand equally fast, in which case price inflation follows—and in the wake of price inflation, because the value of money is depreciating, we have higher interest rates and falling investment or if money demand is not increased at roughly the same rate, each pay increase simply increases unemployment.
This is a new phenomenon, but it is the prevailing one and I think that many people have not realised that this is what is going on. It continued here in 1976 and 1977. I believe that it was only the successful income restraint which we had in 1977 and 1978 which at least began to reduce unemployment last year.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East respects professors. If he and other hon. Members are not convinced by my very summary analysis, I advise them to read Professor Meade's lecture that was published in The Listener on 14 December. That lecture is an incomparably clear explanation of the economics of this process.
In the 1930s, money demand was allowed to fall below the level of costs and profits. There are still people who believe that is happening today. In the 1940s, the 1950s and the 1960s, unemployment was largely cured because sufficient demand was created without generating excessive rises in labour and other costs. The right hon. Gentleman, incidentally, left out of his gloomy survey a reminder that there have been 25 years of full employment and considerable growth in those years.
I believe that what upset that success in the 1970s was the uprush of money costs throughout the Western world, caused mainly by the greater efficiency, power and knowledge of organised groups

1017
of wage and salary earners in almost all the developed economies. As a result, industry in the 1970s has suffered not from demand inflation but from cost inflation. If it were demand inflation, profits would be booming, whereas on any evidence they are now at pitifully low levels.
The error of the crude monetarists—I do not know whether I include the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) in that group; certainly I should not describe his speeches as crude—is to mistake cost inflation for demand inflation and then propose demand disinflation as a cure. That route is disastrous. The combination of inflated costs and deflated demand leads to recession, prolonged unemployment and low growth. Any advocate of that policy should reflect seriously on the consequences.
Having slipped into stagflation, there are therefore three possible courses open to us. The first is to stoke up money demand—still recommended by some people who do not fully realise the consequences—without restraining costs and thereby to follow the precedent of the South American countries. That would probably lead to a 50 per cent. a year rise in prices after three or four years. That is economically possible. The main reason why I reject it is that I believe the British public would not stand for it.
The second course is the remedy of the crude monetarists, which I might describe as free collective cost inflation, combined with no increase in demand. If this were pursued, British industry would probably be paralysed within 10 years and the nation drastically weakened as a result.
The third alternative is to cure the source of the whole disease—cost inflation due to excessive rises in money incomes. By "excessive", I mean a greater rate than any possible increase in production. In plain English, that means an incomes policy and the restraint of free collective bargaining, which Professor Meade rather aptly calls "uncontrolled monopoly bargaining". My conclusion is that only through an incomes policy can we return to full employment and growth without at the same time accelerating price inflation.
Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove and Red-ditch): I am following the arguments of
1018
the right hon. Gentleman closely. Perhaps he will move on in a later part of his speech to consider why output cannot be increased as one way out of the difficulty that he has posed.
Mr. Jay: Of course, output should be increased to the limit of our physical capacity. I am trying to analyse how that can be done without generating uncontrollable price inflation. I reach the reluctant conclusion that we have to return to an incomes policy. I hate incomes policies, and we have all learnt that they are exceedingly difficult to manage. But it is not impossible to overcome the difficulties. It was done with growing success by the National Board for Prices and Incomes in the late 1960s. Incidentally, it was also shown to be possible in the earlier Cripps years. The prime mistake made by both parties was to abolish too hastily the successful institutions and policies of some years ago.
For those reasons, I applaud the Government's efforts to return to an effective incomes policy in agreement with the unions. I am even more encouraged to find that the recently published pamphlet "A Better Way", which has been signed by a group of well-known trade unionists, comes to much the same conclusions as Professor Meade, whose lecture I have already quoted.
A practical incomes policy must be permanent and must contain two elements. First—here I come to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller)—there has to be an estimate of the physical growth of the output possible in any given year and consequently the rise in money incomes that can be absorbed without inflation restarting. That is a national task for Government and Parliament, to be agreed if possible with employees' and employers' representatives. The second element, which I strongly urge upon the Government, is to establish an authority outside the Government to make final independent rulings on pay claims from all sections of the community that cannot be settled by ordinary bilateral bargaining.
The last month and, indeed, the last year have proved that neither the Government nor Parliament are suitable authorities for settling pay claims. The House might as well try to take over the

1019
business of the courts as to handle disputed pay claims. Any attempt to reach political decisions on these issues turns one pay settlement after another into a political battle, and that is damaging to the nation.
The trade union group which signed the pamphlet "A Better Way" proposes
"a new independent agency to advise on the application of the policy to pay prices, profits and dividends."
Professor Meade argues for something similar.
The name does not matter very much, but the essentials are these. First, let us have no backing in the criminal law for any future policy of this kind. We all know that, whatever else is done, people cannot be sent to prison for going on strike against a pay award.
Secondly, I believe that the job of such an authority should be to take all relevant factors into account—economic needs and policy first of all—but, in addition, low pay, comparability, differentials and relativities. Such an authority should assume that its main job is not social justice. I believe that should largely be left to the Budget, to taxes and to social services. The prime job of the authority should be to get us back to full employment and growth. After investigation, such an authority should make a judgment and preferably give no reasons for it. For myself, I should not object to using the civil law in the last resort or, if practical, the powers of taxation to back the ruling of such an independent authority if it were set up by Parliament.
It can be argued that such a system, like many others, does not guarantee success. I agree that it cannot guarantee success. If powerful groups are determined to strike not merely against their employers but against national policy, against Parliament and against the most impartial authority that we can get, nothing can stop them; and it will be a poor look-out for this country. But a system such as those described might, in the light of our experience, be able to work. Therefore, it is worth trying. A non-statutory national board for prices and incomes, or whatever we may call it, is about the only course which we have not yet fully tried. I urge the Govern-
1020
ment, in agreement with both sides of industry, to press on resolutely towards these objectives and, if possible, to bring us back to sanity in pay settlement.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: As we are all aware, the debate is taking place against a background of widespread industrial disputes which, in the past two or three months, have embraced most of the public services, the car industry, the tanker drivers and, more recently, the lorry drivers.
It is clear from those disputes that the Government may decide what they believe can be afforded by way of wage settlements but that working people organised within unions will not necessarily accept that economic judgment and that, no matter how strong the ministerial warnings or exhortations, they are prepared to ignore those warnings to a point where they get the wages that they believe they should have according to the economic situation in which they find themselves.
Whether it was ever reasonable for the Government to expect working people to settle for 5 per cent. when the going rate of inflation, by their own admission, was 8 per cent. is anybody's guess. I should have thought that it was psychologically inept. It is certainly true that this Government's experiences from the autumn of 1978 to the winter of 1979 and the experiences of the Conservative Administration from the autumn of 1973 to the winter of 1974 are remarkably similar.
If nothing else, the present situation underlines the fact that Labour Governments are no more successful than Conservative Governments in persuading the trade unions to accept their economic judgment. Therefore, the concept that Labour gets on with the unions and the Conservatives do not is now invalid.
I start with that introduction because I think that all hon. Members are now aware that some new initiative is required for managing the wages of the nation. If I do not follow exactly the argument presented by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), I share some of his views and hope to enlarge on that measure of agreement in the course of my speech.
I think that any suggestion that State intervention in industry has helped either

1021
in wage bargaining or in creating renewed prosperity in our industry is wholly mistaken. I was interested to hear the Secretary of State claim some success from the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act. He said that some of those shipbuilding companies that have been nationalised would otherwise have gone bust. I think that is true. But, from what he said, and from the corporate plan which has been leaked, it appears that that may be the case anyway. It is sad that some of the successful companies—for example, Austin & Pickers-gill Ltd.—are now less successful under State control.
To hear the Secretary of State talk about British Aerospace and the HS146. as though that were the airliner that the world wanted, was plain humbug. I ask whoever is to wind up the debate to tell me which airline has placed a single order for that aircraft. Will he also reflect that the present success of British Aerospace is due to the fact that its order book is made up as to 60 per cent. defence contracts and only 40 per cent. civil aviation contracts? To say, as did the Secretary of State, that British Aerospace has rejoined the Airbus consortium, as though that were a great success when the previous Labour Government took us out of that consortium, is to stand the argument upon its head.
I suggest that if we want increased and renewed prosperity from British industry, we are more likely to achieve that longed-for goal by taking Government intervention out of industry and placing emphasis on encouraging the private sector to be as profitable and expansionist as possible.
I still hold to the view—I hope that we all do—that "Britain can make it", whatever "it" may be. But, alas, today, as we all know, we have to add seven words to that slogan—" Britain can make it if the trade unions will let it". I want to make that the substance of my remarks.
Last Friday I had the good fortune to attend a luncheon in Reading given by a group of industrialists who have their works or head offices within Berkshire. They covered a wide spectrum of industries—electronics, petroleum, construction, the car industry and packaging. Within that group of industrialists one heard the expression of a broad spectrum of British
1022
industry about the current industrial situation.
What those industrialists told us was not encouraging. They related their remarks almost exclusively to the lorry drivers' strike. They told us that any suggestion that, because the strike was over, its damage was finished was far from the truth. Indeed, in their view there would be long-term effects on our exports for many years to come. But, even in the short run, they said that it would be two to three months before industry could get back into its stride. They talked about the need to rebuild the stocks without which industry could not have survived.
I come back to the question of lost orders. They said that many of our export orders that they were hoping to meet had been won in fierce competition with other nations and that once those orders were lost they would not come back again. They said that there was now a lack of confidence in Europe and elsewhere in the ability of British companies ever to meet delivery dates or to achieve what any reasonable trading organisation should expect.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Rubbish.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman says "Rubbish", but he will know as well as I do that not many months ago the Secretary of State for Industry told us that many of the foreign cars which are now on our roads were the result of English people having gone to buy British cars, not having been able to get them, and therefore buying foreign cars instead.
Mr. Corbett: Will the hon. Gentleman come to Hemel Hempstead, and to Hertfordshire in general, where I shall introduce him to the Hertfordshire chamber of commerce and the Dacorum Industrial Association, involving firms large and small, British and multinational, whose managements would deny every word put forward by the hon. Gentleman about the unreliability of British goods? Those concerns in Hertfordshire have bulging order books, and one firm in my constituency sells 93 per cent. of its goods abroad.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am glad to hear that that is the position in Hertfordshire.

1023
I only wish that had been the experience of the industrialists to whom I spoke at the lunch to which I referred. They took no pleasure in describing the position. It is not for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that they chose to tell me a tissue of untruths. I do not believe that was the case.
I wish to complete the main points of the comments of those industrialists. For example, they wondered whether the unions which had settled for around 5 per cent. would now consider that, as everybody else was getting away with 10, 16 or 22 per cent., they should come back for a second bite of the cherry. I feel that that may happen. If it does, what will happen to costs in industry?
Lastly, the industrialists touched on the attitude of the trade unions throughout the lorry drivers' strike. Those industrialists, who represent some of the largest companies in this country, cannot see why, when they are not at issue with a union, their company should be brought to a standstill by that strange creation known as secondary picketing. They wonder why their employees should be put out of a job and why they should have to lose export orders which have been won so dearly. They wonder why they should not be allowed to draw their stocks from the docks and send their goods abroad to meet delivery dates. They also wonder why the Government since 1974 should have created legislation which has placed the emphasis on providing more safeguards for trade unions and their members, and why they have done so little to examine the overall position of industry in order to give a fair balance of protection.
Let me try to sum up this point. Why should a company which discharges an employee be expected, under the Employment Protection Act, to compensate that employee when that same company, if prevented from going about its business, although it has no dispute with a trade union, receives no compensation for the damage to its profitability, its future and the future of its employees? Why should not we consider some kind of indemnity under which such a company can sue a trade union for loss of business and make that trade union explain why it believes that secondary picketing was justified?
1024
My second point relates to the social contract. We heard the Prime Minister in the House this afternoon expounding on the virtues of the social contract, as if the trade unions were a downtrodden organisation which desperately needed Government assistance and help. But anybody who remembers the period of February 1974 will appreciate that the trade unions are far from downtrodden. If the social contract involves simply the Labour Government and the trade unions, that will not do. But if we are serious about putting British industry on its feet and making it expansionist and prosperous, if we are serious about national unity and getting a measure of agreement, surely the time has come for a new social contract—I almost referred to the concordat about which we shall be hearing tomorrow—to be drawn up by Government, trade unions and industry and indeed by Parliament.
That sentiment is well set out in the CBI leaflet "Pay: the choice ahead". That document says on page 14, under the heading "A national economic forum":
An important feature of the CBI's recent statements on pay, and one that has aroused considerable interest, is the proposed national economic forum with links into Parliament. Unlike most of her successful competitors Britain has no focal point around which expectations, and so bargaining, can be influenced. We must meet this need."
So say all of us. I believe that such a national approach could regenerate British industry as it has not been regenerated despite all the claims and hopes of the Labour Government.
The feeling around the luncheon table at Reading among the industrialists was that the balance involving trade unions, management and industry was now unfair. It was felt that those who seek to run businesses are discriminated against in favour of those who work on the shop floor, although both are involved in creating the same prosperity and wealth. When those industrialists said that they did not expect the economy to expand this year, that they would be taking a cautious view of their future investment prospects, that they would be wondering about cutbacks and possible factory closures, I believe that what they were really saying was that they did not believe that the Labour Government understood the problems of industry or are interested

1025
in helping the private sector to overcome its difficulties.
When we know that industrial output has risen by only 1 per cent. in five years, and when we appreciate that output in manufacturing industry has dropped by 3·7 per cent. since the third quarter of 1973, it is evident that the words of those industrialists are borne out. Unless we recognise that industry is the wealth-maker upon which all else depends—our social services and our ability to give money to help companies that need assistance—we shall miss the whole advantage of making that sector successful.
However, there is another point to he considered. Does anybody seriously doubt that if industry had expanded in the last five years in line with the industries of so many other Western European countries, we would have had real wealth with which to pay real wages, and with which to create a greater real prosperity in our nation? It is the failure to achieve that real prosperity which is at the root of our inflationary problems. Until we tackle it, I see little or no hope for our nation.
6.37 p.m.
Mr. Roy Hughes: I shall not take up the theme of the speech of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), but I was fascinated to hear the remarks of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). This afternoon one could hardly recognise the man who reorganised our National Health Service and created so much additional bureaucracy, and consequently brought about a vast increase in public expenditure.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of safe jobs in our public industries. He appeared to be living in cloud-cuckooland. Has nobody told him what happened on the railways, in which thousands of jobs have been lost? The same argument applies to the coal mines, the steel industry and many other public sectors of industry. Many people who have been made redundant have been sucked into other sections of public service. To some extent this can be attributed to the lack of entrepreneurial skills in the private sector of British industry. The money that should have been invested in British manufacturing industry was instead invested in property
1026
speculation—and a great deal of it in South Africa and other countries.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East was also a member of the Government who reorganised local government. Thousands upon thousands of people were recruited into local government as a result—more than had existed previously. The principal trade union involved in local government is now insisting that not one job shall be lost. But who did it in the first place? The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. In that sense I agree with him when he said that the chickens are coming home to roost.
There is much that can be commended in the Government's amendment, which is essentially constructive in character. Nevertheless, I would be the first to point out that we must not lose sight of the fact that nearly 1·5 million people are still permanently out of work and that unemployment has become something of a social problem because it affects so many young people. Here again, I commend the Government for introducing some imaginative schemes to take our young people quite literally off the streets.
We in Wales rely to some extent on the steel industry. The Government have helped in this regard. At present, there is the case of the Shotton works. Of course, had the Conservative Party won the 1974 election, there would no longer be a Shotton works. That is a fact. In fact, one of the Conservative Members for Flint actually voted for the ending of steel-making there. Nevertheless, this great works is still under threat, and it is my belief that it should be saved.
Sir Anthony Meyer: I am sorry to have missed the early part of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I came into the Chamber as soon as I saw his name in lights. He is apparently referring to me. Perhaps he will explain why he voted against the plan for expanding production at Port Talbot.
Mr. Hughes: We are not talking about Port Talbot at the present time. But only in the past week or two the Government have authorised a £90 million investment programme for Port. Talbot. I certainly support that. Another steelworks investment that I want to bring to the Government's attention relates to the Orb works. Here I am referring to my

1027
own constituency. A decision is pending on a major investment there. The Minister will be aware that the old Electrical Steels business is at present in jeopardy as a result of the delay in reaching a decision. I hope that we shall have one soon.
It is my belief that changes in the Government's economic policy are called for. For instance, for a long time I have felt that there was a need to curb imports, particularly of manufactured goods. One noticed the private initiative that has been taken by the British Steel Corporation, which has urged all its employees to buy British cars. Ideals such as that need Government encouragement, and much more besides. At present, of course, the proceeds of North Sea oil are paying for the import of manufactured goods, but that state of affairs cannot go on indefinitely.
In recent weeks there have been many forecasts about disruption to British industry as a result of strikes. I have found nauseating the continuous harping by the Conservative Party on the effects of strikes. It seems to me that the Conservative Party has not been in the least bit interested in settling these disputes; it has merely been interested in stirring up the situation for narrow, party advantage.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Just like your party did in 1974.
Mr. Hughes: What the Government, all political parties and both sides of industry should now be doing is concentrating on finding ways to end these disputes and to avoid similar disputes in the future. To my mind, that will not be achieved by coercion but rather by leadership and, above all, by agreement.
I deplore the present disruption as much as anyone, particularly as it affects the hospital services and also the bereaved.
During the mass lobby a fortnight ago, I met a contingent from Newport. Those people could not be described as militant in any sense of the term. They had no political affiliations whatever. They told me that they would be as well off on the dole. I thought that was a pretty shocking indictment. They also criticised family income supplement, which was introduced by the last Conservative Government. The described it as nothing more than a
1028
recipe for low pay. They said that they were picking up their wages at one door, going round the corner and picking up family income supplement. Again, that is a system that merely creates bureaucracy.
There was one example of a charge hand in local government. He told me—I have no reason to dispute his figures—that for a 40-hour week his take-home pay was £38. He did not protest that his main concern was that he was paying too much tax. But all those lads in the mass lobby were unanimous in saying "Give us a living wage". Anyone with a modicum of common sense would endorse that sentiment.
For nearly 20 years we have had endless arguments about the merits and demerits of incomes policy, but surely any system of wage settlement should it least start from the basic premise that people in employment should be guaranteed a living wage. I believe that that could be the basis for a settlement at the present time in relation to both the local authorities and the National Health Service.
There is another aspect of this issue which should not be underestimated. That is the effect of Common Market membership in relation to some of the present disputes. We are all aware of the direct relationship between the Common Market and the road haulage dispute, and the crippling effects that that had on British industry. A decision by the Brussels bureaucracy to regulate the hours of work proved to be a positive incentive to the road haulage unions to get their drivers to fight for an increase in their admittedly low basic wage.
Perhaps there is an even more direct connection with the present claims of the low-paid workers. The cost of the food basket takes the major percentage of the wages of our low-paid workers. For example, we know that shoppers in the EEC now pay three times as much for meat as is paid by consumers in North America. Butter in this country costs almost four times the world market price. A week or so ago we received a report from the department of applied economics, in Cambridge, which estimated that the cost of membership of the Common Market is equivalent to £20 for every man, woman and child in Britain today. Are not these figures what inflation is about? Is not

1029
that the reason why the low paid are as agitated as they are at present? Is it not perfectly understandable that the Labour Party manifesto for the Common Market elections says specifically that the job of our representatives will be to act as representatives of the dissatisfaction with the EEC membership that exists in Britain today?
It is my belief that the basic problem in British industry is not wages but productivity. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) pointed out—I have great respect for his point of view—as we have had an incomes policy, off and on, for nearly 20 years our problem would be solved if wages were the answer. As was said in the sanctions debate before the Christmas Recess, if wages were the answer, Delhi would be rich and Dallas would be poor. In fact, the reverse is the case. If prices were held, wage settlements, in turn, could be kept at a reasonable level.
Above all, we need investment—not in property, or overseas investment, but at home in our manufacturing industry. We need a new attitude from management in British industry, which has never seemed to be able to adjust from the hire-and-fire days, which, I am glad to say, have gone for ever.
The problems faced by British industry are not easy to solve, but at least in our attempts to solve them we should start at the right place.
6.53 p.m.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: Earlier this evening the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) seemed to lift our debate to the plane on which our industrial affairs should be debated. In spite of the rather unfortunate wording of the Conservative Opposition's motion tonight, I take heart from the fact that the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) is to wind up the debate. He may follow the right hon. Member for Battersea, North in the remarkable economic exposition which he gave us. He especially pointed out that in pursuit of our essential national objective, of getting inflation under control, we must not adopt policies which paralyse our industries.
We hold this useful debate in a situation where our industries must prepare for a most furious competitive assault
1030
from fairly recently industrialised countries such as Taiwan and Korea, which will give an entirely new meaning to competition and which will make some of our present international competitors look tender gentlemen when the new assault takes place.
Faced with that imminent challenge, the House should ask itself whether it is wise to adopt monetarist policies—whether they be concealed monetarism from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), the Chancellor, or blatant monetarism from the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph). I shall come in a moment to the Leeds coalition, which is one of the most sinister features of our present politics. It is unwise to adopt policies of that kind which will make it impossible for our industries, even with the best will in the world and with immense dedication from management and shop floor, to begin to compete with our new competitors.
I thought it most significant that from his advantageous position in opening this debate the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East scarcely mentioned the main crippling factor on British industry today, which is the soaring bank rate. He did not like to mention this at any length because it could be part of his own prescription.
It is an unfortunate feature of our present politics that we have this Leeds coalition. Who converted whom it is not my purpose to inquire. Certainly the country is now suffering from a barely concealed monetarism operated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the dismal alternative, if the present opinion polls are converted into votes, of overt monetarism from the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East. It is important that the House of Commons should expose this Leeds coalition and point out—as did the right hon. Member for Battersea, North so eloquently in his defence of a firm incomes policy—that there is another way that does not involve the paralysis of British industry.
Mr. Hal Miller: I took notes of my right hon. Friend's speech. He made the point that whereas production and productivity were static, wages and profits had fallen and interest rates and the costs of holding stocks had gone up. He made specific reference to the burden of interest.
Mr. Wainwright: Yes. I never accused the right hon. Gentleman of wholly omitting that factor. However, the hon. Gentleman is bound to agree that his Front Bench colleague did not dwell on this matter or give it anything like the prominence that I would do or that my constituents engaged in industry are doing at present.
To me it is the key factor at the moment on the industrial scene that up-and-coming people are faced with high interest. I am not speaking of the vast corporations which have their own liquid resources stashed away and which do not need to bear in mind always the current interest cost. I am speaking of the up-and-coming people who are dependent upon their banks or other lenders and who are now faced with this appalling interest rate which makes the development of a new and risky business rather a foolish enterprise on which to embark at present. That is my concern. I am surprised that until the right hon. Member for Battersea, North entered the debate the matter had not figured in our proceedings.
I was glad that the right hon. Member for Battersea, North welcomed the recent booklet "A Better Way" produced by a distinguished group of trade unionists. The Liberal Party has also conveyed to Mr. Tom Jackson and his colleagues our appreciation of that document, without going along with every dot and comma in it.
It is our view that a monetarist solution, although it might for a short time accomplish the statistical trick of reducing the apparent rate of inflation, would be fatal to social peace and to the competitive prospects of British industry. That is why we continue to espouse the adoption of a firm incomes policy, preferably administered through the tax system.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Before the hon. Gentleman changes the direction of his argument, will he explain how he sees the very high level of public service borrowing requirement affecting the interest rates? Will he give my right hon. Friend credit for his argument, bearing in mind that the public service borrowing requirement under a Tory Government would be considerably less than under the present Socialist Administration?
Mr. Wainwright: I am not prepared to venture a comment on the latter as my
1032
expectations of incoming Tory Governments have always been confounded by what they do. I have never been able to credit that people could break their promises quite as quickly as members of the Conservative Party do when they take office.
As to the borrowing requirement—a point that the hon. Gentleman also introduced—this is a circular argument. The borrowing requirement may well be soaring at the moment as a result of runaway wage claims. That is another reason why—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is not. That is the point.
Mr. Wainwright: But it is, in my view.
Mr. Winterton: That is the con.
Mr. Wainwright: That is why I espouse so strongly the policy of a firm incomes control at all levels, administered preferably through the tax system.
Another handicap that we have in a debate of this sort—and, alas, the handicap has been vividly illustrated so far in the debate—is the lack of generally acceptable measuring rods by which the performance of industry can be reliably assessed not only by Members of this House but by workers and by management.
I believe that statements of added value, with an analysis of how the added value has been distributed—what share labour has had, what share management has had, and above all what share is being devoted to re-equipment and modernisation of the company's assets—would be the best measuring rod. I greatly regret that the Companies Bill now going through the House does not contain a clause making the publication of added value statements of that kind mandatory, at any rate on public companies.
The measuring rod also needs to be capable of international comparison. If that were more truly available, and if we had added value statements for every industry and for every large company and were able to make international comparisons, we should certainly find that our major competitors at the present time are ploughing back far more than we do, on the whole, into re-equipment and the improvement not so much of worn out as of obsolescent equipment.

1033
I still believe that obsolesence is not a factor which figures largely enough in the eyes of boards of directors. The reason is not stupidity but the fact that the resources to deal with obsolesence are quite beyond their command. They are not allowed to make enough profit to provide adequately for obsolesence. On such profit as they manage to make there are monopoly claims, especially from organised labour at the present time, which take away what ought to be added to the seed corn.
Furthermore, we have a state of affairs—I am afraid that it is getting worse rather than better—in which people who take even a calculated commercial risk are really mugs. It cannot possibly be to the advantage of a nation which exists only upon its manufacturing industries to put such appalling handicaps upon risks. No adequate amount of commercial risk-taking can be based on an industrial economy fed largely from pension funds, because pension funds by definition, are not in the business of risk. Nor can risks be adequately financed from Government sources, because the Government's motto is to try to avoid making mistakes rather than to have the triumphant successes which come from a policy of vigorously espousing risk-taking. Nor can risks be adequately espoused by an economy that is ridden with trade associations in which a cosy atmosphere is generated of live and let live and of refusing to pay much attention to beastly nuisances who suddenly come into the industry and make life awkward for the established characters.
In looking at my own constituency, which may or may not be a fair example, I have come to the regrettable conclusion that the main people in my part of the world who seem to understand the meaning of risk and are prepared to back it with adequate capital are American investors. In my area, wisely using local Yorkshire management, Americans have invested, thank goodness, very considerable sums of risk capital, and as a result, on balance, have greatly added to the wealth of the district. But it seems tragic that we should have to look to the United States of America to finance our riskier projects.
Furthermore, it is really asking too much to expect people in business to take serious commercial risks when they are
1034
already working in such a very risky political environment, when they are exposed to gyrations of the interest rate, such as we have had over the last 10 years, with frequent changes, sometimes of mammoth size, and when they are exposed to erratic changes in tax provisions, possibly having a direct effect on their product, if it is one of the vehicles of indirect taxation, and when they are exposed to all the frenetic results of adversary politics in this place. It seems a little hard, on top of all those risks, to ask them to enter the field of commercial risk as well. But until we recover a scenario in which it is reasonable for people to take substantial commercial risks, we shall not develop our industrial potential.
I very much regret that the motion before us this evening was so framed by the Conservative Opposition that it has enabled the Government to field their benevolent and kindly team from the Department of Industry, who ought not, I feel, to be the targets of our main criticism. I would rather that the motion had been framed in such a way that we had answering tonight for themselves and their dreadful deeds, Ministers such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Employment—wherever he may be these days—and others whose activities over recent years have amounted to sheer sabotage of what the Department of Industry has been trying to do. The Department of Industry, in a benign way, if not always in a very skilful way, has been trying to remedy the pillaging of industry by successive Governments, including those supported at one time by hon. Members who are now in opposition, in order to meet taxation requirements.
There has been the stealthy increase of company taxes under successive Conservative Administrations, on the good old corrupt principle that companies have no votes so it does not matter how much is taken from them. There has been the penalising of companies in a variety of ways. The Department of Industry has made reasonable attempts, with its various grants, to try to make up for the capital which has been stolen from industry over the years, but all the time that Department has been fighting a losing battle, for no sooner does it take one step forward than the Chancellor of the

1035
Exchequer, with his new monetarism, pushes industry five steps backwards. As a result, no matter how many schemes the Department of Industry may bring forward, British industry still lingers very much in the doldrums.
Finally, I must protest that the same thing is happening in regard to small and new businesses. The House has been generous in welcoming the achievements of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and of the Department of Industry over the last two years in bringing forward specific and useful measures for reducing the discouragements on small businesses. But of what use are those measures if they are to be spited by an erratic economic policy which multiples enormously the burden on the small business man?
Mr. Forman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Department of Industry takes so seriously the problems of small businesses that, on the recent sacking of the junior Minister responsible for that sphere, he was not replaced?
Mr. Wainwright: Without being unkind to my fellow Yorkshireman the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), may I say that small businesses do not greatly mourn his departure. His surviving junior colleague has broad shoulders and will, I hope, pay careful attention to my concluding words. Above all, small and new businesses should be protected from the rampages of a neo-monetarist Labour Chancellor. Positive measures of discrimination in favour of small and new businesses should be brought forward by the Government in their dying weeks.
7.10 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Palmer: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), who always speaks charmingly and at times interestingly on behalf of the Liberal Party. He dealt largely with the financial situation in relation to industry. But I want later on to make a point of more direct application to productivity in industry.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) made a flamboyant speech, but what did it actually come to? He reached the remarkable
1036
and original conclusion that improved productivity in industry is the solution to our present discontents. When I first sat in the House, as the Member for Wimbledon, in the 1945–50 Parliament, this was the great theme of Sir Stafford Cripps. So it is no good bringing this up as if it were some new discovery.
I understand the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties. He has to repudiate his past. He was once on the Left of the Conservative Party and has moved over to the extreme Right. It has been a painful transition, and we sympathise. At least he has the decency to look guilty about it. He is free to rewrite his own political creed, but he should not attempt to rewrite the industrial history of the country.
Many of us were deceived about the prosperity of British industry immediately after the last war. The devastation left temporary markets wide open to British goods and services. Selling goods was no great trouble, and at times it was almost difficult not to sell goods. At that time the United Kingdom did profitable business without much attention to capital re-equipment or reform of outmoded labour practices. In the enlightened part of the trade union movement we are well aware of that. But over the past decade or more that easy international market has disappeared. British industry has returned to the relatively declining position of the 1920s and 1930s. That was a time when considerable sections of the Tory Party campaigned for tariffs, quotas and protection in general for British industry. It was said then that British industry could not stand the chill winds of international competition and needed to be well wrapped up.
In Management Today this month, there is an interesting article on the history of this period. It points out that when, in the late 1930s, rearmament began in this country, Britain had to buy most machine tools for that programme from abroad and, ironically, from Germany. The machine tool industry was in the doldrums, as it is today.
It is no good believing that the present situation is due to a particular Government. It has deeper roots in the industrial past. Some industrial historians say that this wasting disease of British industry goes back even further than the 1930s, to the turn of the century. The British

1037
steel industry was doing badly, by international standards, before 1914. I am glad that the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) nods. But this wasting disease has unfortunately now spreads as times become more difficult for our trade abroad, We know the history of it in textiles, shipbuilding, motor cycles and motor cars. Motor cars will soon be made in the jungles of Malaysia, where they are now successfully making radio sets, television sets, domestic typewriters, electrical appliances, and so on. There have been increased imports from abroad of these consumer goods and a loss of overseas markets almost to extinction.
The present Government have tried hard to combat the difficulties by looking at the situation as a whole. The losses have been offset to some extent by providing specialist services overseas, particularly engineering consultancy, and by North Sea oil and gas. That was a useful innovation not only for the gas and oil produced but for the run-off to secondary industries and the resultant new techniques developed. Even in more old-fashioned export lines, such as electric lamps, we still do well. So it is not all bad. The nuclear industry is good. Whatever the moral implications, aerodynamics and weapon production flourish. But the net balance is nothing like as good as it should be. There must be an underlying explanation.
Even trying to be charitable, it must be said that the Opposition motion tonight is irrelevant to the needs of the situation. Of course the country is losing ground in satisfying people's aspirations. That is the reason for the strikes and serious dislocations of industry. People want higher standards of living and are determined not to be held back if it can be avoided. But it is not right to state, as the Opposition motion states, that the United Kingdom is a poor country. That is an absurdity, and I resent it. I should have thought that the Tory Party, with its considerable history of national pride, would be reluctant to use such a phrase even against its national political opponents.
The United Kingdom is not a poor country by the standards of three-quarters or more of the world's population. It is an extremely well-to-do country by those standards. We need not be divided on the question of industrial performance and
1038
productivity—in spite of what the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East forced himself to say—more than our parliamentary system dictates. I do not know anybody—certainly not in the Socialist movement, whether Fabian or Marxist—who is against improved productivity. With improved productivity there is more to share. We might argue about how to do the sharing, but the efficient production of wealth is the common key to all Western political theories and principles.
I do not believe that this involves ownership. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East made great play of that. He told us how our Continental neighbours seem to escape the fundamental questions of ownership. But do they? I do not think that they do. It is hard to imagine that France, with one of the strongest Communist parties this side of the Iron Curtain, and Italy, with a Communist party that might take over one day, escape that question.
In France the debate about who owns industry occurs only rarely, because they are long past that stage. Many enterprises combine the principles of private and public ownership. The right hon. Gentleman is extraordinarily old-fashioned. He has never really understood industry here or abroad.
The British gas, electricity and coal industries technically and productively are equal to the best anywhere in the world. Parts of the railway system are falling apart. That is obvious, but that is because we cannot make up our minds whether we want a railway system at all. If modernised and electrified, it would have a brave tale to tell.
If we are to make party points, I must ask which Government scrapped the exciting Hovertrain development. It was the Conservative Government. That is an issue that needs to be re-examined. In defence of the present Government, it can be said that they actually have an industrial strategy, linked to the National Enterprise Board, which is more than can be said of any other post-war Administration, including that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). There was no particular industrial strategy during his time in office; his Government marked time. Our problem has been to explain this new

1039
strategy to our Labour supporters in the country and in the trade union movement. We might all be at fault in that.
I have said that there must be a deep, underlying reason for Britain's low, relative decline in the league table of the industrial nations. I believe that it is the failure of British industry, and of British engineering, to penetrate and permeate the culture of the nation.
The common idea is that industrial productivity is for self-taught, practical men, and that if the abstractly educated people concern themselves with industry it will be as bankers, accountants, lawyers and managers and, not as professional engineers. That is why we always are rediscovering technology, as if it were some modern miracle. We confuse it with science, but it is not the same. On the whole, science is extremely well done in Britain.
We had a Ministry of Technology for a time. Recently, the Conservative education philosophers proposed that there should be a Ministry of Engineering. What an extraordinary idea. Technology and engineering should be understood and respected as a matter of course at every level of Government. We do not need a special Ministry. I see that the hon. Member for Oswestry nods his head. I am glad that he agrees with me. The suggestion is absurd for he is a great realist.
In the schools, the universities, the trade unions and in industry itself, both public and private engineering and technology should be highly respected. That industrial principle is well understood elsewhere, particularly in Sweden, Germany, France and Japan.
I have the privilege of being Chairman of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. I commend the Select Committee's recently published report, which deals with innovation, research and development in Japanese industry. That report deserves a full debate in the House. We could do much worse with our time.
There is no doubt in my mind that the principal reason for the high rate of growth in the Japanese economy, which has helped it to avoid many of the social difficulties which have attended the belated restructuring of British industry, is the status accorded by Japanese society
1040
to the trained and qualified engineer, as distinct from the business school-trained manager so much accepted here. I have great hopes of the Finniston inquiry into the engineering profession, which I urged upon the Minister. I hope that it will be a thoroughgoing inquiry and that it will not mind hurting many vested interests, including some in the engineering institutions. When is the Finniston inquiry expected to produce a report? Perhaps we could be told when my right hon. Friend replies to the debate.
7.28 p.m.
Mr. F. A. Burden: I do not propose to take up the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) except to say that we might not be a poor country now but there is no doubt that we are heading that way. We have been saved from considerable difficulties by North Sea oil. The Government have had to borrow $8·55 billion from overseas since 1974. That indicates that we are not as prosperous as we were.
We must accept that North Sea oil is expendable. When it disappears, the only way in which the standard of living of our people will be maintained will be by our ability to compete in the world's markets.
"In the long run, a nation, like a family, can only live on what it earns. If we want to maintain our standard of living and protect people's jobs and give a boost to our deprived regions, we must get industry to produce more and export more."
I do not think that anybody will quarrel with that. That passage appeared in the Labour Party manifesto of October 1974.
It continued:
"This is going to demand some radical changes. The Tories and their Aims of Industry friends say we ought to leave things as they are. But things as they are consist of lower investment than other countries. If we leave things as they are we shall go on, as we have done for years, slipping behind other nations. The industrial sector of our economy is suffering from grave and chronic debilitation and that sort of illness cannot be cured with a couple of aspirin tablets."
Having remembered what was stated in the Labour Party manifesto at the last general election, I do not think that anyone can say that the country has prospered. Surely no one can say that industrial power has recovered and that we have regained our competitiveness in the world's markets.

1041
The Labour Party manifesto, which everybody should study, refers to industrial relations. It states:
"This objective—"
that is, the Government's objective—
"involves strong trade union organisation and widening the scope of collective bargaining."
Where is collective bargaining under the present Government? It has disappeared entirely. Rigid lines on pay have been laid down that everyone knew could not be maintained. Practically every Labour Member below the Gangway who has spoken in the debate while I have been in the Chamber has made it clear that it was never a runner.
The manifesto continues:
"In addition, however, it will mean the provision of new rights for workers through changes in company law."
It is right to make one more quote from the manifesto that is especially relevant to the present situation. It is a passage that should be brought to the attention of Labour Members and the country as a whole. It states:
"It is part of the very purpose of the Labour Party's existence to protect and extend the processes of democracy at all levels … we want to give a much bigger say to citizens in all their various capacities—as tenants, shoppers, patients"—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: There is no response.
Mr. Burden: Have they had greater powers and greater opportunities under the Government? The quotation continues:
"to voters".
I have no doubt that voters would welcome an early opportunity to express their views.
Mr. Corbett: Hear, hear.
Mr. Burden: I doubt very much whether the hon. Gentleman will be with us in the next Parliament. I know that what I am saying and the quotations that I am making are getting under the skin of Labour Members.
I continue to quote the Labour Party manifesto. It states:
"Labour believes that respect for the law must be firmly based on the rights of the citizen and on his or her obligations to the whole community"
1042
That applies to everybody, to strikers, to the unions, to everybody. The passage continues:
"We share the view of those who are alarmed at the growth of violence in our society … Labour believes that the law-abiding citizens are entitled to full protection."
Those quotes from the 1974 Labour Party manifesto indicate clearly how industrial relations have declined since it was published. I do not think that Labour Members can maintain that the ordinary citizen is still able to go about his or her business without interference. I do not expect any Labour Member will deny that there has been violence on the picket lines.
Mr. Bob Cryer: No. That is not right.
Mr. Burden: The hon. Gentleman says "No." We have heard reports, and statements have been made in the House. It has been reported by Ministers that some strikers have carried offensive weapons.
Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned violence on picket lines, which we all regret. However, not one Conservative Member has so far expressed regret at the only incident of known violence, namely, the death of a picket at Aberdeen. The only other proven incident of violence was when pickets were shot at.
Mr. Burden: Everybody regrets that, wherever it may happen. That is utterly wrong. That shows the state of industrial relations and picketing. That cannot bode anything but ill for the future of Britain if it is allowed to continue.
We must go back quite some way to realise absolutely the colossal failure of the Government. On 29 April 1971, when unemployment under the Conservative Government was 815,000, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), the present Secretary of State of Energy, said:
"It is very hard to assess the full cost of unemployment, and … there is nothing more wasteful than maintaining such a large body of men and women paid to do nothing in an economy … At the present rate, 16 million working days a month are lost by unemployment, which totally dwarfs figures lost in industrial disputes."
If the unemployment figures at that time were so deplorable, what are they now? They have doubled. If 16 million working

1043
days were lost each month in 1971 as a result of men and women being unemployed, the present figure must be nearer 30 million a month. It will be nearly double the 1971 figure.
When the right hon. Gentleman spoke in a debate on the economy in 1971, the whole issue of British industry came before the House. The right hon. Gentleman quoted with evident glee an EEC report of the previous December. The quotation read:
"A major recession … only could result from miscalculation or a deliberate act of Government."
Which is it now? Is it a miscalculation or is it an act of Government? The right hon. Gentleman continued:
"The charge against them"—
that is, the Conservative Government?
"is not that they do not care: it is a much more serious charge. It is that unemployment is now seen by the Cabinet as a main instrument of policy."
Is it today? Unemployment has doubled since 1971. What is the answer? I presume that it is an act of God.
On the same day, we read in Hansard:
"Prices in the last 12 months have risen … by 8·8 per cent. In price terms that amounts to a hydrogen bomb explosion."—[Official Report, 29 April 1971; Vol. 816, c. 724–28.]
That, too, was said by the present Secretary of State. He surely has much to think about now. We have been suffering hydrogen bomb explosions of price increases ever since in British industry. Since the Government took office, 12 items of everyday consumption have increased in price by 132 per cent. It is not to be wondered at that many lower-paid workers are falling behind. It is not surprising that their standard of living has declined. It would have declined still further. The going rate of inflation is now 8·8 per cent. and the Government were prepared to allow an increase of only 5 per cent. to low-paid workers.
Not unnaturally, the Leader of the House is not completely innocent in this matter. On 18 February 1971 he told the House:
"It is perfectly true that it is possible to solve the problem of inflation by the combined policy of wage resistance, unemployment and declining investment …. It was done in the 1920s."
1044
Is that how it is being done today—by wage resistance, unemployment and declining investment? That is the situation under this Government.
On the same day, the Leader of the House said:
"So the real question facing this country and the House—nobody knows exactly when the date will come—is: What will they"—
that is, the Conservative Government—
"do when the figures for unemployment move up to the million level?" [Official Report, 18 February 1971; Vol. 811, c. 2245–47.]
It is now 1½ million. What do Labour Members think about that? This is happening under the Labour Government. Perhaps it is not to be wondered at that this country has got into its present situation.
Although the Prime Minister comes to the Dispatch Box with a bland air, with the Uncle Jim attitude "Trust me and all will be right", I have looked up an attack that he made on Nye Bevan in 1955. He said:
"The Labour Party never would have reached the peaks and heights of power unless we had been prepared to subordinate our individualism to our Socialism."
In other words, the Prime Minister even today is out for an all-Socialist economy. No doubt that is one of the reasons why he plays along with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who certainly agree with that.
Is that the way to get this country out of its problems? One of the difficulties today is that there is not a continuity of production which encourages countries overseas to buy high-cost capital goods from Britain. What has happened in the past few weeks will increase that discouragement. Anyone engaged in industry knows that equipping factories today is a costly long-term policy. The old equipment has to be phased out, and unless new equipment is delivered on time the actual cost increases because of the waiting time for installing the new machinery. The ability to compete is also diminished if companies are not equipped with the most modern machinery.
This country depends for its future upon its ability to produce costly, high technology capital equipment. It will be able to exploit that market to the full only if our would-be customers abroad

1045
can be assured that delivery dates will be kept, that the quality will remain consistent and that the price will not be increased before delivery.
One of the first steps that must be taken is to ensure that we have peace in industry. Make no mistake. The unions must play an important part. It is idle for right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches to say no action should be taken against the unions. I do not believe that major figures in the unions are content or happy with the present situation. I do not believe that the majority of trade unionists are hell-bent on bringing about the destruction of this country. Fewer Communists will stand for Parliament, but they will be infiltrating into the unions, controlling the unions and so disrupting the industry of this country. Hon. Gentlemen may laugh. On 1 May last year, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) warned at a May Day rally in Chatham about Trotskyists who were infiltrating into the unions. He said that there had not been a Communist able to get into the House.
Communists will not bother trying to get into the House if they can destroy our industry by promoting wildcat strikes that will cripple our exports and our industries. I hope that sensible members of the unions will realise the Trojan horse that is operating within the unions and what it is doing to this country. Most right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Government side want to see what we all want to see—a prosperous Britain. Unless we have a prosperous Britain and a country able to compete in world markets in price, quality and expertise, there will be no more money to pour into the public services. There will be no more money for anyone.
This country, particularly when North Sea oil has been phased out, will depend for its future on the ability of its people to promote industry in such a way that its products compete anywhere in the world.
7.48 p.m.
Mr. Julius Silverman: I shall not follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) in his historical analysis and the number of quotations which he has painfully gathered. He introduced some useful and interesting debating points, which do not take us any further. His
1046
plea for industrial peace will be echoed by hon. Members on the Labour Benches and, indeed, throughout the Chamber. I take up one point that he made. He mentioned the need to increase our exports. I agree with the desirability of increasing exports. On the whole, we have not done badly. We are exporting substantially over £20,000 million a year of manufactured goods. The place where we want to look for improvement is not so much the export market but the home market.
Mr. Burden: Those were not my words. They are the words in the manifesto of the Labour Party at the last election. The manifesto said that we must export more.
Mr. Silverman: I do not care who said it. The point that I am making is just as valid.
One of the main difficulties that we have to meet is the penetration of our home market by manufactured goods, now running at the rate of about £20,000 million a year. If we could reduce that amount by one-third, the effect on our economy would be enormous. if we could persuade the British citizen to buy British goods instead of foreign goods, we could begin to solve the whole of our economic problems. It is extraordinary that that aspect is rarely discussed in the House. It stands out like a sore thumb in our economy. The Government and both sides of industry must get together to find out why that is happening and what can be done about it.
It is said that bad industrial relations play a part in the problem, and the motor car industry is often mentioned in that connection. However, the problem of penetration of foreign manufactured goods affects not only the motor car industry but a number of other industries in which there are few industrial disputes.
If Germany is in a better position than we are in the midst of the general economic recession, it is largely because of its higher rate of investment and exports. It is able, to a large extent, to export its unemployment to countries such as Great Britain. That is the major problem that we have to solve, and I believe that we can solve it in this country without having to establish expensive organisations overseas.
I do not know whether the cause lies in lack of investment, industrial relations,

1047
design or the lack of initiative of our manufacturers. Some people decry British goods, but they cannot be that bad when we are exporting about £23,000 million worth every year. We must get together to solve that problem. It could be a major factor in our industrial revival.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) mentioned the need for change and there was an argument about who was responsible for the introduction of silicone chips in our industry. I am in favour of change provided that its effects are foressen, calculated and dealt with. I do not know what effect the introduction of silicone chips will have on unemployment in the banking system, in offices and in industry in general. That must be calculated and dealt with.
I approach the prospect of change with a certain amount of caution. Let me take the example of tyre manufacturing. A number of years ago, the radial tyre—now the radial, steel-framed tyre—was introduced into this country. It resulted in a benefit to the consumer, because he could get two and a half times more mileage from the radial tyre than from the old style of tyre. That is one of the major factors affecting the tyre industry throughout Europe. It is estimated that there is about 30 per cent. excess capacity in the European industry. All the countries of Europe face the same problem.
The Dunlop-Pirelli concern is one of the major sufferers, and we have already heard that it is proposed to close the Dunlop factory at Speke. I have a special interest, because Fort Dunlop is in my constituency. The proposals for that factory are not as drastic as those for Speke, but it is planned to create 550 redundancies covering all grades, especially engineering and supervisory grades.
There is obviously great concern about that proposal in Birmingham, which is not flourishing with the wide variety of industries that it used to have many years ago but is already suffering from considerable unemployment. I have been told of people at Fort Dunlop, especially workers in their fifties, who do not know when they will get another job. They have been at the factory all their lives. It is a sad day when that sort of thing
1048
happens, whether in my constituency or in Liverpool.
It was always assumed that technological change would bring about the creation of new industries and new jobs to replace those that were lost. It used to seem to be so, but it is not so today. There is no doubt that, throughout Europe, technological change is one of the major factors in our present recession. It has not created sufficient purchasing power to enable people to buy the goods that it has created and it has disposed of a large number of jobs. I am not against change, but we must decide, perhaps with our trading partners, what steps can be taken to deal with that new and dangerous situation, which would exist no matter what Government we had in power. We have sadly failed to do that so far.
We must increase our investment in order to produce our goods at a competitive price, or our situation will be even worse. However, we do that only in order to obtain a larger share of a shrinking market. That is what Germany and France are doing. They are using their investment and technology and exporting the proceeds, in the shape of increased unemployment, to other countries. That is a problem which must be borne in mind.
Let us by all means have change, but let it be change in which the results are calculated, allowed for and absorbed. I am not saying how they can be absorbed. Perhaps it could be done by reducing the working week, though that could be achieved only through agreement with our trading partners. Perhaps we could do it by increasing our service jobs, which must largely be public service jobs. That would be in complete conflict with the Tory declarations that public expenditure must be reduced. If that were done, there would be fewer jobs in the public sector and, therefore, in service industries.
That problem is one of the most important facing this country, and it overrides the short-term problems of industrial disputes. I do not believe that it will be solved by private enterprise, and certainly not by private enterprise alone. There must be some planning or partnership between private enterprise and the Government in order to solve the greatest

1049
problem of this historical epoch. That is my word on the present problems afflicting this nation and the world today.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Excluding Front-Bench spokesmen. the average time taken by hon. Members so far is 16 minutes. I think that hon. Members would like to help one another, and there are still many more wishing to speak. Perhaps they could cut their speeches down to 10 minutes.
8.1 p.m.
Mr.Nicholas Winterton: I am very pleased to speak following the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman), for two reasons. First, I worked for a company in his constituency for a number of years. Secondly, he and I share a common objective in that we wish to provide fair competition for two important industries in this country.
The first is the car industry, which dominates the hon. Member's constituency and is allied to the tyre industry, which is epitomised by Dunlop. The second is the one in my area, the textile industry, which causes much concern. The hon. Member and I share a common ground about the developments taking place on the industrial scene.
I felt that the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer), who made a deep, wide-ranging and interesting speech, was unfair to the Opposition motion. He said that it was irrelevant. It is not irrelevant at all. In defence of my assertion I call in aid the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who indicated the comments being made to him by those in business, industry and commerce in Berkshire, and particularly the area around Newbury. Those remarks clearly reflect the content of the Opposition motion. Therefore, the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East was unfair to the Opposition and unfair to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph).
It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) talking about the position of the Opposition. He said that there had been a coalition of views between the two right hon. Members from Leeds—the Chancellor of the Exchequer and my right hon.
1050
Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East. But the views expressed by these two right hon. Gentlemen are very different. While the present Government are following a basically monetarist policy, they have all too high a level of public sector borrowing requirement, which has driven up the minimum lending rate in this country. This is creating great difficulty for small businesses. High interest rates are damaging to small businesses, because they are very easily affected by cash flow problems.
All too few Labour Members, particularly those below the Gangway, have ever had the responsibility of having to meet a wages bill at the end of the week. It has a very sobering effect and it does tend to concentrate the mind. Being an employer is no joy ride; it is a heavy responsibility.
For that reason I was concerned and disappointed that during the tanker drivers' and, later, the lorry drivers' disputes the Government did not declare a state of emergency, not so that the troops could be brought in but so that the Government would have the power, if they chose, to exempt employers from the more damaging and pernicious provisions of the Employment Protection Act. They would have had power to exempt them from certain lay-off payments. Many companies could go out of business now because of cash flow problems generated during the lorry drivers' dispute. That point has not been raised often enough in this House. The fact is that a wide range of powers are available to the Government during a state of emergency. The Minister of State should look into this matter before he replies to the debate.
There is great skill in this country and great experience, ability and determination. This is a great country, and there is investment. But the Government must get off the backs of small businesses and reduce bureaucracy and restriction rather than increase them. They must also restore the balance of industrial relations.
We have heard about the problems for ordinary men and women in the street, caused by the serious industrial disruptions which this country has continued to experience since Christmas. It is a pity that we cannot have a Prime Minister who will act in the best interests of all the people, like Stanley Baldwin did in 1926. I quote from the "Oxford Strike Daily

1051
Bulletin" of Sunday 9 May 1926. Baldwin said, in an article headed "More Protection for Loyal Workers":
"Every man who does his duty by his country and remains at work or returns to work during the present crisis will receive protection from loss of Trade Union benefit, superannuation benefit and pensions. His Majesty's Government will take whatever steps may be necessary or otherwise for this purpose."
There was a Prime Minister—a man who was prepared to stand up for the individual and the loyal workers of this country as well as for the best interests of the people.
I refer to a particular problem being encountered not in my constituency but in the South-West, namely, industrial action by local authority manual workers which is affecting the use of construction machinery on hire from private enterprise companies. This is a significant and dangerous development. I got to know of this problem because for many years I worked in the construction industry, and I still liaise with the Contractors' Plant Association.
Mr. Carus, the managing director of Plant Engineering Services Ltd., in Ivybridge, Devon, rang the director of the CPA and indicated that plant that had been hired to local authorities from his company had been placed off hire by those local authorities on the instructions of the various trade unions in dispute with the authorities because they were refusing to work on direct labour sites with non-operated plant, and some operated plant, hired from private contractors. This, as I have said, is a dangerous development. Surely the unions involved should not be able to dictate to local authorities what action those authorities need to take in order to carry out the work for the benefit of the ratepayers and the people of the areas they serve.
Some say that only NUPE members were involved, but representatives from the General and Municipal Workers' Union, the Transport and General Workers' Union and UCATT attended a meeting on Wednesday 24 January in Exeter. As a result, the unions decided to step up industrial action by manual workers employed by local authorities, which would include a ban on using plant that was hired from the private sector.
1052
Need I remind the House that the private sector is a taxpayer, that the private sector is a ratepayer, and that it is often the private sector that enables the Government to have funds to spend on desirable projects in the public sector? Yet here we have trade unionists discriminating against the private sector. I hope that the Minister will take this matter on board and give me a reply in his winding-up speech.
I believe that this is a very dangerous development. It started in Devon, Plymouth and Exeter, and the district councils that exist within the Devon county, but I understand today, from the director of the Contractors' Plant Association, that this action has spread to Bristol and the county of Avon. At the moment it is restricted to the South-West, but I hope that even the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) will indicate that this is a very unfortunate and sinister development.
The hon. Member for Erdington made what I thought was an interesting speech. It was all the more interesting because he highlighted to the House that he did not want to stand in the way of change. That is a very significant comment to make. It is all too easy to say that we do not want this or that to happen because it will affect industry within our constituency. The hon. Member's attitude was very responsible, and again I hope that it will be taken up by the Front Bench.
I want to relate my remarks now to the textile industry. There have been significant breakthroughs in our relationship with the People's Republic of China. I understand that the Secretary of State is to lead a trade delegation to that country. We are to sell it steel plants and I hope to sell it the Harrier jump-jet. I welcome these developments. But China will want money to pay for these high technology purchases from us. It seems to me almost inevitable that the area where it will wish to see a great increase in trade with us and with the European Economic Community will be in textiles. Our textile industry is gravely concerned about the way in which the Government will handle the situation.
I understand that the Secretary of State for Trade will visit the Manchester area

1053
on Thursday or Friday of this week to meet textile trade unions and employers to discuss the Government's attitude to the Multi-Fibre Arrangement, to the Tokyo round, and to such countries as the People's Republic of China and Korea.
What action will the EEC take over Korea's determination to treble her textile output over the next six years? What action will the Government take over the negotiations in the Tokyo round with the United States over the way in which it has refused to lower its tariff significantly to allow, for instance, our wool textile industry to export to that country? There is a great deal to think about in this whole area.
The textile industry is a significant one. If it reaches a stage where it is no longer viable, I believe that not only will this country be held over a barrel by those from whom we shall ultimately receive imports; there will also be massive unemployment. One and a half million people are out of work already, and I do not believe that the Government will seek to add to this grotesque figure.
What is the Government's policy on real reciprocity in textile trading? What is their attitude to real reciprocity with those countries which wish to buy from us? Is it not right that we should perhaps adjust our trading to allow us to trade with those countries that want to buy from us, so that, in turn, we can buy from them? As a result, is it not inevitable that some other countries will lose out? If we are to have a Government who act in the best interests of this country, the problem that will face them in the textile industry—repeated, perhaps, elsewhere in the course of the next year or two—are significant. I ask for a sympathetic reply from the Government.
8.14 p.m.
Mr. Eric Moonman: The tenor and the mood of this debate were set by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East(Sir K. Joseph). On an Opposition Supply day it does not help, however agitated the Opposition may appear to be, to try to relate the whole of the circumstances of our various industries to the happenings of the past three weeks.
One of the shortcomings of this debate is that it undermines the whole question of what the Government have tried to do in very difficult circumstances, what
1054
industry has often failed to do, and what, perhaps, management might be encouraged to achieve.
In the few minutes available to me I should like to speak briefly about the two or three factors which I believe have gone some way towards creating the dilemma and the difficulties that our industry is facing. First, it is right to point out that we must not take excessive account of industry's record during only the last four weeks, because it has been a rather ambiguous record in terms of achievement during the last 15 years or so. The United Kingdom share of world exports in manufactured food is down from 17 per cent. in 1960 to 9 per cent. today. The share of the United Kingdom home market for manufactures held by domestic producers is down from 87 per cent. to 57 per cent. over the same period. Since 1960, exports have risen by between 4 per cent. and 8 per cent. per year, but imports have grown consistently by between 8 per cent. and 12 per cent. a year.
I put those figures on record only to show that although individual industries are becoming more effective and there are a number of very positive case studies, the fact is that the present state of uncertainty in British industry is not something that has happened because of any specific actions by the Labour Government. However, the record rather suggests that there is need for close examination of the last 15 years. Therefore, it seems appropriate to look at just three of the elements that might well have contributed to industry's shortcomings.
The first element is Government intervention. The sort of phrase that we have heard from Opposition Members in this debate, as in other places, is that the degree of Government intervention in recent years has stifled industrial initiative, and the argument goes on and on. This is extremely doubtful. In the first place, Government-industry relationships have not been brought dramatically closer in the last few years. It has been a historical process. It is no abstract political theory which brings Government and industry into some form of closer relationship. Often it is the size and scope of research and development which demand that industries turn to the Government for assistance. We have certainly had very tangible evidence today, when an attempt is

1055
being made to try to salvage a particular part of an industry at Falmouth. Also, it is the pressure from the transnational company and the supranational scope of modern industry which causes British industry to ask for help. These are some of the conditions and factors which cause Government and industry to become that much closer.
In Britain this Government-industry relationship is one of a mutually suspicious partnership, but it is a partnership which has, nevertheless, worked well in the interests of the nation as a whole. However, I certainly reject the idea that this is something that suggests a conspiracy. Therefore, it is a historical development which has arisen through two world wars in this century. It has come about also because of the competition arising from the transnational powers.
I argue that if this relationship is to develop its full potential for fruitfulness, both parties must be prepared to engage in some sort of self-criticism and reform. There is no time to pursue the point now. Nevertheless, it must be done by both industry and the Government constantly assessing what is possible.
I come to the second point worthy of consideration in any debate on industry. I challenged the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, if he wished to place his strategy on record, to make at least some reference to the role and the effectiveness, or lack of effectiveness, of management. It is a fairly fundamental question. This is not to suggest that all those who are in management positions are failures. On the contrary, those of us who have been involved in the all-party parliamentary management committee know full well that there are individual success stories which are worth copying by the greater scope of industry.
However, the fact is that much of our management is a reflection of training, of attitudes towards industry, and of the way in which the business schools have tackled this problem in the past. Indeed, a comparison need not be made with the United States. It can be made with the rest of Europe.
The European manager is a different animal from his British counterpart. One of the chief differences is that he has
1056
actually chosen to work in industry and has oriented his career and education towards it. In Britain a career in industry is considered less desirable than a career in one of the professions, in higher education or, indeed, in the Civil Service, and is, therefore, likely to be sought mainly by those whose lack of educational achievement has barred them from other fields. The result is that whereas between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of senior management in France, Germany and Sweden are graduates, the figure for Britain is less than 50 per cent. Even fewer British graduates have studied subjects of any relevance to industry.
The typical Swedish entrant into manufacturing industry is an engineering graduate who begins his job in production. The French or German graduate is more likely to have graduated in one of the technological institutions that enjoy a higher status than universities and so attract good-quality students. This first-hand knowledge of production is an essential part of the Swedish style of management, as pointed out by Alastair Mant's study of Swedish, Japanese and British management. In other words, the authority of management in Sweden and Japan—a country referred to a number of times in the debate—is due not to any miracle of Japanese industry or entrepreneurial skills; it rests on the status of the way in which the individual has achieved his own understanding of the industry. It rests on the equality of the company's products and the manager's knowledge and experience of manufacturing, which enables him to provide leadership in the technicalities of doing the job on every level.
I believe that to be an important consideration when trying to look at the competence and effectiveness of an industry. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East dealt only with two aspects—the entrepreneurial aspect and trade union failure. I felt that to be an enormous gap in his knowledge and the analysis that might be provided about what is right in British industry.
The Government have problems in getting their message across to the public, but Conservative Members have far greater problems in getting across to British management what they would offer. They need only to reproduce the extraordinary speech by the right hon.

1057
Member for Leeds, North-East to show no understanding of what the manager has to face and carry out in the course of his work.
Some criticism has been made of Government strategy. It is nonsense to suggest that many of these problems have emerged since 1974. It is also nonsense, as anyone who has a reasonable understanding of industry knows, to suggest that the poor economic record and the problems that I described at the beginning of my speech go back at least several decades, to the fundamental cause of the poor performance of our manufacturing industry. The heart of the problem is the failure of private industry to invest in new plant and machinery to increase productivity, wages and employment. Thus, there is a vicious circle of low productivity, low wages, increasing import penetration and a rundown in employment.
The Government have much to do in the course of the completion of their strategy. One would like to see a greater extension of planning agreements and much more meaningful information reverting back to Government about what industry intends to do. One would like to see the beginnings of worker participation, which would be a challenge to worker representatives and an even greater challenge to worker management.
All these things only add to the way in which a strategy has to develop. What is fundamentally important is that, first, one has to recognise the fundamental job of management and, secondly, that a Government, of whichever party, have to show an understanding of the way in which this can be completed.
8.22 p.m.
Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: I am sure that in the interests of brevity hon. Members would not expect me to follow the interesting argument of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman). There are other hon. Members waiting to speak, and I shall make my points briefly.
It is sad to think that, for the last 15 years—11 of which have been under a Labour Government—this country has fallen from having about the highest standard of living in Western Europe to having about the lowest. Today, as one surveys the mounting chaos around us.
1058
one wonders whether our country is trying to commit suicide or whether the wreckers in our midst are trying to murder it.
We must get some common sense into our industrial scene, with political slogans, stupid theories and governmental bungling out of it before the damage being done is irreparable.
I should like to suggest some constructive ideas that could put us back on the road being travelled by our industrial competitors, to the great benefit of all who work in these countries; and let us remember also that those same countries now pay higher wages, give better benefits and have lower unemployment than we do. To do that means considering changes in the three areas that make up our individual scene. These are governmental services, nationalised industries and the private sector.
As regards governmental services, there is no hope of paying large wage increases from money that just does not now exist. Most of these activities are grossly overmanned, and with correct staffing substantial pay increases could be given to those remaining. I shall suggest where the excess manpower could be absorbed shortly.
As regards the nationalised industries, radical rethinking is required here. There are many activities currently being carried out by the State that would be better done by private industry and the rewards could be higher for those so employed. The main trouble about the nationalised industries was that, when competition was removed, nothing was put in its place. The only alternative to strict competition is strict discipline, and the nationalised industries have neither. What must remain nationalised must be split up into areas or divisions and the standard commercial disciplines of inter-firm comparison between such sectors introduced ruthlessly plus competition, internal or external, wherever it can be found.
Let me turn finally to the private sector, where the only hope for our country lies. It is through its performance that our standard of living comes and our taxes are paid.
Somehow, some way, painfully or hopefully otherwise, we must get back to responsible free industrial collective bargaining here. Workpeople are not fools

1059
and, unlike the governmental or nationalised sectors, men in a competitive climate will rarely put themselves out of a job and their firms out of business by insisting on being paid higher wages for low productivity.
And again here so many of the present generation of trade union leaders and shop stewards have given a positive disservice to those they are meant to represent. How often in British industry, as has happened in America, does a union leader storm into his managing director's office waving the latest report of his company's trading accounts in his hand and shouting "What's all this about? Less than 10 per cent. profit on sales and under 25 per cent. return on capital employed. How can you invest in new machinery and pay the lads more on these results? Get cracking, mate!"
Finally, if in these firms controls, bureaucracy, Government, taxation, spite, envy and greed were removed off the backs of management there would be a blossoming and an expansion that could take Britain back to the top of the league and absorb the extra people I referred to earlier, whose lives are currently those of frustrated overmanning, low wages and Marxist-motivated leadership, and give them instead a real incentive and a real wage in an industrial, not a political, climate.
8.27 p.m.
Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall be brief, as others of my hon. Friends want to speak.
The Tory attack was typical. The Opposition talk about depending on competition. In fact, their argument means thousands more people on the dole. The promise by the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) to remove all subsidies means that large chunks of private enterprise will grind to a halt.
The Opposition take the view that the Government should not intervene. That means abandoning regional policy. It would be interesting to know whether the Opposition would abandon regional policy and the support which has been given to it in the past. In 1976–77 regional support amounted to about £720 million. Do they intend to stop it, halve
1060
it or curtail it, and in what kind of fashion?
When the Opposition expose their bleeding heart on behalf of capitalism, as usual they fail to mention the lavish concessions on corporation tax which the Government are giving to encourage investment. According to Government expenditure plans—Cmnd. 7439—in the current year, together with stock appreciation relief, they amount to about £4·3 billion per annum. Those are enormous concessions and inducements.
The Tories voted against the rescue plans under sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act 1972—their regional policy legislation. They voted against the rescue of British Leyland, which represents 250.000 jobs directly and another 250,000 jobs indirectly. They also voted against the Chrysler UK rescue.
Tory action in this House would condemn to the dole queue people employed in West Yorkshire Foundries, which is a British Leyland subsidiary. It would also reduce opportunities for skilled workers at firms such as Keighley Grinders, which sells grinding machinery to British Leyland and to Chrysler. The basic reality of Tory policy is designed to lengthen dole queues.
We on the Labour Benches believe that some support for industry is necessary and important. We also believe that there should be a greater degree of scrutiny to see where expenditure goes. The National Enterprise Board has made an enormous contribution to industry, and particularly to the machine tool industry—an aspect of industry that is well represented in my constituency. Any machine expert knows that the rescue of Alfred Herbert is important for the whole industry. The NEB has given great assistance and has encouraged new technological developments, such as Sinclair Radionics.
It is interesting to hear Tories mentioning the loss of jobs under the Labour Government, with the implication that under Tory policy there would be a burgeoning of jobs. Some interesting information is contained in column 271 of Hansard of 4 July 1978. Employment in the private sector in 1970—this information is set out in the Treasury analysis of public expenditure in table 1·10—was 18,254,000. By 1974, after four years of Tory government, that figure had fallen

1061
to 18,148,000. Therefore, the number of people in manufacturing industry under Tory free enterprise dropped, which proves that Tory philosophy does not work.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East mentioned the removal of subsidies, such as the temporary employment subsidy—a subsidy which is of great value in textile constituencies. The only curtailment on temporary employment subsidy has come from the EEC, which is another aspect of industrial policy with which we must grapple. The Departments of Industry and Trade have renegotiated the Multi-Fibre Arrangement. That arrangement is not working entirely satisfactorily, but that is no fault of the Labour Government. The fault lies in our entanglement with the EEC and the complexities set up by the Commission in Brussels by not enforcing the agreement as originally envisaged. It also flows from the fact that the Commission has reneged on the original commitment. The MFA still gives us the greatest quota coverage that we have ever had. But it is still imperfect, and its imperfections are to be laid at the door of the EEC rather than at the door of the Labour Government.
We need to bring to the attention of the EEC the subsidised textiles from the Prato area of Italy, and we need to keep a close eye on the processing arrangements which have just been entered into under which goods can be shifted from textile areas and processed outside the EEC and then brought back in again. Furthermore, we need to examine the working of the MFA, and we should follow that example by obtaining greater quota coverage rather than less.
If the British motor car industry, on which thousands of jobs depend, is to survive reasonably in future, there will have to be a quota coverage in respect of cars. Such coverage will have to apply to a wide range of manufactured and semi-manufactured products, because we cannot tolerate free enterprise competition. I am referring to world trade. We need to reinvest and to have some kind of regulation of our trade while that reinvestment is taking place.
The plain fact is that we are not facing fair competition. The competition that we are up against does not operate any em-
1062
ployment protection legislation or health and safety at work provisions, but it operates on very much lower working standards, with very much higher standards of exploitation. If we are to have any kind of planning internally, I believe that it must be matched by external planning. Therefore, unless we extend quota coverage to manufactured and semi-manufactured goods, other sections of industry will follow the path of the British motor cycle industry. Except for the fine example set by the Meriden co-operative, that industry has virtually disappeared and is now dominated by the Japanese industry.
The Tories condemn public expenditure in industry, but they queue up at the back door of the Department of Industry for handouts to firms in their constituencies. Some of them even write to the Department of Industry asking the NEB—a body which they wish to kill—to intervene to save jobs. The fact is that jobs cannot be preserved without Government intervention and support.
The Conservatives say that they support, and are in favour of, private enterprise competition. I should like the House to debate the early-day motion in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), which states:
"That this House notes that the Chairman of the Conservative Party is also Chairman of Pirelli Limited, a firm found to have participated in an illegal price fixing ring; and calls upon the Chairman of the Conservative Party to keep his mouth firmly shut on the issues of law and order, morality and public expenditure in the forthcoming General Election."
I hope that he does. I hope that we find an opportunity to debate that issue, because when Conservatives talk about public expenditure it is quite clear that one of their leading exponents is organising a price-fixing ring. That is one of the alternatives to competition, and we know that it exists within the framework of the big monopoly corporations which Conservatives support.
Although the Department of Industry and the Government have preserved many thousands of jobs, we cannot stop simply on that basis. We must ensure that we get planning agreements with the big monopoly corporations—those corporations that have enormous powers over working men and women. I am thinking

1063
of corporations such as Thorne in Bradford, which made a profit of £57 million in 1957 and put 2,300 people on the dole. But in the same year it imported 90,000 colour television sets.
Dunlop is a similar sort of organisation. It put 2,500 people on the dole in Speke, an area of high unemployment. I also think of corporations such as Plessey, which put 1,000 people on the streets in Merseyside. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about defence cuts?"] We on these Benches argue that there should be a planned conversion from wartime purposes to peacetime purposes. We do not say that it should be done overnight. We say that we should plan the economy. In order to do so, we need planning agreements with the big corporations.
We must develop industrial democracy. It is significant that when the CBI talks in consternation about strikers and trade union action, it always deeply opposes any involvement by working people in decision making—either in planning agreements or in the development of industrial democracy.
We must also resurrect the Labour Party policy of an official trustee. We need people to be able to hold assets while decisions are made in order to preserve that working capacity. Unfortunately I do not have time to go into them, but there are examples to support this Labour Party policy.
The Department of Industry needs to become a more positive interventionist Department, instead of essentially a reactionary Department. I do not mean that in a pejorative sense, although that could also be true. I simply mean that it tends to react to critical situations. In fact, the Department of Industry needs more powers to prevent those critical situations occurring. A public trustee is one means of preventing decisions against the national interest being made and preventing decisions by individual companies that are against the interests of ordinary working people. The Department has certainly provided a number of useful stimuli to private enterprise, which the Conservative Opposition never recognise or accept. The assistance is on a massive scale. At least £12 million every day goes out to private enterprise and gives it support.
1064
Labour Members must also retain their own ideals and recognise that public ownership is an important part of the economy. We must also recognise that the co-operative efforts we have made—for example, Meriden and KME—should be supported, and that organisations such as the Co-operative Development Agency should be given funds to develop co-operatives on the ground. With that sort of effort we can develop an important industrial policy that will preserve and develop more jobs.
8.39 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Forman: One advantage of following the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) is that it makes it somewhat easier for me to persuade the floating voters in my constituency to vote Conservative. I shall go to great lengths tomorrow to make sure that they can read the hon. Gentleman's remarks, as well as my own speech, in order that they should be in no doubt about the relative merits of Conservative policies and the policies of Labour Members below the Gangway. The Opposition accept no homilies on unemployment from a Labour Member of Parliament who, until recently, was a member of this Government, under whom unemployment has doubled in the past five years. We regard that as a national tragedy.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said in his brilliant opening speech, the Government's industrial polices have been disastrous over these past five years, for the reasons set out in the Opposition motion. It is interesting that the argument summarised in the motion is strongly supported in a recent report, published by the Cabinet Office, of the advisory council for applied research and development, in which it looks at industrial innovation, which is at the heart of this debate.
The report summarises the main submissions made by people who supplied their expertise towards making the report. It highlights the following important matters as being deleterious to the prospects of innovation: constant changes to the economic environment, discouraging longer-term planning; the lack of incentives for managers and entrepreneurs; the increasing burden of legislation; overmanning dictated by trade union pressure; falling industrial profitability; and

1065
the concentration on short-term returns in British management. Those points amply bear out and support the arguments put by my right hon. Friend.
The evidence for the Opposition's views on this matter is on record for everyone to see. The average worker's tax bill has risen over the past 20 years from about 5 per cent. to about 25 per cent. The greater part of that increase has taken place over the past five years. The jobs supposedly saved by job subsidies and job creation schemes, so beloved by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, are those saved at a cost of putting extra burdens on the rest of the community, which could provide the jobs given the right climate. The GNP per head is only about half of that in West Germany and two-thirds of that in France. and much of this disastrous decline has taken place over the past five years.
We see a long, slow slither into relative international poverty and decline. This has contributed greatly to the degree of social bitterness and general bloody-mindedness that characterises so much of our industrial scene today. It has made it more difficult for Governments of all parties to ask for self-discipline and to restore self-respect to the British people. It makes it virtually impossible for any Government to afford the levels and types of social provision that we should like to see available to our people.
To develop that thought a little, another aspect of this national tragedy in our industrial scene under Labour's recent stewardship is that there has been too great a tendency by the Government to treat the nationalised industries as if they were mere social services or an extension of social services. Too many of our social services, in turn, have become infected with the worst industrial relations practices imported from some aspects of British industry. We have only to look at recent examples of NUPE strike action or the shortsighted behaviour of some of the British Leyland shop stewards at Longbridge to see the strength of those arguments.
Dangerous misconceptions are contained in the Government amendment to my right hon. Friend's action. The amendment illustrates all too clearly where the Government have gone wrong and the primrose path down which the Labour Party would take us if the elec-
1066
torate were foolish enough to return a Labour Government for another five years.
We see that the industrial strategy called for in the amendment is little more than a paper concept, providing jobs chiefly for NEDO bureaucrats rather than real jobs in British industry. The Government's record on picking winners is far less notable than their tendency to shelter losers. It is notable that some of those losers figure in the Government amendment. I refer to steel, textiles and shipbuilding. The doctrinaire extension of the public sector through the agencies referred to in the amendment—namely, the NEB, the Scottish Development Agency, the Welsh Development Agency and the Northern Ireland Development Agency—does not help either. There may be certain sectors where it is appropriate for the State to take a stake, whether in equity or anything else, but not merely for the sake of postponing change and cushioning people from the realities of the industrial scene. That has happened all too often over the past five years.
The conclusion I draw is that the Labour remedy, after five years' bitter experience, would give us more of the same medicine that we have had to take over the last five years, yet it would be more of the same medicine which has come close to killing the patient. This attitude leads to some lunatic ideas, such as that expressed by a Longbridge shop steward recently, as reported on the nine o'clock news. When asked why he took the attitude that he had about the current wage claims, he said to the British Leyland management.
"The NEB have bailed you out before and they can bail you out again."
It is that sort of attitude, that sort of shortsightedness, that is at the root of our problems.
But these attitudes have been exacerbated by Labour, because those who know the truth in this country have flinched from telling it to those who ought to hear it, and those who are in a position to get through to the right audiences are too frightened, too doctrinaire, or too confused to convey the message.
What, then, do I think ought to be done? There are two or three key things. First, we need to recognise that the economic models of the pre-1973 period are

1067
now played out. Secondly, the House needs to recognise that it is an illusion to think that we can depend on selective protection against the threat from the newly industrialising nations, or on selective intervention by Government in British industry, because both tend to be slippery-slope operations. Such policies tend to be the main obstacles in the way of a return to full employment in this country.
Thirdly, it is necessary for us to rethink the economic role of the Government in the face of these new threats from the newly industrialising countries and from the new imperatives of tomorrow's technology. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) talked about technology and the technological threat, but he and his hon. Friends have to realise that we in this House and in this country have no alternative but to go along with technological change of the kind that is before us. If we seek to pull up the bedclothes and hope that the world will go away, we shall recede even further into a position of non-competitiveness.
We must put more emphasis on the supply side of the economy, and on micro-economic policies at the plant and district level to back up the macro-economic policy of the Treasury, whatever its shortcomings over recent years. The answer to this country's problems rests on giving a fairer break to smaller businesses in particular, because of the enormous contribution they can make, and on giving a fairer break to British industry as a whole.
The country may have to wait only a few more weeks or months for a Conservative Government, and it will be under the next Conservative Government that we shall see the right economic conditions and climate created for the changes which are long overdue.
8.48 p.m.
Mr. Robin Corbett: I do not recognise the Britain which is described in the Opposition motion. Although there is a problem with unemployment and the dole queue is disgracefully high, there are today more people at work in this country than there ever have been since the Second World War.
1068
I said in an earlier intervention that I do not recognise this picture of people in industry, particularly manufacturing industry, sitting on their bottoms, with their heads in their hands, crying "Woe, woe, woe". That is certainly not the case in Hertfordshire. We are luckier than many of the older towns and cities in the country, because we happen to be involved in some of the newer technologies, particularly electronics.
It is inevitable, in a debate of this kind, that we are perhaps more concerned with investment, incentives, production. productivity and the rest of it, but I believe that that is the wrong end of the problem from which to start. I believe that we have to go back to the beginning of this story, and that at the beginning of the story are people. People are the greatest asset that any organisation, company or country can have. That is easy enough to say, and it is often enough said, but I do not believe that it is often enough understood.
Success in any business, success for the country as a whole, can come only when people have been persuaded to co-operate, to accept change and, above all else, to be involved in what is going on. I believe that something else flows from that, and many of the troubles over the last 43 days in this country have shown it. It is that people at work have to be treated as individuals. They are not just numbers on a clocking-in card or one or a group of 200, 300, 400, 5,000 or 19,000 that clock in. People matter as individuals and must be treated as such.
Although not put exactly in this way, there have been calls from the Conservative Party for the days of the tough, all-powerful employer or the equally tough, all-powerful trade union leader who could bang the table in an executive meeting and order the results of decisions. We must accept that those days are gone and that there is no road back to that kind of centralised control. Most trade unions in this country have properly encouraged and enabled their members to have a more effective say in what happens. That is the reality. Indeed, it is a development that must be encouraged. Far too often, and especially when we do not like the results, this development is seen as a nuisance to appointed management or a threat to elected trade union representatives. But it is neither. It is

1069
positive. Like parliamentary democracy, trade union and workplace democracy thrives, develops and contributes best when more people are involved.
To use a simple analogy, the manager of every first-class football team in the country knows that between Monday and Friday he gets the best results from his team by managing and motivating them as individuals. He does that for only 90 minutes' work on a Saturday afternoon. If that is understood in that area, think of the benefits and bonuses that can flow from those responsible for managing people at work learning this lesson for 40 hours a week between Monday and Friday. That is what it is all about. We must find new and more effective ways of dealing with people at work.
But, in the present circumstances, those people who deny small children entrance to cemeteries to place flowers on graves, deny people entrance to hospital for treatment or refuse to bury the dead are behaving in an unacceptable way. There is no argument about that. But it is not enough to state that. We must ask ourselves what makes individual men and women at work behave in this way. What has happened to them? They do not have all-powerful trade union bosses breathing down their necks. Individual men and women at work have taken decisions to behave in this way, and we must try to understand what is going on.
It is no contribution to threaten to hit these people over the head with a new law. If we were quiet and listened better outside these walls, we would perhaps hear what is going on and respond. There are many thousands of people in all parts of the country who feel over-regimented and over-organised by employers, trade unions, Whitehall, town hall, county hall and big business that has become too large, remote and untouchable as it has become increasingly multinational. We should listen to what people are saying individually. They are saying "I am here. I am me. I matter. I want to be heard. My views matter." We must listen and respond, and we shall then have the beginning of a solution to our current problems.
There are three points to be considered. If I use the initials "RIP", Conservative members may see it as a fitting epitaph to our current troubles. But I mean
1070
"R" for responsibility, "I" for involvement and "P" for people.
When shall we learn that when we encourage people to exercise real responsibility they grow and respond and feel that they are working for something other than a pay packet at the end of the week? That lesson has been learnt by the voluntary organisations in which many of us are active. The people involved are not paid, but when they are given responsibility, have a say in what happens and have an effective control over the decisions, they respond. Why cannot we do that in industry?
I turn to "R" for involvement. We know that people who have been involved in the taking of a decision feel more ready to go along with that decision than with one which is imposed upon them. I suspect that most right hon. and hon. Members would not be keen to accept a decision which was imposed upon them. But if they are asked and their help and advice are sought most of us would walk over broken glass.
I turn to "P" for people. We must escape the assumption that because many people do the same job in the same type of factory they are the same. They are not. We are all distinct human beings. If we insist that that distinction is recognised outside the workplace, it is important that it be respected within the workplace. When people are respected as individual human beings, they give of their best.
I am saddened by the constant attacks upon trade unions. Trade unions are no more than the sum total of the individual men and women who make up their membership. They are no more than nameplates on buildings. If trade unions are so powerful and militant, why are the basic pay rates in Britain among the lowest in Europe? If the trade unions are so militant, why are we told that up to one-third of trade unionists and their families vote for and support the Conservatives? Clearly, that is not the answer to the problem.
Surely it is time that we in the House—with what influence we have, particularly in the manufacturing sector—learnt that compulsion is out. It cannot and will not work. We do not want it to work. I am sure that no hon. Members want to go back to a forelock-touching work force.

1071
If we say that the Government should have instant powers to compel and command people, we go down the road towards the type of totalitarian regime which is rightly condemned in many parts of the world.
The problem cannot be solved by edict. We must treat people as individuals and involve them more in what is happening in their workplaces. We must use that strength, investment and experience to overcome the present troubles.
8.58 p.m.
Mr. Hal Miller (Bromsgrove and Red-ditch): I can follow the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) in so far as I believe that the key to our industrial problems is in attitudes. But I cannot accept the total of the hon. Member's idealistic philosophy, however much I admire it. if he had accompanied me to the Longbridge picket line last weekend he would have found that those who had the responsibility and were involved were not acting responsibly or in the interests of their own future, or, indeed, that of their own members.
He would have discovered that a degree of compulsion was being exercised by the pickets, not only against those who wished to return to work but against those who were attempting to build the new factory and to install the new machines upon which the success of the BL rescue must ultimately depend.
Nationalisation, involvement of the NEB, Government grants, planning agreements or sanctions will not lead to our salvation. The Chrysler example illustrates the weakness of a planning agreement. That example shows that a planning agreement has no effect in the real world if there is not a competitive base that enables us to compete with other countries that pay their workers more than we pay ours. Workers in other countries have higher standards of safety. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) said, they enjoy higher standards of safey, pensions, holiday pay and better conditions in all other respects. However, they still remain competitive.
The problem lies with attitudes, and that is where the charge of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) against the Labour Government hits home. The Government
1072
have failed constructively to channel people's attitudes. They have failed to offer them hope, incentive or reward. The thought that investment is the way out of all our troubles is belied by the experience of money poured into so many industries. What we need to achieve is greater productivity that will in turn achieve greater output—an issue on which I questioned the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)—by a greater utilisation of existing capacity and existing investment. That may be seen from a study of productivity.
The greatest increase in labour productivity could easily be achieved if we could return to the stage where, during eight hours' work, seven and a half hours were actually worked, as is the practice in most competitor countries, or seven and three-quarter hours as in some developed countries. We achieve about six hours actually at work during eight hours. When we are at work we work as hard and as effectively as anybody else, but we have allowed our hours at work to fall. A reduction of working hours could easily be achieved as well as a reduction in overtime if more time were spent at work during so-called working hours.
Another significant increase in productivity could be achieved by the better presentation of work to the work force. If the presentation were improved, the work force could make greater use of the time spent at the machines. Better planning of production and a better supply of material would result in increased productivity. There are many occasions when production is delayed by an absence of the wherewithal to do the job. More effective maintenance of machinery by getting rid of demarcation disputes would have the same effect. Let us not look for panaceas such as planning agreements, investment or Government grants. The answer is much nearer home.
Over the past few years we have been witnessing a power struggle. It is clear that that has been recognised by some who have taken part in the debate. My charge against the Government is that they have come down on the wrong side. They have come down against responsible trade union activity. They have come down against managements that are trying to invest and to make a success to ensure that we still have an industrial base to enable us to feed our population.

1073
I shall give some examples of the way in which the Government have been less than even-handed. There is unequal bargaining. It is not possible to have free collective bargaining in unequal conditions. If we are not to have equal bargaining, I agree with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North that we must have a pay policy. I wish that we could return to a more equal bargain. That means enforceable wage agreements. There are enforceable agreements in other countries. The agreements are paid for. Why should such agreements not be complied with in Britain?
There are unequal laws. The Labour legislation on the closed shop gives unequal power against non-union members. There is an unequal law applying to unofficial disputes. There is no equality in the law and no protection for the ordinary citizen when we consider the present state of picketing. There are unequal sanctions. The Government have attempted to enforce their pay policy by requiring employers to do it for them. That was our argument with the Government over the sanctions on Ford. The Government would not stand up for their own policy. They were trying to force employers to do it for them without giving them any protection against unofficial, irresponsible union activity.
Now the Government have tried again with unequal sanctions through the Price Commission and the attempt to control prices, again hitting the employers and leaving them to deal with the unions. No wonder the ordinary union member is so dissatisfied. He realises that he has been put in a bind and that the Government have acted unfairly against his own employer. Finally, there are unequal rights because the elite of the trade unions somehow have a double vote. They have a vote in the election and another vote in the Cabinet. There is no justification for such dual representation.
The charge against the Government is that they have not been even-handed. They have tilted the balance of power in exactly the wrong way. Unless they are to redress that balance, they will be driven to having statutory pay policies, as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North pointed out.
This debate takes place at a critical time. The whole future of our manufac-
1074
turing base is at risk. Figures were released on the tapes today showing that industrial production in this country had risen by only 1 per cent. last year. We are faced with a situation where our industries are disappearing before our eyes. They have been listed: the steel industry, the textile industry, the shipbuilding industry, the motor car industry and the machine tool industry. The Government's only response has been to pour in money, provided by taxpayers in successful enterprises, and, more cruelly, provided by the workers themselves in those enterprises. No wonder they are fed up with their low take-home pay and the high prices resulting from high interest rates and high Government borrowing.
The Government have raised the expectations of the people but have denied their aspirations. They have flattered the unions but have ended by deceiving them because they have not done anything about unemployment. They have not done anything to safeguard the manufacturing, investment and employment that alone can provide the jobs for people in this country. They have not provided the safeguards whereby unions can conduct their own affairs responsibly against the militants leading unofficial strikes. The Government have adopted a totally static view of the economy. They have resisted attempts to change.
The final charge against the Government is that they have totally failed to govern. Instead of negotiating and dealing with the unions, which is the language that the unions have been brought up to understand, the Government have sought to propitiate and appease them. They have forfeited their respect and led the country down a slope of no return. That is our charge against the Government: they have failed to govern and have spent our money on appeasement.
9.10 p.m.
Mr. John Biffen: My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) opened the debate with a compelling and philosophic speech, and since then we have covered a wide range of matters, including incomes policy and trade union reform. I should like to reply to the debate on the rather more central issue of the erosion of our industrial base.
In a thoughtful and wide-ranging speech; the hon. Member for Bristol,

1075
North-East (Mr. Palmer) observed that the problem is one of long standing. No fair critic would deny that, but there is an urgency that attends our debates because there is now a strong feeling that the time for remedy is short and that that short period has been provided by the advantages that are believed to be conferred by North Sea oil. Perhaps it was put most succinctly by the Governor of the Bank of England, who said, in December:
"What we plainly must do is to use the breathing space that this bonus"—
North Sea oil—
"affords us to arrest and reverse our industrial decline."
I should like to put to the House—this has come through in the debate—that there are two recognisable elements that comprise the danger of de-industrialisation. The first is the profound challenge coming to many of our traditional manufacturing activities from new economies, frequently, though not necessarily, from Asia.
The second and more challenging problem is the steady decline of our economy relative to other OECD countries, which, presumably, is on account of our own industrial conservatism.
I should like to consider both those points—the second at rather more length than the first. I believe that the competitive challenge from without will get much stronger. The speed of Korean industrialisation, relative to how long it took Japan to industrialise, is a guide to what could happen to other economies in the Far East. They will take the faster route of Korea, and, heaven knows, the Japanese route seemed fast enough.
There is also the question of our trade with China, which, it is widely assumed, will take on considerably enhanced proportions. It is not realistic to suppose that the export of United Kingdom aerospace products will be paid for by bamboo shoots or table mats. There will be a reciprocal trade in manufactured goods. I cannot anticipate what they will be, though I note the anxieties of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). We have to accept that trade with China will result in an increasing invasion of our markets by the products of that economy.
1076
Of course this means that change will have to accelerate. It is a cruel deception to suppose that politicians can protect jobs. Politicians can postpone the moment of economic truth but they cannot avoid it. I give as one example the steel plants that were reprieved in 1975, which now make a melancholy roll call of the current closures—Clyde Iron, Hartlepool, East Moors and Ebbw Vale. The House must accept that there is an accelerating challenge of economic change.
No one who heard the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Mudd) could fail to have been moved by the eloquent and formidable way in which he defended his constituency interests. At the end of the day the Falmouth yard must be a commercial decision for British Shipbuilders, but the whole House will join me in hoping that another purchaser will be secured for the yard.
The second factor is the rather lacklustre performance of British industry generally. Some hon. Members sought to be specific about this. All hon. Members would have liked to hear more from the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman), had he had time to develop his case in a more leisurely way. He had a most carefully catalogued demonstration of the shortcomings of the economy.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Silverman) urged us not to knock British industry but to acknowledge that there was a competitive challenge for us. There is no doubt that manufacturing industry lies at the centre of our problems. I quote in aid an impeccable source—the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaking to the TUC industrial strategy conference in Birmingham on 16 November. He said:
"The performance of manufacturing industry is the central problem. Most of the other sectors of the economy—agriculture, retail distribution, the financial services, tourism and so on—are highly competitive."
The House would find it instructive to reflect for a moment on manufacturing industry, selected by the Chancellor as being in need of remedy, and all the other areas of the national economy which by his testimony had out-performed manufacturing industry. I do not pretend to divine the complexities which make these other sectors much more efficient than manufacturing industry, but whereas

1077
in manufacturing industry trade unionism is dominant, it is not so well established in other areas. Those who argue that there is a fiercely conservative force in trade unionism which impedes rising living standards would do well to diagnose the Chancellor's analysis and come to these conclusions.
I wish to consider four particular policies which I recommend to the Treasury Bench for adoption over the remaining three or four weeks of the life of this Government, so that we can go to the hustings with a degree of consensus. The four points are modest. We are wise to be modest in our ambitions. Recently my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) talked of undramatic progress, and this is just the right rhetoric. For the politics of raised expectation ill serves Britain, no less than the politics of envy.
The first policy point that I recommend to Labour Members is a policy of relaxation in respect of prices. It is, in fact, the very opposite to what the Government have been attempting to do in the recent past. In my view, the whole reason for greater pricing freedom is contained in the deplorable profit figures. Here I should like to pray in aid the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). A great deal of his speech was devoted to the virtues of an all-embracing incomes policy which was to have the most extraordinary, wide-ranging supervisory and regulatory role and was to be an extra-parliamentary body. The more I listened to him, the more I reflected that it would be dear to the heart of the most ambitious Brussels bureaucrat.
But it is not on prices and incomes that I wish to exchange opinions with the right hon. Gentleman this evening, because I am more anxious to establish areas of agreement. He said—and I quote his words—that profits were "pitifully low." The right hon. Gentleman is nodding his head, confirming his wise judgment. Indeed, profits are pitifully low because the rate of return for manufacturing companies, which ran in the early 1970s at just below 7 per cent., has dropped to less than 2 per cent. for most of the life of the present Government. It came back to 3.2 per cent. in 1977, but, according to the Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin for December,
1078
"Companies' real rate of return (excluding North Sea oil activities) seems likely to tall back, for 1978 as a whole, to the worst level of recent years."
The second point I recommend to the Treasury Bench as a policy of modest industrial renaissance is to end the danger of planning agreements. The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer)—as I heard his speech I wondered not so much about the manner of his going but how long he had lasted—convinced me that we would do well to mark the potential danger of planning agreements, for I have no doubt that they will feature in the concordat that we are promised for tomorrow.
There is always a danger when politicians and politically motivated trade unionists, rather than business men, set the investment plans. The danger is that there will be misapplied investment. I was encouraged in this view by the comments of Dr. Peter Caudle in respect of the chemical sector working party. I was absolutely riveted when the Secretary of State for Industry quoted the investment performance of the chemical industry as justification, and I should like to tell the House what might have happened.
On 6 December, when Dr. Caudle addressed a market research association, the Financial Times reported:
"Chemical plant worth £6 billion would be lying idle today if companies had based their investment on the 'totally unreal market projections' put forward by the Government and the trade unions, Dr. Peter Caudle, economics director of the Chemical Industries Association said yesterday."
He went on:
"Company managements, on whom survival of and prosperity of the chemical industry actually rests, cannot afford the mad folly of building real plants, using real national resources, to meet totally unreal market projections."
I turn now to the third piece of advice that I generously offer to the Treasury Bench. It concerns the question of interest rates. A minimum lending rate of 14 per cent. is not a rate which allows credit to perform its legitimate commercial function. It is much closer to usury. For many small businesses it means that rates of borrowing will have to be 17 per cent., or perhaps even more. That hits particularly at small businesses and also hits innovative businesses.
I was particularly interested in—my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton

1079
(Mr. Forman) mentioned this—the report, entitled "Industrial Innovation", of the advisory council for applied research and development, because it happened to appear on the very day of the 14 per cent. minimum lending rate. Dr. Alfred Spinks, the director of research at ICI, who chaired that committee, is reported to have said that Governments had neglected the real problems of innovation, such as the cost of entering a market and the long periods of negative cash flow it entailed.
A long period of negative cash flow coincidental with interest rates of this character is fatal. Therefore, the Government's policy is militating exactly against innovation, which is one of the very areas that we should be seeking to encourage.
I wish to have the bodily support of the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) in the Lobby tonight, so I turn to talking about Leeds United. The hon. Member seems to imagine that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey)—are a kind of Siamese twin of monetarism.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: They are.
Mr. Biffen: That is woefully misconceived, because the monetarism that is being pursued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is based upon high public spending and massive borrowing, and the whole argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East has been against the high public spending and the massive borrowing—particularly for the fact that it would throw a totally unreal, unnatural and unsustainable burden upon interest rates.
In responsible newspapers we see that there is the possibility—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which newspapers?"] I leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions. I leave it to hon. Members to confirm or deny the likelihood of the speculation. The speculation is that the 1979–80 borrowing requirement could reach £10 billion. That is on the assumptions that there will be no changes in taxation and that public spending will be in accordance with the recent public expenditure White Paper. I have to tell the Treasury Bench that the White Paper is already
1080
hopelessly out of date. There is absolutely no way in which prudent financing of the national economy could proceed on a public sector borrowing requirement of £10 billion.
We understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is now wrestling with the prospect of cuts in public spending and increases in indirect taxation. It may well be that there should be both. But the Budget must be so constructed as to make a significant impact upon the borrowing requirement and hold out the hope of falling interest rates, whilst at the same time permitting some reduction in direct taxation.
That takes me to the fourth point, where I recommend to Labour Members that there must be speedy cuts in the top rates of taxation. I deliberately use the word "top" but do not imagine that it will bring immediate political popularity. However, there must be a sense of realism to permeate these debates. There must be cuts in the top rates of taxation because, first, they will help to restore management morale—a point which concerned the hon. Member for Basildon—but, secondly, they will facilitate the growth of entrepreneurial small business. That is a challenge which is firmly before the Government.
The Governor of the Bank of England, whose speeches, I gather, do not altogether enjoy the warmest of support of the Secretary of State for Employment, said when talking in the context of industrial revival that it would
"also include readiness to adjust the balance of taxation to increase personal incentives and thus promote a climate more favourable to initiative and enterprise and to the willingness to work for a better living."
If I needed one further witness finally to convince the Secretary of State, I would quote the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, although I am not sure whether his ambivalence towards the Governor of the Bank of England is the same as that of some of his colleagues. The Chancellor was interviewed by Brian Walden—as good a revisionist as any. Doubtless feeling himself in congenial company, the Chancellor said:
"The rate of tax on salaried talent is very high in this country, … The putting of this right is a massive problem that will take a little time and I believe this to be a number one priority in the Chancellor's mind for future action—that's my own view: it ought to be".

1081
I am happy to endorse those comments, not least because I believe that it is in the small business sector that there will be a chance for growth in employment. Throughout the debate, from both sides of the House, there has been a natural and understandable concern that unemployment is now experienced on a scale that would never have been thought conceivable 10 or 15 years ago. I believe that the small business sector will play a significant role in seeking to remedy that problem.
I was particularly interested in the project that was recently commissioned by Shell UK Limited. A study was undertaken by Graham Bannock, managing director of the Economist advisory group. Mr. Bannock is probably the leading academic spokesman on the problems and opportunities of small businesses. I should like to quote one sentence from his findings:
"EAG, for example, has recently carried out a review of recent empirical research on inner cities, conurbations and regions to see what light it throws on the role of small firms. This work, which was financed by Shell UK Ltd., suggests that the majority of new jobs are in fact created by small firms."
I have mentioned four policies—price liberalisation, abandoning planning agreements, budgetary and monetary arrangements which are designed to produce lower interest rates—I know that to be of great interest to the hon. Member for Colne Valley—and, finally, a policy for incentive tax cuts. Those policies were not chosen at random. Behind them lies an underlying theme and objective—the rehabilitation of price and profit. Price and profit play an indispensable role as the signals of success and failure.
The House should learn that the nation can instruct us, by success and failure in the manufacturing skills at which Britain excels. We must learn to follow the philosophy of backing success rather than reinforcing failure.
The Government have shown that they neither trust nor understand the vital role of price and profit. The consequences of their obdurate negligence condemn them no less than our motion.
9.34 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): I congratulate the hon. Member for Owestry (Mr. Biffen) on his performance. It is a
1082
pleasure to see him on the Front Bench again. Regardless of the philosophical differences between us, no one on this side doubts the genuineness of the positions which he holds. For that reason, we pay considerable attention to what he says. We may not arrive at the same conclusions, or start from the same points, but we recognise that what he says merits attention.
I was somewhat disappointed that the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) did not mention any positive policy in his speech. I am sure that it would have been welcome in the country as a guide to the positive aspects of his thinking. We received many a penance for past errors and we detected a new-found obsession with chicken farming, but in terms of his long-term thinking there was very little guidance. I should have welcomed the right hon. Gentleman's recognition of his past errors more if I were not so worried about those that he would like to commit in future.
It is imperative, and it has been a feature of the debate, that we must not allow short-term situations to divert us from long-term objectives and opportunities. I think that it is accepted on both sides of the House that we still need to defeat inflation. It is essential to recognise the magnitude of the clawback that this country has made in three years from a 25 per cent. level of inflation to 8 per cent. Whatever differences there may be on approaches to the problem, it is remarkable that that has been achieved by consensus, without a statutory incomes policy, more successfully than any attempts under our Administration in the 1960s or the Conservative Administration in the early 1970s under statutory incomes policies. There is an important lesson here—that, in a democracy, consensus is always to be preferred to compulsion. I hope to return to that aspect in another context later.
The hon. Member for Oswestry said that relaxation of prices was an important prerequisite to increased profits. I disagree with him in the sense that it is essential that we make a break in the psychology of inflation which is now gripping the country. One can make a breakthrough in the monetary levels of inflation, but people still take a retro spective view of expectations. Therefore, it is important that we should not

1083
fuel this psychology of inflation, this high level of expectation. I submit that if the hon. Gentleman had his way and increased prices, that would add to the pressure for even higher rates of pay settlement.
As I said, that must remain a priority if we are to solve this country's problems, to remain competitive and to enable our major contractors to compete and tender. For example, the hon. Member for Oswestry referred to enormous contracts in China. Many are medium and longer-term contracts and take time to fulfil. Therefore, it is imperative for manufacturers who are competing to be able to work from a reasonably predictable cost base.
The hon. Gentleman referred to interest rates. I share the hope that I suspect he has that the current level of interest rates will be short-term. Industry tends to ignore any short-term level of interest rates and to take the long-term view.
We would at some stage be pleased to know the views of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East on interest rates and how they fit into his monetarist approach. He was singularly coy on that matter today. But I note that, disastrous as 14 per cent. was said to be by the hon. Member for Oswestry, the minimum lending rate reached 13 per cent. in November 1973, before we faced the world recession and oil crisis. Therefore, it seems mildly hypocritical of Opposition Members to bemoan policies pursued by this Government which the Conservative Government pursued in far less difficult circumstances.
Equally, it is important that, in the current atmosphere of difficult and perhaps even soured industrial relations, we should not take measures which risk turning what we all hope is a short-term manifestation into a permanent confrontation. If, as has been suggested in the press, there is a risk to investments from the uncertainty generated by the current situation, the uncertainty would be massively greater if it were thought that the current situation was likely to be perpetuated.
That is why I and many of my Labour colleagues are concerned with the approach of the right hon. Lady the
1084
Leader of the Opposition, who wishes to take the route of legal sanctions. As far back as the Betteshanger case and in the recent case involving the Pentonville five, we have seen the difficulties that face Governments who try to pursue this route as a means of controlling industrial relations.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East said that as a nation we must avoid adversary economics. However, the impression given to the country is that the right hon. Lady is hell-bent on a long-term confrontation with the trade union movement, and that is a real danger to industry.
As for the long term, there is common ground in our objectives. Both sides of the House have agreed that we wish to attain a high growth rate and a high productivity economy with high incomes for the work force. But the trade unions must understand that high incomes without productivity mean only lost markets, higher domestic inflation and increasing unemployment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) said that the roots of our present difficulties go deep into our economic and industrial history. The goal of growth, high incomes and high productivity has eluded every post-war Government. The combination of balance of payments circumstances and Britain's role as a reserve currency holder has led to our growth being cut time and again through sterling crises. The consequent economic see-saw, which became known as stop-go, discouraged investment by the manufacturer because he could not predict the long-term rate of return. It encouraged the trend of taking on a work force to meet the rise in the market, and troughs were dealt with by shedding the same work force. This created doubts among the work force about investment and new equipment. Therefore, the cycle generated by stop-go has led to under-investment and under-utilisation of investment. It has also resulted in low wages and low productivity.
Let me come to the effect of North Sea oil. North Sea oil—and on this matter the hon. Member for Oswestry and I are at one—is a buffer against currency pressures which have diverted successive Chancellors of the Exchequer under

1085
various Administrations whenever they have attempted to go for growth in the past. It gives major advantages to our nation, and, since I speak as a Minister with responsibilities for inward investment, I find that this aspect is a major factor for overseas companies. Those companies are aware of the fact that in the mid-1980s we shall be the only OECD country that will be self-sufficient in energy and that we shall be the EEC's major source of energy.
The discovery of North Sea oil has given us time and resources, but it has not given us the solution to our difficulties. We have an opportunity—but no more than an opportunity—for sustained growth. Therefore, we must not just utilise North Sea resources but must try to maximise them. This is why we give high priority to downstream development.
Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's comments on petrochemicals. Nobody wishes industry to make investments that will not be viable or productively useful. The fact is that the whole of the petrochemical industry has been taken by surprise by the rapid fall in demand for its products, and surplus capacity has been a feature not just of Western European countries but of many advanced countries.
The aim of maximising the added value from the North Sea is a key element in the industrial strategy. Manufacturing has been given top priority in our allocation of resources. The industrial strategy is based on a voluntary planning process—which is anathema to the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East. It is a tripartite process, fully supported and advocated by the CBI and the TUC. In a nation which has been beset by the inability of one part of industry to talk to another, it is peculiar for the Opposition to think of setting aside one of the few areas in which constructive communication has been taking place throughout the years about the present and future state of industry.
The aim must be to improve long-term competitiveness and ensure that investment matches opportunities. In the last two years we have seen a small turn around in our fortunes in relation to trade, partly as a result of the combined efforts of industry. Our share of world trade has risen. In the last 12 months, we have
1086
seen an increase of 3 per cent. in our GDP. But to take advantage of the opportunity that exists I believe that we must carry on with the fullest tripartite discussion, reach down further into industry, and talk to the decision makers.
I contrast this approach with that of the Conservative Government in the early 1970s. In July 1971, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, now Lord Barber—the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East, as well as the Leader of the Opposition, were members of that Government—removed all credit controls without any consultation with industry and without any attempt to establish whether industry had the capacity to meet the demand that would be generated. My discussions with industry indicate that it has never forgiven the then Chancellor and that Administration for that incredible error of communication and judgment.
Within a year, an extra £100 million worth of cars was being sucked into this country. Within two years, imports of domestic electric appliances had doubled. In conjunction with the removal of these credit controls, the right hon. Gentleman committed what would now be almost an original sin, judging from the comments of Conservative Members. In 1970, the growth in money supply was 9·5 per cent. In 1973, by the time they left office, it was 27·5 per cent. Yet the Conservatives lecture to us about the control of the money supply.
The result was that although in 1970 the Tories inherited the best opportunity to attain growth that we have had in the post-war period, they squandered it. In 1971, the surplus on balance of payments was £1,090 million. Yet within two years, as a result of the money supply activities and the credit policy of the then Conservative Government, a £1,000 million surplus had been turned into a £1,000 million deficit.
In 1974, we were left to contend with a £3,500 million deficit. Yet they ask us why we have not attained a higher rate of growth in the economy. They left us to contend with the world recession, with the oil crisis, with their three-day working week, with a historically high level of deficit, and with inflation that was running at 17 per cent. during their last six months of office and at 22 per cent. in

1087
their last month of office. Superimposed on that, we inherited the threshold pay deal, which had a major inflationary effect. That we had to fulfil, although it had been introduced by the previous Conservative Government.
I now turn to the question of high productivity and higher incomes. It is imperative for everyone to accept that we must create wealth in order to consume it. It is wrong to fear productivity. There is a tendency for far too many people to fear productivity and the job loss that might ensue from it. If we do not invest in the latest technology there will be no jobs for anyone, as the whole unit will become non-competitive. The Department of Employment carried out a study, based on the years 1950 to 1973, of the 10 industries which had the largest productivity increases in this country. It found that all of them increased their employment. The statisticians and economists in my Department carried out a study over 10 years of those countries which attained the highest levels of efficiency. All had managed to maintain their levels of employment. There is an important lesson here in terms of our own future.
While productivity is low, on average, in this country, it is not universally low. There are many instances where companies attain internationally competitive levels of productivity. Companies such as Cummings Engines, Honeywell, and many international firms will say that they are able to attain levels of productivity in this country equal to those that they attain elsewhere. However, all too often that is not the case.
I turn from the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman) about management.
Why is it that some of these international firms achieve the international levels of productivity that other firms cannot achieve, when they are both using the same labour force? The sector working parties identified that higher productivity was essential in most sectors of industry. I must reiterate this point to the Opposition, who see productivity purely as a function of labour. Productivity is a relationship between labour and capital investment. That was recognised by one hon. Member for Colne Valley (Mr.
1088
Wainwright) in his comments about investment.
In a National Institute for Economic and Social Research paper last year, it was shown that the average British worker had only £1,000 of capital equipment back-up. The German worker has £2,000 and the Japanese worker £2,500 of backup. The French worker has a back-up of from £2,500 to £3,000. That of the United States worker is £3,000 to £3,500.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is about to ask the question that I think he will ask.
Sir Keith Joseph: Could not the same proposition be put that we have two workers for every unit of investment, compared with the economies which the Minister quoted?
Mr. Williams: I am afraid that it cannot. The right hon. Gentleman need look only at the capital stock of a company such as Leyland and compare it with the capital stock of the companies that have been pushing it out of the market, and he will understand the role of capital. It is a worrying day for the country if the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Lady do not understand that the failure to provide the appropriate capital back-up will mean that there is no chance of achieving appropriate levels of productivity. That is why we argue that section 8, with its £2,400 million worth of investment projects already approved, and with another £2,000 million of investment in the pipeline, is so important. That is why the Industry Act money is so important. That is why it is so disturbing, at a time when industry is beginning to increase its investment, that the right hon. Gentleman speaks yet again—as the Conservatives did in 1970—of withdrawing the very inducements that could have generated investment.
Let us look at the investment situation. The record of the Conservative Party on investment is deplorable. In 1970 the Tory Government inherited the greatest peak in manufacturing investment ever attained in this country. Despite all their talk about tax cuts, dashes for growth, and pretensions to understand industry, the fact is that the Tories never again equalled the level of investment that they inherited in 1970. Indeed, by 1972, in real terms, the level of investment had fallen by virtually 25 per cent. below the

1089
level of 1970. It never got back there, whereas under this Administration, even in the middle of a recession, in 1977, we attained levels of real investment that were higher than those achieved by the Tories in 1972 and 1973, in the midst of their paper boom.
In 1978 we did better again. In 1979, with the growth of investment that is taking place—and when we make allowances for the virtual 10 per cent. of manufacturing investment that now takes place under leasing arrangements—we shall find that investment in this year will probably exceed the previous peak of 1970. Yet the Opposition have the impudence to preach to the Government about the need for investment and how to attain it.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: Without in the least trying to decry the contrast, to which the Minister is effectively pointing, between the rate of investment under the Conservative Administration and now, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that unfortunately most of our foreign competitors have increased their rate of investment much more strikingly than we have?
Mr. Williams: My memory does not go back far enough for me to know how much investment increased the last time the Liberal Party was in office, but it is a fact that our investment has been too low. We accept that. The important thing is that at last it is moving in the right direction, and the Opposition are talking of doing the very thing that they did in 1970, when they removed the investment grants. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East is again talking of removing the incentives and the financial support, and again destroying the growth of investment that we have attained.
In 1977, manufacturing investment, excluding iron and steel, increased by 13 per cent. Last year it increased by between 13 per cent. and 15 per cent. This year it will increase by between 4 per
cent. and 8 per cent. This shows that industry is not as despondent as are Conservative Members. I talk to private industry daily because I am responsible for the private sector, and the figures that I have given are the figures for the private sector. Under this Administration we are attaining levels of investment that were never attained under any previous Conservative Administration.
The Conservatives are very coy and sensitive about public expenditure cuts. If they want to avoid uncertainty in industry, why do they not put industry out of its misery? Why do they not say where the cuts are to take place? Is there to be the £5,000 million cut next year, as indicated in the speech of the Shadow Chancellor last March? He identified only housing and trade and industry. If cuts are made in those sectors, they will mean a cut of 50 per cent. in the public expenditure in those sectors. What effect will that have on the construction industry? What effect will it have on industry generally? What effect will it have on regional policy?
We must remember that a major element in this sector is regional spending. I was on television on 2 February with the Shadow Secretary of State for Wales, who said that it was a figment of my imagination that the Opposition would cut spending on regional assistance. That was on Friday 2 February. On Thursday 8 February, in Committee on the Industry Bill, amendments were tabled by the Conservative Front Bench proposing reductions of £150 million in expenditure by the Welsh Development Agency and reductions of £400 million in expenditure by the Scottish Development Agency. The Conservatives' policies are just not worth the hot air on which they are carried.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 277, Noes 261.

Division No.78]

AYES

[10.00 p.m.

Abse, Leo

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Allaun, Frank

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Anderson, Donald

Bates, Alf

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Bean, R. E.

Bradley, Tom

Armstrong, Ernest

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Ashley, Jack

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Ashton, Joe

Bidwell, Sydney

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Buchan, Norman

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

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Buchanan, Richard

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Boardman, H.

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

Huckfield, Les

Pavitt, Laurie

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Pendry, Tom

Campbell, Ian

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Perry, Ernest

Canavan, Dennis

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Phipps, Dr Colin

Cant, R. B.

Hunter, Adam

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Carmichael, Neil

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Price, William (Rugby)

Carter, Ray

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Radice, Giles

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Cartwright, John

Janner, Greville

Richardson, Miss Jo

Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Clemitson, Ivor

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Cohen, Stanley

John, Brynmor

Robinson, Geoffrey

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Corbett, Robin

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

Cowans, Harry

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Rooker, J. W.

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Craigen, Jim(Maryhill)

Judd, Frank

Rowlands, Ted

Crawshaw, Richard

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Ryman, John

Cronin, John

Kelley, Richard

Sedgemore, Brian

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Kerr, Russell

Selby, Harry

Cryer, Bob

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Sever, John

Cunningham, Dr J. (Whlteh)

Kinnock, Neil

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Davidson, Arthur

Lambie, David

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Lamborn, Harry

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

Lamond, James

Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Leadbitter, Ted

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Deakins, Eric

Lee, John

Silverman, Julius

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

Skinner, Dennis

Dempsey, James

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Dewar, Donald

Litterick, Tom

Snape, Peter

Doig, Peter

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Spriggs, Leslie

Dormand, J. D.

Lomas, Kenneth

Stallard, A. W.

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Loyden, Eddie

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Falham)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Luard, Evan

Stoddart, David

Lyon, Alexander (York)

Stott, Roger

Dunn, James A.

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Strang, Gavin

Dunnett, Jack

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

Eadie, Alex

McCartney, Hugh

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Edge, Geoff

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Swain, Thomas

Ellis, John (Brig & Scun)

McElhone, Frank

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

English, Michael

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

Ennals, Rt Hon David

McGuire, Michael (Ince)

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Evans, Gwyntor (Carmarthen)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Maclennan, Robert

Tierney, Sydney

Evans, John (Newton)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Tilley, John

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Madden, Max

Tinn, James

Faulds, Andrew

Magee, Bryan

Tomlinson, John

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Mahon, Simon

Tomney, Frank

Flannery, Martin

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Torney, Tom

Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

Marks, Kenneth

Tuck, Raphael

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Urwin, T. W.

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Ford, Ben

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Forrester, John

Maynard, Miss Joan

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Meacher, Michael

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

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

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Watkins, David

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Mikardo, Ian

Watkinson, John

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Weetch, Ken

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Weltzman, David

George, Bruce

Molloy, William

Wellbeloved, James

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Moonman, Eric

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Ginsburg, David

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

White, James (Pollok)

Golding, John

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Whitlock, William

Gould, Bryan

Morris. Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Wigley, Dafydd

Gourlay, Harry

Morton, George

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Graham, Ted

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Grocott, Bruce

Newens, Stanley

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Noble, Mike

Wilson, Rt Hon Harold (Huyton)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Oakes, Gordon

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Ogden, Eric

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

O'Halloran, Michael

Woodall, Alec

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Woof Robert

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Ovenden, John

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Heffer, Eric S.

Padley, Walter

Young, David (Bolton E)

Home Robertson, John

Palmer, Arthur

Horam, John

Park, George

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

Parker, John

Mr. James Hamilton and

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Parry, Robert

Mr. Donald Coleman.

1092

1093

NOES

Adley, Robert

Gorst, John

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Aitken, Jonathan

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Morgan, Geralnt

Alison, Michael

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Grey, Hamish

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Arnold, Tom

Grieve, Percy

Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Griffiths, Eldon

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Mudd, David

Awdry, Daniel

Grist, Ian

Neave, Airey

Baker, Kenneth

Grylls, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Beith, A. J.

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Neubert, Michael

Bell, Ronald

Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

Newton, Tony

Bendall, Vivian

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Nott, John

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Hampson, Dr Keith

Onslow, Craniey

Benyon, W.

Hannam, John

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Berry, Hon Anthony

Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss

Page, John (Harrow West)

Biffen, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Biggs-Davison, John

Hastings, Stephen

Page, Richard (Workington)

Blaker, Peter

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Paisley, Rev Ian

Body, Richard

Hawkins, Paul

Pardoe, John

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hayhoe, Barney

Parkinson, Cecil

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Pattie, Geoffrey

Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

Heseltine, Michael

Penhaligon, David

Bradford, Rev Robert

Hicks, Robert

Percival, Ian

Braine, Sir Bernard

Higgins, Terence L.

Pink, R. Bonner

Brittan, Leon

Hodgson, Robin

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Brooke, Hon Peter

Holland, Philip

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Brotherton, Michael

Hooson, Emlyn

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Raison, Timothy

Bryan, Sir Paul

Howell, David (Guildford)

Rathbone, Tim

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Rees, Peter (Dower & Deal)

Buck, Antony

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Budgen, Nick

Hurd, Douglas

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Bulmer, Esmond

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Burden, F. A.

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Rhodes James, R.

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

James, David

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Carlisle, Mark

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

Ridsdale, Julian

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Jessel, Toby

Rifkind, Malcolm

Channon, Paul

Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Churchill, W. S.

Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Jopling, Michael

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Royle, Sir Anthony

Clegg, Walter

Kilfedder, James

Sainsbury, Tim

Cockcroft, John

King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

King, Tom (Bridgwater)

Scott, Nicholas

Cope, John

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Cormack, Patrick

Knight, Mrs Jill

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Costain, A. P.

Knox, David

Shepherd, Colin

Critchley, Julian

Lamont, Norman

Shersby, Michael

Crouch, David

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Silvester, Fred

Crowder, F. P.

Latham, Michael (Melton)

Sims Roger

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Lawrence, Ivan

Sinclair, Sir Geogre

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Lawson, Nigel

Skeet, T. H. H.

Drayson, Burnaby

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Smith, Timothy John (Aahfleld)

Durant, Tony

Lloyd, Ian

Speed, Keith

Dykes, Hugh

Loveridge, John

Spence, John

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Luce, Richard

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Elliott, Sir William

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Sproat, Iain

Emery, Peter

McCrindle, Robert

Stainton, Keith

Eyre, Reginald

Macfarlane, Neil

Stanbrook, Ivor

Fairbairn, Nicholas

MacGregor, John

Stanley, John

Fairgrieve, Russell

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Farr, John

Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

Fell, Anthony

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Stokes, John

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Madel, David

Stradling Thomas, J.

Forman, Nigel

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Tapsell, Peter

Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

Marten, Neil

Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

Fox, Marcus

Mates, Michael

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

Mather, Carol

Tebbit, Norman

Freud, Clement

Mawby, Ray

Temple-Morris, Peter

Fry, Peter

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

Mayhew, Patrick

Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

Townsend, Cyril D. Trotter,

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

Mills, Peter

Neville

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Miscampbell, Norman

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Glyn, Dr Alan

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

Moate, Roger

Viggers, Peter

Goodhart, Philip

Monro, Hector

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Goodhew, Victor

Montgomery, Fergus

Wakeham, John

Goodlad, Alastair

Moore. John (Croydon C)

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

1094

1095

Wall, Patrick

Whitney, Raymond

Walters, Dennis

Wiggin, Jerry

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Warren, Kenneth

Winterton, Nicholas

Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

Weatherill, Bernard

Wood, Rt Hon Richard

Mr. Michael Roberts.

Wells, John

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Younger, Hon George

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the general objectives of Her Majesty's Government's industrial strategy and in particular the fostering of growth industries such as micro-electronics, the measures to ease the difficulties of industries like steel, textiles and ship-building which face cyclical and structural problems, and the promotion of industrial ventures on a national and regional basis through the National Enterprise Board and its regional boards, the Scottish Development Agency, the Welsh Development Agency and the Northern Ireland Development Agency.

OFFICIAL INFORMATION [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to repeal section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(i) any expenses incurred by a Minister of the Crown or a Government department in consequence of the provisions of that Act of this Session;

(ii) the expenses of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration under that Act of this Session; and

(iii) any increase attributable to that Act of this Session in sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment;

(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any fees received under that Act of this Session—[Mr. John Evans.]

THEATRES TRUST AND LONDON PAVILION
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Evans.]
10.19 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I should like to talk briefly about the Theatres Trust and to go on to the specific problem of the London Pavilion.
I gave the Government's blessing to the establishment of the Theatres Trust when I was Minister for the arts. It was set up as a result of a Private Member's Bill introduced not by the Archbishop of Canterbury but by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). Such a Bill cannot attract Government money and it was clearly understood when the hon. Member, one of the few Conservatives with a real feeling for the arts, introduced the Bill that it could not carry any attachment of Government money.
However, when I was Minister it was never my intention that the trust should be excluded for ever from the beneficence of the State. The trust has no purpose other than to sustain the physical fabric of the theatre of this country. That purpose is so beneficent as to make it obvious that, as soon as the opportunity presented itself, any civilised Government would wish to seize it in order to help the trust in a task that is not only culturally essential but economically and socially valuable. That opportunity has now arisen.
The Government announced today their intention to set up a national heritage fund to replace the national land fund. I congratulate the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on introducing the White Paper. All that now needs to be done is for the Minister who is to reply to the debate to say that he will recommend to the Chief Secretary, who was no bad friend to me when I was a Minister, that the Theatres Trust and other theatre-owning trustees in London and other parts of the country, designated by the Theatres Trust as suitable, may apply to the national heritage fund for help towards the purchase or maintenance of essential theatre buildings. I hope that the Minister will feel able to do that. I am
1098
asking him not to commit the Government but merely to say that he will transmit my proposal—with his blessing, I hope—to the Chief Secretary.
Turning to the specific case of the London Pavilion, at first glance it may not seem to be a very good case. The London Pavilion occupies the best theatre site in the West End. It is a listed building and one of the few that are worth looking at in the West End, as distinct from SW1 and other parts of London where there are still many good old buildings and one or two good new buildings. Indeed, it is beginning to dawn on some people that the National Theatre is one such good new building. The London Pavilion also has a distinguished theatrical history.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Canterbury, to whose perspicacity in introducing the Bill I have just paid tribute, is entering the Chamber. I am glad to repeat my congratulations.
Having mentioned those three not inconsiderable attributes of the London Pavilion—its history, the value of the building and its prime site—what else can I say? Is there only a dirge after that? I must admit that the place has not been used as a theatre for donkey's years. But wait. Is one entitled to draw the inference that has been drawn that no one has wanted, or does not want, to use it as a theatre? Not at all. It was acquired by cinema interests at the birth of the talkies. If my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary does not recall the birth of the talkies, at least Mr. Speaker will. For a time it seemed that this new development would sweep the theatre away. The cinema interests that acquired the Pavilion made a packet. It has been a successful cinema ever since.
Why should cinema interests relinquish this to theatre people? The owners have never been willing to sell, so until the lease began to run short there was never any question of the Pavilion's returning to its original and proper use. Immediately it was known that the building might become available, two major West End theatre managers made overtures and bids to restore it to its rightful role. The idea that the fact that the building had not been used as a theatre for many years meant that it was not wanted as a theatre is fallacious.

1099
The theatre is short of buildings in London—so much so that cinemas have started to return to being used as theatres. Examples of this are the Astoria, the London Casino and whatever it is that houses "The Rocky Horror Show" along the King's Road.
Everybody concerned is opposed to proposals for the London Pavilion that have been provisionally approved—only provisionally, thank God—by the Westminster city council, with the blessing of the landlords, the GLC. These proposals will destroy the London Pavilion as a theatre. The Arts Council, the Theatres Trust, the Piccadilly Campaign, the Soho Society, the Cinema-Theatre Association, Equity, NATKE, the Musicians Union, the Save London's Theatres Campaign and are all opposed to the proposal to destroy the London Pavilion as a theatre.
Who are the destroyers? Who supports the vandals? Mr. Horace Cutler, of the GLC. Mr. Laurie Marsh, of Cooney Marsh, one of the leading London theatrical producers and theatre owners, wrote to Mr. Cutler. He complained to the GLC that Mr. Sandford, who apparently runs the Westminster city council—or seems to—had refused to listen to Mr. Marsh's proposals, which he argued would not only preserve the theatre but improve the traffic scheme.
The present plans, which have been provisionally approved by the West-minster city council, envisaged three floors of shopping surmounted by a restaurant and two small cinemas on top of each other. This would increase the height of the building by about 30 ft.
Mr. Marsh is also chairman and chief executive of Classic Cinemas. This is very interesting, because Classic is the third largest chain of cinemas in the United Kingdom. His proposals have not been effectively and properly considered. They were not before the Westminster city council committee which, in spite of being never really allowed fully to know the objections or the alternatives, voted by a narrow majority to endorse their eager leader's mania. This is not wholly a party matter. There were some members of the council who were not carried away by the enthusiasm of their leadership to destroy this historic cinema.
1100
What goes on here? I quote from a letter that Mr. Marsh wrote to Mr. Cutler:
"I have heard nothing from Councillor Sandford or any of the other persons who were clearly endeavouring to press forward with the plans already submitted, whether they were better or worse than mine."
What did Mr. Cutler have the infernal cheek to reply? He told a highly successful theatre owner and producer that his proposals were not commercially viable and that he would not look at them.
What else did Mr. Cutler do? The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas)—I am glad to see him in his place—is on the side of the angels in this matter, as is appropriate for him. He wrote to Mr. Cutler on 11 January, saying:
"Dear Horace, I am very concerned about the future of the London Pavilion and I have had a whole number of representations and delegations to see me about its future. They are very concerned that the proposed development of the Pavilion area will mean the loss of the chances of the Pavilion returning to the status of a legitimate theatre. I must say I have great sympathy with them. I believe the ideal solution would be for the Pavilion to revert to its original use as a theatre. Failing this"
—and this is to the hon. Member's credit—
"it should be preserved as a cinema. It would be very helpful if we could have a meeting about this with myself present as Opposition Spokesman on the Arts, together with representatives of Save the London Theatres and Mr. Lawrence Marsh, who, I understand, has proposals to put forward. Perhaps we could be in communication to see if a convenient time for us and a place could be arranged."
What happened? We do not know. We have heard rumours, but we do not know. What I do know is that I arranged to see the Secretary of State—
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I am glad to be associated with the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) in trying to preserve this theatre for the future. I have not been in agreement with Mr. Cutler on the future of the building, but he came to the meeting with his supporters and was extremely courteous. He listened to all the arguments that were put forward, but unhappily he was unable to accept them. I should like to pay tribute to him for the way in which he

1101
listened and for giving up a whole morning to the discussion. At least, each side had the opportunity of hearing the other's views.
Mr. Jenkins: I readily understand that the hon. Member would wish to pay his tribute to the leader of the GLC. However, what happened subsequently was that I arranged to see the Secretary of State, together with the hon. Member for Chelmsford, the Shadow Leader of the House, to ask him to call for a public inquiry so that the whole issue could be thrashed out. We did not expect him necessarily to adopt our suggestion. One could hardly ask the Secretary of State to do that, because I think that he takes up a quasi-judicial position in these matters. We simply expected him to say that there would have to be an inquiry before a decision could be taken.
We had an appointment, but the hon. Member for Chelmsford was not there. It may be that he was unavoidably prevented from being there.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misinterpret my position. I had no appointment with the Minister. I wrote to the Secretary of State for the Environment, who very kindly suggested that I might accompany him to a meeting that he had arranged. Unfortunately, because of my timetable that morning, I could not be present.
Mr. Jenkins: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman could not be present. I hope that it is not true that the reason why he was not present was that Mr. Cutler—so I was told—got in touch with the Leader of the Opposition and that it was as a result of that communication that the hon. Gentleman was not present. That may not be so, and if the hon. Gentleman says that it was not so, of course I entirely accept what he says. But, for one reason or another, the hon. Gentleman did not accompany me.
Fortunately—I think that he will be glad to know this—although the hon. Gentleman was not present on that occasion, and in spite of the fact that he was not present—and I would have been very glad of his company, because it would have put this matter on an all-party basis—the Minister of State who saw me on that occasion said that he would com-
1102
municate with Westminster city council and ask it not to make the matter final at its meeting which was to take place that night. That was the urgency of the matter. If the council had made a final decision that night, I do not think that we would have had this debate tonight, because it would have been too late.
Therefore, although the hon. Gentleman was not there physically, I give him full credit for being there in spirit. I believe that possibly his spirit helped me to convince the Minister, because I was able to say that I had the hon. Gentleman's support. The hon. Member for Chelmsford is on record as giving his support, so there was no question about whether I was telling the Minister the truth, because I was able to produce cuttings to substantiate that. Therefore, I think that the Minister was convinced that this was an all-party matter.
I put that matter on one side, not wishing to pursue it, because I am much more concerned to save the London Pavilion than to argue the question who is or is not responsible for saving it. It still leaves the GLC and the Westminster city council alone in reality.
How were the objections to which I have referred placed before the Westminster city council? I must not take up too much time, because I want to leave my hon. Friend time to reply, but, I must say that the manner in which the massive objections were placed before the city council was hardly worthy of a matter that is of national importance. The director of architecture and planning of the City of Westminster submitted a document of about 20 paragraphs, culminating in a recommendation. Of those 20 paragraphs, only one referred to objections. It was headed "consultations". It said:
"There have been objections from the following organisations and societies: The Theatres' Trust, the National Association of Theatrical, Television and Kine Employees, the Cinema Theatre Association, the Save London's Theatres Campaign. A summary of their objections is: the potential loss of a theatre, and the unacceptable appearance of the glass superstructure above roof level for the upper cinema."
That is all that the Westminster city council town planning committee was presented with as a summary of objections from six or seven different bodies, each one of which occupied several pages of

1103
typescript. That summary, at that stage, was all that the Westminster city council received.
I therefore submit that the matter was never properly considered by the council, because the objections, which were massive, were dismissed in a single paragraph and never placed in full before the council, certainly not at this stage, at any rate. They were simply summarised in that very cursory and undesirable fashion.
I was in receipt of a letter from Councillor Sandford. He said:
"Thank you for your letter of 1 December 1978 enclosing a copy of your letter of 17 August to Sir James Swaffield and your letter of 8 November to Mr. G. Lacey of Westminster City Council.
Regretfully, I cannot agree with the line the Trust is taking.
Yours sincerely."
That is all. That is a cursory dismissal of a considered and stated objection from a body which contains people of all parties and which was not put forward in any partisan manner whatsoever.
There it is. In the circumstances, perhaps it is a miracle that this enormous pressure has not produced an irreversible result. But it is reversible.
Let me finally say why the result should be reversed in the words of a recommendation other than my own. I refer to a letter which appeared in The Guardian last week, under the heading of "Save the Pavilion". It said:
"We appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Peter Shore, to hold a public inquiry into plans for the redevelopment of the London Pavilion."
It went on to say what an overwhelming wish there is within the theatrical profession for this theatre not to be lost if at all possible. It is signed
"Peggy Ashcroft, John Gielgud, Laurence Olivier, Flora Robson."
I submit that those four names make this issue a matter of national importance, if nothing else does so.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to recommend to the Secretary of State that he calls in this application and that there be a public inquiry. Everything is as has been said. The public and complete conclusion is that the London Pavilion must, in effect, become a shell housing a conglomerate. If that
1104
were the ultimate conclusion after very full public consideration, I would have to say "So be it", but I ask my hon. Friend to say that what happens in the heart of the West End to a building, of no mean stature and of no mean history is a matter of national importance and that its fate must be determined with the full knowledge of the facts, openly and in the light of day.
10.40 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Guy Barnett): My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins), who is well known to the House for his concern over theatres, made an interesting speech about both the Theatres Trust and the London Pavilion.
I am glad to see the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), who piloted the Theatres Trust Bill through the House, because he and I will remember one debate that took place in which we both took part.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Putney will understand that I cannot answer all the questions that he put to me, because the subject is mainly for the Department of Education and Science. I shall try to be as helpful as I can on those points with which I am competent to deal.
My hon. Friend dealt, first, with the question of the Theatres Trust and the issues that arose at the time of the legislation about the possibility of granting funds to enable the trust to carry out its duty.
The Theatres Trust Act 1976 was promoted as a Private Member's Bill and, as my hon. Friend clearly stated, that made it impossible to include in it a money resolution committing Government funds to finance the trust. The Government were able to support the Bill only on that understanding. Ministers not only said that during the passage of the Bill; they have also had to remind my hon. Friend of it on subsequent occasions.
The fact is that in passing the Act Parliament empowered the trust to pursue various activities in furtherance of its object of protecting theatres for the benefit of the nation, but it did not require it to carry out any or all of these activities, many of which are still held in reserve. The presence among the

1105
trustees of those who might be expected to be able to encourage private funds to help the trust to fulfil its object is surely indicative of the promoters' original aspirations regarding finance.
The Government have gone along with these arrangements, and have been happy to do so. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science appoints the trustees, but that is the limit of the Government's function and responsibilities.
The requirement to consult the Theatres Trust about all applications for planning permission involving theatres was introduced into the general development order and was the Government's response to a specific request. In order to accommodate the trust's wish to be consulted about development proposals involving any land on which there is a theatre, the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1976 was amended to include the trust among the bodies to be consulted. In being consulted in this way, the trust is in a privileged position accorded to few other bodies.
The requirement to be consulted under the general development order was not thrust upon the trust but was made entirely at its own request. I thought that I should make that clear. I know that the trust has important work to do. I do not suggest that it would want the burden of being consulted to be removed, because I know of the enthusiasm and interest which the trust takes in the work that it undertakes. However, I regret that the Government are not able to find money to give support in the way suggested by my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend mentioned the national heritage fund, about which he knows a White Paper has just been published. He asked me to consult the Chief Secretary to ask whether that fund could be made available for purposes that he outlined in his speech. I understand that that fund is to be independent, with trustees appointed by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Education and Science. I believe that it will have authority to spend up to £1 million without seeking authority from the Government. In that sense, I advise my hon. Friend, when the trust is set up, to seek to press his case with it rather than with the Chief Secretary or the Government.
1106
I turn now to the issue of the London Pavilion. The proposal for redevelopment ought, first, to be seen as part of a series of proposals for the Piccadilly area. The House will know of the long history of planning difficulties that have affected the Piccadilly Circus area, stretching back over 20 years. During that time a number of schemes for the comprehensive redevelopment of the area have been prepared but eventually abandoned for one reason or another.
Subsequently, in 1972, Westminster city council, which is the local planning authority, published fresh proposals in the form of a consultation document and invited public participation in determining the general principles for the redevelopment of the area. Out of this emerged the planning brief approved by the council. It sets out guidelines for the piecemeal and gradual rehabilitation of the Piccadilly Circus area and provides an opportunity to end years of indecision and blight which have so adversely affected this part of London. The Government and, I am sure, all those who have the interests of Piccadilly Circus at heart are anxious that the redevelopment and rehabilitation of the area should proceed without further undue delay.
Some progress has already been made. The redevelopment of the Monico site is now almost complete, and plans for the Criterion site, including provision for the Criterion theatre, have been approved. Other schemes are in the pipeline. Plans are now well advanced for the redevelopment and rehabilitation of the Trocadero site—and they include the rehousing of the Almost Free theatre. There are also proposals for the redevelopment of 19 to 23 Shaftesbury Avenue, in which the Piccadilly tourist centre was until recently temporarily housed. The centre is now to be relocated in Great Windmill Street on a site to be vacated when the Shaftesbury Avenue development is ready, So, after two decades of discussion—and frustration—a start is at last being made in dealing with this important area.
This, then, is the background against which the planning application to redevelop the London Pavilion site must be considered. Important issues have been raised in this debate and outside the House, and I welcome this opportunity for discussion. However, I am sure that

1107
my hon. Friend and the House will appreciate that it would not be right for me to comment at this stage on the merits of the proposals for the London Pavilion site, as they could come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his decision at a future date.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction told my hon. Friend when he saw him last week, the primary responsibility for considering applications for planning permission in this part of London rests with Westminster city council. That council, after considering and taking account of the representations of a number of interested persons and institutions, has approved the proposals in principle, subject to further negotiations with the applicants over a number of matters of detail.
Representations have been made that the council paid insufficient regard to objections to the proposals, particularly that the present building should be preserved for its possible future use as a live theatre. Approaches have apparently been made to the Greater London Council, which is its freeholders, by theatre managers about the possible reinstatement of the building as a theatre—its original use before being converted to a cinema in 1934. It has been argued that my right hon. Friend should call in the planning application because the issues raised are of national concern. My hon. Friend has asked me to recommend that course of action.
However, the House must recognise that it is a basic element of the planning
1108
system approved by Parliament that decisions on development proposals are primarily the responsibility of the local authorities. My right hon. Friend intervenes rarely—and then only if major issues of national or regional importance are involved. My hon. Friend argued persuasively that the London Pavilion, with its long history, is such a case, which deserves consideration as a national issue, but I think that he will recognise that such arguments are not uncommon in London, where there are many important sites.
I emphasise to the House that where a change of use is proposed—as in the case of the London Pavilion—the planning system cannot guarantee that the previous use of the site will continue. In this case, for example, even if permission were refused for a change of use, it would not ensure that the building would be used for theatrical purposes.
My right hon. Friend will, however, want to consider most carefully all We representations that have been made to him before deciding whether he should call in the application. The debate tonight has been most helpful, and I am grateful for the opportunity to hear my hon. Friend's views—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at eleven minutes to Eleven o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Falkirk and Stirling Royal Infirmaries
  Falkirk and Stirling Royal Infirmaries
  Central Region (Expenditure)
  Central Region (Expenditure)
  Central Region (Schools)
  Central Region (Schools)
  Western Isles (Bilingual Project)
  Western Isles (Bilingual Project)
  Gaelic
  Gaelic
  Regional Aids
  Regional Aids
  Museums (Financial Allocations)
  Museums (Financial Allocations)
  Life Expectation
  Life Expectation
  Drink and Gambling
  Drink and Gambling
  Road Traffic Act 1974
  Road Traffic Act 1974
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  BROADWAY, WORCESTERSHIRE
  BROADWAY, WORCESTERSHIRE
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT (SPEECH)
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT (SPEECH)
  LOSTWITHIEL
  LOSTWITHIEL
  HEDNESFORD
  HEDNESFORD
  EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY (MEMBERS' EMOLUMENTS)
  EUROPEAN ASSEMBLY (MEMBERS' EMOLUMENTS)
  LIVERPOOL
  LIVERPOOL
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
  NORTH-EAST LANCASHIRE
  NORTH-EAST LANCASHIRE
  ETHNIC RECORDS (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  ETHNIC RECORDS (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
  GOVERNMENT PRESS OFFICERS
  GOVERNMENT PRESS OFFICERS
  WAGE INCREASES (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
  WAGE INCREASES (GOVERNMENT POLICY)
DEFENCE
  Dartmoor National Park (Military Exercises)
  Dartmoor National Park (Military Exercises)
  Servicemen's Families (Accommodation)
  Servicemen's Families (Accommodation)
  Iran (Defence Minister)
  Iran (Defence Minister)
  Cyprus (Sovereign Base Areas)
  Cyprus (Sovereign Base Areas)
  Exercise Clockwork
  Exercise Clockwork
  Strategic Re-assessment
  Strategic Re-assessment
  NATO Defence Ministers
  NATO Defence Ministers
  United States (Arms Purchases and Sales)
  United States (Arms Purchases and Sales)
  Service Men's Pay
  Service Men's Pay
  C130 Aircraft
  C130 Aircraft
  Strategic Nuclear Weapons
  Strategic Nuclear Weapons
  Intermediate Nuclear Missile
  Intermediate Nuclear Missile
  Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve (Training)
  Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve (Training)
  Service Men's Salaries
  Service Men's Salaries
  Defence Budget
  Defence Budget
  HMS "Bulwark"
  HMS "Bulwark"
  Low-flying Aircraft (Exercises)
  Low-flying Aircraft (Exercises)
  Tornado Aircraft
  Tornado Aircraft
  Royal Air Force (Recruitment)
  Royal Air Force (Recruitment)
  Service Personnel (Civilian Training)
  Service Personnel (Civilian Training)
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Service Men (Local Overseas Allowance)
  Service Men (Local Overseas Allowance)
  Essential Services
  Essential Services
  Type 42 Frigate
  Type 42 Frigate
  Wrekin Rifle Range
  Wrekin Rifle Range
  Polaris Submarine
  Polaris Submarine
  Warship Construction
  Warship Construction
  Cadetships
  Cadetships
  Iran (Defence Contracts)
  Iran (Defence Contracts)
  Hawk Aircraft
  Hawk Aircraft
  Air Ministry (Use of Electricity)
  Air Ministry (Use of Electricity)
  Armed Forces Pay Review Body
  Armed Forces Pay Review Body
  HOME DEPARTMENT Civil Defence
  HOME DEPARTMENT Civil Defence
  Probation Officers (Pay)
  Probation Officers (Pay)
  Marriage Guidance (Working Party)
  Marriage Guidance (Working Party)
  Mr. Michael Blake
  Mr. Michael Blake
  Picketing
  Picketing
  Jurors
  Jurors
  Police Forces (Resignations)
  Police Forces (Resignations)
  Police (Negotiating Machinery)
  Police (Negotiating Machinery)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Departmental Staff (Mature Entrants)
  Departmental Staff (Mature Entrants)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Fisheries Protection Squadron
  Fisheries Protection Squadron
  European Community (Council of Agriculture Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Agriculture Ministers)
  Tenant Farmers
  Tenant Farmers
  JURORS
  JURORS
EMPLOYMENT
  Trade Union Political Levies (Deduction from Wages)
  Trade Union Political Levies (Deduction from Wages)
  Benzidine Azo Dyes
  Benzidine Azo Dyes
  Carcinogenic Substances
  Carcinogenic Substances
  Publication "Network"
  Publication "Network"
  Earnings (International Comparisons)
  Earnings (International Comparisons)
  Disabled Persons ("Fares to Work" Scheme)
  Disabled Persons ("Fares to Work" Scheme)
  Microelectronics
  Microelectronics
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
ENERGY
  Multi-purpose Stamp
  Multi-purpose Stamp
  Biomass Energy Sources
  Biomass Energy Sources
  Subsidence Damage (Claims)
  Subsidence Damage (Claims)
  URENCO
  URENCO
  Asbestos (Simpson Advisory Committee)
  Asbestos (Simpson Advisory Committee)
ENVIRONMENT
  Waste Land
  Waste Land
  Bathing Areas
  Bathing Areas
  Private Housing (Investment)
  Private Housing (Investment)
  Community Arts
  Community Arts
  Construction Industry Manpower Board
  Construction Industry Manpower Board
  Rubbish Disposal
  Rubbish Disposal
  Community Land Act
  Community Land Act
  Local Authority Wage Settlements (Cheshire)
  Local Authority Wage Settlements (Cheshire)
  Rent Acts (Review)
  Rent Acts (Review)
  Garbage (Recycling)
  Garbage (Recycling)
  Southwark (Town Hall)
  Southwark (Town Hall)
TRANSPORT
  Orbital Road Traffic (London)
  Orbital Road Traffic (London)
  British Railways
  British Railways
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Disarmament Expenditure
  Disarmament Expenditure
  Ocean Island
  Ocean Island
  Gilbert and Ocean Islands (Manganese Nodules)
  Gilbert and Ocean Islands (Manganese Nodules)
  British Phosphate Commission
  British Phosphate Commission
  Banaba (Association with Fiji)
  Banaba (Association with Fiji)
  Gilbert Islands
  Gilbert Islands
  Ethiopia (Soviet Intervention)
  Ethiopia (Soviet Intervention)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  China
  China
INDUSTRY
  Microprocessors
  Microprocessors
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  European Commission (Textile and Clothing Policy)
  European Commission (Textile and Clothing Policy)
  China (Non-ferrous Metals Mission)
  China (Non-ferrous Metals Mission)
TRADE
  Oil Spillage
  Oil Spillage
  Textiles
  Textiles
  Turkey
  Turkey
  China
  China
  Korea
  Korea
  Portugal
  Portugal
  Tariffs (Reductions)
  Tariffs (Reductions)
  COMECON
  COMECON
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  British Association of Removers
  British Association of Removers
  British Reinforcement Manufacturers' Association
  British Reinforcement Manufacturers' Association
WALES
  Relief Roads (Welshpool)
  Relief Roads (Welshpool)
  Welsh Arts Council
  Welsh Arts Council
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Capital Transfer Tax (Exemptions)
  Capital Transfer Tax (Exemptions)
  Child Tax Allowances
  Child Tax Allowances
  Maintenance Funds (Historic Buildings)
  Maintenance Funds (Historic Buildings)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  United Kingdom (Debt)
  United Kingdom (Debt)
  VAT (Discretionary Relief)
  VAT (Discretionary Relief)
  Gross Domestic Product (International Comparisons)
  Gross Domestic Product (International Comparisons)
  Industrial and Manufacturing Output (International Comparisons)
  Industrial and Manufacturing Output (International Comparisons)
  "Guide to Fees and Other Charges"
  "Guide to Fees and Other Charges"
  Endangered Species (Prosecutions)
  Endangered Species (Prosecutions)
  Balance of Payments (North Sea Oil and Gas)
  Balance of Payments (North Sea Oil and Gas)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Heart Surgery
  Heart Surgery
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Domiciliary Patients (Oxygen)
  Domiciliary Patients (Oxygen)
  Pensions (British Citizens, Portugal)
  Pensions (British Citizens, Portugal)
  Hospital Workers (Spending Power)
  Hospital Workers (Spending Power)
  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Psychiatric Hospitals
  British Dental Association
  British Dental Association
  Skateboarders (Accidents)
  Skateboarders (Accidents)
  Exceptional Needs Payments
  Exceptional Needs Payments
  Departmental Press Officer
  Departmental Press Officer
  Pharmacists
  Pharmacists
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Lone Parents
  Lone Parents
  Childbirth, Infant Mortality and Rubella
  Childbirth, Infant Mortality and Rubella
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Burnham Committee
  Burnham Committee
  Craftsmen Training Centre, Venice
  Craftsmen Training Centre, Venice
  Museums (Financial Allocations)
  Museums (Financial Allocations)
  Disabled Students (Walsall)
  Disabled Students (Walsall)
  Trades Union Congress (Funds)
  Trades Union Congress (Funds)
  Comprehensive Education
  Comprehensive Education
  Physical Education Association
  Physical Education Association
  Students (Travelling Expenses)
  Students (Travelling Expenses)
  Inner London Education Authority (School Closures)
  Inner London Education Authority (School Closures)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Mozambique
  Mozambique
  "Survey of Attitudes Towards Overseas Development"
  "Survey of Attitudes Towards Overseas Development"
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Schools (Transfer Procedure Tests)
  Schools (Transfer Procedure Tests)
  De Lorean Car Company
  De Lorean Car Company

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

TAIWAN: UK RELATIONSHIP
Lord MONSON: 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, in view of recent developments, they will give the fullest moral support to the people of Taiwan in their efforts to maintain their prosperity and freedom.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government acknowledge the position of the Chinese Government that Taiwan is a Province of the People's Republic of China. It has noted that Vice-Premier Deng Xiaoping has said that China will fully respect the present realities on Taiwan and that there will be no change in the social system on Taiwan after reunification, unless the people want it.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Of course I recognise that diplomatic niceties necessitate a certain circumspection on his part. Nevertheless, would he not agree that even if one disregards the moral aspect—which one ought not to do—it is still extremely foolish from the point of view of coldblooded real politik to give one's friends and allies, and, even more important, one's potential friends and allies, the impression that the West is prepared to jettison, at the drop of a hat, a small, friendly country which has done us no harm and which has pulled itself up largely by its own unaided efforts, for the sake of possibly transient commercial and strategic advantage elsewhere?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord saw this in most unexceptionable terms. We certainly intend no harm to Taiwan. We enjoy a substantial trade. It is somewhat adverse to us at the moment but the terms are gradually improving in our favour. We propose—and the People's Republic expect this—to continue to have normal relations on the basis of commercial and other transactions. We have of course taken a stand from as early as Cairo and Potsdam that Taiwan is a part of mainland China. It is a very great gain that, on the occasion of his visit to the United States, the Chinese Vice-President should once more have emphasised that the People's Republic do not intend to start anything which would imperil the position of Taiwan as it now is. My own view is that the Chinese Government will continue to assert its claim to sovereignty over the Taiwan Province—as they regard it—but to maintain the present method of dealing with that Province. We for the past 30 years have done precisely that.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if ever Taiwan loses her independence, it will only create another vast refugee problem similar to the one now existing in Vietnam, with all its appalling international complications? Is it not our duty, even on humanitarian grounds alone, to try to forestall the vast amount of human suffering that would inevitably ensue?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, certainly, as always, we shall do everything we can to forestall unnecessary suffering. We cannot of course intrude or interfere in every part of the world, and I sometimes feel that the period of automatic European intervention is long over. What I think we should bear in mind is that the Chinese Government in Peking, through its Vice-Premier in particular, have made a very helpful, very forthcoming series of statements in relation to Taiwan. I think that we can leave it there. I think we may expect that the Chinese, while asserting their claim to sovereignty, which we and others in the West have accepted for many years, will nevertheless avoid any action which will create new difficulties in that part of the world.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether our Ambassador in Peking will be going to Taiwan?

1095
Would that not make our relations with Taiwan rather closer?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, an Ambassador from Peking to Taiwan? I have no idea. I must ask the Chinese, as no doubt the noble Earl will.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, lest there be any mistake, I thought that my noble friend was asking a somewhat different question from that to which the noble Lord answered. I believe that if he had heard it correctly the noble Lord would probably have wished to answer the question in the negative.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, in vain is the snare spread before the watchful bird! Before I return any answer to the noble Earl, knowing his background and experience, I should wish to hear the question again.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, the question that I asked the noble Lord was whether our Ambassador in Peking will be visiting Taiwan? I suppose that might add to the closer relations of this country with Taiwan.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I am most grateful to the noble Earl for repeating his question, and indeed for the timely assistance from the Conservative Front Bench—which is very acceptable, at least these days. I have no knowledge of any plans by our Ambassador to visit Taiwan from Peking. If it is of particular interest to the noble Earl and others, I will look into the matter.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the inhabitants of Taiwan are entitled to the same rights of self-determination as those of any other independent territory, not excluding Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Certainly, my Lords; all composite communities on a territorial basis are entitled to assert their wishes. I was rather encouraged when the Vice-Premier, speaking, I think, in the United States, said there would be no change in the internal
1096
policy of Taiwan, even after the reunification and without self-determination of the Taiwanese.

SOCIAL WORKERS: NATIONAL JOINT COUNCIL
2.45 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the fact that probation officers, police, teachers and firemen have separate negotiating machinery, whether they consider that the National Joint Council is itself an appropriate body to determine the salaries and service conditions of social workers; and whether they will consider providing separate negotiating machinery, as the different nature of their job calls for distinct salary and service conditions.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman): My Lords, the scope and constitution of the National Joint Council for Administrative, Professional, Technical and Clerical Services is determined by agreement between the local authorities as employers and the unions representing their white collar staff, including social workers. It would be for the parties to that agreement to consider whether changes in the negotiating machinery for social workers were to be appropriate.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that reply, may I ask whether she intends giving any guidance, or having any discussions with them to see if this very difficult problem can be settled? Also, could she tell me how many are still on strike and what action the Government propose to take?—because this is a very important service and much needed.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, in so far as the negotiating machinery is concerned, this is not a matter in which the Government can intervene. It is a matter between the local authorities and the white collar workers themselves. If they come

1097
to us jointly and say that is how they want things, we would raise no objections. In so far as the present situation is concerned, I am not able at this moment to give the noble Baroness figures. What I can say is that a new national framework for the grading of individual social workers was agreed by the National Joint Council last week. We hope that this will lead to a quick return to work of those social workers who are still on strike, and the Secretary of State for Social Services is considering whether there are ways in which he can help social workers and the agencies within which they work to get over the bitterness and the damage which industrial action so often causes.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether that means that her right honourable friend is likely to set up a committee of inquiry into the structure and management of the social workers, in view of the disturbance and distress both on the part of the public and those receiving the service? May I further ask the Minister whether her right honourable friend could not intervene, perhaps on a voluntary basis, in the present negotiating machinery?—which I think perhaps is not very satisfactory in view of the fact that those on the councils are not social workers and do not know the work.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, to take the second part of the question first, the social services functions, as the noble Baroness knows, are exercised by the local authorities under the general guidance of the Secretary of State for Social Services. He has no statutory responsibilities or powers for any specific functions to be performed by himself, save in certain cases under default powers. The local authorities are also wholly responsible for the pay and conditions of service of their own workers. Therefore it is for them, in consultation with their staff, to determine the most appropriate negotiating arrangements. Negotiations covering this group of staff in the National Joint Council for the Administrative, Professional, Technical and Clerical Services has now teached a successful conclusion. As I said earlier, we hope this will mean that the social workers will go back.
Regarding the earlier question asked by the noble Baroness, my right honour-
1098
able friend has not decided to have a committee of inquiry. He feels it would be a very serious matter to take negotiations out of the hands of the negotiators within the existing machinery, however inadequate noble Lords may think that machinery is. A new national framework for the grading of the individual social workers was agreed by the National Joint Council last week. We hope this means that they are soon going back to work, and the Secretary of State is considering whether there are ways in which he can help the social workers and also the relationship between the social workers and the public. The public's expectation of what they think they ought to get from the social service is obviously a related matter, but my right honourable friend does not think it right for a committee of inquiry.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, there was one statement made by the noble Baroness which I did not quite understand: it may be my ignorance. She said that the Government have no right to interfere in the negotiations between the parties concerned. She went on to say that, if they came to an agreement, the Government would not interfere—but have they the right to interfere, if they cannot do so at the beginning?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we have no statutory right to intervene, save in the question of default powers; and we do not consider that the current situation of industrial action calls for default powers. It is a matter between the local authorities and the employers themselves. We have no statutory powers in that respect.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, can the noble Baroness go a little further and, contrary to the suggestion put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, agree that, far from there being need for even more separate negotiating procedures within the machinery for pay determination in the public services, there is room for a more unified approach to these matters?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords. I should not want to go as far as that, because there are differences in all local authority areas. There are differences in the social strains and in the demands that

1099
are made on the social services. The new salary range, and the new structure for the three grades of social workers, takes into account the level of duties and responsibilities. It gives scope for re-grading which we have said need not wait until the annual pay talks in July, but can take place right away. We hope that it will be possible for local authorities to slot their present social workers into these three gradings, to give them job satisfaction and, also, to have regard to the type of circumstances in which they have to work within the individual local authorities.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that a fractioning of the negotiating agency makes for leap-frogging inflation?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, there are historical reasons why teachers, firemen, police, probation officers and other people have their own negotiating machinery. But the scope and constitution of the administrative, professional, technical and clerical services are, at this point of time, all in one. If the two sides to the argument came to the Government and said: "Yes, this is how we should like it to be," and asked for separate negotiating machinery, we should agree to that if it were the wish of both sides. But at the moment that suggestion has not come forward from the social workers.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, will my noble friend read the paper called A Better Way, which is admirably subscribed to by five or six trade union leaders?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I think I should want notice of that question. It goes rather wider than the original Question.

CHARITIES AND TAX CONCESSIONS
2.52 p.m.
Baroness SHARPLES: 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 accept the recommendations of the Goodman Committee to make specified tax concessions in order to encourage donations to charity.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I am unable to say whether or not the Government will accept the recommendations referred to, as they and other aspects of the law affecting charities are still being considered.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that not entirely satisfactory Answer. I am sure he knows that there are nine Western European countries that give tax concessions in this way. May I ask him one further question? Are the Government considering changing from a seven-year covenant to, possibly, a four-year covenant for individuals?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, as those who are familiar with the report will be aware, this is one of the recommendations and it is one which is to be considered by Ministers. But Ministers will take the opportunity of considering not simply the recommendations which have been made by the Committee headed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, but also the Tenth Report of the Expenditure Committee and, indeed, the Charity Law Reform Committee. In other words, a very wide-ranging review of the law relating to charity is to be made and it is that which Ministers will consider. In the context of that review, this recommendation will, of course, be looked at.
Lord CRAIGTON: My Lords, I agree with everything that the Minister said, except for the fact that this review "is to be made". Is he aware that this has been going on for a very long while, and it is time that something was done about it?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to the law relating to charities, it has been going on since at least 1601. But the report which is referred to in the Question was published in 1976. It contains a number of recommendations which are not entirely at one with the recommendations of the Tenth

1101
Report of the Expenditure Committee. Indeed, one of the problems is that all these different recommendations have to be looked at to see whether they can be reconciled, and whether the law which has been standing since 1601, and which has been modified by a number of cases since, can be improved by consideration and perhaps by the publication of a Green or White Paper.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware—I am sure that he is—that these days many charities are suffering from lack of funds? But there was a recommendation in the Goodman Report that charities should be free to reclaim VAT in excess of £25 on their expenses, which would help charities enormously. I, for one, would be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord could give us some idea of when we are likely to have the results of the report.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, as to the value added tax recommendation, that does not fall specifically within the terms of this Question, because it does not relate to encouragement of donations to charity. But, of course, that recommendation must be looked at along with others. This matter has been raised in the House earlier and there have been previous discussions about it. It would be dishonest of me to say that we shall come to the matter soon. I can say that we hope to come to it before very long.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, while not pursuing this fine Scottish legal distinction, may I ask the noble and learned Lord, when he reports to his colleagues, to tell them to bear in mind that charities save the Exchequer a lot of money by doing work which is of a public nature and which would otherwise have to be undertaken at the expense of the taxpayer?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I certainly acknowledge that, and indeed that view is made very apparent in even clearer terms by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and his Committee in the report referred to. That is well understood, and I am sure that it is an important consideration that must lie behind any scheme.
Viscount MONCKTON of BRENCH-LEY: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord have a look at the American system of annuities for charities? I know that this is outside the immediate scope of this Question, but hospitals and churches in the United States can take capital sums, usually from those who are unmarried or without children, and in return give annuities with tax advantages and benefits to the charities concerned.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I will draw the attention of my right honourable and honourable friends in another place to what the noble Viscount has said.

COAL: CONVERSION TO LIQUID FUELS
2.57 p.m.
Lord THOMAS: 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 are satisfied that sufficient effort is being applied in the United Kingdom to the development of processes for the conversion of coal into oils suitable for use in internal combustion engines, especially those operating on the compression ignition (i.e. diesel) principle.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government are satisfied that sufficient work is being done in the United Kingdom on the conversion of coal into liquid fuels for internal combustion engines. The Department of Energy is to support the National Coal Board in design studies on two 25 tonne per day coal liquefaction pilot plants aimed at the production of the full range of transport fuels and chemical feedstocks. If the design studies are encouraging, the Government are prepared to provide up to £20 million towards the £30 million expenditure for the construction and operation of these plants.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that helpful and courteous Answer. Is he aware that there is great development taking place in Japan, America and Europe in the manufacture

1103
of small-bore diesel engines which run on this kind of fuel? Would not an easement of taxation on diesel fuel, whether produced from coal or otherwise, be a helpful move in obtaining energy conservation in future years?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, coal conversion processes, which we are dealing with now, generally produce a spectrum of products and present evidence suggests that it would be neither efficient nor economic to concentrate upon a single product.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is no difficulty at all, so far as the technical aspects are concerned, in transforming coal into oil? There have been in the possession of various Governments since the First World War hundreds of schemes, some of them very efficient. The trouble is that it is so expensive, and therefore it does not possibly compete with oil that is produced in places such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and elsewhere.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the present position is that, using coal at £25 a tonne, the projected total cost of synthetic oil would be about £90 to £101 a tonne, including the cost of the coal. This is about double the present cost of natural crude oil, but if the crude goes up in price then the gap might be narrowed.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the prospects of heavy increases in oil prices are apparently imminent, that the House has already committed itself on the Wynne-Jones Motion to a massive extra production of oil, and that all these proposals were included in the Lloyd-George programme upon which I fought my election exactly 50 years ago?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am sure that is very interesting. The forecast submitted to the Energy Commission suggests that synthetic liquid fuels should begin to be required soon after the turn of the century.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the
1104
events of the last month have totally changed the outlook for oil not only for Britain but for the world as a whole, and that the price of light crude has gone up something like 50 per cent. in a very, very short period of time? If I am roughly correct about the price which the noble Lord quoted for the conversion of coal into oil, I believe he will find that it is almost exactly the same as the present price in this country of light crude from Arabia.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we are well aware of the need to press on with coal utilisation and conversion into transport fuels and also into feedstocks. What we are doing is outlined in full in the paper Coal Technology, and I shall put a copy of it in the Library. There is no dragging of feet here.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an undertaking that when the time is ripe to advance from the pilot plant stage to a full-scale demonstration stage, costing not tens of millions but possibly hundreds of millions, the necessary finance will be forthcoming, promptly and effectively?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should not like to commit the Government of the day, particularly in a House which is not responsible for finance. However, I can assure the noble Earl that it would certainly be this Government's policy to press on with this very important conversion.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, as one who also fought some 50 years ago on the same issue, would my noble friend give some indication of when we are likely to get an opinion on what is going to be done, if anything? It is an extremely important matter. Certainly in the days when we were fighting, people thought that there was a very fair possibility of something being done in that direction. And that, as I say, was 50 years ago.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, meetings between design contractors and the National Coal Board are presently taking place. If the design phase is encouraging, the construction phase could begin in about 18 months' time.

EDUCATION: DISRUPTION OF EXAMINATIONS
3.3 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice. The Question is as follows:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government what advice they have given to local education authorities so as to safeguard the position of children taking 'O' and 'A' levels and CSE examinations from the disruption of their education as a result of industrial action."
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lady David will, at a convenient moment after 3.30, answer this Question in the form of a Statement.

RHODESIA: AIRLINER CRASH
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which I have given Private Notice. The Question is as follows:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement about the shooting down of the Viscount airliner at Kariba in Rhodesia yesterday evening."
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will, at a convenient moment after 3.30, answer this Question in the form of a Statement.

INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill consolidates the Bretton Woods Agreement Act 1945, which gave effect to the agreement setting up the International Monetary Fund and succeeding legislation relating to the Fund. It makes no alteration to the existing law. If read a second time, the Bill will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It consolidates legislation, beginning with the Finance Act 1932, relating to the Exchange Equalisation Account. This, as your Lordships know, is an account which is set up for the purpose of mitigating the effect of fluctuations in the exchange value of sterling and for various other purposes connected with international payments. The Bill is pure consolidation and makes no changes in the existing law. It will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills if read a second time by your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 8 [Citation, etc.]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the following Amendments en bloc:
Page 6, leave out lines 25 and 26.
Page 7, line 6, leave out from ("words") to ("there") in line 7 and insert ("eighty of the Agriculture Act 1947")
Page 7, line 8, leave out ("and section")
Page 7, line 9, leave out ("(restrictions on disclosure of information)")
Page 7, line 22, leave out ("or section")
Page 7, line 24, leave out (", section 80 of the Agriculture Act 1947 or section").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, all six Amendments form one single group of Amendments. They are all minor drafting Amendments to make it clearer that the Bill is intended to extend only to England and Wales and not to

1107
Scotland. With leave, I propose to move the Amendments en bloc. If any noble Lord wishes to raise a question with regard to any of them, I shall do my best to answer him. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to en bloc.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

INVERCLYDE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
SOLICITORS IN THE SUPREME COURTS OF SCOTLAND (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.

MARRIAGE (ENABLING) BILL [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill does not, as the media would sometimes try to persuade your Lordships, herald a radical moral or social revolution. It attempts only to bring to its logical conclusion a development in our marriage laws which has been going on throughout the greater part of this century and, in a sense, for a good many centuries before, but in slow motion. In so doing, I hope that it will bring comfort and happiness to a number of distressed individuals, at practically no financial cost to the community and without any damage but rather with benefit to the institutions of marriage and the family.
The content of the Bill is contained entirely in the single sentence which gives it its title. It is a Bill which would enable any person to marry the former spouse of any of his relatives, or any relative of his former spouse. While your Lordships are working that out, may I say that this
1108
enables persons to marry anybody who is not a blood relation. The Bill leaves all blood relationships exactly as they are, so far as marriage is concerned. There will be no alteration to that part of the law. However, it would remove the restrictions which are now imposed on marriage between affinities, by which I mean persons who are connected by marriage and not by blood.
As your Lordships are well aware, this list of what are known as the prohibited degrees goes back to the Old Testament and to the Book of Leviticus, where they are very eloquently set out. But they remained matters of ecclesiastical law only in this country until the time of Henry VIII, who after all had a good deal of practical experience of marriage. They were then incorporated into our Statute Law in an Act of 1540.
If I may now jump four centuries we come to the first important change that affects us and that was the Act of 1907 which allowed a man to marry his deceased wife's sister but gave no similar privilege to a woman to marry her deceased husband's brother. For that we had to wait another 14 years and when that change came it was not expressed in the same terms as the privilege conferred upon a man, because at that time men always married women but women never married men. The Act which therefore should have been the deceased husband's brother Act was the deceased brother's widow Act which, if we turn it round, comes to exactly the same thing if the marrying is done by the man and not by the woman.
Next, an Act of 1931 allowed marriage with the spouse of a deceased niece or nephew, aunt or uncle, and in 1949 a consolidating Act set out the whole marriage law with the prohibited degrees of both blood relations and affinities. As soon as that tidying up had been done it was immediately untidied because the Government proceeded to appoint the Morton Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, which considered the whole question of marriage, including such matters as property, nullity, the insanity of one partner and so forth. That Commission received evidence from the British Medical Association, pointing out that there could be no possible biological objection to marriage between any affini-

1109
ties since they were not blood related. Similarly, they received evidence from the Haldane Society through Professor Glan-ville Williams, advocating the abolition of all prohibitions on marriage between affinities, and similar evidence was given by the Fabian Society. It is fair to say that none of these witnesses elaborated their evidence; neither did the Commission examine them at length. In that context the Commission was much more concerned with the question of whether those privileges of marrying the relatives of former spouses should be extended to cases where the spouses had been divorced as well as to those cases where the marriage was ended by death. Eventually, after long and eloquent argument the Commission decided to recommend that relaxation and they reported, with three dissentients, in favour of it and it was subsequently embodied in the Marriage (Enabling) Act 1960, which permits marriage with the relative of any divorced spouse as well as of any deceased spouse, with certain limitations. At that time it was not all relatives.
Finally, in 1970 the marriage laws in general were reconsidered by the Law Commission. Contrary to their usual custom they treated this aspect of the subject somewhat cursorily. First they found—and I quote—that the "historical objection" to the marriage of affinities was
"based on the ground that husband and wife were one, so that relationship by marriage was equivalent to relationship by blood. This reasoning"—
they added—
"is unlikely to appeal today, so one must ask whether there exist social or moral reasons against such unions".
However, having posed this question the Commission made no attempt whatever to answer it. They circulated a working paper to certain professionally interested people and this paper stated that,
"There are people who feel that unions between step-relations are immoral and should not be permitted".
But they added, without further comment, that a few witnesses before the Morton Commission had recommended the abolition of all prohibitions on the marriage of relations by affinity. However, no attempt was made, either by the Commission or in the working paper, to evaluate either the social or moral im-
1110
plications of these conflicting views or their acceptability to the general public. In their report the Commission recommended—and again I quote—that since they had
"no evidence that public opinion has changed since 1955 and now desires a revision of the existing prohibited degrees"
the law should stay as it was.
To assess public opinion objectively is a highly technical and expensive matter and neither the Law Commission nor a private person like myself is in a position to do it, but I would produce such evidence as I have of the change since the Morton Commission's recommendation. Of the scores of people to whom I have put the simple question: "Do you think a man should be allowed to marry his stepdaughter?"—people of all grades in life and of all kinds of political or religious persuasions—the vast majority, in fact all but about two or three, have replied with astonishment that such marriages were not already legal, adding such comments as: "Why ever not? They are not blood related". Nor I think will it be disputed that in the two decades since the Morton Commission reported there has been a marked change in public opinion generally and public attitudes towards matters of sex and marriage. Rightly or wrongly, divorce has become much more frequent and more socially acceptable. An increasing number of couples now live together without marriage, either because they wish to evade or postpone the obligations of matrimony or sometimes because one (or even both of them) is still married to someone else.
Against that background, my Lords, does it not seem ironic that the proposal to allow the marriage of couples who earnestly wish to be married, are free of all marital ties and are not related by blood, should be condemned as a threat to the stability of family life? Surely there is a much greater threat in the temptation to such couples to live together as man and wife without the legal or religious sanction of marriage, and against that course neither the civil nor the criminal law will raise any objection. But of course any children of such a union will be permanently illegitimate and cannot be legitimated by the subsequent marriage of their parents, as can other illegitimate children, although they

1111
might conceivably be the subject of parental adoption.
Moreover, in such a case, in the event of the man's death the woman will get no widow's pension, either from the State or from his previous occupation and there may be trouble, in the case of those who have houses, in the matter of capital transfer tax. It was one such case which first attracted my attention to the hardships caused by the present law. A man's wife had died, leaving him with two young children of their marriage and a grown-up step-daughter of a previous marriage of hers. After this bereavement it appeared in course of time that the best and happiest solution for all concerned would be for the step-daughter to take over the running of the household and the care of the younger children, which accordingly she did. Not surprisingly, in course of time a growing attachment arose between the father and the step-daughter, culminating now in 20 years of a shared life together, but the goal of marriage is still unattainable.
Since then a number of other cases have been brought to my attention. I have cases of couples who have travelled round the world in search of a country where they could be married, only to find when they get home that the marriage is not valid here. I know of the case of one couple who got so far as advertising their marriage in church (because the clergy do not always know the details of the law) and inviting the guests, only to discover at the last moment that the marriage would not be valid. Not surprisingly, this couple decided to behave as though the marriage had been solemnised and to live together and not to deny themselves the pleasures and responsibility of parenthood. But, of course, the children they have produced are, as I said, illegitimate. I have the case of a man whose wife deserted him eight years ago and dumped a step-child on him. Although the difference in age is quite wide, he is very anxious to marry the step-daughter. He is embarrassed by the fact that, when they travel abroad, he cannot have her name on his passport and she cannot have her passport in his name.
I should like particularly to mention one case of deeply religious people, well
1112
on in years, both of whom have been married and widowed, who are devoted to each other and would like to spend their declining years together. Because of their religious convictions they think it would be wrong even to live under the same roof. They were in fact, before they heard of this Bill coming before your Lordships, proposing to revive the long since discarded procedure of petitioning Parliament to accept a personal Bill to legalise their case alone. They are therefore pinning their hopes upon the success of this Bill.
My Lords, the cases I have quoted mainly relate to step-parent relationships because those are, I think, in practice the ones that are likely to cause the most interest and practical concern. Not many of us presumably are consumed with a passion to marry our fathers or mothers-in-law or the former spouses of our grandparents or grandchildren, but I have included these also, partly for the sake of logical completeness and partly because the Statute Book would look absurd if the only people who were forbidden to marry were people we are not going to be anxious to marry.
I have also, with some hesitation, followed the more controversial precedent set by the 1960 Act by proposing that anyone whose marriage has been ended not by death but by divorce should be permitted to marry any relative of his or her former spouse during the lifetime of that spouse. The 1960 Act did allow this extension in all cases of marriage with such affinities as were then legal; namely, the divorced spouse's sister or brother, aunt or uncle, nephew or niece. All I have done is to extend this relaxation to the remaining affinities listed in Clause 1(2)(a) and (b) of the Bill.
There remains, however, the fear in some hearts that the right to marry a divorced wife's daughter may lead a man to get rid of his wife in order to substitute a younger and possibly more attractive edition of her mother, or even because she stands to inherit money from her own father. While I have lived long enough to know that there are people who will do anything for sex or money, to this hypothesis I would reply, first, that a family in which the husband casts lustful eyes upon his step-daughter while he is still married to her mother is not exactly

1113
a stable family anyhow. Secondly, I would call in aid the report of the Morton Commission, which pointed out that under the existing law the cases of hardship are fact and the cases of what people might do in order to obtain certain sexual or financial advantages are hypothetical. I would also mention that the Morton Commission did have brought to their notice that if a man was forbidden to marry his step-daughter he might be more rather than less disposed to attempt to seduce her, on the ground that she could not afterwards turn round and say: "Now you can marry me". So we may be making it less probable that illicit unions of this kind will occur. In the end, I came round to the view that it would be illogical to exempt one particular class of relationship from the conditions which appertain to all the other affinities already covered where a divorced spouse's relatives may be married. It does seem absurd that a man can marry, as he can now, his divorced wife's niece or sister, but if he wishes to marry her daughter he has got to wait until mum dies.
The British people have a reputation for always taking two steps to reach an objective where one would do, and the history of prohibited degrees fully confirms this reputation. It took 53 years for the right of a widower to marry his late wife's sister to be extended to cases where the marriage had been ended not by death but by divorce. But things move faster now, and I have no doubt that if the law were to be relaxed now only so far as to permit marriage with a deceased spouse's son or daughter or parent the same right would before long be conferred upon a person whose marriage had been dissolved. If, however, any noble Lord takes a different view on this point, it is, of course, open to him or her to move an Amendment at a later stage imposing particular restrictions in the case of a step-daughter. But, in the meantime, I greatly hope that the many Members of your Lordships' House who have expressed agreement with this Bill in principle will, for the sake of compassion for the cases I have quoted, accept the principle so far as to support the Second Reading of this Bill, which I now move.
Moved, That the BH1 be now read 2a.—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
3.27 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, may I first say that the noble Baroness's Bill is one that will definitely and utterly amaze one in trying to get the equation right in one way or another. If I may say so to her, I much admire her bravery in your Lordships' House; I much admire the way she and others with her have tried to bring Bills before your Lordships' House in order that we might have a fresh look at what is going on within certain parts of our lives. In saying this, I hope she will not feel that I am being very Right Wing or being very dictatorial in any way, because I feel that this is the most delicate and sensitive subject that we are approaching at this moment. The Bill itself, however good it looks on paper, must raise some very ugly heads underneath it. I think the noble Baroness has been trying to describe those ugly heads during her speech a moment ago.
Like others of your Lordships, we will be trying to delve into this Bill, but I only hope that we will deliberate very carefully on what the Bill is about. For instance, I believe it is, if you really start to work it out, the most technical mathematical equation that exists, and whichever way you are likely to go harm could possibly be done. It can turn many corners; it can even by the equation go on like the universe, for ever and ever Amen. Therefore, I hope that we will, all of us independently, deliberate on this subject and try to get the right answer to what the noble Baroness is saying. To me it becomes almost a nightmare. To me it could be an embarrassment. It could also, to a family man, become a mockery. It can go further; it can ridicule the family. My remarks today are concerned not so much with statistics, as with the family which has always had a moral code and standard of living. If we are not very careful as regards this Bill, we shall create another difficulty within the family.
About a year ago, if not more, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury instigated in your Lordships' House a very fine debate on the family. Many of your Lordships spoke about the family, its problems and difficulties. The debate was inspiring and continued for many hours, and many experts took part. Now we are considering what will happen to the family

1115
if we accept a Bill that deals with relations other than blood relations.
Too much has been eating at the heart of the family. Too many strains and problems place upon it in different ways the difficulties of life. I am the father of a family of three and I have found it very difficult, as one of the older generation, to deal with the permissive society in which we live. I find it increasingly difficult to understand a matter which the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, mentioned very briefly—namely, the divorce laws. Divorce is now too easy. Too many hearts are broken not in the adult's mind but in the children's minds. There are new ideas as regards teaching. My children are so advanced that I find it very difficult at times to keep up with them. I admire their education and the educational standards of today, but that is yet another aspect of the difficulties of the family.
The Church has decided to introduce new versions of the Bible. I find that difficult to understand because I do not understand the modern version of English. I like the mystery of the Old Testament and the old writings. The Church is about to set course on a new Communion service and so on. As a father, I find it extremely difficult to keep up with all these matters. There is no consolidation. We just go onwards eroding the love of the family. I am sure that I am right in saying that this Bill is concerned with nothing other than the family. It is difficult to impose discipline on my children because the schooling does not allow the strict discipline that I was used to. We are finding it extremely difficult within the family. Now, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, whom I much respect and understand, has put before your Lordships a Bill to alter the family balance once again. I hope that the noble Baroness does not feel that I am being particularly ugly about the situation, but I cannot understand it. What has worked in the past for the safety of good conduct and standards of life must surely be fairly safe to continue today.
Turning to the provisions of the Bill, for a man who has lost his wife to be allowed to marry his wife's mother's mother seems to me most extraordinary. In other words, he will be allowed to
1116
marry his grandmother. All right, there is no harm in that as it stands, but for a child to be told that his aunt is now his mother—
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I am not sure whether the noble Viscount has fully understood that under the Bill you cannot marry your aunt because there is a blood relationship. You can marry only your aunt's previous spouse.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for correcting me. Indeed, I stand to be corrected. This is the most difficult equation with which I have ever had to deal from this Box and if I am wrong in any way I ask your Lordships to correct me. I admit that I find the matter intensely difficult.
Under the Bill, a husband will be able to marry his ex-wife's sister's daughter's daughter. Am I right about that? Can noble Lords work out that equation? There is even a greater danger. I am speaking slowly because I feel as if I am under the influence of alcohol when it comes to this equation. Will it not be the case that a husband will be able, if I have understood the Bill aright, to marry his ex-wife's sister and then live with his ex-wife's sister's daughter in order to get divorced? I see that your Lordships are all studying me very carefully, but I apologise for saying that I find the situation very difficult. I believe that this equation is like the universe—it can go on and on.
Over the generations we have lived with very difficult situations. I noticed in a parish magazine an article headed "Scandal in the Chancel or the Heathfield Mural Monument" and perhaps I may read it to your Lordships. It says:
"Those of you who sit in the Heathfield choirstalls contemplating the calm countenance of Margaret Hadley opposite, little realise the traumatic experience she suffered in her life. Engaged to Thomas Luttrell of Dunster Castle when a baby, they were married in due course, thus fusing two valuable estates.
Then it was discovered that Thomas's mother was Margaret's godmother and, in the eyes of the then Roman Catholic church, this was incest for they were ' brother and sister'. (Worse still, they were very distant cousins). So, they were excommunicated and forcibly divorced!
Eventually they were allowed to re-marry and this took place at East Quantoxhead Church in 1560. They then produced six children. Thomas, however, died in 1571: she married a John

1117
Strode in 1572 and upon his death she married her agent, Richard Hill, in 1587. She herself died at Luxborough in 1607".
I have the strongest feeling that if we are not very careful as regards the Bill, we shall go backwards and not forwards and involve ourselves with the reverse situation. We must be extremely careful.
As I have said, I believe that the most sensitive area is the family; the family will suffer most if the Bill is passed as it stands. However, another sensitive area concerns the priest in charge of his parish. With his training and experience he will encounter total embarrassment and difficulty in trying to cope with a family that is going wrong within marriage. Yet, if the Bill goes through he will have no chance, other than by directing the matter to his bishop—and his bishop will find that the law is not even in his hands—to save the family from an embarrassing situation. I do not think that the Bill is being in any way fair at the grass roots, to those who go about their parishes trying to set standards, particularly moral standards, among their flocks. It certainly will not be easy for such people if we involve them in roundabout questions of who may marry whom when people are not blood related.
I find this Bill extremely complicated and I look forward to hearing noble Lords who wish to speak on it. If I have said anything, either one way or the other, and it is wrong, I must of course stand to be corrected. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether the statistics really show that a great deal of hardship is affecting families in this area. I should like to know much more than she has already told us about the advice she received. There must be further figures. If the statistics show that only a minority group is affected, then I do not think that her Bill is being at all fair to the family. I repeat, I find myself in a very difficult situation; to me the whole Bill is an equation. Would it not be advisable—and I beg the noble Baroness to consider my feelings, not in theory but in practice—to withdraw the Bill in order that an inquiry could be set up to study this particular problem and take evidence from various bodies?
At this stage I do not believe that it is at all fair to the family to have to cope with yet another piece of legislation, in addition to all the other legislation, taxes,
1118
et cetera, which I have already mentioned. It is not fair that the family should have this Bill thrown at it. I would certainly be prepared to serve on an inquiry if one were set up. If hardship within the family is demonstrated, I should be quite willing—and I know that there would be others outside the Church who also would be willing—to look at this situation. As it stands, the Bill looks all right, but underneath there is only one part of the community that will suffer, and that is the family—and within the family it will once again be the children.

EDUCATION: DISRUPTION OF EXAMINATIONS
3.44 p.m.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place in answer to a Private Notice Question on the disruption of children's education as a result of industrial action. The Statement is as follows:
"About 1,200 schools are closed, that is 4·6 per cent. of over 26,000 schools in England. Two-thirds are in the areas of seven local education authorities in Greater London and the North-East. My aim is to get normal education restored for all children as soon as possible, but those taking public examinations this year deserve priority. At the outset of the present dispute, following representations from me, the public sector unions agreed together to give guidance to their members under which they would give 48 hours' notice of any industrial action, use their good offices to call off unauthorised local action of which such notice had not been given, and refrain from any action which would impede the conduct of public examinations. I asked them to extend similar protection to all teaching of examination classes, but they were unwilling to do so. Nevertheless, most of the authorities badly affected are managing to provide some teaching for examination classes, often in schools or on restricted time-tables, in makeshift accommodation.
"My Department is in regular touch with all the local education authorities affected, who have been asked to supply

1119
details of any breaches of the unions' guidance. Any reports of breaches are taken up immediately, locally or if necessary nationally, with the trade unions concerned.
"Yesterday, I held a meeting with the chairmen and the chief education officers of the 12 authorities which had been hardest hit, or threatened. I asked them to make every effort to keep schools open and where this proved impossible to take immediate steps to mitigate the consequences of the closure of schools on children's education, especially that of young people in their examination years. They told me at first hand about the situation in their areas, and the steps they were taking to deal with it. I promised that if necessary I would call them together again to discuss further action".
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for the very clear way in which she has answered my Question, but I am afraid that I cannot thank her for the content of what she said because it paints a very black picture indeed. Is the noble Baroness aware that the Answer which she has had to give to your Lordships today contains absolutely nothing in answer to the specific Question which I have asked—namely, what are the Government able to do in order to protect the interests of examination pupils? If I may remind the noble Baroness, in case she thinks that I am being unfair, embedded in her Answer is this sentence: The Secretary of State asked the public service unions
"to extend similar protection"—
that means refraining from action—
"to all teaching of examination classes, but they were unwilling to do so".
Arising from that, I should like to ask the noble Baroness two questions, one specific and one general. Among the many local education authorities, totalling up to 1,200 schools which are closed in England, as recorded in the Answer, there is the London Borough of Haringey, which, in a public statement, has taken it upon itself to say that because it is in sympathy with the National Union of
1120
Public Employees and the other public service unions, it will close its schools. Those schools have been closed since 22nd January. What is the right honourable friend of the noble Baroness doing with regard to the London Borough of Haringey, either specifically to warn that borough of its dereliction, or possible dereliction, of its statutory duty to provide sufficient education? Alternatively, what is the Secretary of State possibly planning that she may have to do under her duties under the Education Act 1944?
My general question is this: If strike action continues or, as the National Union of Public Employees threatened at the weekend, if strike action increases, what do the Government intend to do to protect examination candidates?—who, after all, are entirely innocent in this matter and whose exam prospects are daily becoming bleaker.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and I am tempted to ask what sort of people are they in the public service unions who will prevent children being taught for examinations, the results of which may well affect the whole of their lives thereafter. I should also like to support what has been said about the statutory duty of the Secretary of State under the Education Act 1944. She has a statutory duty to perform, to provide comprehensive education in all areas where there is a demand, and so have the local education authorities. Will the noble Baroness represent to her right honourable friend the Secretary of State that this is a matter where the law should be brought into force and where a mandatory injunction should be sought in the courts against those who are preventing teaching for examinations?
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, after having taken advice, my right honourable friend is satisfied that at present there is no case for the use of her default powers under Section 99 or for directions on gounds of unreasonable action under Section 68 of the Education Act against any local education authority. Noble Lords will be aware that since the Tame-side judgment it is much more difficult for a Secretary of State to make a case for unreasonable action. My right honourable friend is very aware of the crisis

1121
circumstance for certain children, and I shall certainly bring to her attention what has been said in this House. She will no doubt be meeting again very shortly with the authorities where the most difficulties have been experienced. I am quite certain that she will ensure that these children suffer as little as possible.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, arising out of that answer, may I ask the noble Baroness how much dereliction is required before the default powers are triggered? How much longer have we to wait?
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I think that my right honourable friend can only go by the best legal advice she has been given at the moment. I think from the point of view of the teachers' unions there is being a change of heart here. We have had the NAHT and the NUT rather reversing their earlier position of not going into the schools. For the most part they are now doing this and teaching, if not doing the duties of the caretakers, and so on. I am quite sure that my right honourable friend is as distressed as any noble Lord here about what is going on and will not let the situation run on indefinitely.
3.52 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, as one who has held the office of Secretary of State and as one who has some experience of the law, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that the Tameside judgment has nothing whatever to do with the default powers, but had to do with something absolutely different? Can she not inquire of the local authorities whether they cannot get an injunction to stop people interfering with the performance of their statutory duties? Do not the great majority of the country know that we have been in a state of emergency ever since the beginning of the road hauliers' strike and have had absolutely no leadership from the Government at all?
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I shall certainly bring to the attention of the Secretary of State what the noble and learned Lord opposite has said, but she has taken legal advice and is abiding by the advice she has had for the moment.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness a question, to which she may quite reasonably not have an answer to give straight away but which perhaps she could answer at a later date? She said in the Statement that breaches of the agreement had been taken up and reported. That means that there have been breaches. May we have information as to what has happened after they have been taken up?
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, when breaches have been reported it is hoped that, first of all, action will be taken locally, and only nationally in the last resort. These are being reported, daily I think, and if the noble Baroness would like it I have a list of the authorities where breaches have taken place. I could give her further information in a letter if she would like it, or personally later, about the actual breaches that have happened.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, might I ask the noble Baroness to give me personal advice? I am the fortunate grandfather of a grand-daughter who is due to take her O-levels this summer, and she is shut out of her school in Haringey. I would ask the noble Baroness what should be my attitude to the Haringey authorities? Should it be one of hatred and contempt, which I now feel? Further, what should be my attitude to the Secretary of State for her complacence in this iniquitous state of affairs?
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I can assure you that the Secretary of State, with whom I was talking earlier this afternoon, is far from complacent about the situation as it is now. I think I must leave it to the noble Lord to make up his own mind about what he says to his family.
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: My Lords, may I say—
Several noble Lords: Ask!
Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: I apologise. May I ask this question? What are the associations of the local education authorities doing to try to persuade teachers to go back into schools, and so on? We on this side—I am sure the majority of Members on all sides of

1123
the House—feel exactly the same way about this. But are we getting any leadership? Are we getting any guidance from the associations on this? Is the Secretary of State getting any guidance from the associations on this? The answer is, No. No, they are not. It is all very well my—
Several noble Lords: Speech!
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, apparently my noble friend has answered his own question.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, coming, as I do, from the North-East, which is badly affected, may I ask whether the noble Baroness, or the Secretary of State, has a list of the children who are prevented from taking their examinations at the proper time? The noble Baroness has made a general statement, but I want to know how many children are really affected, because it affects them both now and in the future? I should like to have a list of the children who are in this position. She has not mentioned, so far as I can make out, the numbers of children who are concerned.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I have a list of actions that have been taken in some of the authorities in the North-East. For instance, in North Tyneside the special schools are open; the fifth and sixth forms can enter schools, and other years have access for four hours a week. At Newcastle, Sunderland and Durham the fifth and sixth forms are being educated. I have further details that I could give to the noble Baroness if she wishes them later.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for her answer, I should like the information put in Hansard so that everybody can see. She has not given me any names. I want to know the names of the children.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I think that the names of the children would probably be rather too much. If the noble Baroness put down a Question for Written Answer, I have a lot of information which she would like to have.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, would the noble Baroness tell us
1124
what consideration the Secretary of State has given to mobilising voluntary help to assist in this serious crisis for our school-children? If she has given that consideration, what conclusions has she reached?
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I do not know what the Secretary of State has done herself about voluntary help, but what I do know is that certain LEAs have been using some voluntary help. I think it is up to the LEAs to organise that themselves, and it seems to me that it is not a job that the Secretary of State could manage. This is something which obviously is within the province of the local education authorities.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, does the noble Baroness mean that the Secretary of State has taken no view about using voluntary help in this matter?
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I am sure she is not against using volunteers.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, may I revert to a question which I asked in a more general context last week, but to which I got no answer from the Government as such? Where people employed, for example, as caretakers in schools decide to remain at work, will they be afforded full protection by the Government as to their continued employment in cases where a closed shop is in operation?
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I cannot answer for the Government on that, and I think I can only do what my noble friend did before; namely, to say that personally I hope no action would be taken against them.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Baroness is not giving adequate replies to questions being asked in the House today, and while we realise that she is not personally speaking for the Department, she is speaking for the Government. Did the noble Baroness read in yesterday's Guardian the statement by the assistant general secretary of the Association of Assistant Masters and Mistresses that the members of that association were ready to do their normal duties if called upon to do so? In the light of that lead, has the time not come

1125
when the Secretary of State could at least gird herself up to send round a circular to local education authorities saying that schools must be kept open in order that the education of children who are about to face their examinations shall not suffer?
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I think my noble friend the Secretary of State is doing as much as she can at the moment. She is very keen to get more schools open, but it is very difficult to take total action centrally when it is the LEAs' responsibility locally; it is the LEAs' first responsibility.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, everybody in your Lordships' House, I am sure, without exception, wants to put an end to this unhappy and miserable affair. However, despite all that has been said and the questions that have been asked, and even the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, about an injunction—I do not believe that would have any effect in the long run—if the teachers intend to stay out and the caretakers intend to carry on with this strike we have only one remedy. These people are determined to get their own way. They want higher wages and better conditions. In the circumstances, even if it means that we must pay higher taxes and increased rates, it would be far better to bring this miserable affair to an end and accept the consequences.
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what he said, but I do not think there was a question to answer.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, is it not a fact that the head teacher is responsible for the opening and closing of the school and that the authority is only delegated to the caretaker? If that is so, could not the Minister give directions that he should carry out his duties?
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, I think it is the local authority which is responsible for the opening of the schools and it is delegated to the caretakers.
Several noble Lords: No!
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, the NUT, the NAHT and other unions have said they are willing to open the schools in nearly every case, although they will not perform jobs like cleaning which are done by caretakers.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend what I hope is a constructive question? Does she agree there will be some boys and girls who will require, say, 60 points to pass an examination but who, because of the lack of tuition in recent weeks, may manage to muster only 58 or 59 marks? Could the markers be given advice or instructions to moderate their judgment in those cases so the children are not harmfully done by?
Baroness DAVID: My Lords, having at one time worked as a marker and an awarder for one of the boards, I am sure that all those who will be marking and awarding grades this summer will know exactly what the situation has been, and I am sure that, being sensible people, they will act accordingly.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I would remind the House that we have 24 speakers to come today and another Statement which has been made in the other House. I fully understand the feeling which is aroused in your Lordships' House, but I hope I have the feeling of noble Lords when I say that we should pass to the next Statement.

RHODESIA: AIRLINER CRASH
4.5 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will repeat a Statement being made in another place in answer to a Private Notice Question on the shooting down of a Viscount airliner in Rhodesia yesterday evening. The Statement is as follows:
"Fifty nine people were killed including, according to Press reports, at least two United Kingdom citizens, when a Rhodesian civilian airliner crashed near Kariba yesterday. According to the news agencies, the Patriotic Front claim to have been responsible. I am sure the whole House will deplore

1127
this senseless attack, involving further tragic loss of innocent lives in Rhodesia. The escalation of the war reinforces our determination to continue our efforts to bring an end to the fighting by negotiations within a framework likely to prove acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole. Until that happens we fear that the drift into uncontrolled violence and chaos will continue."
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for having read that Statement, may I tell him—I am sure he will not be surprised to learn this—that we are very dissatisfied with its tone? We on this side of the House totally condemn, as I am sure all noble Lords will, this barbarous action of shooting down a civilian aircraft containing innocent civilians who, according to the Press statement, were both black and white. This action of aggression surely confirms more strongly than ever that the liberation movements are not concerned with a struggle for legitimate rights of rule by the majority over a minority but with a struggle for personal power.
What regrettably seems to be tacitly, if not openly, encouraged by the Foreign Secretary and Her Majesty's Government is the hope that eventually the situation in Rhodesia will deteriorate to such a state that peace will be impossible. That appears to be the impression being given at the moment, and I very much hope that in this case we are misinterpreting their ultimate intentions for the fate of Rhodesia and all Rhodesians, both black and white.
Therefore, we on this side of the House would ask Her Majesty's Government seriously to consider, first, facilitating the holding of free and fair elections in April, which is the intention as stated of the present members of the internal settlement; and, secondly, that the Government should undertake to seek the support of the international community to recognise the legitimacy and outcome of the elections as an example of the democratic process which, as we know in this country, is not always implemented by other member States of the United Nations.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, we join S with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in
1128
condemning this outrage; naturally we do. What Mr, Joshua Nkomo thinks he can gain by this kind of atrocity I really do not know. One would have thought that surely there must be some kind of code of conduct even among guerrillas. It cannot do his own cause any good; it might even increase the present unpopularity of his rival Mr. Mugabe; but that is another matter.
With the general content of the Statement, however, we on these Benches would not quarrel so much as did Lady Elles. It says:
"The escalation of the war reinforces our determination to continue our efforts to bring an end to the fighting by negotiations within a framework likely to prove acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole".
Surely there is no objection to that as such. The question is whether the Government have any present intention of recognising the internal settlement as a result of the coming elections. That, to some extent, I suppose depends on the evident support, if such emerges, from those elections, and that has to be determined. Whether it would be desirable to send out any kind of observers to those elections, to determine whether it has that over- whelming support, is another matter; but I should have thought the Government might seriously consider doing that.
4.10 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for their comments. Lady Elles used the word "condemn" whereas the Statement used the word "deplore". I would certainly go along with the noble Baroness in inserting that word, which was a word used by Lord Gladwyn. We all, irrespective of Party—here or in Rhodesia, I would hope—deeply condemn this senseless outrage. It is not the first of its kind.
However, it is not easy to charter a proper course ahead. The noble Baroness suggested—I hope that I misunderstood her—that somehow the present Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State were tacitly encouraging the situation to deteriorate. I thought that they were working might and main to rescue the atrocious situation which is developing and change it into a situation which would be much more

1129
favourable in terms of achieving a reasonable settlement.
The noble Baroness made two points about free and fair elections. Quite frankly, we do not see that the April elections are based on what could reasonably be accepted as a free and fair basis. I will not retread the reasons for this, but, equally, in the spirit of my right honourable friend's comments on the report of Mr. Hughes, we look for the earliest possible basis on which we could fruitfully and meaningfully convene a conference of all concerned.
It would I believe be most misleading—and here I join with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who made a temperate and helpful comment—to assume that resistance to an all-Party meeting on the basis, broadly speaking, of the Anglo-American proposals comes from one side more than from the other. They all have objections to this—the Salisbury group, as well as the Patriotic Front. The task of British statesmanship, from whichever side of the House it may come, is to try to get the people to come together on the basis of the proposals which still stand as the best possible basis for agreement.
With regard to elections, I join once more with the noble Lord. We are speaking of a country 90 per cent. of which is subject to martial law, and in which there is Press and radio censorship. Everyone knows this, and we must not spend too much time considering whether we could do this or that in the light of the results of those elections, if elections they are. What we need to do—and if possible to anticipate April—is to get agreement for a ceasefire, followed immediately by really free and fair elections under UN auspices.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, my noble friend is in some difficulty, but I should like to ask what I regard as a simple, but direct question. This involves some repetition because the matter was raised quite recently. In view of Nkomo's declaration in accepting responsibility for this terrible action, and moreover, in view of the fact that the weapon used against the Viscount aircraft was obviously provided by the Soviet Union—a SAM—how can my noble friend justify the Government's continued belief that it is possible to promote an embracing conference,
1130
including the Patriotic Front, of which Nkomo and Mugabe are the leaders? How is it possible to do that? Has the time not come when we must grasp the nettle, and say that the Rhodesians must have the election shortly, and that we, the British Government, must set aside all questions of legality, UDI, and all the rest of it, which I know involve difficulties, and all of which is regrettable, and must seek to help the new Rhodesians, black and white, to stabilise their country? We ought to recognise them in such a situation.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, of course what my noble friend has just said is entitled to very careful consideration, and undoubtedly it will receive precisely that. At the moment I shall address myself only to the question he put to me: how could we, I presume in any conceivable circumstances, justify inviting certain people, who are deemed to be guilty of certain acts, to a conference table? This is a question which is put to us from time to time by precisely the opposite side about the others involved. Everybody would like to select their own conferees, and looking at history one sees that this country has rather a fruitful record of convening effective conferences precisely from the ranks of those who, during hostilities, were guilty of the most appalling acts.
Viscount BOYD of MERTON: My Lords, while agreeing with all that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has just said, I should like to ask the Minister, has not the time now arrived when those responsible for abominable crimes of this kind should no longer have a veto on round table talks?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I entirely agree that no one should have a veto on round table talks; but everybody is trying to exercise a veto on round table talks, just as they are trying to select their own fellow conferees. It is said that the Salisbury Group, by refusing to accept the possibility of UN-supervised elections, and insisting upon their own, are exercising a veto; and so one goes on. I think we must agree that no one has a veto, proceed on that assumption, and watch for the earliest possible suitable circumstances in which the Prime Minister of this country can, as he said

1131
he would, take the lead in calling such a conference.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that it is probably obvious that Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe, by refusing to come to the conference table until such time as the elections are held—whether or not they be free elections—are making quite certain that the elections will not be free?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is a speculation as to their calculations and actions. All I can say is that in April last year they came a very long way forward to meet the requirements of the Anglo-American proposals. Unfortunately, it was during last summer and well into the autumn that the Salisbury group resisted those concessions. Now the blame is not entirely on one side or the other, and I am not going to apportion blame. I agree that no one should have a veto. We must concentrate on wresting from the circumstances the earliest possible opportunity of a bold move to convene a conference, and I believe that the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend are determined to do precisely that.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL: My Lords, from a reply given by the noble Lord last week, I got the impression that one of the main obstacles to the Government's encouragement of the provisional Government's plans for the future of Rhodesia was the arrangements for protecting the white minority. First, I wish to ask the noble Lord whether that is so. Is that the obstacle that the noble Lord sees in his right honourable friend? Secondly, does he not remember that the Sixth Principle—the protection of the white minority—was that which was added to the Five Principles by Sir Harold Wilson when he was Prime Minister?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I should be surprised and very sorry indeed if I gave that impression. Clearly, any fair and durable solution of the Rhodesian question would have to include justice for all the minorities in that country—and they are not all simply white—and I would certainly include justice for the white element in that country. I believe that I have stressed this more than once in debates in this House. I most
1132
certainly hope that nothing I said last week, or at any time, has given the impression to which the noble Lord has referred. I shall be consulting Hansard very carefully in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, has said.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I do not in the least impute any kind of devious motive to the noble Lord or his colleagues, and I wish to pay my continued tribute to the unfailing patience and courtesy with which the noble Lord answers every question put to him, from whatever quarter. Nevertheless, does he realise that some of us at least believe that, by appearing to be impartial between a party which offers the ballot box, however imperfectly it may be used in the circumstances, and a party which uses as a weapon the murder of innocent civilians by knocking down, by sophisticated weapons, a civilian plane, the Government may in the end find that they have betrayed the true interests of civilisation?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I cannot agree with the full question, but I cannot take exception to what the noble and learned Lord said up to the final sentence. I hope that we will not ascribe to this or any other Government either a tacit or a deliberate intention to conduce to a deterioration of the situation. That would be an accusation of enormity which I would hope noble Lords in every part of the House would refute. As my right honourable friend and Mr. Vance decided on 2nd and 3rd February, when they last met on this matter, we intend to press forward with the Anglo-American proposals, which, in their basis and their framework, still present the best opportunity for a fair and durable solution. We are watching the situation extremely closely, precisely with a view to moving as quickly as possible to the convening of a conference.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, could the noble Lord give us an undertaking that none of the ground-to-air missiles supplied to the Zambian Government by Her Majesty's Government has in any way got into the hands of Mr. Nkomo? That is my first question. Secondly, can he also give an undertaking to bring to the attention of his right

1133
honourable friend the statement made by Mr. Nkomo the other day, when he said that he would turn the elections into a bloodbath? Surely, if this is the case, this underlines what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham has said, that being impartial between somebody who is pro an election and somebody who is pro a bloodbath is not really being impartial.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, whatever Mr. Nkomo is reported to have said now or in the past, I think it would be wise to keep in mind that, when the time comes—and I hope it will come soon—people who are now, for one reason or another, unacceptable to one side or another will need to be at the conference table. As to the noble Earl's first point, on the utilisation of Zambian missiles provided by this country, we have, of course, the Zambian Government's undertaking not to use them in any way similar to that which the noble Earl has suggested.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, would the Government agree that the interests of the white members of the Kenyan community are quite adequately, or seemingly adequately, protected without any constitutional or statutory representation of the white community in the local Legislature?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on the question of minorities and the white community in particular, I think that, as I cannot recall the precise words I used last week, I should refresh my memory. I have great respect for both noble Lords who have mentioned this, and I hope they will respect my probity in at least finding out exactly what was said.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, can the Minister give us one little extra piece of comfort, which is really based on a premise raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell? Can he go so far as to tell us that the Government are in fact making studies, and indeed plans, in case the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is right on a point on which I agree with him; namely, that the probability is more that the Patriotic Front will use force than not? If we had some assurance of this, perhaps it would dissipate a little the feeling which the Government give, I am sure quite
1134
innocently, that they always believe that this negative reply on the part of the Patriotic Front will not be forthcoming. We must provide for its happening, possibly.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that we are in close and constant contact with everybody concerned, and that we do not ascribe to either side a monopoly of vice or of virtue in this matter. It is essential that we maintain an objective attitude if we are going to succeed in our aim of convening a conference.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, is it not true that in this country those who are in prison for the crime of murder, or even lesser crimes, are not allowed to vote or to take any part in politics; and, if that is so, why should we consider it desirable to give that right to criminals in Rhodesia, who admittedly are not in prison but are every bit as much criminals?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, from where I am standing, all kinds of people ascribe criminality to all kinds of people. Where countries get into a situation like this—and, surely, the lessons of history bear this out—everybody is guilty of the most appalling atrocities. If, ahead of a conference, you are going to decide who is going to be allowed to attend, then you will never have a conference; you will have a condition of continuing hostility and destruction. However strongly noble Lords feel about these incidents, and whoever is the author of any given incident, I hope the House will give thought to the fact that we need to look ahead—and we may need to look ahead to, I hope, the fairly immediate future—to the necessity of getting together at a round table everybody involved in this situation.

MARRIAGE (ENABLING) BILL [H.L.]
4.27 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, we now return to the Marriage (Enabling) Bill. I want first to express my own gratitude, as I am sure I express

1135
the gratitude of the House, to the noble Baroness for bringing before it a Bill of considerable social importance, and also for the moderation and care with which she has introduced it. For myself, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having spoken to me about the problem some months ago, and for requiring me therefore to do some research into a matter which I confess I had not had occasion to consider before. My researches have revealed that the question of who a man or woman is free to marry is one of deep and far-reaching significance. All societies impose some regulations, and, though these may not be universally the same, it is nevertheless clear that the question touches very profound emotions which, though it may be difficult to articulate them, are real and strongly held. The social taboos which control the intermarriage of certain categories of people are widespread, and they go deep into the structure of society itself.
In this country, the Table of Kindred and Affinity has provided the basis on which our society exercises its control. It is constructed, for the most part, on the code laid down in the 18th chapter of the Book of Leviticus. It has had a long and controversial history. In his book, Family Law, E. L. Johnson sums up the situation with these words:
"The prohibited degrees of the Church of England were, until 1946, based on Canon 99 of 1603, commonly called Parker's Table, and were accepted by the State until 1907".
Since then, statute law has been amended by the Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act 1921, the Marriage (Enabling) Act 1960 and the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1931.
The first point which I suggest it is important for us to accept is the difference between kindred and affinity. Those related by kindred are blood relations. Those related by affinity are related by reason of marriage of or to others, which we term relatives in law or step relatives. As matters stand at the moment marriages within both groups are illicit.
The noble Baroness has made it clear that the Bill does not disturb the prohibition upon marriages between those closely related by blood. This I am sure, is right. I am an ignoramus in medical matters, but I am told on good authority
1136
that we all possess dominant and recessive genes and that the possibility of a combination of recessive genes, with unfortunate consequences, is far greater in marriage between blood relatives than it is between those not so related. But the issue is of far deeper significance than that of genetics. There is a profound replusion in most societies and most people against the possibility of sexual relationships and or marriage between very close blood relations. In her book, Family Law, Olive Stone writes:
"The incest taboo is not based wholly or even primarily on biological reasons, since primitive societies in which the biological relationship between father and child is imperfectly understood usually have prohibitions on sexual relations at least between those in the first degree of relationship. A far stronger reason seems to be that of social discipline".
This is reflected in the Sexual Offences Act 1956, which makes it a criminal offence for a man to have sexual relations with a woman he knows to be his granddaughter daughter, sister or mother; and, for a woman, mutatis mutandis. But it is a matter beyond the civil law. Most people believe such relationships to be contrary to the nature of man or, as some would say, contrary to the law of God.
But what of marriage between those not related by kindred but by affinity? As the noble Baroness has reminded us, the issue has been complicated in the past by the doctrine that by marriage the two parties become one flesh. I do not think we can possibly pursue that line today with any profit, and we should be wiser to declare that while marriages between those closely related by blood are contrary to the law of nature and must be forbidden, marriages between those related as we say "in law," or as step relatives, can properly be determined by legislators as they deem wise and proper. And that is what the noble Baroness is asking us to do in this Bill.
However, we do have to ask ourselves what are the principles upon which we ought to make our decisions. What guide lines should we follow in deciding whether it is right to legitimise some or all marriages outside the relationship of kindred? I suggest to your Lordships that the one criterion which, above all, we ought to apply is whether or not such marriages will generally contribute to the stability and happiness of family life. If they would have little or no effect on

1137
family life, then let us extend the range. If they would imperil further the stability of the home, then let us be very cautious before we open the door wider.
I am sure that your Lordships will need no persuasion from me in the conviction that the family is the basic unit in society and that upon its prosperity rests to a great extent the stability of society in general. Nor do you need me to remind the House of the dangers which already exist. The mounting toll of divorce, the broken homes, the un-happiness which underlies the breakdown of a marriage, the thousands of children growing up without the love and discipline and background of stable home life—all bear witness to a danger which is already a reality. These facts, therefore, compel us to examine with great care what might be the consequences of modifying the prohibitions which at present exist, and to be very cautious before we lift some or all the bans which at present apply. I would not assert that there is no case for lifting some of the prohibitions. There may well be such situations. I am, however, very doubtful about legislating in the wholesale manner presented by this Bill, without carefully weighing all the implications which, I suggest, is impossible in a debate of a few hours in your Lordships' House.
My Lords, let us look into the issue a little more closely. In Family Law, on page 3, Olive Stone writes:
"Sexual relations between members of a family other than the nuclear pair or pairs around whom the household is grouped would be disruptive, and the informality or ' familiarity ' normally existing between members of a family would quickly disappear if sexual or conjugal relations between its members were possible".
This view had been upheld earlier by the distinguished anthropologist, Professor Malinowsky, Professor of Social Anthropology at the University of London, who wrote:
"A group leading a joint life with the intimacy of daily concerns, with the need of an organized authority and unselfish devotion, cannot tolerate within its framework the possibility of sexual approaches, for these act as a competitive and disruptive force incompatible with the even tenor and stability of the family".
In other words, he held that marriage should be forbidden when a nuptial relationship is considered to be incompatible with a family relationship already in existence. Thus, in most cases, a step-
1138
parent is in loco parentis towards stepchildren, and has a special and particular relationship towards them. That relationship would be quite different if the stepparent regarded himself or herself not only as a parent but as a possible husband or wife. The same is true of those who adopt a child. It is true also of parents-in-law.
The issue is not so serious regarding marriage between collaterals of the same generation. The marriage with a deceased wife's sister or deceased husband's brother has not, I think, disrupted family life. But it is quite a different matter to consider marriage between those related by affinity in the ascending or descending line, and the commixture of different generations.
It needs little imagination to picture the disruption to family relationships if stepchildren, who have been brought up to know the step-parent as father or mother, and to accept the natural display of affection as that of a parent, discover that those symbols of affection are those of a suitor and not a parent. Consider the difficulties which could arise when stepchildren find that their step-father has become a brother-in-law because he has married their sister. Consider the confusion when, as so often happens, stepbrothers and sisters are brought up together and regard themselves virtually as blood relations, when the full child of one of the parents finds himself or herself a step-brother-in-law or step-sister-in-law to his or her own parent.
My Lords, there is a significant omission in the Bill. It says nothing about the possible marriage of an adopting parent and an adopted child.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, if the right reverend Prelate would be good enough to give way, I think I am right to say that marriage is not permitted between an adopting parent and an adopted child. The adopted child is in the position of a natural child.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, that is exactly the point to which I am coming. The reason, I presume, why the noble Baroness has made this omission is, as she has pointed out, because, under the Adoption Act 1950, to quote Halsbury:

1139
"An adopter and the person he has been authorized to adopt under an adoption order are deemed to be within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity and this is so notwithstanding that some other person is authorized by a subsequent order to adopt the same infant".
Thus, although an adopter and an adopted child are not blood relatives, they are deemed by the law to be related by kindred and not by affinity. The reason presumably is that this relationship is so close that it would be entirely disruptive for the possibility of marriage to be entertained.
However, is not the relationship between a step-parent and step-children often as close if not closer than that between an adopting parent and an adopted child? Are not both in loco parentis? Would it not be as harmful to family relationships for step-parents to be able to marry their step-children as it would be for adopting parents to marry their adopted children? I think therefore that the noble Baroness has not been entirely logical. If she wants to remove all prohibition on marriages between those related otherwise than by blood, then why does she not seek to remove the prohibition between adopter and adopted child? I interpret her reluctance as a recognition of the danger to family life which her proposals involve.
The complications and the dangers are magnified by the ease of divorce. If it were possible for a son to marry his father's wife they might each obtain a divorce to do so. The husband who tires of his ageing wife might well see in his step-daughter the youthful graces which he had once seen in his wife, and divorce her in order to marry his youthful stepdaughter.
Perhaps I can sum this up by quoting a letter I have received from a lady who told me that she might be involved in this kind of complication. She and her husband have both been married before. I gather from her letter that she has divorced her husband. She points out that if her husband were free to marry her daughter, and have children, he would become step-grandfather and father to his child and he would become son-in-law to his own ex-wife. His new wife would become step-mother to his children and she would also be their step-sister.
1140
There are also more subtle dangers, and I remind noble Lords that I am quoting from a letter. She says:
"Women will now worry when their daughter becomes 16 if the step-father makes too much fuss of her. At the moment it is wrong for step-fathers to interfere with step-daughters. If this deterrent is taken away it will happen more and more. All young girls practise womanly wiles with fathers, and what red-blooded man is going to ignore this if he knows the girl is legally available sexually?"
That is a point of view that has been put to me. I leave it to your Lordships to work out the complications of relationships which could be created by a wholesale removal of the prohibitions on marriage between those related by affinity as is suggested in this Bill. I merely say now that it needs little imagination to picture the confusion which could be created in family relations, the distrust between parents and their children and step-children if there was to be the unfettered freedom that is suggested by this Bill.
It is true that in certain countries legislation has been introduced to remove the prohibition on marriage between those related by affinity. I understand this has been done in Australia, but I have no information as to details. In New Zealand, the Marriage Act 1955 provides that the Supreme Court, which is the equivalent of our High Court, may give consent to any marriage which would be void for affinity only, but not for consanguinity, provided that the court is satisfied that neither party has "caused or contributed to" the termination of any previous marriage by the other party. In the case Re. Hoskin 1958 New Zealand Reports 604, the Court allowed a stepfather to marry his step-daughter but laid it down that it retained a discretion which would be exercised, for instance, to prevent anyone taking advantage of a guardian-ward situation, or making a marriage with ulterior motives as to money or property.
The example of New Zealand suggests that there are considerable risks and dangers attached to relaxing the restrictions on marriage between those related by affinity, and, if it is thought desirable, there should first of all be careful examination on our part of what is involved and of the possible consequences.
May I sum up, my Lords? We are all, I take it, agreed that there are weighty

1141
reasons for prohibiting marriage between those closely related by consanguinity. My plea is that there are also important reasons for prohibiting or at least controlling marriage between those related by contiguity. The cases arising under this latter category are less obvious than those in the former. But I think it possible that marriage, say, between step-parents and their step-children could be as socially disruptive as would be marriage between blood relations. So we ought to proceed with great caution.
I hope that after this discussion the noble Baroness will withdraw her Bill, for I cannot accept that the issues which could have such far-reaching impact on the stability of family life should be dealt with in a private Bill and after a few hours of debate in this House. I am not satisfied that there is any widespread demand for the reforms that she is seeking, though she has given us some very touching cases, and no doubt we shall hear of other hard cases. If at a later date such a demand should become apparent, then there would be a need first of all to seek the views of the Law Commission. One would hope also that an inter-departmental committee would examine all the issues that are involved and that it would investigate the practice and the experience of countries where the law has been relaxed. I would think it essential to consult with lawyers, social scientists and theologians drawn from the different religious traditions of this country. In this way, we could inform ourselves of the possible consequences of such action as the noble Baroness proposes, and we could avoid possible dangers to the stability and happiness of family life.
If it is considered desirable to take action, I hope that it can be taken un-controversially. Therefore I plead with the noble Baroness that she should, after this full debate, withdraw her Bill, for there are many of us who would not wish to have to vote against it.
4.48 p.m.
Lord MANCROFT: My Lords, it is nearly 30 years ago since I first started to draft a Bill with exactly the same title as the Bill of the noble Baroness, the Marriage (Enabling) Bill. It took me 11 years to get it on the Statute Book. That Bill was intended to make it possible for
1142
a man to marry his divorced wife's sister and vice versa—not the deceased wife's sister, as the noble Baroness has begged us to bear in mind, though that took even longer to get through your Lordships' House.
I am fully aware of the difficulties of this problem, and I should like to warn the noble Baroness of one or two of them and remind the House of the views held by your Lordships in those days. The first difficulty of course is that hard cases make bad law. I shall give your Lordships the example which helped me to get my Bill on to the Statute Book, hard though it was. As most of the people concerned are well known in their own localities, I have taken the precaution of obtaining their permission to mention the case in the House today.
This was a case of a young sergeant in my regiment. He was stationed in Cairo during the war and fell in love with and married a girl who worked in the GHQ. A baby was eventually on the way and she, at the time that Rommel was threatening Cairo, was evacuated via the Cape back home to Scotland, where she went to live with her sister. In due course, having, alas! a roving eye, she took up with a Polish Air Force officer and ran away with him, leaving her young daughter to be cared for by her sister. The sergeant obtained compassionate leave, came home and tried to patch up his affairs—alas! to no avail—and the inevitable divorce ensued. His wife went off and married her Polish officer. My sergeant, however, of course went to make friends with the sister-in-law whom he had never seen before and of whose existence he hardly knew, who was mothering his child. Your Lordships can visualise the inevitable result: they wished to get married. But whereas his former wife was able to marry the Polish officer, he suddenly discovered—he did not know it beforehand—that he was not entitled and was not enabled by law to marry his sister-in-law. He did not know that was the law; nor, frankly did I, and nor did quite a few people—including one or two registrars who had accidentally married people to their sisters-in-law without realising they were doing wrong. There was one interesting aftermath concerning a lady from Manchester who had been married, wrongly, to her brother-in-law for some years. It was a marriage which was not going

1143
well, and the brother-in-law read of my Bill in the Manchester Guardian, folded his newspaper, heaved a sigh of relief and went off to live with a barmaid in Bridlington!
Strengthened by my sergeant's case, I launched my Bill and the objections principally raised were exactly those so cogently put before your Lordships by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London—the primary one, of course, being the unacceptable hazard in family circles, particularly in modest and rather crowded family circles. It was this matter that I debated long and with great difficulty with the then Archbishop of Canterbury, that most remarkable and distinguished Archbishop, Lord Fisher, who was sympathetic but took exactly the same view as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London now takes, which at the time I found very difficult to refute. He asked me whether I could find any evidence one way or the other as to whether such circumstances were likely to upset a home. My Lords, it is very difficult to prove a matter like this one way or the other. I know of only about a hundred cases affected by my Bill—and I suppose by the time I had finished my 10-year negotiations I knew practically all of them—and I was unable to produce any evidence one way or the other, to the Archbishop's satisfaction or dissatisfaction,
However, it did have one interesting and not entirely unpleasant postscript. I rang up the Archbishop of Canterbury's office one morning to give him some information he had asked me to seek. I realised at once that I had got a wrong number because instead of the cheerful voice of his secretary, with which I had become familiar, the telephone was answered by a very dulcet and sweet feminine voice. I was certain I had got a wrong number and I said: "I am very sorry: I think I have a wrong number. Is that the Archbishop of Canterbury's office?" And the sweet feminine voice said: "The Archbishop of Canterbury's office?—anything but!" I am happy to say that the Archbishop was delighted.
Nevertheless, in due course he relented and my Bill duly passed into law. But now appeared something which makes me strongly support the views put forward by my noble friend Lord Long and the
1144
right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London in favour of a further and wider inquiry into the whole matter. My couple—my sergeant and his sister-in-law—were eventually married. They were both staunch church people and would have liked to have been married in church. That, of course, was not possible. I believe it is now possible frequently for a blessing ceremony to occur after the marriage, but there is no possibility of a marriage taking place in church. I understand that is under consideration in certain circles though, not being myself a member of the Church of England, it would be impertinent for me to comment on that. They were married in a registry office and had the kindness to ask me to be their best man.
My Lords, there is nothing more arid or unhappy than a marriage in some registry offices: nothing more likely to discourage people's belief in the sanctity and importance of the promises being made. I wonder whether, when these inquiries are being made, somebody could look into some means of dignifying the ceremony which now plays so much greater a part in our marriages and our matrimonial life than it used to. I myself have made this statement once in public before—and I wished I had not, because I was immediately challenged by the Registrar-General to try to produce a better ceremony. I had not realised how complex and difficult that would prove. I would commend it to the right reverend Prelate's committee when it is finally set up.
I hope this body of inquiry will be set up and I hope it will cover a much wider sphere of interest in this most difficult and complex subject. We have learned in the past 25 or 30 years since I first introduced my Bill: the sanctity of marriage is being rapidly weakened, illegitimacy no longer carried any stigma; people, in order to satisfy their tax gatherer, live openly and cheerfully in sin and do not even call it sin. There are very much wider problems than those which are raised by the noble Baroness's Bill and although I sympathise with her naturally, having been myself successful—so I say this rather smugly—in doing the very thing she is trying to do, I think she is up against real difficulties. I hope, therefore, that she will agree to the proposals put forward by the right reverend Prelate

1145
the Bishop of London and my noble friend on the Front Bench to let the matter be taken further. If she does not agree, then I only hope it does not take as long as it did in my case for her to get her measure on the Statute Book. I hope that she, and indeed the House of Lords, are still here to see it successfully carried through.
4.56 p.m.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, I find myself in a certain difficulty which springs from the fact that there are undoubted and complicated issues involved, of which we can take notice and for which we ought to be prepared; but as I compare them with a number of facts which are already available, I find myself able, and enthusiastically able, to support the Bill which has been introduced by my noble friend this afternoon. I propose to adduce the various reasons why, despite the probabilities and possibilities of danger and difficulty, I feel on the whole it would be wise and proper that we should give this Bill a Second Reading. There may be Amendments and changes in Committee and I, for one, would not seek to resist them if they can be properly argued. I take note of the kind of warnings that have been uttered already so cogently in this debate.
I begin with the certainty that there can be no theological objection to this Bill once the Levitical tribal system of consanguinity allied to affinity has been breached and broken. I have nothing to add to what has already been said about consanguinity—which, by the way, has nothing to do with this Bill—but I am satisfied that there can be no theological proposition sufficient to warrant a refusal in law to allow people who are already in a state of affinity to be prevented from marriage in circumstances which are peculiar to them and therefore cannot be regarded in general terms.
That leads me to the second point. I listened with considerable interest to the problems which may arise. I have been a practising parson for more than 50 years and I must confess that I have not come across these problems. If I have come across them, they have been problems which do not relate to the particular issue in hand. For instance, if it be argued that a step-father and a step-daughter may
1146
engage in relationships which are dubious and sexually dangerous because the possibility later on may be that they may get married, I would ask the House to remember that my noble friend made it as clear as indeed was made in the report of 1956, that it is just as likely that theimpossibility of marriage may provoke identical relationships of a sexual and disadvantageous nature. I find it difficult—in fact impossible—to accept the proposition that the sexual practices will move in a particular direction if this Bill goes forward.
In my time, I suppose I have officiated at the marriage of hundreds of people and I reflect upon those introductory remarks which are at any rate made in the book of offices to which I am accustomed. We ask for what marriage was ordained, and the first answer is that it was ordained for the mutual society, help and comfort that the one ought to have of the other. The second is that children may be brought up in the care and nurture of the faith.
Gorer, in his anthropological efforts up to 1950, made much of the fact that marriage was largely complementary—the breadwinner on the one hand, and the housekeeper on the other. But when he returned to the theme, he introduced the idea of symmetrical marriage as being much more likely and much more common than the traditional complementary form of marriage. I do not know to what extent he is exact, but I do know out of my own experience that the idea that marriage is a very satisfactory way in which two people who are alike in many of their desires and attitudes can find happiness in the role of matrimony tends in many respects, particularly among those who are older, to be a much more potent reason for the preservation of marriage than merely the endeavour to marry rather than burn, as your Lordships will remember St. Paul said, though he was considering not faggots in Smith-field but the burning of sexual desire.
I believe that those cases which have already been advanced are much more likely to fall within the category of symmetrical marriage, and have relatively little to do with the sexual urges which are so much more dominant in earlier years. It is for that reason, among others, that I do not horrify myself by

1147
the prospect of an inordinate amount of moral disorder flowing from the abolition of these affinity laws. Out of my experience, which I can only offer for what it is worth, I should have thought that it would strengthen the basic concept of marriage which is, in my judgment, a theological proposition, or, if you like, a sacramental proposition based on natural reason or natural theology. But, in fact, the married state, in terms of the mutual society, help and comfort of the one for the other, is one of the basic laws of the universe in which we live, particularly in relation to the species to which we belong.
It would be pretentious of me to proclaim any expertise in this field. I can only offer my experience as a working parson over many years. But, far from the abolition of the affinity laws creating a much greater degree of disorder, and sexual disorder, in marriage, I should have thought that it might well persuade many people who today regard marriage as a very trivial occupation that it has a real context, and that this symmetrical idea of people coming together can well be the basis of the kind of society in which we perhaps hope we may be able to live, or at least see our children living in.
What we are discussing today is not some great surge of many peoples. It is very few indeed who will avail themselves of this possibility. I am reminded that it was Abraham Lincoln who, in the middle of the Civil War, is reported to have said, when he remitted the death sentence on a young deserter, "To save one life eases me". I find myself attracted to that easement of spirit, in which this relief from the prohibition and legal impossibility of affinity may well persuade a great many people not to follow the course of action which has been so luridly described—and I have no objection to the prospects being alluded to; in fact, being emphasised—but I would take a contrary view. There is the adventure in completing the dissociation between consanguinity and affinity, in which consanguinity is obviously wrong but affinity can be right. After all, this is an enabling Bill. It does not commit anybody to do anything. It is for that reason that, in principle, I would invite your Lordships to support it.
I have one last comment and I revert to what I said earlier on. I am not blind
1148
to the kind of problems that may, in particular cases, arise. I should be prepared to see in Committee, if this Bill should receive a Second Reading, the prolonged and careful investigation of some of those problems which have been clearly set forth in your Lordships' House this afternoon. But what I do suggest to your Lordships as I sit down is that, on the whole, I think this will do a lot of good to a few unhappy people, that it will not produce the kind of calamitous results which have been advertised, and that it will preserve rather than tend to erode the true principles that lie behind Christian marriage.
5.56 p.m.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, I understand that this is a non-Party issue. I hope that I am right, because I find myself the only speaker on this subject from the Liberal Benches, and I want to make it absolutely clear, before anything I say is heard or not heard, that I am not speaking for the Liberal Party. I know that they would prefer I said that. I am also slightly conscious that we on these Benches are one Party with three Benches, and I am speaking between two bishops and one honorary bishop, or near-bishop, if I may call the noble Lord, Lord Soper, that, all of whom have some—if I may risk an understatement—knowledge of the theological, sacramental and even symmetrical aspects of marriage. I have no knowledge of these, because I am possibly the only unmarried speaker.
Having made those remarks, I should like as quickly as possible to say how grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, for having put so clearly and shortly a very interesting case. She has been warned by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that things will not become easier, and I wish I could say that I will make it easier for her. My Lords, I cannot, because I have to say—I do not know whether it is once in a way, once in a right way or once in a wrong way—that I am inclined to follow the much more clear arguments put forward by the noble and right reverend Prelate of the Church of which I am a professing member.
I should like to illustrate, by an example which is half fact and half fancy, a point which I think he made, which is that we are not only considering the contracting parties who may, as in hard cases, be

1149
very anxious to marry, when it would be perfectly harmless in other ways if they did. I am trying to consider two other points: one is the effect on the family, and the other is the effect on the institution of marriage as a whole. To take the family first, the example that I should like to give, if I may call it that, is a fantastic one.
To come to the factual part first, my paternal grandfather went to his public school, which was Eton, at the age of eight and remained there until, I think, the age of 18. During his last years, his uncle, who was some six years younger, arrived there and became his fag. I remember my grandfather telling me with, I think, malicious glee of what he considered a triumph when he had been summoned before the headmaster for corporal punishment, which went on in those days at Eton. He was successful in fagging his uncle, who, luckily for him, had the same name, to act or suffer as a substitute. He thought that it was a great joke. I do not know what the uncle thought.
That is irrelevant to the debate, in a way, but it raises in my mind a dream or an imagination in which I am a younger man than I am now, whose nephew comes to him and says: "My dear chap, all my life I have had the greatest regard for you as an uncle. As from tomorrow's date, when I am proposing to marry your mother, I hope that I may regard you as a son and that you will regard me as a father.' It would mean a very drastic review of married relationships. That is an unlikely position, and one might say that a man of that age could look after himself.
This brings me to the much more important question of step-children. This question was raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. Stepmothers always have a very bad press in fairy stories, but I know of many cases where step-fathers and step-mothers have behaved admirably in delicate and difficult situations and have been regarded, as they should be, as parents. We must remember, however, that fairy stories were written before the successful introduction of the Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, which became an Act in 1960. In those days, there was only one stepmother, however wicked.
1150
According to that Act, it was possible for a man to marry the former wife of his brother, his uncle, or his nephew, whether or not he was living; the same applied to a man marrying the sister, aunt or niece of his former wife, whether or not she was living. In other words, it was not a question of pricking the blister about marrying a deceased wife's sister, which the noble Baroness has logically extended to pricking the current bother about marriage with a deceased wife's mother, or grandmother, or daughter-in-law. We have to add the word "divorced". Although one step-mother may be good or bad, I can imagine cases in which one would have at least two or three stepmothers. If they all intermarried, this would, as the noble Viscount, Lord Long, said, take a bit of alcohol to work out. The old-fashioned game of happy families, which I can understand, would have to be drastically revised.
I suggest that this Bill, whose intentions are admirable, could cause immense confusion, not just because it would add to the number of step-mothers or step-fathers but also because it would further complicate the relationships which children encounter. I know of cases where children are absolutely fogged about the relationships that they hold to different people, some of whom they like and some of whom they do not like. For that reason, I should very much like to support the suggestion that this matter ought to be looked into at greater length and, although perhaps it is impertinent to say so, with more expert authority than at least one of the speakers in your Lordships' House has exhibited today.
The other reason is that I believe that, in the past, the whole state of marriage has suffered some bad knocks, although often for good reasons. I do not believe that this is the moment to give it another one. When I say "a knock", it would mean excising eight of the prohibited degrees, leaving, so far as I can work out, only seven cases which are prohibited. That is, a man may not marry his mother, his sister, his daughter, his paternal grandmother, his maternal grandmother, his son's daughter, or his daughter's daughter. I do not regard these as very important, because first cousins have always been allowed to marry, although they are nearly related by blood. If one took blood

1151
samples, presumably one would find that each had one-quarter of the blood of his grandfather and grandmother.
In terms of pure medical logic, if I had any, I suppose that one could argue—indeed, I am quite sure that somebody will argue—that we ought to strike out the whole thing and allow anybody to marry anybody. I feel that the noble Baroness is the last person to countenance that kind of result. I say that with some conviction, because a very long time ago I had the great privilege of being a member of a delegation of four—two Members of this House and two Members of the other place—who protested against certain excesses, as we then thought, that were contained in the Abortion Bill. Our delegation was unsuccessful. I say that only to show how much I respect and sympathise with the views held by the noble Baroness. My Lords, I have spoken for 10 minutes, which is too long. I know that your Lordships want to hear other speakers, so I will sit down.
5.17 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I must declare an interest—not that I want to marry my step-daughter; first, I have to find the wife before I can marry the step-daughter. Nevertheless, I have an interest, in that, as a bishop, I was confronted with this very problem. I had to give advice, which meant consulting many people, including the late Bishop of Exeter, Dr. Mortimer, who was a very wise counsellor to many in this House, and also the present Bishop of Birmingham, Dr. Hugh Montefiore, with his knowledge of Jewish law as well as Christian law. I am not going to indulge in fancy stories and half truths. I do not think that anything is furthered by supposition. Let us deal with facts, but do not let us ridicule supposed situations.
The facts are as follows. I change the names, for obvious reasons. The people concerned live in my diocese and it would be wrong to disclose their identity. Mr. and Mrs. Jones have a child. The marriage is dissolved. Mr. Jones disappears to another part of the world. The child goes into care. Mrs. Jones marries Mr. Smith. Then Mrs. Smith—who was originally Mrs. Jones—dies from cancer soon after the marriage. Mr. Smith
1152
has had hardly any dealings whatsoever with Miss Jones—that is to say, the daughter by the first marriage, for the girl is in the care of guardians.
Then, for educational reasons, Miss Jones, who is now 20, comes to live in the house of Mr. Smith, who is 36. She is living there with another girl who is also educationally involved. During the course of time, the step-daughter—Miss Jones—becomes attached to Mr. Smith, and vice versa. They fall in love. They go to the incumbent, who is an incumbent in my parish, who assumes that there is no reason at all why they should not be married. They go also to a lawyer who gives them the same advice. The marriage is announced. The matter is then referred to me. I consult my lawyers. I consult the Bishop of Exeter, the present Bishop of Birmingham and other lawyers, including the lawyers at Lambeth. From practically everyone I received nothing but sympathy—or, rather, Mr. Smith received nothing but sympathy. But I was told that there was only one thing I could do and that was to say that such a marriage could not take place, not because it is criminal but because it is against the civil law, although I was told that it was not against the civil law for them to cohabit and to have children.
The young man, who is a practising member of the Church of England, and to whom religion means a great deal, is faced by a serious problem. Should he go to another country where he is entitled to marry his step-daughter or should he cohabit? For reasons I need not go into—chiefly financial, though—it was impossible for Mr. Smith to go to another country and to marry Miss Jones. For that reason he remains in England, he cohabits and he has two children. These children are illegitimate and cannot be legitimised except possibly by adoption and if he should die first—and he is still a comparatively young man—the woman with whom he cohabits will get no widow's pension, either from the State or from his previous occupation.
That is the brief outline of a story in which I have been involved since 1970. It is a very human story and I know we shall be told that exceptional cases make bad law. What I would say is that if there are people who are determined to live with their step-daughters, though

1153
perhaps not for the honourable reasons of Mr. Smith, they will do so in any case; they will just cohabit, as people do. I therefore do not think for one moment that by throwing this out we shall safeguard the family. We are much more likely to safeguard the family if we pass something like the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, because it will make it possible for a family such as I have mentioned to live openly and legitimately as a family instead of having to cohabit in the way that they do today, with all that that means for the father, the mother and those two children.
Obviously I have much sympathy with much that my brother, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, has said but I hope that perhaps he and others who think like him will realise that there is another side. Also, if I may say so, it always seems a little sad to me that, when matters of personal relationships, family and sex come up, the Church often seems so negative and backward looking. How much unhappiness have we brought to thousands of people by views which have recently been changed with regard to those who are homosexually orientated? We have not had a proud record—at least not a record of which I am proud—in the Church.
Again, when it comes to divorce, I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that it is not correct to say that it is against the law of the Church of England for a clergyman to marry a divorced person. He is fully entitled by the law of the land to marry a divorced person, even without consulting his bishop, if his conscience says so. He has the legal right to marry or not. It is true that the Convocations of the Church of England have asked clergy not to avail themselves of that right, but they can do no more than ask; they cannot make any law in the Convocations which is in conflict with the laws of this country, because we are the established Church. I myself have married divorced people on a number of occasions, and so have many of my clergy friends. I have done so four times in the past 40 years, which is an average of once every 10 years, and when people tell me that if we have lax laws people will all be going over London Bridge to the south side of the river in order to get married in Southwark I say it is quite untrue; they are much
1154
more likely to go over London Bridge to get married in a more fashionable church on the other side of the river.
But today what we are concerned with is what makes for happiness and for family contentment and, just as I believe that there are times when divorce is permissible and should be encouraged, though only on certain occasions, so I believe that, in cases like this, when it comes to the marriage of a man to a step-daughter there may be cases when it is right. I, for one, would be glad to have been able to have done something for that young man who came to me in distress. It is very sad for me to realise that he and his children have to live in an irregular situation which I think does nothing whatsoever for the honour and dignity of the married state.
5.26 p.m.
Lord HUNT of FAWLEY: My Lords, as a doctor I can tell that this Bill is more complicated and can arouse more emotion than appears at first sight. It is of great importance to some people. It has been put before us today by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, because she feels, as do many others, that it is rather unfair when some couples who happen by chance to be step-relatives by affinity and not by blood, fall in love and cannot marry at any time because of the provisions of our present Marriage Acts, and their children have to remain illegitimate for life, with all that that may mean to them socially or in other ways; although this may not seem so important today as it did a few years ago.
We know what some probation officers think; we have had correspondence with the National Marriage Guidance Council and I have talked with two officers of their London Branch. A number of interesting points have arisen. Families differ in the span of time that their generations cover. Before the war I delivered an English girl of 16 of a baby daughter. Her mother had been 16 when this girl was born, so the mother was a grandmother at the age of 32; if family traditions were followed she might easily have been a great-grandmother at the age of 48. It is mostly with this kind of family that we are concerned today. Under modern conditions our generation span is shortening, with changes in our way of life and

1155
with the introduction into our society of different ethnic groups, in some of which the children mature very early and marry early, too.
At the other end of the scale, I know one family in which three generations have already covered a span of 205 years. Before Christmas, I brought an old friend of mine, nearly 90 years old, to lunch in your Lordships' House. Her grandfather was born in 1774, 41 years before the Battle of Waterloo—almost unbelievable but possible, if one works it out, if a father and son both marry late and have children at about the age of 65, and one of their grandchildren lives to the age of 90. My old friend would never have had the wish nor the opportunity to marry her step-grandfather, had she had one! But in this Bill no fewer than 16 of the 24 provisions which the noble Baroness seeks to repeal are concerned with step-grandparents and step-grandchildren, and with other members of those generations. Even in the precocious family I have mentioned, more than 40 years separated the grandmother from her eldest grandchild by the time that child started growing up. There can be few people who want to marry someone who is 40 years older or younger than themselves.
These particular provisions of this Bill may seem at first to be somewhat ridiculous and not worth including, as my noble friend Lord Long mentioned. But I think they should be kept in, because we know that there are "sugar daddies" about, and that a few young girls and boys sometimes like to experiment and try out their sexuality on somebody they know well who is much older than they are, with no thought of marriage. In doing this they may become more emotionally involved than they had expected at first. Quite young people are sometimes tempted by the idea of marrying someone much older than themselves who has plenty of money. With most large and more or less normal families (I come from quite a big family myself; my mother and father had 27 grandchildren: and no one respects the unity and stability of a family more than I do) nature seems to endow siblings with a certain inborn resistance to making love or wanting to marry other each. I knew a girl who had 12 elder brothers. She used to say that she was the only person in England who had played cricket for 14
1156
years and had never batted once; she was always longstop. And she never fell in love with any of her brothers!
But with step-relations things may be very different, when generations grow up closely together, perhaps with one or two broken marriages among them, with children of former marriages being absorbed into new homes, and with step-relations of much the same age connected by affinity and not by blood living in close proximity to one another. Under these conditions they may easily fall in love. Our present Marriage Act makes some of them who are not allowed to marry, and their children, very unhappy. The circumstances of every couple are different, and even with the same couple the situation may change over the years.
For instance, a man may make a second marriage with a woman who has a daughter only a little younger than himself. If he should fall in love with that daughter and wanted to marry her, while his wife is still alive and with him, that would mean a divorce, with his wife having to cite her own daughter perhaps as co-respondent—a most unhappy situation. If, however, his wife were dead or divorced (perhaps some years before they fell in love) and he is by then in his 50s and she in her 40s, things would be very different. At that time he and the daughter would be two people of mature age related by affinity and not by blood, and with no one else involved, and she might be invaluable to him looking after his other children. To allow them to marry then most people would agree would be sensible, and I am given to understand that the Marriage Guidance Council would probably accept that.
We must consider very seriously the arguments put forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, based partly, I think, on experience of probation officers, that a childish maternal or paternal love for an older step relative, especially for one who is in loco parentis to the child, may grow into sexual love without the child's proper understanding of this and before it is ready for it. We must all agree, surely, that such a situation may do considerable harm in a close-knit community. I am in complete agreement, too, with the right reverend Prelate that adolescents and other young people must be protected as far as possible from this

1157
sort of thing, especially since we have lowered the age of consent to 16. But I do not believe that the argument which has been put forward for their protection is quite as powerful as has been suggested. Our present Marriage Act may discourage but it does not prevent a couple, of whatever age, from falling in love just because the present law prevents them marrying later. One may be forgiven for thinking that in our present permissive society step-relations who live close enough and long enough together to fall in love, will make love, whatever the law says about their not being allowed to marry in future.
Later, with the passage of time, when the younger of them has reached a mature and responsible age, when they have become really fond of one another over the years, with the right kind of affection, if they are not related by blood, if no one else in the family would be hurt, and they still want to marry, it might well be asked why should they not; why should the law stop them then? We know that there are an appreciable number of couples in this position in Britain today; step-relations who may not even have met for the first time until they were both over the age of 21, whom the law as it stands prevents from marrying, and whose children must remain illegitimate. That may itself give rise to complications when entailed interests or a title are involved. Another important point, which the noble Baroness made, is that if the man dies there will be no widow's pension and perhaps not even a pension from his employer. To forbid them marrying under these conditions seems to many people to be unfair, intolerant and unreasonable. Some of these couples have gone abroad to get married, but many cannot afford to do that.
As a possible way out of our difficulties, my Lords, and as a kindly, generous and Christian compromise, I would like to propose two Amendments to the noble Baroness's Bill: (1) the introduction of an age limit—perhaps 21 or 25 or any other age which may be agreed—for both partners before such a marriage is allowed by law to take place; and (2) no such marriage may occur without the previous dispensation of a judge in chambers who will, in his wisdom, consider all the circumstances, protect the interests of the whole family, and make quite sure that no
1158
one is likely to be hurt or to be sufficiently involved to make the marriage undesirable.
I know that others agree with me over this. Although the noble Baroness's Bill does clear up some anomalies, it goes too far in repealing outright all the provisions mentioned in it; and I believe many people think that Amendments are necessary, as we have already heard. The Chairman of the Executive of the National Marriage Guidance Council, Professor E. J. Griew, wrote to the noble Baroness on 18th January this year, saying:
"I think that we should ask you to consider introducing some qualifications into your Bill".
And he added:
"in Australia and New Zealand there is legislation which permits marriage between persons related by affinity provided that the consent of the court is obtained".—(Cretney, S.M., Principles of Family Law, 2nd ed., Sweet amp; Maxwell, 1976, p. 39.)
For us to turn down this Bill altogether today would, I think, be a retrograde step. I would support the noble Baroness, but only if the Bill can be amended by introducing the two safeguards I have suggested. I am advised that the exact wording of these Amendments should be left until they can be suitably drafted by parliamentary counsel for the Committee stage. I hope that they will be quite short—a few words inserted after (a), meaning, "providing both parties to the proposed marriage are over the age of—" (whatever we choose) and after (b), "provided that every couple related by affinity and covered by this Bill, who wish to marry, first obtain legal dispensation from a judge in chambers".
In conclusion, may I say that the Bill is well named a "Marriage Enabling Bill" and not a "Marriage Encouraging Bill". It will go a long way towards protecting children—which is what the right reverend Prelate wants—discouraging all those step-relations who are too young to marry or who will upset others by doing so; while at the same time being generous, and enabling those of mature age and who are really fond of each other to marry and thus legitimise their children. It will give us the best of both worlds.
If no one else wishes to do so, I should be happy to propose these Amendments myself at the Committee stage when other, perhaps more adequate, Amendments might be added to the Bill and

1159
discussed fully. With that proviso, I should like to support the proposal that the Bill be read a second time.
5.41 p.m.
Lord ROBERTSON of OAKRIDGE: My Lords, during the relatively short time that I have had the honour to be in your Lordships' House I have come to recognise in the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, someone who not only takes great personal interest and concern in other people, but is prepared to take action on their behalf, and I respect her all the more for it. One could not fail to be moved by the examples which she and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark gave us. However, I am bound to say that I am inclined to follow the line of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, because I feel that in meeting some hard cases we might be opening the way to greater unhappiness elsewhere. Therefore, at the very least the subject needs further study.
The particular aspect of the Bill that concerns me most is the effects of the changes on step-children. The changes would allow someone to marry a child who had grown up in his or her household, and would be likely to produce conflicts of interest which I believe would damage family life. As has been indicated, this is not just another "deceased wife's sister", or, indeed, "divorced wife's sister"; the Bill would permit marriage between those who had previously enjoyed what was virtually a parent/child relationship.
When I began to think about the Bill I turned to the Bible to see what that said. I found that the guidance there was clear. I was left in no doubt that what is proposed by the Bill is, in fact, contrary to what is written in scripture. I remain to be convinced that, just because Leviticus was written many thousands of years ago, we can brush it aside. After all, the Ten Commandments stem from the same age. What is more, these laws have been enshrined in our Church traditions and our Prayer Books, and presumably not without good reason. Incidentally, if the Bill were to become law there would have to be provision so that clergy were not faced with a conflict of conscience. I freely acknowledge that what may be
1160
considered by some to be morally binding for Christians need not be enshrined in the law. However, I think that we must look at what is behind those prohibitions in scripture and their relevance in modern society.
My second point is also taken from the Bible and has been mentioned before; namely, that when two people marry they become "one flesh". We have been warned against taking that point too far and I accept that. But, whatever else the phrase involves, it surely means that, to a very considerable degree, the two persons' families become one family and the relationships and the relatives of the one partner become the relationships and relatives of the other partner. That is something I certainly have found to my joy in my own marriage. In the case of step-children, the parents of the home in which they are brought up become, in a very real sense, their father and mother even though one is, in fact, their stepparent.
When I have spoken to people about the Bill almost invariably their first reaction has been that, because no blood relationship was involved, no great issue was at stake. However, I understand that it is generally recognised in most societies that, in addition to the question of blood relationships, there are social and psychological reasons why people should not be allowed to marry within the family, and that is exemplified by our laws on adoption which forbid a man or woman to marry his or her adopted child. I have no pretension to be a psychologist, but I understand that it is considered that a child needs to attain a psychological independence of its parents as it grows up, and that parents have a duty to assist that development. In my view there would be a danger that the Bill could work against that process and indeed, in extreme cases, might lead to instances where a parent abused the child's filial obedience and trust to bring about a marriage.
As regards the relevance of the prohibitions, we live in times where there are increasing numbers of children and adolescents being brought up by stepparents. With those step-parents they need to strike up a loving, trusting, nonsexual relationship and one which will still enable them to develop their own independence and fulfilment. In my view

1161
the Bill would remove an important protection both for those children and for those who need it most; namely, those who are building a second marriage, absorbing children happily and safely into it. For those reasons, although we must certainly study further the problems which have been brought to our attention today, it would be a mistake—without that further study—to give the Bill a Second Reading. Therefore, I join with those who have expressed the hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her Motion.
5.48 p.m.
Lord McGREGOR of DURRIS: My Lords, I hope that I may be forgiven if I begin by traversing some ground already covered by noble Lords. It is necessary for my argument and I shall be very brief. The degrees of affinity with which the Bill of my noble friend Lady Wootton deals, entered modern history in the later Middle Ages when their purpose was, in part, to give the practical reality of divorce a vinculo—that is, a licence to marry again—to the rich or powerful in a society which maintained that marriage was indissoluble. To the rule that certain degrees of blood relationship were barriers to marriage, the canonists added the impediments of affinity. Sexual union, they held, made man and woman one flesh and hence the blood kinswomen of a man's wife and mistresses were connected to him by way of affinity. Spiritual kinships through godparents was also held to set up similar barriers. The greatest historians of English law wrote of this system as intricate rules behind which
"there is no deep policy … no strong religious feeling"
and they stressed
"the incalculable harm done by a marriage law which was a maze of flighty fancies and misapplied logic".
Many of the wilder extravagances disappeared at the time of the Reformation, but certainty about the marriage and status of children, of persons within the prohibited degrees of affinity, was not achieved in England until 1835. Since then—but only in this century—the pro-hibitions began, as my noble friend Lady, Wootton pointed out, to be narrowed and marriage between a man and his deceased wife's sister and his deceased brother's
1162
widow and between persons and their deceased spouse's nephew, niece, uncle or aunt, and between their deceased nephews, nieces, widows or widowers, have been permitted. Restrictions on divorced persons were removed in 1960.
Thus, as she said, my noble friend's Bill would bring this history to its conclusion and remove the prohibitions upon marriage which stem from the medieval view that relationship by marriage is equivalent to relationship by blood. Assuredly, her Bill cannot be described as a sudden leap in the dark.
What then might be the objections to this final step? If it be argued that there are theological or religious difficulties, it is hard to assess their weight, because, as in all previous discussions of these issues, persons equally learned, equally pious, equally competent to interpret the will of God and equally concerned to promote the public good, have reached diametrically opposed conclusions. Indeed, during this debate we have listened to just such a conflict. Accordingly, we have no choice but to judge the Bill in terms of its likely moral and social results.
In principle the chief objection on these grounds which might be brought against the Bill is the same as that which was directed against the proposal to permit marriage with a divorced wife's sister or a divorced husband's brother. In this case the Church of England and other Churches argued—and I now quote from their evidence to the Morton Commission—that:
"the family is and ought to be a secure, stable unit from which is excluded by universal custom any sex interest between its members … The possibility of marrying a divorced partner's brother or sister casts a terrible shadow backwards. The triangle of emotions is taken into the circle of the family. Affections … are no longer suppressed as improper and incapable of fulfilment".
On those grounds the present Bill could be held to open the way to the development, for example, of such affections between a man and his step-daughter, as was envisaged in the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. It is to be noted that the Marriage (Enabling) Act 1960, which enabled such divorced persons to marry, has not resulted in any of the consequences feared by some of the Churches. I do not fear the aftermath of my noble friend's Bill. My confidence is based on my belief that

1163
the removal of these prohibitions will not affect people's behaviour, the growth of illicit desires or the willingness and ability to satisfy them. The record of the simpler and of advanced societies suggests that the establishment of relationships within the family, which would undermine its stability, are not so much prevented as avoided in accordance with any particular society's cultural development.
To reject the Bill would be to deny marriage in those instances to which there can be no moral or social objection and which at present suffer the hardships described by my noble friend, in the hope of avoiding behaviour which cannot be prevented and which in any case no longer attracts legal sanctions, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark explained.
This is not the place to embark upon an anthropological lecture, but, as someone who has to lecture students on these and related subjects, I should like to say that it is not safe for the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London to rely in these matters upon the 50 year old book, the Sexual Life of Savages, written by the late Professor Malinowsky. Modern scholarship is set out cheaply and elegantly in the book of Professor Robin Fox, available in Pelicans on Marriage and Kinship.
Finally, if it be argued that the present law deters the development of improper relationships by serving as a means of maintaining appropriate sexual distances between members of the same household, then at the same time it must be demonstrated that those whose behaviour is alleged to be shaped in this way actually know what the law is. Like my noble friend Lady Wootton, I have been astonished to discover how many generally knowledgeable people—including, as we have been told, members of the clergy—are ignorant and muddled about the law which this Bill seeks to repeal. I conclude that legal prohibitions and restrictions play very little part in controlling the motivations of citizens in this area of life. We must not overrate the powers of law or underrate the power of cultural and moral disapproval.
I am opposed to a further inquiry by way of departmental committee or the like, for I do not believe that further study
1164
could unearth or discover evidence not already easily accessible. Sometimes, at least, life ought not to wait upon blue books. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that this Bill can affect the sanctity of marriage for the reasons stated by my noble friend Lord Soper. I hope that noble Lords will give this necessary Bill a Second Reading.
5.59 p.m.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I hope that it will not be argued further that the antiquity of a book measures its value or otherwise. There are great books of great antiquity from all the cultures of the world whose wisdom has not yet been transcended by the latest Penguin specials. I hesitate, and hesitated, to join in this debate because I have no specialist knowledge whether of anthropology or of social science. I merely happen to have been very happily married for 43 years and have a number of grandchildren and hope for more. It is because I feel deeply about this rather than knowing much about it that I speak. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton—who is very dear indeed to all our hearts (I hope she knows that, I think she does)—will realise that, although this Bill is well meant, enough has been said to show that it is shallow in consideration and socially dangerous. Far better, in an area of this sort, to think again, to study again, to follow up the suggestions made so moderately and, I should like to say, so Christianly by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
This is not simply a matter of law. It is a matter that touches on something deep in human nature which we call shame.
"While shame keeps its watch virtue is not wholly extinguished in the heart".
It was written in the 17th century that:
"All irregularity is catching. It has a contagion in it, especially in an age so much more inclined to follow ill patterns than good ones".
The case deployed this afternoon has been that affinity does not matter, although blood relationship does. I should like to suggest to your Lordships that Britain as a neurotic, violent society—increasingly neurotic, increasingly violent, increasingly lacking in respect for authority of any kind from any source—has derived those qualities in part, at any rate, from the dissipation of family life.

1165
I was much struck by a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, who pointd out as to the current marital situation that the generation gap is narrowing all the time. That is in practical terms one of the features which should cause us to pause. Certainly there is an increasing proportion of what I will call family set-ups where one parent is the step-parent to a step-child. Hitherto any sex relationship between the generations, whether of blood or affinity, and indeed whether the relationship be step-or not, has been taboo in order to protect the young dependants.
I was much interested in the learned summary which we had just now from the noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris. Whether he is a great medievalist I do not know, but if I heard him right he did use words to the effect that the medieval canonists added the impediments of affinity. Not so far as I am aware in the ancient Church. I have been instructed in these matters, it so happens, by a wife who is a member of the Orthodox Church and who comes from a part of Europe which has been torn by war since life on this planet was known. In that part of the world marriage between godparents and godchildren, or between the families of godparents and the families of their corresponding godparents' children is forbidden. The reason was simply that, if in war a father is killed, it is the godfather's job to take the children into his house and look after them, and that cannot be socially safe under circumstances where there can end up an ordinary, if I may put it that way, external sexual relationship.
It may be said that the situation in Britain today is very different. I am not so certain that it is, because the number of families in which a step-relationship exists or shall I say the number of households in which a step-relationship exists is far greater now than at any time. Surely the whole concept of taking a young person into your household, be it stepson, niece, nephew, godson, step-daughter, is to help the child to grow to emotional maturity in a situation where there is no competitive affection; where affection is de-sexualised, and where indeed the children can be assured at least by the fireside of being undistracted by overt sexuality with an elder with which a child could not emotionally cope. To permit a sex
1166
relationship here must lead to a child's greater dependence on the step parent when the child should in fact be growing up to independence.
All sorts of special cases can and have been adduced. Of course we were moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark and equally by him whom I will call a pro-prelate, our great friend Lord Soper. Of course we are moved by such cases; but as we were vividly and effectively reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, hard cases make bad law.
It can be said that there will be cohabitation anyway between or within the prohibited degrees if people want it. Nobody is saying that that is not so. What we are asking is whether society should endorse it. Embedded, as I say, in the whole issue is the deep issue of shame. This is what the ancient social taboos are about; this is what we tamper with at our peril. My Lords, man is a beast when shame stands off from him, and modesty once banished never returns.
6.8 p.m.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I do not intend to take more than two minutes of your Lordships' time. It seems to me relevant to remind those of your Lordships who have, with sincere passion, defended the prohibition of affinity—in general, deriving from ancient works, as the noble Earl reminded us—that much the same case was argued with greater violence, but no doubt deep sincerity, on the prohibition of marriage with a deceased wife's sister, which was only repealed in the early years of this century. As one who happily grew up in a family in which such a marriage took place, after the deceased wife's sister had nursed my mother through a most painful kind of cancer, I remind myself that this was one of the happiest and incidentally, may I say it, one of the most pious marriages that it has been my happiness to observe.
6.10 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I am sure that whatever decision your Lordships come to today, we are very grateful indeed to my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger for giving us the chance to debate this matter. She is held in high regard

1167
inside and outside your Lordships' House and she is widely respected for her views and great humanity, especially on social matters, and for the care and understanding and, I would add, compassion which she brings to bear on the individual cases that come her way.
Although the subject-matter of the Bill is one which the Government customarily leave to the initiative of Private Members, we have given some thought to the content and purpose of the Bill, and it may be helpful if I intervene now to put before your Lordships some considerations which it may be helpful to take into account in deciding whether the Bill should receive a Second Reading.
Baroness Wootton has given us a clear account of the purpose of the Bill and has drawn attention to the very real hardship that can arise in particular cases under the present law. Cases do from time to time come to the attention of the Home Office where men and women related by marriage wish to marry, often in circumstances where little or no harm would seem to result from their doing so, but are prevented from marrying by the present law. I certainly sympathise, and join other noble Lords in doing so, with the hardship that can be caused in such circumstances, especially where there are children involved who would be legitimised by marriage. As my noble friend has said, marriage in those cases would serve to strengthen rather than diminish the existing de facto family relationship. As the Long Title of the Bill states, this change in the law would
"enable a person to marry any kin of a former spouse, or a former spouse of any kin".
So there would no longer remain any prohibitions on marriage by reason of a relationship of affinity only. When the Law Commission, in their report on nullity of marriage published in 1970, reviewed the existing prohibitions, they found, they aid, no evidence that public opinion in England and Wales favoured, an alteration in the law. The question of the Law Commission is one of those which has been raised in the debate and reference to it was made by, among others, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and perhaps I should interpose a few additional observations on this point.
1168
It has been suggested by some noble Lords that the Law Commission might be asked to consider the proposals contained in the Bill. As I said, the Law Commission looked at this in 1970 in the context of nullity of marriage and the evidence available to them at that time suggested that public opinion did not desire a revision of the existing prohibited degrees. I am bound to add that the Government have not seen any sign of any significant shift in opinion since then. However, one is bound to add that the presence or absence of evidence is itself open to more than one interpretation when considering these matters, and that is something we must bear very firmly in mind. Moreover, the Law Commission is a body of lawyers and the question posed by this Bill seems to me to be one of principle which raises not merely legal issues but religious, moral and social issues too. I am very doubtful therefore whether it is a matter which we should invite the Law Commission to consider or to consider again.
There is of course the alternative—this has been mentioned by some noble Lords including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London—of setting up a more broadly based ad hoc committee, but I am bound to say that I wonder (this was mentioned by my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris) whether such a committee would be any better equipped to express a view on the principles involved here than is this very House in the light of the arguments adduced in this debate. I do not think it unreasonable that noble Lords here should decide today whether or not they endorse the principles of the Bill.
I am bound to say that, in spite of the few cases that come to notice, to which I have referred, the Government have at present no real evidence of any general demand for a change in the law in this respect, but one bears in mind the dangers involved in considering and weighing that point about evidence, so we must approach this whole question with some caution involving, as it does, a proposal to alter the law in this way. In particular, we must consider whether there are other cases of a different kind from those cited by my noble friend but perhaps involving a much greater number of people in which a change in the law might do harm.
As I understand it, the historical basis for the present prohibition lies in the view

1169
that husband and wife are to be regarded as one flesh, so that relationship by marriage is equivalent to relationship by blood. Although there may be fewer people today who accept that principle in its most literal sense, I think many would still support the idea that a marriage does at the least create a special relationship—indeed, a new kind of family relationship—between members of the two spouses' families.
My noble friend has particularly in mind the possibility of marriage between step-parent and step-child, and we have heard the example of a case where a wife dies leaving her husband with small children of their marriage and a grown-up step-daughter. In the course of time, the step-daughter takes on the roles of both mother and wife, but the couple are prevented, under the present law, from legalising their relationship. This may indeed be a case which attracts considerable sympathy; but some people may also ask whether the relationship would be quite so acceptable if the step-daughter had been much younger when her mother remarried and her stepfather had therefore been standing in loco parentis to her. This is a very real problem which we, with respect, are bound to consider. It would, I am sure, be generally agreed that where any man or woman becomes the step-parent of a young child, and in effect takes on the role of a parent towards that child, the very possibility of a future marriage would be entirely at variance with the character of the relationship that ought to be established between them. There does not seem to be any way of excluding such cases from the provisions of the Bill without also excluding the sort of case of real hardship to which my noble friend referred.
If noble Lords decide that the Bill should be given a Second Reading, I think it only right to point out that the Government would wish to see one or two technical Amendments made. We feel that the Bill does not, for example, deal adequately with the often complicated situations that arise where one partner to a marriage is domiciled in a country whose marriage laws would not permit a marriage in those cases, so it would need amending there. It might also need amendment in relation to couples who are domiciled in this country
1170
but celebrate their marriage abroad. I should also mention that, on matters of consanguinity and affinity, it has hitherto been thought desirable that the marriage law of England and Wales and of Scotland should in substance be the same, so, if the House thinks the principle of the Bill should be accepted in relation to England and Wales, we ought at a subsequent stage to consider whether it should be extended to Scotland as well.
I hope this brief intervention may be of some assistance to noble Lords in coming to a decision on whether or not the enactment of this Bill would in principle constitute an improvement in our law. There are real human questions on both sides of this argument. Your Lordships' House is, if I may say so, particularly well placed to consider matters of this kind.
6.20 p.m.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and shown such thoughtful perception of the issues involved, and I am particularly grateful for suggestions that have been made for the improvement or removal of difficulties. I shall give very great consideration to what has been said in the debate. First I want to comment on some of the observations of my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham, which are of special importance in view of the position which he holds in relation to the Government. Like many other noble Lords, he referred to the distinction between cases where a step-parent has acted in loco parentis and cases where the step-child is much older and that situation does not arise. That is a very important distinction, but there is a way of getting around the difficulty, and it is a way that ought to be widely used and adopted, though it cannot be made obligatory". It is that if a young child is brought into a family, and there are subsequently children of the new marriage not far separated in age from the step-child, it is quite possible and not uncommon for the parents immediately jointly to adopt that child. Thereafter, none of the questions about later marriage can possibly arise, because it would be as incestuous to have intercourse with the adopted child as it would be with the natural child. That seems to me to solve that point. I know that not everyone would do this, but these

1171
matters could be made widely known, and I believe that most people would be glad to do it if they understood the position about it.
My noble friend Lord Soper said that he has been a parson for 50 years. For very nearly that period of time I have been a magistrate in the county of London, and I have been the chairman of a juvenile court for a very large part of the period. I have seen a great many cases involving children in one kind of trouble or another. I have seen a great many cases of incestuous relations between parents and children. As it happens, I have never seen a single case of a relationship of that kind between a father and a stepdaughter, or vice versa involving a step-son. That may be coincidental, but I reckon that I have seen about five thousand cases of one kind or another involving juveniles, though they have not all been sexual cases.
There are risks in everything, and our task tonight is to balance the risks against the evils of which we know. I have heard one set of risks discussed over and over again. I remember as a child—the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, mentioned this point—hearing the discussions about the deceased wife's sister. I was very puzzled by what was involved, but I realised that it was something of immense importance. When it came to the repetition of those arguments about risk in the later extensions of the 1931 Act, I realised what the original arguments had been about. They are now being repeated again. In all these years I have not seen disastrous consequences follow from those risks. Perhaps there have been occasional improper things, but there have not been disastrous social consequences.
My Bill has nothing whatever to do with the very unseemly position envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley; namely, that a mother might be in the position of having to cite her daughter as a co-respondent in a divorce case. If that occurs, it is because the step-father has had improper relations—he has committed adultery with the step-daughter—and he will do that whether or not there is the possibility of marriage. The point is quite irrelevant to the question of ultimate marriage, although as I think I said in my original speech it may be
1172
more likely that he will do that if he cannot marry her than if he can marry her.
The other risks have been very greatly under-estimated. I am certainly not one who wishes to destroy close and happy family relationships; but the present law does that. It makes people live lies. People who are put in this position suffer very much from having to live lies, sometimes in practical ways with regard to such matters as passports, and sometimes simply because they have to pass themselves off as man and wife when they are not.
Very little has been said about the direct inducement to what is sometimes called "living in sin" that the present law causes. Those involved cannot marry. If they do not happen to have the exceptional relationship referred to, they are perfectly free to marry. They are not blood related, they have no other marital ties, and they wish to marry. What do they do? Obviously they say, "We will behave as though we were married". The present law is a direct attack upon family life in that way. It is not least for that reason that I wish to alter it.
It is suggested by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and others, who would like to see yet another inquiry, that we proceed cautiously. I was relieved to hear my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham suggest that the Law Commission, who looked at this matter rather cursorily in 1970, and who are experts in law rather than in public opinion, might not be the appropriate body to look at the question again now. We have looked at it again and again, and every time that there has been an inquiry the prohibited degrees have been extended a little. Now there are just these few remaining affinities which are still prohibited, and it is not necessary that we should again go through all the motions of having yet another committee or commission to look at them.
Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to the Bill tonight. A great many noble Lords have told me that they are in favour of the Bill in principle, which is what a Second Reading is intended for. Noble Lords may not be in favour of the Bill in every

1173
detail, but if they are in favour of it in principle, that is an argument why it should be supported on Second Reading now. We have been talking rather as if in this restricted Assembly we were in a position to make a law which would come into force tomorrow, whereas if we approve the Bill in principle, it has to go through further stages in this House, and it also has to be subject to the wisdom of the other House where it will go through the same stages. What we are concerned with now is starting it upon a course in which all kinds of minds and experiences will be brought to bear upon it, and perhaps issues which we have not thought of will be raised. I should like to see it floated upon its course, so that it may proceed as I hope, ultimately, though possibly in a somewhat revised form, to a final conclusion.
We all think up safeguards. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, spoke of the safeguard that people should not be allowed to marry in the circumstances in question until they are a little older. All these safeguards are inducements to carry on as though one were married until the time comes when one is allowed to be. It is very difficult to think up safeguards which are not open to the criticism that they are encouraging the very thing which upholders of legitimate marriage wish to stop. I hope that your Lordships will give a Second Reading to the Bill tonight.
6.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 58; Not-Contents, 43.

CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Gainford, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Amherst, E.

Greenway, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Ampthill, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Baker, L.

Hale, L.

Robbins, L.

Birkett, L.

Hamnett, L.

Rochdale, V.

Blease, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Segal, L.

Brockway, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Jacques, L.

Soper, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Kilbracken, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Chitnis, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Craighton, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Ullswater, V.

Cranbrook, E.

McGregor of Durris, L. [Teller.]

White, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

McNair, L.

Willis, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B. [Teller.]

Dowding, L.

Monson, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Erroll, E.

Northesk, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Halsbury, E.

Nunburnholme, L.

Barrington, V.

Hampton, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Cathcart, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Robertson of Oakridge, L. [Teller.]

Colville of Culross, V.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rochester, Bp.

de Clifford, L.

Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Elles, B.

Listowel, E.

Salisbury, M.

Ferrers, E.

London, Bp.

Sandys, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Long, V.

Shinwell, L.

Fortescue, E.

Lyell, L.

Somers, L.

Geddes, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Strathspey, L.

Glasgow, E.

Morris, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gray, L.

Newall, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Northchurch, B.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the affirmative: Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONSERVATION OF WILD CREATURES AND WILD PLANTS (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
6.37 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Protected wild creatures to be known as endangered wild creatures]:
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, leave out ("there shall be substituted the word "endangered" ") and insert ("wherever it occurs").
The noble Lord said: I appreciate that, with 36 Amendments, both numbered and unnumbered, in my name, I may well be laying myself open to the charge of having put my name indelibly upon somebody else's Bill, because, of course, this is the Bill as originally proposed last Session by my late noble friend Lord Cranbrook, as I said at length on Second Reading. In fact, I have not gone as far as this, but I have followed suggestions of the Government draftsman, as put to me by officials of the Department of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. The Amendments in my name have two main objects: firstly, to arrange the proposed Amendments more effectively; and, secondly, to avoid the repetition of material in the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975, which hereinafter I shall refer to as "the principal Act". There is, I am afraid to say, plenty of that in the Bill before your Lordships for consideration this evening.
There are also a few changes of substance, which I shall explain in detail when we get to them; but I should explain that, as I have just said, I have had countless meetings with the noble Baroness's Department, mostly, I must confess, with one particular officer, without whose help I would not be in a position to ask your
1176
Lordships' permission to improve the Bill to the extent necessary to get it in an acceptable form for the Statute Book. I have also had a meeting with the Nature Conservancy Council, and several with the amateur naturalists' umbrella organisation, the Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation. Officers of all these bodies agree that the Amendments I am proposing will make the Bill substantially more acceptable, and, without committing themselves finally at this stage, have given me to understand that the Bill as I propose to amend it will fit the purpose for which it was originally designed, and that they will now agree with that purpose.
The main objective of my Amendment to Clause 1 is to bring together into one clause all the Amendments to the 1975 Act which are necessary to create the concept of an endangered wild creature. I am told that it is necessary to do this to achieve a distinction between creatures already protected by that Act and the new category of vulnerable wild creatures introduced by this Bill. Amendment No. 1 is a drafting Amendment. Thus, there is no parallel Amendment in the keeling Schedule to the Bill (which we shall get on to later) and which sets out the effects of this Bill on the principal Act. It is printed at the end of this Bill on page 7 onwards. I bee to move Amendment No. 1.
Baroness STEDMAN: I think that to save time over the later Amendments, it might be convenient if I were to reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has said. He has been extremely cooperative about this Bill and we are grateful. So far as we are concerned in the Department, my officials are now satisfied that the Bill is in a fit state—or it will be so when we have finished with it tonight—to pass on to another place. We hope to give it a fair wind. For the most part, with one or two minor observations, the Government will raise no objections to the Amendments which are down.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, leave out from ("the") to the end of line 9 and insert ("definitions of" protected plant "and" protected wild creature "in section 15(1), there shall be substituted the word "endangered".
(2) In section 10(d) of the principal Act after the words "creature or" there shall be inserted the word "any".
(3) In section 15(1) of the principal Act—

(a) after the definition of "authorised person" there shall be inserted the following definition—

"'endangered wild creature' means a wild creature specified in Schedule 1 to this Act found living wild, and includes the eggs, larvae or pupae of any such creature;"; and

(b) the definition of "protected wild creature "shall be omitted.").

The noble Lord said: Like so many of these Amendments which have been introduced originally at the instigation of the draftsman, this covers various points. I hope to make them as clearly as possible; but if I do not do so, please interrupt me. The first paragraph of this Amendment is a purely drafting one. It is already covered in a different form in the Bill. Subsection (2) of the Amendment is a clarification of the existing Clause 8(3)(a) which it replaces; and it is paralleled by Amendment No. 27 in the Schedule. Subsection (3)(a) of the Amendment is a tidier place than that currently occupied by Clause 13 of the Bill which it now replaces and subsection (3)(b) is needed because the word "protected" disappears throughout the Bill and it is replaced where appropriate by the words "endangered" and "vulnerable". I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Disturbance of mammals.]:
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 15, after ("mammal") insert ("amphibian or reptile").
The noble Lord said: I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has said. I think that my noble friend has done a really magnificent job and, as I was the only person in this House to speak against this Bill on Second Reading, it is, I feel, proper for me to suggest a few minor Amendments. My Amendment arises for this reason. Under the principal 1975 Act it is illegal to kill, injure or take one of the protected wild creatures listed in Schedule I to that main Act. In this amending Bill my noble friend extends the protection from killing, injuring or taking, to "disturbance". But
1178
he limits the disturbance to the disturbance of mammals. Schedule I to the 1975 Act includes three animals: the sand lizard and smooth snake (which are reptiles) and the natterjack toad, which is an amphibian. All these three rare and endangered species can hardly be said to hibernate, but they go into a sort of hibernation when in winter their body metabolism slows down. During that period, for their own safety and survival, they should be left undisturbed. Having said these few words, I do not propose to move the Amendment.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I have been pre-empted by the happenings of the last few minutes. I was going to ask my noble friend if he would withdraw his Amendment. In the event, what he wants is an Amendment to one of my later Amendments. We will get there eventually at the next stage of the Bill. I should like to ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw Clause 2 from the Bill in favour of Amendment No. 7 (or, at least, part of it) on the Marshalled List.
Having in Clause 1, as amended, disposed completely of the endangered category I am advised that the next clause in the Bill should cover the vulnerable category which the Bill seeks to introduce. The existing Clause 2 is dealing with a completely different subject and it should therefore be after the new Clause I am proposing in Amendment No. 7—which is a neater and tidier way of saying what is in Clause 2 at the moment. It also avoids a verbal mistake. The object of the old clause was to protect a nest whether occupied or not. This was unclear in the original drafting. I am advised that the new wording, "place which is used for shelter or protection", gets over this particular problem. Head (b) of the proposed new Clause 1A tidies up the clause to the effect that it also becomes a new offence to disturb either adults or young while they are in occupation of such a refuge or nest. I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: May I intervene to point out that the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is applicable to those species

1179
which are at present on the proposed Schedule of endangered animals. If this Bill becomes law, that proposed Schedule will potentially contain a larger range of species. Not only amphibians and reptiles go into a form of torpor in winter but also snails and other invertebrates may be found in the same state. Snails are particularly vulnerable to being disturbed from the place where they are hidden. They are sealed up in their state of hibernation and, if disturbed, they are vulnerable to predation from birds and so on. If, at a later stage, an Amendment on the lines of that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, is adopted, I think it would be simpler if the term "creature" was used because the capacity to hibernate exists in many animals which are potentially members of the Schedule.
Clause 2 disagreed to.
Clause 3 [Restriction on sale of vulnerable wild creatures]:
6.50 p.m.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 5, at end insert—
("(2) In section 2(2) of the principal Act for the words" or skeletons "there shall be substituted the words "skeletons, parts or derivatives".").
The noble Lord said: I shall move this Amendment very briefly. I want to add to the word "skeletons", the words "parts or derivatives". In the May 1975 Act it is illegal to barter or exchange protected creatures alive or dead, including skeletons and skins. Since then we have had some experience of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976. We know from the workings of the very detailed Schedule 3 to that Act that it is not difficult to make goods from parts or derivatives. We do not want such goods made out of endangered or vulnerable species scheduled in the Bill that we are discussing. I refer to such goods as brooches made from butterfly wings, ornaments made from otter fur or snail shell, necklaces or ornaments on key rings. My Amendment echoes the principles of Schedule 3 to the 1976 Act in making such trade in vulnerable and endangered species illegal. I hope that my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale will
1180
approve of my Amendment, in which case I shall withdraw it and put it down again at a later stage. I beg to move.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I most certainly approve of the tenor of the Amendment. Yet again, I rather think that it is not in the right place, especially as it is in a clause which, again, I am going to ask the Committee to remove. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to withdraw it at this stage.
Lord CRAIGTON: May I have leave to withdraw the Amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: Again I am going to ask the Committee's permission to leave out Clause 3 of this Bill. I am proposing to leave it out in favour of the first part of my Amendment No. 6: in other words, subsection (2)(a), which incidentally is paralleled by Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 in the Schedule. I am advised that it is far tidier to have a whole section of the Bill covering vulnerable creatures rather than to have its various parts scattered throughout the Bill as they are at the moment.
Clause 3 disagreed to.
Clause 4 [Restriction on marking or ringing]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: Again, I should like to ask the Committee's leave to withdraw Clause 4 for exactly the same reason as I have given. It is covered by my Amendment No. 6.
Clause 4 disagreed to.
Clause 5 [Restriction on killing etc. vulnerable wild creatures]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: We now have something on which I am going to have a complete volte-face. On Second

1181
Reading I praised one of the potential improvements which were slipped into the Bill at a late stage last year, by which I mean what is popularly referred to as the phobia clause. I shall get to that later. Let me first say what leaving out Clause 5 entails and then I shall go back to the phobia clause.
Subsection (1)(a) and paragraph (b) are, I am told, repetitious of the Act and so they are not necessary in their present form. In any case, I propose to repeat them by my new Amendment No. 6; that is to say, the word "vulnerable" will be added to the word "endangered "which has been inserted by the removal of the word "protected" by Clause 1 as amended already. Sub-paragraph (ii) is repetitious of the Act. Paragraph (b) comes into subsection (4) of my Amendment No. 6. Subsection (2) is replaced by paragraph (b) (2) in my Amendment No. 6 which leaves us with the phobia provision, which I have already mentioned, and the slightly doubtful paragraph (ii) which is covered, as I have just said, by part of my Amendment No. 6. I know that the Nature Conservancy Council for one are not too happy about having this in the Bill and I undertake to take this back and consider it. But since it is part of a very much larger Amendment, I should be grateful if your Lordships will allow me to have the Amendment as it is. I undertake to do something about it before the next stage.
Now, back to phobias, the proviso was inserted into the Bill last time to go some way to give protection to the man in the street who has a natural aversion to spiders, snakes, slugs and everything else that one can think of. It was so widely drawn that it drove a coach and horses right through the Bill and completely negatived the whole operation. It was quite unintentionally what I believe is popularly known as a wrecking Amendment. It had all the best intentions behind it. The word "phobia" could not be used because I understand that this, carried to its logical conclusion, sends people absolutely rigid and, by definition, it could not possibly cause them to kill invertebrates or any other creature.
Omitting this clause does not give the man in the street the protection which I, for one, should like to see in the Bill. I have had many sleepless nights over this
1182
particular matter. If any members of the Committee can suggest an improvement, I shall certainly be truly grateful even if it does nothing more than improve my sleeping habits. In the main, however, where the person who suffers is an authorised person—in other words, a landowner or a home owner—he would have a defence against injuring or killing any vulnerable creature by the provisions in my Amendment No. 6. But, as I say, this is the only piece which gives me any cause for regret. I beg to move.
Lord KILBRACKEN: May I clarify one point? Where does this clause or subsection about phobias appear?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: On page 2 of the Bill, the proviso of the new section states:
"it shall not be an offence against this section to kill or injure an invertebrate wild creature …".
This is the point which gives cause for alarm.
Lord KILBRACKEN: There is no reference to phobias.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: No, I did not say there was a direct reference to phobias. I said it was becoming popularly known as the phobia clause.
Clause 5 disagreed to.
Clause 6 [Schedule of vulnerable wild creatures]:
7 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 5:
>Page 3, line 1, leave out from ("Schedule") to end of line 3 and insert ("1 to the principal Act there shall be inserted the following Schedule:—

SCHEDULE 1A")
The noble Lord said: This again is a drafting Amendment and is repeated by Amendment No. 33 in the Schedule. The object of the exercise is to avoid a rather awkward sandwich in the Schedules to the Bill which, as printed, deal with endangered creatures, then plants and then vulnerable creatures. I am advised that it is far easier to have the first two categories of creatures followed by plants. As a "plants man", I am not sure whether

1183
I approve of that: nevertheless I entirely accept it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 30, at end insert—
("(2) Section 1 of the principal Act shall be renumbered as subsection (1) of that section and—

(a) in that subsection as so renumbered after the word "endangered", wherever it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or vulnerable"; and

(b) after that subsection as so renumbered there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(2) An authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence against this section by reason only of the taking or attempted taking, for the purpose of identification or marking, of any vulnerable wild creature:

Provided that any vulnerable wild creature so taken is identified or marked without unreasonable delay and is released uninjured on the spot where it was taken immediately after the identification or marking."

(3) In section 2(1) of the principal Act after the words "Schedule 1" there shall be inserted the words "or Schedule 1A".
(4) In section 3 of the principal Act after the word "endangered", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or vulnerable".
(5) In sections 6, 8, 10, 11 of the principal Act and in the definition of "authorised person" in section 15(1) of that Act after the word "endangered", wherever it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or vulnerable".
(6) In section 15(1) of the principal Act after the definition of "uproot" there shall be inserted the following definition—
"' vulnerable wild creature ' means a wild creature specified in Schedule 1A to this Act found living wild, and includes the eggs, larvae or pupae of any such wild creature." ").
The noble Lord said: Since I started on these Amendments, I seem to have been referring almost ad lib to my Amendment No. 6. Now that we have reached it a last, I shall try to explain in detail what it actually achieves. I have spoken to all of it with the exception of subsections (5) and (6) on page 3 of the Marshalled List. We have dealt with paragraph (a) by the Amendments to the first clause, and we have dealt with (b) by leaving out Clause 2. We have just dealt with subsection (3) by Amendment No. 5. Subsection (4) starts the process of giving rise to a "vulnerable" category, which is
1184
continued in subsection (5). That again, as I say, is purely concerned with drafting. Subsection (6) replaces the existing Clause 13(1) and completes the process of putting all the cases of vulnerability into one clause. I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: May I niggle zoologically and just draw the Committee's attention to the fact that this Bill has attempted to be zoologically accurate by listing eggs, larvae and pupae. It is a zoological fact, which the departmental pundits will confirm, that grasshoppers and crickets go through a nymphal stage and therefore have neither larvae nor pupae. I think, therefore, that at some stage, if we are to be zoologically precise all the way through the word, "nymphs" ought to be introduced.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will take note of those comments. I should like only to refer to the comments he made earlier when he was going through this long group of Amendments. He said that, over the question of marking, the Nature Conservancy Council had expressed concern as to whether there was some inconsistency in the Bill as it stands. They would prefer the marking by the members of the public to be subject to licence by the Nature Conservancy Council, as in the case of the endangered category. The noble Lord has said he will look at this before the next stage, and we will raise no objections.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I am grateful to my noble friend and to the noble Baroness. I shall most certainly read Hansard very carefully after today, not least to discover what I myself have actually said, because I feel I am perhaps making rather a mouthful of it! But I am certainly sensible of the fact that the word "nymphs" should be included.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 6, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount SIMON: I do not think I have ever been through the Committee stage of a Bill which was so difficult: I commend the noble Lord on his handling of it. I have tried to understand the two Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 as related to Clause 6. It seems to me that this long

1185
list of creatures under the heading of Schedule 3, except for the heading, is still in Clause 6: is that right?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: Yes.
Viscount SIMON: In that case, I should like to ask the noble Lord who is in charge of the Bill one question, of which I have given him notice. I was a little surprised, and so were some of my lady friends, to find among the species we were seeking to protect something called the Barberry Carpet moth. Unless its name belies its characteristics, I wonder whether it is a moth which consumes carpets and, if so, whether we are wise to give it this "endangered" qualification which will seek to ensure its survival. In any case, I would say that if anybody saw a moth eating his carpet I am afraid he would stamp on it first and find out later whether or not it was the Barberry Carpet moth. I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I am happy to relieve the noble Viscount's mind. The Barberry Carpet Moth is one which some people would have us believe looks a little like a Persian carpet and it lives on the barberry plant. The barberry plant is being removed at a rate of knots—not least, I should say, by the noble Baroness' Department in one or two of its operations. For that reason, if for no other, it needs protection under this Bill. Incidentally, should any moth shown in one of these Schedules be found to be eating a carpet, the householder would be an authorised person and would be quite at liberty to stamp on it!
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Disturbance of certain wild creatures
(". After section 1 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following section—
"Disturbance of certain wild creatures.
1A.—(1) If save as may be permitted by or under this Act any Person—

a) wilfully damages or destroys any structure or place which is used for shelter or protection by an endangered or vulnerable wild creature being a mammal; or

(b) wilfully disturbs any such creature while it is in occupation of any structure or place which is so used,

he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) An authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence against this section by reason only of anything done—

(a) within a dwelling-house; or

(b) as an incidental result of any operation which was carried out in accordance with good agricultural or forestry practice."")

The noble Lord said: The first part of this Amendment, in other words, (1), I spoke to at the time when I asked your Lordships to leave out Clause 2. The Second part of the Amendment is also in Clause 2, but is far better drafted than we managed to achieve before. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Variation of Schedules
(".—(1) For section 7 of the principal Act there shall be substituted the following section—
"Variation of Schedules.
7.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may by order—

(a) add any wild creature to, or remove any wild creature from, Schedule 1 or Schedule 1A to this Act; or

(b) add any plant to, or remove any plant from, Schedule 2 to this Act.

(2) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (1) of this section except—

(a) in accordance with advice given by the Nature Conservancy Council under section 12(1) of this Act and;

(b) after consultation with such bodies appearing to him to be representative of local authorities as he considers appropriate and such other bodies or persons as he thinks fit;

and the Secretary of State shall send to any body or person consulted under paragraph (b) above a copy of the Council's advice and of the statement of their reasons for giving that advice.
(3) An order made under subsection (1) of this section shall not remove a wild creature from Schedule 1 to this Act without adding it to Schedule 1A to this Act.
(4) An order made under subsection (1) of this section may apply either generally or in relation to particular provisions of this Act, particular areas of Great Britain, particular categories of the wold creatures or plants in question or particular times

1187
of the year; and an order so made may make different provision for different circumstances."
(2) Section 14(2) of the principal Act, which is superseded by subsection (1) above, shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: This is another tidying-up operation, and I am glad to be able to tell you that it replaces no fewer than two of the old clauses and part of a third. Subsection (4) replaces Clause 11 and puts the duty on to the Secretary of State rather than on to the Nature Conservancy Council. The Secretary of State is in any case advised by the Nature Conservancy Council although, under the Bill as amended, he does not necessarily have to accept that advice. So this is the reason why it is better to leave this particular provision to the Secretary of State rather than to make it a duty placed upon the Nature Conservancy Council. The rest of this Amendment replaces Clauses 9 and 10. The wording is almost exactly the same as those two clauses. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: May I add to what the noble Lord has said, and say that this Amendment tidies up both the Bill and the Act, in some respects, and controls the order-making processes. May I also remind the House that in the debate on the earlier Bill I gave an undertaking from this Box that we would arrange for a Parliamentary Question to be asked, when there was an availability of statements by the Nature Conservancy Council, and that we would make those statements available in the Library. That, of course, still applies.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Forfeitures]:
7.10 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 4, line 2, leave out from ("following ") to end of line 12 and insert ("subsection—
"(2) The court by which any person is convicted of an offence under this Act may order the forfeiture of—

(a) any wild creature or plant in respect of which the offence was committed; and

(b) any implement which was used for committing the offence;
1188
and any creature or plant so forfeited shall be dealt with as the Nature Conservancy Council may direct." ").

The noble Lord said: In this Chamber at some stage last year, my late noble friend Lord Cranbrook and I had a prolonged semantic argument, with the noble Baroness coming in and supporting the two of us at moments, and this is one of the points on which she did pre cisely that. Amendment No. 9 replaces Section 7 in the principal Act, which your Lordships will find in the keeling Schedule. It is a very much tidier way of getting at exactly the same idea. I am sorry for the delay, but—
Baroness STEDMAN: May I come to the assistance of the noble Lord, and say that this is another tidying-up operation in the Bill which, as your Lordships will have gathered by this time, has been almost completely redrafted. It enables the Nature Conservancy Council to decide how to deal with forfeited creatures, which is one of the points at issue on the last occasion.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. She and I, between us, beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 12, at end insert—
("(3) In section 10(d) of the principal Act the words "or restored" shall be omitted.").
The noble Lord said: These words are not now needed, because of the complete redrafting in the last Amendment of Section 7 of the principal Act. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Consequential amendments of principal Act]:
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: Again, for drafting reasons, I shall ask your Lordships to leave out Clause 8 of this Bill. Subsection (1) of the clause has already

1189
been covered by Amendment No. 9, to which your Lordships have agreed; subsection (2) has already been covered by subsection (5) in Amendment No. 6; subsection (3)(a)has already been covered by subsection (2) in Amendment No. 2, and subsection (3)(b) has already been covered by the last Amendment, No. 10.
Clause 8 disagreed to.
Clause 9 [Schedules to be altered only in accordance with Section 12 of principal Act]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: This clause was pre-empted by my Amendment No. 9, which completely replaced Section 7 of the principal Act. So that the Amendments to this section are not now needed.
Clause 9 disagreed to.
Clause 10 [Removal of creatures from Schedule 1]:
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: Again, this is drafting, and was covered by subsection (3) of Amendment No. 8. Therefore, I ask your Lordships to leave out the clause.
Clause 10 disagreed to.
7.16 p.m.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
("Penalties
.In section 11 of the principal Act for the words "£200" there shall be substituted the words "£500".").
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which, if my noble friend will accept it, I shall not have to put down again. Before the otter was added to Schedule 1 to the principal Act as an endangered species, a live otter sold for about £600. Now they are more rare and have gone up in price. Surely, it is common sense to raise the maximum fine to £500, and
1190
so make it less worthwhile to risk being found taking an otter for sale. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON:I should like to intervene here, and say that I strongly support my noble friend Lord Craigton. I think that this figure is much more realistic.
Lord KILBRACKEN: Can the noble Lord say how much a live otter is fetching nowadays?
Lord CRAIGTON: We have been trying to find that out, but have not been able to do so. But they are now more difficult to obtain than there were before they were made an endangered species, so we presume that it is a good deal more than £600.
Lord KILBRACKEN: In that case, is the £500 a sufficient deterrent?
The Earl of LISTOWEL: I support this new clause. I am sure that the maximum penalty should be increased, but I wonder whether £500 is sufficient. We all want to protect the otter. I think we all regard the otter as the most interesting and attractive of all the animals protected under this Bill. But we are told by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that it used to fetch £600 and it fetches more now. That means that a poacher could very well take an otter, sell it and make a profit after he had paid the fine imposed under the Bill. Should we not be considering an even larger fine than the maximum proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton?
Lord CRAIGTON: Considerable thought has been given to this Amendment, and we feel that to over-price the otter, like making the fine £1,000, would not be a wise thing to do. The figure of £500 is about right. It has not been lightly picked upon and I hope your Lordships will accept my view, and the view of my advisers, that £500 is as much as is acceptable.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: There are several points involved here. Your Lordships will perhaps have noticed that under Amendment No. 15 to Clause 14, I am proposing to insert the relevant provisions of Schedule 6 to the Criminal Law Act 1977, which "ups" the fines chargeable all across the board from £100 to £200.

1191
This is all very well, but it is too low and several noble Lords have spoken to this effect. But the next stage in the Home Office's ruling of linked fines is £500, and the stage above that is £1,000. If you insert £1,000, which is the obvious thing to do, you have a problem in that, as I understand from the conservation bodies, it is likely to drive up the price of a live otter on the open market, which no one wants to do. The other point is this: Although it is marginally less than the last available price for a live otter, I would suggest that £500 is not unrealistic. Not only would you have to pay the fine of £500 but also you would have to pay for your own defence and suffer the opprobrium, as I think the Home Office describe it, of your fellows—in other words, the opprobrium of the rest of the conservation and dealing fraternity. For all these reasons, I would suggest that £500 is about the right level.
Lord MISHCON: May I ask whether I am acting under a misapprehension? Is this not a maximum penalty? In other words, cannot a lower penalty be exacted?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: Yes, it can.
Lord MISHCON: If that is so, is there any harm in having a £1,000 penalty as the maximum? Obviously, no harm would be done if a lower penalty can be exacted.
Baroness STEDMAN: May I intervene at this stage to say that earlier we had some problems with the Home Office over this Amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has just said, it would be out of line with their very recently simplified levels of fines. There was some doubt as to whether it was appropriate to try to raise the fine in this instance so soon after the new levels had been determined, particularly in view of the fact that it will still be a criminal offence. Therefore, it will act as some deterrent. And there may well be legal costs awarded, in addition to the fine, whatever it is.
Subject to various discussions we have had with the Home Office throughout the day, the Home Office have finally agreed that they would not object to the Amendment as it stands at the moment, subject to obtaining in due course an explanatory note from the appropriate division in my
1192
Department. With that assurance, I hope that noble Lords might agree to this Amendment.
Lord KILBRACKEN: May I clarify one last point? In a case where a live otter is sold and this comes to be known, I suppose that the otter would be returned to the wild state. So a person would not make a profit on the transaction if he had to pay less than what it was worth.
Lord CRAIGTON: He would not make a profit on the transaction.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Duty of Nature Conservancy Council]:
7.22 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 43, leave out from beginning to ("them ") in page 5, line 45 and insert—

("(a) to add to Schedule 1 to this Act any wild creature which, in their opinion, is in danger of extinction as a British wild creature and to remove from that Schedule any wild creature which, in their opinion, is no longer so endangered;

(b) to add to Schedule 1A to this Act any wild creature which, in their opinion, is likely to become so endangered if existing casual factors continue to operate and to remove from that Schedule any wild creature which, in their opinion, is no longer likely to become so endangered; and

(c) to add to Schedule 2 to this Act any plant which, in their opinion, is in danger of extinction as a British plant or is likely to become so endangered if existing causal factors continue to operate and to remove from that Schedule any plant which, in their opinion, is no longer so endangered or likely to become so endangered.

(2) Advice may be given under subsection (1) of this section either generally or with respect to particular provisions of this Act, particular areas of Great Britain, particular categories of the wild creatures or plants in question or particular times of the year.
(3) Any advice given by the Council under subsection (1) of this section shall be accompanied by a statement of the reasons which led them to give that advice.
(4) The Council shall include any advice so given and a statement of the reasons which led ").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 12 is paralleled by Amendment No. 30 in the Schedule. Again it is a question of drafting. This is infinitely better than what my late noble friend and I came up

1193
with during our debates last year. Also, it replaces Clause 12, which I think noble Lords will agree is all to the good. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: I should like to take this opportunity to say that this is the clause to which the Nature Conservancy Council feel that they can give their wholehearted support, because it removes the restriction which was placed upon them by Section 12 of the Act. It requires creatures and plants to be designated as endangered or protected only if their status has been caused by actions designated as an offence under the Act. This Amendment would allow creatures and plants to be scheduled solely on the basis of their status in the wild. The definitions of an endangered or a vulnerable wild creature more accurately reflect the internationally accepted definitions. The Nature Conservancy Council give it their wholehearted approval, as does my Department.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Amendment of Section 14 of principal Act]:
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I spoke to this matter when I moved Amendment No. 12; that is, Clause 12 is now superseded by that Amendment. With your Lordships' permission, I beg leave to withdraw Clause 12.
Clause 12 disagreed to.
Clause 13 [Interpretation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I should like to ask for your Lordships' permission also to leave out Clause 13. The first part of Clause 13 is covered by subsection (6) of Amendment No. 6. The second part—that is subsection (2)—is included in Amendment No. 13, when we reach it. I beg to move.
Clause 13 disagreed to.
Clause 14 [Short title, citation and extent]:
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 16, leave out from ("The") to ("and") in line 17 and insert ("principal Act ").
The noble Lord said: I must confess that this was an oversight when the revised version of the Bill was prepared. It should, of course, have followed immediately the Amendment that was made on the last occasion by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 6, line 18, leave out ("to") and insert ("and")
The noble Lord said: Despite the fact that on page 6 of the Bill we read that the 1975 Act and this Bill, when it becomes an Act,
"may be cited together as the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 to 1978 "
and that these words have a perfectly respectable statutory history, I am advised by the draftsman—who, it seems, is having a tidying-up session—that the word "to" implies that there are more than two. In other words, the word "to" implies that there are more than two Acts involved, whereas the word "and" makes it absolutely clear that only two Acts are involved. This will help people who are making searches in libraries. I beg to move.
Viscount SIMON: Is there not a slight slip here? Surely this is going to be not a 1978 but a 1979 Act.
Baroness STEDMAN: Eventually, yes.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I am not sure whether the date is the date when it receives the Royal Assent or whether it is the date when it started on its course in one or other of the two Houses of Parliament. However, I shall certainly look into the noble Viscount's point and deal with the matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) In accordance with the preceding provisions of this Act, Schedule 6 to the Criminal Law Act 1977 (which amends section 11(1) of the principal Act), the Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants (Otters) Order 1977 (which makes an addition to Schedule 1 to the principal Act) and the Transfer of Functions (Wales) (No. 1) Order 1978 (which transfers certain functions of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under section 8(l)(e) of the principal Act to the Secretary of State), the principal Act shall have effect as set out in the Schedule to this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke in part to this Amendment when we talked about the otter. The point is that the italicised note at the beginning of the schedule will disappear when the Bill receives the Royal Assent and is printed as an Act. It is therefore necessary to incorporate it in the main body of the Bill. The Amendment recognises that the original Act has been superseded in part by various orders over the last three or four years. In the first place Schedule 6 to the Criminal Law Act 1977, which increased the fine. It might well be that this part will have to disappear when we study this between now and the Report stage, since your Lordships have agreed to the insertion of £500 rather than £200.
In other words, this part will have nothing to do with the situation that will then obtain. The Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants (Otters) Order 1977 adds the otter—I think mistakenly—to Schedule 1 to the Act. I think that when we get a Schedule 1A or a Schedule 2 or whatever it eventually becomes, probably in the interests of science that would be a better place to put it, but I am not prepared to get into that argument this evening. Nevertheless, the order was made and it should be reflected in the Bill.
Lastly, the Transfer of Functions (Wales) (No. 1) Order 1978 which transfers the functions from the Secretary of State in the Department of the Environment to the Secretary of State for Wales. I am advised that the devolution Act for Wales does not complicate this issue any further. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule [Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 as Amended]:
7.31 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendments Nos. 16 to 18:
Page 7, line 13, after ("endangered") insert ("or vulnerable")
Page 7, line 14, after ("endangered") insert ("or vulnerable")
Page 7, line 20, after ("endangered") insert ("or vulnerable")
The noble Lord said: I have been trying to speak to all the parallel Amendments as we have gone along. I appreciate that I may have gone rather fast on some occasions, but where my Amendments are in blocks and not separated by Amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Craigton, unless any noble Lord objects I propose to move them en bloc. I therefore beg to move Amendments Nos. 16 to 20 inclusive.
Lord KILBRACKEN: I think there is a small slip in Amendment No. 19.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Nugent of Guildford): In that case I will put Amendments 16, 17 and 18 first, and then take Amendment No. 19 separately.
On Question, Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 7, line 22, at end insert—
("(2) An authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence against this section by reason only of the taking or attempted taking, for the purpose of identification or marking, of any vulnerable wild creature:
Provided that any vulnerable wild creature so taken is identified or marked without reasonable delay and is released on the spot where it was taken immediately after the identification or marking.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 19 which is consequential on part of Amendment No. 6, which we agreed to earlier.
Lord KILBRACKEN: I should like to point out that there seems to be a mistake in that a vulnerable wild creature has to be identified or marked "without reasonable delay". Surely the noble Lord means either "without unreasonable delay" or "with reasonable delay"?
Lord MISHCON: With respect, I was about to make the same point.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: It is perfectly correct, but I suspect that the advice from the Table would be that this is in fact a printing error. It should exactly parallel that part of Amendment No. 6(a) which mentions "unreasonable delay ", and therefore it can be corrected in the reprinting and does not need amendment.
Baroness STEDMAN: I understand that this can be corrected now, if it is moved.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Page 7, line 22, at end insert the words on the Marshalled List with the manuscript Amendment making "reasonable" into "unreasonable".
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I should explain that, if Amendment No. 20 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 21.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, line 24, leave out from ("person") to end of line 30 and insert—

("(a) wilfully damages or destroys any structure or place which is used for shelter or protection by an endangered or vulnerable wild creature being a mammal; or

(b) wilfully disturbs any such creature while it is in occupation of any structure or place which is so used,

he shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) An authorised person shall not be guilty of an offence against this section by reason only of anything done—")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential upon part of Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 21 not moved.]
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 7, line 37, leave out ("3") and insert ("1A")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 22 is consequential on part of Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 7, line 41, leave out ("or skeletons") and insert ("skeletons, parts or derivatives ")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 23.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, did not move this in its parallel form in the main part of the Bill, as I remember, and therefore with respect I think he should withdraw it now.
Lord CRAIGTON: I withdrew the Amendment which amended the original Bill because the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, has changed the Bill around, but this Schedule is consequential and if I moved the correct Amendment to the first part my Amendment here should still stand.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I give way to that argument. I agree to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendments Nos. 24 to 27:
Page 8, leave out lines 1 to 26.
Page 9, leave out lines 1 to 18 and insert
Variation of Schedules.
("7.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the Secretary of State may by order—

(a) add any wild creature to, or remove any wild creature from, Schedule 1 or Schedule 1A to this Act; or

(b) add any plant to, or remove any plant from, Schedule 2 to this Act.

(2)The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (1) of this section except—

(a) in accordance with advice given by the Nature Conservancy Council under section 12(1) of this Act; and

(b) after consultation with such bodies appearing to him to be representative of local authorities as he considers appropriate and such other bodies or persons as he thinks fit;

and the Secretary of State shall send to any body or person consulted under paragraph (b) above a copy of the Council's advice and of the statement of their reasons for giving that advice.
(3) An order made under subsection (1) of this section shall not remove a wild creature from Schedule 1 to this Act without adding it to Schedule 1A to this Act.
(4) An order made under subsection (1) of this section may apply either generally or in relation to particular provisions of this Act, particular

1199
areas of Great Britain, particular categories of the wild creatures or plants in question or particular times of the year; and an order so made may make different provision for different circumstances.")
Page 10, line 10, after ("in") insert ("Wales or")
Page 10, line 43, leave out ("protected") and insert ("any")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 24 to 27. They are all consequential.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 11, line 2, leave out ("£200") and insert ("£500")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SKELMERSDALE Lord SKELMERSDALE moved Amendments Nos. 29 to 34:
Page 11, leave out lines 10 to 19 and insert—
("(2) The court by which any person is convicted of an offence under this Act may order the forfeiture of—

(a) any wild creature or plant in respect of which the offence was committed; and

(b) any implement which was used for committing the offence;

and any creature or plant so forfeited shall be dealt with as the Nature Conservancy Council may direct.")
Page 11, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("them") in line 7 on page 12 and insert—

("(a) to add to Schedule 1 to this Act any wild creature which, in their opinion, is in danger of extinction as a British wild creature and to remove from that Schedule any wild creature which, in their opinion, is no longer so endangered;

(b) to add to Schedule 1A to this Act any wild creature which, in their pinion, is likely to become so endangered if existing causal factors continue to operate and to remove from that Schedule any wild creature which, in their opinion, is no longer likely to become so endangered; and

(c) to add to Schedule 2 to this Act any plant which, in their opinion is in danger of extinction as a British plant or is likely to become so endangered if existing causal factors continue to operate and to remove from that Schedule any plant which, in their opinion, is no longer so endangered or likely to become so endangered.

(2) Advice may be given under subsection (1) of this section either generally or with respect to particular provisions of this Act, particular areas of Great Britain, particular categories of the wild creatures or plants in question or particular times of the year.
(3) Any advice given by the Council under subsection (1) of this section shall be accompanied by a statement of the reasons which led them to give that advice.
(4) The Council shall include any advice so given and a statement of the reasons which led ")
Page 12, leave out lines 20 to 25.
Page 13, line 25, leave out ("3") and insert ("1A")
Page 14, line 11, at end insert—

SCHEDULE 1

VULNERABLE WILD CREATURES

Common name

Scientific name

INVERTEBRATES

SPIDERS

Dolomedes plantarius

BUTTERFLIES

Chequered Skipper

Carterocephalus palaemon

Heath Fritillary

Melitaea athalia

MOTHS

Black-veined

Idaea lineata

Barberry Carpet

Pareulype berberata

Essex Emerald

Thetidia smaragdaria

BEETLES

Chrysolina cerealis

DRAGONFILES

Norfolk Aeshna

Aeshna isoscles

GRASSHOPPERS AND CRICKETS

Wart-biter

Decticus verrucivorus

Field Cricket

Gryllus campestris

Mole Cricket

Gryllotalpa gryllotalpa

MOLLUSES

Glutinous snail

Myxas glutinosa

Sandbowl snail

Catinella arenaria

Carthusian snail

Monacha cartusiana

VERTEBRATES

Fish

Burbot

Lota lota.")

Page 14, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 15.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendments Nos. 29 to 34, we have finished a steeplechase which I, for one, am very relieved to have finished. I am very pleased indeed that your Lordships have been patient when it has been necessary to be patient in order to follow me and also have accepted my remarks, on the whole, without question. I can only hope that I have not been so fast that I have made a complete nonsense of this entire Committee stage. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am sure that before we finish this Committee stage all the Members of the House who have sat through it would like to offer their congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. He, with the help of some of my officials, has done a major redrafting

1201
job. Since I have been in the House I do not think that I have seen a Bill so completely turned upside down, as this one has been, and come out the sort of Bill that we can send on its path. I should like to offer the congratulations of the House to the noble Lord.
Lord CRAIGTON: I should like to support that. I have been in this House or the other place since 1950 and I have never seen such a dog's breakfast so well handled.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: I am very grateful.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

FILMS BILL
7.40 p.m.
Lord BIRKETT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In moving this Second Reading, I know that your Lordships will already be aware that an exactly identical Bill went through your Lordships' House about nine months ago. Unfortunately, it went through and reached another place just at the very end of the last Session, ran into an enormous log-jam of legislation and sank. It has, therefore, been revived as a Bill in another place and what you have before you today is the identical Bill, but travelling, as it were, in a different direction. I shall, therefore, be exceedingly brief and do no more than simply remind your Lordships of the main point of this small and, I think, helpful Bill.
The Bill sets out to amend one section of the 1960 Films Act, and that particular section dealt with quota; that is to say, the obligation laid upon cinemas to show a certain proportion of, as it was in those days, British films; nowadays, of course, that obligation refers to Common Market films as well. Until 1960, the quota period was exactly one year and all matters of quota were dealt with strictly annually. It sometimes happened, therefore, that a cinema, finding itself with a
1202
great success on its hands which was foreign, might be obliged to take the film off in defiance of public demand simply in order to fulfil its quota. The 1960 Act helpfully put this situation right by saying that a cinema could, if it wished, make application to the Board of Trade to have its quota obligations for two years lumped together and averaged out. That was an entirely helpful and universally welcomed provision.
Unfortunately, the Act stated that this application must be made before the film was shown. Your Lordships will immediately realise that, since it was designed to cope with surprise successes, cinemas could scarcely be expected to predict in advance which films needed the protection of this section. The upshot has been that, ever since, cinemas make application in this form for every single foreign film they show, just to be on the safe side. The resulting paperwork is enormous and most of it is sheer waste. It is a waste of time for the Department of Trade, which has to go through the papers, for the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association, which copes with this paperwork on behalf of the cinemas, and, of course, for the cinemas themselves, which have to make out the report.
The Bill before your Lordships today very simply amends this provision by saying that the application can be made not only before the film is shown but while it is being shown. It will, therefore, save an enormous amount of time and effort on everybody's part. I believe it to be a totally uncontroversial and helpful Bill. When it came before your Lordships before, it was, I believe, warmly received. I hope it will again be warmly received and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Birkett.)
7.43 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I think we should all thank the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, not only for putting the case so very clearly but also for tenaciously bringing back the Bill and seeing it through a second time in this House. I noticed that he laid great emphasis on saving time. The last time he spoke for six minutes and this time he spoke for three minutes, so that shows a net saving of 50 per cent.

1203
I should like only to say that from these Benches we welcome the Bill wholeheartedly. It is a great pity that it got lost last time in the Commons, and I hope that it will now pass through this House very quickly. I am sorry to repeat myself, but the point I raised last time was that, at the most, you could expect only 30 per cent. of films to be runaway successes; in fact, it is far lower than that. On this basis, the Bill should save 70 per cent. of the time spent on applications, which is quite considerable. Therefore, I welcome this Bill and wish it a speedy passage.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, has said, this Bill will avoid unnecessary applications and will, therefore, save time on the part of all concerned. It continues to have the support of the Government and of all interested parties. I therefore strongly commend it to the House.
Lord BIRKETT: My Lords, I am most obliged to both noble Lords who have spoken, and would again commend the Bill to your Lordships.
Lord STONE: My Lords, before we conclude, may we put this into the Guinness Book of Records?
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DEER BILL [H.L.]
7.46 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Northfield.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Schedule 2 [Prohibited Firearms and ammunition]:
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved the following Amendment:
Page 15, line 46, at end insert—
("Supplemental
10. In their application to any Muntjac deer or Chinese Water deer—

(a) paragraph 1 above shall have effect as if there were added at the end the words "of less calibre than 12 bore"; and

(b) paragraph 7 above shall have effect as if there were added at the end the words "other than a cartridge purporting to contain shot none of which is less than ·203 inches (5·16 millimetres) in diameter (that is to say size AAA or any larger size)".")

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Bill has indeed been unfortunate in one respect, and that is that it has always managed to come on at a very late hour in your Lordships' House. I am, however, most grateful to the Whips for bringing it on a little earlier tonight, because we shall at least get a fair chance to end the matter. Again, something else unfortunate has taken place, and I must ask the leave of the House to take my Amendment slightly differently, because there is a misprint in it. I asked the Public Bill Office to put down an Amendment similar to the one which I had down at Report but changing the shot size from BB to AAA, with the appropriate change of measurements. Unfortunately, one word also got changed in the process and this word is in paragraph 10(a), which, as the Amendment stands reads:
"paragraph 1 above shall have effect as if there were added at the end the words ' of less calibre than 12 bore '",
whereas it should have read "of less gauge than 12 bore". This is in fact a misprint, one of which I was not aware until I was already down here in your Lordships' House, and one which is unfortunate in that it reads wrongly in the context of the rest of the Bill. I am therefore advised by the Public Bill Office that I should ask leave of your Lordships' House for this Amendment to be taken as though the word "calibre" had been printed as the word "gauge".
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, it is an unusual procedure for this to happen, but it is, as the noble Viscount quite rightly says, in the hands of your Lordships to decide. If your Lordships decide that it is a reasonable thing to do, it can be done.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I am very grateful to your Lordships for allowing me to proceed in this manner, because it was something which I am quite sure nobody involved wished to see happen. I argued this particular Amendment at fairly considerable length at Report stage and I do not think that it would be right or necessary for me to argue it at quite the same length at this stage, because I hope that we may be approaching agreement between those with differing views upon this matter in the Bill. The point which I was trying to make, and the point which this Amendment is designed to deal with, is that there are two exotic species of deer which have escaped from deer parks or zoos or elsewhere and established themselves in the wild in various parts of England, and which are spreading. These are the muntjac and the Chinese water deer.
The Bill, which is designed to provide for a number of matters as regards deer, should also in my view be providing circumstances in which wild populations of animals like deer can be properly controlled. These particular small species of deer are normally found in woodlands and in fairly dense cover and are not to be found roaming on wide open spaces like the moors of Yorkshire, or Scotland, or somewhere like that. They are also to be found fairly close to human habitation—to villages, towns and so on. In those circumstances, to specify for the control of those deer—and the control of those deer will be necessary because there are no wolves now native in Britain—a high velocity rifle is, in my view, first unnecessary; secondly, undesirable from the point of view of the circumstances in which the deer are likely to be pursued; and, thirdly, dangerous to the general public.
I put those points at much greater length when I spoke to this Amendment on Report. I put it to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, at that time that we were all relying upon something which had been promised during the course of debate on the Bill; namely, the provision of an interdepartmental review of suitable weaponry for the pursuit of deer. We were promised a proper and full interdepartmental review of suitable weaponry for the pursuit of different forms of deer and for the control of those deer. There are two points arising from that. First,
1206
there is the pursuit of deer from the point of view of the sportsman, and secondly, their control from the point of view of the people who are responsible for having these populations of deer on their ground and who are therefore responsible for keeping them at a stable level so that they do not go out and colonise other people's ground uninvited.
We are trying to get suitable weaponry for that and we have been promised an interdepartmental review. Until that takes place I put it to your Lordships that it would be unwise to do away with the shotgun altogether. I believe that to be so because of the conditions in which the deer will have to be culled and controlled. I think that the shotgun will be a better weapon for the purpose. Also, I think that it would be advisable, from the point of view of public safety, because I do not want to see immediately, and without due thought—and without interdepartmental thought—everyone with deer on their ground given the right to demand a firearms certificate for the control of those deer.
Since the Report stage I have had support for that from the National Farmers' Union, who see the force of the argument for giving people the proper tools wherewith to control deer populations so that there is no unwarranted spread of species. I have also spoken to the Red Deer Commission and have found the interesting point that the Red Deer Commission in Scotland has bought shotguns and SG wherewith to shoot red deer in woodlands, because they consider that in certain circumstances it may be desirable to use shotguns rather than rifles in woodland conditions.
Therefore, I find myself not alone, at any rate among those who have the responsibility for the management of these herds of wild deer, in believing that the retention of the shortgun at this stage, until the case is fully proved otherwise, is desirable.
The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has added an Amendment to the Amendment standing in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, which he quite fairly will, I am sure, state to your Lordships is more consistent with the other parts of the Bill, as the Bill now stands. That, I am prepared to accept.

1207
He has gone to some considerable lengths to meet me over this matter, and when he puts his case to your Lordships I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me that he has a case for his Amendment. Indeed, I would be going against my own argument were I to argue against accepting his Amendment to my Amendment.
My argument is really that, at the end of the day, the interdepartmental review should be wiser than both of us, and that I am prepared to accept. However, at this stage, I still feel that we should retain at any rate the right to use a shotgun with the appropriate load for these smaller type of deer, largely so as not to proliferate the right to demand firearms certificates and to use high velocity rifles in our woodlands in densely populated areas. Therefore, I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that I shall, when he moves it, accept his Amendment but I hope he will also accept the spirit of mine. I beg to move.
7.58 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved as an Amendment to the Amendment:
Leave out sub-paragraph (b) and insert—
("(6) paragraph 7 above shall have effect as if there were added at the end the words "other than a cartridge—

(a) containing a single non-spherical projectile weighing not less than 350 graines (22·68 grammes); or

(b) purporting to contain shot each of which is ·203 inches (5·16 millimetres) in diameter (that is to say, size AAA)".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I understand the procedure of your Lordships' House I think that we now deal simply with the Amendment to the Amendment and dispose of that, and then resume a general debate on the Amendment as amended. In that case I can be very brief. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for saying that he will accept this Amendment. The simple justification is that this is the kind of weapon and shot which we have specified in the early parts of the Bill as being able to be used, for example, by farmers protecting crops from marauding deer, and it seems sensible not to litter the Bill with all kinds of different provisions regarding different shot and so on. If we are to make an exception in the case of these particular deer, it seems sensible
1208
to use the same definitions. For that reason, and without more ado, perhaps I may simply move the Amendment to the Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, we have heard the Amendment moved and we have heard the Amendment to the Amendment moved. I think that noble Lords would be well advised to accept the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. Of course, one should add the qualifying rider that one would hope that no noble Lord or person in the country will try to add to these two types of deer. Therein lies the danger of doing this. I appreciate the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and I think we must emphasise that we are doing this as a very special exception.
8.1 p.m.
Lord DULVERTON: My Lords, I disagree with practically all the arguments that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has adduced for his Amendment. However, I think that we must let this Bill leave this House with some consensus. I appreciate his feelings about this. Of course, I understand that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is proposed in order to keep the Bill more consistent throughout. However, knowing as I do a little, although not much—but I venture to say I have a little more first-hand knowledge than the noble Viscount possesses—about these deer, I would point out that they are not always walking about in thick cover in woods and therefore cannot be shot with rifles. Unfortunately, I have the little invaders around my own home in Gloucestershire. Certainly in the day-time they live in thick cover in the woods, but many times when I get up in the morning, or sometimes when I am walking round in the evening, I see them in the full open country. It is just as easy to deal with them with a rifle as it is to deal with the roe deer, which come out of the woods at dusk and dawn, with a rifle.
I cannot understand why the National Farmers' Union is quite so perturbed about them because of all the kinds of deer that we have recited so often in this House in connection with this Bill, I should have thought that the muntjac was, on the whole, of absolutely no concern

1209
to farmers. It lives mainly in the woods; it may do a little damage there—not a great deal—but it does not frequent farm crops in the normal course of events, although I have seen it in open glades, and so on.
However, as my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton has just said, I am concerned that if we agree this Amendment, we must somehow assure ourselves that it will not be extended in another place to other forms of deer. I do not think we can be sure of that, and that is the worry. Although it might be acceptable to shoot muntjac deer and Chinese water deer at very close range with shotguns, it would not be acceptable so to shoot any of the larger classes of deer from roe deer upwards. Nevertheless, if it wins the goodwill of the noble Viscount for this most important Bill from a countryside point of view, I must support the Amendment and rely on the interdepartmental committee or inquiry to sort this matter out and reach some sensible judgment on the situation.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I should like to support this complete Amendment. As my noble friend Lord Dulverton has said, muntjac deer wandering about outside woods can always be shot—and, indeed, should be shot—with a rifle. However, a question arises when they are in woods and I must admit that I have only seen them in woods. Therefore, I must support the noble Viscount and agree that perhaps the shotgun is a better weapon.
I, too, would be very sorry to see this Amendment extended to other types of deer. I know nothing about the feelings of the National Farmers' Union on this matter, but I am sure that they would agree. If another place so decide—and I must not say what I had in mind—in their wisdom to include other species, I should be most distressed. But I think that fear is unjustified. If another place wish to lose the Bill altogether, there is nothing that we can do here. I do not think that we are putting any temptation whatever in their way. Therefore, I am glad to see that the consensus of the House so far is that this Amendment should be agreed.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, at this stage I should like to make one remark because I accept that the House is now moving towards a final decision on this very difficult matter. I have told the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, that I do not see any blacks and whites here and that it is of marginal difference between us. However, there are matters that fill me with considerable concern. I shall repeat just two of them because it should be on the record that it is only with enormous misgivings that I accept this final amended Amendment.
The first point—and I have made it before—is that the great danger lies in the intermixing of roe deer and muntjac deer. Once we make in an Act of Parliament what in effect becomes a legitimate defence for some action, it is a very strong defence. In other words, a man can go before the magistrates having shot a roe deer and say that he was aiming at a muntjac, that the two deers mix, and are mixed in that particular part of the country. That is a great danger. He will be in a much better position to defend himself before the courts because there will be an Act which says that one cannot use a shotgun on the muntjac, and he can say "I thought I was aiming at the others". If it was not in the Act he would not have that defence. That is the point I want to make. Therefore, the possibility of a statutory defence for someone taking pot shots with a shotgun at roe deer is opened up. I cannot emphasise that strongly enough. It would not be a statutory defence if it were not in the Bill.
My second point is one that I did not make during the Report stage. It concerns the problem of the trajectory of the rifle. On Report the noble Viscount was very concerned about the use of the rifle. We know that ·22 rifles are used on rabbits, and if we said that that was a legitimate point to make, we should have to reopen the whole issue of on what size of small animals rifles are used anyway. Therefore, we are not breaking new ground by trying to insist that the shotgun be phased out and replaced by the rifle for control of all kinds of deer.
I have made my points. I have made my protest. I believe that this Amendment is misguided for all the reasons which I gave on Report and which I shall not repeat. However, I suppose that if

1211
we accept the Amendment as amended, as the noble Viscount said we must await the advice of the inter-departmental committee. After the Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, I shall press the Government to set up that committee very quickly and to ask it to report as soon as possible on this issue of appropriate weapons, shot, and so on, for the species of deer, or any other matter. That is the only way we can leave it. I am very sad about the whole thing because I recognise the dangers that were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, about what happens once the door of exceptions is opened and the possibility of other kinds of deer being pushed through that door by people who do not especially like the Bill anyway. However, as I understand it, the House seems prepared to accept this amended Amendment, and therefore I do not think that I should resist.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord North-field, for his qualified acceptance of this Amendment. I should like to give him an answer on his two points, not in any way to put him down but, I hope, to give him comfort. He is stating that this Amendment will in some way establish a legitimate defence for shooting roe deer. With the greatest respect, it will not. It only establishes a legitimate defence for shooting the species specified. If somebody is going to tell a tall story to the magistrates he will tell a tall story. He will say, "I thought it was a rabbit". This sort of thing has happened before. People have been shot in these sorts of circumstances, let alone deer. There are unfortunately, and there always will be, careless shots, but I do not think they constitute a major menace in this case.
The other point was the question of the trajectory of the rifle. There is a world of difference between the lead bullet in a ·22 and the cased bullet in the ·236. If the noble Lord were to consult people who know about ranges he would find that half a mile is sufficient backing for a ·22 whereas a mile would be required for the ·236. I think that I have a point here, in that there is a considerable difference in the danger which would be inflicted upon the unsuspecting public by the rather higher velocity weapon. I do not want to go on arguing technical points before
1212
your Lordships at Third Reading. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord North-field, for yielding over this. I am even more grateful, in a sense, for the fact that this may produce a quick inter-departmental committee, which I think is most important.
On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
8.12 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Northfield.)
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I shall delay the House only for a brief moment to raise two points. One is to correct an unfortunate error on my personal behalf. I am reported as saying on Report on 8th February, in column 951:
"I… am very much opposed to it"—
it being the Bill. I hope that your Lordships will realise by what I have said that what I meant to say was "I … was … opposed to it". I mention this point partly to correct the record but mainly to draw your Lordships' attention to what I believe has been the happy path that has been taken by all noble Lords who have taken part in the Deer Bill, Marks 1 and 2, in getting agreement on the matters raised. I should like to mention in particular the noble Lords, Lord Northfield and Lord Wells-Pestell, with whom I have not always agreed. At times I may have treated them rather like recalcitrant cows, or even deer (they can choose which they like to call themselves), but I am most grateful for their tolerance and kindness.
The other point I should like to take up has been brought up once or twice by my noble friend Lord Mansfield, and concerns his mythical Auntie Aggie who goes out hunting with staghounds and, in pursuit of deer, by mistake or possibly because she gets out of control, crosses land that she should not be on. My noble friend Lord Mansfield raised this question once or twice and asked what would be the legal position of this mythical aunt if she strayed on to this land, and I should like to repeat this question.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, may I add one word to what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has said. I

1213
thank the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for his courtesy throughout this Bill. We may have been struggling like a couple of old stags, but I think we can stand back and say that neither of us was thrown. I wish him the greatest success with the Bill in another place, and I hope that we may soon see it back in your Lordships' House. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his help, and for the help of others from his Department who gave me advice for which I was extremely grateful. May I also thank the Whips for at last bringing us to the light of day. It has been very useful, and I wish the Bill every success. Anything I can do to help it at any later stage I shall be only too willing to do.
8.15 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, said to me. I never take personally any criticism that he makes in which I am involved. I know that he dislikes Ministers on this side of the House and dislikes the Government even more, but we do not hold that against him at all. In fact, I have always found him very helpful when the occasion has arisen.
At Report stage, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, asked a number of questions which were essentially legal questions which I did not feel able to answer because I had no competence to do so. However, I promised that I would go into the matter and write to him with regard to the effect on hunts and hunt followers of Clause 7 of my noble friend Lord North-field's Deer Bill. I am quoting from the letter, and if Lord Stanley of Alderley does not mind I shall quote the essential points rather than detain your Lordships unnecessarily. I said in the letter:
"My understanding is that the case is established that, to be guilty of aiding and abetting, a person must be proved to have intentionally encouraged the offence and to have had knowledge of the facts which go to constitute the offence."
I gave the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, a number of cases and quoted from the various reports.
"Thus a hunt follower who trespasses on another's land whether it is open country or a suburban garden will not be guilty of aiding and abetting an offence under Clause 7 if the prosecution fail to show that he encouraged, and intended to encourage, the hunt in the commission of that offence.
1214
"A hunt follower who trespasses on another's land in open country will not be guilty of aiding and abetting such an offence if the prosecution fail to show that he had knowledge of the fact which prevented the hunt from relying on the defence in subsection (3); that is, that the hunt knew that the land was owned by an organisation which had bought it for the sole purpose of excluding the hunt."
I do not think I need say anything more than that. I think it covers the point which the noble Earl raised.
There are two other matters that I undertook to bring before your Lordships. One was an assurance about the consultation with the British Deer Society. My noble friend Lord Northfield specifically asked some time back that the British Deer Society should be consulted before the powers referred to in Clause 5(5)(a) and (b) were used. These are powers given to the responsible Ministers to enable appropriate steps to be taken to deal with outbreaks of animal diseases. In response to the noble Lord's request, I said I would look into the matter.
Having done so and on the assumption that as regards Northern Ireland he has in mind the Irish Deer Society rather than the British Deer Society, I can give him an assurance in these terms: where time and the gravity of the situation permit, the agricultural departments concerned (that is to say, in England the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; in Wales the Welsh Office; in Northern Ireland the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland) will consult with the Society about any action involving deer which is contemplated under the Acts mentioned in Clause 5(5)(a) and (b). I feel sure that my noble friend will appreciate that there could be a few cases where the overriding need for immediate action to deal with animal diseases might preclude such consultation. I am not being difficult when I say that, and, in practice, I believe neither society will have cause to complain that their legitimate interest in deer was being ignored.
Finally, a word about a matter that arose under Clauses 1 and 2 dealing with the effect of the removal of the words:
"if he satisfies the court before which he is charged".
As to the admission of those words, I can confirm that they make no difference at all to the power of the police to prosecute

1215
in cases where they believe an offence has been committed. The result of Lord Northfield's Amendment is simply that we now have consistency in the Bill whereas before we have had inconsistency. The drafting has been improved and no ambiguity or obscurity remains. The police will in no way feel inhibited from prosecuting, nor will an innocent person be put at greater risk.
I do not think I have any other matters to clear up. The Government are obviously happy that these various matters have been resolved, with less difficulty than at one time, perhaps on the last occasion, we anticipated. It may be unusual for a Minister to wish to express his personal gratitude to the officials in his Department, but I wish to do that in view of the magnificent contribution they have made, and I do so because, like your Lordships, I am indebted to them.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I wish on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mansfield to thank the Minister very much indeed for the trouble he has taken in dealing with various noble Lords' Aunt Aggies, including the point raised by my noble friend Lord Dulverton. I also wish on my own behalf to thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, on his successful, if from his point of view not altogether perfect, conclusion of the Bill.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, it would be remiss of me if I did not reciprocate the kind thanks and warm good wishes I have received from all parts of the House. Noble Lords have other business to deal with, so I will be brief. I wish to thank, first, my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell who, as I said before, has personally taken on the Bill, although he has now moved to another Department: he wanted to keep his interest in the matter and we are very grateful to him. I particularly thank him because, in addition to all he has done, he has dealt this evening with three matters of some importance. The assurances he has given are of immense importance to the success of the Bill.
Secondly, I wish with him to thank again the officials at the Home Office. It is unusual for a Private Member's Bill of this complexity to get so much help, and I am grateful to my noble friend and the
1216
Government for providing the help of parliamentary counsel and the continuous advice of Home Office officials; they worked late hours and took no end of trouble to make sure we got the Bill as right as possible at this second attempt. I hope, if I may say this to my noble friend, that that augurs well for Government support in the other place. I hope I have now in a way committed the Government to the Bill should there be any hitch in finally getting it into law.
Thirdly, I should like to thank noble Lords on all sides. I crossed swords, I thought a good deal less this time, with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and I think that after this Bill I can count him a firm friend. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, fights hard but is always courteous and he has earned my respect and goodwill, and I am grateful to him. He can claim that the matter regarding consistency about which my noble friend was speaking was worked out by him, not by me. Noble Lords in all parts of the House have been very helpful indeed. Without mentioning other names, I will merely say "Thank you" to them all, and I hope they will support me if we now run into troubled waters when the Bill has to get through the other place.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ESTATE AGENTS BILL
8.25 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a very important Bill which will need our careful concentration and, I hope, support. I am sorry it has come on at so late an hour, but that is not my responsibility. Buying a house is the most important, the most costly and without doubt the most worrying personal transaction undertaken by ordinary people in the course of their lives. They have long felt a sense of grievance that Parliament seemingly should be unconcerned about their plight and should be remarkably reluctant to take action to protect them from the unscrupulous minority of estate agents with whom they must deal. This lack of protection and this sense of grievance has not gone unnoticed. During the last 90 years

1217
many attempts have been made to introduce an element of legislative control over the estate agency business and all its activities.
I will not detain the House by giving the full history of some remarkable attempts made by Private Members of all Parties to try to obtain a Bill. It started in 1808 with a Bill by a Mr. Duncan. There have been 13 Bills all told and this is the fourteenth—and, I may add, a Government Bill for the first time. It received a firm and detailed examination in another place, where it left with the good wishes of all sides and the hope that noble Lords would give it a speedy passage.
What are the grievances the ordinary person wants remedied? Here I have in mind the individual buying or selling his own home. Our own experience of buying and selling our own homes surely provides the answer to that question. The consumer wants to be satisfied that the moneys he entrusts to an estate agent will be secured against defalcation or loss from any other means. He wants absolute honesty and openness in all dealings between him and the estate agent, whether he is the vendor or the purchaser. His arguments are unassailable. He also expects the agent to have a reasonable knowledge and experience of estate agency work. It is right that the minority of agents—I emphasise "minority"—who besmirch the good name of the honourable majority and who abuse the faith placed in them by the trusting consumer should run the risk of prohibition from practice. That is the essence of the Bill.
The Bill is not an attempt to regulate the estate agency profession and all the activities which may be undertaken by those who call themselves "estate agents". Its aim is to protect the consumer in a limited area of activity, and to that end is concerned only to control those who act as middlemen in the buying and selling of residential property. In this area it aims to strengthen existing self-regulation by sanctions. No attempt has been made to extend the protection afforded by the Bill into the wholly industrial and commercial field. There is no evidence of a general demand for such an extension, and even if there were this Bill, with its limited aims, is not the appropriate legislative vehicle. The large company buying
1218
and selling in these particular areas of activity is well able to take specialist advice and can in consequence adequately protect its own interests.
The Bill also eschews any attempt at licensing or registration. The introduction of a licensing system would require additional and unnecessary bureaucratic control to eradicate the abuses of a minority and this is simply not desirable in order to achieve the measure of protection required by the general public. What is required is a means of ensuring that the man in the street is protected in his dealings with estate agents. This protection is achieved by the introduction of what I believe is the novel concept of negative licensing—permitting the estate agent to continue to engage in his profession until he is found unfit to practise.
The dealings of the vast majority of estate agents are above reproach. These agents already operate to high standards and deal fairly and openly with their clients. They have nothing to fear, and they will be free to continue to practise as they always have done, without restrictions. But it will be against the unscrupulous, the fraudulent, and the dishonest, as well as the discriminator, and the fly-by-night that the Bill will bite, as well it should, my Lords. Undesirable practices may be proscribed by regulations under the Bill. Those who are unable adequately to indemnify their clients for loss of moneys entrusted to them will simply not be permitted to take money, and clients' liabilities for any prospective charges for agents' services, and the agents' personal interest they may have in any transaction will have to be declared to the parties involved.
I think that it will now be of advantage to your Lordships if I sketch in the main provisions and features of the Bill. The Bill is a consumer protection measure. With a view to affording protection to users of their services, it imposes a degree of control over certain activities of estate agents; essentially the broking activity of bringing together in the course of business a buyer and seller of substantially residential property, with the aim of securing transfer of interest in that property. This is the controlled activity that Clauses 1 and 2 define and limit. Any person who carries out the defined activity is controlled—and not only those who call themselves estate agents.

1219
The Bill concentrates on residential accommodation because it is the individual buying and selling his own home who most needs protection. It covers the single residence, as well as the mixed property with a substantial residential element. It excludes buildings which are essentially non-residential, even though they might have an incidental residential content. I suppose that the most obvious example is the large office block containing a flat to enable the caretaker properly to carry out his function. The small businessman who sinks his capital in a business is also given a fair measure of protection. Residential property has been so defined as to include a single transaction which might embrace a dwelling where a business is carried on and where the assets are sold for a capital sum, the property being let at a rack rent.
The Bill exempts solicitors from control. In Scotland the buying and selling of houses is frequently an integral part of the work of solicitors. Since solicitors are already subject by statute to strict and rigorous rules—certainly as strict and as rigorous as anything proposed in the Bill—practising solicitors engaged in the course of their profession have been excluded from the scope of the Bill. It would be nonsensical to have two similar, but different, systems of control applicable to the same person.
Clauses 3 to 8 embody the general control principle of the Bill, which is the concept of negative licensing: that anyone may practise estate agency work unless and until he proves himself to be unfit to do so. Subject to appeal and to a warning in some cases, the Director General of Fair Trading will be able to prohibit by order any person engaging in estate agency work, either wholly or in part, if he considers that person to be unfit to practise on clearly defined and specified grounds. These grounds include certain criminal convictions, findings of racial or sex discrimination in the course of estate agency work, and engaging in practices declared by order of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to be undesirable.
Because a sanction which can result in the deprivation of a person's livelihood, or at least an important part of it, is a swingeing and powerful weapon, it must
1220
be used with discretion and only after due thought and careful consideration. The Bill therefore provides that before the Director General has formed a fully rounded judgment of an estate agent's fitness to practise, that agent will be afforded the right to make representations to him. And when the Director General has made a fitness order, or has refused to revoke or vary such an order, the agent will be able to appeal against the Director General's decision, first to the Secretary of State, and, secondly, to the courts on a point of law, from a decision by the Secretary of State.
It is important that any powerful sanction should not be more onerous than is needed to stop the mischief which renders the agent unfit. The Bill therefore permits the Director Genral in certain cases to issue an order banning an estate agent from carrying on estate agency work, either generally or in a particular area, which may be as wide as a country, or as small as a district, or of a particular description. Thus where, for instance, a rogue manager in a branch has committed discrimination in the course of estate agency work, the Director General will be able to ban the activities of that branch in relation to the given area, but not hamper the activities of branches in other areas.
The Director General's powers under the Bill do not duplicate those under the existing legislation on discrimination. As my honourable friend the Minister of State said in another place; as reported at column 51 of the Official Report, Standing Committee E, 28th November 1978:
"The Director General will not have any power to determine whether an estate agent has committed sex or race discrimination. It is not his judgment. That would be the judgment of a court or tribunal under the Race Relations Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. The judgment that he will have to make is this. Once there is a finding—it is not an offence; no criminality is involved in those two Acts—or a confirmed non-discrimination notice has been issued, he will have to determine for himself whether the discrimination was committed in the course of estate agency work. I think that that is a fairly easy judgment for him to make.
Once the Director General is satisfied that there is that finding by another court or tribunal, and that it took place in the course of the man's work, he has to decide whether that justifies setting up an inquiry on whether the person is unfit to practise as an estate agent".

1221
The procedures proposed in the Bill place a clear duty on the Director General to exercise effective control by giving him the necessary flexibility to form a fully rounded judgment about the fitness of an estate agent to practise. At the same time they leave the practising agent in no doubt at all about what actions of his may cause the Director General to move against him. By these proposals justice will clearly be seen to be done to all estate agents without any dilution of the consumer protection element afforded by the Bill.
Clauses 9 to 11 enable the Director General to call for information to assist him in the discharge of his functions, and the usual restrictions and penalties apply to the unauthorised disclosure to third parties of information obtained by virtue of Clause 9. Provision is also made for the powers of entry and inspection to be given to duly authorised enforcement officers. The provisions are no more stringent than is necessary in the consumer interest while, at the same time, providing adequate protection for the estate agent by circumscribing the circumstances under which the enforcement officer can act.
Clauses 12 to 17 attempt to satisfy the needs and desires of consumers that any moneys they entrust to estate agents should be secured against defalcation or loss. Thus, unless some form of indemnity cover is obtained by an agent against his failure to account for those moneys, he will not be permitted to accept clients' money. Exceptions can be made however when either the Secretary of State or the Director General is satisfied that the protection afforded by the Bill will not be endangered. In order to ensure that the public has sufficient guidance to judge whether deposits can safely be placed with an agent, the Bill controls the circumstances and conditions in which a person can describe himself as an estate agent or indicate that he acts as a broker of residential property.
An estate agent will be required to maintain, and pay any clients' money he may receive into, a separate client account. The Secretary of State will be enabled to prescribe by regulation the manner in which the client account is operated, maintained, and audited. Thus the best practices of existing agents can be imposed on all agents, and so a valuable measure of
1222
protection will be afforded in an area where, over the years, evidence of abuse and malpractices has come to light.
Clauses 18 to 23 regulate various other aspects of estate agency work. Clause 18 provides for the disclosure to a client of full particulars and details of the circumstances in which he will become liable for charges and remuneration. Should it seem desirable, in the light of experience, to bring certain terms of contract more prominently to the attention of the client—for example, the exact circumstances in which sole agency arrangements terminate—provision is made for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to require additional information by regulation. Clause 19 empowers the Secretary of State to prescribe by regulation a limit on pre-contract deposits taken in the course of estate agency work outside Scotland. Pre-contract deposits are not customary in Scotland; and Clause 20 prohibits the seeking or acceptance of such deposits by any person engaged in estate agency work in Scotland, whether or not the interest in residential property which is being acquired is situated in Scotland or elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Clause 21 requires an estate agent to declare a personal interest of his or his associates in any residential property for which he is acting as an agent. It is not an uncommon source of complaint that a person ostensibly acts as an estate agent in the sale or purchase of a property in which he or his associates have a personal financial interest, the implication being that his position is used to buy cheaply and then to sell at a substantial profit. The consumer tends to think of estate agents as independent experts whose views on market values, et cetera, can be relied upon to be impartial. Provided both outside parties are aware of any interest the agent might have, they are free to go elsewhere or to take another opinion, and no harm is done.
Clause 22 will enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make provision by regulation for ensuring that estate agents satisfy minimum standards of competence. Fears have been expressed that this provision will lead to a closed shop by excluding those who do not have technical and professional qualifications. I therefore repeat, "minimum

1223
standards of competence". Technical expertise and professional qualifications are not necessary to engage in the activity controlled by this Bill. To insist upon such standards would limit entry to the profession and restrict competition to the public disadvantage. In setting minimum standards, the Secretary of State must in any regulation he might make recognise practical experience, which alone will be taken as evidence of competence. He may, in addition, prescribe professional or academic qualifications as acceptable alternatives.
The clause is framed in such a way as to allow recognition of the professional qualifications of professional bodies, and for the introduction of much lesser academic or professional qualifications, and in fact gives recognition to the former bodies. He may also designate or constitute a body to examine and inquire into the competence of unattached persons engaged in estate agency work. The body's function would be to test and prescribe minimum qualifications which are to be taken as evidence of competence. The qualifications will not take account of expertise irrelevant to the broking activities covered by the Bill, and will be concerned, as my honourable friend the Minister of State said in another place:
"… with those who engage in estate agency work which, although requiring high standards, will not necessarily require the range of qualifications required for other purposes by the existing professional bodies. It will, of course, be necessary for my right honourable friend to appoint persons with the necessary knowledge to test the competence of those who do not wish to join the designated bodies, and to prescribe standards for them. I think I can assure the Committee that in order to get the body off to a good start it will be necessary for my right honourable friend to draw upon the knowledge and expertise of members of the existing bodies".
That is, the existing estate agency bodies.
Clause 23 provides that undischarged bankrupts may not engage in estate agency work except as employees of another person. I do not think, my Lords, that anyone would disagree that it is undesirable that such persons should be in a position to receive money from the public which should be paid into a client account. These are the main proposals. There is, however, one remaining clause to which I wish to draw attention. Clause 35 amends the Scotland Act 1978 to take account of the devolution of
1224
matters covered by the Act, and reserves out of them matters relating to the fees paid or to be paid to the Director General of Fair Trading. This does not amend the constitution. All it does is to recognise the position, as do other Bills now going through Parliament, such as the Banking and the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bills.
My Lords, 90 years is a long time for some form of consumer legislation in this field to evolve. That may be absolutely amazing, but it is true. The Bill aims to protect the consumer in a limited area of the estate agent's activity, but that limited area is where the demand by the consumer for some measure of protection is the greatest, and it is the one area that, sooner or later, affects us all. It is an area where the consumer can easily be so palpably lacking in experience and patently vulnerable to the inadequacies and malpractices of certain agents. I do not pretend that the Bill is the complete answer to all the consumers' problems. As my honourable friend the Minister of State said in responding to certain matters raised in the Second Reading debate on this Bill in another place:
"The purchasers and vendors of houses will not be able to rest all their confidence and faith in a modest Estate Agents Bill. They will still need care and advice. They will need legal and other guidance about surveys and valuations. The Bill will not remove all the attendant risks of buying and selling a house. I do not wish to give the impression that it will. It lays down a number of minimum requirements that I think will improve the protection of house purchasers and vendors".—[Official Report, Commons, 16/11/78, col. 689.]
It does, indeed, do that, my Lords, and for that reason I hope the Bill will be supported. Let us not forget that for 90 years many Private Members have been trying to enact such a Bill. The Government have now brought it forward, it is warmly supported in another place, and they ask your Lordships to speed its progress through this House. I therefore commend the Bill to the House, and beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
8.47 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for explaining this

1225
very important Bill. The noble Lord suggested to your Lordships that we should be speedy in our consideration of it. At this late hour I shall certainly attempt to comply with his suggestion, but I would at the same time sound a note of caution, because, although this Bill has been before another place on many occasions—as the noble Lord rightly said, this is the fourteenth Bill—it is a very difficult area in which to legislate, as has been proved in the past. My Lords, we welcome this Bill from this side of the House. I would heartily support the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, when he said that it was—and I quote his words—"to strengthen through self-regulation and sanctions". I think that was the phrase he used. This builds upon the situation as we know it, in which the professions generally, through their own schemes of admission and through their own Royal Charters in certain particular cases, have endeared themselves to the public over a very long period. The principal agencies in this profession—that is, the National Association of Estate Agents, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers—all warmly support this Bill, although in detail they seek to bring forward certain Amendments to it.
I think the Government have passed through a metamorphosis in the last two or three years in regard to this Bill, which proves what a difficult subject it is, because in their Green Paper of 1976 they proposed a system of positive licensing. After careful consideration of the consumer credit aspects, they have revised their views and have brought this Bill forward, which is now very much more acceptable. Of course, it builds upon the Private Member's Bill which was before another place last Session, and is almost identical in terms to it, but there are three principal changes. The first is that local authorities, housing associations and housing corporations are brought within the Bill; the second is that the activities of receivers in fiduciary awards are excluded; and the third is that the definition of "indirect personal interest" is further confirmed.
Long reference has been made by the noble Lord to the number of attempts. We have, of course, a very different situation in 1979 because the structure of
1226
arrangements for consumer protection is very much better than it has been over a long period—and for these reasons: that self-regulating arrangements have been made within the professions; that the Government seek to introduce a new feature, the Director General of Fair Trading into affairs, and, further, that they seek to clarify certain provisions. I was interested to hear that the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs, Mr. John Fraser, in Standing Committee E on 28th November (and I am quoting from column 31) said:
"We attempted to find a precise definition of what was residential property and what was not, but we found it impossible to achieve any worthwhile result".
This problem occurs in the very first sentence of Clause 1 of the Bill and carries over into Clause 2. The Minister believes that he has discovered a satisfactory definition. But we shall intend—and I make mention of this now—to probe a little further into this problem, because on my first reading of the Bill it was not clear to me (and I am sure it was not clear to many other people) that those very important words which occur in Clause 2 are sufficient to cover properties other than purely residential ones. The noble Lord's right honourable friend went on to say:
"I have said that the definition in the Bill includes the mixed heraditament: the newsagents' shop in Harrow with the flat above it or the garage with the adjoining house. So far we have the virtual unanimity of consumers and professions that those are areas that need to be covered".
This is a very difficult point. I make special mention of it at this early stage because I believe that we ought to examine this with the greatest care as we proceed through the Committee stage.
The further matter that we shall be considering is the matter raised under Clause 7. The noble Lord referred to the question of appeals from the Director General's ruling to the Secretary of State and, further, to the High Court, the Court of Session or Judge of the High Court in Northern Ireland. This is an area to which we shall certainly be addressing ourselves because we believe that the appellate procedure should be spelled out very much more clearly in the Bill and not be permitted to form part of regulations.

1227
I come now to Clause 11—a matter of considerable public interest. That is the question of the powers of entry. There are precedents here and, if I may, I will quote five of them which I believe to be in some way cognate, if not identical. Powers of entry were conferred in the Weights and Measures Act 1963, in the Criminal Law Act 1967, in the Finance Act 1972, in the Counter-Inflation Act 1973 and in the Consumer Credit Act of the same year. All these separate Acts give powers of entry, some of them without a warrant; and there is a parallel situation under this Bill. We attach very great importance to this particular clause and we believe that it should be possible for the Director General of Fair Trading, when he has considered a case, duly to instruct his authorised officer to obtain a warrant from a magistrate before making forcible entry to premises. It may be that there are special circumstances here; but for a situation of this type we believe that the greatest care should be taken before permitting this clause as it stands at the moment to pass from your Lordships' House.
I turn to Clause 16, the indemnity cover. The question of bonding aroused considerable interest in another place and we believe that the existing arrangements as practised by the joint indemnity scheme in a number of professional bodies is the most satisfactory. If it is the Government's intention under Clause 16 that indemnity cover should recognise (as we believe it does) the joint scheme that is, to a fair measure, satisfactory. But we believe that there are amendments which can be adduced to this situation. I promised that I would address myself briefly on Second Reading. I could go on considerably further, but there is more business to be covered this evening and I will content myself by advising the House that we shall have a number of Amendments to bring forward at Committee stage.
8.58 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, this Bill has support from the Conservative Benches and from these Benches and we suppose—we can only suppose—that it has support also from the Labour Benches opposite. I want to confine my observations to one clause only, Clause 11, the
1228
enforcement provisions. This is, first, because it will shorten my speech at this rather late hour; secondly, because, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, this clause has aroused much public interest; and, thirdly, because it is a model clause. If I may, I will add to the list of existing statutes the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Consumer Safety Act 1978. Here we have a list of statutes, all containing almost identical enforcement provisions to those in Clause 11 of this Bill; and, presumably, we shall go on having consumer protection measures incorporating this standard clause.
If the clause contains a defect—as I hope to be able to explain that it does—then I think this matter becomes more than just a Committee point because it affects so much besides the provisions of this particular Bill. I should like to contrast subsection (l)(a) with subsection (1)(b). Paragraph (b) which describes the enforcement officers' right to examine documents begins with the words:
"if he has reasonable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed under this Act …".
But paragraph (a), above it, which describes the officer's power of entry, is not qualified by any reference to his having cause for suspicion. It appears, therefore, that the officer has power to enter purely at random to make inspections without acting on suspicion. Of course, when last summer we were discussing consumer safety and the safety of goods, undoubtedly it made sense to say that an officer at random could go into a warehouse and examine, if not the goods themselves, at least what was written on the containers describing the goods inside: the model numbers, countries of origin and so on. But of course estate agents do not keep their goods on the premises. I suggest to your Lordships that one does not get very far, having got into an estate agent's premises, unless one can inspect the documents. The officer can only inspect the documents if he is acting on some suspicion.
The Minister in the Standing Committee in another place gave an example. This was the power of the officer to inspect to see whether the required certificate of competence to practise was being displayed. Of course "being displayed" means being displayed where the clients

1229
can see it, and the clients are members of the public. The enforcement officer is a member of the public and he does not need an Act of Parliament to tell him that he can go into an estate agent's premises to see, just like everybody else, whether a certificate is hanging on the wall.
Then the Minister quoted the case of a premises where the estate agent had written up over the door: "No trading standards officers allowed in here". The implication seemed to be that, notwithstanding that, subsection (l)(a) gave him power to go past that notice into those premises. But unfortunately that simply is not the case because refusal of entry is dealt with specifically in the clause. It is subsection (4). It says that the officer can go to the magistrate for a warrant. If the magistrate is satisfied that entry to the premises has been refused, he can grant a warrant, but only if he, the magistrate, is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that an offence either has been, is being or is about to be committed. So, of course, the officer's case falls flat if he starts out on a random expedition, is refused entry and then goes to the magistrates because the magistrate has to say to him: "Unless you can show me that you have reasonable cause for suspicion, I cannot give you a warrant."
The Minister in Standing Committee explained his policy with regard to this quite shortly and simply. I should like to quote this. It is at col. 90 of the report of the Standing Committee proceedings:
"… the trading standards officer or the enforcement officer can exercise these powers only if he has reasonable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed. If he goes merely on a fishing expedition or inspects merely as an arbitrary act, then he is himself breaking the law and is liable to action by the person whose premises are being inspected or whose books are being taken away".
In the face of that, one may well ask: How does Clause 11(1)(a) come before us with no mention of suspicion in the mind of the officer? I regret to say it is because it is a model clause. It has been introduced in other Bills in the past designed for other purposes. Without real care being given to the question whether it is necessary here, it is simply put in the Bill and, I suppose, it is said: "Well, if objection is taken to it, at least we can say that there are precedents for it". I do not think that is good enough.
1230
Subsections (1) and (4) just simply do not fit together. What we must do is make a policy decision. By all means let us adopt the Minister's declared policy and insert the words "reasonable cause for suspicion" at the beginning of paragraph (a). That is much the most satisfactory solution. A possible alternative solution is to amend subsection (4) so that the magistrate's hand is freed and he may grant a warrant even without his having to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for suspicion. I do not think that is the best way of doing it. What is quite wrong is to leave the matter as it is with subsections (1) and (4) which simply do not fit together. My Lords, that is quite long enough to speak at Second Reading on a rather detailed matter. We must come back to this in Committee, and I hope that we shall be able to resolve this matter.
9.6 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, this Bill, after 90 years, is being rather hurried through Parliament to fill in time, I feel. It is remarkable that we have had no less than eight Second Readings in two days—certainly a big deal for small Bills. I feel that there has been inadequate consultation with some of the professional bodies and therefore that as it stands at the moment the Bill will fail in much of its intention.
The Bill requires that those estate agents who accept deposits should be bonded in respect of those deposit moneys. As the public becomes aware of the bonding situation, most will assume that all agents are bonded. They will put greater trust in all agents, regardless, and will be led into a sense of false security. This will not stop the dishonest or financially harassed non-bonded agents from accepting moneys, even though they have no right to do so. The Director of Fair Trading can only intervene after an agent has defaulted. It will be little comfort to the depositors who will be denied protection where it is most needed owing to their false sense of security. The respectability of the whole profession will then be lowered by these "cowboy" agents, to whom the Bill will have given a gloss of respectability. Surely, to avoid this, all agents should be bonded, so that there is no place at all for the cowboys. If they cannot get bonding,

1231
then they will not be able to operate, and they ought not to be operating anyway.
Further, surely there is no justification for covering only deposits. Should not the whole sum be covered, because that is much more important than the deposit itself? There is also another abuse involving deposits in connection with properties for rental. Often, this takes place in connection with rented property, very often at the upper end of the market, where perhaps 10 weeks' rent is demanded in advance as a deposit. At the end of the tenancy, the depositor is often prevented from getting back his deposit by reason of so-called "dipalidations," which may or may not be genuine. I think that tenants' protection in this sphere could well be covered in this Bill.
Clause 22 deals with standards of competence. Certainly, it is necessary that there should be minimum standards of competence because, after all, bad advice given by an incompetent agent can bring far greater loss to a house buyer or seller than the loss of a deposit—for example, by a gross under or over-estimate of the selling price. That can happen either through lack of experience or indeed as a result of malpractice. Surely, the remedy is to require that the Secretary of State should define minimum standards within the prescribed period of two years. The standards of the profession are, of course, already very high, and there is no attempt on the part of the profession to suggest that there should be a closed shop; but non-members of the profession conforming to Government standards of competence should surely be required to have standards which are least equal to those required by the professional bodies, with their years of expertise and experience. I see why the Bill should not apply to solicitors, but it should apply to estate agents, it should surely cover surveyors, valuers and others who are dealing in moneys, because they can do equal damage to house buyers.
There is too much dependence upon regulations. The Minister said that he would show these regulations at the Standing Committee, but I think I am right in saying that he then apologised and admitted that there were no draft regulations at all. That is a strange state of affairs. It also came out that
1232
there was an official intention to improve the Act after it came into use—but how much better it would be to get it right now. As drafted, there is certainly inadequate support for this Bill among the professions; nor will it serve the public. But it would gain that support if it were adequately amended and if the oppressive features were removed. Generally, any form of legislation which is designed to protect depositors and standards of competence will be greatly favoured by the profession. At the moment, as the Bill is drafted, the public would be better served without it than with it, am sure the Government mean well, as they so often do, but they have got it wrong and there will have to be a great number of Amendments.
9.12 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I would thank all the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I shall be brief now because of the late hour and because there is further Business to follow. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, has rather underestimated the support for this Bill in another place. There was considerable Committee consideration, and indeed people representing various sides of the House made the plea that, although the Bill could perhaps have been stronger and covered a wider field, it was an important Bill, and they hoped that your Lordships' House would accept it.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for having given me notice of his points in advance, and I have duly noted them. We shall have a very interesting Committee stage. Powers of entry have inevitably been arranged. As soon as I saw the name of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on the list of speakers, I thought, "Good gracious me! we are going to get powers of entry". I was not mistaken and, of course, the noble Lord has been joined by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. I think it would be as well for me to make just a few comments on this vexed question, which indeed vexes the noble Lord—I almost called him "Lord Hampden", because he was referred to as "the poor man's Hampden" somewhere else!
Looking first at consumer interests, the right to enter and look around is necessary to give the enforcement officer a defence against the possible charge of trespass. He needs the protection if he

1233
is to be assured of being in a position to ascertain whether, for instance, a person subject to a total banning order is not carrying out estate agency work as defined in the Bill, or to observe whether a person who does not display a certificate of insurance is, or is not, taking deposits. It is equally important that, where complaints are received that pre-contract deposits have not been returned on demand to the would-be purchaser, the officer should be able without delay both to examine the books and, if there appears to have been a fraud, to seize and detain the books as evidence. Delay could provide the rogue with a chance for a quick getaway, and I am sure that the noble Lord would not like to encourage that.
From the agents' viewpoint, there are a number of safeguards, because the circumstances in which the enforcement officer can act without laying himself open to civil action are circumscribed. Entry is permitted to business premises, or, for instance, in the case of a flat above an estate agent's office, only where the estate agent occupies both and might take his books into the flat. The enforcement officer cannot require the production of books and documents, unless he has reasonable cause to suspect an offence. He cannot seize and detain them without reason to believe that they will be needed in evidence, and he cannot require the breaking open, or himself break open, a container unless it is reasonably necessary.
The requirement that an officer must have "reasonable cause to believe" has been interpreted by the courts as a protection for the alleged suspect and the officer breaks the law if he acts arbitrarily. The estate agent who believes that there is no cause for the officer's action can refuse his request to inspect and take copies of books and documents, or to break open a container. The officer would then need a warrant to go ahead. The agent is further protected by the fact that the Secretary of State has power by regulation to require that enforcement officers can be authorised under the Bill by the Director; that Director can constrain any misuse of powers by any individual officer, and limit the number to carry out the duty.
I think that we should leave the question of bonding until the Committee stage,
1234
because there is obviously an Amendment looming up. As regards professional bodies and standards of competence, I think that I should be best serving the House by quoting an assurance given by the Minister of State in Committee in another place. He said:
"I give the Committee the assurance that the existing professional bodies with their own stringent examination systems, will be designated under Clause 22(2)(d) to set the standards of competence for their own members, so that those arrangements continue largely undisturbed. The body under Clause 22(2)(c) will not be concerned with those who engage in estate agency work which, although requiring high standards, will not necessarily require the range of qualifications required for other purposes by existing professional bodies.
It will, of course, be necessary for my right honourable friend to appoint persons with the necessary knowledge to test the competence of those who do not wish to join the designated bodies and to prescribe standards for them. I assure the Committee that, in order to get the body off to a good start, it will be necessary for my right honourable friend to draw upon the knowledge and expertise of members of the existing bodies in providing for a further designated body to provide an alternative to the arrangements which are institutionalised by the existing professional bodies".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/78.]
On the question of bonding, the terrible term "closed shop" arose, and it is the view that if certain requirements are met from some of the professional bodies we shall be creating a closed shop. Considering the warnings that have issued from Opposition Benches on this issue, I shudder at the prospect. Apart from that, I look forward to a very interesting Committee stage and I thank noble Lords for giving me advance information, which I hope will enable me to provide adequate and satisfactory answers.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CARRIAGE BY AIR AND ROAD BILL [H.L.]
9.19 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is concerned with international conventions which limit the liability of the carrier. For most modes of transport there is an international convention, and every one of these

1235
conventions provides that the carrier may limit his liability. It is recognised that liability involves insurance, and that insurance is a cost which has to be covered by the carriage charges. The object is a limit which covers the general run of claims, leaving those with exceptionally large claims to take out their own insurance. It also has the added advantage that in the case of goods the carrier need not inquire minutely into the value of the goods which he carries. International conventions of this kind facilitate the standardisation of contracts and make life a little easier for the customer.
In the case of travel by air, the international conventions go back to the Warsaw Convention of 1929. This convention reversed the burden of proof. The carrier became liable, unless he could show that it was not his fault. He could limit his liability, in the case of passengers, to 125,000 gold francs. At that date, this was £1,000 per passenger. In the case of goods, he could limit his liability to 250 gold francs per kilo, which at that date was equal to £2,000 per ton.
The Warsaw Convention of 1929 was brought into effect in this country by the Carriage by Air Act 1932. By 1955, as a result of inflation, the limit of £1,000 per passenger had risen to £3,000. In 1955, however, there was The Hague Protocol which raised the limit per passenger from 125,000 gold francs to 250,000 gold francs, which was equal at that date to £6,000. This was put into effect by the Carriage by Air Act 1961. Unfortunately, the 1955 Hague Protocol was not accepted by the United States of America. That country has a standard of living which is somewhat higher than that to be found in most other countries, and its courts are much more liberal with compensation.
By the Montreal Agreement of 1966, the airlines agreed that on flights to and from the United States they would waive their defence that the carrier had taken all necessary measures to avoid damage and would pay compensation up to a limit of 58,000 dollars per passenger, excluding costs. An attempt was made to heal the breach in 1971 by a protocol which was agreed at Guatemala City, but this was not accepted by the United States. Consequently, the protocol was not ratified by other countries.
1236
In the meantime, the United Kingdom and other European countries took steps to make airlines under their jurisdiction offer, by special contracts, the same compensation to passengers generally as was offered to those flying to and from the United States. Under this contract, the limit is £29,000, or 58,000 dollars, so there is a little confusion. We, and certain other European countries, have fixed the limit at £29,000 in the case of the airlines under our jurisdiction. In other cases, there will be other limits. Where a carriage is subject to The Hague Convention the limit will be £10,780. That is to say, the £6,000 in 1955 at the time of The Hague Convention has now become £10,780 as a result of inflation.
This Bill seeks to give effect to the latest convention, the Montreal Protocols of 1975. These protocols make the carrier strictly liable and raise the limit to 100,000 units of International Monetary Fund drawing rights. That is equal at the present time to £66,000. Similarly, the limits for cargo and luggage were put in terms of International Monetary Fund drawing rights. And, incidentally, the limit so far as cargo is concerned is £11,000 per ton. There are amending protocols to two international conventions dealing with carriage by road and the effect of these is incorporated into this Bill. These simply convert the compensation from gold francs to International Monetary Fund drawing rights so that in effect there is a certain amount of uniformity.
Your Lordships will have noticed that there is a time lag between the dates of protocols and the date of the Act which put those protocols into effect in this country. For example, in the case of The Hague Protocol it was dated 1955 but it was not put into effect until 1961—six years later—and even the Montreal Protocol with which we are directly concerned this evening was adopted in 1975 and we are now in 1979. There is a time lag which is unnecessary. It is partly due to the difficulty of finding parliamentary time for the necessary legislation. Consequently it is provided in the Bill which is before the House that future amendments to the conventions shall be made by order, subject to an Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. This is perhaps the most appropriate case of all for using an order.

1237
The principal objection to an order which is subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure is that it cannot be amended. Each House is asked to say, "Yes" or "No".
That is already the case in regard to international protocols. A national Parliament cannot amend an international protocol: the national Parliament is called upon to say, "Yes" or "No", so therefore this is the ideal case for the use of the Affirmative Resolution. If the national Parliament is limited to saying, "Yes" or "No" and cannot amend, then clearly three Readings, a Committee stage and a Report stage are not necessary. The Affirmative Resolution is the appropriate method, when the House has the opportunity of saying, "Yes" or "No" after due debate. So I contend that this is the ideal way of doing it and I can quote precedents. Section 8 of the Civil Aviation Act 1949 allows amendment of the Chicago Convention by order and by Affirmative Resolution. There are similar procedures in the Carriage by Railway Act 1972 and the Carriage of Passengers by Road Act 1974. Therefore, I think there is a strong case for using the Affirmative Resolution procedure.
I could go through the sections and Schedules, but I should merely be repeating what I have already said, although in a different order. I think at this time of the night I have said sufficient to introduce this Bill. I commend it to the House, and beg to move that it be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Jacques.)
9.29 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, as always the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for introducing this Bill and for giving us that admirably short and concise explanation of the provisions of the Bill. I should like to express also a personal word of thanks to him for arranging, through his Department, for me to receive in advance a very helpful brief on the clauses of the Bill which I hope will enable me to speak briefly tonight and not ask too many questions, at least until the Committee stage.
As the noble Lord has explained, the Bill is principally designed to bring into our law the various conventions recently
1238
entered into and principally, of course, the Montreal Convention of 1975, and to make certain provisions arising from that. We certainly would not wish to oppose that intention. But, at the end of his speech, the noble Lord did refer to the power contained in the Bill to vary the provisions of this Act and other Acts related to it by order in future, and that is a matter which causes me to pause and think for a moment. I shall wish to consider this question especially carefully in the light of what the noble Lord has said tonight, because he was good enough to go into that matter quite carefully. For the moment I must say that I do not agree with him that it is appropriate necessarily to give the Government these powers. I would say that Acts of Parliament ought to be varied by further Acts of Parliament and not by orders slipped through in the wee small hours, perhaps when the House is as jam-packed as it is tonight! I am not yet decided on what is the right course of action in this matter, but I think I shall at least be putting down some probing Amendments at the Committee stage to get the Government's thinking in even more detail on this subject, because I know that a good many of my noble friends behind me share my concern in this matter. Having said that, the principal purpose of this Bill is certainly acceptable to us and I hope that your Lordships will now give it a Second Reading.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his general welcome to the Bill. On the principal point that he raised, of changes by Order-in-Council and Affirmative Resolution, I cannot add to what I have already said. I therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  AIR BASES ON ICE ON THE HIGH SEAS
  AIR BASES ON ICE ON THE HIGH SEAS