Sitting of 31 January 1979

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

    Sports Scholarships
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will bring forward proposals to provide sports scholarships on the same basis as awards for academic higher education?
    The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Mr. Denis Howell): I entirely agree that sporting excellence deserves encouragement just as much as academic or artistic excellence. Within the limits of the funds available, I believe that my scheme for special centres of sporting excellence has the great advantage of offering opportunities to potential top-class sportsmen whatever their academic abilities. I am also pleased that several local authorities are considering granting sports scholarships, and I believe this should be encouraged.
    Mr. Spriggs: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and ask him to use his good offices to thank the Sports Aid Foundation for the good work that it is doing. Will he take special measures to seek a meeting with the local authority associations with the object of providing scholarships for young people who have the potential to provide Britain with the finest sportsmen in the world?
    Mr. Howell: I am grateful that my hon. Friend has drawn attention to the magnificent work of the Sports Aid Foundation which, within one year, has assisted 350 competitors in 37 different sports. The local authority associations sit on the advisory committee under my chairmanship, and I shall take advantage of that suggestion to raise this matter with them at an early opportunity.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: As one of the Members of this honourable House who attend the House of Commons gymnasium—the Minister himself is an irregular attender, though I am delighted that he attends sometimes—may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that it would do this country a great deal of good if we could exploit the fantastic potential to which his hon. Friend has referred by making much more more money available for sports through sports scholarships?
    Mr. Howell: I entirely agree with that. I do my best, as do my right hon. Friends, to make Government money increasingly available to the Sports Council. By and large, whenever we have sporting success there is a great psychological uplift around the country.

    House Building (Starts and Completions)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the level of new house building and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ovendenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the latest figures for housing starts and completions in the public and private sectors.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): In November 1978—the latest month for which figures are available—there were 6,900 public sector starts and 13,200 in the private sector in Great Britain. There were 11,400 completions by the public sector and 12,900 by the private sector. I hope that the improved level of private sector starts will continue; but those for public sector starts are disappointing even bearing in mind the greater emphasis that many local authorities are now placing on gradual renewal and rehabilitation rather than demolition and new build.
    Mr. Adley: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Is it correct that 45,000 fewer new houses per year have been started during the lifetime of this Government than under the previous Conservative Government? If the record of the last Tory Administration had been maintained there would now be 200,000 more families living in new homes. How does the right hon. Gentleman square that with his February 1974 election pledge to reverse the serious housing fall? Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with Transport House to repudiate the disgraceful party political broadcast earlier this month which said that no Government had built more houses than the present one?
    Mr. Shore: We have had this kind of exchange before. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that the boom that was achieved in 1972–73 under the previous Tory Administration collapsed in 1974. It collapsed not, if I may say so, because of anything that we did. It had collapsed when we took over. What we have tried to do since is to maintain a reasonable, continuing and balanced new build programme between the public and private sectors. We had substantially succeeded, until the fall-out in public sector building as a result of changes in local political management in the past year.
    Mr. Ovenden: Now that the combination of Treasury controls on house building and the indifference of Tory local authorities to their housing responsibilities have succeeded in reducing the public sector starts to the disastrous level of 1973, what action does my right hon. Friend intend to take to reverse the trend?
    Mr. Shore: The actions that I can take are inevitably limited by the fact that housing is a locally provided service. Unless I were to envisage some major constitutional change in the relationship between central and local government, there are, clearly, limits to what I can do. I assure my hon. Friend, however, that I am giving every possible encouragement to local authorities to build. Where it is possible to switch from non-building authorities to those that are prepared to build I am willing to do it, and have done so.
    Mr. Cormack: How does the Secretary of State justify the broadcast referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley)? Did he write it? Did he approve every word?
    Mr. Shore: I did not see it.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although the under-spending by Tory local authorities is a major factor in the decline in public sector building, the system of cash limits has resulted in a certain reduction in the activities of local authorities? Is he satisfied that this is purely a matter of teething troubles, and are there any steps that he can take to ensure that the effect of the system is diminished?
    Mr. Shore: Cash limits, certainly in the first year after their introduction, may well have had some braking effect on the house building programme. But, as my hon. Friend will recall, we have greatly eased the situation, first, by agreeing about three-year programmes for housing allocation and, secondly, by allowing a carry-forward of 10 per cent. from one year to the next and an anticipation for the following year of the same amount. There is, therefore, considerable flexibility in the system.
    Mr. Rossi: So that we may keep the matter in proper perspective, does the Secretary of State agree that as well as the reasons that he has given for the hiccup caused through the change in the base of financing, local authorities have under-spent by only about 5 per cent. of the allocation under the housing investment programme? Does he agree that that is not a startling figure? If we are talking party politics, is it not true that Labour authorities such as Manchester and Sheffield were among those that did not spend their full allocation?
    Mr. Shore: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the 1977–78 figures rather than the latest ones. I agree that a 5 per cent. underspend is not necessarily disastrous. But the figures that are emerging concern the crucial element, which is the number of approvals given. They determine the number of starts and completions in subsequent years. The number of approvals has fallen off uite sharply, and I am worried about it.

    Canals and Waterways
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to enable voluntary workers to restart clearance work on British Waterways Board canals.
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the effects of the industrial situation on the inland waterways.
    Mr. Shore: I regret that long-standing difficulties over pay have led to non-co-operation by the staff of the British Waterways Board, and this has prevented the Board from making a physical start on the Fraenkel maintenance programme, and has also affected routine maintenance. This inevitably results in closures of sections of canal in the interests of public safety, and has also compelled the Board to withdraw permission for voluntary bodies to work on projects where the staff will not supervise the work.
    I recognise that the Board is currently faced with particular difficulties in attempting to maintain the inland waterways in a proper condition. The Board has my full support, and I am doing all I can to find a speedy solution to its present difficulties.
    Mr. Morrison: Since the withdrawal by British Waterways Board employees of their co-operation stems from a dispute that is now over three years old, is it not time that the Government took much more urgent action to try to end the dispute? What opportunities have the employees been offered for arbitration?
    Mr. Shore: I thank the hon. Member for his measured supplementary question. We have sought various ways of easing the situation. I confess that I had considerable hope a few weeks ago that we might get an urgent consideration of the dispute under schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act. However, the tight drafting of the terms of reference of that schedule precluded that solution. I am therefore looking most urgently for an alternative.
    Mr. Durant: Is the Minister aware of the seriousness of the situation for the canal network? Does he agree that unless this matter is resolved fairly soon there will be considerable damage to the canal
    1450
    system and possible danger to those who live alongside it? Since the Central Arbitration Committee has rejected the opportunity to look at this case, is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman met the NALGO representatives and discussed the case with them?
    Mr. Shore: I should be very willing to meet officers of NALGO. I have had opportunities to discuss these matters with them previously, and I hope to have the opportunity of resuming contact with them shortly. I have very much in mind the safety aspect. I am aware of the safety problem to which the Fraenkel committee drew attention. I have made an allocation of substantial resources. It is now a question of getting the money spent.
    Mr. Sever: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the expansion of leisure and sporting facilities which is possible on the waterways can be promoted by voluntary agencies and groups of voluntary workers? Will my right hon. Friend indicate in which specific ways he feels his Department might be able to assist in the funding of clearance projects?
    Mr. Shore: I am willing to look at further encouragement to voluntary work, but the existing level of voluntary work has had to be curtailed because, in the absence of BWB supervisory staffs, it cannot be properly supervised. At present they are not prepared to supervise it, but I assure the House that I shall do my utmost to bring that state of affairs to an end as soon as I can.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Is the Secretary of State aware that, in addition to the conditions described in the Fraenkel report, further and expensive damage is being a caused to canals and to boats by the lowering of levels, which has been necessary as a result of the industrial action? Will he bear that in mind when thinking in terms of any settlement of the dispute?
    Mr. Shore: Yes, I shall bear that in mind. I am sure that the BWB management will have it in mind in considering the priority allocations of the substantial sums being made available.

    Rates
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what he

    1451
    expects to be the average increase in rates in 1979–80.
    Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his revised estimate of the average increase in rates, following the Government's announcement of increased pay for the low paid and other changes in pay policy.
    Mr. Shore: As I told the House when I announced the RSG settlement last November, the settlement was compatible with a national average for domestic rate increases in single figures. The actual level of increase will, however, depend on the level of expenditure authorities decide to undertake, the provision they make for inflation and the extent to which they are prepared to draw from balances.
    As to the announced changes in pay policy, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 16 January that the cash limits on rate support grant will be increased to take account of the Government's initiative on the low paid. That will not, therefore, significantly affect the level of domestic rate increases.
    Mrs. Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some Tory-controlled county councils are now inflicting demands for increases of as much as 25 per cent. on their unfortunate ratepayers, and that some of those are the authorities that have been underspending, and even cutting back on housing maintenance and repairs and on personal social services? Does my right hon. Friend foresee the need for these authorities to apply for supplementary increases later in the year, as some of them have been threatening?
    Mr. Shore: I ask my hon. Friend on this occasion to be a little more merciful to county councils than perhaps we have felt appropriate in the past. I do so for one special and particular reason. We have shifted the needs element payment this year to shire districts for the first time. That means that the shire counties will be obliged to some extent to increase their precept, but that should be followed by matching decreases in the rate calls of the shire districts that will benefit.
    Mr. Morris: As the Prime Minister said that if the wages of local authority manual workers went up by 15 per cent., rates could be expected to rise by as much
    1452
    as 27 per cent., is the Secretary of State prepared to take any steps to ensure that average rate increases are kept to single figures?
    Mr. Shore: I am not prepared to do what I understand was the proposal of the Opposition Front Bench some time ago and say in an authoritarian way that local government must limit total expenses. I still counsel the House, however, not to jump to conclusions because of the recommendations by borough treasurers and finance committees. I am not aware that any—but, if any, certainly not more than a handful—rates have been struck throughout the country.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Is the Secretary of State aware of the nasty situation that is building up, which appears to be a repeat of the 1974 rate revolt but which this time may be more serious than before? Is he also aware that very few counties and districts in rural areas will be able to keep their rate increases below 20 per cent.? Is he, therefore, prepared to announce today that any settlement in the public sector that is above the 8·8 per cent. already stated by the Prime Minister will be met out of central funds?
    Mr. Shore: I am not prepared to say that, and it is too early for the hon. Gentleman to say with such emphasis that his expectation will turn out to be correct. In any event, I reiterate that this year a proportion of the increase should be matched by a reduction of rates in the shire districts, which for the first time are benefiting from the payments of the needs element.
    Mr. Tilley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the high rate increases in many inner city areas, including the London borough of Lambeth, are a direct result of councils attempting to implement the Government's inner city programmes, with policies of better housing, amenities and more jobs? Will he take steps to make special funds available so that the expectations that he has rightly raised, both in his White Paper and since, can be met in the inner city areas without an undue burden on local ratepayers?
    Mr. Shore: I am deeply aware of the financial problems of the inner cities. But in terms of both the special allocations that we have made to the inner cities, including the Lambeth partnership area,

    1453
    with regard to urban grant, and the way in which the rate support grant has operated in favour of inner city areas, particularly the settlement for London with its emphasis on inner London, I believe that this will be helpful, if not completely satisfactory, to the inner city boroughs affected.
    Mr. Alison: Is the Secretary of State aware that today he is playing the role of an ostrich, firmly burying his head in the sand and ignoring the reality around him? Is he persisting in telling the House that, with the current pressure on local authority wages, he expects rate increases to remain in single figures, bearing in mind that the Prime Minister recently said that if average wage settlements went up to 10 per cent.—which is the new average level for the low-paid—rates would go up on average by 18 per cent.? Will he now seriously consider calling together the local authority associations to renegotiate the settlement this year and, if necessary, to discussing the possibility of cutting services?
    Mr. Shore: I do not intend to call the local authorities together to renegotiate the rate support grant, and certainly not to invite them to cut back on their services. I shall continue to invite them to negotiate realistically and sensibly to achieve a settlement that is compatible with the maintenance of public expenditure and a reasonable level of rate increases.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that one of the reasons why rates are likely to rise more than expected is the increase in minimum lending rate to 12½ per cent., which has resulted in local authorities paying more in interest charges across a whole range of their services? Incidentally, that policy was pushed by friends of the Tory Party in the City. Will the Minister also take into account that when the wage settlements for local authority employees are finalised, which will be above the amount already suggested by the Prime Minister last week, there will be offsets such as family income supplement, offsets for those paying increased taxes and in terms of rent and rate rebates?
    Mr. Speaker: Order: The hon. Gentleman is advancing an argument.
    Mr. Skinner: Yes.
    Mr. Speaker: He is not entitled to do that at Question Time.
    Mr. Shore: On my hon. Friend's second point, I shall consider what the offsets may be. As he will realise, it is difficult to predict this on an across-the-board basis when measures for assistance to particular families are involved. I can give him considerable reassurance on his first point. We have always excluded interest rates from our calculations for rate support grant. At the time of the increase order, which we shall make in six months' time, we shall take full account of changes in interest rates. There is that help to local authorities.

    Homes (Insulation)
    Mr. Arthur Lathamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has any plans to introduce a new scheme under the Homes Insulation Act.
    Mr. Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied that retirement pensioners are able effectively to make use of his Department's homes insulation scheme.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Reginald Freeson): I am keeping the operation of the present scheme under review, but have no plans to extend or change its basic provisions immediately. I shall, however, shortly amend the present scheme in order to list those loft insulation products which will be acceptable for grant purposes. I am satisfied that pensioners are able effectively to make use of the scheme.
    Mr. Latham: My right hon. Friend's answer will convince my hon. Friend who asked whether this question was a plant. Nobody would have been more surprised than I had the answer been "Yes". However, will my right hon. Friend note that many people are disbarred from participating in the scheme because they have already made a start on insulation or have inadequate insulation? This rules out those who want to remedy unsatisfactory insulation or to improve existing insulation. Will the Minister amend the scheme so that those people, especially the elderly, can qualify for help?
    Mr. Freeson: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but, as was well argued when the Bill was introduced, our objective is to apply expenditure where it is most needed first and thereby enable uninsulated lofts to be insulated. Partly insulated lofts, although unsatisfactory by modern standards, are at least better than uninsulated lofts. When the scheme has been in operation for some time we shall be in a better position to review additions or variants.
    Mr. Bowden: How many pensioners have benefited from the scheme, and what percentage is that of the total? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the difficulties of many pensioners on low incomes who are unable to find the total cost of the work before they receive any grant? Can he ensure that they get the grant, perhaps on the basis of an acceptable estimate?
    Mr. Freeson: On the first point, we do not have such returns from the local authorities, and I am not sure whether we shall require that statistical breakdown. On the second point, that is a possibility. If such problems are emerging, I should like to receive information about them. So far I have had no evidence of this. Fears have been expressed, but that is different. I shall be prepared to consider an administrative variant to overcome the initial cost problem. We are looking at various ways in which this can be done should there be a need for such an eventuality. But I should first like to have evidence.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: I invite the Minister and the Secretary of State to visit the two prototype houses that have been constructed by Salford council on completely new principles. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the designers estimate that the total heating cost will be only £30 per year? On the coldest day this year—and that is saying something—the temperature inside these houses was 70 deg. This scheme may go a long way to avoid the cold, wet, damp and fungus that are afflicting many households today.
    Mr. Freeson: I am aware of the Salford project and, from what I have read of it. I am very impressed. The authority is to be highly commended for what it has attempted. As I have been unable to visit the scheme, my hon. Friend the
    1456
    Under-Secretary of State is going there shortly at the invitation of the Salford city council. I welcome this kind of work. A great deal of it is being carried out under the auspices of the Building Research Establishment, under the direct umbrella of the Department. But whatever may be the prospects of applying these techniques to new fields, the main problem is with the existing stock. The solution that the Salford project offers cannot help directly, but it will help in the future.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will the Minister consider some of my constituents, who have been unable to apply for a grant because Camden borough council failed to appoint a relevant officer before the winter started and took no action on his excellent circulars?
    Mr. Freeson: I should like to have further information about that. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is a matter entirely for the elected councils. We have provided the powers through Parliament and the resources by way of Government. If I may have the information, I can make inquiries.

    Caravan Sites Act 1968
    Mr. Hurdasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will now review the working of the Caravan Sites Act 1968.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Marks): A review of the working of part II of the Act was undertaken by Sir John Cripps, and we are already acting upon many of his recommendations.
    Mr. Hurd: Do the Cripps proposals go to the heart of what is happening? For example, will the Minister look again at the situation in Oxford, where, because of the rigidity of the Act, the county council feels that it cannot close one site where conditions are appalling without designating another site, which may very quickly turn out to be equally appalling? Is this a sensible way of tackling the problem?
    Mr. Marks: Part of the problem is that there are about 8,500 gipsy families and only 2,000 sites for them. I appreciate that the county councils have difficulties with district councils when they come to carry out their duties under the 1968 Act. We

    1457
    are bringing in a Bill which will give those councils a 100 per cent. grant for the provision of new sites, and I hope that they will make the best possible use of it.
    Mr. Ward: My hon. Friend's promise of a Bill will be greatly welcomed, particularly in Peterborough. When is the Bill likely to come before the House?
    Mr. Marks: The Bill has been published and I hope that it will have its Second Reading in another place within the next couple of weeks.
    Mr. Wells: Is the Minister aware of the gravity of this problem, particularly in the fruit-growing counties? Does he appreciate the great difficulty in which the private citizen finds himself with regard to planning permission for individual caravans, or two or three caravans on a farm, whereas the district and county authorities have a free hand? There seems to be one law for the councils and another for the individual.
    Mr. Marks: As I said, we hope to assist the county councils in their problems with the districts by repealing section 8 of the 1968 Act. One of the problems which the gipsies face, and which the towns now face, is that many of the gipsies who went to work in areas such as the hon. Gentleman's during the summer do not now do so, but concentrate on the towns.

    Council Houses (Sale)
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has for extending home ownership, by accelerating the sale of council houses and flats to their tenants; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will review the policy of his Department concerning the sale of council houses to sitting tenants.
    Mr. Shore: I have no proposals for accelerating the sale of council houses. Existing policies for sales have been reviewed, and I hope to be able to consult the local authority associations very soon about proposed changes.
    Mr. Gow: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity of confirming that
    1458
    it is the Government's policy to extend home ownership in whatever way they can assist in that task? What opinion does the right hon. Gentleman have of the decision of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, announced earlier this week, to sell 53,000 council houses on a sliding scale, giving a better advantage to those who have been tenants for the longest time?
    Mr. Shore: It is certainly no news to the House that we are very much in favour of extending home ownership. What has divided the House on this issue—it is the only difference that I can think of—is that we believe that we can extend home ownership principally by encouraging people in the private or public rented sectors to purchase houses in the private sector—either new build or existing houses. We have made many arrangements to assist in this, including the special facility for first-time purchases.
    The hon. Gentleman and his party take the view that the most important approach to the extension of home ownership is to encourage authorities to sell local authority houses, regardless of the need for rented accommodation. I do not believe that that is the right policy to pursue, particularly if it is pursued in an ill-considered way.
    My approach has always been that one must judge the situation district by district and area by area. I cannot answer for Northern Ireland, but I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be only too pleased to do so at the right time.
    Mr. Knox: Since a large number of council tenants would like to buy the houses which they at present rent, and since this would make good economic sense, will the right hon. Gentleman introduce legislation to make it easier for these people to fulfil their ambition?
    Mr. Shore: There is at present, and has been since 1970, a general consent whereby local authorities which have the responsibility of providing rented housing, and a broader responsibility for the housing need in their areas, have the permission to sell houses where they think and judge it right to do so. Therefore, I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The facilities are there. Indeed, they are quite generous, and many tenants are able to take advantage of them.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some areas, for example, Southampton where council houses have been sold on an extensive scale and no new houses have been built to replace them, many families with children find it completely impossible to transfer from a council flat to a council house? As a result, these children will be condemned for many years to come to live in unsuitable conditions.
    Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has put the point very fairly. If one were seriously looking at the situation of an individual authority, and if one were judging a sensible policy about sale, one would want to take account of whether that authority was building at the same time. What is particularly deplorable is the situation where there is a clear need for rented accommodation and a council is not building and is at the same time selling off its existing stock. This is particularly deplorable where sales of houses with gardens are taking place in authority areas where, overwhelmingly, local rented accommodation is in high-rise flats.
    Mr. Rossi: If the Secretary of State believes that the sale of council houses should be dealt with on a district by district basis, subject to local conditions, why is he turning down those local authorities that wish to sell at a 30 per cent. discount and apply to him for permission to do so?
    Mr. Shore: Because I do not believe that—[Interruption.] I have not changed the level of discounts, and I can see some advantage in them, provided they are linked to the right of a local authority to buy back over a period of years at the price at which it sells. But given the lack of considered approach by many councils at the present time—I fear that there is altogether too strong a political element in their judgment—I should not want to encourage them simply to offer houses on conditions which would amount to a loss to the ratepayer and taxpayer.
    Mr. Douglas-Mann: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Conservative Opposition's policy on this matter represents a disgraceful attempt to buy votes by giving the opportunity to a lucky few to purchase public assets at a discount? Does he accept that hon. Members with the experience of the hon. Member for
    1460
    Hornsey (Mr. Rossi), and others, must be aware that the cost to the public, the taxpayer, the ratepayer and those in need of homes must vastly outweigh any short-term advantage to the lucky few? Will he condemn this in rather more specific terms than he has done?
    Mr. Shore: I have made it clear that I condemn an indiscriminate approach to council house sales. I have said that, I believe, on every occasion that I have come to the Dispatch Box. But I do not intend to engage in a kind of Dutch auction with the Opposition, and I do not believe that it is in the long-term interests of our people that either political party should follow that route.

    Inner City Areas (Development)
    Mr. Eyreasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he proposes to review the authorities receiving help under the Government's special inner urban areas programmes.
    Mr. Shore: I have no plans at present to alter the nature or scope of our inner cities policy, other than to increase the level of resources for the urban programme, as indicated in the White Paper on public expenditure, Cmnd. 7439.
    Mr. Eyre: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the list is now of no practical importance, because the sad truth is that whatever small benefit might have been available to towns under the inner urban area programme, the economic consequences of industrial disruption and strikes will fall with especial severity on the large towns and cities, particularly on the rates? Does he accept that any small benefits have been cancelled out by the present developments?
    Mr. Shore: Many aspects of our national life have been affected by recent disruption. That will undoubtedly have its effect during the course of this year. I emphasise that we are dealing with inner city policy. If we are being serious about it, we are dealing with policies that will have their effect over the next five to 10 years. In spite of all the financial pressures, I am glad to say that we have been able to make a remarkable increase in the whole urban aid programme. We were spending only £30 million a year on the urban aid programme in 1976–77. In the

    1461
    White Paper that has recently been published I was able to indicate that that spending will increase to £170 million in 1982–83.
    Mr. Litterick: What, in my right hon. Friend's opinion, is the effect of the sharp drop in the availability of building society funds for the financing of home improvements in inner urban areas, despite the fact that the level of public spending for that purpose has been maintained?
    Mr. Shore: I shall be interested to have my hon. Friend's constituency experience. In general, the building societies have been able to make larger loan allocations in the inner cities.
    Mr. Litterick: Not according to the Home Improvement Council.
    Mr. Shore: The arrangements for support lending by which the societies lend to those nominated for home purchase by the local authorities have led to an agreement that £400 million will be allocated for the forthcoming year.
    Mr. Alison: The right hon. Gentleman has announced an increase in the urban programme. Have there been compensating reductions in other programmes that are associated with the increase in the urban programme? If so, where have the cuts been made? For example, have they been made in the housing programme?
    Mr. Shore: No. I gave the figure for a rising programme extending to 1982–83. There are changes in the composition of individual programmes. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are talking about a modest increase in the growth of public expenditure as a whole. I shall consider his argument.
    Mr. Arthur Latham: Does my right hon. Friend remember visiting Paddington in the autumn of 1978, just before we did not have a general election? Does he recall the reaction of my constituents, who were pleased to know what he was doing for many other parts of London but disappointed when he turned to me and said that the scheme did not apply in my constituency? Does he accept that conditions in substantial parts of my constituency are every bit as bad as those in other parts of London? Is he aware that some of my constituents feel that he is ignoring them, in the same way as he
    1462
    has been ignoring my letters asking him to receive a deputation on this issue?
    Mr. Shore: I fear that it is difficult to meet all the proper demands that my hon. Friends put upon me. I do not dispute that there are serious problems in the constituency represented by my hon. Friend. My problem within the inner city programme has been to weigh the extent of the problems and to try to determine priorities. I regret that so far I have not been able to include my hon. Friend's borough in that programme.

    Local Authorities (Grants to Industry)
    Sir George Youngasked the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities have made grants to attract industry, using the provisions of the Inner Urban Areas Act.
    Mr. Freeson: This information is not yet available. But designated authorities will be asked to let my Department know the level of expenditure and income under the Act and possible other relevant information at the end of this financial year and for subsequent years.
    Sir G. Young: Is the Minister aware that while his Department is encouraging grants and loans to industry through the Inner Urban Areas Act and encouraging industry to come back to London, the regional policies of the Department of Industry are pulling in exactly the opposite direction and continue unabated, as does the Government's policy for the dispersal of civil servants? What will the right hon. Gentleman do to ensure that everybody in the boat rows in the same direction?
    Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is being somewhat unfair to the Department of Industry. It is not for me to answer in detail for it. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will table an appropriate question. Considerable changes have been announced since the introduction of the inner city initiative in the operation of IDC policy and in industrial development by the Department of Industry. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman checks on the statements that have been issued and are now operative in all the inner city areas that are otherwise outside assisted area status. I refer especially to London and Birmingham.
    Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his Department has a responsibility for planning? Does he agree that it is pointless for Ministers to say that they support local authorities that are trying to attract industry back to London when, at the same time, they approve menacing planning schemes? For example, the planning department of the London borough of Ealing has allowed masses of warehouses to be built on land where industry could have been sited. That is a matter that my right hon. Friend should examine.
    Mr. Freeson: Except in certain respects where reserve powers apply, Ministers with planning responsibilities are not responsible for the detailed operation of planning procedures. That responsibility has been given by Parliament to local planning departments.
    Mr. Molloy: That is wrong.
    Mr. Freeson: Warehousing policy in certain parts of London near Heathrow airport has been going on for a good many years, and it is not directly connected, to say the least, with inner city policy.

    Partnership Committees (Staff)
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many civil servants are involved in membership and servicing of committees in connection with the partnership authorities.
    Mr. Freeson: There are 16 civil servants working full-time on servicing the seven inner city partnerships. Taking into account all Government Departments and their regional organisations, about another 85 civil servants are involved partially in the work of the partnerships and the 15 programme authorities.
    Mr. Miller: Will the right hon. Gentleman compare that number with the number of voluntary workers and interest groups that are involved in the partnerships? Does he agree that to make them a success it is important that the full co-operation of the local community should be sought and involved?
    Mr. Freeson: I shall not take up the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question and make comparisons. It would not be possible to obtain the statistics, even if they were relevant. The importance of local co-operation was given
    1464
    great force in the White Paper on inner city policy. I assure the House that in every one of the partnerships and programme authorities there has been a considerable effort to draw in community and voluntary activity. In all instances, considerable portions of the enlarged urban aid programme to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has referred have been directed to assist an expansion of community work.
    Mr. Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the work of the civil servants and that of the voluntary agencies would be better known if the partnership committees were open to the public, especially where local authorities on the partnership committees make representations to the Secretary of State that that should be so? Is it not significant that these local authorities are all Labour controlled? It may be that they are calling on the Government to carry out Labour Party policy that was passed in 1974, namely, that there should be more open government. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, at least in this respect, it is about time we implemented that policy? What are the Government afraid of?
    Mr. Freeson: There was not an announced inner city policy in 1974. There is no lack of information between the local authorities, both county and district, the other authorities involved in the partnerships and the community organisations. There are, rightly, variations in the way in which consultation is undertaken in the various partnerships and programme authorities. I do not accept that the opening up of what are, in effect, steering groups would provide a solution to communication. Other means must be found.

    Public Buildings (Lifts)
    Mr. Ronald Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement concerning the building standards for the size of lifts in public buildings.
    Mr. Freeson: The size of lifts is not controlled in regulations, but there is a British Standard 2655 of 1971 which specifies loads and dimensions of lifts for various uses.
    Mr. Atkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the head of the casualty department at Preston Royal infirmary told me

    1465
    that a number of lifts at that hospital and others were too small to take stretchers? He feared that lives would be endangered. Does my right hon. Friend not think that action should be taken to ensure a minimum size for lifts?
    Mr. Freeson: That is a different matter from that raised in my hon. Friend's original question. It will be difficult to find a solution if that problem arises on any scale in Preston in existing buildings. As regards the future, I make two points. I take note of the general proposition on guidance. More importantly, the number of high-rise, or even medium-rise, blocks of flats now being built by local authorities is down to less than 2 per cent., compared with 23 or 24 per cent. of the building programme a few years ago.
    Mr. Michael Morris: Will the Minister look at the problem of direct labour maintenance of lifts, which is an unmitigated disaster?
    Mr. Freeson: I have no doubt that the hon. Member will send me information. I understand that the vast majority of lifts in these high-rise blocks of flats are serviced by maintenance contractors.

    Local Government (Staffordshire)
    Mr. Grocottasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he has any plans to transfer powers from Staffordshire county council to Tamworth and Lichfield district councils as part of his scheme for organic change in local government.
    Mr. Shore: The Government's proposals for transferring powers from counties to districts are contained in the White Paper on organic change in local government published last week. Under these proposals, districts with a population below 100,000 will not be eligible for any transfers, and on that basis the powers of Tamworth borough council and Lichfield district councils will remain unchanged. In common with all districts in England, however, they will become responsible for all but a narrow range of planning decisions.
    Mr. Grocott: Is my hon. Friend aware that, while his White Paper is right in principle, it is none the less a considerable disappointment and anti-climax?
    1466
    Many of us had hoped he would be doing far more to repair the damage of the Tories' 1972 reorganisation. Will my right hon. Friend admit, even at this late stage, that many of the old county boroughs operated perfectly well with populations of 60,000 and 70,000? Why cannot he respond to the wishes of the Labour Party in Lichfield and Tamworth, and elsewhere, and transfer powers from counties?
    Mr. Shore: I am afraid that we have to look at this realistically. My hon. Friend knows that my disposition is in favour of looking to smaller local government units rather than larger ones. If we were to go far below the cut-off level of 100,000 we would have units of administration dealing with personal social services and traffic management which would not easily cater for the kind of services, with their specialities, which are needed today.

    Roads (Gritting)
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsbergasked the Secretary of State for the Environment, in the light of the discussions he has had with local authorities in the United Kingdom, what information he now has on the reasons why local authorities were unable to grit the roads prior to the major snow falls which first fell on 27 December.
    Mr. Denis Howell: The first snow warnings were received in some areas on the 28 December and in others on the 29 and 30. The reports I am now receiving from the local authorities show that they either commenced operations immediately or did so within a few hours of the warnings. Salting and gritting operations suffered seriously in some cases from gale force winds and rain together with very low temperatures at night. The vastly reduced volume of road traffic resulting from the bank holiday was also an important factor in aggravating the situation.
    Mr. Finsberg: I thank the Minister for that reply. In how many areas was gritting not possible because the unions refused to do standby duty?
    Mr. Howell: I have no information of that happening at all over the bank holiday, which was the immediate crisis to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

    1467
    It is true that this has happened occasionally since the action by the public service employees, but it is not right to apply that situation to the Christmas and new year period.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that Liverpool has experienced its worst period ever for the removal of snow and ice from the roads, due to the fact that the controlling Liberal Party, together with the Conservatives, refused to turn out the workers to make certain that roads were gritted properly and the snow cleared, which was always done under a Labour authority?
    Mr. Howell: My hon. Friend is right that in certain parts of the country Conservative authorities changed the standby arrangement, which gave great offence to the men and aggravated the situation that existed.

    Building Construction (Research)
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the role of the Building Research Establishment in helping to prevent building failures; and what resources have been allocated for this purpose in the current financial year.
    Mr. Freeson: Much of BRE's research on materials, components, structures and fire is concerned with preventing building failures and defects. I cannot give a reliable assessment of the resources involved, since in many cases the work is part of a wider project dealing with other related issues, such as improving performance or giving better value for money.
    Mr. Latham: Is it not unsatisfactory that the vital Doomwatch section of the BRE is minute and short of resources? In view of disasters such as Ronan Point and high alumina cement and the bad state of many new council flats, should not this matter be given the highest priority?
    Mr. Freeson: I would not say that the problem over the integrity division to which the hon. Gentleman refers has lasted as long as he suggested, when he refers back to the Ronan Point disaster. I accept that this is an important priority element in BRE work. Our problem has been to overcome shortages of staff and
    1468
    to achieve recruitment up to establishment. It has been difficult to recruit staff. We are continuing our efforts.
    Mr. Madden: Will the Minister confirm that those figures show that local authorities have had to pay over £200 million to meet necessary repairs due to building defects and incompetent builders? Will he undertake to publish that list of local authorities in the Official Report?
    Mr. Freeson: I should not like, without checking, to confirm the figure that my hon. Friend has mentioned. There is, undoubtedly, a considerable area of justifiable concern about faults which have developed partly as a result of design and partly as a result of contract management during the industrialised building era. We should not exaggerate the matter and suggest that it applies to everything that went on in the 1950s and the 1960s, but it is certainly a significant element. We shall need to pay close attention to rectifying these matters in the future.

    Coast Erosion (Yorkshire)
    Mr. Woodallasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what consideration he is giving to the prevention of coast erosion on the East Coast of Yorkshire by use of colliery waste and power station fly ash; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marks: Following the recommendations of a working party set up by the Department in 1974, the local authorities concerned are now considering how best to dispose of the region's colliery spoil and fuel ash. However, we are advised that it is unlikely that these substances, on their own, can provide adequate protection against erosion of the coast. They are unable to withstand the constant battering from the waves. In the case of colliery waste, there are also strong environmental objections arising from the despoilation of the beaches and the discolouration of the water. Experience of tipping colliery waste on to the Durham beaches has shown this.
    Mr. Woodall: I welcome that encouraging reply. Is my hon. Friend aware that the National Coal Board is proposing to put colliery waste on 200 acres of good agricultural land in my area? In the Selby district, the Central Electricity Generating

    1469
    Board is taking 150 acres to dump fly ash from Drax power station. Is he also aware that we are losing 30 acres of good land each year at Spurn Point, and that, shortly, it will become an island?
    Would it not be sound economic sense to use Government money now to prevent this further loss of good agricultural land rather than reclaim it after it has been degraded by industry or lost by erosion?
    Mr. Marks: I met some of my hon. Friends constituents who took the trouble to travel to Hull when I was visiting the Yorkshire coast to study the problem of erosion. It is difficult for me to comment on the planning matters to which he refers. These matters are in the hands of the county council and may come to my right hon. Friend in his quasi-judicial role.
    Mrs. Renée Short: What is my hon. Friend doing to encourage the use of pulverised fuel ash to produce building materials?
    Mr. Marks: My Department and the Property Services Agency have done a great deal to encourage its use. Much of it is used already in the manufacture of lightweight concrete blocks, and so on. There is an increasing use of it, and at the moment we are examining its further use. Government Departments use it a great deal, and perhaps local authorities could use it more.
    Mr. James Johnson: When my hon. Friend visited Spurn Point in East Yorkshire, he saw maps of the changes in that peninsula since the middle ages. Is he aware that if gales and the other elements burst Spurn Point, there could be a potent effect upon Hull as a port? It would be silted up, and the channels would be in an unholy mess.
    Mr. Marks: We shall discuss this with the harbour authority, though the representations that we received came from the coastal districts of Withernsea, Holderness, and so on. If the harbour authority and the Hull city council wish, we shall discuss the problems with them. Flooding itself is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but we work together closely on these matters.
    Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate that his hon. Friend the Member
    1470
    for Hemsworth (Mr. Woodall) has a very good point about the spoliation of agricultural land? Is not the right thing to do with fly ash which cannot be used to put it back in the mines where it came from and thus stop subsidence?
    Mr. Marks: That is done wherever possible. The National Coal Board has done a great deal in using extinct pits to pack away waste from present pits and Central Electricity Generating Board waste.
    Sir John Langford-Holt: Is it true that the nationalised industries are not subject to normal planning procedures and that this is a big part of the problem?
    Mr. Marks: No, it is not true. They submit planning applications initially to local planning authorities. With opencast coal applications, of course, the decisions are made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, and not by my Department.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of your exhortation at the beginning of Question Time that you hoped to get through more questions today than was possible yesterday, may I draw your attention to the fact that we managed to reach only question No. 20 and that some hon. Members who did not choose to table questions were called on more than one occasion?
    Mr. Speaker: We have had 23 questions answered today, because a number were bracketed together. When only one hon. Member rises, there is a better chance of hon. Members being called.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We could have done even better if replies from the Treasury Bench had not been so rambling. There was a time when Ministers would reply "Yes, Sir", "No, Sir," or "Not without notice". Can nothing be done to improve the state of the Treasury Bench, short of Dissolution?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not disagree that answers today were long. I do not disagree with that at all.
    Mr. Burden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not it a fact that we get through so few questions on many occasions because of the Government's reluctance to give answers?

FUNERAL FACILITIES (PICKETING)
Mr. Heseltine(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the disruption by picketing of funeral facilities in the metropolitan boroughs of Tameside and Liverpool.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): Following last Week's day of action organised by unions, selective strike action against local authority cemeteries and crematoria is continuing in certain parts of the country. According to the latest information available to me, the action is most marked in the North-West, in particular Liverpool and Tameside.
I deplore this action, and I made my views known to the general secretaries and national officers of the unions concerned at the weekend when I asked them to remove, from their list of selective action, crematoria and cemeteries. I was informed last night that advice had been issued by the unions to their members designed to limit the impact of action here on the public.
I take this opportunity of urging the men concerned, whatever their grievance, to reconsider their action, to understand the distress being caused to the bereaved, and the deep offence being caused to the overwhelming mass of our people, and to return to work.
Mr. Heseltine: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are now 225 bodies in Liverpool and 38 in Tameside awaiting funerals and that the strike appears to have spread, having, I understand, been going on since 19 January in Tameside? Is he aware, further, that the procedure for funerals in Liverpool now is that the local area medical officer of health has to inspect each body, that if he certifies that it is a danger to public health a committee of the union is consulted to seek its agreement that the funeral may proceed, and that that agreement may or may not be forthcoming? May I remind the Secretary of State that on Monday the Home
1472
Secretary told the House that the Government were not prepared to stand by idly, that they were not prepared to have dead bodies kept in a disused factory in Speke, and that the trade union leaders would not accept it either? The position remains the same; indeed, it is probably rather worse than it was on Monday. The whole House agrees with the Secretary of State about the shattering effects that this action must have on relatives of the deceased, but may I ask him whether he now thinks it appropriate that he should come back to this House, at the latest tomorrow, with proposals for firm action on behalf of the Government to deal with this totally regrettable and unnecessary state of affairs?
Mr. Shore: I do not think that the issue of public health, as such, is the one upon which we need concentrate, simply because I do not believe for one moment that there would be any objection there. This goes much more widely than matters of public health. It involves the inevitable feelings of people when they are affected by death in the family and in their community. I do not think, therefore, that we ought to judge this matter against the background of hazard to public health.
I have, of course, been in close touch with the two local authorities concerned, and I shall no doubt be in touch with them again today. However, I advise the House and the hon. Member, in the light of the information and advice given to the authorities yesterday by the unions concerned and, I hope, in the light of the expressions of view which this House has already made to the men directly concerned, to wait perhaps until a little later to see what response there is. In the meantime, as I say, we are in touch with the local authorities concerned, and we are prepared to take such action as we and they agree.
Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the whole House would want to accept the advice of the Secretary of State if he felt able to assure us that he would make a further statement on this matter tomorrow.
Mr. Shore: Of course, I shall consider what the hon. Gentleman says. However, as I said to him a moment ago, it is perfectly reasonable for me to say to him that it might perhaps be a little better to wait 48 hours than to say "Tomorrow".
Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Government supporters who wish to see these workers get a decent living wage and who support them in their claim for one nevertheless are deeply concerned at the distress that is being caused to bereaved families? Is he aware also that it is not just attacks on the workers that are required but speedy action to bring this matter to a settlement? Is he aware, finally, that some of us are taking urgent steps to arrange a meeting with the workers concerned in order to discuss the matter and endeavour to get a settlement at the earliest possible moment?
Mr. Shore: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am very glad to know that my hon. Friend, as a Member of Parliament for the city principally concerned, has been using his personal influence in order to resolve the situation there.
I think that the House understands that the men concerned are among many groups of low-paid workers, and there is no disposition anywhere not to consider their claim very seriously. However, I believe that the nature of the action that is being taken is not one that is likely in any way to assist them in the solution to their grievance.
Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that fear of confrontation between mourners and pickets is resulting in funeral services not being continued in the chapels of the cemetery? I should like to join with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and go with him to see the gravediggers, so that we have a joint approach from both sides of the House.
Mr. Shore: Perhaps I may leave it to the hon. Gentleman to carry out his bilateral negotiations. But, again, the hon. Gentleman represents the area concerned, and I am sure that he will use such influence as he has to bring about a solution.
Mr. Hooson: Does the Secretary of State agree that if there is clear evidence by tomorrow morning that those involved have not taken the advice of the union leaders and that this bizarre situation is to continue, it will be his duty to make a statement telling the House what the Government intend to do about it? The situation will be entirely unacceptable to the people if they are no longer able to bury their dead.
Mr. Shore: I must clearly take some account of the views of the local authorities concerned in this matter. Also, clearly, I have to consider the wishes of the bereaved families concerned. The House should bear in mind that while obvious solutions are available to the Government, those solutions in themselves might lead to a situation in which those who are principally concerned, the bereaved, could be more upset by what was being done than they are even by the present situation.
Mr. Parry: In an effort speedily to end the strike, will my right hon. Friend indicate to the employers' side the Government's view on its latest pay offer to the men involved, which is between £2·15 and £2·45 a week? Incidentally, the offer includes an increase in pay of a miserly 60p a week for the lowest grades of manual worker. This Scrooge-like attitude is contrary to the Prime Minister's recent statement on the lower-paid.
Mr. Shore: I simply say that while the course of negotiations is still far from satisfactory—I shall have something to say about that, perhaps, Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes' time—my hon. Friend should look again at the Prime Minister's statement of 16 January. There he will see that the particular underpin arrangement would certainly apply to low-paid workers up to the level of £70 a week; indeed, it postulates a £3·50 payment.
Mr. Graham Page: Having regard to the well-known fact that on Merseyside the strike committees do not follow the advice of the trade unions, is not 48 hours too long a period for the House to wait for the Government to take really active steps to relieve the situation there? Forty-eight hours will take us into the weekend. That means that we shall not have anything done until, perhaps, early next week.
Mr. Shore: I have noted what the right hon. Gentleman said, as I have noted what one or two other hon. Members said. Certainly I shall consider the matter further.
Mr. Loyden: I should like to take up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry). What is needed is a quick settlement of the dispute. What

1475
steps are being taken by the local authority? It appears to me that an Alice-in-Wonderland situation is developing. Local authorities are saying that they are not prepared to offer 8½ per cent. because that would be rejected by the union, and they continue to offer 5 per cent., which they hope will be accepted. When will the Government make it clear that they are not standing between employer and worker on the question of the low-paid?
Mr. Shore: I shall be working for and encouraging a reasonable and early settlement, but I do not think that we can, as it were, say that the settlement and action to deal with this question can be time-related. I think that the question of dead people remaining unburied in parts of the North-West must be settled without delay.
Mr. Montgomery: Is the Secretary of of State aware that at a meeting of the Greater Manchester council this morning the council decided to invoke section 138 of the Local Government Act 1972? That was because Councillor Fieldhouse, the leader of the council, stated that the council was concerned with the protection and preservation of people suffering as a result of the present situation caused by industrial action by local government employees. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that other councils could be urged to take the same sort of action?
Mr. Shore: I think that that is a general power that the Greater Manchester council has. It relates to the services for which the county council is responsible. I would certainly need to look very carefully to see whether there were implications here for the exercise of powers that belong to the metropolitan district councils.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: This is an extension of Question Time. I shall call the hon. Members who have been rising.
Mr. Skinner: Is not it a fact that on this occasion we are witnessing, albeit with a few exceptions, the whole House indulging in a bout of utter hypocrisy? Is it not also a fact that the House of Commons and the Government could resolve this matter, could get rid of these dead bodies, and could ensure that people
1476
were buried properly if the Opposition would encourage the Government to pay a decent wage to those concerned in the dispute? Is not it a fact that no one in this House—no one—would do the job that these people are doing for a take-home pay of about £40 a week? Instead of indulging in these bouts of hypocrisy, is not it time we resolved the matter? We have it in our power to do so. It is time that the present Government understood where their supporters are. They are not on the Opposition Benches; they are amongst the many local government workers who are fighting for decency and a decent wage.
Mr. Shore: I hope that my hon. Friend, at a later stage today, will consider very carefully his sense of priorities and values.
Mr. Skinner: They do not lie with Mr. Peachey or Mr. Miller.
Mr. Shore: Beyond that, I simply say this to him: hypocrisy—no; death is not hypocrisy. Nor is human grief. Nor is the sense of common humanity that people have when they share these experiences. Therefore, some sense of common fellowship and decency—
Mr. Skinner: Yes. I am saying that.
Mr. Shore:—between members of the same community ought to come across.
Mr. Cormack: Is the Secretary of State aware that almost the whole House totally endorses his last remarks? As Her Majesty's Secretary of State, will he make it quite plain to the House and the country that the Government just will not tolerate this situation beyond tomorrow?
Mr. Shore: I think that the views expressed in the House, almost unanimously, will be a very helpful factor in the situation.
Mr. Whitelaw: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there will be widespread acceptance of the view that he has put forward and the way that he has sought to handle a very difficult situation today? However, does he also appreciate that in this matter of very great concern to many people, and so, rightly, to this House, it really is very important that he should report to the House tomorrow on what has happened? In the interests of the whole House and

1477
the people concerned, I hope that he will feel able to do that.
Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to say that it is a difficult matter. It is a very sensitive matter. I ask him to let me reflect further on the pleas made by the House to make a statement tomorrow, but not to pin me at present to an absolute and specific promise.

LOCAL AUTHORITY MANUAL WORKERS (PAY)
Mr. Radice(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make a statement on the breakdown of negotiations over local authority manual workers' pay.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Peter Shore): A meeting of the national joint council was held yesterday, and I regret that no progress was made. I shall be seeing the employers' representatives tomorrow, and I trust that negotiations will be resumed in a few days.
Mr. Radice: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is rather amazing that apparently the employers' side did not feel able to put the Government's £3·50 offer on the negotiating table, and apparently did not agree with the comparability studies that have been suggested by the Government? Will the Government now immediately institute such studies? Does my right hon. Friend agree that negotiation is better than industrial disruption—better not only for the community but also for individual workers?
Mr. Shore: I wholly agree with the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend about negotiation. I must confess that I was surprised about yesterday's events, because I had been led to believe that the meeting would be the start of serious negotiations, and it is well known that the Government's underpinning proposals, anounced by the Prime Minister on 16 January, are of particular relevance to the lower-paid. I believe that comparability needs to be discussed further, but by no means at undue length. I hope that the negotiations will resume shortly, and resume on serious propositions.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify one point in what he said? Is it not a fact that the negotiations have not broken down and that therefore the industrial action now being taken is yet another example of action before negotiations finally terminate? Secondly, is it not a fact that the union's national officer said on television last night that even if the employers had given what the Prime Minister offered, it would still have been rejected?
Mr. Shore: One always has to take account of the particular situation—whether it be a situation of negotiation, pre-negotiation, or negotiations on the point of starting—in judging what people who are party to the negotiations say about particular figures. I agree that this is not a question of the breakdown of negotiations; it is really, as it were, a beginning of negotiations which everyone is determined to see start.
Mr. Mellish: Is not the key to this situation the fact that a study should be set up now by the Government to make an urgent report—say, before Easter—on the whole question of comparability? The team to do the job should be appointed by the Government, with the terms of reference to be agreed, so that the arguments about the lower-paid and comparability can be taken on board. Is it not clear from what we have said, and despite what has been said by Members on the Opposition Benches, that unless the Government move in and take the negotiating committee by the scruff of the neck we will not get anywhere?
Mr. Shore: While I understand the superficial attraction of a very quick comparability study, I do not believe that that would be the right way to proceed, although I believe that the general principle of comparability is extremely relevant. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) well understands that, in view of the very many different skills and occupations concerned, we need to do a serious job if comparability is to play, as I believe it should, an important part in future negotiations.
Mr. Swain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every local authority association in the country is Tory-controlled, hence the obstruction that appeared to

1479
exist at yesterday morning's meeting? Can he explain to the House what negotiations are going on between the Prime Minister himself and the local authority associations about what the Prime Minister said last week—and, I think, said very sincerely—in this House?
Mr. Shore: I hope that the political complexion of the local authority associations—[Interruption.]—will not be a problem in getting serious negotiations going. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend may be assured—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House, which I have not done for a long time, that interruptions from a sedentary position are unparliamentary and that Ministers and other Members must be allowed to put their point of view.
Mr. Shore: I want to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) that the Prime Minister's statement and its relevance to the local government pay claim have been made absolutely plain to the local authority associations in, I should think, at least two meetings that I have had with them.
Mr. Tebbit: Will the Secretary of State say whether the Government have intimated to either the employers or the employees' side in this negotiation whether there is any limit, or any Government guidance on what should be the limit, of the employers' offer? If so, will he say what that limit is?
Mr. Shore: Following the Prime Minister's announcement on 16 January, the local authority associations are certainly aware of the Government's proposition. We have had discussions with the employers, and they were able to come forward with and to put to us a proposition that carried the underpin concept a step further forward. On the understanding that this could lead to a solution of the situation, we were prepared to assist them in terms of the rate support grant in the way that we normally do.
Mr. Stephen Ross: What happens now? Is there a date for another meeting soon? Can the right hon. Gentleman arrange it?
Mr. Shore: I have every reason to believe that the two sides, although they did not progress yesterday, are in close
1480
touch with each other, and I have no doubt that a further meeting will be arranged within the next few days.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this is an extension of Question Time, but I will call a few more Members.
Mr. Park: My right hon. Friend keeps referring to negotiations, but does not he agree that in any set of negotiations one has to have something to negotiate about? Therefore, if the local authority associations have refused to put an offer on the table, there have been no negotiations. Although he could not agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) that the negotiations should be taken by the scruff of the neck, could the Secretary of State at least indicate forcefully to the local authority associations that they should get on with the job of negotiating?
Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend is right—the negotiations have not begun. I shall be seeing the local authority associations tomorrow and I assure him that I will make plain my strong interest, and the interest of the whole country, in the commencement of meaningful negotiations.
Mr. Raison: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear on behalf of us all that the right to strike does not extend to the right to take selective industrial action without loss of pay?
Mr. Shore: It depends on the nature of the selective actions, which are of a wide-ranging kind. I cannot give a blanket response to such a general question.
Mr. George Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that yesterday's pussy-footing around by Tories who profess to believe in free collective bargaining but then refuse to bargain can only strengthen the hand of those workers who believe that they can only gain by taking further industrial action and weaken the hand of those who believe that the only solution is through collective bargaining with their employers?
Mr. Shore: I agree that an unfortunate impression was created by the fact that, when everyone had expected negotiations to begin, they did not begin. I agree that,

1481
in the general climate of opinion at present, all have to be careful not only about the substance of what they are doing but about their tactics.
Mr. Evelyn King: Does the Minister agree that we would all prefer successful negotiation? Negotiation presupposes equality of strength between the two sides. Within the existing legislative framework and philosophy of the Government, and their actions over recent years, there is now no incentive for those who strike to settle at all, except upon the basis of total victory to them and total defeat for the Government. That fundamental situation remains. Until it is changed there can be nothing but inflation.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is advancing an argument, not a question.
I shall call two more speakers from either side—plus one, maybe.
Mr. Norman Atkinson: Surely the Secretary of State must understand that meaningful negotiations are not on if the Government retain their rigid position of saying "No more than £3·50 or 7 per cent. on average for those earning less than £70 per week". Will he assure the House that there is some flexibility in this? He knows that the Prime Minister's offer goes nowhere near reaching the £60 minimum that is demanded by the unions and therefore the unions have said before the negotiations start that that offer is not on.
Will the Secretary of State now put some money on the table and get down to the task of meaningful negotiations, and get rid of the Prime Minister's maximum?
Mr. Shore: It is the taxpayers' and ratepayers' money that is involved. We must take account of the effect of any settlement outside what we anticipated in the terms of the rate support grant on taxation and the rates.
I do not accept what my hon. Friend said about a rigid position. The Prime Minister's statement indicated a clear desire to help the lower-paid. The local authorities, basing themselves on that, came forward with a proposition that developed it further. We gave them our assurance that we could accept that proposition.
1482
I do not accept that that is a rigid position.
Mr. Farr: Will the Secretary of State discuss with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education as soon as possible the impact that this dispute is having on many schools? In parts of the country they have been open for only nine or 10 days since Christmas. That is having a serious effect upon the education of the children concerned.
Mr. Shore: I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is concerned about and aware of the difficulties in the schools to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I undertake to pass his remarks on to her. However, the House has the opportunity of questioning her on her responsibilities.
Mr. Mike Thomas: The Minister will have read the document produced by the National Union of Public Employees, which sets out clearly and unequivocally the £60 minimum case in terms of both comparability and inflation. May I remind him that the Government's offer is 8 per cent. to all the workers involved? Should not the Government set up an inquiry straight away, irrespective of what the Tory-dominated local authorities intend to do about it?
Mr. Shore: Certainly we shall consider further, without undue delay, the question of comparability studies, which do not apply only to local government workers. We are thinking of the Health Service workers and other workers. It is a wide-ranging exercise.
As to the substance of the NUPE pamphlet to which my hon. Friend referred, I am not clear to what it refers when it quotes the figure of £60. The average earnings among local government manual workers on the April 1978 survey figures from the Department of Employment were £65, or thereabouts. Clearly the document cannot refer to the earnings figures. It must refer to the basic rates. That represents a difficult problem.
Mr. Michael Morris: Does the Secretary of State realise that it is his responsibility to give realistic guidance to the local authority associations? Will he take account of what was said by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson)? If the water workers rejected

1483
the 14 per cent. offer, and the Minister can find a large amount of money for the BBC staff and many others, is it not totally unrealistic to suggest that the figure can be only 8½ per cent.?
Mr. Shore: I do not accept that there is a close parallel between the two cases cited. There is the basis for a realistic start to negotiations.
Mr. Parry: Yesterday at Question Time the Prime Minister said:
"An offer has been made to local government workers of an increase—a substantial improvement in their low pay and a study of comparability."—[Official Report, 30 January 1979; Vol. 961, c. 1235.]
Is it not correct that yesterday afternoon the employers' side rejected a request from the trade union side for a special inquiry into the rates of pay of manual workers?
Mr. Shore: It is slightly more complicated than that. As I understand the local authorities' viewpoint, they would like a very wide-ranging comparability study. They will want to discuss that. However, I should certainly not say that they had turned down the idea of a comparability study affecting local government employees. I hope that we shall be able to straighten out and make plain those factors very soon.
Mr. Heseltine: Will the Secretary of State be a little more forthcoming about the meetings that he has had in these negotiations? He told the House that he met the employers. Has he or any other Minister met the employees to explain the implications of Government pay policy for the claim that is under discussion? Will he confirm that it is not the political persuasion of the local authority associations that is important in this case?
Local authority associations, of whatever political persuasion, will do their best to carry out Government pay policy within the context of the Government rate support grant. It is those two critical national policies that are in question in the whole of the negotiations now under way.
Thirdly, will the Secretary of State say something about the position of cash limits as far as these negotiations go? I believe that the cash limit in local government expenditure is the only cash limit
1484
that has been published. The Prime Minister agreed that in so far as he made an offer to the low-paid it could be varied to that amount. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the cash limits will not be varied as a consequence of any decisions about the negotiations that are still to be resolved?
Fourthly, will the Secretary of State confirm the Prime Minister's figures—which the Secretary of State apparently does not have this afternoon—showing that a settlement of 10 per cent. will lead to rate increases on average of 18 per cent., and a settlement of 15 per cent. will lead to rate increases of 27 per cent. on average?
Mr. Shore: I am not entirely convinced that quite so many detailed questions are helpful at the beginning of a negotiation. However, I shall reply as best I can.
I could see both the employers and the representatives of the unions again. We have explored together the question of the nature and kind of comparability study that offers one of the main keys to the solution of our problems, not just now but in the future.
I understand the limitations imposed by the local authority employers. Nevertheless, the approach must be designed to obtain a solution. It is necessary that the way in which people proceed should be extremely tactful in this obviously sensitive situation.
Thirdly, as to the figures put to me by the hon. Gentleman, I confirm this. It is always difficult to make assumptions behind a statement of figures on which I am asked to comment. It is broadly the case that for every 1 per cent. increase in incomes across the board in local government paid out of the rates—not just to local government manual workers—there would be an increase of about £75 million a year.
Mr. Heseltine: Will the Minister answer the third question about the position of cash limits, on which the Government's economic strategy depends?
Mr. Shore: It is easy and straightforward to answer that question. The cash limit follows what the Government agree in terms of what is a proper settlement. As the Prime Minister made clear in his statement on 16 January, the cash limit would be adjusted in order to take

1485
account of the low pay underpin that had been put forward.
Mr. Heseltine: May I ask the Secretary of State whether the cash limits could be—
Mr. Swain: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A few moments ago you said that in the interests of the business to come you would accept two more questions from each side. This is the third time that the Macebearer has been on his feet.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) knows that when I make that sort of statement I usually say "including the Front Bench". I did not do that today.
Mr. Swain rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must give me a chance. I have had notice of four applications under Standing Order No. 9. I will first take the concluding question. Mr. Heseltine.
Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I shall be very brief. When he made his special concession to the lower-paid the Prime Minister announced that the cash limit would be varied to take that concession into account. Will the cash limit be varied further to reflect any other settlements in terms of this negotiation?
Mr. Shore: I have not given any impression that it will be adjusted for any other settlement. What I made clear is that the development of the Prime Minister's underpin idea in a slightly more generous way by the local authority employers had been put to us, and we confirmed that we would be able to cash-limit that as well.

HOSPITALS (INDUSTRIAL ACTION)
Mr. Cormack: 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 should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the threat to the welfare of hospital patients presented by the current industrial action within the National Health Service."
I submit to the House that there could be nothing more specific and important
1486
than the threat to human life that this dispute poses. We know that there is such a threat. We have the evidence of the Secretary of State himself, who said so only yesterday. Indeed, we know that there are hundreds of hospitals throughout the country which are, in effect, in a state of siege. We also know—I managed to get this information just over an hour ago—that the latest attempt by the Secretary of State to intervene in one of these disputes ended after eight minutes.
This would seem, therefore, to be a matter that should be debated in the House. Irrespective of the merits of the case of the lower-paid, the House has an overriding responsibility for the proper functioning of the National Health Service. It is a matter that we must debate. I believe that those outside the House who are suffering, and the many others who are worrying because they have relatives or friends in hospital, will neither understand nor forgive us if we do not turn our attention at an early opportunity to a discussion of this grave and important matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) gave me notice this morning that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believed should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the threat to the welfare of hospital patients presented by the current industrial action within the National Health Service."
I listened with concern to the hon. Gentleman. The House knows the limitation of my powers. I am aware of the facts that the hon. Gentleman raised in his application but I cannot today submit his application to the House.
Mr. Scott: 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 should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the serious situation which has arisen because of the lightning strike of domestic workers affecting two hospitals in the Chelsea constituency, as well as others in central London."
I am conscious that this is not a new issue. Indeed, eloquently but unsuccessfully my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack)

1487
has already sought to move the Adjournment on a related matter.
I intrude briefly on the time of the House because this morning there was an important development when members of the National Union of Public Employees had a mass meeting at St. Stephen's hospital, in my constituency, and decided to call out all their members in the Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea districts. This is bound to have the most profound effect on the health and welfare of patients in the two major hospitals in my constituency, St. Mary Abbots and St. Stephen's.
The origins of this House lie in the struggle for the rights of the individual. Today not just the rights of individuals but their health and their very lives are being threatened by the action of this union. I submit that it is Parliament's duty to discuss this matter as soon as possible.
When the most vulnerable members of our community are being used as a lever in the pursuit of a claim, it is Parliament's job to get to grips with it. We have had the appeal of the medical profession to the Prime Minister. We have had the Secretary of State acknowledging the seriousness of the matter. We have had the NUPE branch leader, Mr. Morris, acknowledging the dangers of cross-infection in the wards that will be affected by his members' action. It is essential that Parliament should do something about this.
We have become accustomed to dustbins not being collected and to the dead not being buried, but the sick always have a special claim upon a decent society. There is a very compelling reason for our discussing the matter in Parliament and trying to give a lead back towards that sense of common fellowship of which the Secretary of State for the Environment spoke earlier.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Chelsea (Mr. Scott) gave me notice this morning that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believed should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the serious situation which has arisen because of the lightning strike of domestic workers affecting two hospitals in the Chelsea constituency, as well as others in central London."
1488
I listened to the hon. Gentleman with equal concern to that with which I listened earlier to his hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack). I have indicated to the House that I am well aware of the serious issues that have been raised. The House has instructed me not to give reasons for my decision. I regret that I cannot this day submit the hon. Gentleman's application, to the House.
Sir William Elliott: 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 should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the effect of industrial action on the hospital service in the Newcastle upon Tyne area."
I am aware that my two hon. Friends who preceded me in their efforts to obtain an Adjournment debate have raised the general state of the suffering of patients in hospitals throughout the country. I nevertheless believe that the escalation of strike action has now brought the hospital service in the Newcastle region to a state of near chaos.
Laundry service at the general hospital is now reduced to below emergency requirements. The large St. Nicholas psychiatric hospital, which requires 20,000 pieces of laundry to be processed each week, is today, I am given to understand, without any clean laundry at all. The Royal Victoria infirmary, where there is a laundry overtime ban, is not meeting emergency requirements. In addition, the ambulance service is dealing with emergencies only. This means that there are no discharges from the hospitals in the Newcastle area, and this further exacerbates the position.
I hope that what I have said amply illustrates the specific and important nature of my request. I believe that the urgency can best be illustrated by the enormous difficulty which those in the hospital services are having in dealing not only with official union action but in having to deal with innumerable individual actions. It is making their task very difficult indeed. This is a state of crisis in our Newcastle hospital services that is. I believe, without parallel in our history.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott) gave notice this morning that he

1489
would seek to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believed should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the effect of industrial action on the hospital service in the Newcastle upon Tyne area."
I listened to the serious statement made by the hon. Gentleman. He will have heard my earlier replies to his hon. Friend, and while I in no way seek to minimise the importance of what the hon. Gentleman has said I have to rule that I cannot this day submit his application to the House.
Later—
Mr. Rhodes James: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With reference to the points raised under Standing Order No. 9 by my hon. Friends relating to hospitals, which you very kindly agreed to consider very seriously—the House is deeply indebted to you for that—I do hope that you will recognise that there are many others of us with similar problems who have not raised them under Standing Order No. 9. We all have similar crises developing, and I hope that you will bear that in mind when coming to your decision.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am well aware that probably every hon. Member with a hospital in his constituency could rise in his place and make a similar application.

SCHOOLS (INDUSTRIAL ACTION)
Mr. Neubert: 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 should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the closure of schools within the London borough of Havering as a result of industrial action of NUPE and the General and Municipal Workers Union."
The matter is specific, in that these unions have announced a planned programme of industrial disruption directed towards the enforced closure of 10 different schools in the London borough of Havering, of which my constituency of Romford forms a part, on each school day from 29 January to 13 February. The issue is important, because it means
1490
that every day during this fortnight numbers of schoolchildren in my constituency will lose their right to education. In common with many other areas, all schools in Havering were closed on 22 January as a result of a strike of municipal workers. Now more schooling is being lost, in defiance of the statutory duty that education should be provided.
I do not need to underline the importance of education to all children. Time lost at their time of life cannot be recovered, and inevitably this enforced irregularity in attendance will encourage the trend towards truancy and vandalism which is already a social problem and may even lead to more juvenile crime. The vast majority of parents in Romford are working people, and working mothers in particular will be badly inconvenienced if they have to make arrangements for their children to be looked after during the day. If they are unsuccessful in this their children may be left to roam the streets.
The matter is urgent, because although in its judgment the London borough of Havering has already advised parents of school closures this week—in advance of making a general public announcement which brought the matter to my attention—there is still a chance before the weekend to avoid another spate of closures next week. In any case, further closures may well follow from a protracted dispute. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will be able to accede to my request for an early opportunity to debate this emergency caused by the strike of public service workers in my constituency.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) gave me notice this morning that he would seek leave, under Standing Order No. 9, 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 closure of schools within the London borough of Havering as a result of industrial action by NUPE and the General and Municipal Workers Union."
I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. He will know that there was a similar application earlier this week about the closure of schools, and the House has instructed me to give no

1491
reasons for my decision when an application is made under Standing Order No. 9. I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission, despite the seriousness of his arguments, does not fall within the provisions of Standing Order No. 9 and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

NATIONAL LAND FUND
Mr. Arthur Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that you will think that this is an important matter for the House. On 15 December 1978 you were kind enough to write informing me that there was no objection to my proceeding with my Bill on the national heritage fund, which also involved the national land fund. You stated that I was not debarred from doing so by Standing Order No. 91, which prevents a private Member introducing a Bill the main object of which is the creation of a charge on public revenue. That was significant, for my Bill proposes the transfer of the national land fund from Treasury control to independent trustees.
The Treasury claims that that would constitute public expenditure. Mr. Speaker, you did not agree, saying that the fund was constituted by the Finance Act 1946 and that the necessary contribution upon the Consolidated Fund was authorised by the House.
"This having once taken place",
you stated,
"it does not seem to me that any further charge would be created by the transfer of the national land fund to independent trustees."
1492
You also referred to a ruling by one of your predecessors, in December 1957, to the same effect.
The Question for the Second Reading of my Bill was put in the House last Friday. I now seek your guidance on a constitutional question affecting the rights and privileges of the House.
You, Mr. Speaker, and a former Speaker have ruled unequivocally that the House voted the public expenditure for the national land fund in 1946. The Treasury, however, disagrees. In evidence to the Environment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, on pages 16 and 17, questions 8, 10, 11, and 12, and on page 18, question 32, of the third report of the Expenditure Committee of 1977–78 and in the statement of the Government's expenditure plans, Cmnd. 7439, page 159, paragraph 12, it has, either explicitly or implicitly, stated that public expenditure did not take place in 1946.
I beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to ask who determines whether the House has voted public expenditure, the House or the Treasury. If it is the House, is it not a serious state of affairs that the Treasury has consistently ignored a Speaker's ruling since 1947? I am most grateful to you for your help and consideration in this matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman, who has served in this House a long time, did me the courtesy of giving me notice this morning of his important point of order. However, he will not be surprised when I say that I need more time to consider it.
I will give a ruling in the House, not, of necessity, tomorrow, but in the near future.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR MEN
4.28 p.m.
Mr. Greville Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require employers to accord equal retirement rights to men and women; to provide for paternity leave; and to ban sundry other discriminatory employment practices,'
the Bill to be entitled "Equal Opportunities for Men Bill."
There are two main respects in which the rights of men in employment have been left far behind those of women. The first is that women, fairly and properly, are entitled to retire at the age of 60 on pension. Men, whose expectation of life is five years less than that of women, have to wait until 65.
There is no justice, no compassion, no rhyme and no reason in this arrangement. Since my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, North (Mr. Atkins) and I started campaigning, with many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, to have this rule changed so that men and women would have the right to voluntary retirement at the age of 60, we have received many hundreds of letters from people all over the country asking that Parliament should put an end to the unnecessary hardship that is caused. Many of these letters were from women—wives, mothers and sisters—all of them complaining of the hardship caused to their menfolk, and asking only for equal rights.
There can be no logical reason for this distinction between the rights of men and women workers in a world in which women have equal pay and equal rights. The only answer that we receive when we ask why this reasonable reform should not be made is that it would be too expensive.
I submit to the House that the expense of the present arrangement, under which hundreds of thousands of men are forced to stay at work when they ought to be allowed a recent and dignified retirement, is great. And so is the expense of keeping out of their jobs hundreds of thousands of young people who are desperate for work. We must set off against the cost of the additional pensions the human as well as the financial cost of unemployment
1494
and social security benefits which are paid to younger people who should be doing jobs that the older people are forced to retain.
Our retirement system is ludicrous. Those who wish to retire have to stay at work and those who wish to work are unable to do so; those who are unemployed are left without jobs while those who are employed and who want to stay on beyond retirement age are forced into retirement which they do not want.
The entire system needs reconsideration. As a first step, we should fix the same retirement age for men and for women. If we cannot do that at once because of the cost, let the House at least commit itself in principle to moving in this direction. Perhaps we should start reducing men's retirement age by a year at a time. But let us at least begin changing a system that is so unfair and that causes so much unnecessary hardship to those who have to remain at work as well as to those forced to remain out of work.
The second reform that I propose is much less costly. It is minor, but it could bring much happiness to families. At present, if a woman has her baby and leaves her job she normally gets maternity pay for up to six weeks. She may also return to her job. So she is protected. But when she has her baby, should her husband wish to be with her or to look after the other children while she is in hospital, or to be at home when she returns with the baby, he normally loses his pay.
At a time when a young couple most need money, they are forced to make a choice either of being separated or of not having that money. It is a thoroughly unfair system, and the people who suffer from it most are the women, not the men. The inequality that this creates causes far more hardship for the wife than it does for the husband.
Paternity leave would cost an employer seven days' pay on perhaps two or three occasions in the working life of the average male employee. That is a small amount compared to the happiness that paid paternity leave would produce.
Some employers already have arrangements for paternity leave. Some employers—perhaps 3 per cent.—already allow fathers to be away without loss of

1495
pay while their children are being born. But they are a very small minority. This Bill would bring the rest up to the standards of the best. The cost would be small and the benefit great.
This Bill has the support of the Equal Opportunities Commission. I pay tribute to that much maligned body, to Lady Lockwood, to Lady Howe and to their staff. They recognise that those of us who have campaigned long and hard for equal rights for women have in the main succeeded, and that the time has come for us to acknowledge that equal rights for men, particularly in terms of retirement, present a need which must be met. They recognise that all persons in employment should have equal and fair treatment.
I therefore ask the House at least to give leave for the Bill to be introduced as a measure of our concern. I am happy to say that the Bill has support from hon. Members on both sides of the House—of hon. Gentlemen and of hon. Ladies.
4.36 p.m.
Mr. Ian Gow: The House may find it a little strange that I should be seeking to oppose a Ten Minute Bill, but it is for that purpose that I rise. The Bill that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) seeks to introduce has three separate purposes: to reduce the retirement age for men to 60, to make the granting of paternity leave compulsory, and to make certain amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. I believe that all three purposes are unrealistic and profoundly objectionable.
I deal with the first proposal concerning retirement. The hon. and learned Member almost ignored—he passed over it very lightly—what would be the cost to public funds of his suggestion. That comes as no surprise to us on the Opposition Benches. Too often it is idealism, and I believe, in this case, mistaken idealism, which triumphs over realism. Almost a year ago the Minister for Social Security told the House the cost of reducing the retirement age for men from 65 to 60. He told my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Smith) that
"the additional long-term cost to public funds of reducing men's pension age to 60 is estimated to be of the order of £2,500 million a year."—[Official Report, 8 February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 574.]
1496
Not only the Minister rightly drew attention to the enormous increase in public expenditure. The opponents of this Bill have another ally. I refer to the goodly doctor—not my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) or my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Dr. Boyson) but the former managing director of the International Monetary Fund, Dr. Johannes Witteveen, one of whose principal proteges and most assiduous pupils is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That goodly doctor is on the side of the hon. Member for Eastbourne.
In a letter dated 15 December 1976 to Dr. Johannes Witteveen, the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote:
"an essential element of the Government's strategy will be a continuing and substantial reduction over the next few years in the share of resources required for the public sector."
I commend that intention to hon. Members below the Gangway as well as my own Front Bench.
On 15 December 1977 the Chancellor whote a similar letter to Dr. Witteveen, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund at that time. With an air of triumph he wrote:
"The ratio of public expenditure to national income has been reduced."
He continued:
"The Government is determined to continue its firm control of public spending".
It is reasonable to assume that when this matter is decided in the Lobby the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection and the entire Cabinet will abstain.
I turn to the proposal on paternity leave. I believe it to be a grotesque proposal. If paternity leave is granted as a right to those of us who succeed in becoming fathers, it will result in a direct incitement to a population explosion. It would also remove from this House some of its most virile and splendid Members who might be away on several occasions for whatever period might be prescribed.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is the father of three children. So far I have only two. Think what a burden would be placed upon the House if my wife should have a third child—I might be absent for six weeks. There would be a queue of applicants at the birth of every child in order to assert paternity. Men would

1497
be saying "We are anxious to be fathers" so that they could have compulsory leave under the Bill.
Dr. M. S. Miller: One gets nothing for trying.
Mr. Gow: There would also be a dramatic increase in moonlighting, because while those fathers were on leave they would earn large sums of tax-free money. I believe that the proposal is one which has only to be examined to see its absurdity.
I turn to the amendments that are proposed to the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. The House will recall that the measure received its Second Reading on 26 March 1975. The voting was 104 in favour of the Second Reading and five against. I am glad to be able to recount to the House, and to remind my constitutents, that I was one of the five who voted against that Bill—a decision that I have not regretted in the least.
I feel that the proposal to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 could turn out to be a lawyers' paradise and a

Division No.56]

AYES

[4.45 p.m.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

George, Bruce

Madden, Max

Ashley, Jack

Ginsburg, David

Magee Bryan

Ashton, Joe

Golding, John

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Gould, Bryan

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

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

Graham, Ted

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Bates, Alf

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Mikardo, Ian

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Miller, Dr M. S.(E Kilbride)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

Grocott, Bruce

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Bottomley, Peter

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Bradley, Tom

Hayman, Mrs Helene

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

Heffer, Eric S.

Morton, George

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Hicks, Robert

Mudd, David

Canavan, Dennis

Home Robertson, John

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hooson, Emlyn

Newens, Stanley

Clemitson, Ivor

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Newton, Tony

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Noble, Mike

Cohen, Stanley

Huckfield, Les

Oakes, Gordon

Coleman, Donald

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Orbach, Maurice

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Ovenden, John

Cronin, John

Janner, Greville

Palmer, Arthur

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

John, Brynmor

Pardoe, John

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Park, George

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Parry, Robert

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Pavitt, Laurie

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Kelley, Richard

Pendry, Tom

Dempsey, James

Kerr, Russell

Penhaligon, David

Dewar, Donald

Kilfedder, James

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Doig, Peter

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Radice, Giles

Dormand, J. D.

Knox, David

Richardson, Miss Jo

Edge, Geoff

Lambie, David

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Lamond, James

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

English, Michael

Langford-Holt, Sir John

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Litterick, Tom

Rooker, J. W.

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Loyden, Eddie

Sedgemore, Brian

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Selby, Harry

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Sever, John

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

McCartney, Hugh

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Forrester, John

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C.(Dulwich)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Skinner, Dennis

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

citizens' nightmare. I call in aid the hon. and learned Member himself. Inside the cover of one of his books, "The Employers' Guide to the Law on Health, Safety and Welfare at Work", the hon. and learned Gentleman is described in this way—these are not my words; they are the words of the publisher or perhaps of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself:
"He is not only an expert in the law as it affects the businessman but is also endowed with a special gift of explaining it, without drowning the reader in a sea of technicalities and legal jargon".
However, I believe that the House has been submerged in a sea of technicalities and legal jargon and I hope that leave will not be granted to introduce so mischievous and regressive a Bill.
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 150, Noes 115.

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Torney, Tom

Willey, Rt Hon Fredrick

Spriggs, Leslie

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

Stallard, A. W.

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Ward, Michael

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Welsh, Andrew

Woodall, Alec

Stoddart, David

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Stott, Roger

Whitehead, Phillip

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Whitlock, William

Miss Janet Fookes and

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Wigley, Dafydd

Mrs. Margaret Bain.

Tierney, Sydney

NOES

Aitken, Jonathan

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Nelson, Anthony

Baker, Kenneth

Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

Neubert, Michael

Beith, A. J.

Hastings, Stephen

Nott, John

Bell, Ronald

Hayhoe, Barney

Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Heseltine, Michael

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Benyon, W.

Holland, Philip

Page, Richard (Workington)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Parkinson, Cecil

Biffen, John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Body, Richard

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Boscawen, Hon Robert

James, David

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Bradford, Rev Robert

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

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Brooke, Hon Peter

Jopling, Michael

Price, David (Eastleigh)

Brotherton, Michael

Kimball, Marcus

Rathbone, Tim

Buck, Antony

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Budgen, Nick

Lawrence, Ivan

Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

Burden, F. A.

Lawson, Nigel

Rhodes James, R.

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Cockcroft, John

Loveridge, John

Rifkind, Malcolm

Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

McCrindle, Robert

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Cope, John

McCusker, H.

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Cormack, Patrick

Macfarlane, Neil

Royle, Sir Anthony

Costain, A. P.

MacGregor, John

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

Crouch, David

McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Spence, John

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

Marten, Neil

Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Mates, Michael

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Dykes, Hugh

Mather, Carol

Stokes, John

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Stradling Thomas, J.

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Mills, Peter

Tebbit, Norman

Fairgrieve, Russell

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Farr, John

Moate, Roger

Viggers, Peter

Fell, Anthony

Molyneaux, James

Wells, John

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Monro, Hector

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Montgomery, Fergus

Wiggin, Jerry

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Moore, John (Croydon C)

Young, Sir G.(Ealing, Acton)

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Morgan, Geraint

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Goodhew, Victor

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Mr. Ian Gow and

Goodlad, Alastair

Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

Mr. Michael Spicer.

Gorst, John

Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Ronald Atkins, Mrs. Margaret Bain, Miss Janet Fookes, Mrs. Helene Hayman, Mr. Eric S. Heffer, Mr. David Knox, Mr. Norman Miscampbell, Mr. David Mudd, Miss Jo Richardson, Mr. John Sever and Mr. Michael Stewart.

EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR MEN
  EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR MEN
  Mr. Greville Janner accordingly presented a Bill to require employers to accord equal retirement rights to men and women; to provide for paternity leave; and to ban sundry other discriminatory employment practices; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 May and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  PRICE COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair.]
  4.58 p.m.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I am perplexed over the non-selection of amendment No. 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after 'examination)', insert
  'and except in so far as the Secretary of State may have power to make regulations under Section 9 should he deem it necessary to do so to maintain employment in the assisted areas'
  and amendment No. 18, in page 1, line 17, at end insert—
  '(2A) In section 4 (proposals to investigate price increases) there shall be added, at the end of subsection (5), the following paragraph:
  (a) that account ought to be taken of the whole or part of the costs of imported raw materials".'.
  Naturally, my hon. Friends and I accept the ruling, but we hope that some consideration will be given to certain arguments in favour of the amendments. The amendments appear to be non-destructive of the purposes of the Bill as established in the long title and approved on Second Reading.
  The Bill seeks to limit the operation of section 9 of the parent measure, the Price Commission Act 1977, but clause 1 of this Bill does not repeal section 9 in its entirety. It weakens the application of that clause, but brings in an exception on its own account. I draw attention to the fact that clause 1 (1) lays down that section 9 of the Act
  "shall cease to apply except as regards the profits which persons are not to be prevented from earning by virtue of any such notice as is mentioned in section 13(1) of that Act."
  The Bill as drafted, although limiting the application of section 9, does not obliterate it entirely. I contend that it would be appropriate for amendments embracing further exceptions to be considered by the Committee.
  Page 506 of "Erskine May", under the heading "Functions of a Committee on a Bill", says:
  "The function of a committee on a bill is to go through the text of the bill clause by
  1502
  clause and, if necessary, word by word with a view to making such amendments in it as may seem likely to render it more generally acceptable. The rules as to admissibility of amendments are discussed in detail … but the general powers of a committee and the limitations by which it is bound should be clearly borne in mind."
  I here draw your attention, Mr. Murton, to sub-paragraph (1), which states that
  "A committee is bound by the decision of the House, given on second reading, in favour of the principle of the bill, and should not, therefore, amend the bill in a manner that is destructive of this principle."
  I wish to develop that point. Sub-paragraph (2) says that:
  "The objects of a bill are stated in its long title, which should cover everything contained in the bill.…"
  On the origin of instructions passed by the House to a Committee, and on the operation of those rules, page 509 of "Erskine May" states that:
  "The rigidity of this rule was found to be inconvenient, and in 1854 the House, by Standing Order No. 42, gave a general instruction to all committees to which bills were committed, empowering them to make such amendments therein as they should think fit, provided that the amendments were relevant to the subject matter of the bill".
  That is my principal point. The amendments which have been tabled are not destructive of the Bill and they are relevant to the subject matter. As I shall seek to point out, they are not in any event at variance with the Bill's long title.
  Amendment No. 2 specifically accepts the limitation in application of section 9. It is put down on the basis that section 9 shall be limited. The amendment reduces those powers. It accepts the removal of the duty that was placed upon the Secretary of State under the parent legislation to make regulations on the generality of profit levels. It substitutes a provision that the Secretary of State shall have the discretion to retain safeguarding powers in the specific circumstances described in that amendment.
  These circumstances, in themselves, are not additional to the parent Act or to the limitation of section 9. That section, applied to the whole country, by construction and implication includes the assisted areas that are referred to in amendment No. 2.
  Amendment No. 18 is different. It applies to clause 1(2). It does not cross

  1503
  the grain of clause 1(2), nor is it in conflict with the purposes and long title of the Bill. It accepts the prime purpose of the Bill but imposes a condition regarding the impact of external costs, which in any event would have been covered in the guidelines that the Price Commission is to follow. In short, amendment No. 18 would render explicit what was implicit in the parent Act and the amending Bill.
  I am grateful to you, Mr. Murton, for listening to me on these two amendments, which we regard as most important. They are not hostile to the intent of the Bill, nor do they contravene the principle established by the Bill on Second Reading. For those reasons, I hope that you will be able to reconsider the selection of the amendments. The Committee appreciates that your decision is final, but it also knows that the Chair is always willing to listen to arguments and that if they are reasonable the selection may be reconsidered.
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I am also surprised that three other amendments were not selected, one of which is in my name. On page 453, "Erskine May" states:
  "it has become the normal practice … to post a notice setting out those amendments and new clauses which he"—
  the occupant of the Chair—
  "has provisionally decided to select … Under more modern practice, the Chair does not normally give reasons for not selecting an amendment."
  The House accepts that. It goes on:
  "The Chair may ask any Member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of his amendment as may be necessary to form a judgment upon it."
  I raise this point of order particularly in connection with my amendment No. 1 to clause 1, in page 1, line 6, leave out from "apply" to end of line 32 on page 2. The purpose of that amendment is to leave out the whole of the Bill after the word "apply" in line 6. That would eliminate section 9 of the Price Commission Act 1977.
  On 29 January the Secretary of State said of this section:
  "It was added to the Bill to provide reassurance to industry about the behaviour of the Price Commission during its early life."
  He went on to say:
  "the Price Commission Act frankly has proved a good deal less effective than we hoped and
  1504
  believed … when it was passed by the House in 1977."
  He then said, of this particular section and the work of the Price Commission in future, that the Price Commission
  "will no longer be hampered by the safeguard clauses."
  I want to see that happen. A little further on he said:
  "I believe that the time has come when that hampering and that fettering of the Commission's intended task has to be removed."—[Official Report, 29 January 1979; Vol. 961, cc. 1062–67.]
  The proposition in the Bill is fundamental. It is proposed that a section passed by the House after considerable debate will be amended to the point where the original purpose of the Act will be seriously affected. I have only briefly rehearsed the arguments that I would like to make to the Committee, but I say in all seriousness that my amendment should be selected as it enables the Committee carefully to look again at the nature of this clause. It would be argued that this could be said on clause stand part, but on clause stand part we can debate only the clause as it is, amended or not amended. The purpose of my amendment and those of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) is to enable the Committee to debate these matters with the opportunity of amending the Bill. That is a different position.
  In view of all this, I would be grateful if you would seriously reconsider your decision on amendments Nos. 1 to 4 which you have provisionally decided not to select.
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Hon. Members have mentioned specific arguments on amendments Nos.2, 18 and others. I suggest with great respect that in the case of an amendment to a Bill that amends an Act that already stands, to the extent that that Bill is sought to be amended so that it makes a smaller amendment to the original Act, any such amendment must fall within the precincts of the Bill, in that it attempts to retain the powers of the original Act to a greater extent than had the amending Bill been passed without further amendment. To that extent, the arguments that have been put forward, particularly in relation to amendment No. 2,

  1505
  should have been accepted, not only in this case but generally.
  The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): I thank the hon. Members for putting forward their pleas. I have had notice that they wished to raise these points with me. The hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) quotes the fact that the Chairman's selection is provisional. I understood him to say that the word "may" is used in "Erskine May" in connection with what the Chairman may or may not do. I point out to him that it is permissive and not obligatory for the Chair to give reasons.
  Notwithstanding that, I would like to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and the hon. Member for Cambridge. I say to the hon. Member for Dundee, East that I did not include amendments Nos. 2 and 18 in my selection because in my view they are outside the scope of the Bill. The purpose to which the Bill is directed is to limit the application of section 9 of the original Price Commission Act. This section gives the Secretary of State certain powers for the purpose of safeguarding profits during and after periods when price increases are under investigation.
  Amendment No. 2 adds another consideration, namely, the maintenance of employment in assisted areas. Amendment No. 18 would oblige the Price Commission to take into account a factor which is not solely related to profits. For these reasons, although I have given the matter the most earnest consideration, I cannot call the two amendments concerned.
  The hon. Member for Cambridge dealt most specifically with amendment No. 1. This has the effect not merely of limiting the application of section 9 of the Act but of abolishing it altogether. It is, therefore, outside the scope of the present Bill, the purpose of which is to limit the application.
  With regard to amendments Nos. 5 and 6, I should point out that these have been selected. Should it be so desired, and should the circumstances arise, I would be agreeable to allow a Division on amendment No. 6.
  Mr. John Pardoe: On a different point of order, Mr. Murton. Perhaps we can clear up the question with regard to amendment No. 7 and the order of the names attached to that amendment. To those outside the House this may seem rather petty, but it is very important to the procedures of the House, because whose name heads the list dictates who moves the amendment, as well as whose amendment it is considered to be. This is particularly true with regard to those who may read our debates in the press.
  If a minority party tables the same amendment as the main Opposition party, such a minority party can move the amendment only if it tabled it before the official Opposition. In the nature of things, it is almost always true that where a minority party and the official Opposition table the same amendment, the amendment of the official Opposition will be tabled first, simply because they occupy the Opposition Front Bench.
  I do not like the "rugger-scrum" rules. It would be far better if we left amendments to come out of the printer's bag simply by chance. However, that is the rule of the House. It is a question of who gets the amendment in first. I understand that on the part of the powers that be there is no doubt at all that my amendment was submitted first. I did not have a rugger scrum with the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), but I won the race to the Table. I can only think that the printing order was subject to some kind of Conservative picket and that it has been altered for that reason. I understand that we are all in agreement that my amendment was tabled first, and I should like you to confirm that I shall be called to move it.
  The Chairman: I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that his premise is correct. Without in any way getting into the political arena—the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I cannot do so—I suggest that this is one occasion when the Liberals are grateful to be first past the post. In fact, great care has been taken. There were numerous witnesses, and there is no doubt that even though it may have been by only a whisker, the Liberals were first past the post. In this case, I have pleasure in informing the hon. Gentleman that he will be called.
  Mr. Michael Neubert: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. I am sorry to strike what may appear to be a sour note after your genial contribution, but this misplacing of names was in evidence on yesterday's Amendment Paper. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) had the opportunity yesterday to correct that mistake, if mistake it was. Is it in order for him now to apply to you successfully for the switch to be made when it was open to him under the normal procedures to do so at an earlier time?
  Mr. Pardoe: Further to that point of order, Mr. Murton. Fortunately, I queried this yesterday. I received a letter stating that what you have just said was correct. I was informed that the names would be altered on today's Amendment Paper. Obviously, a second Conservative picket was operating in the printer's office.
  The Chairman: I can assure the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Ncubert) that the mistake was entirely unintentional. I understand that it was decided that it would be best to leave the situation as it was and give the explanation in writing, so that there could be no thought that it was anything but a misadventure.

  PRICE COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Clause 1

      AMENDMENT OF PRICE COMMISSION ACT 1977
      Mr. Giles Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 10, after 'examinations)', insert:
      'or, in the case of companies supplying foods and essential services, in order to earn profits to maintain their supply'.
      The Chairman: With this we may take amendment No. 6, in page 1, line 10, after 'examinations)', insert:
      'or, in the case of companies affected by industrial disputes, in order to earn profits sufficient to recover costs occasioned thereby'.
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Shaw: Along with amendment No. 5, we are pleased to have a debate and possible vote on amendment No. 6. I have only one comment with regard to the points of order that preceded this debate. I understand that I was not quite as quick off the mark as I should have been in trying to place these amendments on the Table. However, Mr. Murton, I take note of your ruling. Of course, we
      1508
      are nothing if not generous when it comes to an agreement of this kind. Therefore, we entirely understand your ruling.
      It is obvious that the intention of these amendments is to amplify, if that is not too strong a word, the modest exemption that is still contained in relation to the application of section 9 of the 1977 Act. We attach importance to the two amendments because we think that there are certain circumstances when it is essential to retain some safeguard operation for the recovery of costs incurred under what might be termed exceptional circumstances. I think it is widely understood that the operation of any safeguard policy—certainly, any safeguard policy under the Price Commission and within the ambit of the Price Commission Act—must be to protect persons, be they consumers, employers, manufacturers or employees, from unexpected developments which in relation to price applications threaten their viability, well-being or even their livelihood.
      This was clearly the principle which ran through section 9, and it is clear to us that it is the principle which permeated the regulations issued under section 9. In fact, I must remind the Committee that paragraph 2 of the consultative document, which set out the safeguards under section 9, states that
      "The policy for which the Bill provides contains a number of provisions designed to reassure enterprises that the new powers"
      —that is, the powers under the Price Commission—
      "cannot be used to depress the general level of profitability or to subject individual firms to restrictions which would threaten viability."
      The suggestion that firms might have their viability threatened by the operation of this Bill, or even the parent Act that it seeks to amend, was the reason why such great importance was attached to section 9 and the safeguards and regulations that were eventually issued.
      The Government clearly believe that some safeguarding should remain for companies whose prices are frozen consequent upon examinations under section 13 of the Price Commission Act. These might be described as the long-term examinations or problems. It is, therefore, our belief that some provision should remain. The Government seek to remove any safeguard provision from the shorter-term problems

      1509
      that are encountered within the period when prices may be frozen after application for up to 28 days.
      The Committee may be wondering why such a relatively short period as 28 days should be crucial to many companies and why such objection was occasioned when it was suggested that the provision should be removed. Short periods of price freezing may have a major effect upon industrial operations and profitability. In many sectors any delay in recovery of costs may be crucial and may place companies in dire straits. That is why we seek to suggest that there are certain circumstances when companies should not suffer the penalty of having no interim safeguard applying to their profits.
      There are certain industrial sectors that are especially vulnerable. The food industry is in such a position. That is why it is specified in amendment No. 5. The industry is heavily dependent upon raw materials, many of them from overseas. These raw materials may be involved in serious fluctuations. The industry may be involved in great difficulties in seeking to recover its costs.
      A large company in the food industry, General Foods Ltd., wrote to me as follows:
      "We, like the majority of British industry, are well aware of the national need to restrain price increases whilst generating sufficient capital for the continuation and expansion of our business. In the past three years we have seen our margins decline from 2·5 per cent. in the year ending March 1976, to a negative position in the year ending March 1978. While margins have improved this year, over the last four years our return on investment has been insufficient. Over the same period, margins in the food manufacturing industry, as a whole, have remained very depressed, at around 4 per cent. Wherever possible increased costs have been absorbed by increased productivity and efficiency. Most of our raw materials, which form the bulk of our costs, are subject to the volatility of the world's commodity markets and, thus, price increases are seldom of our own making."
      That sets out why food companies are notoriously vulnerable to short-term fluctuations that adversely affect their cash flow.
      The other argument raised by General Foods Ltd. is equally illustrative of the problem. The company wrote:
      "We feel very strongly that the safeguard clauses should remain in the Price Commission Act, 1977. Whilst we have not been the subject of a Price Commission investigation ourselves, the coffee industry was investigated dur-
      1510
      ing 1977 and a key finding was that net margins had declined significantly to 1·3 per cent. in 1976. You may be interested to know that a three month delay in the implementation of a 5 per cent. increase in our coffee prices would result in a £¾ million reduction in turnover and profitability, which could, of course, have a consequent effect upon investment plans."
      It is that restriction that makes the food industry feel that it should have some protection from rapid and short-term cost fluctuations. We believe it right to move an amendment that makes special reference to the food industry and its problems.
      It is true—no doubt this will be part of the Secretary of State's argument—that the safeguards that are removed by the Bill have been widely used by food companies. They were used during the investigation into Weetabix prices from January to April 1978. The value of the safeguard clauses was £461,000 during those four months. That sum is roughly 20 per cent. of the total profit on breakfast foods of the company concerned. The safeguard clauses were used by Cadbury Schweppes. The safeguards amounted to £100,000 a week over the four months of the investigation. The clauses have been widely used, for the good reason that the general level of profitability in that industrial sector is traditionally extremely low. Thus it is that short-term price freezes may have a material effect.
      If there is to be any safeguard, special attention should be paid to the problems of companies supplying foods, which are in an especially vulnerable position. We say that that protection would play a most important role in safeguarding the general well-being of the nation.
      In the supplying of essential services, a relevant example is that of Metal Box Ltd. The company supplies vital packaging materials to the food industry and many other industries. I have a letter from the company that suggests that in September 1977, when it submitted a price increase application, an investigation ensued that continued from 30 September to 30 December 1977. The application was for a price increase of 10·5 per cent. The interim price award granted under the safeguard clauses was 9·81 per cent. The cash loss incurred by the company in consequence was £450,000. That loss was incurred as a result of the difference between the interim increase and the full amount of the

      1511
      price application. If no increase under the interim measures had been available, which would be the position under the Bill, the company would have incurred a loss of £6·9 million during September to December 1977. That is the view of Metal Box Ltd.
      One of the problems facing Metal Box Ltd. is that steel, its major raw material, is supplied by the British Steel Corporation. The Corporation is subject to a pricing policy that is not within the compass of the Price Commission. That applies also to coal and coal derivation products, which are highly important ingredients to British industry. These materials and associated products are under European control and not under the control of the Price Commission. We submit that special priority should be given to essential services where the Commission does not at present have a remit.
      In amendment No. 6 we suggest that companies should have special safeguard provisions when they suffer loss as a result of industrial disputes. It would be wrong to widen the debate by introducing industrial disputes, but it is self-evident to all hon. Members that if a major stoppage or disruption takes place the cash consequences for companies involved may be extremely severe. They may be severe in their suddenness. They may be severe in their rapid build-up and cash-flow consequences. Therefore, we suggest in amendment No. 6 that special attention should be paid to losses through industrial disputes. There is a case for some extension of special safeguards to certain industries and certain vital services.
      Mr. J. Grimond: What is intended by "affected"? Does the amendment refer only to companies that are directly affected by industrial disputes—that is to say, companies in which there has been an industrial dispute—or to companies that may claim that their cash flow has been reduced because of the secondary or tertiary consequences of industrial disputes? Would such companies be able to pray in aid the effect of the amendment?
      Mr. Shaw: The intention is that the costs of any company affected may be legitimate to be reclaimed as an interim safeguard provision. As the right hon.
      1512
      Gentleman rightly reminds us, it is not the individual company that is affected by the sudden incidence of an industrial dispute.
      Mr. John Cronin: The impression to be gained from the amendment is that companies are to be indemnified for loss of profits as a result of industrial disputes irrespective of which party is at fault in bringing about the dispute. Sometimes the fault lies entirely with the company. In that event, surely the company should not be indemnified for the loss that is sustained.
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are numerous occasions when companies which have nothing to do with the individual dispute have been occasioned substantial loss through no fault of their own? If these costs have been incurred and the companies' viability and profitability threatened, this deserves special treatment in regard to interim safeguards.
      Mr. Cronin: That argument would be comprehensible if the amendment were drafted to cover only those cases where the company is completely innocent. This is a blanket amendment to cover all possibilities.
      Mr. Shaw: The amendment has been drafted widely in order to include not only companies directly involved but companies which have been affected. In so far as these amendments have been accepted, they are reasonable amendments to be debated. If the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about the matter, as he clearly does, he has his chance to speak in the debate.
      In the Second Reading, the Secretary of State laid fairly great stress on the fact that a number of interim awards had been granted to certain major companies. He seemed to suggest that these were over-generous. He quoted Imperial Tobacco, Lever Brothers and Cadbury Schweppes Food. In all these cases, the Price Commission's report, consequent upon its examination of the price application, was entirely favourable to the company.
      In relation to Imperial Tobacco, the Commission concluded that
      "In view of the increased degree of competition in the market and the company's forecast of an increased level in capital expenditure,

      1513
      we do not consider ITL's profitability is more than adequate. For these reasons, we have not recommended any formal restraint. …"
      The same view was taken after the Commission's examination of Lever Brothers and Cadbury Schweppes Foods. Its report on Cadbury Schweppes Foods said:
      "Our general assessment is that CSF are a well run and forward looking company …"
      and
      "the increase in the price of cocoa products was unavoidable in view of the substantial increase in raw material prices."
      It is not fair to suggest that the operation of interim safeguard adjustments has done anything but allow companies a margin of improvement in a period of substantial difficulty. In almost every case it has resulted in an examination that has exonerated the company and the profitability that it seeks to achieve.
      The intention of these amendments is to suggest to the Committee that if there is any justice in including provision for some basic safeguards, those safeguards should be applied to certain essential industries where the consumer well-being, as well as the importance of the industries to the national economy, justifies them.
      The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I rise early in the debate because it is important that the House should know, if not the nature of the amendments, the consequence of passing them. The same rule applies to amendments later on the Amendment Paper. They are not amendments in the sense that they make an adjustment to the Bill to which the House gave a Second Reading. They are amendments which, if passed, would totally vitiate the purpose of the Bill.
      I am careful not to describe them as wrecking amendments. Were they wrecking amendments, they would not be in order. Were they not in order, they would not have been called. Either through cunning or sloppy drafting—I would be able to attribute the cause if I knew which member of the Opposition Front Bench was responsible for the wording—the result of the amendments is to reduce the amount of discretion possessed by the Price Commission. The purpose of the Bill to which the House
      1514
      gave a Second Reading on Monday night is to extend its discretion.
      The amendment seeks to preserve the safeguards in two specified but not very carefully drafted conditions. The categories with which the amendment deals would be enabled to receive a price increase without investigation, without modification and without the Commission having any ability to influence that price increase up to the safeguard level.
      Those two categories—suppliers of food and companies engaged in the supply of essential services—are so loosely described in the amendment that the Commission would find almost all the subjects into which it might inquire covered by those headings. The Commission would find itself in a dangerous condition, were it to apply its policy without the safeguards, over a very wide area.
      Let me give an example. The hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) referred to the Imperial Tobacco company. I do not know whether he regards that as an essential service or food. Even allowing for that slight slip, I believe he will share my view that it is extremely difficult to define what is an essential service.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: The Secretary of State will recognise the importance of Imperial Foods, one of the largest groups within the food manufacturing industry.
      Mr. Hattersley: That is exactly the point that I am making. The hon. Gentleman refers to a food company. There are massive conglomerations within this country. If the amendment were carried, all sorts of products and prices and all sorts of applications would continually be subject to safeguard regulations and would be denied the Commission's discretion, which the Bill is designed to extend. If the hon. Gentleman simply wants to preserve the conditions of a company in the food industry, or in essential services, in what he and I would both regard as a reasonable way, and if a company's viability, to use his phrase, was really threatened, the House has nothing to fear, nor have the Opposition.
      Section 2 of the parent Act obliges the Commission to ensure that companies "make an adequate profit". That means an adequate profit under all circumstances and an adequate profit for

      1515
      all companies. Section 2(2)(e) of the parent Act obliges the Commission to have regard to
      "the desirability of maintaining the quality of goods and services and satisfying the demands of users of goods and services"
      Again, that rule applies—
      Mr. Tim Sainsbury: I am sure that the Secretary of State does not mean to mislead the House. Section 2 says that the Commission "shall have regard to". Surely, he is only too well aware that the courts have held on more than one occasion that it is perfectly in order for the Commission to say "Yes. We have had regard to it but we are still going to rule that we shall not allow you to make any profit at all". Nothing can be done about that in law. "Having regard to" something provides no real safeguard or protection.
      Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman and I have disagreed about that before. We must disagree about it again. I repeat what I told the House on Monday. Were the Commission to operate in such a way—if I may use a phrase from the hon. Gentleman's opening speech—that the viability of a company was threatened, the powers and obligations imposed upon it under section 2 would mean that it was acting outside its legal duties and could be challenged in the courts. I believe that its attempts would be unsuccessful were it to hold down prices in such a way that a company was no longer viable.
      Mr. Cecil Parkinson: The Secretary of State is repeating the point which the Under-Secretary of State made in his speech on Monday. Clause 1(b) says that the Commission shall have regard in particular to matters mentioned in subsection (2) so far as the Commission considers them relevant. It is at the total discretion of the Commission to decide how relevant are the matters set out in subsection (2). That is the point I was trying to make to his hon. Friend, which the Secretary of State still does not seem to have taken on board.
      Mr. Hattersley: We are in danger of getting into the unhappy position, which I was attempting to avoid, of reading the entire section. I think that the hon.
      1516
      Member will agree with me that in section 2(1)(a) there is an absolute obligation on the Commission, and I repeat my belief that that obligation could be tested in the courts. Were the Commission—which is the wildest possible hypothesis—to contemplate driving a company into bankruptcy, the Commission would be operating in a way which would not be lawful, and I believe that it would be challenged.
      Mr. Tim Smith: Does that mean that if a company is making a loss, under that section the Commission automatically will allow a sufficient increase to ensure that it reaches what is described as "adequate profit"?
      Mr. Hattersley: This again is the point which I made on Monday evening. In theory at least, the Commission is entitled to use some discretion. But the discretion is not to keep the company in a loss-making position. Let me take a specific example. If the Commission was investigating a company which was running at a loss and wanting to increase a price to move back into viability, I have no doubt that it would be the Commission's duty to allow the company to do so. But it is also the Commission's right in its report on that company's behaviour to suggest other ways in which the company might achieve the same end without placing the burden on the consumer. I do not think that there is any contradiction between those two points of view.
      I return to my central argument. The nature of this amendment, which is drawn so widely and which makes no attempt to define "essential services" and no attempt to define the Commission's obligations towards them or towards the food industry, can only mean that the Commission's discretion is more limited, and in my view limited at a time when, and in an area where, no limitation is necessary. No limitation is necessary because, on the established record of the Commission, where a company has needed a price increase to maintain the objective which the hon. Member for Pudsey described, with or without safeguards, safeguards have been provided.
      I take an example from the food industry, about which I told the House on Monday. United Biscuits received a

      1517
      discretionary award from the Price Commission—a price increase—without the paraphernalia of safeguards because that company was prepared to demonstrate the need. That reasonable approach will continue to characterise the Commission's behaviour.
      I want now to say a few words about the second amendment. Amendment No. 6 has the same effect but, if I may use extreme language, is even more preposterously drawn. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) drew attention to one aspect of that drafting.
      We are told that if the amendment is carried companies affected by industrial disputes will be enabled to make their automatic price increases without recourse to the Commission and that they will be able to do that and to make price increases sufficient to recover the costs incurred thereby. I take it that that means because they have been affected by the industrial dispute.
      It would be an almost insuperable problem to define which companies had and which had not been affected by some industrial dispute. An equally insuperable problem would be to calculate how their profits had or had not been affected by it. These are two concepts which are not susceptible to precise definition. Since they are not susceptible to precise definition, were they carried into law they would make the behaviour of the Commission a great deal less free than it is at the moment. They would make it virtually impossible for the Commission to inquire into any company and use its power regarding any company where there had been a dispute in the vague area of that company's operations.
      There has been one example where a Price Commission report coincided with an industrial dispute. I refer to the one concerned with road haulage. It was my decision that the price control should not apply to road haulage companies because they had been affected by an industrial dispute. I was criticised by every member of the Conservative Party who asked a question on the subject because I had relaxed the rules of price control since the industry had been affected by an industrial dispute. This is opportunism taken to a preposterous degree—
      Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: rose—
      Mr. Hattersley: —and we are about to have it again.
      Mrs. Oppenheim: I was about to ask the right hon. Gentleman a very simple question. Why did it take him from October to January to come to that decision?
      Mr. Hattersley: Because the consultative period lasts for three months. We shall make more progress on the Bill if the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) reads and understands it before she makes speeches or interventions.
      Mr. Esmond Bulmer: The right hon. Gentleman said that the amendment was very widely drawn. Is it his wish to see that a company such as Ford, which stood a very expensive strike in defence of the Government's pay policy, should be able to recover the costs of that strike?
      Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) was present on Second Reading. Therefore I must repeat what I said then. The Government want a condition of that kind to be judged by the Price Commission. We want the Commission to operate under section 2 and to make its own judgment whether the Ford Motor Company needs to put up its prices. It is wrong for me even to speculate about that, because the essential feature of the Act is that the Commission takes the decisions. However, I can conceive of a situation where, despite a strike, a price increase is unnecessary. It would be absurd if Parliament approved a policy which amounted to saying "Have a strike, become involved in a dispute, and you will be free to put up your prices as much as you want."
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Sydney Bidwell: What also can happen is that after an industrial dispute, especially where there is high productivity, as in the case of the motor industry productivity can make an enormous spurt forward as a result of a settlement. If that company is more successful, especially in a competitive area such as the motor industry—and the Ford company is highly successful nationally and internationally—its rate of profit and productivity goes on apace in consequence of the stoppage. That is exactly

      1519
      what happens very often, especially in the United States.
      Mr. Hattersley: Because of interruptions, I have spoken for rather longer than I intended. Therefore I summarise the Government's attitude to these amendments in about four sentences. The first is that the amendments are constructed intentionally in such a way as to limit the Commission's discretion when the Bill hoped for quite the opposite result. Secondly, they are cast so widely and so imprecisely that they would in effect limit the Commission's discretion more than it is limited today, without the passage of the Bill. Thirdly, some of the limitations placed on the Commission's discretion are absurd, and anyone who had a strike or who had been affected by a strike could put up prices automatically without any sort of inquiry, any sort of investigation, any sort of amendment or any sort of prevention. Fourthly, thanks to section 2 of the parent Act, those right hon. and hon. Members who simply want the assurance that companies in the food industry who are in difficulty and companies which are affected by strikes in essential services or anywhere else will not have their profits unreasonably restricted, have got that in law. It is an unnecessary amendment, and it will be pressed only by people who want to see the Price Commission and its powers destroyed.
      Mr. Sainsbury: I first declare an interest, since I have not spoken before in the course of discussion on this Bill, as a shareholder and director—formerly an executive director—of a substantial food retailer. I am also a director and shareholder of a number of other firms in printing, composition and design which I suppose could come under the baneful effects of this legislation and derive benefit from these amendments.
      I deal first with the second amendment. The Secretary of State is very free in his misinterpretation of other people's motives. On this occasion, he also seems to be fairly free in his misinterpretation of the amendment. He talks as though any company affected in any way by any strike could recover any cost. That is not what the amendment says. It says that such a company may
      1520
      "earn profits sufficient to recover costs occasioned thereby."
      We are taking this Committee stage on the Floor of the House, which we do not do all that frequently. But if we were in Committee upstairs, it would be common practice for any Opposition to admit, as perhaps we have to on this occasion, that amendments put forward lacked the skill of the parliamentary draftsmen. What is more, on this occasion there has not been very much time to consult others in drafting amendments. But the Secretary of State should realise, if that were the problem, that his best course of action would be not to nit-pick at the wording of the amendment but generously to accept its intention and seek the advice of those who are available to assist him in coming up with a better drafted amendment.
      In relation to the second amendment, there is one other thing which I find quite astonishing in what the Secretary of State said. It reveals again, I fear, a distressing ignorance of the way in which business operates and the accounting practices and methods of business, which virtually everybody on the Labour Benches seems to have. It is extremely unfortunate and disturbing to industry and commerce that the Secretary of State seems to share that ignorance.
      The right hon. Gentleman talked about the costs of a strike not being susceptible to precise definition. If that were really so, I would say to him that in spite of what the Price Commission is meant to be doing with its 600 employees—many of whom are probably working for it because they cannot get a job in a company which manufactures products and provides real employment for people—it would not be capable of precisely defining anything to do with the operating costs of a company.
      I accept what has been said about the difficulty of determining who is principally responsible for industrial dislocation, because very often there are at least some from every party concerned involved, not least from the Government, but if one cannot determine the cost of industrial dislocation to one's company, I do not see how one can begin costing any product. I do not know why we have a Price Commission to do that sort of thing at all. That is absolutely nonsense. Any company could produce good, hard factual evidence to cover the wording of this

      1521
      amendment. If the Secretary of State were to send a little message to the Box, it could be forwarded to Charles Williams—who was a banker when he was more usefully employed—and I am sure that he would be happy to reassure the right hon. Gentleman on that.
      I shall address my remarks principally to the first amendment. Speaking as a former retailer and a former food retailer—the first amendment specifically refers to food—I must agree, for a change, with the right hon. Gentleman in finding the wording of that first amendment a little vague—"foods and essential services". I do not think that anyone would disagree when I say that food is an essential service. But what exactly would be an essential service, apart from food, would, I think, require a pretty lengthy schedule.
      If we consider the retail sector—which is different, of course, under the operation of the Act, from manufacturing—and consider the consequences of the individual examination of a retailer, there are two examples which spring to mind—footwear and spectacles.
      As is probably apparent to hon. Members, I wear spectacles and shoes. I would certainly regard shoes as essential in this weather. I also regard spectacles as essential at all times. They are an extremely essential service to me, and to be able to obtain them and have them repaired is very necessary. I see, therefore, that there are difficulties.
      I am inclined to think that all retailers provide an essential service because, basically, they serve the public. If they are not serving the public, and if the public do not find the service they want, retailers rapidly go out of business.
      The effects of the Bill, if it is not amended, need to be looked at rather carefully. As far as retailers are concerned, the situation is not analogous to manufacturing industry. We are not looking at a situation where a manufacturer is told that he cannot put up his price while an investigation of his product and pricing efficiency—and all the other matters which these mysterious people in the Commission are meant to be able to do—is carried out. What we are looking at are the safeguards which protect the retailer after the investigation, not during the investigation.
      1522
      I shall quote briefly from a brief provided by the Retail Consortium, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has readily to hand. I am sure that if the consortium is wrong, the right hon. Gentleman will not hesitate to contradict me and put it right. The second paragraph says:
      "The Bill removes the 'principal' safeguard which allows that when distributors are individually examined"—
      that is, the examination of an individual firm in retailing, as opposed to a whole sector—
      "they can maintain a profit margin of 2 per cent. of turnover or more where the stock turns over less than 10 times per year."
      There is a sliding scale, but I shall not detain the House with that.
      The brief goes on:
      "This means that following an investigation a recommendation"—
      that is, a recommendation by the Commission—
      "could be made which"—
      the brief does not actually say "if accepted by the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection"—
      "resulted in a distributor trading not only on a low profit margin but even at a loss."
      I pause there in case the Secretary of State wishes to rise to his feet and tell me that I am wrong. However, I shall go on because he does not do so, from which we can take it that what the Retail Consortium says is correct. I repeat the words from the brief, which are:
      "a recommendation could be made which resulted in a distributor trading not only on a a law profit margin but even at a loss."
      I think that those words should give the Committee cause to pause and consider.
      I know that the Secretary of State will constantly assure us what a reasonable fellow he is.
      Mr. Dan Jones: That is so.
      Mr. Sainsbury: The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones) is convinced. I must tell him that there are occasions when I find it very hard to believe.
      Mr. Jones: The actions of the Secretary of State in defending these measures are consistent with the actions of the firm of the hon. Gentleman's parents, with which I deal. That firm has kept prices

      1523
      very reasonable in the face of heavy competition—
      Mr. Russell Fairgrieve: That is why they are reasonable.
      Mr. Jones:—and the hon. Member knows that to be true. Why is it that the methods employed by the Minister are so different from the methods of the hon. Gentleman's own family?
      Mr. Sainsbury: I am very grateful for what the hon. Gentleman says.
      Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman need not be. It is true.
      Mr. Sainsbury: In so far as the firm with which I am associated is efficient, it stays efficient because of competition. Nothing that the Government have done has done other than distract management from its job of keeping that firm efficient and serving the public. We could do it much better if we did not have some of our best people providing useless figures to the Price Commission. I agree that we do not have to do it now, but for years we had to do so. It took a great deal of time and cost us—and every other distributor in the country—a great deal of money.
      I remind the Secretary of State that if he were to say that that was the fault of a Conservative Government, that legislation was introduced only for a short time under a Conservative Government. It is the right hon. Gentleman's Administration which has carried it on and made it worse year after year.
      However, I was distracted by the kind remarks of the hon. Member for Burnley, dwelling upon the reasonableness or otherwise of the Secretary of State. There are moments when I find it a little difficult to accept the reasonableness of the Secretary of State, and I believe that I shall be supported by a large number of distributors when I say that. After all, not so long ago we were assured by the Secretary of State that if the safeguard clauses were to be removed it could be done only as part of a general review and reassessment of the Act. What did we get a short time later? The safeguard clauses were removed without any kind of reassessment. There are times when one wonders whether the Secretary of State
      1524
      is quite as reasonable as he is made out to be.
      The Secretary of State has referred to discretion. That is the problem. There is no certainty of discretion. We cannot rely on discretion. Retailers, distributors and manufacturers are very unhappy about relying on discretion when they are considering the implications for potential investment, for the potential generation of employment and what might happen if they were interfered with without any safeguard. Retailers believe that the public are best safeguarded by competition and they, the retailers, are entitled to some safeguard against unreasonable interference.
      6.0 p.m.
      I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the consequences of that unreasonable interference as it affects food and essential services. What may not be so readily realised is that if a distributor of food or essential services is told, for whatever reason, that his margin has to come down to a very low level, or even to a loss, what is likely to happen is not just that he will suffer very badly but that other retailers in that industry will suffer even more, because it is likely to be the efficient retailer who has a reasonably high margin.
      The hon. Member for Burnley referred to a company with which I am associated, which is trading at a margin of, let us say, 3½ per cent. If it were told "That is too much. You must reduce it to 2 per cent.", the margin of those retailers who were trading at a margin of 1½ per cent—which is something near to the average in the industry at present—would have to come down as well. They would all be trading at a loss. The obvious consequence would be that they would rapidly go out of business. The public would find that they could not get certain products at all because shops could sell them only at a price which did not provide any profit. There would be fewer outlets, and the customer would suffer.
      The essential thing which the Secretary of State always seems to overlook, and which is in the very meaning of the word "safeguards", is that safeguards provide confidence in the link between investment and employment. We know, unhappily, that there are all too many Labour Members who do not believe in profits at all. Those below the Gangway,

      1525
      steadily drawing reinforcements from the drop-outs from the Treasury Bench, becoming ever more numerous and noisy, do not like profits of any sort. Those who have to take investment decisions certainly do not find that very reassuring.
      Without safeguards, the risk that the public run is that the efficient distributors will be penalised and the less efficient distributors will, in consequence, be driven out of business altogether. Not only will the employees in the industry suffer, but the general public will suffer too.
      If there is any imperfection in the drafting of these amendments, that, surely, can be put right. What we need is to be reassured that at least the spirit of them is accepted by the Government.
      Mr. Ron Thomas: If these two amendments are not wrecking amendments, they are the nearest thing to wrecking amendments that I have seen in a very long time. If, as the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) suggests, all the expertise on how companies are run and managed lies on the Opposition Benches, perhaps the hon. Member could tell us how the Opposition came up with two such sloppy and indecisive amendments. When they say that they know so much about the way in which firms and industries are run, and presume to know so much about the effects of industrial disputes, how did they table such amendments?
      I am sure that the public are absolutely convinced that we have not had any real control over prices for probably the last decade. Some would wonder whether we have ever had any. Therefore, any measure which at least attempts to make the control over price increases a bit more restrictive—I put it no higher than that—commands my support. However, if these two amendments were accepted, there would be very few companies which could not plead in aid one or other of the amendments.
      My right hon. Friend has already raised the question of how one distinguishes between an essential and a nonessential firm or industry. It has been suggested that Metal Box is an essential firm and part of an essential industry. On that reckoning, I would think that practically every firm is essential to the economy.
      1526
      We are also reminded that the amendment speaks of companies supplying foods. My right hon. Friend was quite right to mention the case of Imperial Tobacco, which, to smokers, provides essential products—cigarettes, cigars and pipe tobacco—and it also supplies a whole range of foodstuffs, not forgetting its potato crisps, which are, I suppose, both food and essential to some people.
      Essential services will have to include, presumbaly, electricity boards, British Railways, bus services and all the industries under public ownership and enterprise. Taking the first amendment, this would simply mean that we would have endless argument. Presumably, company lawyers would be going to court to claim that their companies were supplying food of some kind or were connected with the supplying of food, or that they were an essential service of some kind.
      There have already been cases in which this safeguard has prevented the Price Commission from doing its job properly: for example, Tate and Lyle and Cadbury Schweppes. I do not know whether another example, Allied Breweries, provides food. Many of us think that beer is a food. There is the case of Imperial Tobacco and a number of other companies which may be classed as being in the food industry. A whole number of others, by any kind of consideration, would be classed as essential services.
      Therefore, amendment No. 1 is either a wrecking amendment or a nonsensical amendment, as is amendment No. 2.
      Sir Raymond Gower: Would the hon. Gentleman look at this matter rather differently if the Government brought forward a schedule, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury), defining which services should be deemed essential?
      Mr. Thomas: No. It is not simply that the amendment is nonsensical. It is that it is in these very areas of foodstuffs and essentials we ought to have some real and positive price controls. It is in these areas that, for totally different reasons, we ought to have controls. We do not have them.
      I do not know about the companies with which the hon. Member for Hove is associated. He is a director of a number of companies. Family firms have

      1527
      been mentioned, and all the rest. I have no idea what kind of prices the hon. Gentleman's companies charge in their retail outlets. All I can say is that the vast majority of people would insist that there have been no controls whatever over the prices of foodstuffs and that it is nonsense to talk about competition keeping down prices, because companies use a different loss-leader each day. As I said on Second Reading, they expect our wives or ourselves to go from one end of a city centre to the other to pick up a bargain here and a bargain there, which is insulting to our intelligence and certainly suggests that the time of our wives is absolutely worthless.
      I insist that it is in these very areas of food and essential services that we ought to have some price controls. I do not accept that the so, called competition which it is suggested we have is sufficient to keep down prices. I believe that under decimalisation, for example, the retail outlets made a bomb. They robbed the British people. The hon. Member for Hove shakes his head, but I believe that to be so. He had better talk to the British public and hear what they think about retail outlets and the way in which they behaved over decimalisation.
      I am certain that the House will oppose any attempt to keep the Price Commission in its present weakened state in response to increased prices in the food industry and essential services.
      Mr. Bulmer: Would the hon. Gentleman care to relate his remarks about price control and the food industry to the present employment situation in the bakery industry?
      Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman should look at the increases in prices right across the board in the food industry, very largely determined by the indefensible common agricultural policy of the Common Market. Even so, there have been no effective controls. I do not believe that the Price Commission, apart from the case of tea—and there may be a couple of other items—has had any real and effective control over food prices. The complaints that I get from housewives is that prices go up and down in different shops and that they have to go, almost in a confused state, from one shop to another. We know that shops
      1528
      use a particular product as a loss-leader to get people into the shop. But once they have got them in, they con them in all kinds of ways.
      Mr. Sainsbury: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is not going to believe me, and it does not seem that he is going to believe the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Jones). I can quote one or two other authorities on the effectiveness of competition. For example, the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection himself said, on 6 March 1978:
      "I have no doubt that active competition in the retail grocery trade will ensure that these reductions in blenders' prices will generate a lower price in the shops."—[Official Report, 6 March 1978; Vol. 945, c. 447.]
      The right hon. Gentleman said only last month:
      "in a highly competitive industry such as food production and retailing, any reduction in costs ought to be passed on by a reduction in prices."—[Official Report, 22 January 1979; Vol. 961, c. 66.]
      The Price Commission itself has said:
      "We believe that the overall level of profitability in the manufactured food industry in recent years has been low in common with the rest of industry."
      It also talks, in its report on Cadbury Schweppes, about increasing competition.
      Mr. Thomas: I do not know whether that was an intervention or a speech. I do not accept any of the suggestions that the hon. Gentleman has quoted—I do not care where they come from. The Price Commission, for example, talks about the level of profitability in food manufacturing, but it has also referred in that context to the rest of British industry. I do not accept those figures either. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Hove to smile, but I suggest that he reads the Peachey report. There is a lovely bit at the beginning of that report, a lovely example of the watering down of the capital involved, to give an opportunity, five or six years later, of saying "Our return on this capital is only 2 or 3 per cent." or some lower figure.
      There has been a considerable amount of watering down of capital in British industry, giving scrip shares, free shares and goodness knows what else, and then saying "On the capital employed we are only earning 2 or 3 per cent.". We all know the kinds of financial machination

      1529
      that some firms and their accountants get up to. I am only saying that housewives and the males who have to do the shopping are convinced that not enough has been done to keep down the price of foodstuffs, and are not convinced that this so-called competition which we are told exists is sufficient to keep down the price of foodstuffs.
      Amendment No. 6 says:
      "in the case of companies affected by industrial disputes, in order to earn profits sufficient to recover costs occasioned thereby".
      My right hon. Friend is right. This is a nonsense of an amendment, because it says "affected by industrial disputes." Thousands of companies at any one time could attempt to argue that they are affected in some way by industrial disputes. Under the amendment' they would be allowed to put up their prices, presumably to earn profits sufficient to recover costs.
      I dispute what our expert—who is, I suspect, the director of many more companies than he let on—said earlier, that it is quite easy for companies to assess how much they have lost in an industrial dispute. I refute that suggestion. Companies, too, will refute it. One should study the exaggerated figures that are thrown out when there is an industrial dispute and then study the balance sheets later for that year. One will soon see therein the lies that have been thrown out at the moment of this so-called great crisis, mainly created by the media, over the lorry drivers' dispute. Companies have been talking of losing millions of pounds. But, on the basis of the figures that they suggest they are losing, or have lost, they must be making massive profits, even obscene profits.
      6.15 p.m.
      Companies say that they have already lost this profit or that profit in a matter of two or three weeks. Extrapolate these profit figures over the whole year, and one can only suggest that they must be making massive profits. Let us wait until we see the balance sheets. If hon. Members opposite are such great experts, they should know that following an industrial dispute a good deal of the production and the orders is made up, and that at the end of the day the amount that has been lost is often very small indeed.
      I do not accept, therefore, that one can put any kind of figure on the losses
      1530
      claimed. I certainly would not accept managements' figures about what they claim to have lost in industrial disputes, because we know what kind of picture they are trying to paint. In my judgment, the majority of industrial disputes are caused by the inefficiency of British management, whether that inefficiency is in terms of industrial and personal relations or in communication, or whatever the management jargon may be, whether it is failure to use the disputes procedures in a proper way or a failure to respond in a proper way to a pay claim.
      It is interesting to note that a tribunal sitting in Bristol has just come out with an offer to the lorry drivers that the Road Haulage Association could have made before the strike began and which could have stopped the strike. The tribunal, an independent group of people, decided that the lorry drivers ought to be getting £64 a week for 40 hours. The RHA could have made that offer three or four weeks ago.
      Sir Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman has made the rather wild assertion that most of the troubles are due to the inadequacy or inefficiency of British management. Can he explain why that should be so? Why should British management be so inefficient in comparison with managements in Germany, Holland, Belgium, the United States and other capitalist countries? Is there any valid reason for that?
      Mr. Thomas: Yes. It is because we have—
      The Chairman: Order. I must relieve the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) of the difficulty of replying, or the ease of replying, whatever he feels about it, because we are getting out of order if we stray away to other countries. We must stay with the amendments.
      Mr. Thomas: In the main, the rigid class structure of our society produces managers who fail in their industrial and personal relations, in communication and in other aspects of management techniques, and fail through their wrong sets of values. In this acquisitive society—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister used that term; he does not like to use the term "capitalist society", but that is what he really meant—it is employers and managements who are responsible for

      1531
      most of the industrial disputes in this country.
      The amendment suggests that inefficiencies and inhumanities should be subsidised instead of firms being criticised and shown the errors of their ways, in the hope that those concerned will do better next time. The amendment suggests that whenever an industrial dispute is created anywhere in the country employers should be subsidised and allowed to keep the same profit levels. I hope that the Committee will not pass this amendment, which would give firms further excuses to create even more strikes so as to attract subsidies.
      The two amendments are nonsense. I hope that they will be thrown out by the Committee. Even though the Price Commission does not have anything like sufficient powers to keep prices down, it should have the powers suggested in the Bill, and it should not be limited by exempting foods, essential services or other companies affected by industrial disputes. If that were allowed to happen it would completely wreck the intention of the measure.
      Mr. Bulmer: I declared my interest on Second Reading. However, I should like to refer to the remarks of the Seecretary of State. He seems to have forgotten that the profitability of British industry is one-third of what it was 10 years ago, that we are paying ourselves twice as much for producing no more than in 1974, and that we have 1 million more people unemployed. In his rejection of these amendments he used the word "viability". He was concerned about the viability of companies. He seems to forget that companies are in business to make a profit and that profit is essential for investment and the generation of jobs. He made it clear that he was looking to the Price Commission to develop an intervention-its role which did not recognise the right of a company to pursue the legitimate profit that it should make and was concerned only whether that increase was a matter of life or death for that firm.
      As I explained on Second Reading, my company suffered a reduction in its profitability for reasons that we believe lie outside the terms of the legislation. I do
      In preserving margins in food, which the second amendment seeks to do, the not wish to go into that further now.
      1532
      time value of money is all-important. I shall give a concrete example from our own experience. One may apply for an increase only to a civil servant, who then goes to the representatives of the Commission. If they ask a supplementary question, time is wasted while the process filters back. In our case there was a question dealing with cider apple concentrate. We were asked why we could not deal in the commodity market. There is no commodity market in cider apple juice. Much time was therefore wasted. An exactly analogous situation may arise with any food commodity.
      Certainly General Foods, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) referred, found that the variations in the price of coffee contributed millions of pounds to its costs. If it cannot recover those costs immediately, as part of an international company it will find that its profitability drops and that it will attract less investment support as against other companies in that oragnisation across the world.
      I ask the Secretary of State to consider whether, at a time when we seek to attract foreign investment, it is right to deprive companes coming here of at least the minimal defence that these amendments would give us. Foreign investors look at this country and see the state of our industrial relations. They note the rate of inflation. They observe a number of aspects that are unattractive. When they find that they cannot price their products to ensure that their investment remains valid, an investment in this country looks even less attractive.
      I regret that the Secretary of State has not seen fit to accept these amendments.
      Mr. Cronin: Most hon. Members on both sides of the Committee realise the importance of profits. There is no more effective way of measuring the efficiency of a business than by profits. All my hon. Friends agree with me. Why we should have these absurd lectures on elementary economics from the Opposition I cannot understand. This is in keeping with the debate on these amendments by the Opposition.
      Members on both sides agree that there have been the most deplorable industrial disorders in the past few weeks. These have done severe damage to our economy. There is no escape from that. We all

      1533
      accept it. At the same time, some of the industrial stories have been justified. Many of them have been based on psychological considerations. The most important psychological consideration is prices. Almost every striker has at home a wife who grumbles about prices. It is deplorable that when the Government introduce a Bill that should have a real effect on prices and on the psychological cause of industrial unrest, we have interference from the Opposition. It is unfortunate.
      Last week the Leader of the Opposition said that she would co-operate in any way with the Government to put a stop to the industrial disorders. The Government now introduce a Bill that could have an important psychological effect on all trade unionists, everywhere, yet we now witness opposition—although not very effective—that is intended to drive a coach and horses through the Bill.
      Mr. Tim Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on Monday, in the Second Reading debate, one of his hon. Friends said that the TUC would take very little notice of this Bill?
      Mr. Cronin: I did not hear that remark. I was not present for the whole debate. However, I cannot take responsibility for every word uttered by every one of my hon. Friends.
      Amendments of an extraordinary nature have been introduced. I shall not repeat what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. The effects of these amendments are preposterous. The words "essential services" could result in a schedule running to seven volumes. Amendment No. 6 contains the suggestion that companies should be able to recoup profits lost as a result of industrial disputes. This could be applied in the infinite future. In 10 years' time a company could say that it had lost sales as a result of the strike in 1979.
      We should maintain the standard of our debates and ensure that the Opposition draft amendments of a more intelligent nature. The hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) apologised for the amendments. I hope that the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) will take note. I believe, from a nod of his head, that he accepts a share of the repsonsibility for drafting the amendments. We have a responsibility to maintain the standards of debate. If we
      1534
      debate amendments which hon. Members on both sides agree would be totally preposterous in their effects if added to the Bill, it will considerably lower our standards. Is it possible for my right hon. Friend's Department to give assistance to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) and her colleagues in drafting amendments, so that at least they make sense and are comprehensible?
      The amendments are fatuous. They are incompetently drafted. They are meant to drive a coach and horses through and wreck a Bill which will have important psychological effects in putting an end to the present industrial disorders.
      Mr. Michael Morris: These are two important amendments. That is the only reason why I intervene. I did not take part in the Second Reading debate, although I read the debate in the Official Report. I take part as one who has worked with the food industry for 15 years and who believes that amendment No. 6 will have a major beneficial effect, if carried, on industry in my constituency.
      I sit as an industrial Member and therefore shall comment on the second amendment. The problem faced by the Committee is the speed with which the Bill is being pushed through Parliament. Those of us who have worked on complicated Bills in this and other areas will know that there were many amendments, although not correctly drafted, which the Government, after due deliberation, accepted when they had a chance to reflect on the implications.
      Here the great difficulty is that we are dealing with the value judgments of the Price Commission versus the experience of business. I know that the right hon. Gentleman has said that that is a sufficient safeguard, but he and I know that historically the rate of return on capital in the food industry is low and that there is low investment in that industry.
      6.30 p.m.
      We have to ask one fundamental rhetorical question. Do we or do we not want a viable and successful food manufacturing industry? If the answer is "No", let the Bill go through, and we can all forget about the food manufacturing industry. If the answer is "Yes", I urge the right hon. Gentleman to listen to the representations that he gets from the food industry

      1535
      from time to time and to try for once to help the industry and understand its problems.
      The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that commodity prices can and do rocket. He knows that they can move within a week, and move very substantially. We all remember the way in which the price of cocoa rose at one time. The same happened with coffee and other commodities. This can have a major effect on the future profitability of a company and on its cash flow.
      The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the loss of production by food manufacturing industry in the last three weeks—particularly by those companies which use edible oils—has been lost for ever. It will never be made up. It is not like the capital goods sector, where there is simply a delay for a period of time. The margins that would have been earned have gone for ever, but the overheads remain. Furthermore, it seems that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends are not interested in product development and product improvement. That is not a dimension that is taken into consideration by them.
      I have in my constituency the head office of Rockware Glass, a company that controls about 30 per cent. of the glass bottle market. The first effect of the present secondary picketing, which has hit the company very badly, is that bottles are now being imported. There is competition from the Continent. The prices are considerably higher than those of home-manufactured articles. They are coming into the country so that the people who use the bottles can have something to fill. There is a double effect here. It not only affects the balance of payments adversely. It also affects the profitability of the companies which are using the bottles, and it affects the housewife because the prices go up. The company is facing a major cash flow problem. The factory is stacked up to the gunnels with bottles. The product has not gone out for the last two or three weeks and the raw materials have not managed to get in.
      It is the cash flow effect that is so important in relation to these industrial disputes. I do not share with Labour Members their complacency when they
      1536
      say that manufacturers and industrialists pretend that the figures are this, that or the other. Anyone running a business knows very quickly the effect on it of an industrial dispute. If the right hon. Gentleman does not agree with my statement, he should ask his Department to telephone the head office of Rockware Glass, in Northampton, tomorrow morning and ask the company to cost-up during the day the net effect on it of the present strike. If he does that, he will find that the company will be able to produce a fairly accurate estimate by the end of the day.
      I also sit for a new town. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this sort of Bill helps to attract industry from all over the world to our new towns, he is very much mistaken. This sort of Bill is a major deterrent to future employment in this country. If Labour Members are at all concerned about employment, they ought to realise that industry must be reasonably profitable and earn a reasonable rate of return on its capital. It cannot do that if the Government are waiting all the time to pounce on it.
      I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was right originally when he put his safeguard provisions into the Price Commission Act. Indeed, there are elements of the original Bill that many of us who work with industry understand and with which we have some sympathy. But if some of the basic safeguards are removed, it will jeopardise all the good will and all the other necessary elements. The Bill that we are now considering seeks to take away these safeguards, and the timing is very inopportune in relation to the crisis that much of industry is facing.
      One is left with the conclusion that the motivation for the Bill has nothing to do with the future of industry or with benefits for the housewife. It is a rather shoddy political manoeuvre so that the Labour Party can blazen it from the electoral platforms when the general election takes place.
      Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I shall not follow the rather exaggerated statements of the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) about the effects of the Bill. I do not share his fears about the effects on industrial investment. I do not think that they will in any way be realised.

      1537
      My right hon. and hon. Friends have dealt adequately with the obscure nonsense of the amendments. I accept the point, put to us by the Opposition Front Bench, that the amendments had to be drafted quickly. I am sure that the Opposition share the concern of my right hon. Friend and other Labour Members that a Bill of this sort was needed very quickly in the circumstances facing the country. In view of this, I have no complaint about the obscurity of some of the amendments.
      The amendments have the specific aim of narrowing drastically the discretion of the Price Commission, whereas the whole purpose of the Bill is to widen the discretion. The unfortunate impression that we have had this evening from the Opposition is that there is no discretion whatever, and no power for any interim increase to be made. We have been given the impression that if the Bill becomes law there will be no interim increases. That is an absurd suggestion to make. In effect, the Price Commission will have far greater discretion in the interim increases which can be made.
      I have been appalled at some of the wilder statements from the Opposition about investment and profitability. I accept entirely that the profitability of British industry is far from low, and I am sure that hon. Members on each side of the House would accept that. I have some knowledge of industry in general but no knowledge whatever of the food industry. I accept that in certain parts of the food industry profit margins are at present extremely low, but I do not think it can be said that the Bill is such a violent instrument that it will materially affect that position.
      I have only a slight knowledge of the coffee market, but my understanding is that sometimes the fluctuation in coffee prices leads not only to low profit margins but can lead to high profit margins. Surely the whole aim of the Bill is to deal with the company which is making bumper profits and to remove any need for an interim increase.
      I have a long list here of the various companies over which there was no discretion whatever under the previous Act. The remarkable thing—I do not know how my right hon. Friend would explain this—is that the same companies have
      1538
      been listed by the Opposition Front Bench as examples of the other side of the coin. Nevertheless, the serious point is that here we have a list of companies in relation to which the Price Commission had no option but to grant a 100 per cent. interim increase. That means, although I do not doubt the detailed investigations by the Commission, that it is difficult for the Commission to turn the clock back on an increase once it has been granted for an interim period.
      There has been a tendency, in cases where the Commission eventually did not grant full increases, for a compromise to be sought. This is the danger, as I see it, in the narrow discretion currently available to the Price Commission. For that reason, we should reject these amendments. They narrow even further the discretionary powers of the Commission.
      To echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin), the important thing about the Bill is not that it will have enormous effects on industry but that it will not even have a measurable effect on prices. In the present industrial relations climate, the psychological effect of any measure which combats price increases in any way is extremely valuable. To be able to combat increases, the Price Commission needs the widest discretionary powers possible. For that reason, we should reject these amendments.
      Mr. Fairgrieve: I find myself in exactly the same position as my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris). I, too, was unable to take part in the Second Reading debate, but I believe that these two amendments go to the heart of the badness of this Bill.
      I have spent a lifetime in line management in British industry—not lecturing on it or commenting on it, but working in it. I can assure Labour Members that whenever a management committee or a board decides to put up prices it does so as a last resort. No company wants to put up prices. When I listened to what was said by the hon. Member for Bristol. North-West (Mr. Thomas)—who represents the views of so many Labour Members below the Gangway—I put it down, not to malevolence but to ignorance. No legislation is required, because competition keeps down prices in the private sector.

      1539
      I do not wish, in the interests of time, to go into sophisticated arguments about what is the yardstick of profitability, whether it be the return on capital invested or some other yardstick. But there is one simple yardstick, and that is the percentage profit on sales. Labour Members are so often inclined to mention the profits of millions and millions of pounds made by a certain company without relating them in any way to sales. I would like to mention some of Britain's top companies—half a dozen of them in different sectors.
      Labour Members think it is great to be able to point out that Unilever made £611 million, as detailed in its latest published accounts. But what was that figure as a percentage of sales? It was 7¼ per cent. That was before putting aside money for reserves, or any dividends to shareholders, and various other commitments. A profit of 7¼ per cent. on sales is not a proper return. It should be 10 per cent. as a minimum. Therefore, none of this legislation is required for companies whose published accounts show less than 10 per cent. profit on sales.
      I give some more examples. P & O made 4½ per cent. profit, Marks and Spencer 5 per cent., Beecham 9 per cent., Scottish and Newcastle Breweries 9 per cent., and, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), the company which is a great friend of the Chancellor—and I suppose I can declare an interest here—Saatchi & Saatchi 3½ per cent.
      This legislation is both unnecessary and damaging. There is a far greater instrument available for bringing down prices than any Government legislation, and that is competition. If legislation is needed, it is to deal with Government monopolies. That is where competition cannot operate to bring down prices. It is with the greatest pleasure that I support the amendment so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw).
      6.45 p.m.
      Sir Raymond Gower: We have heard some remarkable speeches from the Government Benches. First, we were told that these amendments would drive a coach and horses through the principle of the Bill, yet several Government
      1540
      spokesmen have assured us that there is no substance in the Bill. They say that it is largely psychological. The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) shakes his head, but I think that two, or possibly three, speeches made during the debate referred to the overwhelming importance of the psychological element in this Bill. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) said so. Those speeches implied, as did that of the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Roberts), that this Bill would achieve very little.
      Mr. Gwilym Roberts: I did not say quite that. I said that the main element of the Bill was the psychological one. I accept that. But would the hon. Gentleman not accept that, with our industrial relations as tense as they are, the psychological aspect is an extremely important one?
      Sir R. Gower: I may accept that. But the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues say that this Bill is largely psychological and yet argue that these amendments will, in some strange way, drive a coach and horses through that psychology. I cannot follow the mixture of metaphors that has been introduced. What worries me, although not in the same way as it did my hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer)—because I do not regret that the Government have not accepted these amendments in their present form—is that we have not heard a single word from the Government to the effect that they would accept the motive behind the amendments. We have had no suggestion that the Government regard these aims as desirable. All that we have heard are criticisms of the amendments on such details as bad wording or hasty drafting, or on the ground that they go too far.
      We have not heard anyone say that it is desirable that companies should have enough profits to maintain their supplies. How bad it would be if companies did not have sufficient profits to maintain such supplies. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West was extremely biased in his judgment on this matter. I hope that the country never has to rely upon that kind of judgment. It was appalling. If we have companies that do not have adequate profit margins and cannot maintain their supplies, we shall be in a desperate plight. There have been more realistic

      1541
      speeches. The hon. Member for Cannock said—I thank him for it—that he had found no evidence of the gross overpricing to which his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West referred. He agreed that prices, and certainly profits, were, historically, very low.
      Whatever may be the deficiencies of some of our heavy manufacturing industries, there is a lot of evidence that in the food and distributive trades we are, perhaps, better off than most of our competitors in the free world. The distributive trade, in particular, is probably as good as any in Europe or beyond. We are not dealing here with one of the most defective sections of the economy. Perhaps it is one of the better parts of our economy. I would have liked to detect, especially from the Minister, some readiness to accept the principle of the amendments. I accept that there should be some classifying, some scheduling of essential services. I hope that the Government will accept the aim of the amendments.
      I appreciate the problems of the Commission. Here I differ from some of my hon. Friends. Given this type of control, I accept that it is difficult, within this setting, to check all the claims that are being made. It is certainly not beyond the ingenuity of a Commission advised by contemporary accountancy to do this task. It can be done by companies with much smaller resources. I hope that the Government will say that they are prepared to accept what lies behind the amendment.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: We have had a fairly full debate on this group of amendments. I regret that I seem to have provided amendments that the Secretary of State found sloppy and inadequate. Perhaps a sloppy Bill deserves sloppy amend-

      Division No.57]

      AYES

      [6.52 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Bottomley, Peter

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Clegg, Walter

      Alison, Michael

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Cockcroft, John

      Arnold, Tom

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Brittan, Leon

      Cope, John

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Cormack, Patrick

      Awdry, Daniel

      Brotherton, Michael

      Costain, A. P.

      Baker, Kenneth

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Beith, A. J.

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Crouch, David

      Bell, Ronald

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Crowder, F. P.

      Bendall, Vivian

      Buck, Antony

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Budgen, Nick

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Benyon, W.

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Burden, F. A.

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Biffen, John

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Carlisle, Mark

      Durant, Tony

      Blaker, Peter

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Dykes, Hugh

      Body, Richard

      Churchill, W. S.

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      ments. They compare favourably with the drafting of the Price Commission Act, which, in section 2, contains such garbage—talking about the duties of the commission in performing functions—as:
      "to have regard to all matters which appear to the Commission in the particular circumstances to be relevant … and not to have regard to any other matters."
      Two or three points of substance have emerged from the debate. The first is the major disagreement between ourselves and the Government about whether it is right to give further discretion to the Commission. This is the main reason for moving this amendment. We do not believe that the increased discretionary powers given under the Bill will be used in the somewhat sacred way in which the Secretary of State suggested the Commission has always acted. We believe that industry is substantially disheartened by the way in which the Bill has been rushed through.
      The hon. Members for Cannock (Mr. Roberts) and for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) suggested that the Bill would have important psychological overtones. If the Government's pay policy of 5 per cent. has any overtones, I suggest that this Bill contains an infinitesimal amount of overtone, which will do little to influence the industrial setting. The right thing to do is to demonstrate our dislike of this measure and our support of the amendments. I therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to press the amendment to a Division.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 256, Noes 270.

      Elliott, Sir William

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Emery, Peter

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Eyre, Reginald

      Knox, David

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Lamont, Norman

      Rhodes James, R.

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Farr, John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Fell, Anthony

      Lawson, Nigel

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Loveridge, John

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Luce, Richard

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Forman, Nigel

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Fox, Marcus

      McCusker, H.

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Macfarlane, Neil

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Freud, clement

      MacGregor, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Fry, Peter

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Shersby, Michael

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

      Madel, David

      Silvester, Fred

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Sims, Roger

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Marten, Neil

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Mates, Michael

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Goodhew, Victor

      Mather, Carol

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Maude, Angus

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Gorst, John

      Mawby, Ray

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Speed, Keith

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Spence, John

      Gray, Hamish

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Sproat, Iain

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Mills, Peter

      Stainton, Keith

      Grist, Ian

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Grylls, Michael

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Stanley, John

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Moate, Roger

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

      Molyneaux, James

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Monro, Hector

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stokes, John

      Hannam, John

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Morgan, Geraint

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Heseltine, Michael

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Hicks, Robert

      Mudd, David

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Hodgson, Robin

      Neave, Airey

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Holland, Philip

      Nelson, Anthony

      Van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Neubert, Michael

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Newton, Tony

      Viggers, Peter

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Nott, John

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Walters, Dennis

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Hurd, Douglas

      Pardoe, John

      Wells, John

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Whitney, Raymond

      James, David

      Percival, Ian

      Wiggin, Jerry

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

      Peyton, Rt Hon John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Younger, Hon George

      Jopling, Michael

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Kilfedder, James

      Raison, Timothy

      Sir George Young.

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rathbone, Tim

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Buchanan, Richard

      Allaun, Frank

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Anderson, Donald

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J.(Cardiff SE)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Campbell, Ian

      Ashley, Jack

      Boardman, H.

      Canavan, Dennis

      Ashton, Joe

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Cant, R. B.

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Carmichael, Neil

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

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Carter, Ray

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Bradley, Tom

      Cartwright, John

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Bates, Alf

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Bean, R. E.

      Buchan, Norman

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michale (Bristol S)

      1544

      1545

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Coleman, Donald

      Jekins, Hugh (Putney)

      Radice, Giles

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      John, Brynmor

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Concannon, Rt Hon John

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Conlan, Bernard

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Cowans, Harry

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Judd, Frank

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Cronin, John

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Kelley, Richard

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Cryer, Bob

      Kerr, Russell

      Rooker, J. W.

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Rowlands, Ted

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

      Lambie, David

      Sandelson, Neville

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lamborn Harry

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Lamond, James

      Selby, Harry

      Deakins, Eric

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Sever, John

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Dempsey, James

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Dewar, Donald

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Doig, Peter

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Litterick, Tom

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Loyden, Eddie

      Silverman, Julius

      Dunn, James A.

      Luard, Evan

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

      Eadie, Alex

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Snape, Peter

      Edge, Geoff

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Spearing, Nigel

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Spriggs, Leslie

      English, Michael

      MacCormick, Iain

      Stallard, A. W.

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      McElhone, Frank

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Stoddart, David

      Evans, John (Newton)

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Stott, Roger

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Strang, Gavin

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Flannery, Martin

      Madden, Max

      Swain, Thomas

      Fletcher, L. R (Ilkeston)

      Magee, Bryan

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Marks, Kenneth

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Ford, Ben

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Forrester, John

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

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

      Meacher, Michael

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Tierney, Sydney

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Tilley, John

      George, Bruce

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Tomlinson, John

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Torney, Tom

      Ginsburg, David

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Golding, John

      Molloy, William

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Gould, Bryan

      Moonman, Eric

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Ward, Michael

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Morton, George

      Watkins, David

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Weetch, Ken

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Weitzman, David

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Wellbeloved, James

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Newens, Stanley

      Welsh, Andrew

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Noble, Mike

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Oakes, Gordon

      Whitlock, William

      Henderson, Douglas

      Ogden, Eric

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Home Robertson, John

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Hooley, Frank

      Orbach, Maurice

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Horam, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

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

      Ovenden, John

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Padley, Walter

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Huckfield, Lee

      Palmer, Arthur

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Park, George

      Woodall, Alec

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Parker, John

      Woof, Robert

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Parry, Robert

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Hunter, Adam

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Penhaligon, David

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Perry, Ernest

      Mr. James Tinn and

      Janner, Greville

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Mr. Ted Graham.

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Pardoe: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 1, line 10, after 'examinations)', insert
      'and except as regards any notification given by the Commission in pursuance of subsection (1) of section 4 of that Act in respect of any increase of which notice has been given to the Commission in pursuance of an Order under section 5 of the 1973 Act where the said notice is given more than twelve months after the previous such notice'.
      The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): With this we are to take the following amendments:
      No. 9, in page 1, line 12, leave out 'Section 4(5)(b) and (ii)' and insert 'In Section 4(5)(b)'.
      No. 11, in page 1, line 17, leave out 'shall cease to have effect' and insert
      'there shall be added at the end of the paragraph the words "and that the notice given to the Commission which is the subject of the notification in pursuance of subsection (1) of this Section has been given more than 12 months after the previous such notice given by the relevant person".'.
      No. 19, in page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (3).
      No. 20, in page 2, line 7, leave out subsection (4).
      No. 21, in page 2, line 15, leave out subsection (5).
      No. 22, in page 2, line 22, leave out subsection (6).
      Mr. Pardoe: I shall first sketch the background to this proposal, which I hope the Secretary of State will agree is eminently sensible and is certainly a long way from anything that he could call a wrecking amendment.
      The purpose of the Price Commission Act 1977 was to enable the Commission to forbid, or in some cases to reduce, price increases where its investigations showed that they were unjustified. It was felt, however, that mere suspicion by the Commission that a price increase was unjustified was not sufficient reason to ban or reduce the increase. It was therefore accepted that any action of the Commission must depend not on its suspicions but on the outcome of its investigations. Obviously, such investigations would take place only where the Commission felt that there was a prima facie case against the proposed increase.
      When the 1977 Bill was being discussed in Parliament the question arose of what
      1548
      should be done during the period of investigation. I accept the Government's view that there is a genuine problem here for anyone seeking to control prices. Let us imagine a company which notifies the Commission of its intention to make a price increase which the Commission feels is totally unjustified. If the Commission can do nothing about the increase until it has completed an investigation which, if it is to be sophisticated, may take quite some time, it will be shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Price control is ineffectual in those circumstances.
      Many people argued that the best way of dealing with the problem was to allow the price increase until the Commission had completed its investigation. If the investigation showed that the increase was unjustified, it could be rolled back. That procedure would be possible with such items as telephone charges and electricity bills. The customer could be rebated or discounted on a future bill. But it is a difficult procedure to implement with general price increases. It was felt on both sides of the House, after the matter had been discussed in 1977, that the procedure was not satisfactory.
      The Government were still faced with the problem of what to do during the period of investigation if they did not want the price increase to take effect without hindrance. So a satisfactory compromise was reached. A safeguard allowed companies to increase their prices immediately by the amount needed to restore their profits to a basic minimum level. The Bill seeks to remove that safeguard. My hon. Friends and I believe that the Bill is wrong, but we have already had a Second Reading debate this week.
      The Bill proposes one exception to the general abolition of the safeguard. I shall not go into the details because they are set out clearly in the Bill.
      My amendment proposes another exception—not extensive but, nevertheless, important and deserving. In order to understand the amendment, one has to examine the working procedures of the Price Commission over the period since the 1977 Act came into force.
      Much of the Commission's best work has been done through consultation and agreement with the companies. I am

      1549
      sure the Secretary of State would accept that and wish that work to continue. If an atmosphere of parties glowering over the table is generated, no agreement can take place, and that is hopeless and inimical to any hope of price control.
      Some companies—generally the large ones—are required by the 1977 Act to notify the Commission of their intention to raise prices, at which point discussions take place. The discussions are informal and private, which I believe to be a good thing at that stage. During these discussions the practice has been for the representatives of the Commission to ask the company to give an assurance that if the notified price increase goes ahead there will not be a further increase for at least 12 months.
      The 12-month rule on prices has been largely accepted by the companies. This is an immensely important factor in stabilising not only the size but the frequency of price increases. The 12-month rule also applies to wage claims. The trade unions originally accepted the rule voluntarily. I am not sure whether it is still accepted—we shall have to wait and see. That had an effect upon wage inflation.
      The 12-month rule on prices has been beneficial to the economy. It has had a stabilising effect that has been beneficial for the producer of parts who sells his products to manufacturers who then assemble them into the finished product. There has always been a problem for someone buying from a person higher up the line. If the buyer does not know that the price of the product will remain stable for the next 12 months, he has to guess the likely rise, if there is to be one, in order to publish his catalogue, including the price increases for the next 12 months. He would also wish to make quotations for the next 12 months. A builder buying building products, such as copper pipes, wants to know, when he quotes for a house which will not be built for 12 months, whether the prices will remain stable.
      It would be helpful right through the economy if large major companies which supply primary products announced that their prices would not be increased over the next 12 months. Clearly, there cannot be a total guarantee, and the Price Commission has never asked for one, but
      1550
      there has been a mutual understanding and agreement which has worked well generally.
      If the builder further down the line guesses that there will be increases over the next 12 months in, for example, the price of radiators, bricks and cement, and so on, he adds a percentage—usually 50 per cent.—to his prices to be on the safe side. However, he may be wildly inaccurate. Therefore, I believe it to be important for the Government to encourage the continuance of the 12-month rule.
      The Secretary of State will remember the previous practice. In the Ford Motor Company, there was at one time a whole department whose job it was to concoct the case for a price increase every three months. On the day, almost as the clock struck, the claim was submitted, with all the documentation behind it. In that way there is an appalling escalation in price inflation. The three-month rule was a disaster, and to return to it would be disastrous.
      How can companies be encouraged to practise the 12-month rule? My hon. Friends and I do not support the Bill. However, it encourages the use of the 12-month rule, and these amendments seek to maintain the basic profit safeguard for those who agree to the rule.
      If the Government resist this amendment, they will pave the way for more frequent price increase notifications and more demands and requests to the Price Commission, which will become bogged down. The Government will throw away the co-operation that has been built up between the companies and the Price Commission over the last year or so.
      7.15 p.m.
      I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. It is a pity that there are no Scottish National Party Members present. I do not know whether they have done a deal with the Government. I should not be surprised if they had—and who am I to blame them? I hope that they will not be deterred from voting for the amendment by the bullying of the Secretary of State, who, I believe, has told them that the amendment has been concocted by the CBI. I am aware of the regional reason that the SNP has for disliking the CBI, since it seems to be funding the "No" campaign in Scotland.

      1551
      However, not everything said by the CBI in England is nonsense, even though that may be the case in Scotland. I received this information from a member of the CBI, though not the CBI itself.
      I believe that the amendment makes good sense. It will assist the Commission in its job and prevent the frequency of price increases that would otherwise take place.
      Mr. Neubert: Perhaps, Sir Myer, I can explain the reason for your eye alighting upon the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) before it alighted upon me. Although my name and the names of my hon. Friends appear on the Amendment Paper before that of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North, your immediate predecessor in the Chair explained that this was because an error had been made in the printing and that there were witnesses to the fact that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North had submitted his amendment—which is identical to ours—first to the Public Bill Office.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) will not take it amiss if I suggest that, he having accepted responsibility for submitting our amendment, if the Liberals now claim that this move is of their inspiration alone—and certainly if history is to turn upon the accident of who arrives first with the amendment and a great consequence flows from the speed of the race to the Public Bill Office—Opposition amendments should be entrusted to a Member with longer legs.
      I turn to the amendment, which I believe to be sound good sense. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North made out the main case for it. It seems to be a case of justice for those firms which, by choice or order, have forgone a price increase for a period of 12 months. I believe that it is reasonable that such a firm should not have its price increase application frozen for a further period of three or four months while an investigation is carried out.
      The Bill is intended to remove safeguards provided in the regulations under the Price Commission Act 1977. I remind the House of the Secretary of State's view on those safeguards. He said, in a press statement on 15 June 1977:
      1552
      "The safeguards are not what the Price Commission or the Government will regard as reasonable profit levels. They are essentially a minimum—the legal protection of a level of profits below which no company will ever be forced to operate, even if all the other built-in safeguards are not already there."
      The purpose of the Bill, by the right hon. Gentleman's definition, is to remove safeguards which are providing an essentially minimal protection to profit—the safety net below which he thought that no company could reasonably be asked to operate.
      The other safeguards to which the right hon. Gentleman referred were those embodied in section 2 of the Act, to which he turns increasingly to give assurance that companies have nothing to fear in allowing greater discretion to the Price Commission. That is not my view. Therefore, the purpose of the amendment is to temper that discretion and to limit it in this small but vital way.
      If companies are, for whatever reason—by obligation, choice, exercise of social responsibility, which no doubt will appeal to the Secretary of State, or for commercial or other reasons—to forgo a price increase in their product for a period of 12 months at a time of rising inflation, it is only reasonable that they should not run the risk—discretion or no discretion—of having the price of their product frozen for a further period of three to four months. That appears to be equitable, and I hope that it will be accepted by the Government.
      It follows that if a company is able to absorb the pressures upon it in a period of 12 months—and pressures are posed first by inflation, currently running at 8·4 per cent. and generally acknowledged to be rising—it means that in the course of a year costs generally will be rising in that order. Costs in individual industries could be running at a much faster rate, particularly in regard to commodities affected by world prices rather than anything that happens in the internal economy.
      In those circumstances it seems reasonable not to allow the Price Commission the discretion to withhold the interim safeguard which a company can look to and rely upon. We seek to give that company the continued certainty that in those circumstances it will be protected.

      1553
      I wish to reinforce the case already made for not allowing the Commission further discretion. It already has wide powers of discretion under the original Act. I question the need to give the Commission greater discretion because of of its character. I question also its much-vaunted claim to independence. It has always been potentially a political instrument of government and, although it claims independence, there are several signs of its not having the independence we should like to see it have.
      Many of us would support some of the functions of the Commission. However, we would like to see them vested not in that body but in a new Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We think that there are areas of imperfect competition in the British economy which deserve scrutiny and require action.
      The Price Commission, under its chairman, is composed of men and women of no doubt balanced views, but it is characteristic of the Secretary of State's appointments to the Comission that, for example, the statutory housewife on that body should prove to be not just any housewife but an active member of the Eltham Labour Party. That calls into question whether the character of the Commision might influence its reports, particularly when one appreciates that these investigations can be carried out by as few as three members of the Commission. Therefore, an individual's personal attitude undoubtedly could colour the eventual report that emerges.
      Mr. Pardoe: Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on the membership of the Commission? He said on Second Reading that the Commission's chairman was an ex-candidate for the Labour Party. Do the Opposition feel that every quango must now be filled with those who have no allegiance to either the Conservative or the Labour Party? If that is so, the Liberals appear to have a marvellous future. The most attractive prospect opens up for us. Is that what the hon. Member is suggesting?
      Mr. Neubert: No. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman in the expectation of what he will do when he retires in a few months' time. That is not my belief, nor is it the view of any reasonable person. I am suggesting that with a chairman of the Commission who is
      1554
      parti pris a committed Labour Party supporter, and who in a recent article claimed that he did not intend to enter into party politics in public for the time being, there is at least a suspicion—I put it no higher—that in some ways his attitude may be influenced. I suggest that his relationship with the Secretary of State will be that much closer than if the chairman were, say, the hon. Member for Cornwall, North or any other average man in the street chosen to fill that post.
      Originally, the Secretary of State was to have the power himself to initiate price investigations. That was a power that he had to forgo—and rightly so. What political power that would have given him on such occasions as this, as we are approaching a general election. This is one way in which we can temper the political potentiality of the Commission. The right hon. Gentleman can initiate examinations into sectoral industries but can no longer initiate price investigations.
      I should like to illustrate why I believe it is dangerous to give added discretion to the Commission. I wish to give a little evidence of what I see as a changing role of the Commission.
      The mechanism is triggered in most cases by pre-notification of a price increase. That is the way in which the process begins. The Commission reacts to that price increase application and decides whether prima facie there is cause for investigation to see whether the price is justified. That is in its way a passive role. It does not at present have greater powers of discretion beyond what is put to it other than by the Minister referring sectors to it for examination.
      I wish to draw attention to a new development of Government policy. The Secretary of State has drawn great strength from the criteria of section 2 as guiding the Commission. He even went so far as to say that if the Commission went outside those criteria—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am in a certain amount of difficulty. Will the hon. Member help the Chair by indicating how he is relating his remarks about investigation by members of the Commission to the amendment that is under discussion dealing with the 12 months period?
      Mr. Neubert: I shall be glad to do so, Sir Myer. In the amendment we ask that

      1555
      the discretion of the Price Commission to allow interim safeguards should not be given to it but that it should be automatic. The reason why I am arguing on those lines is that the Price Commission is taking on itself responsibilities for exercising a much wider role in the organisation of the economy than merely confining itself to price increases in isolation. The evidence lies in a written answer given to me on Monday of this week by the Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. He told me:
      "The function of the Price Commission is, however, to investigate prices and price increases on a selective basis in accordance with the criteria set out in section 2 of the Price Commission Act 1977, and not to seek to control the general level of inflation."—[Official Report, 29 January 1979; Vol. 961, c. 327.]
      That is the view of the Minister and his Department in interpreting the Act, and I accept that view within the Act.
      7.30 p.m.
      The chairman of the Price Commission recently said:
      "Over the next year"
      —that is, 1979—
      "we will be playing our role to the full in counter-inflation policy as opposed simply to competition policy."
      That is a mistaken view. The Commission's role is not to make judgments on targets for inflation or levels of wage increases. The point is clearly illustrated in the Commission's latest report. It is claimed that
      "All sectors of the community, Government, industry, trade unions and consumers, are on record as believing that it is imperative to keep the rate of inflation at or below its present level."
      The Commission believes that it should exercise its discretion to meet that objective, taking as support
      "the emphasis placed on a reduction in the rate of inflation both by the Trades Union Congress and by the Confederation of British Industry at their recent conferences, the declarations of support for that objective by spokesmen from all major political parties and the National Consumer Council".
      If we allow the Commission discretion in these matters, it may seek to echo hints given by Ministers at national level about what its role should be.
      The Secretary of State for Transport said, over the weekend:
      1556
      "There is now a respectable case for a pay and prices freeze."
      If the Commission were to accept such guidance on its role, if given that extra discretion, it might well freeze the price of a product under investigation, even though that product might have been sold at the same price for 12 months and the increasing cost pressures had been contained over that period.
      In conclusion, it is not only equitable to seek implementation of this point in the Bill; the increasingly wide economic role of the Commission suggests caution by this House rather than greater freedom in conferring extra powers on it.
      Mr. Hattersley: I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) in any great detail. But for once I must comment on his habit, which not even all his hon. Friends will admire, of always playing the man rather than the ball in talking of the Price Commission.
      He tells us cynically that the ex-managing director of a merchant bank who has become chairman, since he is also a member of the Labour Party, must be a force for the end of civilisation as we know it. He reveals that the housewife who is a member of the Commission is also a member of the Labour Party. I am delighted to discover that. But he does not tell the House that among the other sinister men and women who will be influenced by every ministerial hint is the ex-deputy chairman of Unilever, the ex-managing director of Esso, the next deputy chairman of Wimpey, a director of Beechams and a partner in Arthur Anderson, the senior industrial accountants in London. I have no idea for which party they vote or what their political philosophy is. I suspect that if any of us wanted to transform the Price Commission into a covert agency for Socialism in our time, one of those members might publicly complain.
      The amendment was moved by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) as if it had some meaning, as opposed to the general smears from the hon. Member for Romford. I am surprised at the arguments between the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party about the parentage of the amendment. The arguments are rather semantic as to whether it was canvassed by the CBI or a member of the CBI and therefore appeared twice in almost identical form.

      1557
      I shall not go into that semantic distinction. We all know that the amendment has an industrial origin, and some of us would say that it is none the worse for that.
      I do not complain of the origin of the amendment or the drafting. The drafting is from the Conservatives and not the Liberal Party, and they could not even copy it correctly. But the concept of the amendment is absurd. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North made the best possible case that he could. At one stage he appeared to be arguing that by supporting the amendment we would more fiercely be holding down prices than we would be if the amendment were not carried. On examination, I do not believe that he would agree that to be the case.
      The amendment says that a company which puts up its prices once every 366 days shall not be prevented from so doing by a Price Commission investigation. A company which puts up its prices every 364 days shall be investigated by the Commission. But the company in the 366-day category has advantages over its competitor or partner company simply through a 48-hour difference between their price notifications. That clearly does not make sense. Any policy that requires a company to wait for a day after the year for the price increase to be automatic and not to be questioned is absurd. It discriminates between two different companies.
      Much as I wish to see price increases spread over as long a period as possible, some price increases are necessary in under a year. We heard a great deal about the food industry in the previous amendment. The Commission has a proper record of not applying rigid rules to limit a company to a year for a price increase. It has allowed more rapid increases because of the rising cost of raw materials. If the amendment were passed, companies with fast-moving imports and raw materials which quickly change in price would be at a disadvantage compared to those companies with a small import of raw materials which do not have to put up their prices more than once every 365 days.
      I return not only to the discrimination of the amendment but to the absurdity that a company can, if it wants, wait for 366 days and put its price up with impunity but if it needs or wishes to do
      1558
      after 364 days it will be prevented in some way. It is not an example that could never arise. I shall describe by way of hypothesis how such a situation could occur. Until the Price Commission decides whether or not to investigate such increases, I am not allowed to know what companies notify price increases. But on 20 January the Morning Advertiser—which, as the House will know, is the journal of the brewing trade—said that Scottish and Newcastle Breweries was reported to be planning a 3p a pint increase. Let us assume that the Morning Advertiser discovered that two days after the company had put in its price application on 18 January.
      We know that Scottish and Newcastle Breweries last made a price application on 30 January 1978. If the amendment is passed, all that the company will have to do is withdraw the price application that it made on 17, 18 or 19 January—and I am still hypothesising. Were it to leave it in, it would be subject to examination or investigation. It would have to put it in 11 days later, when it would not be subject to such investigation.
      It provides another means for companies to drive a coach and horses through the provisions of the Price Commission Act, if they are fortunate enough to be able to spread their price increases over 11 or 11½ months—almost a year. That opportunity is not given to food manufacturers and other companies dependent upon raw materials; for example, companies with high copper ingredients in their metal products. They do not have the same opportunity to manipulate their price increases, and that seems to me to be absurd.
      Mr. Fairgrieve: Does the Minister appreciate that when Scottish and Newcastle Breweries put in that application its management accountants were able to advise the company that at that time it was making less than 10 per cent. percentage return on sales?
      Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman may well be right. It may well be that Scottish and Newcastle Breweries deserves a 3p increase on a pint. It may be that when the Commission examines the application it will say "Absolutely right, Scottish and Newcastle. Have 3p on a pint with our blessing".

      1559
      But that is not the point that we are arguing. The point that we are arguing is twofold. It is a point in principle whether the Price Commission should be allowed to exercise its discretion and to make that judgment. We disagree about that. It is also a point of absurdity whether the Price Commission's right to do so is determined by whether Scottish and Newcastle Breweries puts in for its increase on 17 January or on 1 February. The absurdity of that seems so self-evident that I shall leave the Committee to judge the merits of the amendment.
      Mr. Bulmer: I regret that the Secretary of State did not respond in a constructive way to the very conciliatory approach of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe). The hon. Gentleman suggested something that seemed eminently sensible—that companies should be allowed to trade with certainty, if they held back their prices for 12 months, against the total uncertainty of the present situation. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North rightly pointed to the necessity of the Price Commission's continuing to enjoy the good will of industry. That is not something to be taken for granted at the present time. A lot of people in industry would like to see positive action taken against what they regard as totally discriminatory action. Of course, it would be open to all companies to put in applications at the present time, to swamp the Commission and to make its work absolutely untenable. However, I believe that industry will respond responsibly, although it looks to the Minister also to behave responsibly.
      I should like to dwell on two recent cases to show where the good will of industry is being put at risk. Perhaps the first case is not so serious as the second. My first example relates to Allied Breweries. The company estimates that the cost of the investigation to it was about £200,000. The whole company came to a halt. It was faced with a number of people inquiring into all aspects of its business. Most of them were accountants by training, who were quite unable to grasp many of the complexities of such a large organisation, yet under the Act they were bound to complete their investigation within three months. I believe that that was an impossible job, although the
      1560
      Committee should not think that I want such an investigation to take longer.
      It meant that when the report had been written it contained a great deal of inaccuracy, which could sensibly have been put right by the company, but once that report had gone to the Department, without consultation, it was enshrined in stone and could not be altered. Therefore, a good deal of inaccuracy, which otherwise could have been corrected, is in the hands of the Minister.
      The second case concerns Royal Doulton. There, the Commission issued a report that was unfavourable. The chairman had given an undertaking in writing that consultation would be extended before the report was published. The company received by telex the proposed press release at 11 a.m. It was a critical one. It was told that the report would be issued at 2.30 p.m., but it subsequently transpired that it had been given to the Lobby the day before. That report was critical of a number of features, and the headline gave the impression—I believe an unfair one—that the company was not as well run as those in the industry believe it is.
      That report was certainly damaging to management morale. It prejudiced customers' confidence in the company, and it should be remembered that 55 per cent. of the company's output is exported. All this was based on criticisms of the level of stockholding at a time when a major reorganisation was being undertaken. One United States customer who saw a copy of the press release could not believe that a Government agency would issue a report of this sort, which could only react to the benefit of Royal Doulton's competitors in other countries.
      I hope that the Secretary of State will take both these points on board and ensure that they are put right when the Commission undertakes investigations in the future.
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. Cronin: The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) raised two interesting points, one of which related to inaccurate reports being produced by the Commission. I thought that the Commission consulted the firms concerned in the fullest possible way and that the firms could make representations before the

      1561
      reports are published. If the hon. Gentleman is aware of circumstances where that does not happen, he should report that fact to the Secretary of State with all possible speed.
      The hon. Member's other point related to references in a report about a company not being well run. I know nothing about the affairs of Royal Doulton. It may well be that it is a company whose business is run impeccably. But a large proportion of companies in British industry are not well run at all. I cannot think of any other reason why we lag so severely behind our competitors such as Germany, the United States, Japan and even France. I suggest that a lot of companies are very badly run indeed.
      Mr. Bulmer: I can suggest two quick answers. First, the hon. Gentleman should look at the rate of reward in those countries which operate free enterprise economies. Secondly, I do not think that he begins to understand the extent to which this country is losing its best managers overseas because of our tax system. If he were to ask anyone in British industry today whether they would swop the German system of industrial relations for ours, I am sure that he would get some insight into why.
      The First Deputy Chairman: In my opinion we are straying well outside the scope of the amendment. I ask hon. Members to address themselves to the amendment. There may well be difficulty with it, but I certainly will not allow a wide-ranging debate on the Price Commission.
      Mr. Cronin: I am forbidden to take up that point, but I should mention that I am a director of a company that does not face the problem of people going abroad. It is a very efficient company and, therefore, people stay with it.
      I was worried by the speech of the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert). He talked about the chairman of the Commission being influenced by political motives. He rather implied that those motives were not necessarily in the public interest but that they helped the interests of the Labour Party in some unspecified way. That is a very improper assertion.
      When we are dealing with bodies such as the Commission, the members of which
      1562
      do very hard work in the public interest, for negligible reward, those members ought to have our support. I was shocked to hear the hon. Gentleman say something which possibly may be repeated in the press and on radio tomorrow. Admittedly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State put the matter right by pointing out that most members of the Commission could not possibly be influenced by political motives. It is unfortunate that reference was made to the chairman and to another member. If there has been some occasion on which they have done something for political motives, the hon. Member for Romford ought to say what that occasion was.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We cannot engage in a discussion on that matter.
      Mr. Cronin: I bow immediately to your ruling, Sir Myer, and will not pursue the matter any further.
      Mr. Neubert: On a point of order, Sir Myer. The hon. Gentleman has made personal comments about my speech. Surely it is the practice of the Committee that I should be allowed to respond to them, particularly if the hon. Gentleman allows me to intervene.
      The First Deputy Chairman: We are now dealing with Mr. Pardoe's amendment. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was present when the Secretary of State replied—he may have been present—but the right hon. Gentleman gave a reply that would be very useful to him. We shall be in great difficulty if hon. Members come into the debate and are not sure which amendment we are discussing. We are now discussing amendment No. 7. However, I will allow the hon. Gentleman to make one short comment before I bring to an end this aspect of the debate.
      Mr. Neubert: I am indebted to you, Sir Myer. The hon. Gentleman should not confuse my remarks about being influenced in the direction of Government policy with being influenced by the Labour Party. I spoke of the Government. I quoted the chairman of the Price Commission to illustrate the way in which the role of the Commission has been changing and the influence of Government policy.
      Mr. Cronin: I cannot pursue the matter further, Sir Myer, in deference to yourself. It seems a quibble that the hon. Gentleman should dissociate the Government from the Labour Party. I take the view that they must be one homogeneous organisation.
      I know that hon. Members want to vote on the amendments as soon as possible. That wish has been conveyed to me from a proper quarter. Therefore, I shall make my comments briefly.
      I am appalled at the loose drafting of the amendments. They have an effect that can be described only as preposterous. I cannot understand why the House of Commons should have its time taken up for a whole day to discuss amendments of this nature that are frivolous, badly drafted and have the intention of trying to disturb the effect of a Bill that is extremely necessary in the present unfortunate state of the country.
      Mr. Richard Wainwright: If my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir Myer, and is able to reply to the debate when the Committee has had ample time to range over the whole subject, I know that he will explode with a loud bang. The Secretary of State had the impudence to produce an extraordinarily flimsy argument against the amendment. The right hon. Gentleman relied upon the well-known frailty of any arbitrary period. Of course 12 months is an arbitrary period. He produced absurd semantic arguments about a company secretary being lunatic enough to push his application in after 364 days instead of holding it back for 366. That is not a respectable argument. I am sure that it will go for six if and when my hon. Friend takes over the batting.
      The Secretary of States does not seem to realise that out of the goodness of our hearts and the breadth of our minds we are, among other things, trying to save him and his party from almost certain disaster in one part of Britain—if not more. If he persists in refusing any safeguard to companies that take the extraordinary risk of keeping their prices stable for 12 months, it is inevitable that, sooner or later, lay-offs, if not a total cessation of business, will occur in some
      1564
      areas. Responsibility will rightly be laid at the door of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government.
      Many businesses that operate in a competitive climate take an incredible risk when they go to the extraordinary length in the haywire situation created during recent weeks of keeping their prices stable for the eternity, in modern times, of 12 months. Overheads have a habit of growing like snowballs, and they become more and more of a burden.
      In companies that are keeping their prices stable there is an atmosphere of tension and a certain amount of austerity that some members of their staffs begin to find irksome. There is a general tightening of expenses. That is a discipline that some employees cannot endure. Companies that take so many risks for 12 months are surely entitled to the modest safeguard of having a basic profit protected, especially in times when the risks of disputes and being the victims of secondary or tertiary picketing are ever present.
      It is a risky period for anybody running a substantial business of the type that has to pre-notify its price increases. It is flying in the face of all business experience in such uncertain times for the Secretary of State to pretend that there is not a special virtue and a special risk in keeping prices stable for as long as 12 months. Therefore, there is a special entitlement to the protection that the amendment modestly proposes.
      Mr. Parkinson: I thought that the Secretary of State's reply was flippant, unconvincing and unworthy of him. He normally gives serious replies.
      The right hon. Gentleman left the Committee with the impression that the only factor stopping companies from increasing their prices was the Price Commission. However, over and over again he argued that it is competition that has the most effect on prices. If a company has held its prices stable for 12 months, it will not say "Three cheers. We can now push our prices straight through the roof regardless".
      The Price Commission is only one of the considerations that a company has to take into account. For example, it has to consider its rivals and competition generally. The amendment is not, as the right hon. Gentleman tried to pretend, seeking

      1565
      to give carte blanche to companies that achieve almost the impossible and maintain their prices at the same level for 12 months. The amendment merely provides that companies that achieve that deserve special consideration. They will still have to face competition from their rivals. They will still have to charge a price that the customer is prepared to pay. That is the ultimate discipline on companies.
      If the right hon. Gentleman were to consult the Commission, he would find that companies that had not increased their prices for 12 months would be regarded as being in a special category and that that achievement would probably be considered a significant fact in the Commission's taking the decision whether to initiate an investigation. I am sure that the chairman would confirm that.
      We are trying to encourage companies at this difficult time to hold their prices for 12 months and to give their customers certainty. We say that if companies do that they should in turn be entitled to special consideration. It is a sensible amendment. It was extremely well moved and the Opposition will have great pleasure in supporting it regardless of who tabled it first.
      Mr. Pardoe: The Secretary of State talked about the automatic price increase. Plainly, no price increase is automatic. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman of the exact nature of the safeguard. It means that during the period of investigation a company may not increase its prices unless its profits have fallen by 20 per cent. or more. It is not a major safeguard. It is significant. It was thought significant enough to put it into the orginal measure. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman thought that it was significant enough to argue in favour of it when the orginal measure was passing through the House. A company may increase its prices only to bring its profits back to their level at the base date. It cannot increase its prices very much, whatever happens.

      Division No.58]

      AYES

      [8.01 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Bell, Ronald

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Bendall, Vivian

      Bottomley, Peter

      Alison, Michael

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Arnold, Tom

      Benyon, W.

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H.(Spelthorne)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Biffen, John

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Awdry, Daniel

      Blaker, Peter

      Brittan, Leon

      Beith, A. J.

      Body, Richard

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) described the amendment as frivolous. The most frivolous reply that the right hon. Gentleman could have made was the arithmetical one of 366 days against 364. That is farcical. He must have thought it up to himself instead of having it written for him. We are not talking about companies that are thinking of increasing their prices on the 364th day. We are talking about companies which may be inclined to increase their prices after six months, three months or nine months.
      The amendment may just tilt the balance of argument that it is worth waiting another six months and getting a full 12-month period of stability in a company's prices. A company may consider that it is worth while to hang on, knowing that there is the safeguard if it does. That is all the argument is about. The Secretary of State is throwing away the stability that the 12-month rule would give. He is undermining it and inviting companies to go for three-monthly and six-monthly increases. To throw away the stability of the 12-month rule is crazy and irresponible.
      Let me put it this way. Would the Secretary of State like to throw away the 12-month rule on the wages side? He knows perfectly well that that rule provides great stability.
      8.0 p.m.
      What we really need is a three-year contract on wages and prices. If we can start getting rid of the whole idea of annual increases, we shall be even better off. At least, for heaven's sake let us stick to the 12-month rule. By throwing it away the Secretary of State is doing a great disservice to his own policy of price control. I hope that the Committee will pass the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 256, Noes 270.

      Brotherton, Michael

      Holland, Philip

      Precival, Ian

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffery

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Buck, Antony

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Budgen, Nick

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Burden, F. A.

      Hurd, Douglas

      Raison, Timothy

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rathbone, Tim

      Carlisle, Mark

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      James, David

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Churchill, W. S.

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

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Rhodes James, R.

      Clegg, Walter

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Cockcroft, John

      Jopling, Michael

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Cope, John

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Kilfedder, James

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Constain, A. P.

      Kimball, Marcus

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Crouch, David

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Knox, David

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Lamont, Norman

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Scott, Nicholas

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Lawson, Nigel

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Durant, Tony

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shersby, Michael

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Lloyd, Ian

      Silvester, Fred

      Elliott, Sir William

      Loveridge, John

      Sims, Roger

      Emery, Peter

      Luce, Richard

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Eyre, Reginald

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      McCrindle, Robert

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      McCusker, H.

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Farr, John

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Fell, Anthony

      MacGregor, John

      Speed, Keith

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Spence, John

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Sproat, Iain

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Stainton, Keith

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Madel, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Forman, Nigel

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Stanley, John

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Marten, Neil

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Fox, Marcus

      Mates, Michael

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Mather, Carol

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Freud, Clement

      Maude, Angus

      Stokes, John

      Fry, Peter

      Mawby, Ray

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Tapsell, Peter

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fite)

      Mills, Peter

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Moate, Roger

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Molyneaux, James

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Monro, Hector

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Gorst, John

      Montgomery, Fergus

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      More Jasper (Ludlow)

      Viggers, Peter

      Gray, Hamish

      Morgan, Geraint

      Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Walters, Dennis

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Grist, Ian

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Wells, John

      Gyrlls, Michael

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Mudd, David

      Whitney, Raymond

      Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

      Neave, Airey

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Nelson, Anthony

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Neubert, Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Hannam, John

      Newton, Tony

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Nott, John

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Younger, Hon George

      Hastings, Stephen

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Heseltine, Michael

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Mr. John Pardoe and

      Hicks, Robert

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Mr. Richard Wainwright.

      Hodgson, Robin

      Penhaligon, David

      1568

      1569

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Ford, Ben

      Mikardo, Ian

      Allaun, Frank

      Forrester, John

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Anderson, Donald

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

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Molloy, William

      Ashley, Jack

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Moonman, Eric

      Ashton, Joe

      George, Bruce

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

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

      Ginsburg, David

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Golding, John

      Morton, George

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Gould, Bryan

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Gourlay, Harry

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Bates, Alf

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Bean, R. E.

      Grocott, Bruce

      Newens, Stanley

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Noble, Mike

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Ogden, Eric

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Orbach, Maurice

      Boardman, H.

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Ovenden, John

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Henderson, Douglas

      Padley, Walter

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Home Robertson, John

      Palmer, Arthur

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Hooley, Frank

      Park, George

      Bradley, Tom

      Horam, John

      Parker, John

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

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

      Parry, Robert

      Brown, Robert C (Newcastle W)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Buchan, Norman

      Huckfield, Les

      Pendry, Tom

      Buchanan, Richard

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Perry, Ernest

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Hunter, Adam

      Radice, Giles

      Campbell, Ian

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Jackson, colin (Brighouse)

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Cant, R. B.

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Janner, Greville

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Carter, Ray

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Cartwright, John

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      John, Brynmor

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Cohen, Stanley

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Ryman, John

      Concannon, Rt Hon John

      Judd, Frank

      Sandelson, Neville

      Conlan, Bernard

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Corbett, Robin

      Kelley, Richard

      Selby, Harry

      Cowans, Harry

      Kerr, Russell

      Sever, John

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Kinnock, Neil

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Cronin, John

      Lambie, David

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Cryer, Bob

      Lamond, James

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Silverman, Julius

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lee, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Snape, Peter

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Spearing, Nigel

      Dempsey, James

      Litterick, Tom

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Dewar, Donald

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Stallard, A. W.

      Doig, Peter

      Loyden, Eddie

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Stoddart, David

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Stott, Roger

      Dunn, James A.

      McCartney, Hugh

      Strang, Gavin

      Dunnett, Jack

      MacCormick, Iain

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Eadie, Alex

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Edge, Geoff

      McElhone, Frank

      Swain, Thomas

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      English, Michael

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Thomas, Milk (Newcastle E)

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Madden, Max

      Tierney, Sydney

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Magee, Bryan

      Tilley, John

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Tinn, James

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Tomlinson, John

      Flannery, Martin

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Torney, Tom

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Tuck, Raphael

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Meacher, Michael

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      1570

      1571

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Woodall, Alec

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Woof, Robert

      Ward, Michael

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Watkins, David

      Williams Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Weetch, Ken

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Weitzman, David

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Welsh, Andrew

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Mr. Ted Graham and

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Mr Bryan Davies.

      Whitlock, William

      Question accordingly negatived.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Parkinson: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 1, line 10, after 'examinations', insert
      'and section 4(5) of that Act'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this we may discuss the following amendments:
      No. 34, in page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (2).
      No. 30, in page 2, leave out lines 8 to 10.
      No. 40, in the Schedule page 3, line 5, leave out (a) the word "either";'.
      No. 41, in page 3, leave out lines 6 to 8.
      No. 42, in page 3, leave out lines 9 to 10.
      No. 31, in page 3, leave out line 24.
      Mr. Parkinson: I make no apology for the fact that if the Opposition succeed in carrying this amendment we shall be restoring to the Bill the possibility of interim safeguards. That is our objective because we believe that the interim safeguards are extremely important.
      I remind the Committee what these interim safeguards under the present legislation amount to, because there has been a great deal of misunderstanding about it today. The impression that Government supporters often try to give is that by our opposition to various parts of the Bill we are seeking to promote a price explosion. As we know, that is nonsense. Indeed, the Secretary of State has said time and time again that the effect of the Bill on the retail price index will be minimal.
      It is worth considering the safeguards that the Opposition are trying to retain. We are trying to ensure that a company that is about to be investigated retains the right to make a net profit margin of 3 per cent. on the product in question, rising to 12½ per cent. in very exceptional circumstances for very capital-intensive
      1572
      industries. We are trying to make sure that a company is entitled to receive 80 per cent. of the net margin on the product at the date of the last price increase before 1 June 1977. That qualifying increase would come at the end of a period of very severe price restraint and would be based on margin control. It would not be a case of the company being allowed to apply to make 80 per cent. of a net profit margin which had not been controlled. On the qualifying date the product would have been controlled very severely. The final possibility is that the 80 per cent. which I have just mentioned could become 100 per cent. if the company in question was making a very low profit.
      We are seeking to retain not the right for companies to make colossal profits but the right for companies which, in order to qualify, have to be making low profits to have that low rate of profitability safeguarded.
      As I said on Second Reading—it is common ground between us, based on statistics drawn from the Government's publication Trade and Industry—the level of profitability of British industry is historically extremely low. British industry is now making barely half the profits that it was making in the early 1970s and barely a third of those being made in the 1960s. We are not talking about letting profitable British industry have a bonanza. We are talking about retaining minimum safeguard for companies whose profits have been monitored carefully in very special circumstances.
      The Opposition have pointed out again and again to the Secretary of State that one of our principal objections to the Bill is that so many of the powers that it gives to the Price Commission are available to it at the Commission's own discretion and on the basis of very subjective criteria.
      It became crystal clear today that the Secretary of State had not read his own Price Commission Act 1977 recently. He and the Under-Secretary on Monday

      1573
      repeatedly quoted those matters to which the Commission was supposed to have regard. However, they forgot to mention section 2. In section 2(1)(a), it is to have regard to all matters that appear to the Commission in the circumstances to be relevant. In subsection (1)(b) it is to have regard in particular to the matters mentioned in the following subsection—again, so far as the Commission considers them relevant. It is up to the Commission to decide whether it considers relevant any of the criteria set out on those things which it should or can take into account. It is entirely at the discretion of the Commission.
      We do not pretend that the Commission is concerned in the business of trying to drive companies into bankruptcy. I do not want to level any criticism of that kind at the Commission. What we say is that when the right to have safeguards was introduced into the Bill the Secretary of State admitted that industry was not happy about the new Commission, did not know who would be manning it, did not know how the criteria would be applied, and felt that it needed safeguards.
      We have had the Commission for only 16 months. Industry is still not confident that it can rely on the Commission. It feels that it needs statutory safeguards and, in particular, these very important interim safeguards.
      As I am sure you would confirm, Sir Myer, those who speak in the House find themselves, from time to time, reading newspapers that they do not normally read. I found myself reading Labour Weekly recently. It is not a paper to which I ever intend to subscribe, but it is one that I happen to have in my hand now. The edition that I have is for 19 January 1977, and the headline reads:
      "Jim turns the screw on profits."
      There is a revealing passage in an article in that newspaper, written by Mr. Harold Frayman—about whom I know nothing other than that he is rather misguided if his writing is to be believed. He says:
      "Until Wednesday any reasonably profitable company could continue profitably, even though subject to a commission investigation and pressure to increase their efficiency or absorb price rises."
      What I find interesting about that statement—in the light of the views expressed by Labour Members, when they are here, about profits and the importance that some
      1574
      of them attach to them—is that, to Labour Weekly, even a reasonably profitable company—not a company making excessive profits—which is able to continue to make profits as a result of having the right to an interim safeguard, is offensive. Even reasonable profits, according to that writer, need to be pursued.
      Yet over and over again we are reminded—even by the Prime Minister—of the importance of profits, of the need for greater profits, and of the need for further investment. If one reads Labour Weekly, one sees that "Jim's" objective—whoever Jim is—is to turn the screw on profits. That is why he wants to get rid of interim safeguards. If that is the reason, I think that is the best reason of all to resist their removal. We need reasonably profitable companies to be able to continue to make reasonable profits even when something as important as the Price Commission has decided to investigate them.
      I shall give another reason why I believe that we ought to retain interim safeguards. The Secretary of State denied, rather feebly, that it had ever crossed his mind that the removal of safeguards and the measures introduced by the Bill could, in any way, be used to replace pay sanctions. The chairman of the Price Commission put it slightly differently. He said "Oh, no. Prices that are jacked up because of high wage rises would not automatically be investigated." He also said that he certainly would not approve of companies that simply passed on large wage increases in price rises. He made it quite clear that a wage increase of over 5 per cent., while not automatically triggering off an investigation, would certainly be a major consideration for him.
      I think that the Minister would agree that at present commodity prices are reasonably stable. If there is to be a cost push for industry, it is likely to be a wage push. The principal cause of any increases applied for by companies over the next few months will in many cases be the level of wage settlement at which they are forced to settle.
      Although the Minister has gulled his hon. Friends, I believe that this measure and the removal of interim safeguards is once again a way of putting a form of pay sanction on industry. As I said on Monday evening, industry, having been

      1575
      forced to concede the additional wage demand by union pressure, will be penalised. The interim safeguard removal will make companies particularly vulnerable to any wage push.
      I should like to refer to a document produced by Phillips and Drew about the profit safeguards. I must be truthful with the House. Phillips and Drew argue that there are grounds for tightening up the safeguard proposals, but they go on to say that it is patently absurd to propose to get rid of the safeguards. Just because in some instances they have worked unsatisfactorily, it is not right to get rid of them all. It may be better to amend them.
      Mr. Dan Jones: Phillips and Drew also speak about dividends, as distinct from profits.
      Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Member is one of the fairest Members of the House, but he is being unfair to Phillips and Drew, because in this instance they argue quite strongly that there are flaws in the safeguard procedure and that matters need to be tightened up. What they are saying is that getting rid of safeguards is quite wrong. They make a very simple point. They say:
      "Given that published net profit margins in the United Kingdom are probably around 6 per cent., a 15 per cent. wage award, for example, which could not be passed on would put many companies into at best a break-even situation. This could last for four months, until the investigation was completed and could then be extended if the Price Commission report comes out against the application."
      That is fair enough. If the Price Commission's report comes out against the application, it would be extended.
      The point I make is that companies that are not particularly profitable at present could find themselves facing very large wage demands and could as a result find themselves in some difficulties.
      The Secretary of State tried to tempt us by giving the impression that the nationalised industries were an area which he and the chairman of the Price Commission were particularly anxious to get at, because as loss-makers many of them qualified for automatic safeguard increases.
      We all know of the speech that the chairman of the Price Commission made
      1576
      about British Rail. The Secretary of State said that the nationalised industries which are loss-making would be brought within the ambit of the Commisison and would not qualify for automatic increases. We find this a bit of a thin argument. The nation owns the nationalised industries. They are losing money. I cannot believe that the Commission will be the instrument that forces British Rail to de-man. I do not believe that that is the real reason why the Secretary of State wishes to remove safeguards.
      We know that in the private sector safeguards have been justified after investigations. The increases allowed have proved to be justified after the investigations in the overwhelming majority of cases, and we think that it is pure semantics on the Secretary of State's part that he tries to tempt us by saying "The people I am really after are the loss-making nationalised industries." We believe that there is an overwhelming case for retaining interim safeguards. We believe that this very critical time, when companies are facing losses through industrial disputes—in some of which the companies concerned are not involved—is a particularly bad time to remove them. That is why we have tabled the amendment and why we will vote for it.
      8.30 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): The hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) was candid enough to admit that this group of amendments would have a devastating effect on the Bill and are, indeed, intended to degut it. They are intended to retain the principal safeguard but to dispense with the interim safeguard provisions. They would restore the full effect of safeguards during investigation by the Price Commission. They would remove from the Bill the duty upon the Secretary of State.
      In advancing his case for the restoration of interim safeguards, the hon. Gentleman deployed a number of arguments which were made at length on Second Reading. I addressed myself to most of them in replying to that debate. I specifically addressed myself to the point about the possible use of the Bill as a sanction on unacceptable pay increases.

      1577
      My right hon. Friend today pointed to his action in respect of the report on road hauliers as further evidence that there was no such intention in the Government's mind. In so far as it is open to the Secretary of State to implement or not implement a recommendation of the Price Commission, he would not seek to implement a recommendation on the ground that it was a backing to pay policy. But, as I argued on Second Reading, it is not open to the Commission to operate a pay sanction in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman, because it has a duty not to do so. It has a duty to bear in mind the criteria spelled out in the Bill, and only those criteria.
      Clearly, although it is open to the Commission to consider the impact of wage costs upon a proposed price increase, along with all other costs, it has to bear in mind the general criteria spelt out in section 2(1) of the parent Act, which requires it to look at the practice of efficient suppliers of goods and services.
      It is clear that my earlier words fell on deaf ears, because the argument has been produced again tonight that there is no intention of using the Bill as a pay sanction. In our view it would not be legally possible to do so. The hon. Member again canvassed the general argument that risk is involved for industry in allowing the Commission to exercise its discretion in determining whether to introduce or permit a price increase and how to react in the period of investigation.
      The case for the Bill is that the Commission is better able to judge the profit needs of a company and its circumstances at any one time with the exercise of this discretion, and to act in protection of the public interest, than would be the case if hon. Members sought to apply a general rule about the level of profitability precluding an investigation or the possibility of making a recommendation to restrain prices in advance of the investigation taking place.
      Mr. Dan Jones: Does the Minister agree that in estimating the profit levels the advice to the Price Commission should include keeping a wary eye on dividends? The end product of this would be undesirable if it resulted in bankruptcies and, consequently, more unemployment.
      Mr. Maclennan: I have no doubt that the Commission will turn its attention instantly to considering whether a case is suitable for investigation and, if it decides to investigate, to precisely the question of whether a company's profitability is such as to lead it to the view that an interim price increase should be allowed. That must inevitably be the first question to which the Commission applies its mind. It has already done so in making interim awards, notwithstanding the presence of safeguards under the parent Act, in five cases out of the total it investigated.
      The Commission's readiness to make interim awards where it was not impelled to coinsider the necessary invocation of safeguards seems to me evidence, if that were needed, that it may be relied upon to attach the greatest importance to the profitability of the company and to ensuring that its investigation will not unfairly disadvantage the company. I do not think that there has been any allegation or suggestion that in considering applications for interim awards the Commission has exercised its discretion other than extremely fairly.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: Would the Minister be more specific? He said that the Commission was in the best position to judge whether a certain level of profitability was appropriate to the firm in question. Under section 9 of the safeguard provisions immense care was taken to provide precise formulae, which the Secretary of State ultimately issued, as to what should constitute correct profitability in varying industries. It is the removal of this precision and the substitution for it of the discretion based upon extremely general clauses in section 2 that provides the uncertainty which industry now faces.
      Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman is right. My right hon. Friend, in devising the safeguard regulations, tried extremely hard to come up with provisions that would be applicable broadly to the circumstances of whole sectors of industry, broadly divided between distributors and manufacturers, but the task of arriving at appropriate levels to safeguard industry in this way is an impossible one to fulfil without in some cases erring on the side of generosity. If the generosity had the effect only of taking some companies out of investigation or preventing the Commission from making

      1579
      recommendations during the period of investigation, that might be acceptable; the problem is that the Act provides that once that over-generosity has taken place there is no possibility of rectifying the position in the public interest.
      The price level is determined by the award under the safeguard rules. The defect of making general rules, from the publc interest point of view, is that the Commission, having gone into the circumstances of the company concerned with very great care, is precluded from making the recommendation which it might think appropriate to make.
      It is not open to Ministers to examine these matters, and I cannot say, therefore, whether the Commission has in a particular case felt itself precluded from making a recommendation to my right hon. Friend as to how a price might be restrained, and whether it has been prevented from doing so by safeguards. But I can point to the general statements that have been made by the Commission in its quarterly reports, particularly in April last year, in which it said this in general terms. I find that an extremely compelling argument for reviewing the underlying philosophy of safeguards. It is defeating the purpose of the Commission's function, which is to seek to restrain prices in the public interest, that it should be precluded from exercising its judgment when it is appropriate to do it.
      I recognise that in this group of amendments the Opposition are proposing to permit the principal safeguard to stand. Hitherto, the principal safeguard has been uninvoked, and I think that the interim safeguards—
      Mr. Parkinson: I think that the Minister is confusing principal and interim. We are trying to retain the interim in these amendments and not the principal. The Minister has been putting it the other way round.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am sorry if I have confused the hon. Gentleman. He is proposing, as I understand it, to accept the provisions of the Bill in respect of the principal safeguard.
      Mr. Parkinson: That is right.
      Mr. Maclennan: The principal safeguard has, however, proved to be of relatively minor importance and has not
      1580
      been invoked. That being so, I do not regard it as the most generous concession from the Opposition in the public interest.
      I consider that this group of amendments is designed to degut the Bill and that as such it must be most unacceptable to me and to my hon. Friends.
      Mr. Tim Smith: Amendment No. 33, as the Under-Secretary of State rightly said, is intended to have a devastating effect on the Bill, and I am glad that he has taken the point so easily.
      I should like to deal with two matters raised by the Minister. The first is whether the Price Commission has the power to refuse price increases on the ground that a wage increase is inconsistent with Government pay policy. He says that this is out of the question and that it is not possible because the Price Commission Act 1977 renders it impossible.
      If we look closely at section 2 of the Price Commission Act 1977, we find that subsection (1)(b) requires the Commission to have regard to certain matters mentioned in the following subsections, inasmuch as it considers them relevant. But there is absolutely nothing whatever to stop the Commission from considering them all totally irelevant, and it can therefore fall back on section 2(1)(a), which requires the Commission
      "to have regard to all matters which appear to the Commission … to be relevant with a view to restraining prices … so far as that appears to the Commission to be consistent with the making of adequate profits".
      I think that the Price Commission could easily find that it was consistent with the making of adequate profits to restrain price increases, on the ground that a wage increase was inconsistent with Government pay policy. Therefore, I do not accept the Government's statement that the Commission does not have this power. I believe that a proper interpretation of section 2 of the 1977 Act suggests that it does.
      8.45 p.m.
      My second point deals with the Under-Secretary of State's reference to the ability, and indeed the qualifications, of the Price Commission, as opposed to the House of Commons, to determine what is an adequate profit. The significant point is that nowhere in the Act is there a definition of what is adequate profit. Who

      1581
      is to say what is adequate profit? Surely it is a matter of subjective judgment. Some people talk of excessive profits, but what is an excessive profit?
      Mr. F. A. Burden: If a company is looking forward to heavy capital expenditure, it must have adequate cash flow and adequate profits to carry out such expenditure.
      Mr. Smith: That is a significant point, both in terms of profitability and of cash flow and I shall say more about cash flow shortly. On the question of the ability, and the qualifications, of the Commission to determine these matters, I think that the same is true of the word "efficiency". That word was bandied about on Second Reading by Labour Members, but nobody defined efficiency. Nor does the Price Commission attempt to define it in any report that I have read. The word is not susceptible to definition. One again it is a matter of an entirely subjective judgment whether a company is efficient.
      I make no apology for returning to two matters dealt with on Second Reading, because although I specifically asked for a response to these two points I got none whatever during the course of the reply by the Under-Secretary of State. During the course of his speech the hon. Gentleman chose to deal with various points made by his right hon. and hon. Friends about certain matters relating to the Commission but failed completely to deal with the important points made during the debate. I thought that his speech was in contempt of the House in many ways, because he ignored the debate which preceded his speech.
      The two points to which I particularly wanted an answer, and which are germane to this debate, concern, first, the timing of this Bill. We have had no adequate explanation about the timing of the Bill. It was introduced in the middle of an industrial crisis—last week, when the road haulage strike was at its absolute peak.
      If we look at the comments made about a recent CBI survey, we se that it says:
      "The Confederation of British Industry has started an urgent review into financial problems facing companies as a result of the lorry drivers' strike as fears grow of a serious liquidity crisis.
      Growing concern about a cash squeeze, and falling industrial confidence in the wake of
      1582
      inflationary pay settlements, and industrial unrest came through strongly in the CBI's latest industrial trends survey released yesterday.
      The CBI is planning to arrange a meeting of senior finance directors to gauge the extent of the problem and the Government and the banks have been alerted."
      Indeed, the Secretary of State for Industry referred on Friday to the problems that companies are facing as a result of the present industrial situation.
      The report adds:
      "the CBI is disturbed that the toll taken by the lorry, drivers' strike will mean many companies … will face cash problems until the summer … some export business may be lost permanently from disenchanted customers."
      What a time to introduce a Bill such as this, when companies are hard hit by the industrial situation. We have had no explanation from the Government about the timing of the Bill, except that in the course of the debate on an earlier amendment it was said that its timing was to satisfy the TUC. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) said on Monday that the TUC was not interested in the Bill one way or the other. That is clearly true. I do not understand the timing of the Bill. We have had no adequate explanation about it.
      The second point that I raised on Second Reading related to confidence. This was bound up with the reason for the Government introducing the safeguard regulations in the first place, as the Secretary of State made clear on many occasions in 1977. The CBI has reported the effects which this and other events are having on confidence. It said:
      "The rapidly rising level of pay settlements, concern about public sector pay trends, coupled with the tougher price control measures are adding to the industrial depression. The detailed survey results do not suggest a sharp fall-off in industrial activity but … confidence has dropped to below average levels and pessimism is strongest among the bigger companies."
      This is the essential point about the safeguard regulations—the interim regulations in particular. They gave to industry a degree of confidence about the operation of the Price Commission Act. That is being taken away, and that is why we make no apology for tabling this amendment, even though it may have a devastating effect on the Bill.
      There is a certain amount of logic in the amendment. It retains the principal safeguards but removes the interim ones.

      1583
      There is a distinction between these types of safeguards which I do not believe the Under-Secretary of State understood. He became confused between the two on Second Reading. There was an illogicality in the principal Act. If we accepted the principle of the Act—which I did not—the Government should have said that the Price Commission would investigate proposed price increases but that no action would be taken in respect of such increases—they would be allowed—until the investigation had been completed. It should have been stated that if, when the investigation had been completed, the increases were found to be justified they could be rolled back. That would have been a more logical way of proceeding rather than telling every company that was being investigated that its prices were to be frozen for four months—a month's notification period plus the three-month investigation period.
      The principal safeguards would come into operation in those circumstances. It is the interim safeguards which are the most important. They protect companies during the investigation period. Although in 23 cases out of 30 involving companies which have been the subject of reports interim safeguard applications have been allowed, the reports show that the Price Commission would have allowed these increases subsequently. Most would have been justified on their merits.
      The Government should have done one of two things. If, as the Under-Secretary of State believes, the regulations are too generous because they are arbitrary, the Government could have amended them. They have not sought to do so. Instead they have sought to do away with them altogether. Earlier the Secretary of State said, in a not very encouraging answer to me, that even when a company was making losses it might not be able to increase its prices sufficiently to eliminate the losses.
      Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to correct the impression which he has that I was suggesting that the safeguards are too generous. I was not suggesting anything of the kind. I was suggesting that in some cases they might be too generous and that it would be impossible for us to devise safeguards which did not act in
      1584
      too penal a fashion upon some while being too generous to others. That is why a discretionary system is more appropriate for the needs of industry and the public.
      Mr. Smith: May I suggest an example to which an arbitrary basic safeguard could apply? I refer to loss-making companies. I cannot understand the case for saying that if a company is operating at a loss and its assets are decreasing it is not entitled to increase its prices sufficiently at least to break even. That will not be very encouraging when it comes to investment. The Government could have amended the regulations so that they were less generous. That was an option open to them which they did not take.
      Another option open to the Government was to amend the Act in the way that I suggested earlier so that all companies would be entitled to make price increases in the first instance, and if a Commission report subsequently found that they were not entitled to the increase there could be some kind of roll-back provision.
      The Bill is patently unfair because it will simply serve to delay price increases. Perhaps I may give an example of the company referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), and that is Metal Box Ltd. It has a large factory in Sutton-in-Ashfield employing 2,000 people. Almost all the aerosol cans made in this country—they account for about 80 per cent. of the market—are made there. The company has almost a monopoly.
      Quite rightly, the Price Commission chose to investigate the company. Metal Box Ltd. is the subject of regular investigations, and I believe that that is correct because of its monopoly market position. My hon. Friend explained the effects that the Bill, if enacted at the time of the investigation, would have had. It would have diminished the company's profits by nearly £7 million. The company also said in its letter:
      "In the longer term, the uncertainty about pricing arrangements would have perforce curtailed our investment plans both in the United Kingdom and overseas."
      The whole question of investment is another important aspect of the matter.

      1585
      Let me now read from the report of the Price Commission on Metal Box Ltd. We have heard a great deal from Labour Members about efficiency. One might assume that since Metal Box Ltd. dominates the market in aerosol cans it would be inefficient because, in the absence of any real competition, it would simply set its own price. But the Price Commission said:
      "On the basis of the evidence we have collected from the company, our survey of competitors and consumers, and our limited international comparison, a clear impression emerges that Metal Box is in most respects an efficient and enterprising firm, and its market position must in large measure be due to the high standards of performance it has set for the industry, and maintained over many years."
      It went on to make further favourable comments about the company.
      My hon. Friend made the point that Metal Box Ltd. made in its letter about its dependence on its supplier of raw material—the British Steel Corporation. BSC is not subject to price control. It is completely exempt and it can put up its price whenever it wants. Yet under the provisions Metal Box Ltd., with the interim safeguards abolished, would have to live with that price rise for four months. That will damage investment confidence in Metal Box Ltd., and it will damage the prospects for my constituents who work at the company. Therefore, I wish forcefully to support the amendment.
      Mr. Parkinson: The Under-Secretary seemed surprised that during this debate we should have mentioned some of the matters that we spoke of on Monday. He then said that the amendment strikes at the heart of the Bill. Surely it is hardly surprising, therefore, that we should have mentioned on Monday some of the things that we are dealing with today. On Monday we discussed the principle of the Bill, and here we are discussing the heart of the matter.
      The Under-Secretary, in slightly pooh-poohing my remarks about the intention of the Bill being to restore some form of pay sanction and to discipline companies that paid large wage increases, said that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had demonstrated that that could not possibly be true. He said that the right hon. Gentleman had personally announced that the Road Haulage Asso-
      1586
      ciation employers would not be investigated whatever level of pay increases they gave.
      What the Secretary of State was saying, therefore, was far from admirable. It was that any group of employers that employed trade unionists who could hold the country to ransom and do tremendous damage, while threatening the Government's electoral prospects, need not worry because the Secretary of State would not take action against them.
      I am not surprised, but many companies that would have to pre-notify will not be in that position. They will not be in the position by which the Secretary of State, because of political pressures upon him, will concede to the companies making an application.
      9 p.m.
      Many businesses in their day-to-day running need apply to increase their prices, because of wage or price increases. They cannot rely on political pressure being placed upon the Secretary of State forcing him to concede their applications.
      The Under-Secretary of State argues that everybody knows that the Commission is to be trusted. I am afraid that the people in industry to whom my hon. Friends and I have spoken are not so aware. They do not believe that the activities of the Commission over the last 16 months warrant the removal of its statutory protections.
      The Under-Secretary of State repeated the assertion that companies are protected by section 2 of the Act and by the courts. That is a cumbersome procedure. Over and over again it has been demonstrated that safeguards are justified and the increases that are allowed have subsequently been approved. Why should we take on trust a body that is not trusted by British industry?
      My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Bulmer) gave two examples of companies becoming concerned about the activities of the Commission. I am afraid that I have to inform the Minister that the basis of trust upon which he forms all his arguments against the amendment does not exist.
      In the circumstances, we have no choice but to press the amendment, and I urge my hon. Friends to vote for it.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—

      Division No. 59]

      AYES

      [9.01 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Gorst, John

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Alison, Michael

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Morgan, Geraint

      Arnold, Tom

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Gray, Hamish

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Beith, A. J.

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Bell, Ronald

      Grist, Ian

      Mudd, David

      Bendall, Vivian

      Grylls, Michael

      Neave, Airey

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Nelson, Anthony

      Benyon, W.

      Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

      Neubert, Michael

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Newton, Tony

      Biffen, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Nott, John

      Blaker, Peter

      Hannam, John

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Body, Richard

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hastings, Stephen

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Pardoe, John

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Hicks, Robert

      Penhaligon, David

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hodgson, Robin

      Percival, Ian

      Brittan, Leon

      Holland, Philip

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Brotherton, Michael

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Howell, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Buck, Antony

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Raison, Timothy

      Budgen, Nick

      Hurd, Douglas

      Rathbone, Tim

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal

      Burden, F. A.

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      James, David

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D.(Hunts)

      Carlisie, Mark

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

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Rhodes James, R.

      Churchill, W. S.

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Jopling, Michale

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Clegg, Walter

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Cockcroft, John

      Kilfedder, James

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Kimball, Marcus

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Cope, John

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Cormack, Patrick

      Knox, David

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Costain, A. P.

      Lamont, Norman

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Crouch, David

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Crowder, F. P.

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Scott, Nicholas

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Lawson, Nigel

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shepherd, Colin

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shersby, Michael

      Durant, Tony

      Lloyd, Ian

      Silvester, Fred

      Dykes, Hugh

      Loveridge, John

      Sims, Roger

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Luce, Richard

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Elliott, Sir William

      McCrindle, Robert

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Emery, Peter

      McCusker, H.

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      MacGregor, John

      Speed Keith

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Spence, John

      Farr, John

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Fell, Anthony

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Sproat, Iain

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Stainton, Keith

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Madel, David

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Stanley, John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Marten, Neil

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Forman, Nigel

      Maude, Angus

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      Mawby, Ray

      Stokes, John

      Fox, Marcus

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Tapsell, Peter

      Fry, Peter

      Mayer, Sir Anthony

      Taylor, R.(Croydon NW)

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Mills, Peter

      Tebbit, Norman

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Moate, Roger

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Molyneaux, James

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Monro, Hector

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Goodhew, Victor

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Noes 271.
      The Committee divided: Ayes 251,

      Viggers, Peter

      Whitney, Raymond

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Walters, Dennis

      Winterton, Nicholas

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Lord James Douglas Hamilton and

      Wells, John

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Mr. Carol Mather.

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Younger, Hon George

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Allaun, Frank

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Anderson, Donald

      Flannery, Martin

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Ashley, Jack

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Madden, Max

      Ashton, Joe

      Ford, Ben

      Magee, Bryan

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Forrester, John

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

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

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

      Marks, Kenneth

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Meacher, Michael

      Betes, Alf

      George, Bruce

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Bean, R. E.

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Mikardo, Ian

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Ginsburg, David

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Golding, John

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Gould, Bryan

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Gourlay, Harry

      Molloy, William

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Graham, Ted

      Moonman, Eric

      Boardman, H.

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Morton, George

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Bradley, Tom

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Brown, Robert, C. (Newcastle W)

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Newens, Stanley

      Buchan, Norman

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Noble, Mike

      Buchanan, Richard

      Henderson, Douglas

      Oakes, Gordon

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Home Robertson, John

      Ogden Eric

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Hooley, Frank

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & p)

      Horam, John

      Orbach, Maurce

      Campbell, Ian

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

      Ovenden, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Cant, R. B.

      Huckfield, Les

      Padley, Walter

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Carter, Ray

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Park, George

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Parker, John

      Cartwright, John

      Hunter, Adam

      Parry, Robert

      Castle, Rt Hon Barbara

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Pendry, Tom

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Perry, Ernest

      Cohen, Stanley

      Janner, Greville

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Coleman, Donald

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Radice, Giles

      Concannon, Rt Hon John

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Conlan, Bernard

      John, Brynmor

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Corbett, Robin

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Cowans, Harry

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Cronin, John

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Judd, Frank

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Cryer, Bob

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kelley, Richard

      Rooker, J. W.

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Kerr, Russell

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Rowlands, Ted

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Kinnock, Neil

      Ryman, John

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Lambie, David

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Deakins, Eric

      Lamborn, Harry

      Selby, Harry

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lamond, James

      Sever, John

      Dempsey, James

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Dewar, Donald

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Doig, Peter

      Lee, John

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & slough)

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Duffy, AE. P.

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Dunn, James A.

      Litterick, Tom

      Silverman, Julius

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Skinner, Dennis

      Eadie, Alex

      Loyden, Eddie

      Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

      Edge, Geoff

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Snape, Peter

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Spearing, Nigel

      English, Michael

      McCartney, Hugh

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      MacCormick, Iain

      Stallard, A. W.

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      McElhone, Frank

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      1590

      1591

      Stoddart, David

      Torney, Tom

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stott, Roger

      Tuck, Raphael

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Strang, Gavin

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Swain, Thomas

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Ward, Michael

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Watkins, David

      Woodall, Alec

      Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Weetch, Ken

      Woof Robert

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Weitzman, David

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Welsh, Andrew

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Tierney, Sydeny

      Whitlock, William

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Tilley, John

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Mr. James Hamilton and

      Tinn, James

      Willey, Rt Hon Fredrick

      Mr. John Evans.

      Tomlinson, John

      Question accordingly negatived.
      9.15 p.m.
      Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 2, line 25, leave out subsection (7).
      This amendment raises the general issue of retrospective legislation. It is true that the Government's intentions were publicly stated when the Bill was first published, but it cannot be sufficiently stressed that as long as this country remains a democracy a Bill does not have the force of law as soon as it is published and that it does not achieve the force of law until it has received the Royal Assent.
      We know that some Labour Members have always regarded the due process of democratic procedure as a mere unnecessary obstacle on the road to the millenium. We know that over the years many members of the Labour Party have thought in terms of enabling Acts, sweeping aside parliamentary safeguards and giving Ministers huge powers to act by simple fiat. But, fortunately for all our sakes and for our democracy, all these schemes have come to nothing—yet.
      But their existence in the first place re-emphasises the need for vigilance, and it must be clear to the Committee that the purpose of the amendment is to remove the retrospective elements of the Bill. I believe that we ought to act in any case where retrospection arises so that in some way we can restrain any signs of arrogance on the part of the Executive. Ministers must learn that their wishes are not automatic law and that when they act in any way to override the spirit of democratic procedure their presumption will be exposed. That is what we hope to do.
      There is certainly a place, and there will always be, for retrospection I think I am right in saying that the introduction of this feature is not unprecedented, on
      1592
      either side of the Committee. There are also a number of hypothetical cases where, for example, retrospection comes to the aid of a Member of the House who was duly elected but who was subsequently discovered to be technically disqualified. Here again, we could rightly object to not having retrospective legislation.
      But that is the use of retrospective legislation for the purposes of mercy. That is the opposite of the reason for introducing retrospection in this Bill, in what is an extraordinarily sloppily drafted subsection. I do not blame the Minister for that, I am just pointing out that that is what it is. There can be no justification for the use of retrospective legislation either to enhance the power of Ministers or to enhance the scope of the criminal law. But that is what is happening in this instance.
      The result is likely to be arbitrary and oppressive. I shall take the brewers as an example, because I know that they are great favourites with Labour Members who sit below the Gangway. Why should one company—this is almost playing the Devil's advocate—be permitted an increase merely because it notified its wish to introduce a price increase before the arbitrary date, while other companies which did not notify that wish until after the arbitrary retrospective date have their prices frozen?
      Some firms may have been considering ways in which they could absorb increased costs—that is one of the Secretary of State's favourite excuses for the Bill—within their existing profit margins and were perhaps doing everything possible to avoid increased prices and proposing lesser increases. They are now being penalised for their action and their concern for the consumer. If they had brought forward their notification slightly

      1593
      earlier instead of trying to avoid price increases, they would not have been caught by the retrospective element of the Bill.
      Is it implied that the industrial crisis that we have been through and are going through has had and will have no effect on prices? The retrospective element will catch companies whose costs and profitability have been under tremendous pressure because of the industrial situation. There could not be a worse moment for retrospection to be introduced. The very companies that were trying to comply with the Government's now non-existent pay limit will be penalised by the retrospective subsection. It is grossly unjust that they should be so penalised and that the Secretary of State, knowing the date of retrospection, should have introduced it at such a time. The right hon. Gentleman's action has been positively disgraceful.
      I hope the Committee will accept that the principle of retrospection is bad. I accept that retrospection is not unprecedented. However, in this instance the situation is worse because the rules are being changed in the middle of the game.
      Careful judgments have to be made by companies before they decide to submit a notification. Careful judgments have to be made by them before they decide upon their capital investment programmes. These are difficult judgments for them to make in the present economic climate. There is a difficult industrial situation and a drop in liquidity. We have talked before about a drop in profitability and a lack of confidence in investment, assuming that the money and the confidence were available, but at present the money is not available, so the difficulties are compounded.
      The companies that are caught will incur great expense or loss. Some of their investment decisions are of great importance and involve large capital sums. Some of them are too far advanced to retract now that they are caught by the retrospective subsection. The investment decisions will no longer be viable but the companies will be committed to them. Their decisions will have been made on the basis that the rules would not be changed. If the companies had known the nature of the retrospective provisions,
      1594
      obviously they would have applied before 16 January.
      The situation is made far more disreputable by the fact that for months there were press rumours about whether the Bill was to be introduced, and that was denied as recently as November by the Secretary of State. That denial must have had an influence on companies which were planning their investment policy. The influence must have been adverse. When the press rumours were current—they continued for quite a long period—the right hon. Gentleman should have denied or confirmed them and not left companies in the dark about what would be an important step for them.
      Looking at the items likely to be caught as a result of this retrospective subsection, we see that it is really a price-fixing exercise. They are items which are either heavily weighted in the retail price index or heavily weighted in the family shopping basket. The Government may use that as an excuse for their action. I can understand that in circumstances of rising inflation they may choose to do so, but it exposes the fact that this is a blatant exercise to manipulate the retail price index, in a run-up to a general election, involving those goods which the Government think will be sensitive, in the short term, for consumers. It contributes to the uncertainty felt by industry over the whole concept of this measure. It will add to the lack of trust already existing between industry and the Secretary of State.
      We have heard of the lack of trust between industry and the Price Commission over the Commission's discretionary powers. But industry now feels that the Secretary of State has reneged on his own words, given on numerous occasions in Committee on the Price Commission Bill. He now tries to justify himself by referring back to section 2 of the Price Commission Act which provides none of the protection that he manifests to the House. This lack of trust between industry and the Secretary of State is particularly damaging in the present state of the economy.
      Apart from the political consideration, we have to ask why this measure needed to have the retrospective clause. The House did not reassemble until 15 January. If the Government had a measure of such importance that it had

      1595
      to be rushed through the House and considered in three days and had to contain a retrospective element, why did not the House reassemble earlier so that the Bill could be considered in a proper period of time? The retrospective element need not have been activated in this way. The Bill could have received the Royal Assent two weeks earlier if the Prime Minister had not been gallivanting in Guadeloupe.
      I hope the Minister will accept that the Opposition consider this a very important amendment. The principle of the amendment is important. It is also important in relation to confidence in industry and the element of trust to which I have drawn attention. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. If he does not, that will be typical of the Government. They think, rightly, that they can make the rules. But, at the same time, they assume that they can break the rules a short time after making them. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, I hope he will give specific and detailed reasons why he cannot do so.
      The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): It is pleasant to hear the hon. Lady speaking from the Dispatch Box. For several hours, I have heard her speaking from a sedentary position on the Opposition Front Bench. She has never made any secret of the fact that she wants to sabotage prices legislation—
      Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Rubbish.
      Mr. Fraser: The hon. Lady says "Rubbish", but she made no secret of the fact during a record sitting for this House when we considered the Report stage of the Price Commission Bill in 1977. If that was not sabotage, I do not know what is.
      Conservative Members' phrases about wanting the amendments to have a "devastating" effect on the Bill show that they wish to sabotage it. That has been a consistent Opposition attitude in respect of the Government's prices policy and the Government's incomes policy. There can be no difference about that. The Opposition are a sabotage party. I must, however, point out to the hon. Lady that
      1596
      every sabotage party has a weak member. It often happens in Hollywood films. The girl who breaks her ankle has to be carried along by the rest. I suppose that the hon. Lady has been responsible for masterminding this amendment. I must tell her that it does not amount to sabotage in the normal sense. It amounts to a strengthening of the powers in the Bill. I shall explain why, and I shall point out to the hon. Lady that if she wants to help the Bill go through, she will vote for her own amendment.
      9.30 p.m.
      I have to explain the effect of subsection (7). It provides that where a notification of a price increase has been given before 17 January 1979, the investigation safeguards are preserved throughout the entire investigation. Subsection (7) has two merits. First, it has the merit of certainty after which the hon. Lady yearns. It states clearly that the investigation safeguards are preserved for notifiers before 17 January during the entire period of the investigation. Secondly, subsection (7) makes it clear that the preservation of safeguards is for the whole period of the investigation—a period of three months from the time the Commission decides to start the investigation.
      I ask right hon. and hon. Members to compare that with the hon. Lady's amendment. First, the amendment removes that certainty. But the second effect is that if a firm notifies a price increase prior to 17 January but does not immediately need safeguards and then, six weeks or two months after the Commission decides to investigate, it wants to take advantage of the safeguards, it will not be able to do it if the amendment is carried. If subsection (7) is left in the Bill as it is, the firm which prenotified before 17 January will still be able to take advantage of the safeguard provisions in six, seven, eight or nine weeks' time.
      Sir Raymond Gower: Despite that, surely there is an element of retrospection in the first part of the clause which stipulates that the procedures
      "shall not apply in relation to any increase."
      If that is included, there will be some retrospection.
      Mr. Fraser: The preceding provisions are those provisions which take away the

      1597
      safeguards. Subsection (7) preserves those safeguards for those firms which notified before 17 January. In other words, it makes certain that there is not an element of retrospection. That is done to give certainty and fairness and to avoid retrospection for those companies.
      If the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) wishes to continue her consistent policy of wanting to sabotage the Bill, she will vote against the amendment. If she wants to strengthen the Bill, she will vote for her amendment. It is clear that she has not understood her own amendment.
      Mr. Tim Smith: Surely the Minister is not suggesting that there is not an element of retrospection in the clause. Companies which apply after 16 January 1979 and before the passing of this measure will not have the protection which he describes.
      Mr. Fraser: I am coming to what the Opposition meant to do and did not do. The hon. Member for Gloucester accuses the Government of having an element of retrospection in the Bill. She repeated that assertion about 10 times. But the fact that she repeats a statement 10 times does not make it a fact. I assert that there is no element of retrospection. The law will be changed when the Bill receives the Royal Assent, and it does not have a retrospective effect.
      The hon. Lady is right when she says that a firm which did not anticipate the Bill may be at a disadvantage compared with the firm which did. But that is not retrospection. I can think of a number of Finance Bills as a result of which, had people anticipated them, they would have been better off than if they had not. But that does not make a Finance Bill retrospective. It merely makes the losses or gains lie where they fall. The fact that the hon. Lady asserts that the Bill is retrospective, without giving one example, does not make it a fact. As I say, the rules will be changed on Royal Assent.
      I take two examples to illustrate what I am saying. If a firm gives a notification of a price increase after 17 January but before the Bill receives the Royal Assent and the Commission decides to investigate, because the law has not been changed and is not being changed retrospectively the firm will still, under the existing law, have the advantage of the
      1598
      investigation safeguards. So that position is preserved. If an investigation is decided upon after the Bill receives the Royal Assent, of course the new law will take effect and the gains or losses will fall either side of that date. That is not retrospection. That is changing the law and creating a new situation after the law has been passed. Therefore I have to advise the hon. Member for Gloucester that she is under a misapprehension both as to the nature of the Bill and the nature of her own amendment.
      I shall say one last thing on this matter. The investigation safeguards will be removed when the Bill becomes law, but that does not mean that a company is bereft of an opportunity of going to the Commission and asking it to exercise its powers of giving an interim price increase. That facility remains. We believe that we have had sufficient experience of the operation of the Commission—not just ourselves, but the country and industry as a whole—to be able to repose in it a trust which it has demonstrated it is capable of having.
      Mr. Neubert: Before the Minister concludes, will he advise the House how he foresees the anomalies being dealt with by the Commission when a sudden announcement is made by the Prime Minister on 16 January and some companies within an industry have put in a price application and others have not? Is the Minister saying that he relies on the Commission to ensure that price applications allowed under the old regime will be also allowed to new companies in the same industry which make an application after 16 January?
      Mr. Fraser: I am not going to substitute my judgment for that of the Commission. The Commission will have to act reasonably and in accordance with the criteria. It strikes me as being a much fairer system, and one that allows a degree of discretion, if one compares the effects of the original Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act which the Opposition introduced.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: I should like to make certain that we have understood what the Minister said. Will he please answer the question? Do the regulations as currently issued under section 9 of the Act, unamended, continue in force for those price applications that are lodged

      1599
      after 17 January 1979 and until the Bill becomes enacted?
      Mr. Fraser: They must remain in force until the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, because there is no authority known to the law by which they could be repealed.
      Mr. Graham Page: I rise with some hesitation, if not diffidence, because I have not had the benefit of hearing earlier debates on the Bill.
      How the Under-Secretary of State can stand at that Box and claim the merit of certainty for subsection (7) is quite beyond me. My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) has put the case about retrospection. She has said that the clause is retrospective. There can be no doubt whatever, surely, that this subsection is retrospective for a certain period of time. It ought, therefore, to be removed from the Bill.
      There is another reason why subsection (7) should be removed. I shall not use the words "sloppy drafting". which I gather were used against my hon. Friends from time to time. I think that the drafting is cunning, but it is too cunning by half. It is impossible to get through the jungle of subsection (7), although attempts have been made to signpost the way.
      It says:
      "as from the passing of this Act the regulations then in force under section 9 of that Act shall apply in relation to any such increase only so far as they were made in pursuance of subsection (1)(a) of the said section 9."
      How can regulations be partly in force? How does one identify those parts of the regulations which were made
      "in pursuance of subsection (1)(a) of the said section 9"?
      The draftsman has put a signpost through this jungle and told us to look at section 9(1)(a) of the 1977 Act. We must not look beyond section 9(1)(a). That says:
      "which are relevant for the purposes of paragraph (b) of section 4(5) of this Act".
      So there is a further signpost through the jungle—"cut down a path through this legislation and you will find the answer".
      One turns to subsection (4)—though one does not quite turn to it, because
      1600
      that paragraph is applied by section 5(4). All right. One turns first to section 4 and finds the appropriate subsection. That is subsection (5)(b), which says:
      "that apart from this subsection the profit of the relevant person would, in consequence of the notification, be kept below the profit determined in his case in pursuance of section 9 of this Act."
      But that is not all, because one then has to refer to section 5(4). I refrain from reading that, Mr. Godman Irvine. It extends over about 20 lines. What it does is textually to amend the previous section. It inserts certain words here and certain words there.
      I do not think that I am exaggerating when I say that I have never seen a piece of draftsmanship in a statute which is cross-referenced as much as this, and cross-referenced with no sense in it. One cannot possibly construe what is meant, because when one returns to the beginning one has to find what regulations apply. The Under-Secretary of State said "This clause has the merit of certainty." It has no certainty about it at all. It has impossibility—the impossibility of knowing what regulations will apply during this retrospective period.
      Mr. John Fraser: We need not quarrel about the certainty of subsection (7). Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that if one leaves out subsection (7) one creates even more uncertainty and robs firms of the ability to obtain an investigation safeguard if they need it in two or three months' time? Does he accept that that is the situation, and that subsection (7) confers not a retrospective penalty but a retrospective advantage?
      Mr. Page: I am asking the Minister to accept that this subsection is an invitation to litigation. Its uncertainty shows. It is impossible to say what is the law and what is not the law. It is trying to remove part of regulations—the Minister shakes his head. Statutory instrument No. 1282/1977, the Prices and Charges (Safeguard for Basic Profits) Regulations 1977 was made, and declared so to be made, not under section 9(1)(a) of the 1977 Act but just under section 9, so how does one pick out from these regulations those which were made in pursuance of section 9(1)(a) as applied by section 4(5), as applied by section 5(4) of the 1977 Act?
      Mr. Fraser: It is very easy. The regulations provide a mathematical set of rules for calculating minimum profits. They apply in three circumstances. They apply where there is a pre-notifier. Pre-notifiers are dealt with in section 4 of the 1977 Act. They apply, secondly, to the non-notifiers whose price increases are called in by the Price Commission under section 5 of the 1977 Act. They apply, thirdly, to orders made after an examination on the initiative of the Secretary of State, and these are dealt with by section 13 of the 1977 Act.
      What one does is to remove the references to individual investigations, dealt with in sections 4 and 5 of the 1977 Act, but the mathematical set of rules for preserving profits still applies to the examinations which can cover a multiplicity of firms, which are sectoral examinations initiated by the Secretary of State. I hope that that explanation makes the position clear beyond any doubt.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. Page: If the Minister intended subsection (7) to mean all that, why did he not put it in the Bill? The subsection does not apply to individuals; it applies to certain parts of regulations, and one has to identify the parts of those regulations that are still law after the Bill becomes a statute. The subsection does not apply to individuals as the Minister listed them. It might have made it clear if it had said that it applied to individuals A, B and C if they had done X, Y and Z. But it does not say that. It tries to carve some regulations in half and does not say where one draws the line.
      It is impossible from the subsection to know what, after the Bill becomes law, is the law and what is not the law. I ask the Minister to reconsider it in some form. I know that this is a late stage in the Bill, but it is not too late to correct appalling draftsmanship like this.
      Sir Raymond Gower: The Minister said that the amendment, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), in her effort to avoid any possibility of retrospection, was sabotage of the Bill. That was an unfair and inaccurate description of the action she took. Indeed, it might be said that, under successive Governments since the war, we have become unduly complacent
      1602
      about retrospection. It is a most obnoxious principle, and while I agree that there are some few occasions when it might be established that it is absolutely necessary, those occasions should be minimal. Far too many Ministers have made use of this device, which is often convenient to Governments. I have an uneasy feeling that what is convenient is often bad in the broadest sense.
      If my hon. Friend, in seeking to avoid any semblance or possibility of retrospection, erred in any respect, she did so in a very good cause, but, against the background of the appalling draftsmanship and the degree of cross-references to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) referred, it would not be surprising if the amendment did not have expressly the effect that it is intended to have. The Government's draftsmanship is so bad that I do not think that the Minister can take much pride in picking holes in the draftsmanship of the amendment, which has been done with far less resources than those available to the Government.
      I should like reassurance that there is no element of retrospection in the clause, because I am not entirely satisfied about the position, despite what the Minister said. I ask the Minister to reconsider what has been said and, if something can be done, to put beyond any iota of doubt this question of retrospection.
      Mr. John Fraser: I give an absolute assurance that subsection (7) does not involve retrospection except in the sense of conferring a retrospective benefit, making it absolutely clear that a firm which applied for a price increase before 17 January 1979 will have the benefit of investigation safeguards even if it has to take that benefit after the Bill has become law. So it works to the advantage of companies. If we omit subsection (7), we deny that opportunity to those companies which have notified their price increases prior to 17 January.
      I referred to sabotage earlier. I was referring to the fact—it is quite legitimate for them to do this—that the Opposition have tried to sabotage our prices legislation. But in this instance, whether they understand it or not, if the amendment is carried, they confer a disbenefit on the companies they are trying to protect.
      Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: The Minister has only partially clarified the situation. We moved an amendment to an imperfect, unclear subsection. That subsection does not make clear to which of the regulations in the statutory instrument it refers, and leaves an area of doubt both with or without the amendment. I remind the Minister of the words of the Prime Minister when he announced this measure. He used the word "retrospective". Speaking of the Price Commission, he said:
      "In this context it will be obliged to look at all relevant costs. The Bill will also provide that firms which prenotify price increases after today—16th January—will not qualify for safeguards if the Price Commission decides to investigate those price increases."—[Official Report, 16 January 1979; Vol. 960, c. 1559.]
      That is clear. That refers to retrospection in relation to the investigations. Firms will not be able to invoke the safeguards if they prenotify after 16 January.
      There is also the question of the 28-day notification. We deal with that specific point in this amendment. The amendment would make notifications made up to the date of the passing of the legislation eligible for awards. It would give them the certainty that the safeguards could be invoked in the 28-day period in which the Commission was considering the application—that is, before the investigation.
      It was difficult to tell whether the Minister of State referred to the investigation period—as did the Prime Minister when he referred to the retrospection—or the prenotification period of 28 days. Without the amendment, in the period of 28 days of prenotification a company would not be eligible automatically for the safeguard in that period.
      Mr. John Fraser: As the legislation stands, advantage is not taken of the safeguards in the 28-day period of consideration. That is not even the situation now.
      Mrs. Oppenheim: There could be an interim award. The price is frozen in the 28 days. The price increases cannot be obtained during the 28 days. In that period the Commission may say "We have decided that we shall investigate your firm". From that moment the price is frozen. The Minister of State may quarrel with the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister made that point when he
      1604
      said that any price increase notified after 16 January would not qualify for safeguards if the Price Commission decided to investigate those price increases.
      If the 28 days pass without the Commission saying anything, there will be no investigation. The safeguards must be invoked. In that period of 28 days an investigation may be started by the Price Commission. According to the Prime Minister, that would start from 16 January. In the case of a prenotification, although the safeguards would not be invoked or made ineligible until the Bill was passed, the fact that the 28-day period started from 16 January would mean that a company could be caught retrospectively—not during the period of investigation—because it did not notify before 16 January.
      Mr. Fraser: Ministers of State have to be very careful when they disagree with their Prime Ministers, but I have to tell the House that if that were to happen and if there were a decision to investigate the price increase before this Bill became law, all the law on investigation safeguards that existed for the benefit of the company would have to continue.
      Mrs. Oppenheim: I accept that point, but if, after 16 January, the 28 days were not reached before this Bill became law, it would be at that moment—
      Mr. Fraser indicated assent.
      Mrs. Oppenheim: The Minister is nodding. Then that is right. That is what the amendment seeks to do, and that is what I believe it does. If it does not, perhaps the Minister will say why.
      Mr. Fraser: Because it is not properly drafted.
      Mr. Neubert: I am still, despite my hon. Friend's lucid explanation, concerned with some of the statements that the Minister has just made. It is quite clear from everything that has been said—and not only by the Secretary of State—that 16 January is to be the watershed between the old regime and the new regime. Where else, otherwise, is there any mention in the Bill of that dividing date, except in subsection (7)? If it is not to be found in that subsection, where else is it to be found?
      Mrs. Oppenheim: In view of what the Minister has said, and in view of what I have said—and I am certain that I was correct—we would be willing to withdraw the amendment, on an undertaking from the Minister of State that in another place the subsection will be appropriately redrafted to avoid the

      Division No. 60]

      AYES

      [9.57 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Forman, Nigel

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      MacGregor, John

      Alison, Michael

      Fox, Marcus

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Arnold, Tom

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Freud, Clement

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Fry, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Baker, Kenneth

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Madel, David

      Beith, A. J.

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Bell, Ronald

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Marten, Neil

      Bendell, Vivian

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

      Mates, Michael

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

      Mather, Carol

      Benyon, W.

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Maude, Angus

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Mawby, Ray

      Biffen, John

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Blaker, Peter

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Body, Richard

      Gorst, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Bottomley, Peter

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Mills, Peter

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Gray, Hamish

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Moate, Roger

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Grist, Ian

      Molyneaux, James

      Brittan, Leon

      Grylls, Michael

      Monro, Hector

      Brockiebank-Fowler, C.

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Morgan, Geraint

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Hannam, John

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Buck, Antony

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Budgen, Nick

      Hastings, Stephen

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Mudd, David

      Burden, F. A.

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Neave, Airey

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Nelson, Anthony

      Carlisle, Mark

      Heseltine, Michael

      Neubert, Michael

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Hicks, Robert

      Newton, Tony

      Churchill, W. S.

      Hodgson, Robin

      Nott, John

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Holland, Philip

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Clegg, Walter

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Pardoe, John

      Cockcroft, John

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Cope, John

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Penhaligon, David

      Cormack, Patrick

      Hurd, Douglas

      Percival, Ian

      Costain, A. P.

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Crouch, David

      James, David

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Crowder, F. P.

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

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Raison, Timothy

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Jopling, Michael

      Rathbone, Tim

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      Durant, Tony

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kilfedder, James

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Kimball, Marcus

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Rhodes James, R.

      Elliott, Sir William

      Knox, David

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Emery, Peter

      Lamont, Norman

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Eyre, Reginald

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Farr, John

      Lawson, Nigel

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Fell, Anthony

      Le Merchant, Spencer

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Lloyd, Ian

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      Loveridge, John

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Luce, Richard

      St. John-Stever, Norman

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      McCrindle, Robert

      Scott, Nicholas

      ambiguity to which reference has been made.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 254, Noes 273.

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Viggers, Peter

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Stanley, John

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Shepherd, Colin

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Walters, Dennis

      Shersby, Michael

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Silvester, Fred

      Stokes, John

      Wells, John

      Sims, Roger

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Tapsell, Peter

      Whitney, Raymond

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Speed, Keith

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Younger, Hon George

      Spence, John

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Sproat, Iain

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Mr. Michael Roberts and

      Stainton, Keith

      Vanghan, Dr Gerard

      Mr. Jim Lester.

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Dunnett, Jack

      Kerr, Russell

      Allaun, Frank

      Eadie, Alex

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Anderson, Donald

      Edge, Geoff

      Kinnock, Neil

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Lambie, David

      Armstrong, Ernest

      English, Michael

      Lamborn, Harry

      Ashley, Jack

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      Lamond, James

      Ashton, Joe

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Leabitter, Ted

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

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Lee, John

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      Lever, Rt Hon Harold

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Bean, R. E.

      Flannery, Martin

      Litterick, Tom

      Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Ford, Ben

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Forrester, John

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Boardman, H.

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

      McCartney, Hugh

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      MacCormick, Iain

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      McElhone, Frank

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      George, Bruce

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Bradley, Tom

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Ginsburg, David

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Golding, John

      Maclennan, Robert

      Buchan, Norman

      Gould, Bryan

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Buchanan, Richard

      Gourlay, Harry

      Madden, Max

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Magee, Bryan

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Marks, Kenneth

      Campbell, Ian

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Cant, R. B.

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Meacher, Michael

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Carter, Ray

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Mikardo, Ian

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Cartwright, John

      Healey, Rt Hon Denis

      Miller, Dr M. S (E Kilbride)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Henderson, Douglas

      Molloy, William

      Cohen, Stanley

      Home Robertson, John

      Moonman, Eric

      Coleman, Donald

      Hooley, Frank

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      Horam, John

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Concannon, Rt Hon John

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

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Morton, George

      Corbett, Robin

      Huckfield, Les

      Moyle, Rt Hon Ronald

      Cowans, Harry

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Newens, Stanley

      Cronin, John

      Hunter, Adam

      Noble, Mike

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Cryer, Bob

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Ogden, Eric

      Davidson, Arthur

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

      Janner, Greville

      Orbach, Maurice

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Ovenden, John

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Padley, Walter

      Deakins, Eric

      John, Brynmor

      Palmer, Arthur

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Park, George

      Dempsey, James

      Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

      Parker, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Parry, Robert

      Doig, Peter

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Dormand, J. D.

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Pendry, Tom

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Judd, Frank

      Perry, Ernest

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Dunn, James A.

      Kelley, Richard

      Price, William (Rugby)

      1608

      1609

      Radice, Giles

      Spearing, Nigel

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Ward, Michael

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Stallard, A. W.

      Watkins, David

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      Weetch, Ken

      Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Weitzman, David

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Stoddart, David

      Wellbeloved, James

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Stott, Roger

      Welsh, Andrew

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Strang, Gavin

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Whitlock, William

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Rooker, J. W.

      Swain, Thomas

      Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Ryman, John

      Thomas, Jeffery (Abertillery)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Selby, Harry

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Sever, John

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Tilley, John

      Woodall, Alec

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Tinn, James

      Woof, Robert

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Tomlinson, John

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Torney, Tom

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Silverman, Julius

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Mr. Ted Graham and

      Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Mr. Alf Bates.

      Snape, Peter

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.

    BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
    Ordered,
    That the Price Commission (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

    PRICE COMMISSION (AMENDMENT) BILL
    Again considered in Committee.
    Mr. John Cope: We come now to amendment No. 25, in my name, in page 2, line 28, leave out from '1979' to end of line 32.
    I do not in any way wish to summarise the debate that we have just had; I simply say that I came to the conclusion that subsection (7) is helpful to companies in certain circumstances if the Royal Assent is given to this Bill within 28 days of 17 January, but not otherwise.
    I may have misunderstood the subsection. My reason for the amendment is my difficulty in understanding the subsection. I have been doing my best to understand the whole Bill. I do not have the advan-
    1610
    tage of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends of having been intimately involved with the earlier legislation on the subject. Subsection (7), particularly the second half of it, is quite incomprehensible, however.
    Unfortunately, in the debate on the last amendment my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) made what amounted to a far better speech on this amendment than I could have made. He proved to my satisfaction that the subsection is badly drafted and that it should be taken away by the Government and redrafted. I was therefore hoping to vote for it to be taken away for that purpose. However, it seems that the Government are not prepared to do that. I hope, therefore, that they will give an explanation of the second half of the subsection. However, I am aware from the Minister's earlier explanation that if they do I shall be even more confused than I was before.
    The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I take it that the hon. Gentleman does not wish to move the amendment.
    Mr. Cope: That is so.
    Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    New Clause 2

      DURATION OF ACT
      '(1) As from the end of the relevant period the Price Commission Act 1977 shall have effect as it would if the following provisions of this Act, namely section 1 and the Schedule, had not been enacted, but without prejudice to the operation of those provisions during that period.
      (2) Subject to subsection (3), the relevant period for the purposes of this section is the period of one year beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.
      (3) Her Majesty may by Order in Counsel extend or further extend the relevant period for the purposes of this section; but the extension effected by any particular Order under this subsection shall not exceed 12 months.
      (4) An Order under subsection (3) shall not be made unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[Mrs. Bain.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      10.15 p.m.
      Mrs. Margaret Bain: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I believe that it will be useful for the House to discuss new clause 2. We prefer it to new clause 1, which we do not intend to move. The time scale of this legislation forced ordinary Back Benchers to produce amendments extremely quickly on Monday. Originally, we submitted new clause 1 but, on analysis the following day, we decided that its drafting was slightly faulty. Therefore we substituted new clause 2. We are pleased that the Chair has accepted it for debate.
      As I said on Second Reading, the Scottish National Party has reservations on this subject. Unfortunately, two of our amendments that we thought came within the scope of the Bill were rejected. We accept the Chair's ruling, and we repeat that we are delighted that new clause 2 was accepted for debate.
      We are moving this clause in the spirit of what we believe to be open government and the right of the people to scrutinise legislation. We believe that Parliament has a right to analyse the effects of each piece of legislation. Far too often wild claims of success or failure are made when new legislation is introduced. As a moderate party—as I said
      1612
      on Second Reading—we wish to be realistic in accepting that predictions can often go awry. It is in that spirit that we move the clause.
      We believe that at this stage there is a solid case for attempting to introduce legislation to allow the Price Commission extra powers to control prices more effectively than it has in past. We also believe that the present circumstances are unusual and that those circumstances justify our support of the Bill. However, just because we support such legislation at present does not mean that we feel that it should never again be discussed by Parliament. It is not the function of Parliament to declare itself to be infallible. It is our duty and responsibility, as elected Members, to examine the problems confronting the country and to take action which, in our limited wisdom, we believe to be correct in the circumstances.
      Our new clause recognises the need for regular scrutiny of our actions. We seek by the clause to guarantee that the powers of the Bill shall not extend longer than one year and that, should any extension be sought by any Government, that extension must be approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
      If the clause is accepted by the Government, or is forced upon them by a Division, we shall have done much to advance democracy and open Government. In an area as vital as price control, we believe it to be all-important that legislation should be open to constant and repeated scrutiny and, if necessary, to alteration.
      In this spirit I have much pleasure in asking the Committee to support the new clause.
      Mr. Hattersley: I wish to make it clear that the Government do not like the new clause. Indeed, we were more attracted by the two SNP amendments that were ruled out of order. They were properly ruled out of order, but that dons not diminish their attraction.
      Although the Government do not like this clause, in matching the frankness of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain)I can tell the House that the Government are prepared to recommend its acceptance as part of the processes of open government, democracy and the proper duty of a Parliament in

      1613
      which the Government do not have an overall majority to respond from time to time to the wishes of minority parties. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) smiles, but I hope that it will diminish her smile to realise that, as a result of this exercise in open government and proper democracy, the Bill looks like receiving a Third Reading in its full form.
      We accept the new clause in this spirit. We believe that the powers of the Price Commission should be permanent, and in the parent Act they are permanent. The new clause provides that a year from today the House will have to decide whether these extended powers will be continued. The new Labour Government will, of course, continue them. We should not mind confirmation as the evening wears on that, if by some mischance there was a Conservative Government, they would not continue the Commission at all. I make no bones about it; the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East has made it possible for the House to decide the issue of principle on a future occasion.
      Mr. Bulmer: The Secretary of State said that a future Labour Government—I hope that this is not likely in the near future—would seek to reintroduce these powers. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that one major brewery company obtained price increases before the Prime Minister's announcement. As a result there will be distortion of competition within that industry. Will he say how the Government will react to that?
      Mr. Hattersley: I shall be happy to say a word if you will allow me, Mr. Godman Irvine, although the question is on the margins of order.
      Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: It is not for the right hon. Gentleman to decide.
      Mr. Hattersley: That is why I asked for your permission, Mr. Godman Irvine. The Government will react as required under the Bill and the Act governing it. We shall wait for the Price Commission to make its judgment on individual price applications and respond to them, trying neither to influence the judgment nor radically to change it while it is being made. That is the only way that the Government can react.
      1614
      The Government are prepared to accept the new clause in exactly the terms that the hon. Lady proposed, in the knowledge that, a year tonight, we shall be able to decide whether the House or the country wants to continue price controls in their full and, I hope, rather more rigorous form.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. Hattersley: No, I shall not. The Government will want that, and in a year's time I shall be voting for it. The hon. Lady's new clause gives the House the opportunity, in a year's time, to make up its mind.
      Mr. J. Grimond: A word from the Liberal Party would be in order at this juncture. Some of my colleagues have not been averse to a little tail twisting of Governments. To use an old-fashioned phrase, this piece of tail twisting makes the Government look proper Charlies. We are all in favour of open government, but that has rather been dragged in at the last moment.
      The Minister defended safeguards in 1977 as being essential to the proper working of the Act. He is now defending the removal of the safeguards on the ground that it is inconsistent with the Act to have them, that they should never have been inserted in it, and that it is fundamental to his prices policy to have them removed.
      Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Gentleman may be one of those in the debate who want to make a speech that approximates to accuracy. I do not know whether he was present during the Third Reading of the parent Act, but I explicitly said that I did not like safeguards and would get rid of them as soon as I could. It was one of the shabby compromises that he is going to denounce.
      Mr. Grimond: To the contrary, at other times during that debate the right hon. Gentleman defended safeguards.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: Would the right hon. Gentleman allow me to recall that in the Committee stage the Secretary of State was totally devoted to safeguards, and stated that it was always the Government's intention to have them from the moment that the Bill was planned?
      Mr. Grimond: I am greatly obliged to the hon. Gentleman for quoting chapter and verse. It makes it even stranger, because apparently the Minister's opinion changed between the Committee stage and Third Reading. We are now told that safeguards must be removed, and that after a year the Government will again be prepared to review the whole matter.
      I have always thought this an unnecessary Bill—the type of Bill that brings some disgrace upon Parliament at a moment when we are supposed to be in something of an economic crisis. In addition, it is extremely badly drafted. But it is very appropriate that the proceedings should end on this farcical note.
      Sir Raymond Gower: I was pleased with the alacrity with which the right hon. Gentleman accepted the new clause. I am glad that he was so keen to have a whiff of open government. I am only surprised that he did not include this open government provision in the Bill. I am sorry that he makes forecasts of what a Labour Government will do in a year's time. From the whole tenor of his remarks, not only now but on prior stages, it is obvious that he envisages a long and dismal period ahead, under which we cannot hope for the return of a healthy competitive economy that is comparable with those that prevail in so many excellent countries of the modern world.
      Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Since the Secretary of State did not give way to me, I only want to repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) has just said. If the Secretary of State thinks so much of the new clause, why did not he have it in the Bill in the first place? Perhaps we had better make clear what we Conservatives think. We think that this is another trading-off exercise with the Scottish National Party in order to keep the Government in office for a few more months and in order to get the Bill at the end of the day.
      I have no doubt that the Minister was told that certain votes were not available to him if he did not accept the new clause. It does not make the Bill any better. However, it gives us a chance, which we shall take when we win the election, to remove it from the statute book a little more quickly, or at any rate not to give it an extended life.
      Mr. Parkinson: I am always suspicious when people talk about frankness, because that is usually the moment when they are planning not to be frank. But on this occasion the Secretary of State was. I do not think that his acceptance of the new clause relates to anything as high-minded as his belief in democracy and open government. It is simply a fact of parliamentary life that he needed the votes of the Scottish nationalists to get this grubby little Bill through the House, and that the bone which he is throwing to that particular tartan-clad dog is this new clause.
      The right hon. Gentleman is right. The decision about the future of safeguards will be taken in the next Parliament, and quite properly. It will be taken not on the basis of expediency, of pandering to trade union leaders, of short-term measures that might damage industry, or of a little political advantage for the Secretary of State. As such, the insertion of a new clause that ensures that we shall come back to the subject a year from now is to be welcomed.
      I would have preferred the Scottish nationalists to do the right thing and join the rest of us in voting down this damaging little Bill, which will do nothing at all to help in the control of prices but will damage industrial confidence. However, they were not prepared to do so. They have extorted this little concession from the Government, and we are glad that they have. But I hope that no one will dress this up as a triumph for democracy and open government. It is a shabby little deal.
      Mrs. Bain: I should like to reply to some of the points that have been raised. First, I think the Secretary of State for the manner in which he received and accepted the new clause and for the way that he recommended it to the Committee. I do not share his views about the next complexion of the Government, since any Westminster Government is the same in our eyes and since we are on the way to having self-government in Scotland.
      Some of the remarks passed by Conservative Members reflect their dismay at their ineffectiveness as an Opposition party in this place. There is no question of a trading-off exercise with the Scottish National Party. Those who heard what

      1617
      I had to say on Second Reading on behalf on my party know that we regard the enactment of the Bill as being necessary to assist in solving some of the immediate problems with which we are faced. My party believes that any measure that will so assist should be supported.
      Mr. Dennis Canavan: Before we vote on the clause, its origin should be put on record. It is a CBI clause. It has been adopted by the Scottish National Party, the party that voted against the parent Bill when it passed through this place, the party that complains about rising prices in Scotland and yet uses its votes in the House of Commons to reduce the power of the Price Commission. It did that when we were debating the parent Bill and it is trying to do the same thing with the present grovelling little clause. It is only a way of bowing down to the Confederation of British Industry, and it signifies whose side the Scottish National Party is on.
      Mrs. Bain: I am delighted that, as usual, when an SNP Member speaks in the House of Commons the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) enters the Chamber to listen. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I served on the Committee that considered the parent bill. I assure him that many of his allegations are false. I give him the categorical assurance that the clause was drawn by the Scottish National Party.
      Mr. Canavan: The hon. Member for the CBI has claimed that certain of my statements are unsubstantiated. I referred among other things to the voting record of SNP Members. I challenge them to point to one inaccuracy in what I said earlier. They voted against increasing the powers of the Commission when we were considering the parent Bill, and they are doing so again. Unfortunately, the Government are compromising with them to get their support.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Schedule agreed to.
      Bill reported, with an amendment; as amended, considered.
      10.33 pm
      Mr. Hattersley: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      If I understand the mood of the House, I think that it wants to make progress. Therefore, I say only three things about the Bill. If the House grants it a Third Reading, and if their Lordships in another place pass it unamended, the powers that the Government propose in this amendment Bill will be retained unimpaired. The new clause proposed by the Scottish National Party and accepted by the Government does not impair the Bill's powers in any way. It only limits the life of the powers. It is for the Government of the day to decide a year from now whether the powers should be renewed.
      I hypothesise in the unlikely event of a Conservative Government taking office. Irrespective of whether we have accepted a clause that provides for annual renewal, the Conservative Party has been on record over the past four years as being wholly opposed to price control. It is clear that a Conservative Government would have abolished the entire Bill. We must accept that as a reality.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Quite right.
      Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman says "Quite right". The more that we can get that in Hansard, the better it will be during the next six months. That is the reality.
      If the House gives the Bill a Third Reading and gives the Commission greater discretion, it will possess opportunities a year from now, and for as long as the continuation of its powers is approved by the House, to play a more positive role in the control of prices. I believe that to be desirable in a number of ways. It will continue to exercise its discretion where necessary. We heard much talk in Committee about profit. The Commission will not unreasonably prevent profit being made for investment, innovation and exports.
      Some hon. Members place particular importance on the obligations to the special needs of areas of high unemployment. The Commission will continue to understand that its obligations go wider than holding down prices to a reasonable level and that it should not pursue that aim to the exclusion of considerations like

      1619
      unemployment in the development areas. I would have gladly accepted an amendment along these lines had it been in order.
      The basic principle on which we shall vote on Third Reading is whether we want an effective system of price control. If the Bill receives a Third Reading and returns unscathed from their Lordships' House, we shall have achieved that aim. I commend the Third Reading to the House.
      10.36 p.m.
      Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: We now have the Bill as amended by new clause 2. When the Secretary of State starts talking about being frank, it is time to count the spoons. The right hon. Gentleman gave as his reason for accepting the new clause the problem facing a minority party. In doing so, he was being less than frank. That was not the reason why he accepted the new clause. The problem exists only where a minority Government are so determined to cling to power that they are willing to prostitute themselves, come what may. They have done it before.
      The new clause was not so important that the Government would have had to resign if it had not been accepted. That was not the issue on which the right hon. Gentleman accepted the new clause. He accepted it because he needs the Lab-Nat pact, or the Lab-Nit pact as it is more popularly known, until after 1 March. That would have been a franker explanation.
      We are deeply concerned that this measure should have been introduced at all. We are even more concerned about the damage that will be caused to investment confidence and eventually to job prospects. The Bill has been introduced against a background not of soaring profits but after a period of barely adequate profits over the last five years. It follows a period, especially in 1974 and 1975, when stringent price controls applied at the time of a wages explosion, all of which had to be absorbed and not passed on through higher prices. A 15 per cent. increase in wages last year also had to be absorbed because of competition. The situation is exacerbated by the likelihood of rising inflation this year and the fact that industry and consumers have also had to sustain 100 per cent. inflation over the last five years.
      1620
      The Bill could not have been introduced at a worse time. We are opposed to this expensive piece of election window-dressing. What makes us more concerned is that the Government have not seen fit to accept a number of reasonable amendments, dramatically represented by the Minister of State as sabotage amendments. They amounted to two little exemptions: one important amendment on interim safeguards, and another to remove subsection (7) in page 2, which the hon. Gentleman said would actually strengthen the Bill. As it happens, he is wrong. These sabotaging efforts, as they were described by the Minister of State, would be more properly described as an attempt on our part to put an albeit inadequate and threadbare safety net in place of the safeguards to provide what little protection they might have provided and to prevent the uncertainty that will now ensue without any safeguards.
      During the various stages of the Bill's passage through the House, hon. Members have asked repeatedly whether it was a lion or a mouse. The answer, of course, is that it is both a lion and a mouse. It is a lion in that its ferocity can savagely undermine confidence in industry. It is a mouse inasmuch as it will have little or no effect on the retail price index other than in the shortest possible term. It may be that this was never intended to be a long-term measure—I have long suspected that—so, for what it is worth, the annual review is welcome. To that extent, this amended legislation cannot continue to exist after one year without being reviewed by Parliament. However, by then the damage will have been done. By the time this matter comes before Parliament again, investment in staple industries will have been hit and jobs will have been destroyed. Those lost jobs will not be replaced.
      What gain will result? The statistics of inflation may be altered marginally, but not its reality. The reality of inflation cannot be altered by measures such as this. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the Opposition opposing various measures which the Government have brought before the House. But none of those measures has prevented prices from doubling. None of those measures has done what it promised to do. None of those measures has had anything but the

      1621
      most marginal effect on prices. Therein lies the dishonesty of this legislation.
      The lesson that the Labour Party will never learn is that inflation cannot be destroyed. It can only be diverted by manipulation, and only for short periods. This manipulation of statistics is perhaps the cruellest trick that can be played on consumers. It is played at the cost of destroying the prosperity of business, great and small—not only big business. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken a lot about competition. In fact, the Bill will help the Price Commission to distort competition further. No party is more in favour of competition than my own. But by creating a state of affairs where the market leader's price has to be held, the ripple effect is felt all the way down to the smallest business.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: Lower prices.
      Mrs. Oppenheim: Yes, but that is artificial competition, and in the end it distorts competition because it pushes the little men out at the bottom and there is less choice for consumers.
      It is notable that in the David Frost programme shown on television last night the bitterest attack on the Government came from the frustration of a small business man. It came not from the captains of industry, and not from people of the kind that we discussed earlier, but from a small business man who was embittered by the fact that he had sold his house to invest in a business, that he had worked all hours of the day and night to make a go of it, and that it had all been lost as a result of the industrial chaos of the past few weeks. That is the little man who is affected at the bottom of the pyramid by the ripple effect of this distorted competition.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: It is competition which the hon. Lady advocates.
      Mrs. Oppenheim: No. If the hon. Member does not understand that, I am afraid that his intelligence is incapable of insult, because the point is a very simple one. We advocate fair competition in which a balance is struck. This is not fair competition.
      Throughout the proceedings on the Bill, the Opposition have advanced a number of arguments in the hope of getting some
      1622
      clarification from one of the Ministers dealing with it. On Second Reading the Secretary of State said that the raison d'être of this measure was what he described as the immense profits in 1977. According to him, these immense profits could be used as a historic basis for pushing loopholes through the safeguards. I am bound to point out that the immense profits in 1977 amounted in the first half of the year to a return on capital for industry of a little less than 3¼ per cent., and that that was against a rate of inflation at the time of about 17 per cent. Those were the immense profits to which the right hon. Gentleman referred so misleadingly on Second Reading. Therefore, the measure is not only futile and irrelevant but is cruel, because British consumers have been through quite enough under the present Government to deserve not to be misled in this way any more.
      On Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman referred to what he was kind enough to describe as what had become known in the trade as my Gloucester speech. I am not sure what trade he was talking about, because, as far as I am aware, he has no connection whatsoever with trade or industry. If he had, he would not be introducing this Bill. But, alas, what I said then is only too true.
      As was illustrated in that speech, companies are frightened at the prospect of a Price Commission investigation, not because they have something to hide but because they are uncertain as to the outcome, because they do not like the costs which are incurred, because of the executive and senior management time which is spent with the Price Commission, and the possibility, also, of confidential information being leaked. These are important areas of confidence which are being undermined yet further by the Bill.
      When the right hon. Gentleman talks about "these massive profits", again he may not have consulted the Prime Minister, who said of companies' profits at the Labour Party conference in Blackpool:
      "When I say that they must have sufficient funds, I mean that they must be able to earn a surplus, which is a euphemism for saying that they must make a profit. Whether you call it a surplus or profit, it is necessary."
      That is something neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Bill accepts, because the Bill does not provide for a situation in which loss-making can be prevented

      1623
      by interim safeguards during an investigation period. Industry does not have any faith whatsoever in the discretion of the Price Commission. It does not have any confidence that it will not be pushed into a loss-making situation. Nothing that has been said during these proceedings about section 2 of the Price Commission Act has served in any way to produce that confidence.
      On a very important point on loss-making, we have still had no satisfactory explanation about what will happen to a loss-making or break-even public sector company. If the profits of such a company are to be pushed lower and it is in either a loss-making or a break-even position, it means either that its capital investment will have to be cut, with the ripple effect of that on private industry, or Government subsidy, or demanning, or an increase in the public sector borrowing requirement. The Government have a duty to tell the House which of those it will be in the context of the Bill.
      But, of course, what will happen is that the Government will not allow the Price Commission to impose demanning because the unions will not like that, so it will be the PSBR, which the right hon. Gentleman is so keen on pushing up, which will be allowed to increase. What the Treasury has to say about the whole question of the PSBR now being transferred from the Treasury to the Price Commission is a very interesting concept. It will raise interest rates higher and crowd out private sector borrowing, if this is the case. The Government's policy on the nationalised industries is in total confusion.
      Finally, what is still far from clear, despite ministerial denials, is whether it is intended to use the Bill as a pay sanction. The Government have said "No" on the one hand, but, on the other, they have said "If there is not sufficient efficiency in an industry, that is when the sanction will be used". I can only point out that at a time when there was a productivity deduction under the old Price Code, which could have disallowed up to 50 per cent. of the price increase accounted for by pay, that did not prevent pay from going through the roof. Therefore, as a pay sanction the thing is absolutely hopeless.
      1624
      I hope, finally, that through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can say this to the consumers of this country: beware of this most dishonest bargain offer yet, this tuppence-off-now and fourpence-on-later measure, because that is what it is. It is consumers who will be paying more in the end, both in prices and in terms of husbands' and wives' jobs, for this expensive electoral trick which will undermine not only consumer interests but the prosperity of the country as a whole.
      I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to reject the Bill.
      10.50 p.m.
      Mrs. Bain: In recommending to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they should vote for the Third Reading of the Bill, I shall make particularly sure that they are made aware of the remarks of the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), because they, like me, will not accept lectures from the Conservative Party on employment opportunities in Scotland, since the Conservative Party has consistently in this House voted against measures brought forward to ease the unemployment in Scotland, including items such as the Scottish Development Agency, and—only last week—the expanded budget for projects such as assistance to Chrysler UK, which is essential to jobs in the West of Scotland, and the Polish contract, which has provided employment for shipyards on the upper Clyde. There is only one Scottish member of the Conservative Party here, and only one Scottish member of the Conservative Party has bothered to speak in the discussion on the Bill today.
      Obviously, we are particularly delighted that the Government have seen their way to accepting new clause 2. The hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) vented his usual spleen against the Scottish National Party, which is in direct proportion to how close we are to him in his constituency, but did not have the courage to vote against the new clause, and we are pleased that the Government accepted it in the spirit in which we moved it.
      We also welcome the Secretary of State's references to amendments Nos. 2 and 18, which we were disappointed were not selected by the Chair, although we accepted that ruling. We are pleased that the right hon. Gentleman saw that we

      1625
      were concerned about two vital aspects of industry in Scotland, namely, companies in assisted areas which could be affected by price rises, and those companies which could be severely affected by rising costs of imported raw materials, which are, of course, external uncontrollable factors. I ask the Minister to underline the action that is open to the Government in these two specific areas of concern.
      10.52 pm
      Mr. Sainsbury: I make two comments only about the Bill. Every Government talk about increasing investment. Every Government even do some things about increasing investment. But we have never had a Government who so consistently and repetitively took one step forward and then two steps back in damaging the essential link between confidence and investment, and therefore damaging the strength of the British economy and employment opportunities. What the Secretary of State has done in going back on what he said about safeguard clauses is to take this disastrous Government two steps back yet again.
      Secondly, this mean little Bill is, in its way, one further contribution to the illusion that Governments can do something about holding down prices, regardless of wage increases and regardless of the effect on employment. If for no other reason than that—ignoring even the effect on the economy through investment—this is a bad Bill and should be rejected.
      10.54 pm
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall be brief. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear hear."] I am delighted to receive reaction from hon. Members opposite.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): And I am quite willing to help the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Winterton: I always heed your extremely good advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but at the same time I intend to tell the Government what I think about this Bill, which is piffling on the one hand and damaging on the other.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) said, it will have very little effect upon prices but it will be very damaging to profits, and I want profits because they mean inves-
      1626
      tment, and investment means jobs. The Socialist Party—because that is what it is, and not the Labour Party any longer—came to office pledged to provide virtually full employment, but it has succeeded in trebling unemployment. My duty in this House is not only to participate in decision-making but to represent the interests of groups within my constituency, and I come here to advise the Government of the comments of the general manager of a bakery in the North-West about the Bill.
      I quote from a letter dated 30 January 1979 from Mr. D. R. Robinson:
      "Many of my colleagues feel that the proposed Bill cannot be claimed to have a sound economic base and our view is that the Government is merely acting under the present trade union pressure, with its political undertones. In a business such as this, there is a growing fear that stricter price control than that to which we are subjected at present cannot be justified, as the proposals would clearly drastically restrict our profits and thus make a case for necessary investment harder to make out. We are adhering to the recent agreement between the Federation of Bakers and the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers' Union to try to keep our wage costs at as reasonable a level as possible, but a profit performance worse than our existing marginal profitability would further reduce confidence in our business and consequently our sales position. I view these proposals as inevitably leading to failure to maintain even our present performance and foresee the loss of jobs as a result. Unless there can be adequate investment in our business we cannot anticipate growth of the business at all—no new jobs—no improvement in efficiency. Indeed, can we survive?"
      I believe that from somebody in business—and in the food business, which is perhaps the most competitive industry in this country—that is an indictment of this mean little Bill that we have been debating today. I shall relish going into the "No" Lobby against it because I believe that profits are vital, despite what Labour Members say. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the Government have been a disastrous failure.
      10.56 p.m.
      Mr. Michael Morris: This is not only a mean Bill but a very unhappy one, born of the expediency of Cabinet meetings and overtaken by events in the country at large. When 61 per cent of industry is working at low capacity, and when large and small companies are facing a major cash crisis, I ask the Secretary of State whether this is the time to bring in a Bill of this nature.

      1627
      The one sector of industry that will suffer is that consisting of the food manufacturing companies. They will be forced into break-even trading, and that is in no one's interest.
      The Bill is a political charade, put up in anticipation of a spring election. It will just blow up in the Prime Minister's face, because he does not want an election until October.
      10.58 p.m.
      Mr. Giles Shaw: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to have possibly the last word from the Opposition Benches, although obviously we look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
      The position that we have now reached has been amply demonstrated. There are those of us who believe that the Bill is a major restriction on the ability of industry to create a profitable and likely series of enterprises. But in particular I draw the attention of the House to the value of the interim safeguard which is at the nub of the Bill. It is clear from an answer given by the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection on 29th January that, under the safeguard operations, since the Price Commission came into operation last year £365 million has been contributed to company profits during the year from 1 August 1977. This represents approximately 0·5 per cent. of consumer expenditure.
      That kind of operation has no real bearing upon consumer spending. The total profit earned by companies in that year was £7,141 million. The profit safeguard was barely 5 per cent. of total company profits.
      We are arguing that, for the sake of destroying the statutory backing to that small contribution to company viability, the Government are taking a quite unnecessary risk for no benefit whatever, other than once again to demonstrate that industry cannot rely upon the Government pursuing a policy which is designed to enable it, against all the odds, still to employ people, still to invest, and still grudgingly to return the kind of profit that the Government will accept.
      11 p.m.
      Mr. Maclennan: I say to the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), in respect of his final remarks, that a party that pays such scant regard to 0·5 per
      1628
      cent. of total consumer expenditure—and that is a lot of money—as appears to be the case with his party, is not one that is likely to be entrusted by the country with its fate. What has, characterised this debate has been the total lack of concern for the consumer. We had 20 minutes from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), who just remembered in her last sentence that she was supposed to be the Shadow Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection.
      Much concern has been expressed about the confidence of industry. The Opposition have devoted all of the debate to seeking to undermine the confidence of industry by misrepresenting the provisions of the Bill. If there is concern in this country, it is about inflation. In so far as this Bill will help to fight inflation it will be welcomed by the country at large.
      The concern expressed has been principally about how the enlarged discretion of the Price Commission will be exercised. The Commission has shown a readiness to accept the need of industry for profitability. It has shown this in its granting of interim price increases and in its adherence to the criteria set out in section 2 of the parent Act.
      The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) spoke of two concerns. The first was the need for the Commission to take into account the impact on companies of imported commodity costs. That is a proper concern to express, and one to which the Price Commission will be required to give attention. It is covered in the parent Act, but it was impossible to accept the amendment which she tabled. It would not have been unwelcome to the Labour Party.
      The hon. Member also spoke of the problems of firms in assisted areas. That, too, is a matter which it is perfectly proper for the Commission to consider under the general criteria of the Act. These are real problems and concerns, and the balance which has to be struck between the protection of the consumer and the needs of industry is one which will be assisted by giving the Price Commission this discretion.
      The Bill enlarges the powers of the Commission to act in the interests of the people of this country in the fight against inflation, and I support its Third Reading with confidence and pleasure.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

      Division No. 61]

      AYES

      [11.03 p.m.

      Abse, Leo

      Foot, Rt Hon Michael

      Magee, Bryan

      Allaun, Frank

      Ford, Ben

      Mallalieu, J. P. W.

      Anderson, Donald

      Forrester, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Archer, Rt Hon Peter

      Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Armstrong, Ernest

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

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Ashley, Jack

      Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

      Meacher, Michael

      Ashton, Joe

      Garrett, John (Norwich S)

      Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Mikardo, Ian

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

      George, Bruce

      Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

      Bain, Mrs Margaret

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Ginsburg, David

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

      Golding, John

      Molloy, William

      Bates, Alf

      Gould, Bryan

      Moonman, Eric

      Bean, R. E.

      Gourlay, Harry

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Been, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

      Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morton, George

      Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

      Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

      Boardman, H.

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Hart, Rt Hon Judith

      Newens, Stanley

      Boothroyd, Miss Betty

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Noble, Mike

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

      Hayman, Mrs Helene

      Oakes, Gordon

      Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

      Healey Rt Hon Denis

      Ogden, Eric

      Bradley, Tom

      Heffer, Eric S.

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

      Henderson, Douglas

      Orbach, Maurice

      Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

      Home Robertson, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Buchan, Norman

      Hooley, Frank

      Ovenden, John

      Buchanan, Richard

      Horam, John

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)

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

      Padley, Walter

      Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

      Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

      Huckfield, Les

      Park, George

      Campbell, Ian

      Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

      Parker, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Parry, Robert

      Cant, R. B.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Carmichael, Neil

      Hunter, Adam

      Pendry, Tom

      Carter, Ray

      Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

      Perry, Ernest

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

      Price, C. (Lewisham W)

      Cartwright, John

      Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Janner, Greville

      Radice, Giles

      Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

      Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

      Cohen, Stanly

      Jeger, Mrs Lena

      Richardson, Miss Jo

      Coleman, Donald

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Colquhoun, Ms Maureen

      John, Brynmor

      Roberts Gwilym (Cannock)

      Concannon, Rt Hon John

      Johnson, James (Hull West)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Johnson Walter (Derby S)

      Robinson, Geoffrey

      Corbett, Robin

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Roderick, Caerwyn

      Cowans, Harry

      Jones, Barry (East Flint)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Judd, Frank

      Rooker, J. W.

      Cronin, John

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

      Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

      Kelley, Richard

      Rowlands, Ted

      Cryer, Bob

      Kerr, Russell

      Ryman, John

      Davidson, Arthur

      Kilroy-Silk, Robert

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

      Kinnock, Neil

      Selby, Harry

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lambie, David

      Sever, John

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

      Deakins, Eric

      Lamond, James

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Dempsey, James

      Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

      Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)

      Dewar, Donald

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Silkin Rt Hon John (Deptford)

      Doig, Peter

      Lee, John

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Dormand, J. D.

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Silverman, Julius

      Douglas-Mann, Bruce

      Lewis Ron (Carlisle)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Litterick, Tom

      Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

      Dunn, James A.

      Lofthouse, Geoffrey

      Snape, Peter

      Dunnett, Jack

      Loyden, Eddie

      Spearing, Nigel

      Eadie, Alex

      Luard, Evan

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Edge, Geoff

      Lyon, Alexander (York)

      Stallard, A. W.

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

      Stewart, Rt Hon Donald

      English, Michael

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

      Ennals, Rt Hon David

      McCartney, Hugh

      Stoddart, David

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      McDonald, Dr Oonagh

      Stott, Roger

      Evans, John (Newton)

      McElhone, Frank

      Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.

      Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

      Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Swain, Thomas

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

      MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

      Flannery, Martin

      Maclennan, Robert

      Thomas Dafydd (Merioneth)

      Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

      Thomas Jeffrey (Abertillery)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Madden, Max

      Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

      The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 256.

      Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

      Watkins, David

      Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

      Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

      Weetch, Ken

      Wilson Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

      Tierney, Sydney

      Weitzman, David

      Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

      Tilley, John

      Wellbeloved, James

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Tinn, James

      Welsh, Andrew

      Woodall, Alec

      Tomlinson, John

      White, Frank R. (Bury)

      Woof, Robert

      Torney, Tom

      Whitlock, William

      Wrigglesworth, Ian

      Tuck, Raphael

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

      Willey Rt Hon Frederick

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

      Mr. Bryan Davies and

      Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

      Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

      Mr. Ted Graham

      Ward, Michael

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Aitken, Jonathan

      Forman, Nigle

      MacGregor, John

      Alison, Michael

      Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)

      MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

      Arnold, Tom

      Fox, Marcus

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

      Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

      Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

      Fry, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

      Madel, David

      Baker, Kenneth

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Beith, A. J.

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Marten, Neil

      Bell, Ronald

      Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)

      Mates, Michael

      Bendall, Vivian

      Gilmour, sir John (East Fife)

      Mather, Carol

      Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

      Glyn, Dr Alan

      Maude, Angus

      Benyon, W.

      Godber, Rt Hon Joseph

      Mawby, Ray

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Goodhew, Victor

      Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

      Biffen, John

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Gorst, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Blaker, Peter

      Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

      Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)

      Body, Richard

      Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

      Mills, Peter

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Gray, Hamish

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Bottomley, Peter

      Griffiths, Eldon

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Moate, Roger

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)

      Grist, Ian

      Molyneaux, James

      Bradford, Rev Robert

      Grylls, Michael

      Monro, Hector

      Brittan, Leon

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

      Moore, John (Croydon C)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      More, Jasper (Ludlow)

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Morgan, Geraint

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hannam, John

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

      Bryan, Sir Paul

      Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)

      Buck, Antony

      Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

      Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

      Budgen, Nick

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Mudd, David

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Heath, Rt Hon Edward

      Neave, Airey

      Burden, F. A.

      Hicks, Robert

      Nelson, Anthony

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Hodgson, Robin

      Neubert, Michael

      Carlisle, Mark

      Holland, Phillp

      Newton, Tony

      Chalker, Mrs Lynda

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Nott, John

      Churchill, W. S.

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Oppenheim, Mrs Sally

      Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

      Clark, William (Croydon S)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

      Page, Richard (Workington)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Pardoe, John

      Clegg, Walter

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Cockcroft, John

      Hurd, Douglas

      Pattie, Geoffrey

      Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Penhaligon, David

      Cope, John

      Irving, charles (Cheltenham)

      Percival, Ian

      Cormack Patrick

      James, David

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Costain, A. P.

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

      Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

      Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

      Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Crouch, David

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Crowder, F. P.

      Jones, Arthur (Daventry)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

      Jopling, Michael

      Pym, Rt Hon Francis

      Dodsworth, Geoffrey

      Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

      Raison, Timothy

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rathbone, Tim

      Drayson, Burnaby

      Kimball, Marcus

      Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      King, Evelyn (South Dorset)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Durant, Tony

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)

      Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

      Knox David

      Rhodes James, R.

      Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

      Lamont, Norman

      Ridley, Hon Nicholas

      Elliott, Sir William

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Emery, Peter

      Latham, Michael (Melton)

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

      Fairbairn, Nicholas

      Lawson, Nigel

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      Farr, John

      Lloyd, Ian

      Ross, William (Londonderry)

      Fell, Anthony

      Loveridge, John

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Finsberg, Geoffrey

      Luce, Richard

      Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      McAdden, Sir Stephen

      Royle, Sir Anthony

      Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

      McCrindle, Robert

      Sainsbury, Tim

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      McCusker H.

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      1632

      1633

      Scott, Nicholas

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Viggers, Peter

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Stanley, John

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)

      Walters, Dennis

      Shepherd, Colin

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Shersby, Michael

      Stokes, John

      Wells, John

      Silvester, Fred

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

      Sims, Roger

      Tapsell, Feter

      Whitney, Raymond

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Tebbit, Norman

      Wood, Rt Hon Richard

      Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

      Temple-Morris, Feter

      Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

      Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)

      Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

      Younger, Hon George

      Speed, Keith

      Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

      Spence, John

      Townsend, Cyril D.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and

      Sproat, Iain

      Vaughan, Dr Gerard

      Mr. Jim Lester

      Stainton, Keith

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time and passed.

  SUB-POST OFFICES (CLOSURE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do not adjourn.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
  11.16 p.m.
  Mr. Fred Silvester: I wish to speak about the effect of the closure of sub-post offices. This is a matter of particular relevance to the city of Manchester, but it has wider implications. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) will intervene with some comments about the effects in rural areas.
  The Post Office is not merely a commercial concern: 80 per cent. of post offices are run as shops or grocers or newsagents, and as such they are run on a commercial basis. They are paid by the Post Office a fee which is based upon the amount of business that they do, and which takes account of their overheads. To some extent this is a curious combination—a normal business combined with a post office service.
  In addition, the Post Office acts as an agent for the Department of Health and Social Security. Post offices are, in effect, the smiling face of the Welfare State. Whatever we decide, here or in Whitehall, results in business at the post office counter, and this is important to the recipient. That is where the money passes, and that is what really matters. Therefore, it is important to get this bit of the system right.
  The Post Office is paid £125 million a year by the DHSS and another 21·5 million for the writing of Giro cheques for the DHSS. Therefore, the Post Office
  1634
  gets a considerable sum as the agent for the Welfare State.
  I turn to the question of encashment This is officialese for paying people in need the money which the State decides they should have. There are 19 million people in this category, therefore there are about 19½ million transactions a week across post office counters. By definition, these payments go to the elderly, the sick, the disabled and the unemployed. Post offices also pay child benefit. These benefits have increased. It is true that the Post Office has given up responsibility for national savings, but, by and large, the total number of these transactions has increased.
  In those circumsances, it is important to understand the nature of the customers before doing anything about the sub-post offices. Because they are elderly, sick, disabled, and so on, these 19 million people have particular difficulties. If they have to change to a second bus or go with a pram or a push-chair to the post office, it is that much more difficult for them than for people without those disabilities. It is very important whether these post offices are situated on a hill or in the local shopping centre. These are crucial matters for the particular audience with which we are concerned.
  The situation can be well illustrated within the city of Manchester. First, there is the question of closures. The Post Office says that it will not provide a new sub-post office within a mile of an existing post office in a city or within two miles in a rural area. That sounds all right, except that one must bear in mind that before 1945 the rules were different and were more generous. At that time post offices could be within a mile of one another. Therefore, the change of policy meant that the Post Office began shutting sub-post offices.

  1635
  As a result, when a sub-postmaster retired, or when an authority was redeveloping the city and knocked down an old post office, the Post Office was only too glad to grab that opportunity to knock another office off the list. Consequently, the number of post offices has diminished. In 1971 there were 136 closures nationally whereas last year there were 203. So the pace has accelerated. In Manchester we have lost a tenth of our sub-post offices—a reduction from 115 in 1971 to 102 today.
  It is not as though we were over-provided, because the ratio of population to post offices in Manchester is double the national average. We have more old people and pensioners than most places, and we have more people on social security payments. Yet the closures are continuing. This has nothing to do with the failure to find new postmasters. In at least two well-documented cases in Manchester the city council could show that there were people willing to take over this responsibility from the chaps who retired.
  The Post Office says that it does not apply these rules rigorously. If that is so, it is not visible to the naked eye. In one case in Manchester, in an adjacent constituency to mine, the closure was fought heartily by a local county councillor, Mrs. Margaret Davies. The sub-post office had been there for 60 years. It was in the local shopping centre, and the protest embraced over 1,000 people. It included the church and Age Concern, an organisation particularly concerned about elderly people. Nevertheless, the trade was switched to another post office, which has considerably increased the hazards confronting people going to it. I cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of the circumstances of each post office, and the rules of the Post Office are generally not satisfactory.
  I should like to mention quickly the other side of the coin, which concerns the opening of new post offices. This is admirably illustrated in my own constituency, in the Barlow Moor area, because in one case there is a new housing estate in an area badly served by the Post Office. About 200 or 300 people have moved in. A little further down, in a similar area, there is an estate on the wrong side of the road from the post office. That is a road called Princes Parkway. It may not mean
  1636
  much to hon. Members, but it is a main road linking the centre of Manchester with the motorway network. The traffic whizzing up and down it has to be seen to be believed. We spent a long time getting another two seconds on the red light at the pedestrian crossing. One can, therefore, imagine what kind of road it is. One has to be pretty swift on one's pins to get across that road at all. If one is a pensioner, it is a major exploit to get one's pension during the week.
  I should like to put three points which might help to improve the situation both in Manchester and generally. First, there should be no more closures in Manchester and there should be a review of the policy generally. The White Paper, published last year, acknowledged in paragraph 50:
  "the size of the network is about right … and the Post Office has no intention of making major changes in the size of the network".
  I hope that the Minister has that quotation. Will he make sure that he includes Manchester in that change of policy so that we do not suffer any more closures?
  Secondly, the review committee on the Post Office criticised the Post Office for having too restrictive a view of the opportunities for expansion. This did not relate specifically to sub-post offices but included things such as other agencies which the Post Office could count. I hope, therefore, that the Post Office will look at new places where it can open rather than adopt a constantly retrenching attitude about its future in this area.
  Thirdly, I want the Post Office to be run as a profitable concern. There is no reason for its not doing that, but it has a public duty as well and it must discharge that duty properly.
  I understand that there are problems about security in mobile post offices, but there are other experiments which can be tried—for example, by post offices which open for, say, two or three days a week which would cater for some people. That must be done with no charge to the Post Office, and is a service for which it should negotiate a fee with the DHSS. If the Post Office feels that it is undercharging, it must negotiate a proper fee. There is no reason why the DHSS should get its services on the cheap. This should be a proper administrative charge and be included in the Department's budget rather than be hidden in

  1637
  the diminished profits of the Post Office. It should not be used as a reason for closing sub-post offices which are so essential.
  Those three things are of great importance: the stopping of closures, a more open policy on new opportunities for the Post Office, and a proper fee from the DHSS to the Post Office.
  The Post Office has a strange combination of commercial efficiency and social duty. I accept that it is a difficult job, and I accept also that it tries to carry it out, but the evidence that I have from Manchester—and I believe that this applies nationally—is that it is not discharging that combined responsibility as well as it might.
  11.26 pm
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) for allowing me a few moments in which to intervene. I endorse everything that he has said about the difficulty which the closure of sub-post offices is causing to people.
  In my constituency a number of village sub-post offices have closed recently, and if I tell my hon. Friend that the inconvenience caused to people living in country areas is that much greater than to people living in urban areas, he will understand. Considerable difficulties arise when an elderly person who has always drawn a pension or some other allowance or has simply bought stamps from the village post office is told that it is to close and he has to travel for five or 10 miles for those services.
  In the recent icy and wintry weather, the problem of getting to the bus stop, catching the bus getting to the main post office—in my case in Newbury—and then returning home is of such an order as to make one wonder why the Post Office has shown itself to be unimaginative in finding a substitute for the sub-post offices which have closed. The Post Office seems to take the view that unless a post office offers its full service for five or six days a week, it has no alternatives that it wishes to put forward.
  It is on the lack of imagination of the Post Office that I want to say a few words to the Minister. I shall put three suggestions to him and ask him to convey
  1638
  them to the Post Office as a matter of some urgency and as a possible way of remedying the problem which faces country people when their sub-post office is forced to close.
  My first point, on which my hon. Friend touched, relates to the mobile post office. There is nothing new in the idea. At any country or agricultural show during the summer, the chances are that there will be a large Post Office vehicle there to provide a full range of services. If the Post Office can provide those services at a country show, why can it not provide a mobile post office in a village?
  The Post Office argument that it must provide a five or six-day-a-week service or nothing is not what village people want. If they have lost their sub-post office, they want a facility which allows the elderly to draw their old-age pension, allows people to buy stamps and allows those who have allowances which come through the post office to collect them. If they do that on only two days or even one day a week, that will suffice. At the moment, however, it is the sub-post office or nothing, and that will not do.
  Next, I suggest to the Minister that there should be much closer links between social workers and the postal authorities. What is required here is for elderly people, some of whom are practically housebound, to be able to get their pension, even if the weather is against them and they cannot go out. I suggest, therefore, that the postal authorities, working with the social workers, should arrange for the pension to be brought to the householder, and, conceivably, the postmen who could do that job might also be able to sell them stamps.
  Lastly, I ask the Minister what thought has been given to extending the village hall post office experiment which has been tried successfully in Dorset, Shropshire and Bedfordshire but which, as far as I know, has not gone beyond the experimental stage. The Minister may well know that in that experiment the village hall is turned into a post office for two or three days a week and it provides the full range of services, apart perhaps from dog licences or one or two less important services. It means, therefore, that the village hall is the place where those who cannot now go to their sub-post office can go to

  1639
  get the postal facilities which they want. Thus, the inconvenience and the cost of travel at present caused in local areas when sub-post offices are closed is saved. I assure the Minister that that is a real saving since travel on country buses is an expensive business.
  I ask the Minister to convey to the Post Office the need for more imagination, more flexibility, and a greater willingness to innovate, to experiment, and perhaps to consider the three proposals which I have made as possibly, at least in one respect, offering a way to meet the need which undoubtedly exists when sub-post offices are closed.
  11.32 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): I note the pleadings of the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Silvester) and his hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), and I am grateful for this opportunity to have a short debate on a subject which is obviously of vital importance to people in both urban and rural areas. I have to say to the hon. Member for Withington that he is not the only Manchester Member who has raised this matter with me. Indeed, he comes rather late in the day in so doing, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has also raised it with me on two occasions, as has the town clerk and chief executive or the council to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
  I have to tell the hon. Member for Newbury that the last recorded correspondence which I have seen is when he wrote to the chairman of the Post Office, Sir William Barlow, on 27 July last year.
  So I can say to both hon. Gentlemen that there are far more consistent ways by which the case can be pleaded, although I recognise, of course, that Adjournment debates present their own opportunities.
  I note that the hon. Member for Withington referred to the structure and status of the Post Office under the Post Office Act 1969, under which it is for the Post Office itself to take decisions and have prime responsibility for the provision of sub-post offices. I am glad that he recognises that, and I think that his
  1640
  party also recognises it. Indeed, I have not heard that it would wish to disturb that arrangement. But it is the fact that when the Post Office was made a nationalised corporation under the 1969 Act, Parliament clearly intended that the Post Office itself should be responsible for matters affecting the day-to-day management of the services which it provides. I think that both hon. Gentlemen would agree that post offices and sub-post offices definitely come within that ambit.
  It is true that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has certain general reserve powers, but I do not regard those general reserve powers as being applicable or appropriate to such occasions as this. This matter is the prime responsibility of the Post Office, and it has a statutory obligation to exercise its powers in providing a postal service, including counter services, to meet efficiently and economically the social, industrial and commercial needs of the British Isles. Indeed, the chairman of the Post Office, Sir William Barlow, has more than once gone out of his way to stress the importance that he attaches to providing an efficient service to the public.
  The Post Office has that prime responsibility, and no one doubts the importance of the service that it provides for the range of benefits to which both hon. Members referred. I refer to family allowances, retirement pensions and supplementary benefits for the needy sectors of the population, particularly those who are old and immobile and depend upon the local post office. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Department of National Savings and the Girobank, and I do not want to detract from the importance of those services. However, because of the wide range of services provided by the Post Office, it is unfortunate that they are sometimes taken for granted and the dedication of the Post Office in providing them tends to be overlooked.
  Let me refer specifically to the Manchester area, to which the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe wrote to me on 16 November and 18 December about this. He presented me with a detailed paper which had been prepared with a great deal of care by Manchester city council. The council refers to the changing patterns in population, age structure and employment in the

  1641
  area and relates these to the provision of post offices. The council takes the view that certain areas would benefit from greater provision of this important facility.
  The Post Office informs me that the city of Manchester has 207 sub-post offices. Since 1971 there have been 15 closures, but during the same period—the hon. Gentleman did not mention this—three new offices have opened. These new offices, at Moss Lane M14, Hulme M15 and the Manor office in M33, took account of new housing developments in those areas. The majority of the closures took place in areas of redevelopment. These followed the normal practice of the Post Office on these occasions of a thorough review of and consultation about the adequacy of sub-post office provision in the areas concerned. In all these cases the judgment of the Post Office—and there is an adequate period during which consultation takes place—was that the service was satisfactory in terms of its normal criteria, to which I shall refer in a minute.
  Let me give one example. In August 1977 a compulsory purchase order was placed on the Chester Road sub-post office in Manchester 18. The provision of facilities for the area was reviewed and found to be satisfactory. The nearest other post office was only a quarter of a mile away and there were two other sub-post offices within a mile. Chester Road post office was closed in March 1978 and the terrace in which it was situated was demolished some time later. That is just one example of how the Post Office goes into these matters in great care.
  Let us not lose sight of the fact that during the last two years 32 other sub-post offices have been reviewed following the resignation of the sub-postmaster, but they were retained. It is facts and figures that demonstrate to me that there is no deliberate intention on the part of the Post Office to reduce seriously post office provision in the area, and the figures in no sense indicate to me a neglect of Manchester's needs, although I recognise the strong feelings that have been put to me by my right hon. Friend and by Manchester city council. In all these cases, thorough consultation was undertaken.
  I recognise that these are matters of serious concern to Manchester Members. That is why, and because of the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe, I am glad to confirm
  1642
  that a meeting has been arranged for 28 February between the chairman of the North-Western postal board and the chief executive of the city of Manchester. I hope that on that occasion it will be possible to explore in depth the points of concern. I know that the Post Office will take on board the important points that will be made. I know, too, that the city council feels that there ought to be a body with power to require the retention of a sub-post office where it is felt to be necessary in the interests of the local community.
  If a local authority believes that the benefits of a sub-post office that is due for closure are essential to the community that is served, it is able under the terms of the Post Office Act 1953 and the Local Government Act 1972 to maintain that office by underwriting its losses to the Post Office. I recognise that any council such as Manchester has many calls upon its scarce resources. However, I hope that the city will consider that possibility in its discussions with the Post Office.
  It is interesting to note that, despite some of the hon. Gentleman's complaints, Manchester's housing manager has recently said that he is well satisfied with the way in which council house rents are being paid by the Giro system. Although Manchester city council has expressed concern, it has paid tribute to the efficiency of the Giro services that are operated through the Post Office.
  I refer to the overall picture to which the hon. Gentleman also referred, and especially to the importance of the Post Office network. There are now about 21,000 sub-post offices and 1,600 Crown offices. Together these represent, in terms of area and population served per post office, one of the best services in the world. In America, for example, where the area served is 17 times greater, there are only 30 per cent. more post offices. I can give more figures than that to prove the adequacy and the extent of the coverage of the Post Office. We do not always give the Post Office the credit that is due to it for operating a large system in such an efficient and economic manner.
  The broad criteria that the Post Office adopts in reviewing the need for sub-post offices are that an office is not normally opened within one mile of an existing office in a town or within two miles

  1643
  in a rural area. Local factors must be taken into account, and the Post Office does so. These include the volume of business transacted at the office concerned, the nature and terrain of the area that it serves and the availability of local bus services. All those factors are taken into account. The Post Office assures me that it gives full consideration to the needs of the local residents generally, and retirement pensioners especially.
  Even bearing in mind the fair criteria that are used in making a decision—and I hope hon. Members will accept that they are fair—some closures are bound to be inevitable, for some of the reasons that I have described. Over the past six or seven years a slight contraction has taken place in the Post Office network, although during that period the net rate of closures has never risen above 1 per cent. per annum. It is only natural that as the fabric of the nation changes the nationwide services that sustain it should also change. The reduction in the number of sub-post offices, especially in the inner urban and more remote rural areas, is, I believe, but a reflection of wider national tendencies.
  The hon. Member for Newbury referred to the provision of postal services in rural areas. The Post Office interprets the provisions under which it operates and the services that it may provide in the most flexible manner possible. Sir William Barlow's letter gave the hon. Gentleman a fairly adequate explanation of some of the difficulties that are encountered in the operation of mobile post offices. There are many problems, including vandalism. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the village hall concept to which he referred is being further explored by the Post Office,
  1644
  although I am sure he recognises that it does not provide the continual and regular service that some would like to see.
  Wherever a closure takes place, local authorities and, where they exist, local post office advisory committees are notified well in advance of the closure and the reasons for it. Their views and those of other interested parties are taken fully into account before a final decision is reached. Hon. Members will be aware that the Post Office Users' National Council—or where appropriate its regional councils—has a statutory duty to consider representations on post office closures.
  I am glad that reference has been made to the recent White Paper, in which it is stated that the Post Office recognises that the present network of post offices fulfils an important social as well as business need. It is stated in the White Paper that no major changes in the number or nature of the Post Office network are envisaged. Both Crown and scale-payment offices will continue to be provided when the locality and the volume of business meet the agreed criteria.
  While aiming to maintain its network at broadly its present size, the Post Office is committed to playing an important role in support of both urban and rural communities. I shall take on board what both hon. Gentlemen have said tonight and relay their remarks to the Post Office. Like the hon. Member for Withington, we look forward to the outcome of the meeting on 28 February which has been instigated by my right hon. Friend.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

  PICKETING
  PICKETING
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Emergencies
  Emergencies
  Anscombe Grange, Styal and Holloway
  Anscombe Grange, Styal and Holloway
  Prison Escapees (Prosecutions)
  Prison Escapees (Prosecutions)
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Police Forces (Establishment)
  Police Forces (Establishment)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Computer Staff
  Computer Staff
ENVIRONMENT
  House Alterations
  House Alterations
  Community Land Scheme
  Community Land Scheme
  Inner Urban Areas
  Inner Urban Areas
  Water Act 1973
  Water Act 1973
  Local Authorities (Wage Settlements)
  Local Authorities (Wage Settlements)
  Partnership Committees
  Partnership Committees
  Building Societies Association
  Building Societies Association
  Council Houses (Rents)
  Council Houses (Rents)
  Council Housing (Insulation)
  Council Housing (Insulation)
  Council Housing (Stress Areas)
  Council Housing (Stress Areas)
  Partnership Schemes
  Partnership Schemes
  Urban Renewal
  Urban Renewal
  Planning Controls (Inner Urban Areas)
  Planning Controls (Inner Urban Areas)
  Inner Ring Road, Liverpool
  Inner Ring Road, Liverpool
  Footpaths
  Footpaths
  Council Employees (Pensions)
  Council Employees (Pensions)
  Buildings (Insulation)
  Buildings (Insulation)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
EMPLOYMENT
  Minimum Wage
  Minimum Wage
  Wages (London and Manchester)
  Wages (London and Manchester)
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Training Workshops and Projects
  Training Workshops and Projects
TRADE
  Sears Roebuck (Application)
  Sears Roebuck (Application)
  Fishing Boats (Stability)
  Fishing Boats (Stability)
  Oil Pollution (Salvage Tugs)
  Oil Pollution (Salvage Tugs)
  Company Structure (Simplification)
  Company Structure (Simplification)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Engineering Courses
  Engineering Courses
  Arts Expenditure
  Arts Expenditure
  Sporting Activities (Circular)
  Sporting Activities (Circular)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Sale of Goods Act 1893
  Sale of Goods Act 1893
  Food Subsidies
  Food Subsidies
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Vietnamese Refugees
  International Agreements
  International Agreements
DEFENCE
  RAF Lindholme
  RAF Lindholme
  Transport Command
  Transport Command
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Council House Tenants (Rent Arrears)
  Council House Tenants (Rent Arrears)
  Reception and Re-establishment Centres
  Reception and Re-establishment Centres
  Lead Pollution
  Lead Pollution
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Cheshire)
  Hospital Waiting Lists (Cheshire)
  Strike Centres
  Strike Centres
  Benefits (Industrial Disputes)
  Benefits (Industrial Disputes)
  Claimants (Order Books)
  Claimants (Order Books)
  Obstetrics
  Obstetrics
  Nursing Vacancies (Burton-on-Trent)
  Nursing Vacancies (Burton-on-Trent)
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Child Benefit Books
  Child Benefit Books
  Hospital Admissions
  Hospital Admissions
  Intensive Child Care Units
  Intensive Child Care Units
ENERGY
  British National Oil Corporation
  British National Oil Corporation
  Oil Supplies
  Oil Supplies
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  India
  India
  Tobacco Growing
  Tobacco Growing
  European Development Fund
  European Development Fund
  Eritrea (Medical Aid)
  Eritrea (Medical Aid)
  Manufacturing Industry (Output)
  Manufacturing Industry (Output)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Disposable Income (International Comparisons)
  Disposable Income (International Comparisons)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Capital Gains Tax
  Employment Income
  Employment Income
  Public Sector Pay Settlements
  Public Sector Pay Settlements
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Minimum Wage
  Minimum Wage
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Census Branch Office
  Census Branch Office
WALES
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Gwynedd)
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Gwynedd)
  Sporting Activities (Circular)
  Sporting Activities (Circular)
  Roads
  Roads
  Road Maintenance
  Road Maintenance
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  School Examinations
  School Examinations
  A5, Pentrefrelas, Gwynedd
  A5, Pentrefrelas, Gwynedd
TRANSPORT
  Trans-Pennines Route
  Trans-Pennines Route
  Channel Bridge
  Channel Bridge
  Motor Vehicles (Parking)
  Motor Vehicles (Parking)
  M25 (North Orbital Road)
  M25 (North Orbital Road)
  Liaison Officer, Eastern Road Construction Unit
  Liaison Officer, Eastern Road Construction Unit
  Southampton Docks
  Southampton Docks
  Motor Vehicles (Lighting)
  Motor Vehicles (Lighting)
  London Docks
  London Docks
  Traffic Commissioners (South-West)
  Traffic Commissioners (South-West)
SCOTLAND
  Slurry
  Slurry
  Mentally Ill Persons (Day Care Places)
  Mentally Ill Persons (Day Care Places)
  Domestic Waste
  Domestic Waste
  Computers
  Computers
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Computers
  Computers
  Therapists
  Therapists
  Dual Carriageways
  Dual Carriageways
  Expenditure (Roads)
  Expenditure (Roads)
ENVIRONMENT
  Partnership Committees
  Partnership Committees
  Local Authorities (Loans to Industry)
  Local Authorities (Loans to Industry)
  Listed Buildings
  Listed Buildings
  Local Government (Reorganisation)
  Local Government (Reorganisation)
  Rates
  Rates
  Pollution
  Pollution
  House Prices
  House Prices
  Banks Horticultural Products Limited
  Banks Horticultural Products Limited
  Countryside Bill
  Countryside Bill
  Housing Corporation (Members' Salaries)
  Housing Corporation (Members' Salaries)
  Homeless Persons (Local Authority Expenditure)
  Homeless Persons (Local Authority Expenditure)
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Housing Starts and Completions (Derbyshire)
  Housing Starts and Completions (Derbyshire)
  Rate Support Grant (Derbyshire)
  Rate Support Grant (Derbyshire)
  Housing Investment
  Housing Investment
  Sporting Activities (Circular)
  Sporting Activities (Circular)
  Canals
  Canals
  Community Land Accounts
  Community Land Accounts
  Inner Urban Areas Act
  Inner Urban Areas Act

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

AGRICULTURAL PAY INCREASE AND GOVERNMENT POLICY
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: 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 aware that the Agricultural Wages Board recently awarded a pay increase of the order of 13 per cent. to agricultural workers; whether this is now in accordance with Government policy on pay increases; and what action they propose to take.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government have noted that the increases in minimum rates prescribed in the recent award by the Agricultural Wages Board for England and Wales are in excess of the pay guidelines. These increases were confirmed by the Board on 19th January and came into effect on 20th January. The Government have no power to interfere with the decisions made by this independent statutory body.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but does it indicate that the Government have now discovered, as did their predecessors, that wages boards and wages councils can constitute a considerable limitation upon an income policy; and will the Government do anything about it?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government certainly would have preferred an award squarely within the guidelines, but the noble Lord will have noted that the Board says that it also took productivity into account.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, my noble friend's Question referred to agricultural
130
wages, but is the noble Lord aware that the craftsman's rate for agriculture is 15 per cent. and not 13 per cent. and that the overtime rate for agriculture is over 20 per cent? Will the noble Lord explain how he thinks that the Government can have a prosperous British agriculture faced with increases of that nature, when his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture said that he was determined to see that this year, and in the years to come, there should be a freeze on farm prices? Is that really the policy of the present Administration as regards agriculture?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the award, of course, applies only to workers on minimum rates. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture has said that he would welcome farmers entering self-financing productivity agreements with individual workers. There is nothing to stop them from doing that.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to answer the question; namely, faced with increases like that, how can we have a prosperous British agriculture when the Minister says that there is to be a freeze on farm prices?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, as the noble Earl knows very well, productivity in agriculture depends upon a great many factors.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does it not seem surprising that members of the Conservative Party who for donkeys' years have always been supreme in matters of agricultural prosperity and the interests of the farm workers in whom they take great pride, now seem to be protesting at this increase in their wages?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that there is no protest against these awards? What there is a protest against is the freeze on farm prices which prevents people from financing them properly. Is the idea that there should be vast productivity one which the Minister has thought up for himself, or is he not aware that British agriculture is already among the most productive in the world?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the recent annual review White Paper showed a fall in aggregate net income of the United Kingdom agricultural industry of 3·5 per cent. in cash terms in 1978; but if the potato figures were excluded the 1978 aggregate income figures show a small rise in cash terms.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that the freeze is unlikely to take place? He cannot give any guarantee that a freeze is likely to take place in agricultural prices, nor is it likely to take place. However, the one thing that has happened—and I am very glad that it has—is that the farm workers who never had a decent wage under Conservative rule are getting a decent wage under Labour rule.
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced earlier this month a relaxation specifically designed to help the lowest paid. I am surprised that noble Lords opposite laugh. I thought that they would be behind the Government in their fight against inflation.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that he said in his original Answer that the Agricultural Wages Board is something over which neither side of Government has any control whatever? Will he explain that to his noble friend? That is why we were laughing.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I never know when the noble and learned Lord laughs. He laughs so often and we all enjoy it. As I said earlier, this award applies only to the minimum rates; for other workers wages are a matter for negotiations between individual employers and workers.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, will the noble Lord take back to his right honourable friend the very real concern of those engaged in agriculture that, although they are delighted with the increase given to farm workers, they are concerned that the Minister has said that it is his determination that there will be a freeze on prices, which will mean that productivity from agriculture and the ability to pay
132
the increased wages simply will not be there?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think we must recognise that the agricultural workers are, of course, among the lower paid. However, we are concerned that it is precisely the lower paid who stand to suffer most if inflation is driven into double figures. As regards the other point made by the noble Earl, as I have said, my right honourable friend has said that he would welcome farmers entering into self-financing productivity agreements with individual workers.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the figures he has quoted refer also to Scotland?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, no; they refer only to England and Wales.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in talking about farm prices the Minister of Agriculture was referring to his negotiations with the EEC, which do not necessarily have a direct bearing on farm prices in this country?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain why he expects farm productivity and prices to increase by 23 per cent. next year when, according to his own figures, they went down by 3 per cent. this year? Did he not say that these wages must be paid for out of productivity? Top rates have increased by 20 per cent., and middle rates by 13 per cent., which I welcome. Produce value has fallen by 3 per cent. Where will the productivity come from next year?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I said that for the other workers—not those on the minimum rates—their wages were a matter for negotiation between them and their individual employers.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, will the Minister not agree that on most farms today we have reduced the labour force as much as possible? There is now no way of having one man fewer in order to pay these extra wages. Therefore, the crisis is bound to arise.

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES
2.44 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what international action they propose to initiate to deal with the problems caused by the exodus of refugees from Vietnam.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the Government fully support action being taken by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. We have decided to admit more Vietnamese refugees and have urged other Governments to do likewise. We have also made very clear to the Vietnamese our concern that they should ameliorate the situation which causes large numbers of their own population to flee the country at great risk to their lives.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his Answer. Perhaps I can specifically put to him the situation facing the Government of Thailand, which at present has an inflow in the region of 140,000 refugees from Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam. In terms of common humanity, I put it to my noble friend that it is desirable to take action to help the Government of Thailand; but, also, there seems to me to be an essential Western interest in terms of helping the Government of Thailand deal with this massive inflow of refugees from three countries which abut its borders. In that situation, can my noble friend tell me what action he contemplates taking with our colleagues in the European Community to deal with the matter and what other action the Government contemplate taking?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his reference to Thailand. As he said, it is of humane concern and it is also a clear Western democratic interest that we should do everything we can to support the Government and the people
134
of Thailand, particularly in this very grave imposition upon them from outside. The figures which my noble friend gave are absolutely right. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates there to be some 65,000 boat refugees in various countries of Indo-China, some of them in Thailand. But, as we have just heard, in addition there are about 134,000—it may well be 140,000 by now—refugees in Thailand who crossed overland from Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. The size of the problem will be apparent to the House, and also the enormity of the guilt of those who are responsible for this massive enforced exodus.
As to the steps we have taken to help these unfortunate people, I shall not detail them all, but so far we have accepted 1,400, of whom over 1,000 are Vietnamese. But a further 1,500 boat refugees from Vietnam will be admitted in the next few months, some of them specifically from Thailand. In addition, we have made very generous financial contributions to the funds of the United Nations Commission for Refugees. Indeed, I see that when my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Luard, attended a meeting in Geneva last month, he was able to offer £1 million sterling towards the total of £12 million which was subscribed by all the countries represented there. I think that I can assure my noble friend and the House that we are, in fact, doing a good deal diplomatically, financially and, indeed, practically to assist the area. I might perhaps add that on 23rd January my right honourable friend the Secretary of State called in the Vietnamese Ambassador and spoke to him in very forthright terms about the responsibility of his Government for this situation.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, have any of the Communist countries contributed to this appalling problem which has been created by their comrades?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I take it that the noble and learned Lord is not asking me whether they have contributed to the solution of the problem. I have no evidence on that point. There may well be evidence that the creation of this problem springs from the dreadful vagaries of totalitarian government in Vietnam and elsewhere.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that according to a Communist Party newspaper published on 17th December last, the Vietnamese Government intend to collectivise all the farms in the Mekong delta, with the result that 7 million peasants will be dispossessed and will, therefore, obviously swell the total number of refugees to a very considerable degree? Can he give an assurance that the British taxpayer will under no circumstances be called upon to help out the Vietnamese Government—whether by the provision of subsidised merchant shipping or otherwise—so long as this kind of behaviour continues?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I doubt that this Government, or any other Government, will allow any of the British taxpayers' money to be made available in aid to the Vietnamese Government. Equally, I cannot give a guarantee that, even though the fault lies squarely with the Vietnamese authorities, we shall not, as usual, do our best to help the unfortunate people concerned. However, the question raises the fundamental difficulty that there have been movements of refugees which the International Commission, assisted by countries such as ours, has more or less been able to cope with, but this situation is something else again. This is the expulsion almost of a population, or of a segment of a nation. It is an exodus in almost Biblical terms, without, say, the morality of that authority. We are addressing ourselves to the fundamental question: How do we stop the policies at source?—because that is where this particular problem will be solved, if at all.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the problem is even larger than has been suggested?—because, although approximately 75,000 refugees have been resettled since I visited Thailand in 1977, the total now in that country is greater by many thousands than it was at that time. Furthermore, there are approximately 40,000 boat people now in Malaysia, another country which is struggling with a burden which it ought not to be called upon to bear. Will he accept that we on this side will support anything he can do to help resolve this problem, and look forward to any elaboration of his argu-
136
ment that he will be able to give us on 14th February when we are to debate the matter?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I freely and gladly accept the fact of consensus on this. It is a matter of humanitarian concern. I also recall that it was the noble Lord who raised the question of Cambodia some months ago when we had an excellent debate, in which he spoke rather presciently, I must say, about the present situation.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, may I put one final point to my noble friend, while thanking him for the full answer he gave to my supplementary question? I put to him the point about discussions within the European Community. Can he deal with that particular point? It seems to me to be desirable to discuss this matter with our colleagues in the European Community.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I fear I telescoped my remarks when I referred to the interests of Western democracy, if I am within the recollection of the House. I had very much in mind what my noble friend said. We are in constant discussion with our friends and allies in the West about this and related problems, and indeed the Geneva meeting owed its relative success to the fact that we and like-minded countries from the EEC were able to give a lead and, more importantly, to make the contribution we did. I can assure the House and my noble friend that we shall be closely in touch with our neighbours in Western Europe in the future, as we have been in the past, on this matter.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the Hong Kong Government deserves the highest praise for its humane approach to this appalling problem? Does it not serve as an example to us in this country to receive even more of these unfortunate refugees, who risk their lives under the most dangerous conditions to escape from the veritable hell which now exists in Vietnam?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think I have given figures showing that we have doubled the intake into this country of refugees in this category. We are always ready to look at these very

137
serious situations and see what more we can do. I welcome what my noble friend said about the attitude of the Hong Kong Government. We all know the persistent difficulties the Hong Kong Government faces in accommodating refugees year by year. Many more than have come even now from other countries do come in from the mainland to Hong Kong, where the services are constantly being strained beyond endurance and resources. I should be glad to send a copy of these exchanges to Sir Murray MacLehose to show that his attitude and that of the Government of Hong Kong is appreciated in this House.

UGANDA: SUGGESTED TRADE EMBARGO
2.54 p.m.
Lord BROCK WAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration has been given to the imposition of an embargo on trade with Uganda whilst the present régime continues.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we have enforced a total arms embargo, broken off diplomatic relations, and terminated all bilateral aid programmes. It would however be a very serious step to embark upon general trade sanctions, with implications for our policies in other areas.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, have not the Government of the United States of America gone further than this? Have they not applied a trade embargo? In view of the evidence of revolt within Uganda and on its border now, might not a similar decision by our Government be decisive in overthrowing this tyranny?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we sympathise, of course, with the motivation of American policy in this regard. However, trade with Uganda, so far as we are concerned, falls within the scope of the Community's common commercial policy. We are not, in the American sense, free agents for this
138
purpose, even if—and I do not say we would—we decided that this was the best way to tackle this question. We should much prefer to rest on a decision of the United Nations in the normal way. We have not applied general trade sanctions to any legitimate country in the past. I see no likelihood of our doing it unilaterally in regard to Uganda, however obnoxious the régime may be to us. I see every likelihood of our obeying any decision of the international authority in this instance.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, have any of the black African countries, who are so disposed to attack Britain and her past, shown any disposition to get rid of this bloodthirsty criminal lunatic?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that there are quite a number of people in Africa of varying colours and creeds who would welcome the early withdrawal of the President from the scene. As to whether any constituted Government has taken commercial sanctions, no, I have no evidence of any African government having done that.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, would it not be more profitable for my noble friend Lord Brockway, with his close connections with African countries and close knowledge of many African leaders, to ask his African friends to say something about Uganda? In my seven years at the United Nations, I was present during three months of each year and I never heard one African country condemn Uganda. Is it not time that some of us on this side of the House took account of that?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there is no doubt that there is a certain solidarity in the post-colonial world. No doubt the many individuals, and indeed organisations, whom I mentioned in my previous reply who are certainly totally opposed to the President of Uganda's policies, may in due course prevail upon their own Governments to take action. I think we should take into account a certain hangover from the colonial past in this respect. I would not condemn African Governments out of hand on this score. As to my noble

139
friend Lord Brockway, I know how assiduously he has worked for peace in Africa and an understanding between all races there, including Rhodesia and Uganda. I also know of the sterling work which my noble friend Lady Gaits-kell has done in these matters in the United Nations.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, would not the action recommended by his noble friend have a significant effect on exports of whisky?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am almost inclined to invite the noble Lord, who is an uncomfortably skilled parliamentarian, to put that question to another Department. I say so quite seriously because this is a question of exactly what is the trade between Stansted and Uganda. I have tried to find out, not by practical experimentation but by inquiry, but I really do not know what the situation is. We are looking into it very carefully, and I should be grateful indeed if a certain Department took upon itself to edge me aside and answer such a question on its own.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is it not a fact that at this moment the troops of Tanzania are engaged in operations against this gentleman, whom the noble and learned Lord accurately described in terms which I used in this House five years ago when he was a little more popular? Is it not a fact that this is an extremely sensitive and dangerous area, with the troubles in Rwanda-Burundi extending over towards the area of Congo-Zaire, where there are the most distressing complications, but coming from other European countries? On the whole, the African nations—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord HALE: As I say, on the whole, the African nations are showing as much concern for peace as they can, although they are not being let alone to run their own affairs. I would add that Kenya has also shown the same disposition.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's statement on the situation in Africa. Of course, what he says is perfectly true;
140
there are perimeters of friction there, quite in the European tradition of the 19th century, where sovereign States are attacking each other. What the position on that particular boundary is now I cannot say. There has been fighting, but I cannot say whether it has continued to this day, and I will try to find out. What my noble friend says is clearly true. There is at once a picture of remarkable forbearance in an area where there are deep-seated tribal as well as national enmities and competitiveness. On the other hand, there is the ever-present danger of friction and hostilities leading to more than local wars. That is what makes Central and Southern Africa of such worldwide importance today.

THE GUADELOUPE SUMMIT: FURTHER ANSWER ON STATEMENT
3.2 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: 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 publish in the Official Report the answer which the Lord Privy Seal undertook to send in writing to the Lord Soames in reply to certain matters which he raised on the Statement on the Guadeloupe Summit made in the House on 16th January.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I have arranged for this to be done.
Following is text of the answer referred to:
"When I repeated the text of the Prime Minister's statement on the Guadeloupe summit in the House of Lords on 16th January, you asked whether consideration had been given at Guadeloupe to the setting up of an inter-Governmental forum whose duty it would be to keep a continuing watch over the threats of various kinds (overt and covert) outside the NATO area, both to the interests of the Western world and to those of our friends elsewhere. I undertook to look into this, and to let you know the result.
"The point you referred to was not discussed at Guadeloupe. The meeting was intended to provide an opportunity for relaxed and informal discussion of political and security developments of common concern; it was not an occasion for substantive decisions on matters of interest to our Allies and partners.

141
"It may be helpful if I make the point that the scope of political consultation within NATO is not confined to developments within the NATO area. In the Declaration on Atlantic Relations adopted in Ottawa on 19th June 1974, NATO Governments agreed—
'to strengthen the practice of frank and timely consultations by all means which may be appropriate on matters relating to their common interests as members of the Alliance, bearing in mind that these interests can be affected by events in other areas of the world '.
"In the Government's view, NATO provides the right institutional forum for regular discussion with our Allies on security matters affecting our common interests. In addition to the consultation which takes place in NATO, we are of course in regular touch with our Allies and partners on international issues, both through meetings of Ministers and through diplomatic channels; they would be uneasy at the establishment of any formal, permanent group which excluded them from important decisions". 30th January 1979.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much indeed. Is he aware that it is not very often that I get such a good Answer? I am grateful to him.

PICKETING OF FUNERAL FACILITIES
3.3 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice, namely:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the picketing of funeral facilities in the metropolitan boroughs of Tameside and Liverpool".
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lady Stedman will answer this Question in the form of a Statement after 3.30 p.m.

LOCAL AUTHORITY WORKERS: PAY DISPUTE
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice, namely:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on
142
the breakdown of negotiations over local authority manual workers' pay.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lady Stedman will answer this Question in the form of a Statement after 3.30 p.m.

ESTATE AGENTS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
3.5 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to. I should perhaps draw the attention of the House to the first item in the report, "Questions on nationalised industries." This matter was first considered by the Procedure Committee on 11th April last year and was subsequently agreed to by the House on 11th May 1978. The recommendation was that Questions on the day-to-day running of the nationalised industries were undesirable.
On that occasion, there was some criticism in the House that the report had been taken without sufficient notice having been given. I have been into the matter and the facts are that the Motion was put on the Order Paper on Tuesday, 2nd May, but, unfortunately, due to printing difficulties with which we are all too familiar, the report was not published and available until Monday, 8th May. The report was not put before your Lordships until 11th May, so there were still three or four days between the publication of the report and the date of its consideration.
However, representations were subsequently made to me by certain Members of your Lordships' House that the decision of the Procedure Committee should be

143
reconsidered. That was duly done, and the Procedure Committee reconsidered the matter shortly before the Christmas Recess, on 6th December last. On that occasion three of your Lordships who were not members of the Committee attended the meeting. They were the noble Lords, Lord Clitheroe, Lord Mottistone and Lord Trefgarne; they came before the Committee and argued their case. The Committee listened to what they had to say but in the end re-affirmed its earlier conclusion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
The report was as follows:
1. QUESTIONS ON NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
The Committee have reconsidered, at the request of certain Lords, their decision of 11th April 1978 (First Report, 1977–78) with regard to the tabling of questions on nationalised industries.
It was argued that there should be no restriction on the right of Lords to ask questions on the day-today running of the nationalised industries. However, having considered these arguments, the Committee re-affirm their decision that the tabling of questions on nationalised industries is undesirable, save for those asking for statistical information on a national basis or those which raise matters of urgent public importance.
2. UNOPPOSED BILL COMMITTEES
The Committee have considered a number of recommendations of the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure (First Report, 1977–78) in relation to Private Bill Standing Order 121(2) which reads as follows:
"Each Unopposed Bill Committee shall consist of the Chairman of Committees and such Lords as think fit to attend".
The Practice and Procedure Committee recommended that the Chairman of Committees should be empowered to invite specific members of the House to serve on Unopposed Bill Committees dealing with important issues of public policy. They considered that the existing wording of the Standing Order was not apt for this purpose.
The Practice and Procedure Committee also recommended that the role of Counsel to the Chairman of Committees in the work of Unopposed Bill Committees should be expressly recognised in the Standing Order and, further, that an Unopposed Bill Committee should be enabled to make a Special Report where they were of the opinion that there were special circumstances which should be brought to the attention of the House.
The Committee agree with these recommendations and accordingly propose that Private Bill Standing Order 121(2) should be amended to read as follows:

"(i) Each Unopposed Bill Committee shall consist of the Chairman of Committees
144
and, should he see fit, such Lords as he may select from the panel of Deputy Chairmen appointed each Session, and no Lord who is not a member of the Committee shall take any part in the proceedings thereof.

(ii) The Committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to the Chairman of Committees.

(iii) An Unopposed Bill Committee shall in respect of the Bill committed to them make a Special Report on any matter to which they consider that the attention of the House should be drawn".

3. EMERGENCY SITTINGS FOR JUDICIAL BUSINESS
The Committee have considered the present arrangements for recalling the House for Judicial business to a time earlier than that to which it has been adjourned.
The Committee were informed that there is no authority for such a recall, as there is in the case of Public business.
The Committee consider that there should be such authority and therefore recommend that Standing Order 14 should be amended by the insertion of a third paragraph, as follows:
"(3) Notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, the House may meet for judicial business at a time earlier than that appointed if the Lord Chancellor or, in his absence, the senior Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, is satisfied that it should do so and has signified that he is so satisfied and has given notice to such Lords as he thinks fit."
4. RULES OF DEBATE: RIGHT OF REPLY
The Committee have considered the convention of the House that the mover of a motion or an amendment has the right of reply at the end of any debate which may take place on his motion.
This convention has, in the main, been well observed but it does not carry the authority of the Procedure Committee, nor is it set out in the Companion.
The Committee, therefore, wish to make it clear that they consider it undesirable for a Lord to speak after the mover of a motion or an amendment has exercised his right of reply, except when the House is in Committee.
3.8 p.m.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, before agreeing to the report, which I think we should do, I can say that the Chairman of Committees has saved the House a lot of time by describing exactly what happened as a result of the withdrawal of labour, the printers' strike, last year, which put great difficulty in the way. Living in Scotland, as I do, when the notice was put on the Paper on 2nd May, that Paper did not reach me in Scotland and I did not receive a copy of the report.
Like other noble Lords, I owe a debt of gratitude to the Committee. I too was invited to attend the meeting to which

145
the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred at which the matter was considered, but unfortunately I was prevented from so doing. The first point I had intended to make has really been covered by Lord Aberdare in that it should be on the record that this interference with the business of Parliament took place as a result of the strike. If it had not been for that we should then have had the discussion which we are having now. I can discard many of the notes I had made, and only say that the report could not, as a result of that action, reach many Members besides myself. Indeed, I was speaking with my noble friend Lord Clitheroe on the telephone over the week-end. At the time he was thoroughly snowed in and said that he would be here if he could get through the snow, but it is clear that he is still snowbound.
I was one of those who wrote and I am grateful to the Chairman and his Committee for re-addressing themselves to the matter and inviting some of us to attend. Nevertheless, I am not happy with the wording of the Committee's resolution; namely, that
"… the tabling of questions on nationalised industries … is undesirable … save for those asking for statistical information on a national basis or those which raise matters of urgent public importance".
At a time when Parliament is being pressed from all sides to indulge in more open government I feel those words are too restrictive. I urge that when page 83 of the Companion comes to be re-drafted, as I imagine it will have to be following what has been decided by the Committee, the greatest care should be used in the wording of such amendment so that the responsibility for the wording of Questions can rest with Peers themselves—of course within reason, and they should not involve disproportionate use of time and expenditure.
While on the subject of the cost of answering Questions, may I say that I imagine that the Committee will soon be turning to the matter of the growing list of Questions for Written Answer. There were 14 of these answered yesterday, 12 in respect of the previous Sitting, and there are 60 more on the Paper today. As I struggle through the list I am absolutely deafened by the noise of axes being ground. With those comments I support the Motion.
3.10 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this matter, having what I might call a proprietary interest in nationalised industries. I shall be very brief, though there are one or two points I wish to make. I have noted the actual wording of the report regarding Questions about
"statistical information on a national basis or those which raise matters of urgent public importance".
I think that the problem is the question of what issues are thought of as being of urgent public importance, and opinions may well differ on this. I consider that Back-Benchers are placed in a rather difficult position over matters of this kind. Although I do not expect a specific answer from the Chairman of Committees, I should like to put a point to him.
I wish to hark back to 1973 when, through the kindness of this House, we waged the battle of the West London Air Terminal. At that time there were 1⅓ million passengers using buses out to Heathrow. Under these new rules, would that be termed as a matter of urgent public or national importance, or would I be told that it was not, and that therefore it would not be possible to table a Question about it?
With regard to statistical information, if one tables a Question which involves difficulties for the Department concerned (which does not wish to give a short answer if the questioner is right), there is a very real problem. I regret that on reconsideration the Committee has reaffirmed its decision. We laboured for a long time in the House of Commons under the difficulty that one could not table a Question on a nationalised industry. We are in a position of difficulty, and I should like to bring this to the notice of the Chairman of Committees, though I know that it is not his concern. If we cannot table a Question concerning a nationalised industry, and if a particular consumer council to which I am attached has no statutory standing upon which it can question a nationalised industry, then who is to do so? Here I declare an interest—the House knows my interest—but I think that there is a relevant point here. As I have said to those in authority

147
on the Front Bench, I am disturbed at the way in which Members in this House, and elsewhere, are fobbed off when they really and truly require information. While the prohibition may be right from the legislative point of view, it makes the position difficult for us.
I am glad to have been able to have my say, though we may not get any satisfaction. I hope that if, when one wishes to table Questions, one can show ingenuity and establish that the matter is purely statistical or is not purely to do with day-to-day running but might be seen as relating to an annual basis, some consideration may be given to the setting down of such Questions.
3.14 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should like to put forward a comment from the other point of view to that of the noble Baroness, whose view I well understand and always admire. I have shared her experience in the House of Commons. This problem, like many we have, is one of balance. We have large public corporations which run a very large part of our life through commercial and industrial utilities, and it is of vital importance that they should be efficiently run. Here we have the problem. To ensure that they are efficiently run it is necessary that the men, or indeed the women, running them, and who are appointed by the Secretary of State to be chairmen and members of the industries, should have the independence to manage them as efficiently as possible. Because they are appointed by the Secretary of State they are inevitably saddled with a certain political responsibility. They must keep the Secretary of State informed, but they will best run their national industry efficiently if, first, they are men or women of top calibre, able to carry big responsibilities and use commercial judgment; and secondly, if they are left independent and free to carry out those functions.
One of today's major problems, of which we are all aware, is the immense difficulty of finding men or women who have this capacity and who will take on these positions. If Parliament—this House and the other House—allowed Questions about day-to-day management, that would constitute an extra degree of
148
interference with the freedom of action and the judgment of the leaders of the nationalised industries. These great national corporations would be so shackled that it would be even more difficult to get men and women of the necessary calibre to run them. The noble Baroness has, like myself, sat in the other place and heard many debates on the matter. The original conception was to have independence in the day-to-day management, while the Secretary of State and the Government of the day are responsible for the overall policies of management.
I feel sure that in the interests of running these industries efficiently we should be most unwise if we were to change the well-established custom regarding Questions. Of course, by the ingenuity of noble Baronesses, and perhaps noble Lords and Members of Parliament, it is possible to include a sharp point in a supplementary question, which to some extent gets past the convention, but I am sure that it would be a major mistake if we allowed Questions on day-to-day management to appear on the Order Paper. There is machinery for consumer complaints to be handled in one way or another in all these industries.
Having recently retired from the chair of one, I can assure the noble Baroness that we were most sensitive to the fact that we were supplying a monopoly utility upon which life itself depended and that therefore we must burst ourselves to ensure that we gave the best possible service. That does not mean to say that we always pleased everybody. A noble friend of mine who is seated nearby occasionally expressed his dissatisfaction; that is inevitable. However, I assure the noble Baroness that there is a great sensitivity as to the big responsibilities which these chairmen and boards carry and that they do their best, within the limits of their huge responsibilities, to satisfy individual consumers and individual complaints. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will agree that we should accept the report of the Procedure Committee and that we should accept that, although we have not achieved perfection, we have probably the best balance we can attain: and that we should leave it at that.
3.19 p.m.
Lord CLITHEROE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Ferrier was kind enough

149
to telephone me during the weekend, and I have succeeded in getting here despite the snow, though I was rather late. I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness said and I think that I agreed with all of it, despite what my noble friend in front of me has said in his remarks. In private business a public company has an annual general meeting at which any shareholder can ask questions about what has been happening. Moreover, there was a time many years ago when I was a director of a railway company, when we used to meet once a week and question the officials of the railway company about various matters which we thought were not quite right. Really there is nothing quite in substitution for that in what is proposed in this report, or in what my noble friend Lord Nugent has said.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I put a question to the noble Lord the Lord Chairman as to what exactly is meant here? I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lord Ferrier, because, as I understand it, what is intended here is that it is a matter for the Peer who asks the Question to decide himself or herself whether the Question is a matter of urgent public importance; that any Peer is entitled to put any Question down and nobody can stop him so long as it conforms with the ordinary rules. All I am asking is that Peers, as a whole, should get the criterion right. When we talk of urgent public importance, in this House we are normally thinking of a Private Notice Question on a sudden emergency. Nevertheless, it is bound to be a matter for every Peer to judge whether the matter is of urgent public importance. But, then, it is a matter for the Minister to decide whether to answer that Question; and I have a suspicion from my own past experience, not unconnected with the noble Baroness, that it sometimes comes a little hard on the Minister because the sympathy of the House very often lies with the questioner and not with the Minister replying. If the noble Lord could possibly answer that one question of mine, it might be helpful.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I think it may be convenient to the House if I could express the Government's position on this. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, that I am grateful to him for contacting me and informing
150
me that he was going to raise this. Perhaps I may also say to him that it is not a question of open government: it is really a question of a long-established convention concerning Government's relationships with nationalised Boards. So I welcome the views expressed by many noble Lords today. The Procedure Committee has merely given explicit authority to what has been a convention of the House for many years. Successive Governments have refused to answer Questions on the day-to-day running of nationalised industries on the ground of public policy. This has been a practice since 1945, and I believe there is no question of varying it.
The Procedure Committee considered this matter at my invitation following a suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the Leader of the Opposition. On 25th July 1977, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, suggested that it might be possible to devise some procedure whereby time could be saved by not allowing Questions to be put on the Order Paper concerning the day-to-day running of nationalised industries. I think Lord Carrington's point, with which I wholly agreed, was that it wasted the time of the House and used up valuable starred Questions if Questions were tabled to which the Government could only reply, "This is a matter for the nationalised industry in question". My view is that the Procedure Committee were quite right to come to the conclusion that they reached, and, having done so, they were also quite right to stick to it. We are not talking about an unreasonable infringement of the rights of Back-Benchers. This is purely a practical question, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, reminded the House. There really is no point in having Questions before the House to which the Government cannot reply.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, perhaps I could say a word about Item 2 of the report—Unopposed Bill Committees. It quotes Standing Order 121, sub-paragraph (2), which is admirably short and which says:
"Each Unopposed Bill Committee shall consist of the Chairman of Committees and such Lords as think fit to attend".
The proposed Amendment to that Standing Order is going to sweep away

151
the right of any other Lord to attend the Unopposed Bill Committee even if he sees fit.
This recommendation emanates from the Committee on Practice and Procedure, and I have diligently scrutinised the report of that Committee from which this recommendation comes for the ground upon which it is sought to sweep away this right which every Peer enjoys. The only ground that I can see upon which the recommendation was made is that Peers do not in practice avail themselves of their right to attend the Unopposed Bill S Committee. My Lords, I should not have thought that that by itself was a sufficient ground upon which to sweep away Peers' rights in the absence of some! existing mischief or some contemplated mischief, which could be pointed to, making it necessary to limit the right of Peers to attend this Committee. In the absence of some mischief being pointed to, I should have thought we might well remember the words spoken many years ago from these Benches by the late Lord Esher, who said that we should hesitate long before tinkering with an institution which we should never have had the intelligence to create for ourselves.
In place of this wide, universal right to attend the Committee, it is proposed to have an amended Standing Order which allows the Lord Chairman to invite such members of the panel of Deputy Chairmen as he may choose to assist him in any particular case. I should have thought that the Lord Chairman, confronted with some particular problem, might say to himself that "Lord So-and-so", with his experience and expertise, was the person he would most like to assist him in this matter. But "Lord So-and-so" might not belong to the panel of Deputy Chairmen. I should have thought that the one characteristic of the Lord Chairman and his deputies was that they alternate with each other, and, normally they do not act in concert together. If this particular recommendation goes through, I can see the criticism arising that the Unopposed Bill Committee has become a closed shop run by the Lord Chairman and his deputies, and nobody else is being allowed to have a look in. I hope that these points will be considered before any Motion is brought before the House
152
to amend this Standing Order in the way that is proposed in this report.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does it not depend on the definition of the term, used so frequently, "day-to-day administration"? I was responsible for preparing to a large extent the legislation upon which the nationalisation of the coal industry was developed, and also the electricity industry. Throughout the years since 1945, not only in relation to coal or electricity but transport, civil aviation, the Bank of England and steel, which subsequently became denationalised and was then nationalised again, this problem has always emerged. I do not want to argue the matter because it would take a long time if one went into details, but let me put a simple point. Take, for example, the coal industry. Of course, this is a fictitious example. I say it is fictitious because I do not want to appear to be criticising the National Coal Board.
Take the National Coal Board. Let us suppose that it finds itself in financial difficulties, that there are huge losses for which it cannot be held directly and primarily responsible—it may be because of a loss of exports; it may be that there are some geological faults in many of the pits; it may be that some pits have been closed down for economic reasons; it may be that all sorts of matters emerge and create difficulties. But, as a result of huge financial losses, it is on the verge of bankruptcy and therefore has to ask the Government of the day—whichever Government it happens to be; it has nothing to do with the political colour of the Government—to write off losses or to provide a huge subvention. Only the other day Sir Derek Ezra, Chairman of the National Coal Board, when being interviewed on television was asked what the Board would do if it found itself in difficulties because of the huge increases in wages which had been demanded by the miners. He said: "There are many devices that we can deploy. One is that we will go and ask the Government for more money." Is that a matter of day-today administration? Is it not a matter which concerns public policy?
I will give another example: the price of coal at the grate. This is an issue which was frequently brought up in the other place. Questions were frequently asked

153
about the price of coal being raised. Some said that it ought not to be raised because the consumer would suffer accordingly and so on. But supposing the question of the price of coal affects the steel industry. Is that a matter of day-to-day administration exclusively? Surely it impinges on public policy. Therefore, one has to be very careful in accepting the submission, the decision or the recommendation, (whatever it may be) by any Committee or by a Minister of any Government that certain Questions should not be permitted.
When I was in Opposition, I never found any difficulty in getting a Question across. It is true, as somebody remarked, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that one can always get in a supplementary question. Frequently in this House when Questions have been asked about civil aviation or coal the Minister on the Front Bench has replied, according to the convention: "Write to the Coal Board" or "Write to the Post Office." How often have we heard that? Or there is the other answer to which my noble friend Lady Burton referred: "You have the consumer councils." We had the Post Office Users National Council under the late Lord Peddie who was perhaps the most industrious chairman of a consumer council that ever existed, but he could not exert sufficient influence over the Post Office to prevent them from raising prices or affecting changes. My noble friend Lady Burton referred to the consumer council in connection with civil aviation. She has achieved some success but I would not say that it was complete success. She did her best. My Lords, that is all I want to say. This question will never be settled by any decision. Time and again Ministers will reply: "Write to the Post Office" or "Write to the Railways Board" or "Write to the Coal Board," et cetera. But Members will go on asking Questions and Ministers will try to escape; but skilled Parliamentarians—unlike myself, a comparative novice in matters of this sort—will find a way out of the difficulty.
3.34 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees to answer a question which was raised in my mind by the speech of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn? If the House decides to accept the Motion
154
which he has moved, would the effect of that be to inhibit any noble Lord from putting on the Order Paper a Question relating to day-to-day administration of a nationalised industry which that noble Lord believed, rightly or wrongly, to be of urgent public importance? I am not asking the noble Lord to say how, in a doubtful case, the Minister who replies should handle it. My view would be that that is a matter entirely for the discretion of the Minister. But I think it important to know whether at the initial stage—that is, at the tabling of the Question—the adoption of the noble Lord's Motion would inhibit the placing of that Question on the Order Paper. If it were to have that effect—and I await the noble Lord's answer—for my part I should be very unhappy about the Motion he has moved, and not only for the reason which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has given. What is day-to-day administration and what is of urgent public importance is very much a matter of opinion. If one sits on that Bench opposite then one takes a totally different view from that of someone sitting on these Benches—as I know in the context of the activities of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, since at one time, as she knows, I had some responsibility for drafting the answers which an unfortunate Minister had to read out and then be harried about by her. That is the question.
May I make two general comments? First, if this is really a further restriction—as I suspect it is, even if only by way of formalisation—on our right to ask Questions about the nationalised industries, I wonder whether the noble Lord appreciates that this is very much against the trend of opinion generally. The nationalised industries are a very important part of our national economy. The whole push of public opinion today is towards obtaining more, not less, information about them and about other activities of Government. It is true that the other place has a similar Rule. But the other place probes into the nationalised industries in another way through the machinery of Select Committees. Indeed, I myself will shortly be attending as a witness, with your Lordships' permission, before the Select Committee of the other place on Nationalised Industries. If our House had similar machinery I would not myself attach so much weight to Parliamentary

155
Questions. But, as we do not, it would seem unfortunate when the whole desire of public opinion is to find out more about these and other activities in the public sector that we should be tightening up a restriction upon us.
Taking, finally, the point of my noble friend Lord Nugent about the calibre of the men who run these industries, I do not believe that a man of any calibre is going to mind providing information which he does not have to present—the Minister does it for him—to this House. If the Government are concerned about that aspect, then the best thing they can do—and I have put this before to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal—is not to worry about this but to pay them the proper rate for the job.
3.38 p.m.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I think it is probably right that something should be said from this Bench on this matter. Many years ago I used to stand at that Dispatch Box opposite and answer Questions which were addressed on Post Office matters. In something like nine out of 10, I had to give the answer: "My Lords, this is a matter for the day-to-day running of the Post Office." It was a great deal of fun and games which everybody enjoyed, not least myself. But surely here we have got to draw a balance. We have only four Questions in a day and we do not want to waste one of these four Questions by putting a Question which obviously the Minister cannot answer. On the other hand, we must not interfere with the individual freedom of individual Members of this House. That is where the balance must be drawn.
There is very great difficulty, obviously, in distinguishing between what is day-today running of a nationalised industry and what is a matter of more general public interest. My noble friend Lord Drumal-byn, if I may say so, is quite right: it has always been up to the individual noble Lord to decide for himself whether it is right for him to put that particular Question. It has always been up to the individual Minister replying to decide whether it is proper for him to answer that individual Question. And, surely, what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said is right. This has always
156
been the custom of the House. Nobody is seeking to take away any rights whatsoever. What the Procedure Committee has done is merely to confirm in words what has always been the individual custom of this House.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I say that that is in respect of starred Questions, is it not?
Lord DENHAM: Yes indeed, my Lords.
3.40 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I wonder whether I may briefly intervene in this short debate. I must first thank the Lord Chairman of Committees for allowing me and other Peers to appear before the Procedure Committee, and indeed for putting this matter before that committee a second time. Having said that, I must say that, like other noble Lords, I too greatly regret that the Procedure Committee reached the conclusion that it did. I must say that I have a certain sense of personal inadequacy in this matter: I clearly failed to convert a single member of the committee to my way of thinking.
However, the decision leaves us in a difficulty with regard to the general management of nationalised industries. It is a problem which needs serious consideration, and it is certainly beyond the scope of any committee of your Lordships' House, no matter how illustrious, as indeed the Procedure Committee is. It may be that the answer lies along the lines suggested by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter: some strengthening of the select committee procedure which appears to be so successful in the other place. That is not a matter that I would wish to develop at this moment. I would however say that, despite my regret at what the committee has decided, I do not think that it would be right for the House to reject the report at this stage.
3.42 p.m.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, as one who has had some experience of unopposed committees on Private Bills and not of the Practice and Procedure Committee, may I say that I welcome the recommendation in the report, provided only that the amendment to Standing

157
Orders is drafted in the right way. We have not the amendment before us, but I hope when it comes it will be so drafted that it meets the point of criticism. I am in favour of an amendment to Private Bill Standing Orders. I think it ought to meet two difficulties which I experienced when I was in the Chair. The first is this: it is awkward for Members of the House, when they are interested in a Private Bill, to be unable to attend meetings of the Unopposed Bill Committee simply because they have an interest in the matter with which the committee is dealing. As the Standing Orders are now drafted, if they merely attend the committee they become a member of the committee and therefore must take decisions on the Bill. For that reason they are disqualified if they have an interest, even though they may wish to follow the proceedings of the Bill. In the case of a committee on public business, they would be free to attend a meeting of the committee even if they were not themselves members.
The other important point is that I often found myself sitting alone as chairman of the committee when it was dealing with Unopposed Private Bills raising important matters of public policy. It is undesirable for the chairman to be the sole Member of this House to have to take the decision on what is recommended to your Lordships on the Bill. It is clearly much more desirable if the responsibility can be shared with one or two other Members of your Lordships' House. It is also unfair to the House when the report of the committee is made to the House that there should only be the Chairman of Committees to deal with the issue of public policy which may be very controversial, and it is therefore very desirable that there should be other Members of your Lordships' House serving on the committee who can also express a view about a matter of public policy.
3.45 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful to everybody who has taken part in this short debate. I have no reason to enter into the controversy of it because I am only the chairman of the committee and I am reporting to your Lordships what the committee's views were on the two occasions that it considered this particular matter. I should make it clear that it is not
158
quite such a dramatic decision as some of your Lordships have made out. Words like "questions not permitted" or "prohibited" were used. This is certainly not so. The word is "undesirable". No amendment which may be made to the Companion to the Standing Orders will prevent any noble Lord asking any Questions he likes. It is up to the House in the end whether they permit a Question to be asked, and it is up to the Government how they answer that Question.
If the Question was obviously a matter concerning nothing but the day-to-day running of nationalised industries—and it is impossible to define that, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, asked me to do—or a matter of public importance, it is up to the Peer himself. The clerk might say to him: "Do you not think that this is a matter of the day-to-day running of the nationalised industry and therefore probably better not asked?" But, in the end, the decision is for the Peer himself.
If I may say a quick word in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, although my noble friend Lord Listowel has spoken very powerfully to help me on this matter, Lord Airedale wanted some reason why we should make a change. The reason is that the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure, on looking at Private Bill procedure, found it was not all that satisfactory for the very reason—I think he called it a closed shop; it is now a closed shop—that it is me, sitting alone, who deals with unopposed Bills. Your Lordships who are at the moment able to drift in whenever you like do not in fact do so. It would be rather embarrassing if you did!
The Select Committee thought that it would be much better to make the situation rather more regular and orderly and allow me the chance to have two Peers sitting with me, as the noble Earl has explained, so that I do not have to take decisions off my own bat on matters of policy and without having any assistance. The reason why it was thought that the panel of deputy chairmen might be a useful panel from which to select is simply following the example of another place where they have a panel of Members who are appointed each Session. We thought as we had already had a readily constituted panel of, if I may say so, good men and true—a very fine body of men—it would be a suitable panel to use for this purpose.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PICKETING OF FUNERAL FACILITIES
3.48 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman): 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 picketing of funeral facilities in the metropolitan boroughs of Tameside and Liverpool. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has said:
"Following last week's day of action organised by unions, selective strike action against local authority cemeteries and crematoria is continuing in certain parts of the country. According to the latest information available to me the action is most marked in the North West, in particular Liverpool and Tameside.
"I deplore this action and I made my views known to the General Secretaries and National Officers of the unions concerned at the weekend when I asked them to remove from their list of selective action crematoria and cemeteries. I was informed last night that advice had been issued by the unions to their members designed to limit the impact of action here on the public.
"I take this opportunity of urging the men concerned to reconsider their action, to understand the distress being caused to the bereaved, and the deep offence being caused to the overwhelming mass of our people, and to return to work."
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I know that the House will wish me to thank the noble Baroness for repeating this Answer which has been given in another place and will share the sentiments which she has expressed—or rather which her right honourable friend has expressed—as regards the action taken and the plea which is made for a return to work. Does the noble Baroness agree that public anger is beginning to mount against these repeated outrages against human dignity?
160
She has said that certain advice had been given by the unions concerned. Will she make available, if it is a lengthy piece of advice, or possibly summarise if it is not, the advice which has been given? Which are the unions concerned? Who are the persons organising this particular abomination? Is there no means open to the public to express their indignation and disgust at behaviour of this kind? Is it not time that we knew the names and addresses of those concerned and that they were published so that the public can bring to bear the full force of their anger at this particular form of conduct? Which are the unions concerned? Is one of them NUPE? Does the noble Baroness recall that during a public broadcast one of the national officers of that organisation, Mr. Fisher, expressed detestation of foxhunting on the grounds that he had compassion for what he called "the poor little fox"? Is it not time he showed a little more compassion for his fellow human beings?
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, we on these Benches would like to join in thanking the noble Baroness for having repeated this Statement. Along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, we certainly deplore this action. We find it not only offensive but, as he indicated, humiliating to be told only that advice has been issued on this matter, urging the men to reconsider their action.
One really does wonder whether the time has not come, with the public looking for action rather than words on the part of the Government, for something more to be done. The Government have said they have contemplated and indeed formulated contingency plans for the use of troops in certain cases—for example, in the gritting of the public highways. In saying this, I am conscious of the risks attendant on such action and of the danger of its being counter-productive; but I do suggest that the people feel the time has come for resolute action. May I put it in the form of a question: do the Government consider using troops, perhaps on a selective basis in these areas of Tameside and Liverpool, for this humane purpose in order to back public opinion in this respect?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the two noble Lords. At least we have agreement on all sides

161
of the House that this is a very distressing mode of oppression which is being exercised by the unions, particularly in Liverpool and Tameside. We do not condone it for one moment. So far as the unions' advice is concerned, I understand that official backing is not being given to any strikes of more than one week and that appropriate action will be taken by the unions if they are advised that public health is in any way affected.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked what would happen if the union advice was disregarded and when the Secretary of State was going to step in and do something. The meeting last night was the one from which the advice has been sent out. The unions concerned were the National Union of Public Employees, the Transport and General Workers' Union and the Municipal and General Workers' Union, and I understand that advice has gone out to their members today. We hope the advice will not be disregarded, but if the burials and cremations continue to be held up the Government will give to the local authorities such support as the local authorities feel they need or is necessary.
The Secretary of State will have various options open to him in those sort of circumstances, which we hope will not arise. With permission, when my right honourable friend has made a further Statement to the other place, if that is necessary, I will repeat it in this House in the light of any future developments.
We are concerned about these delays. We think they are offensive, they are humiliating and they are degrading. Strike action is causing distress to the bereaved and we do hope that all those who are involved in the strike action will heed the advice of their unions and what we have just said. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, referred to the question of troops. It is a little early at this time to give any definite indication of actions which the Secretary of State would feel he had to undertake; but I think I can safely say it would not exclude the use of troops if that were necessary.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I notice the Minister referred to public health. One wonders at which point that is determined, bearing in mind the mounting piles of rubbish which are now filling the streets of our cities.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the mounting piles of rubbish, yes, we deplore those as well; but this particular Question is addressed to the attitude of workers at the crematoria and the cemeteries.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, in the appeal which has gone from the Government through the unions to the people who are doing this awful thing has any time limit been laid down as to when they must desist from doing it or else the action to which the noble Baroness referred will be taken?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, no deadline was suggested by my right honourable friend when he met the union leaders last night, but it is his intention to see the general secretaries again before this week is out and find out what is happening.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether I heard her correctly—I was not sure. Did she say that the union leaders had sent, if you like, instructions or advice to the people concerned, and that they would not make official any strikes which lasted for longer than a week? If so, does that mean that strikes which last up to six days—just to get the point—are not going to be condemned?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords, we condemn strikes whether they are of one hour, one week, or one month; but the advice which has gone out is that they should not give official backing to the strikes for more than one week. We hope these are only token strikes. The situation is becoming a little difficult in two places referred to. In Tameside, I understand that all the cemeteries, except two, and all the crematoria are shut and in Liverpool all the crematoria and the cemeteries are shut. These are not conditions under which we can sit down: they are something on which we shall have to take action, and my right honourable friend will be doing that.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, I think it is very important that we should take the most urgent notice of these particular happenings on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, pronounced words with which I think we can all strongly agree. However, arising

163
from this, I think it is perhaps up to somebody to ask something about the future. On, I think, 7th December, a Minister answering a Question arising out of the strike at the Charing Cross Hospital hinted, or perhaps went a little further, that studies were being made of ways of preventing and circumventing these unacceptable strikes in the Departments of Government in order to see whether some way could be found of preventing, not through the use of force but by some new machinery, the occurrence of these strikes which ought not to happen at all. It is high time that somebody said that also.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness to decide that this is not going too far from the original Question for her to give me some indication that somewhere in the Government urgent work is being done on this question, since, if we leave the arrangements as they are now, all these things will happen again.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, so far as the Health Service workers are concerned, I am sure that if that assurance was given in another place, then that work is going on. No such representations, to my knowledge, have been made concerning the grave diggers and people at the crematoria, but it is an interesting point, and, if there are any occupations which can undertake not to strike, this is one of the sections of the community that we ought to be approaching. I shall certainly bring this matter to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is there not another step which might be taken to deal with this disgraceful strike at crematoria? Is it not possible for the strikers to be prosecuted for conduct that is likely to cause a breach of the peace?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I think that I should like notice of that question, and I should also like to take advice on it. But I shall certainly inquire about it, and will write to my noble friend.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, can the noble Baroness please give an undertaking that, in this particularly distressing picketing situation, the Government will
164
encourage people to go through the picket s? Secondly, will the Government please give an undertaking that chief constables have been encouraged to enforce the picketing law in its strictest sense, as opposed to the recent examples of its laxest sense?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we certainly hope, if people are bereaved and they want to attend—as I am sure they do—the funerals and cremations of their relatives, that every possible help will be given to them to do so. But at the moment we have very few crematoria that are open in the districts concerned. While it is distasteful, to me at any rate—and I am sure to the rest of the House—to know that, at the moment, there is in some parts a restriction as a result of which you are advised to have a private service at your house or at your local church and then the vicar and the undertaker can do the actual committal at the crematorium, this is really just a question of sheer size, and of helping the fewer crematoria open to deal with the number of bodies that there are to deal with. It is something which we deplore, and I am sure all people, whatever their walk of life and whatever their Party, are outraged that the bereaved should have to suffer in this way. We do not condone it. We certainly hope that the advice which the unions have given will be taken and we also hope that the unions will be very strong with their members and will encourage them, and that they will take note of what has been said in this House and in another place and go back to work.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, can the noble Baroness throw a little light on one situation? A few days ago, it was explained in the papers that there were in Liverpool 100 bodies awaiting burial, and that they were having to be put into plastic bags in the mortuary. Has that number been increased, and are they still waiting for burial? Also, when she said that the crematoria were shut, I take it she does not mean that the mortuaries are shut as well?
Baroness STEDMAN: No, my Lords. So far as I know, the mortuaries are open. The position in Liverpool as at this morning was that there were 150 bodies awaiting burial or cremation. Arrangements are being made and, in so far as my Department can help, it will assist the

165
local authorities. But it is a pretty state of affairs when bodies have to be stored up awaiting the time for disposal.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness this question—it may be a small point, but it strikes me as an important one: These men—not necessarily those in this strike, but the men in all these very serious strikes—are told to come out on strike. They are not asked to do so. But they are asked to go back and do not. Can they not be told to go back, as they are told to come out?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, this is a matter of individual union discipline, and I hope we shall see some discipline within our unions.

LOCAL AUTHORITY WORKERS: PAY DISPUTE
4.4 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, again with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place in answer to a Private Notice Question on the breakdown of negotiations over local authority manual workers' pay. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has said:
"A meeting of the National Joint Council was held yesterday. I regret that no progress was made at this meeting. I shall be seeing the employers' representatives tomorrow and I trust that negotiations will be resumed in a few days."
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I cannot thank the noble Baroness, who always has the ear of this House on so many matters, for repeating the Statement by her right honourable friend. Many of us have read her right honourable friend's Statement in another place yesterday, but of course the situation has changed quite dramatically in London. I think your Lordships have probably read in the papers that, since yesterday, over 500 ancillary workers have walked out from St. Mary Abbots Hospital, Kensington, St. Stephen's Hospital, Fulham, and Westminster Hospital, and that pickets have turned away supplies of food and oil from Westminster Hospital, as well as denying supplies of sterile dressings. My noble
166
and learned friend Lord Hailsbam has referred to the mounting tide of public anger, and I think that he was totally justified in using those very strong words.
The situation is this. We believe that the criminal law should be invoked here, because it is assumed to be a criminal act in this country for one individual, or a group of individuals, to threaten the life of another individual or group of individuals. If it be a criminal act, I wonder whether the Government would say if the police have acted in this respect and have made arrests appropriately. Secondly, I believe that the denial of supplies has been going on for a number of days, and I repeat once again the question which has been asked by my right honourable friend the Leader of the Opposition in another place: has the Home Secretary sent advice to chief constables all over the country in this very particular regard?
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, we should like to thank the noble Baroness for having repeated this Statement and we wish to be associated with the general sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, at the start of his response. I have only one distinctive question to ask, and it is this. In the light of the views expressed recently by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, by my right honourable friend the Leader of the Liberal Party and by Mr. Edward Heath, are Her Majesty's Government prepared to consult with Opposition Parties, with a view to obtaining the widest possible agreement and, with that agreement, the support that it would bring regarding the immediate action to be taken in relation to disputes in the public services?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, in so far as the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, are concerned, they go rather wider than the Question that we are dealing with, which relates to the breakdown in the negotiations over local authority manual workers' pay.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I must insist that this is a matter of great public concern. But in this very complacent Statement, the Secretary of State says that he trusts that negotiations will be resumed in a few days, as if it is a matter which can be taken in a leisurely fashion.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I was not suggesting that what is happening is not a matter of public concern. What I am saying is that the Question to which I was asked to reply was on the breakdown of the local authority pay talks yesterday. We deplore the actions that are being taken in the other parts of the public services. We have offered a comparability study for local authority manual workers, National Health Service ancillaries, ambulance drivers and so on, by which we hope to remove unfairness in public service as against the private sector. But that study will, of course, take a year to carry out and will not affect this year's pay negotiations, and at the moment it seems that the services involved are concerned not with what they might get as a result of a study taken this year and paid for next year, but with what they are getting now. The Government have laid down that in their opinion, which I think is generally supported by spokesmen from the Opposition side in another place, the country can afford a 5 per cent. target for wage increases. It was the Opposition in the other place who, when they refused sanctions, took away the prop which the Government might have had.
Lord DENHAM: Sanctions against the employers.
Baroness STEDMAN: Sanctions against the employers for paying more, which means that the door has been opened for a free-for-all. Therefore, all sections of the community are now after the going rate and, being human beings, one cannot blame them for that. There is an offer on the table, but at the meeting yesterday the employers' side did not make an offer which had been talked about with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. We had taken into account the Prime Minister's announcement about a special offer for the low-paid people. They had done the working out on that, and it was agreed that that would amount to an increase of something like 8.8 per cent. The Government had indicated to the employers that they were prepared to accept that kind of an increase in the interests of achieving a settlement, and that it would be supported and underpinned by the rate support grant. That offer was not laid on the table at the meeting yesterday. We understand that the employers' secretary is anxious to have
168
a further meeting in a few days, and we are hoping that that offer will be firmly on the table.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, there is a point which my noble friend made to the noble Baroness, which really ought to be pressed. I am not talking now about sanctions, which have nothing whatever to do with the public sector. What I am putting to her is this. Is it within her knowledge that, I think Section 9 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 has been retained in force by both the Labour and Conservative Parties when in office, and is now in force, and that it applies to people who endanger human life? Has the attention of the unions been drawn to the possible criminal action which may be brought against their members?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I cannot answer that question in the affirmative, but I will inquire whether that has been done.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, would the noble Baroness give a specific answer to the question which I posed to her just now; namely, whether or not the Government are prepared to consult with Opposition Parties?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we are prepared to consult with anyone who will help us to get out of the state that we are in with our pay policy. We have said—and the Opposition have agreed—that 5 per cent. is the proper limit which the country can afford at the moment without going back to the days of rocketing inflation. Any help that we can obtain from any other Party or any organisation to get us back on those kind of lines we shall accept.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, leaving on one side the question of how far feelings were exacerbated yesterday by the refusal of the employers to put forward the Government's proposal, will the Minister note that the Opposition, if I did not mishear what they said, are now suggesting that where, as a result of that, workers withdraw their labour, chief constables should be invited to consider making this a criminal offence? That being so, would the Minister, as a practical person,

169
be kind enough to bear in mind the suggestion that in order to implement the Opposition's proposal—and we know that the Opposition might be in Government very shortly—she should confiscate or requisition all of the major football grounds in order to prepare them for the reception of the prisoners? Will the Minister also be good enough to inform the House whether, if workers refuse to carry out the renovations necessary to receive the prisoners, they will be prosecuted as well and, if so, where they will be put?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my noble friend has asked a series of hypothetical questions at this stage to which I should not like to give an answer.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, on a more serious note, would the noble Baroness take it that there is great anxiety about the point raised by my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench regarding the principle of conspiracy? Will the noble Baroness take it that nobody in this House would dream of asking her to respond to a legal question put by a legal luminary, but will she also take it that there is a great feeling in this House that there is an air about the Statement which I can only describe as complacent? It is not the Minister's Statement, of course, since it comes from the other place. However, will the Minister take it that this House would appreciate it if she would convey to her right honourable friends the gravity with which this aspect of conspiracy is regarded in all parts of the House?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I have already said that I shall convey these views to my right honourable friend in the other place, and I do not usually make promises from the Dispatch Box which I do not carry out.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, may I say a word? I tried to raise this matter last week—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I am going to put a question. Would the noble Baroness try to get it over to her right honourable friend that there is this very grave disquiet? It is not
170
that people doubt that the Government deplore these actions, but in view of what is happening at the Westminister Hospital and elsewhere they feel that to deplore is not enough, and that somehow or another this feeling of indignation—and it is worse than indignation—must be put over to the country. It is not enough to deplore. If I may take up another minute of your Lordships' time, has the Minister heard of the woman patient in Coventry who had to have an operation for cancer of the breast; that the surgeon concerned had to choose whether to operate on her or whether to amputate the leg of another patient whose life was in danger; that he chose to amputate the leg and that the woman patient—with, I think, incredible courage which I could not have shown—said that she thought he had made the right decision, and that that decision had to be taken because of the industrial action which is taking place? I really think that something should be done about it.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, they are certainly not empty words when we say that we deplore what is going on, and I shall certainly see to it that my right honourable friend knows about the feelings of this House and about what has been said here this afternoon. So far as the specific case which my noble friend has raised is concerned, I do not have any knowledge of it. Therefore, without the facts before me I cannot make a proper judgment.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Baroness take this opportunity, since pay negotiations have broken down, to tell this House and the country what are the average earnings—not the take-home pay, not the basic pay—of the ancillary workers in the Hospital Service? Secondly, may I ask the noble Baroness to consider whether or not it is illegal, under a recent ruling, to stop urgently needed medical supplies from going into a hospital and, if it is illegal, why no arrests have been made?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, so far as the last question is concerned, I cannot answer why no arrests have been made, but urgent medical supplies are supposed to have been allowed to get through to hospitals. So far as average earnings are concerned, I do not have the

171
particulars with me. They vary according to the different grades of the employees. I will obtain this information for the noble Lord and let him have it. If the noble Lord cares to put down a Question for Written Answer, we can also get the average earnings recorded in Hansard.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, could we not give more publicity to this aspect of the case? The noble Lord the Leader of the House was good enough last week to quote the answers which I wanted in respect of the lorry drivers. Could we not have, as a matter of routine from the Government, an authoritative statement of what is the basic wage, what are the average earnings and what are the bonuses and the fringe benefits in each case?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords, I will take care to obtain that information and, with the leave of the House, we might get it printed in Hansard.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, various suggestions have been put forward by both Opposition Parties. Yesterday, Mr. Heath stated that what is required is that Parties should get together to discuss the problem that is facing the country—not the long term problem but the present problem. I ventured to suggest in a speech which I made during the course of our debate only last week, that this is a national problem. We can talk about conspiracy and criminals and we can castigate and lambast each other, but we have to recognise that we are confronted with a national problem. May I therefore ask my noble friend whether or not it would be desirable that she should consult her honourable friend, who might then consult the Prime Minister, who might then consult the Leaders of the Opposition Parties and responsible people in the Opposition and, indeed, anybody who can offer suggestions? They should sit around the table, not a long time off but at once. That meeting, which should include representatives of the TUC and the CBI, should be convened at the earliest possible opportunity and the opportunity taken to face this problem, diagnose the complaint and try to seek a solution.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. This is a
172
national situation. We want to obtain the maximum possible national agreement and help in trying to get over our difficulties on all fronts concerning pay, not only on the local authority front. It is not for me to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will consult somebody, who will then consult somebody else, and so on. However, I will see to it that my noble friend's remarks are brought to the attention of my right honourable friend in the hope that he can act on them from there.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while recognising that the Government are not in a position to give instructions to any of our virtually independent police forces, where chief officers are responsible for the control of those forces, there is none the less adequate machinery for consultation between the different chief officers of police and also adequate machinery whereby Ministers can at least make recommendations to the police in this country, because, at a time like this, slow moving machinery can be disastrous.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am sure that such machinery as is necessary is being used, in so far as Ministers and the police out in the counties are concerned. I am sure that the police know what their job is and that if they get complaints they will act upon them.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, will the noble Baroness consider that there is very great support in the country for the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and is it not really a matter for the Prime Minister and the other heads of Parties more than for departmental Ministers, and, if the noble Baroness agrees, will she very kindly represent this to the highest authorities?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, as I understand it, my highest authority is the Secretary of State within my Department and I have said that I will bring the views of this House to his notice.
Lord SMITH: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree with me, as I feel sure she will, that the plight of patients in hospitals has become most serious and urgent? If she agrees with that, would she not further agree that, although the best way to help patients is the speedy reso-

173
lution of disputes, speed does not always occur? During the resolution of disputes should we not be trying to find some way of doing more to help patients in regard to the results of the disputes, or should we just let patients take their chance? I do not believe that the House finds the present situation acceptable in any way.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right, and that is how we should like to see things operate.

STATE AID TO POLITICAL PARTIES
4.21 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY rose to call attention to the need for State aid to political Parties; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall begin with an announcement made by the Lord President of the Council, Mr. Edward Short—now my noble friend Lord Glenamara—on 29th July, 1974 in another place, when he announced that financial aid would be provided for Opposition Parties in Parliament; secondly, that a Select Committee of Members of Parliament would be set up to examine the support facilities available to Back Bench Members and, thirdly, that an independent committee would be set up to look at the question of financial assistance for political Parties in respect of their work outside Parliament.
The first step was taken on 20th March, 1975 when the House of Commons approved financial aid to Opposition Parties in carrying out their work inside Parliament. Qualifying conditions and limits were imposed on the financial aid to be given, but the outcome was that the Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons received the maximum grant of £150,000 a year and the Liberal and at least one other Party received a proportionate amount totalling, I think, altogether an annual expenditure of something over £200,000. That financial aid has been in operation in another place since the early part of 1975. In May 1975 the independent committee—the third proposal of the then Lord President of the Council—was implemented and the committee was appointed to look at the question of financial assistance for political Parties in
174
respect of their work outside Parliament. I had the honour to be appointed chairman of that committee and two of my noble friends, Lord Wall and Lord McCarthy, were members. We reported in August 1976 but our report has not been debated in either House until now, so I thought I would take the opportunity of giving your Lordships' House 2½ hours to have a look at this difficult and possibly contentious subject.
My committee was divided and a social survey that we took of public opinion revealed that members of the public were divided, too. On the committee we favoured State aid to political Parties by two to one. In the country there was a marginal majority in favour of aid to political Parties, though I am bound to admit that many people in the survey held such a poor opinion of political Parties and Party politics that some of them wished to spend no time or money on them. But the majority of the more thoughtful people in the survey took the subject seriously and were concerned about the dependence of the Labour Party on the trade unions for money and of the Conservative Party on businessmen and companies for money.
I shall not go into the detail of the recommendations that we made because there was no real disagreement about the method if one could once overcome the difficulties about the principle. The majority of the committee made certain recommendations, with which I think the minority of the committee did not quarrel, as regards their financial provision, but they were still unable to overcome their objection to state aid to political Parties as a matter of policy and of principle. I will summarise what we did by saying that we proposed a modest injection of public funds into the resources of the political Parties under certain strict conditions and a modest contribution towards the election expenses of all candidates, irrespective of Party, who polled enough votes to save their deposit. As regards the candidates, we included local government elections as well as parliamentary elections and we indicated that our proposals should extend to candidates for the European elections as well.
The first proposal, the modest injection of funds into the central resources of the political Parties, was a grant of roughly

175
25 per cent. of their then existing income from the then existing sources. The second proposal, to assist candidates irrespective of Party was really more electoral reform, assisting the democratic process, rather than aid to political Parties because the candidates could qualify if they saved their deposit whether they stood in any Party interest or not. The aid to Parties was aimed to improve efficiency and organisation, which on the whole we found rather poor. Compared with European political Parties, our political organisation and activities are virtually nondescript. They are really very bad indeed when compared with the scale and efficiency with which European political parties conduct their affairs. But the aid to candidates was to make candidature less dependent upon Party finance, and what we proposed for the candidates was that they should be reimbursed up to one-half of the maximum permitted expenditure laid down by law for the conduct of elections and that would have amounted to roughly £800 per candidate. The aid to the political Parties which we proposed was also—and I must be frank about this—to lessen the dependence of the two main political Parties on what we described in our report as their "traditional supporters".
Class divisions in this country are really deeply entrenched in our social, industrial and political life and we wanted to break them down a little. The divisions in this country really go very deep indeed—much deeper, I think, than many people realise. They are not so much differences of opinion as divisions of history, upbringing, education, outlook, and group or self-interest. The vision of what sort of society or what sort of country we want is much blurred in the Party conflict these days. We are now in a secular and an acquisitive society with a vengeance, and we are seeing the manifestations of that at this present time.
We pride ourselves on the voluntary principle in many activities: voluntary bodies, voluntary efforts, voluntary this, voluntary that. How pure and undefiled can voluntary be? How pure and undefiled is it? Even the closed shop is voluntary trade union membership. You do not have to join; you merely lose your
176
job if you do not. The political levy is voluntary, but you do not volunteer to pay it; you merely contract out of something you have never volunteered to do. The Labour Party depends heavily upon the trade union political levy. The Conservative Party is supported by donations, a noble word which we heard so much of in the course of our inquiries; donations, some from companies, fewer than there used to be, still in my opinion too many, bearing in mind that there is no democratic assent to much of the money that companies give particularly to the Conservative Party. Donations are, of course, voluntary too. I have from time to time seen them being collected in first class compartments on railway journeys, and I have been impressed by how persuasive this exercise is.
I am not criticising. I am, however, in favour of doing something to neutralise to a limited extent dependence of the two main political Parties on their traditional sources of financial support. I would like to see some money go into the political Parties which is neutral money, free of all bias, without strings, tangible or imaginary. We were frequently told by political Parties in Europe that State money was the only neutral money to come into politics; all the rest had some strings attached. This may not be the moment to talk about more Government expenditure, but this surely is the moment to consider whether our political and parliamentary institutions are in some way failing the nation. At least I think we can all agree that the authority of Government and Parliament is scarcely being enhanced by current events. If our system of parliamentary democracy and our basis of electoral representation begins to crumble, if it shows signs of becoming unstuck, then I think the whole system of our parliamentary democracy is in peril.
Political parties are of great importance and should be of deep concern to all people. Political Parties formulate the policies of government. They supply the candidates and the candidates become Members of Parliament, and Members of Parliament become Ministers and they therefore constitute Her Majesty's Government. What hazards there are; what half-baked policies or incompetence can find their way to Westminster. Where do all the great debates go to, the forum of

177
the nation? They all seem to fizzle out. What is the true nature of the sovereignty of Parliament? How much is mythology and how much illusion, how much reality of power? We have been having questions about that in the last few minutes. Something should be done by somebody, but it is not; probably it cannot be because there is no authority to do it. It is incredible to me how scornful and indifferent people can be about the only institutions of political power in the country today, the political Parties.
If we do not take politics seriously we do not take the government of the country seriously, and we do not take the future of the country seriously, either. We apply no audit of efficiency, diligence of research, wisdom of policies, competence of personnel or fitness to govern. All this is taken on trust. All this is left to the vague concept of what we call the democratic process, and there is no guarantee that it will yield the quality of Parliament or of government that the country requires. We in Parliament pontificate to the nation at large about productivity, efficiency, forward planning and all the rest of the requisites for success in the modern world, yet we leave our politics to the confrontation between the political levy of the trade unions and the cheque book of the businessman.
Who among us can look forward with any confidence to the state of Britain ten years from now, especially if we continue to regard our political institutions as purely private concern and best left to the pipers who will undoubtedly call the tune? And who will look even to the end of this year, with elections to Parliament, to Assemblies, to Europe, to local authorities, all in this year, with an unpredictable result of a parliamentary Election yet to come? Who can see how political Parties are going to get through this year without some consideration for their financial stability and ability to deliver what the nation requires in constructive thought and policies? We cannot treat political Parties as if they were some charity supported entirely by voluntary contributions. I conclude, what a way to run a country! How far are our prejudices going to stand in the way of a more realistic and a more rational approach to the question of our political Parties, on whom the fate of Britain
178
really depends? My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
4.38 p.m.
Lord THORN EYCROFT: My Lords, it may be convenient if I reply briefly to the remarks of the noble Lord. I am, as the House knows, Chairman of the Conservative Party, but I am not the master of the Conservative Party: I am its servant. I advise it and from time to time it may take my advice, but by no means always. I want to make my status absolutely plain. My advice to the Conservative Party on this matter is that it should depend upon its own resources and not rest upon the back of the taxpayer. I therefore differ from the noble Lord, but may I say, in differing from him, that that in no way detracts from my belief in the sincerity of the carefully reasoned speech which he has delivered or the quite admirable report which he has published, which is indeed a masterly study of a difficult and complex argument.
I reject for a number of reasons a suggestion that we should depend more upon the State. I feel that the role of a political Party is, among other things, and importantly, to provide a bulwark against the ever-rising power of the State and the bureaucracy. I do not want to over-state this argument. All I would say—and I think I might carry your Lordships with me—is that the more they depend on the State and the bureaucracy for money the less able are they really to criticise those who are giving them the money. I therefore prefer, and so advise, that we should maintain as great an independence from the State and the bureaucracy as possible.
I know the Treasury well and the noble Lord knows the Inland Revenue. J have never known the Treasury to part with cash without an audit and I find it hard to believe that public money will be scattered among political Parties without some attempt to watch what is going on and how it is used. I am not impressed with the precedents. I am aware, as the noble Lord said, that arrangements were made some years ago whereby the respective Whips' Offices and the Leaders' Offices are maintained by a parliamentary grant. I am aware that some European Parties, and may be Parties in other parts of the world, are in receipt of public funds. I do not

179
think that we know enough about the effect on those other Parties and we may learn more from our contacts with Europe. I would only say that from the contacts that I have had so far I have not been very favourably impressed with the effect of State aid to Parties, wherever I have seen it.
There is another practical reason why I oppose the suggestions of the noble Lord—namely, that in truth the money is not there. If we look at this country at present we see that we are taxed to the limit; we are borrowed to the hilt and there are pressures being brought to bear which are pushing the interest and mortgage rates up. Effectively, if anyone anywhere suggests increased expenditure, they mean printing more money. That is an argument which applies more widely than to aid to political Parties.
If one looks at the scene today—and we discussed some of it a few minutes ago—virtually every power block is pressing for more cash, cash that has not been earned and that is not backed by production. It is hard to exaggerate the gravity of that scene, whether one looks at it from these Benches or from the point of view of the Government.
I accept that the amounts about which the noble Lord is talking are minuscule compared with the vast sums which we were discussing a short time ago as regards local government, lorry drivers and so on. However, I believe that political Parties are under some obligation to show an example in these matters. I do not think that this is a good moment for the political Parties to join the queue of all the other people who, effectively, are asking for more and more money from the State. Therefore, I believe that they should hold back and whatever the noble Lord's view may be I suggest that he waits a year or two before pressing it too far.
I believe this suggestion to be wrong for another reason—it is very bad for the Parties. Of course we need money and I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to stand here and say how much money we do need. I am happy if any assistance or any words of mine, in so dignified an assembly as this, can encourage subscriptions to the Conservative Party, even. We need the money
180
and it is always tempting when one is offered money from the public purse. There is no effort involved, just a vote in the House, and then the money comes in and one spends it. Actually, the things one spends it on tend to grow almost as fast as the rate that the money goes in. In my view the noble Lord has been taken slightly astray in some of the lusher pastures he has been examining. I do not believe that great offices and so on are necessary for political Parties. The people who work for them should be properly paid, but a certain decent austerity in a political Party is not a bad thing to go for as well, and it earns rather more respect from the public.
I have listened carefully to the case and obviously I have, as the noble Lord knows, read with great care the very full report and the minority report that were issued. It is interesting to note what the case is not. The noble Lord at no point suggests that any political Party was in urgent need of funds. No Party at present, thank God! is teethering on the edge of bankruptcy. Indeed, he does not say that it is and he does not urge that it is. The Conservatives have told him that they do not want the money. The Liberal Party no doubt will be offering us its views in a few moments. The Scottish Nationalists turn it down. Plaid Cymru reject it and the Ulster Unionists have no need for it. Therefore, it is not some desperate demand that is being put forward. Apart from what the Liberals may say, at present the only real claimant is the Labour Party.
Therefore, let me look for a moment at the financial situation. The Conservatives—and this was not really made plain in what the noble Lord said—in fact raise three-quarters of all the money they spend from small donations by private people; not donations from companies at all. Three-quarters of everything that we spend is raised by people holding coffee mornings, going from door to door collecting, and so forth. It is hard work and the fact that we do it is one reason why we have three or four times the membership of the Labour Party. We face up to it, we go out and we seek to raise these funds. The remaining quarter comes from industry and institutions, but the average subscription, even from those sources, is only £200. We

181
cannot match the massive donations that come to the Labour Party. We cannot match the hundreds of thousands of pounds that come from some unions.
Over the past three years the Labour Party has been financed with over £7 millon by the unions. The Conservative Party has raised under £5 million from industry and institutions. Therefore, the Labour Party is, if I may say so, over-funded. I would ask the noble Lord to contemplate the fact that if only the trade unions had not treated the Labour Party with such lush generosity it would have been compelled to do what the Conservative Party has to do—namely, go out into the highways and byways and recruit members, raise small sums and finance its own constituencies. I hesitate to raise these matters because if the Labour Party follows my advice it will be a very much more efficient Party than it is at present. Perhaps I had better stop here. However, over-financing of that kind is, on the whole, a bad thing. The very necessity that has forced the Conservative Party to search for money has also had, I think, a very good effect in raising the membership.
The Labour Party is certainly spending money. It is just about to have a new headquarters south of the river in a very pleasant location, I am told, with all the conveniences that go with new buildings and offices of that kind. I think that it is doing it on a lease-back arrangement with its bankers, but at any rate it is not short of a headquarters. In this coming February the Labour Party plans to spend about a quarter of a million pounds in one month on poster sites, posters and advertising. I ask noble Lords to contemplate the scale of expenditure that goes on. The posters which are being put up at present say:
"Keep Britain Labour and it'll keep getting better".
I am told that in Shafestbury Avenue and Horseferry Road there are Labour Party teams out trying to pull them down; on the whole, they think that perhaps those words could have been slightly better chosen. I am not criticising their policies in public relations. I am simply saying that I do not see why I should assist in funding them; that is all. However, they are not alone in these things; I do these things myself. One must be a realist
182
about this and see what one is paying for. Our poster saying:
"Britain isn't getting any better",
was actually designed before the present crisis, but it is peculiarly apt today as we see people queuing outside the hospitals even before the pickets were standing round them. People can criticise, applaud or do what they like about these things, but I do not ask the noble Lord to help finance it. I think that responsibility for that should fall fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the Conservative Party, its members and its supporters, and I think that that is right.
The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said that there would be many other elections. It is a tough year for those at the top in political organisations. There are the European elections. The Labour Party has the cash—it has more cash than I have; it has enormous resources behind it. What it lacks is the will. If it really wants to fight the European campaign, it has plenty of resources with which to do so. A story has reached me of a certain doubt as to its freedom to spend the money on it. However, there can be no doubt whatever that the money is there.
In those circumstances, I would advise my Party not to touch these schemes. If legislation is ever introduced to try to enable public largesse of this kind to be made available to political Parties, my advice to the Conservative Party would be to vote against the Bill. If the Bill was passed, my advice to the Party which I am proud to represent is that it should reject the money even if every other Party took it—for I believe in freedom and independence in political Parties—and when it came to office I would advise it to repeal the Bill.
4.53 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for raising this important matter this afternoon. I think that the House owes a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord and his committee for their report on financial aid to political parties. I am glad that at last we are finding time to discuss that report this afternoon. I must say that I agreed with a great deal of what the noble Lord said in opening the debate.

183
The first important factor to consider when we approach this subject is the very great change which has taken place in the role of political Parties gradually over the last 100 years. During that time there has been the development of what is termed the "mass Party". The political Party has been brought from the periphery of politics right to the very centre. Unknown for so long to the Constitution, it has now found recognition in a number of different ways. Party affiliation of candidates is now shown on the ballot paper. In a General Election in this country electors are not really choosing between local candidates; they are choosing between different national political Parties and their leaders. We may regret that that is so, but it is a fact. In his book, An Introduction to Contemporary History, Geoffrey Barraclough says this, and I think it is relevant:
"Those who rebel against the modern mass Party and hanker for a return to earlier forms of representative democracy are indulging in a dangerous form of nostalgia. They ignore the fact that the only practical alternative to the two-Party or multi-Party State under present conditions, is the single-Party State".
The importance to democracy of well-organised Parties is clear. They are needed to articulate the views of large numbers of people; they are needed to educate people in the different alternatives open to society, to represent attitudes and philosophies and to develop policies related to them; to provide alternative teams for Government and to take on the tasks of opposition. But the Party system should not be too rigid, too highly disciplined or too centralised.
How many political Parties do we require in order to see that those functions are carried out? Does one political Party represent oppressive tyranny but two political Parties represent perfect freedom? I think that we need as many political Parties as the electorate are prepared to support. But should they all be represented in Parliament? Most electoral systems have a threshold: the 5 per cent. that a Party must score in Germany before it secures any of the topping-up candidates to make the result proportional; the quota under the single transferable vote which, for example, in Ireland a candidate must get, which would be about 17 per cent. of the vote in a five-Member constituency; or in this country, the need to come top
184
of the poll in a single-Member constituency. That is the highest, steepest and most difficult threshold of all, and one which is a strong barrier against a third Party or a new Party breaking through, and one which makes it difficult—but not impossible—to change the existing political set-up.
If we were to adopt any system of financial aid to political Parties, I think: that it would be important to make sure that that system did not bring about any ossification of the situation, any institutionalising of the existing Parties, as has happened in the United States, where the Republicans and the Democrats are not so much Parties as Party machines. We must not accentuate the present bias against change.
Are the present financial resources adequate for a political Party to carry out the tasks to which I referred a moment or two ago? I am glad to say that I have never held the exacting office of treasurer of the Liberal Party, but I have had two spells as its chairman and one spell as its president. I have been fairly closely associated with the central direction of its affairs for some 20 years. I have no hesitation in saying that the resources available to the Liberal Party during that time have been totally inadequate for those functions to be as efficiently performed as they ought to be. In 1974 the Liberal Party may have polled more votes than ever before—that is, of course, a fact—but the real value of the Party's income has declined. Indeed, we see from the report of the committee over which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, presided that the staff of the Liberal Party is now about one-half what it was 10 years ago. Also from that report we can see that it is very restricted on the research side. The research department is now very much smaller than it was when I was chairman of the Research Committee in the middle 1960s.
I think the Party has made a remarkable contribution to the political life of this country in view of the very slender resources on which it has had to operate. Finance has been a constant anxiety and a continuous distraction, for national leaders and for constituence officers alike. The authors of the minority report of the Houghton Committee say this:
"In no way could we justify proposing a nationwide scheme of State aid solely in order to meet the needs of the Liberal Party".

185
I can understand that, but it is important to emphasise that we are considering here not only the Liberal Party but any third Party which challenges the big two on a nationwide basis and whose support is not concentrated but spread throughout the country.
I am certainly not suggesting for a moment that the Liberal Party, or any other Party, should be aided if no one votes for it. But, if for example, the Liberal Party continues to secure between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent. in General Elections—it may not; it may get less or it may get more—then surely its continued existence and effective functioning is a healthy thing for our political life, whatever may be thought of the policies which it is pursuing.
But of course it is not only the Liberal Party which has financial problems. According to the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, the Labour Party has no financial problems. Perhaps we shall hear from members of that Party whether they agree with that, but at least there are some of them who do not agree with it, because I read in the papers that Mr. Reg Underhill, the Labour Party's national agent, contemplating the European elections which will come on top of a General Election, the local elections, and possibly the Assembly elections in Scotland and Wales, has said:
"We must have State aid to allow the elections to be carried out on a healthy basis".
George Clark, reporting in The Times towards the end of last year before The Times disappeared from view, said:
"Mr. Norman Atkinson, Treasurer of the Labour Party, plans to tell the Party's finance committee today that by the end of the year there will be a deficit of £100,000 in the General Fund".
We read that the National Executive wants legislation on State aid as a matter of urgency. So assuming that those pleas are justified, I come to the conclusion, bearing in mind what I have already said about the Liberal Party, that what the noble Lord called a modest injection of State aid is necessary. After all, the same economic difficulties beset most voluntary organisations today.
The Wolfenden Report on voluntary organisations connected with the personal social services and the environment declared:
186
"The failure of private giving to keep pace with inflation is striking though really understandable".
The Wolfenden Committee recommended greater reliance on statutory funds, although they insisted that private giving will remain an important safeguard of independence. It seems to me that the majority of the Houghton Committee have come virtually to the same conclusion about political Parties. From what they say about the evidence which they have secured from abroad, where State aid has been implemented, there has been no great falling off in voluntary giving, and indeed membership has tended to rise. So I welcome the support which the Houghton majority gives for a limited measure of State aid.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, said, we are here discussing a proposal for a limited amount of money; and it is proposed in two ways. It is proposed, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, told us, first as a grant which would be based on votes cast in the previous Election and subject to a certain threshold which the Party would have to pass. But the Houghton Committee wished this money to be given for general purposes. We on these Benches would have preferred it to be given for specific objectives—for research and for regional organisation—feeling that by doing that we are avoiding putting too much power into the hands of the central organisation of Parties.
The second method was by the reimbursement of expenses, up to half the maximum, to candidates who secure one-eighth of the poll. We are not happy about the limit to those who save their deposit. Those who do not manage to do it may fail by a very narrow margin, having secured many thousands of votes. I myself lost a deposit by 200 votes, but I had over 6,000 votes. I do not think that anybody in that Election could have regarded me as a frivolous candidate. So we have doubts about that one-eighth of the poll, and we should prefer that the candidates should have to have a much larger number of nominations than they now have in order to qualify to stand.
We also feel that if there is to be State aid there ought to be a limit on the contributions of companies and trade unions; perhaps a top limit on contributions from any one source in any one year. I was

187
much impressed with what Lord Houghton said about neutral money, and the way in which abroad the State aid is welcomed because it is felt that it increases, rather than decreases, the independence of the political Parties by making them less reliant on the money obtained from contributions from companies and trade unions.
With the reservations that I have mentioned, we support the recommendations of the Houghton majority. Experience abroad in a great many democratic countries has not shown any undermining of the independence of the parliamentary Parties concerned. Some people assume that in every sphere, and in all circumstances, our British system must be superior to all others. They ought to think carefully whether that view is sustainable any longer. We can learn from others in this sphere as in other spheres. There is in my view an increasing financial problem for political Parties; one which I think will grow. For the sake of our democratic system we must face that fact. A modest injection of State aid could go far towards solving that problem.
5.7 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FER-RARD: My Lords, in May 1974 I put down a Motion and moved a debate in this House on the advisability or not of State financing of political Parties. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has now brought this subject to the fore again. So far as I am aware, this matter had not been broached in Parliament at all before I put down this Motion in 1974. I put the Motion down then because I was of the opinion that it was worth while to make an attempt to make political Parties as free as possible from financial pressure from organisations, or individuals, to pursue policies which might not always be in the public or the national interest.
I have always been a great admirer of our democratic process, our political system, but I was hoping that perhaps by having State aid in some form the fairness of our democratic system, of our political system, might be improved. I fully realise that there are advantages and disadvantages in having State aid. I do not know whether it was as a
188
result of that debate, or whether it had anything to do with it that Opposition Parties in their Parliamentary duties now get quite a lot of help from State aid in clerical assistance and research, et cetera. While on the question of research, I should like to compliment our Library staff in this House for the very efficient research that they now provide for this House. Whether any of that comes from State aid I do not know, but it is a great improvement on the previous research facilities.
In the debate in 1974 I concentrated on the question of whether the State should subsidise the general expenditure of political Parties. This procedure is followed by six West European countries and by Israel, Canada and, to a certain extent—in presidential elections—by America. It is a highly controversial question and I am fully aware that my Party does not at present approve of it. However, one advantage would be that the political Parties would be free from financial pressures that might make them do something that was not in the public interest.
Consider the crisis we have in this country today; near anarchy or one might even call it anarchy. I am convinced that if the Labour Party was not a child of the unions and was not to such a large degree dependent for its funds on the unions we should have had stronger policies from the Government on strikes and on the refusal of many union members to obey their executives.
As for the Conservative Party, I was astounded to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, say we get a lot of funds as a result of people canvassing in first-class train compartments. My experience of first-class train compartments is very limited, because I usually travel second-class, but such experience of them as I have had leads me to believe that a great many of the people using them are civil servants, trade union executives and the like. So if we get some collections from that source, I am only too happy.
I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft, who is chairman of the Party, say in a forceful manner that we get three-quarters of our donations from fund-raising in local constituencies

189
and from private individuals. There appears to be some criticism from the Benches opposite that we also receive funds from companies. There is nothing dishonourable about that. After all, if it were not for private companies managing their affairs efficiently we could have no Welfare State, because it is the private sector which produces the wealth to support the Welfare State.
West Germany adopted a policy of the State financing of Parties because it was considered that it would be fairer all round if all the Parties drew their financial requirements from the same source, namely, the electorate. I shall not call it the State: I prefer to call it the electorate for the purposes of this debate.
In the debate of nearly five years ago I suggested that if the political Parties here were to receive, say, £5 million between them per year from an electorate of 40 million, it would cost the public half a packet of cigarettes per annum. That would have been the cost then and while J do not know the total requirements of the political parties today, I suppose the figure must have increased to £10 million, which would mean a cost to the electorate now of round about a packet of cigarettes or 50p–60p per head. I would not call that a great burden on the electorate to ensure that their political Parties were really up to date on research.
Having been a constituency treasurer and having held virtually every other post in local constituencies, I know how hard it is—and it is becoming harder—to collect funds. I also appreciate that the basic foundation of at any rate my Party—I should like to see it applied to all Parties—is the constituency work, the fund raising and all the wonderful work done by the local agents. That is really the cornerstone of our system of democracy.
It could happen that, owing to inflation, no matter how efficient fund raising is, we may not be able to pay our constituency agents—I am speaking of all Parties—and do our research in a sufficiently expert manner to do justice to democracy. I feel that no expense should be spared in trying to explain to people the real meaning of our democratic system and the political questions of the day. I fear that many members of the electorate do not fully understand these matters.
190
I should mention a danger which could arise from the State financing of the central organisations of our Parties and constituencies; namely, that the dividing line between the independence of the political Parties and the State might become merged, and that could be dangerous. For example, we might have a Government in power who might reduce the funds or deny funds to every Party other than their own, though of course that would be totalitarian government. I think, in order to prevent that, it would be necessary to have a written Constitution; that is the danger here if there is not a written Constitution.
I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, upon his report, which I found extremely interesting. I hope that one day there will be a Royal Commission on this subject. As so many members of the EEC have this kind of aid I feel sure that one day it will come to this country, for better or for worse. I appreciate my Party's point of view. It would probably be unwise to do anything about the matter for a year or two, but, in my opinion State financing of political Parties will come.
5.21 p.m.
Lord MCCARTHY: My Lords, I should declare an interest. I speak as a mildly puzzled member of the Houghton Committee who signed the majority report, and I began as a mildly curious opponent of State aid to political Parties for three reasons. First, I was concerned that State aid might affect the structure of political Parties and over-centralise them, and that it might ossify their development. Secondly, I believed that the British electorate would be overwhelmingly against State aid and might be resentful of any political Party, or Parliament, which introduced it; and, thirdly, at that time I was not sufficiently aware, as I fear not everyone in this House appears to be sufficiently aware, of the very considerable additional burdens which political Parties in this country will have to undertake as a result of the forthcoming Assembly and EEC elections.
I have changed my mind partly because I have been reassured on those three counts, and partly because of the arguments which have been put up by the opponents of State aid. In the first place, on the first argument, it seems to me that the

191
Houghton Committee found a way of financing State aid which was acceptable on the grounds mentioned to all members of the committee, which did not affect the structure of political Parties, and which did not ossify their further development. That was generally accepted, and I think that it has been generally accepted by most people who have commented upon the report.
Secondly, in our survey of electoral opinion we discovered, quite surprisingly, that 45 per cent. of those whom we surveyed said that if the Party needed the money they would be willing to agree to State aid, 44 per cent. said that they would not be willing, and 11 per cent. did not know. So there was not the overwhelming resistance to State aid to political Parties which I thought had existed. Thirdly, I came to realize what will be the very significant burden which all political Parties will have to bear as a result of the two new sets of elections: the Assembly elections, and the EEC elections.
So I believe that we have found here an effective, fair-minded way of introducing a modest, or, as has been said, a minuscule, amount of State aid to British political Parties. I am puzzled by the opposition and the objections to this extremely mild, modest, moderate proposal. One of the objections we have had today—and we hear it consistently—is that State aid is in some sense an offence against our voluntary principle. Almost any proposal in this country can be opposed by saying that it is an offence against the voluntary principle. An appeal to the voluntary principle is usually a series of confusions. I believe that in this instance the confusion is to confuse voluntary with privately funded. What people are in favour of is a privately funded system of running political Parties; what they are against is a partially publicly funded system of running political Parties. It has nothing to do with the voluntary principles. Nobody is suggesting that it should be compulsory, and, as has been said by previous speakers, there are a very large number of voluntary organisations in this country—many of them were mentioned in the Wolfenden Report—which assist in running the social services, the arts, race relations, and
192
indeed a whole variety of social functions; and they are State aided. They are increasingly State aided. Nobody suggests that the State aid given to the Royal Opera House affects the Friends of Covent Garden.
So this is a confusion, and if people really believe what is argued here they would reject the State aid that is given now. As we discovered in the Houghton Committee, there is a very substantial amount of State funding being put into political Parties at this moment. There is free postage in General Elections, free election broadcasts, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, £150,000 a year is given to the Opposition. For all I know some of the very speeches made against this proposal may be State aided. I note that we spent £1½ million of State aid on the referendum for Europe. So I cannot understand objection to the proposal on the basis of the voluntary principle.
The second point which I cannot understand, and which I am puzzled by and curious about, is that we are told that State aid for political Parties will kill the voluntary effort which goes into political Parties at the moment. The fact is that the amount of money which is being suggested is not at all likely to enable the political Parties to operate without voluntary help, in exactly the same way as all the other bodies which are used to assist the social services, and so on, are not able to get enough aid to run without voluntary help. All the evidence which we have had from other countries, and all the evidence in the report, indicates that in those other countries the injection of State aid—in many cases at levels far above what we are proposing in the report—has not had the effect of killing voluntary effort. If one understands the kind of motivation of people who work for political Parties, one sees that it is extremely unlikely that State aid will have any such effect.
It is also said that State aid will kill the independence of political Parties. Again, if we look at other countries we see that this does not happen. It was stressed to us over and over again in our foreign visits that at first there is a certain amount of opposition and concern that State aid will affect the independence and the running of political Parties, but that

193
very soon, within a year or so, nothing is left of such objections and people begin to realise that State aid for political Parties is a convenient device, like the forms of State aid which we give to other voluntary institutions.
I do not regard as curious, but, rather, I find most reasonable, the argument that even if this is a minuscule amount of money, we in this country are in such a serious economic position that we cannot afford to spend any more money at this time, and in particular any more money on political Parties. I believe that the answer to that is the answer that is given in the Houghton Report itself. If I remember aright, it is an answer given by the chairman in his introduction, where he says that the only form of increase in public expenditure which can be justified at this time is something which can be shown to raise and to improve the efficient operation of the political or economic system. I do not want to go into this point, nor argue it because it has been fully debated by previous speakers, but it seems to me to be the argument which can be put forward under that heading.
The final point, which I find not simply curious but, I think, somewhat worrying, is the ease with which opponents of this measure dismiss the experience of other countries. Canada, Israel, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Sweden, Germany, Holland and Austria—none of these countries has anything to teach us, it appears! The fact that all these countries have had different kinds of State aid over different periods, and that virtually all the objections, fears and concerns that have been put forward by opponents of this measure have been found to be totally groundless, has no effect whatever, it appears, on the opponents of this argument! I find that degree of insularity worrying.
I may say that I even find it worrying in the minority report, which I think is a brilliantly argued opposition to our position but which, when it comes to dismissing the international arguments, seems to be less than just. We are told by the minority that we cannot learn from Sweden, it is too rich; we cannot learn from Germany or Austria because they have not been democratic long enough; and, as for Holland, one of the authors of the minority report actually met a man in the street in
194
Holland who had never heard that they had State aid. This kind of refusal to learn from the experience of other countries is, I think, very typical of the kind of problems we in this country face. Even when we have relatively simple difficulties which have in fact been overcome and dealt with in other countries, we are so insular that we fear that that would not apply in this country. That I find profoundly worrying.
Finally, I would say that there is one objection, of course, which can be made to this—and I do not suggest it was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thorney-croft. I do not suggest that this was his argument, but there is one objection which can be made. It is, of course, that the present system benefits one Party—and I must say this because it is the case: it benefits the Conservative Party. It is not the case that only the Liberal Party and the Labour Party want State aid. If you read the chapter in the Houghton Report, you will see that the Labour Party is for it; the Liberal Party is for it; the Scots Nats, say they would be in favour of our paying the cost of printing and distributing electoral material and improved research; the Communist Party, for what it is worth, is in favour of it; and two Parties in Northern Ireland are against it. The two Parties which are most clearly against State aid in any form are the Conservative Party and Plaid Cymru.
I can appreciate why, if I was a member of the Conservative Party, I would argue against State aid. The fact is that the Conservative Party is the richest of political Parties. According to the Houghton Committee it has an income twice the size of that of the Labour Party and six times the size of that of the Liberal Party. It is, of course, quite true that most of the donations for running the Conservative Party come from individuals, but they have a better class of individual. But anybody who does not take that narrow view, anybody who looks at a reasonable solution to a serious problem, at very little cost, would, I think, support the majority of the Houghton Committee.
5.34 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, the innocent Motion that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has put on the

195
Order Paper for debate really raises a very fundamental matter indeed, and I think it carries with it fundamental dangers. I think we ought to look at it very carefully before, even by half praise, we give any encouragement for it to be pursued. Despite the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, I am afraid I lost sympathy with what he was saying when his main argument seemed to be, "It is minuscule; it is tiny; it is not very big; it cannot do much harm." That was the implication. The principle of the snowball that gets bigger and the principle behind Parkinson's law has been so almost inevitable in everything that I have seen in my life that when somebody uses the excuse, "It is tiny", that is half an argument, so far as I am concerned, to show that they are not altogether enamoured of the fundamental behind it.
My Lords, why do I think it is fundamental and dangerous? It is because I believe that, unlike an ordinary job, those following a vocation should not have material security or easy comfort as their main aim; and I think that being a Member of Parliament should be a vocation, and not a job. If you wish to be in governmental arenas but you pine for fixed office hours and a rigid pattern of operations, with good pay and, eventually, a pension, if you want to play your part in government with those very understandable feelings in mind, then you ought to be a civil servant, because you are civil servant material; you are not of Parliamentary character, as I see Parliament would have to work. Just like the Member of Parliament, the same applies as regards the framework and the machinery for getting into Parliament; that is, in this country, a Parliamentary system based upon a Party system.
The formation of a Party and the preservation of a Party should depend upon its appeal and its self-help, and it should not be made easy or secure by way of an impersonal State subsidy. Unless its own strength and its own appeal can generate its own resources, then I do not believe that it has the base for having the great responsibilities that being the Government of the day, over people's lives, carries with it. For, paradoxically—and we find this outside politics, too—the insecurity arising from the cost of preserving and maintain-
196
ing a Party is itself one of the safeguards for preserving democracy and the freedoms which go with democracy. The fact that you have to fight hard and work hard, be keen and produce ideas which are acceptable to the mass of the people, and that in order to get that over you have got to have the funds to propagate your ideas and the urge to get the money to do that, is one of the safeguards for ensuring that the views and the policies which come out at the end as a consequence of that are the ones which are more likely to be right.
If a Party's income is safe and certain by way of a Treasury grant, instead of being at risk if they should fall out of step with people whose views they claim to represent, then, when that happens, one of the levers for obtaining a Parliament and a Government truly acceptable to the people will have gone. Because what is the process for building a Parliament based upon the Party system, such as has grown up here? Does it not happen just like this? Recognisable groups of people interested in the art or the vocation of governing combine. They do not know one another, but they happen to have the same views on this important job of how a country should be governed; and, because they have similar views, they come together and work out their course of action.
When, as a group, they get together thinking about the type of government they want to have, what they have to decide upon and agree is how people should be disciplined, because Governments do not give you anything. Governing is how much discipline is needed to get society to work together; how much people want to give up to help the more unfortunate, and all that sort of thing; how much discipline can you attain without interfering with the impetus of getting the wealth and the good things that people need to share if their standard of life is to be good. That is what is aimed at by the groups getting together. Inevitably, each group is different from the other recognised groups, who have different ideas as to how the country should be disciplined in order to get the right sort of effort.
When the groups are big enough to begin to be recognised, and when they are powerful enough, as a result of getting together, that they can apparently get representation in Parliament, then they become a Party. It is only at that point,

197
when the groups have satisfied their neighbours that their ideas are good and that they are prepared to finance it themselves, and not to have it underwritten by some money which they have not had to get together, that they become an established Party; and the different groups have differing and different ideas as to how the disciplining shall be done. So there develops the need for the Party to propagate their agreed policies in a way which will induce the voters at the next election to give them the power to govern.
At that point, the cost comes in. They have got together because they have the same ideas, they have the policies; but before they can turn those policies into governmental action they must get people into Parliament; and to do this costs money. To get pamphlets printed and so on requires money. Today, as always, the battle of propagating by Parties needs money and it needs a lot of money. It is this necessity to get the money which is the first safeguard of its being the people's genuine choice. If the group cannot enthuse a sufficient number of people to support it with cash as well as by instinct, it has not got to the point where it becomes a bona fide Party. As a consequence of that difficulty we are saved from having a lot of nuisance, crank Parties and we are saved from irresponsible splinter groups. They must have ideas and they must be able to impress sufficient people with them to give them not only their instinctive support but their cash in order to back those ideas. It is the lack of the final thing, of cash, which keeps at bay many of the irresponsible groups which many other countries have had and which would grow in this country if there was not that safeguard which is tied up with the need for their point of view to enable them to get the cash.
Then, even if the group passes the first test and if they become a Party, they must not be made to feel safe forever or to feel that, just because during one period their policy fitted in with the nation's need, they can go on as a Party and get a Government grant keeping them in automatic existence in perpetuity. We must not have that. The world changes, new conditions and inventions call for philosophies and policies which are not outmoded by these inevitable changes. If a Party has policies or personnel to
198
present those policies which do not change or which change in the wrong direction so that they no longer attract the contributions from their past admirers, then that lack of cash is a safeguard for true democracy. Artificially, to keep in being a Party that has lost the enthusiasm and the financial support of its past admirers, to keep it in being by taking taxes that have been paid by its opponents, must bring about a phoney democracy. So I believe that making Parties earn their corn is a safeguard against that phoney development.
We have seen this in action during the lifetime of many noble Lords who are attending this debate today. We have seen how the Mosley Party came into existence when they presented an appeal which caused people to want to give them funds, but they did not last very long. It was lack of finance at the end of the day which ended the Party. If they had been enabled to remain in existence by Treasury grants, they would not have faded away as they did. We remember that after the war we had the Commonwealth Party. The same thing happened. The Hulton Press supported it. Their appeal was attractive at a certain time and for a short period, but it was not fundamental enough to generate finance in order to keep it in existence; so, thank Heaven! it faded. If it had had a Treasury grant it would not have done so.
Lord BANKS: My Lords—
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I was coming to the Liberal Party. It may well be that that is happening to the Liberal Party today. Despite the Liberal Party's glorious past and despite the great contribution it has made to the development of our country in the past, it could be—and they perhaps would not be able to understand it—that their policies have been so diverse and so irresponsible on occasions that they have not been able to attract the necessary finance for them to keep their policies and principles on the move. It could well be, where they advocated in Liverpool a pavement policy and, somewhere else, a policy which was completely different, and in another constituency again a completely different one, that that irresponsible appeal which had had its attractions for a particular constituency lost

199
its appeal as that of a recognisable Party which ought to be kept in existence. That is why they did not get the funds.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, all that I would say about that is that we had the largest vote in our history in 1974; and it was in the period in which we had this very acute financial difficulty. The point I wanted to put is this. Would not the noble Lord agree that the decline of the Commonwealth Party had nothing to do with finance but was due to the ending of the Party truce and the competition that it had to face from the Labour Party?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, the Commonwealth Party declined, I believe, purely because of finance. I think that if they had had the funds they would have gone on; they would have been in existence. I think they did not pass the first test.
In reverse, my Lords, we have seen the "Scots-Nats", who have an appeal, and who have enthused it and have been able not only to get the support of the people but also their money. If they take the wrong direction and do not get their money they will fade away. If they keep on having an appeal to the mass of their people they will get support and their money. The noble Lord said that the Liberal Party had their best representation in 1974. They had! I thought that the Liberal Party were well on the way to growing again and I hoped that they would. It gives me no joy that they are sinking. But I believe there is a reason that they missed their opportunity. If their leader and their Chief Whip in another place at the time had accepted the invitation from Mr. Heath and had accepted a Cabinet post which was offered to them and had shown a sense of responsibility and realism, their funds and their power would have grown and they would not be in the position where I am able to say at this moment that I think they are fading away.
The strength of our system until now is that only the will and enthusiasm and the cash from the people, willingly given, has allowed this evolution from groups into Parties. I believe that to dilute this genuine growth by injecting money, not naturally produced, will lead to an ersatz, imitation democracy.
Lord DENAHM: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend will forgive me, but this is a strictly limited debate and there are three more speakers before the noble Lord the Leader of the House winds up.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I noticed that the three speakers who preceded me were showing on the clock more than I am at present showing.
A noble Lord: I do not think so.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I think so. One was 16 minutes. In any case, while I agree that we are going to debate shorter speeches later—
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it is a limited debate.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, it is a 2½-hour debate; and now we have wasted three or four minutes of that. At the end of the day, is it just a school debate that we have come to here, where we take rigidly our allotted minutes? I know that one wants to confine one's words as much as possible. The last election was my 12th and, if you take local government elections, it was my 18th. I have been able to find time, while looking after my own businesses, to do that. I have been chairman of 42 constituencies in the Conservative Party and a member of the Conservative Party Executive for years. One has a certain experience. When a debate like this is taking place, I think one ought to be on the record. It may be pompous of me to say that, but I happen to think it, and I shall take advantage of having it on the record.
As to the present subject, those who are failing complain that it is unfair that the Socialists should have their cash collected and handed to them by the unions and that the Conservative Party should have a quarter of their funds in contributions from private enterprise organisations. What is unfair about that? The Socialists made it crystal clear that they will nationalise when they can; that they will tax for egalitarian reasons; that they will give trade unions preferential treatment under the law. If people want this, then they are entitled to finance its implementation, either directly or through the channel of the unions. If they want to

201
be in trade unions but do not want nationalisation, egalitarian taxes or union domination in politics, then they should contract out of the levy. That is the way in which it should be done, not by trying to drive them out by bringing in this phoney Treasury grant.
Similarly with the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party are the only ones who are likely to preserve the free enterprise system as we see it with lower taxes. If people believe that that is good for the country, if they believe it is in their interests to do what is good for the country and they make their contributions either as individuals or from their companies, then what is wrong with that? The very fact that they give their money is a confirmation that the policies are the ones that the people want. Nothing that has been said so far has shown that on the score of the allocation of money that there has been any weakness in the way that our Parliamentary system has worked. There are many weaknesses in the policies being pursued, but this is not the weak point. To present that it is, and to change it in the way that Lord Houghton of Sowerby's Motion suggests, would be both dangerous and wrong. I hope that whether it is discussed now or, as my noble friend who preceded me said, whether it is discussed in a few years' time, it will be turned down.
Viscount MASSEREENE AND FER-RARD: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, as regards State aid enabling a lot of irresponsible parties to spring into being, I do not think that would happen. One would have to have a certain percentage of the vote before receiving any State funds—some 10 per cent. I should like to make that point, but I agree with a lot of what my noble friend has said.
5.52 p.m.
Lord WALL: My Lords, may I add my thanks to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby for making this debate possible. The report sets out fully the case for and against State aid to political Parties, and I have no intention of repeating what is so adequately stated in the report. Instead, with your Lordships' forbearance, I should like to explain why I, as someone who joined Lord Houghton's committee with a totally open mind—and, indeed, a totally ignorant mind—
202
should have reached the firm conclusion that some State aid to political Parties was both necessary and desirable. So I supported, and I still support, the views of the majority of the members of the committee which recommended State aid under certain clearly defined conditions. My reasons can be expressed very simply, though the process of reaching these conclusions was far from simple. Like so many people, my knowledge of what we call parliamentary democracy was very limited. This may sound strange from someone who spent nearly a third of his working life in Government service. But during those 15 years, I came to regard politics mainly as a reason given by Ministers when they could find no other grounds for rejecting excellent advice.
During the course of the committee's meetings, there seemed to be a widespread opinion that parliamentary democracy, as we understand it in this country, was in growing danger. Political Parties had failed to adapt themselves to the massive expansion of Government activities, and to the impact of this upon the daily life of the public. Many people seemed to feel that never in the history of this country had Government, Parliament, political Parties and the national and local public organisations stood in such low esteem in the eyes of the public. I was not greatly impressed by the arguments of some of our political witnesses that if one leaves things alone they will come right in the end, so I joined those who thought that at least we should make some effort to restore the health of parliamentary democracy. I was strengthened in this view by looking round the world at alternative forms of Government. What I saw I did not like.
I realise that the reasons why Government, Parliament, the political Parties and the public sector as a whole, stand in low esteem are many and complex. One reason does stand out, as the Committee itself emphasised. Since the war, successive Governments have taken far-reaching measures which involve Government, Parliament and the public sector more and more deeply in the daily lives of each and every one of the 55 million people in this country. It is no longer a question of general policies but of the detailed day-to-day execution of so many things which affect our daily lives. In these circumstances, when things go

203
wrong—as go wrong they do—the public has no one to blame but Government, Parliament and the public sector; they have the authority, they have the responsibility, they are to blame.
At the same time, the public sector—both national and local—has found it increasingly difficult to deal effectively and efficiently with its enormously increased tasks. In the eyes of the public, the public service—for so long a feature of this country—has been replaced by the public sector. This is a very sad development. All this was happening at the time when the rate of change in all aspects of our lives was accelerating at a disturbing speed. There is little hope that these developments can be reversed; it is hard enough just to stop them going further.
Against this background, the task of seeking to restore at least some of the public esteem which has been lost is formidable indeed. The committee's report, which is concerned only with the political Parties, obviously covers only a part of the problem. But there must surely be general agreement that action must be taken if Parliamentary democracy is to demonstrate that it remains the only acceptable form of government for this country. Admittedly any kind of action—essentially education and information—will be expensive. After all, the market we are seeking to influence is made up of some 40 million electors. Moreover, the process of education and information must not be restricted to the months just before an election. We need it all the time.
The committee was assured by some witnesses that any money required would always be forthcoming if it was really needed. I wonder whether this is so except perhaps at election time. It is worth recalling that the total contribution to all political Parties is only about 25 to 30 pence per elector per year; that is to say, one half the price of a gin and tonic or less than the price of a pint of beer a year is the value the electorate appears to put on our political Parties. This is a measure of the task which lies ahead. Moreover, I fully support the views of the committee that it is most undesirable to increase the dependence of the two large Parties on their two major sources of income: the unions for the Labour Party, and business for the
204
Tory Party. It does not make sense to increase this polarisation. If Parliamentary democracy is to flourish, we surely want more workpeople (including trade union members) to support the Tory Party, and more businessmen and managers to support the Labour Party. This will make both Parties more representative and more effective. So I am more than ever convinced that if the political Parties really wish to improve their public standing, they will have to spend a lot more money and I do not see where that money is to come from year by year rather than just at election time, unless it is from State aid.
The opposition to State aid is substantial. After all, the committee itself was divided. But I personally do not find that opposition convincing. May I make just two points: first, we still hear a lot about the various form of "British disease". The disease of our political system is undoubtedly resistance to change. Many witnesses before our committee came with their minds made up and no amount of argument or discussion was going to change them. While listening to some of the evidence, I was reminded of my days in Unilever, when I was privileged to serve under that remarkable businessman, the late Lord Heyworth. Unilever decided to devote one of its world senior management conferences to the topic "Resistance to Change", and I had to write the main paper. I still recall Lord Heyworth saying: "Be on your guard against two kinds of managers, those who say: ' We have always done it that way ', and those who say: ' Anyway, we are different '".
It seems to me that the opponents of State aid fall neatly into both of these classes. And look where we are because we have always done it that way, or because we claim we are different. I repeat that it cannot be disputed that parliamentary democracy in this country stands low in public esteem: look at our voting record at elections and at the small financial contributions to the Parties. Let us also recall that parliamentary democracy as we know it is in a small minority among the various forms of government in the world. Why cannot the political Parties accept that the time to be worried is not when change happens, but when it does not?

205
My second point is that there are certainly risks in giving State aid to political Parties, but the evidence from the democratic countries which do give State aid suggests that these risks are much less than the risk of doing nothing. May I remind your Lordships that State aid abroad is not confined to countries like Sweden. It is found also in the United States, which is still the bastion of private enterprise and less Government interference in our daily lives. There substantial public funds are given to political candidates, both at the Federal and at the State level.
I was myself unable to visit Europe with the committee but during a visit to the United States I did spend a little time in Washington. With the help of the Embassy, I met the Party managers of the two Parties and other people concerned with political affairs, and I also spent a day with the Federal Election Commission. No one I met seemed to be worried about State aid as such. What mattered was not whether you gave State aid—not the principle—but how much and how you did it. That view seemed to be shared by leading political scientists and observers. Professor Alexander, for example, said as long ago as 1972:
"American society has no excuse to tolerate a debt-ridden obligation-bound political system … there can be no question that the country can afford the amounts required".
And so we had the 1974 amendments to the 1971 Federal Elections Campaign Act, and these amendments recognised that the cost of running the political Parties was increasing substantially and that the traditional methods of financing had proved inadequate.
One feature of the American system, let me say right away, seems to me undesirable. Their system of State aid to candidates virtually prevents the emergence of any third Party. On the other hand, there are two features which deserve some favourable comment. State aid there takes the form of "matching funds": that is to say a candidate for public funds cannot afford to relax in any way his efforts to raise contributions from the traditional sources. This has met the objection that giving State aid might discourage private giving. There was no evidence in any country we visited that this was the case.
206
Secondly, the disclosure provisions are severe indeed. As an example, when I was discussing with the Federal Election Commission the extent of the disclosure requirements, I was invited by the chairman to think of a name and then go downstairs and find out for myself. Needless to say, the first name which came to mind was that of the President, and so I went down to the ground floor, where any member of the public may inspect the files, and opened the drawer marked "F". Here I found the most complete statement of all the campaign funds received by President Ford from all sources. If we go ahead with State aid, I now think that it is worth while looking again both at matching funds and at the disclosure of sources of contribution; but these, my Lords, are only points of detail.
In conclusion, it is now two and a half years since the committee finished its work. The standing with the public of Parliament and the political Parties has certainly not improved since then. On the contrary, the polarisation of the main contributors to the two large Parties is greater than it ever was; questions like sponsorship are in the air, and so on. Our whole political system is very much on trial. It will take much time and effort to restore public respect for that system, and it will also require money. I repeat, my Lords, that the risks of doing nothing are, in my opinion, far greater than the risk of injecting some modest amount of State aid along the lines of the committee's recommendations. I hope, therefore, that my noble friends on the Front Bench will persuade the Government that something has to be done and done quickly.
6.4 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I believe that the financial success of a Party surely is a measure of its strength or support. If few people are interested enough to support it, it is an indication, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that there are few people who are interested enough in having that Party at all. Where there is no enthusiasm for fund-raising in an area it is perhaps an indication that the Party may be fighting a lost cause or, more likely, a cause that appeals to a small group of activists and not to the great majority—people who may nevertheless

207
turn out and vote on the day. Rather than bewail that lack of support, I believe that the Party in such areas should consider broadening its appeal by the adoption of moderate policies.
As the Scottish Nationalists and Plaid Cymru said in that report, if a Party cannot survive by its own efforts it should not be shored up by subsidies. To my mind, that is a very compelling argument. The inability to foster voluntary support indicates disillusion—that is another statement—and State aid would further this disillusion. Even if only a little aid is given, it would be difficult to avoid public misunderstanding of the situation. They would assume there was full Government finance, and that would reduce their efforts undoubtedly.
There are many strong reasons against State aid put by the various organisations which gave evidence. I believe it would certainly lessen voluntary participation by workers, notwithstanding what other people have said to the contrary. I think it would reduce the independence of constituencies of the Central Party too, despite the concept of the neutral money. It has also been stated that it would force people who hate politics to contribute, and they are already over-taxed. In addition to that, of course, there are many cases—among them, I believe, the Seventh-Day Adventists, although I am not sure of that—in which politics are against religious convictions.
Another factor about injecting public money is that inevitably it encourages waste. We have seen that wherever public money is involved it tends to be squandered. State aid is asked for in respect of better election expenses, for rate relief and for better this and for free this and that. Too much can be free. What is free is never appreciated and it only teaches man, boy or even dog to want more.
Some argue that it would overcome difficulties, particularly in a year of three elections, and sometimes more in some parts of the country; but I do not believe that a principle should be changed for the sake of a one-off situation. The answer, of course, is to get on with it and raise money. Most constituencies can, so why not the others? If people will not give,
208
then the Party's policies should be made more attractive to them so that they actually want to work and to see that Party in power. It has been said it would help relieve the time-consuming burden of fund-raising; but it is just this that chiefly holds local Party workers together between elections, so that when elections come the team is ready there to work.
The report states that it is not in the best interests of maintaining a popular basis of democratic government when so many local constituencies do not have a full-time official. That may be so, but now, with television, all the political, information is presented to the public in their own living rooms; so I do not believe there is a necessity for a local agent or an office for the dissemination of political information in a locality. I think the need is highly doubtful. Indeed, where political meetings are held to instruct the public, we all know how few people in fact attend, because they are all busy watching television. It is estimated that to employ a full-time agent in each constituency in 1975 would have cost an extra £2·3 million to the Tories and an extra £4·7 million for Labour. Perhaps that would now be doubled at £10 million. In no way does the aid proposed in the report reach that sort of figure.
However, there is no doubt about it that the political Parties have a part to play—indeed, an increasing part—to compete with the Parties which are strong in Europe and which will be providing and supporting their Members in the EEC, where about £10 million annually is given to the political Parties. Undoubtedly these large sums would seem to put them at an advantage in regard to research for their elected Members.
There is also the factor in support of public funds of the sponsored Members, who are liable and tempted, and indeed often seen, to speak and act as much at the dictation of and in the interests of their sponsors as in the national interest. The more dependent a Party is on sponsored representatives, the less able they are, obviously to govern in the national interest, which is a factor in support of public finance and of election expenses particularly. However, the recommendation is for only a modest injection; not too high to discourage voluntary effort. I think that a figure of some 20 to 25 per

209
cent. of raised funds is suggested. The trouble is that a further increase after that is inevitable. One sees that in the figures for Germany, where £1·1 million was given to the Parties in 1959 and, according to the report, this reached a figure of no less than £38 million in 1965, before these payments were ruled unconstitutional.
Such sums as are paid to the Parties in Germany would be totally unacceptable in this country, even if they were to be available. They would sap at the enthusiasm of the local Parties, despite what has been said, and create little need to maintain the strength of the Party workers between elections, which would contribute to ruining all local effort. They would very much reduce citizen participation. Furthermore—and this is the important factor—when money is produced by the State, it becomes much more difficult to raise funds for the balance. The report has not suggested a large public supply of money; but even if it remained small the effects would be the same, and the danger of the precedent is that, once started, the sums would inevitably creep up. Abroad, there is not only this vast State aid, but also a higher subscription by individuals who are members of the Parties. Subscriptions for Parties in this country are very low compared with the European Parties—25p for the Conservatives, 30p for the Co-operative Society and £1.20 for Labour are mentioned. This compares with the figure for the Netherlands of £2.25, and of Germany which is of the order of £5.
I believe that there is great scope for an increase here. It is important to press this source, not only from the point of view of fund raising. So many branches have few members and, as a result, activists can rule them. The last thing some of them want is more members who may, by their moderation, cause the curbing of the extremist arrangements at the branches. So that there is every reason to make more of this source, and for Parties actively and genuinely to increase their membership not only for the funds, but for the sake of democracy as well.
There is a host of different fund raising methods, of which we all know. Constituencies have only to get down to it. This, in itself, generates further enthusiasm and more efforts, as I know from experience. My constituency was brand-new at the
210
last reorganisation and was highly marginal. We had no funds, no agent and no officers. In fact, we had absolutely nothing in that new constituency. We employed an agent, whom we could not afford because we had no money, but we worked very hard. Now, five years later, we must be, financially, one of the strongest constituencies in the whole country. It can be done all right. We had no sponsors and every penny we have was raised out of our efforts. No constituency is physically unable to raise money, whether by events, lotteries, diaries and all the gamut of methods which we know so well.
There is one suggestion about a tax concession of up to £50 in respect of donations from individuals. That suggestion has many adherents and it may be a good one. But it would be unreasonable for political Parties to be able to take advantage of that and to be singled out, unless the concession was also given to all other voluntary bodies which are equally hit by inflation. There are many suggestions regarding mechanics and the use of funds. There are two recommendations in the report, one at central level and the other at local level, which are subject to various qualifications in relation to votes, successes and so on. Those suggestions would very much help the larger Parties, but would be of no help to new or small Parties. This might be a good thing or a bad thing. It seems to me that the figure would work out at about £1,000 per constituency.
One suggestion was that there should be aid for local government elections, and I was very sorry to see that. One thing that bedevils local government is politics. Councillors should be as non-political as possible, and should have at heart the interests of their members and not the Party Whip. Therefore, I should be very sorry to see anything that encouraged further Party politics in local government. There is enough already, and funding it would destroy the independence of those councils which are still independent. There is a very strong case against, and there is a very convincing case for; but having read the report carefully, I come down very firmly against any State aid of any kind.
6.15 p.m.
Lord CHITNIS: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the noble

211
Lord, Lord Houghton, for introducing a debate on this important subject. My interest in it derives from the fact that I have long been concerned with the provision of financial aid to political Parties, from both ends of the spectrum. First, I once worked for 10 years for a political Party, the Liberals, one of the least wealthy Parties, and thus was continuously concerned with the provision of funds for it. Then, for the last 10 years, I have been administering one of the few grant-making bodies which can, and does, make grants to various political Parties; indeed, every Party, or individual member of every Party, represented in the other place, with the strange and somewhat inexplicable exception of Plaid Cymru, has received grants from the Rowntree Social Service Trust over the past few years, for one purpose or another. I have therefore seen this problem from the perspective of both beggar and benefactor.
The first point which occurs to me, particularly as a benefactor, is the potentially deadening effect of block funding on pressure group type organisations, whether political Parties or not. A frequent case which we come across is that of a small group, perhaps analogous to a local political Party, which starts with a good idea, with a gleam in somebody's eye, which builds up a lively base of volunteers, many of whom have to spend a lot of their time raising funds to keep the organisation going. It then asks a grant-making body for a grant, because it feels that the time has come to institutionalise itself, to staff it professionally, and this is over-generously and rather foolishly given.
As a result, as I find from my experience, which I understand differs from that of some other noble Lords, the volunteers have a tendency to down tools, leaving the work to the hired professional, and a lot of the spark goes out of the organisation. I suspect that this could be true of local Party organisations as much as of any other group. I think, therefore, that even those who have the interests of their Parties at heart should perhaps have some hesitation about providing them with too easy funds.
Secondly, drawing on my experience as a Party agent and organiser, I am
212
absolutely convinced that a lot of money spent on election campaigns is wasted. Expenditure is incurred on activities which have no better rationale than that such things have always been done, or simply because your opponents do something and you therefore feel obliged to do the same. Indeed, I suspect that most agents would agree with me that half of their activity is wasted, but would merely say that they have no idea which half. If that is so, then one thing which somebody could undertake is research into the effectiveness of various elements in an election campaign, at any rate before State funds are spent on that kind of support. When it is also taken into account that election time is, in my experience, the best time to raise funds, when there is an air of excitement about politics, my conclusion is that election campaigning should not be funded, or have its costs refunded, by the State.
It might be worth adding, as my contribution to the research that I suggest needs doing, that I found this view confirmed when, at the last General Election, having nothing better to do, I visited some 47 constituencies in the North of England, not to participate in the campaigns but merely to observe the activities of the Parties in them. After the election, I related the results there to what I had seen. With the exception of the tightly marginal seats, the results in all the others, which formed the vast majority, related almost exactly to the national norm or swing, irrespective of the scale of activity and expenditure incurred by various Parties in those seats, wide though the differences were. So I think we should be hesitant about providing funds for general campaigning between elections, poster campaigns and so forth. Again, I suspect that there is a fair amount of waste in these activities, and the provision of State funds would merely increase the number of car stickers, buttons and other such things which Parties increasingly produce, and which cancel each other out.
The third general point is one which other noble Lords have mentioned and it is that the giving of funds to the existing political Parties will, to some extent, ossify the existing political system. There is no reason to believe, because our political system has been well organised into the existing political Parties in the past, that this should remain so in the indefinite future, but surely State funding would

213
encourage this. So, in other words, I reluctantly conclude that I am opposed to the major innovation suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in that he wants funds available for campaigning, both centrally and locally.
The only exception I can think of would be the quite unusually difficult, from a campaigning point of view, elections to the European Parliament; but even if this particular case were provided for out of public funds, there would be no need for the election system decided on for the huge constituencies of the European Parliament to be extended downwards. But what I do support is an extension of the present system of giving aid to political Parties represented in Parliament and to Parliamentarians, once elected. This is not a new principle; it is not even new since the introduction of aid to political Parties in 1974. Even before then, there were provisions for giving aid to Opposition Parties—such as, for example, the salary paid to the Leader of the Opposition.
At present, the Leader of the Opposition very properly receives a not very large salary and is provided with a car. I wonder whether other Front Bench Members of the official Opposition, or, indeed, the Leaders of other Opposition Parties should not also receive financial support. Perhaps I can assuage my conscience about Plaid Cymru by saying that the Leader of Plaid Cymru has expenditure which he incurs as a Party politician and as the leader of a significant Party for which he should receive financial support.
Then, so far as the 1974 provision of State funds to Opposition Parties is concerned, I just wonder whether enough has been done. It is surely desirable that the Parties should have research facilities, not just to brief Members of Parliament on current Parliamentary business, which I understand is meant to be the terms of reference for the money that they at present receive, but to produce longer-term counter-proposals to those which are produced by the Government of the day and which have the full backing of the resources of the Civil Service. The only point I make is this: if funds are to be made available outside the existing scheme, to what central organisation should such funds be paid? The noble
214
Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will remember that when years ago I was discussing with him giving assistance to one of the major Parties, the first question which had to be resolved, and which caused considerable argument, was whether it should go to the Party in Parliament or whether the central offices of the mass party in the country should receive it; and I am sure that that Party was not unique in having that difficulty.
In conclusion, may I say that I am sorry that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on the main thrust of his proposals, which is that funds should be made available for extra-Parliamentary activities. I feel this particularly, because the noble Lord taught me most of what I know about the subject. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having given to the House the opportunity to discuss this subject.
6.22 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has already put everyone interested in this question in his debt. He made a very fine opening speech. The noble Lord is responsible for the report of his committee on financial aid to political Parties. It is a comprehensive and detailed analysis of an important and fascinating subject. Apart from the expression of views which the report contains—which to some extent are bound to be subjective—I think that the report is a remarkable mine of statistical and other material. Much of it, I believe, had previously never been available—certainly never in such a convenient form. Whatever opinion noble Lords may hold about the conclusions which the majority of the committee draw from their researches, it will be impossible for anybody weighing up this issue not to rely to a great extent on the work done by the committee. The noble Lord has this afternoon added to our indebtedness by providing this opportunity to discuss the subject generally and the specific recommendations made in his committee's report.
May I say that the Government have not yet finalised their consideration of those recommendations. Therefore the views expressed this afternoon have an effective part to play. Naturally, the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, who is chairman of

215
the Conservative Party, made a characteristically rumbustious speech which explained a point of view which wished to reject the giving of State aid to political Parties. On the other hand, we have had speeches from the Liberal Party and also a recognition even by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, that some day it may well be that political Parties will receive State aid. My noble friends Lord Wall and Lord McCarthy also made powerful speeches, and there was an excellent speech made by the noble Lord who has just spoken. I shall carefully consider the views that have been expressed because, as I have said, the Government have not yet finalised their consideration of the recommendations of the Houghton Committee. Therefore it is important to study the views which have been expressed. The report has provoked controversy and this is good.
As the noble Lord has reminded us, the majority of his committee came down in favour of the principle of State financial aid to political Parties in this country and put forward a combination of two schemes that would cost jointly something in the region of £2¼ million annually. Under the first part of the committee's proposals, annual grants would be paid to the central organisations of the Parties for their general purposes, the amounts being related to each Party's support at the preceding General Election and subject to a minimum level of support. It was proposed that the amount payable should be calculated on a basis of 5p for each vote cast in favour of the Party concerned.
The Committee's other proposal was that at local level a limited reimbursement should be made of the election expenses of parliamentary and local government candidates. So far as parliamentary candidates are concerned, this would be restricted to those who saved their deposits. In either case, the amount to be reimbursed would be the candidate's actual election expenses, subject to a limit of half his legally permitted maximum expenditure. In this way, the committee propose that the Parties might be strengthened financially at the centre, and also that the electoral process as a whole should be reinforced by the reduction of the actual election expenses which a local party or an individual candidate has to bear.
216
The initial reactions to the report, both Press and public, were, as noble Lords will recall, divided and, I think, largely hostile. I think that this is a fair description of the views expressed in today's debate. It is also reasonable to say, however, that a considerable amount of common ground has emerged or has been confirmed regarding the basis upon which this extremely important issue needs to be considered. In the first place, it would seem that there is broad agreement that if—and I emphasise "if"—the principle of State financial aid to political Parties were to be accepted, then the schemes put forward by the committee under the noble Lord's chairmanship would appear to provide an appropriate and fair basis on which to proceed. This, too, was the view taken by the minority of the committee in their own report.
Second, I do not think there is any dispute regarding the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, about the crucial importance of the role that political Parties play in the political institutions of the country, both with regard to the electoral process and in more general ways. It is, accordingly, of critical importance to the working of our institutions that the political Parties have the means to carry out that role in an effective way. If, for lack of funds, they were to withdraw from these activities, the effects would be incalculable.
Third, I do not think there can be any doubt that the financial burdens placed on political Parties and their need for additional funds, whether from private or public sources, have greatly increased in recent years. Like every other organisation and individual, political Parties have been faced with increasing calls on their resources. That will be particularly so this year. As noble Lords have said, this is the year of a General Election, of local government elections, of the devolution referenda and of the direct elections to the European Parliament. Tremendous stress will be placed upon our organisations in the country.
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government are still considering whether to introduce legislation to provide financial assistance in the special case of candidates in the impending direct elections for the European Parliament. In the course of their consideration, the Government will

217
need to take account of the financial assistance which the European Assembly is itself making available to political Parties in connection with the elections. But this forthcoming series of elections apart, there can be no doubt that the financial burdens on political Parties have increased a great deal in recent years. In particular, this has made it increasingly difficult for them to maintain or recruit the staff they need if they are to carry out their work satisfactorily. So much I would see as common ground among both those who advocate and those who oppose the introduction of financial assitance to political Parties.
It is also, I think, common ground that there is a need to continue the present scheme of financial assistance to Opposition Parties at Westminster in order to provide some counterpoise to the assistance which the Civil Service gives to Ministers. But, as today's debate has shown, there is a wide division of principle between those who would see the acceptance of the Houghton Committee's proposals, or something akin, as a necessary and welcome strengthening of our democratic institutions, and those who would see such a step as a major breach of the political traditions of this country. The broad grounds on which opposition to State aid is based emerged very clearly in the minority report of the Houghton Committee and I think it has emerged equally clearly in our debate today.
I see the opposition to State aid as coming under two main heads. In the first place, there is a group of arguments which is to a large extent based on doubts as to the validity of various aspects of the analysis of the present situation on which the committee's proposals were based. The second group are of a more fundamentalist kind—what the minority report describes as a "gut reaction". These are essentially grouped round the fear that the introduction of State financial aid for political Parties in this country would undermine essential and desirable features of our political life and that, sooner or later, the independence of our political Parties would be eroded. In addition there are special and particular fears, such as the fear that State aid might go to extremist groups and might indeed encourage their expansion, or that it would unduly favour Party headquarters.
218
Taking first the doubts expressed about the foundations on which the case for State aid is based, it is argued that it is impossible, in any objective way, and without telling political Parties how to go about their business, to specify the jobs that a political Party needs to carry out. Every politician has his own vision of how he can best make his contribution to public life. I am sure this will appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who spoke very effectively. The same is true of Parties. Some attach more importance to certain functions than others. But unless it were possible to come to some generally accepted minimum standard, both in range and level, of the activities which a political Party ought to be carrying out, it is not easy to see how one can arrive at any agreement as to the appropriate level of financial provision required, either from private or public sources, in order to carry out these duties.
There is also the argument that while the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord have brought together a good deal of factual material about the actual incomes of the Parties, and their sources, there remains the imponderable of how far these incomes could be significantly raised if it were thought by their members that the Party's future, or its effectiveness, as they saw it, were really seriously at risk. As with other great institutions, one suspects that in practice there could be a substantial degree of elasticity about the potential incomes of the major Parties. And it might accordingly be thought by some that at least part of the financial difficulties encountered by the Parties in recent years are a temporary reflection of public disenchantment rather than a permanent problem calling for fundamental change.
I think that the third focus for doubt would be the assumptions made in the Houghton Committee's report that the present structure of Party financing—and the important role played by union and business financial support—prejudices the independence of the political Parties. But some would argue that there is little evidence of this. They would say that these links are rooted in the reality of the political situation, and that they help to prevent the political Parties from losing touch with their support. If political Parties were primarliy financed by the

219
State, they might become abstract and divorced from their supporters. I think that view has been expressed this evening.
As a final ground for doubt about the committee's proposals, I think opponents of State aid would probably challenge—as the minority report does—the relevance of schemes already operating in Europe, on the grounds that their political background and history was in important respects different from our own. But as I have said earlier, the principal argument put forward against State aid is that it might in time erode the independence of the political Parties. Political bodies in this country have until now been traditionally voluntary bodies, and their financing has been organised on a voluntary basis. Clearly, the introduction of State financial aid would breach this principle, and it might also have considerable repercussions on the activities of political Parties which at present centre round voluntary fund raising.
As today's debate has shown, there are wide and important differences of principle involved here. The introduction of State financial aid would undoubtedly mark an important change in the political life of the country. What, I think, we are all agreed upon is that any scheme that might be introduced in this field would need to command the widest possible measure of general support, both in Parliament and in the country as a whole. As I have said earlier, we have not, as a Government, come to a conclusion on this matter. We continue, however, to take note of the development of parliamentary and public opinion. It has, therefore, been of considerable value to hear the views expressed this afternoon, and I can assure the House that what has been said will be carefully considered and taken into account before any proposals in this matter are put forward.
6.42 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and especially my noble friend Lord Peart for the first analysis of the report and its recommendations and the arguments for and against them that we have heard from the Front Bench in either House so far. I think that is a bonus as a result of this debate and I hope that it will continue.
220
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, provided ammunition for those who oppose State aid and he provided ammunition also to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, who is about to open the following debate on the desirability of short speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, just qualified for his place on the list of speakers in the subsequent debate on the desirability of short speeches, and J congratulate him upon that. Now I come to enemy No. 1, who is the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft. He provided ammunition for the opponents of televising this House. After all, he is against State aid; he does not want bureaucratic interference in the affairs of Parties; he does not want to take advantage of any resources whatsoever except those provided by the stalwarts of the Conservative Party. But he exhibited a Tory Party poster and showed it round the Chamber. My Lords, he will be a dangerous man if television cameras ever enter this Chamber. He will need to be kept out of debates unless he has been searched beforehand to see whether he has some free propaganda for the Tory Party which he wishes to exhibit to your Lordships' House and to the nation at large, free, gratis and for nothing.
I must tease the noble Lord a little further. At the end of his speech he ascended the pulpit and in a loud voice he rebuked sin. "We will have none of it," he said. "If sinful people propose this iniquity we will oppose it, and if money is on offer we will reject it." Ah, my Lords, but what happened in another place in 1975 when a proposal was before the House that grant in aid should be given to the Opposition Parties? There were murmurings and there were mutterings on the Conservative Benches from people who made to wound but were afraid to strike—if one dare mention that word just now!—and at the end of the day no Division was called. And what happened, my Lords? They took the money, and the £150,000 a year is going into the office of the Leader of the Opposition at the present time. When we on the Labour Benches were in Opposition we had to rely on the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, and the Rowntree Trust to scramble together enough money—£25,000 a year maximum—to provide assistance to the then Shadow Cabinet. Now the Conservative Opposition in the House of Commons absolutely bask in the sun-

221
shine of State aid to Opposition Parties. So there is a little humbug in all this, and I think we must guard against it.
I do not wish to delay the next debate more than a minute more, because we did start very late. I remind the House that State aid was given for the conduct of the referendum on the Common Market. I think it was the first time, and it appeared to be fully justified at the time. I realise the distinction between money to have that debate on a referendum against aid to specific political parties. Nevertheless may I say to my noble friend that I believe there is a big problem arising in connection with elections to the European Parliament. It will be a great shame if we make a mess of those, and there is considerable danger that that may be so. We have never seen constituencies of the size that we shall have for elections to the European Parliament. No one will have had experience of fighting elections or conducting Party political activities over such a wide area and with such a large electorate. I urge the Government seriously to consider that particular matter in the coming weeks.
Finally, I do not accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, that to accept State aid in some way brings bureaucracy in by the back door. We had a former Comptroller and Auditor-General, Sir Edmund Compton, a distinguished civil servant and a member of the Committee, who took very good care of the question of accountability; and that is fully explained in our report. I think the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, will find that there is no more difficulty about accountability for the money which it was proposed should go to political Parties than there is about the money that already goes to the Leader of the Opposition. Great care was taken to ensure that money was properly cared for and properly spent without fussy interference by bureaucracy.
My Lords, I conclude by saying that in my opinion money is behind politics here, as everywhere else in the world, and money power is corrupting. State aid reduces the power of vested interests and in my view would make for the liberation and the independence of political Parties and relieve them of some of the shackles that exist at the present time under our present system. Noble Lords opposite
222
romanticise party Political activity and politics generally. There is a reality here of vested interests on both sides of the great divide in this country to which we must have regard in considering this matter. Anyhow, I thank noble Lords once again. I think the debate has been well worthwhile, and in this period I think we have packed quite enough for the Government to consider. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SHORTER SPEECHES
6.43 p.m.
Lord SOMERS Lord SOMERS rose to call attention to the desirability of shorter speeches; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, many of your Lordships will remember that not long ago we had a debate on this subject introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Egremont. It was a good debate and at the time was very well received, so far as I can remember, but, unfortunately, it did not seem to have a great deal of effect. I think perhaps one of the reasons for that was that the debate did take on rather a light-hearted atmosphere, and possibly the Members of the House were not really taking the subject very seriously. But I do not intend to follow that line tonight. Since then, of course, we have had the clocks fitted, but, unfortunately, it has proved only too easy not to look at the clock.
Perhaps I should say a word or two as to why I feel that consideration of this subject is desirable. The first reason is one of pure practicality; that is, time. Your Lordships all realise, no doubt, that our timetable is getting increasingly crowded. When I first came to the House sittings on Mondays were unknown. They have become quite a commonplace now, and we very often sit till quite a late hour. When we have long debates, long lists of speakers, those who come at the end, who may perhaps have quite a long way to get home, are left in the unfortunate position of having either to remove their names or else stay in town. I think, perhaps, I should declare an interest there, because that is a position in which I have found myself only too often. That makes things very difficult.
However, I think what I really want to emphasise most is that long speeches really defeat the ends for which they are made, because they cease to hold the attention of hearers. One can tell that only too well by just looking round the House. As a long speech winds on its way, one can see noble Lords leaning over and talking to each other, others studying their Order Papers very closely, and others looking incredibly bored or perhaps even going out of the Chamber.
There is no doubt that a long speech, unless it happens to be a very brilliant one, is inevitably far less convincing than a short and clearly-expressed one. Of course, I realise that the length of a speech is really very largely a matter of opinion. I remember quite recently there was a speech by a noble Lord which I found absolutely fascinating from beginning to end, and I was really very surprised when I looked up and found that he had been speaking for close on half an hour. So it is largely a matter of opinion. But I do think that a short, clear speech is far more likely to convince the House and to achieve its end than a long and rambling one.
Also, when one has a long list of speakers, those who are near the end will almost inevitably find that everything they wanted to say has already been said. There is nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of in getting up and just saying that everything you wished to say has been said, that you agree very much with a certain point made by some noble Lord and would like to give your wholehearted agreement to it, and then sitting down. It would save a great deal of the time of the House and would do you no harm whatsoever.
I think it is worth while just considering what is the purpose of your Lordships' House. Is it a real House of Parliament which exists for the purpose of examining and approving legislation and so protecting and improving the conditions of the country, or is it just a platform for those who are fortunate enough to belong to it to exercise their powers of oratory? If it is the first—and I do not think there are any of your Lordships who would deny that—then we can serve it best by making it work most efficiently and by "efficiently" I mean achieving the most in the shortest possible time. I think it
224
should be possible to make your point! clearly in about—and I say "about"; because I do not wish to lay down any! hard and fast rules—10 minutes. There may be occasions on which you feel you must go on a little longer, but I think that 10 minutes as a general rule would be quite good. It might not be a bad plan to have some remark to that effect put into the Companion to Standing Orders. It would be there for people who take the trouble to read it to remind themselves occasionally what is desirable. Of course, I make two exceptions to that rule: the introducer of the debate—incidentally, I shall not take any advantage of that tonight—and the speaker who winds up for the Government. Those speakers must have longer because there will be many more points for them to cover.
There are two other areas worth considering, one of which is Starred Questions. The Companion to Standing Orders says that they are:
"for the purpose of asking for information only and not with a view to making a speech or to raising a debate".
I have sometimes wished that more speakers would keep that at the back of their minds when Starred Questions come on. Of course, it is only too easy to make something sound like a Question by simply preceding it with the words, "Is the noble Lord aware…?" and that of course makes it comply with the regulations concerning Questions. Having said that, one can then go on speaking for about 10 minutes. That is not desirable. As the Companion to Standing Orders says, Starred Questions should be for the purpose of getting information and only that.
The other area is the moving of Amendments during Committee stage. The moving of those Amendments tends to be used as an opportunity for making what is often called in your Lordships House a "Second Reading speech", and it is unnecessary. All that needs to be done is for the mover to explain what the Amendment is, what effect it will have, and why he considers it desirable, and then to sit down. However, of course, many people are not content to do that, though as I have said, this is not a platform for displaying powers of oratory but is for the purpose of getting legislation

225
through, and getting it through as efficiently as possible.
I sincerely hope that your Lordships will consider this question thoroughly and that perhaps something may be done. I have no intention of introducing any compulsory limit or anything like that. I should not like to see anything such as I suffered from when I was a member of a delegation to a Commonwealth Conference in Guernsey last year. We were told that we must confine our speeches to 10 minutes and when we had spoken for nine minutes a bell rung and we knew that we jolly well had to bring our remarks to a close. That, of course, would be totally unsuitable for your Lordships House. If we could have a little advice or persuasion from the Companion to Standing Orders it might be very useful. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.53 p.m.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I do not think that there are many of your Lordships who will disagree with a single word that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has said. Equally, I do not think that there are many of your Lordships who, after today's debate is ended, will pay the slightest attention to it. The noble Lord has mentioned the resolution moved some 14 years ago by my noble friend the late Lord Egremont;
"That speeches in this House should be shorter";
and this was immediately embodied in the Companion to Standing Orders, with the attached comment:
"Long speeches engender tedium and tend to kill debate".
Since then, speeches have become longer and longer and bound volumes of Hansard have become thicker and thicker.
More recently, the 1976 Brief Guide to the Procedure and Practice of the House of Lords laid down guidelines very much on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, as to what is an acceptable length of speech. Your Lordships will find them on page 9 of that invaluable guide:
"Lords opening or winding up debates, from either side, should try to keep within twenty minutes and should not exceed twenty-five minutes. Other Lords should try to keep within fifteen minutes and should not exceed twenty minutes".
I have never heard a long speech in your Lordships' House, good though many
226
of them have been, that would not have been infinitely better had it been confined to 20 minutes or even more so to 15.
Noble Lords do not take the time and trouble to go through the mass of verbiage beforehand and winnow out what is worth saying from what is not. They leave it instead to their unfortunate audience to take the time and the trouble to winnow out what is worth listening to and what is not. Behaviour that I find quite intolerable is that of noble Lords who have made long speeches early in the day and then leave the House before the end of the debate. They are thereby sparing themselves from the extra 30, 25 or even 20 minutes of sitting that they have inflicted on their better-mannered fellow Peers.
If the noble Lord, Lord Somers, does not withdraw his Motion for Papers tonight, I have no doubt at all that it will be carried with acclamation. In parenthesis, it will be interesting to see with exactly what Papers the Table supply him. As I have said, I am not optimistic about any long term results. But even if only those noble Lords who are speaking today comply just for a short time with what they themselves say tonight, something at least will have been achieved. And it is in that pious hope that I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Somers, on his initiative.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I rise to say that I speak officially for the Party. The Liberal Party is against long speeches, as we are against sin and various other matters. I must make a Party point and say that I have looked back at the timing of various speeches, and Liberal speeches are, in fact, much shorter than the speeches from the other two Parties, and, indeed from the Cross-Benches in this House, and the content, of course, is infinitely superior.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, is greatly to be congratulated on moving this Motion because it is one with which everyone will concur and it will—contrary to the lecture read by the head prefect a moment ago—do a great deal of good. I am perfectly certain that noble Lords will follow the Liberal example and say a great deal that is full of worth in a very short time.
When I was wondering what to say about this evidently virtuous subject, I

227
thought that I would look at the great speeches of the past. I looked first at the Gettysburg Address. I asked my long suffering wife whether she would mind timing me. I then ran through the Gettysburg Address. I was extraordinarly good; I was very fine and much better than the original. It took me exactly 90 seconds, and that shook me a bit. I then turned to Henry V and the marvellous speech before Agincourt. I really had fun with the speech that began:
"That he which hath no stomach to this fight"
to the lovely piece about:
"And gentlemen in England now a-bed Shall think themselves accursed they were not here".
By then my wife was wilting a bit but we went through that speech which is probably the most famous and stirring one, in three and a half minutes. Then, greatly emboldened, I turned to the Sermon on the Mount as set out in St. Matthew which I think is the most complete account, but the right reverend Prelate can correct me if I am wrong. I did not subject my wife, who by this time was tiring, to the complete sermon, but I read a column and then multiplied it. It took exactly 19 minutes. I thought to myself that those were examples that noble Lords could well follow. If we can lay down in 19 minutes all the ethics for the Christian religion, it should be possible for noble Lords, even the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, to express themselves in a slightly shorter time than that to which they have been accustomed.
With those offensive remarks, I now wish to back the noble Lord, Lord Somers, to the limit of my ability and hope that in future Members of this House will so shorten their speeches that they will be so full of pith, wit and wisdom that the Galleries will be crowded and the queues for the House of Commons will melt away.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he not agree that there is an element of predestination in all this?
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I have not studied Calvin, but
228
interruptions of that sort lengthen speeches.
7.1 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, "Brevity is the soul of wit". So said Polonius. Albeit, does this mean that any noble Lord who cuts his speech by half be deemed a half-wit? That would never meet accord. Far wiser are the words of Horace:
"Brevis esse laboro, obscuras fio",
which translated is: "When I struggle to be brief, I then become obscure."
While, up above, that silent digit
Reveals relentlessly each unforgiving minute,
As every quarter hour elapses,
Then why not make it chime, my Lords,
To stop the endless flow of words?
And, if convention doth decree
To moderate prolixity,
'Twere best your Lordships kept their glance
Adjusted to the map of France
And made their speeches, waiving all excuse,
Neither Toulon, nor yet Toulouse.
But better still, my Lords, by far,
To keep your speeches as they are.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, whenever I think of this subject I imagine myself at a dinner party held downstairs some years ago where the Leader of your Lordships' House, the late Lord Salisbury, and I were talking about the procedures of the House. He said that there were few things in this House that could not be solved in terms of good manners and consideration for others. He said that that was much more important than the rule book, and that if a person breaks the rules, someone will tell him that he is out of order; and if he takes it in good part and apologises, he can recover and will be forgiven. But if someone makes an overlong speech, there is no recovery and it shall not be forgiven.
If that is a good principle to work on and if it is known that as a Back-Bencher or a Cross-Bencher one is asked to confine oneself to 10 minutes, as a matter of good manners why not at least try to do so? Of course, it is not in mortals to command success, and if one feels a kind of rapport with the House and gets carried along on the wings of oratory, one may overshoot a bit. But there is a difference between overshooting by five minutes and taking three times the length of the target estimate: that is, half an hour or so. We all have an obligation to try to remember

229
other people: the long list of those who will speak after us and those who have spoken before us and who have to sit it out and endure what we shall say.
It seems to me that there is a case for trying to remember what one is doing while making a speech in your Lordships' House by reciting all the things one is not doing. One is not delivering viva voce an introductory chapter to a text book on the subject for attentive students. That is the wrong target at which to aim. Nor should one imagine that one is delivering a lecture as opposed to participating in a debate. To prepare a manuscript of a set speech and then proceed to deliver it remorselessly, without regard to anything that has been said beforehand or is likely to be said afterwards is, to my mind, a lack of consideration for others.
If one has the good fortune to be speaking early in the debate, of course, one can make the points that one knows perfectly well all one's friends and fellow Peers will want to make later; so why not, in the words of someone who gave me my business training, say: "Always leave something for the other guy?" Without wishing to describe your Lordships as "guys", I think it is a good thing for people who speak early to remember that people will follow them, and not try to pinch all the other chap's points.
There is an obligation on everyone to know his personal rate of delivery when it comes to preparing a manuscript. I know that we all have our own methods of getting ready to address your Lordships, and I shall not describe or recite mine as if it were a sort of model for everyone else. But in order to clarify their own minds and order their thoughts, many people will write out their intended speeches in longhand beforehand. It may not be the speech they will deliver, but for many it can be a bit of self-discipline. It is a very simple matter to precalculate from Hansard one's personal rate of delivery. Every speech in Hansard is timed as to its beginning and one knows the time at which one's successor starts. If one has spoken for 10 minutes and that speech! occupies so many columns of Hansard at so many words per column, it is very simple rule—three sum to discover one's rate of delivery. In my own case it is
230
about 100 words per minute. Therefore, if I want to speak for 10 minutes I have to confine myself to about 1,000 words, and as there is nearly always a bit of overshoot as a result of "ad libbing", responding to some remark that someone else has made, making a wisecrack or whatever it may be, it is as well to leave something in hand. If one has about 900 words prepared, that will cover only perhaps one or two points and leave the remaining points for others to enlarge on. I believe that that is the kind of approach which makes debates interesting and lively, in much the same way as a Committee stage of a Bill is interesting and lively if it is a Bill in which one is interested.
Of course, Committee stages on Bills dealing with subjects one knows nothing about are not particularly interesting. The Patents Bill last year was a subject about which a dozen of us in your Lordships' House knew something. It was an extremely lively and very interesting Committee stage; there was the true cut and thrust of debate the whole way through. If we could get a little more of that into Second Reading debates, Motions for Papers, and the kind of formal set-piece debate which makes for the interest of our House on Wednesdays, I believe that more people would be attracted to making livelier speeches, which would be a very good thing.
7.8 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, I am very glad indeed to have this opportunity to support my noble friend Lord Somers. I cannot say that I absolutely agreed with everything he said; indeed, there are one or two points on which I rather differ from him. It is very easy to make a political speech; one can make a political speech in a very short time. But if one is discussiong some very technical matter—and every now and again we have to discuss very technical Bills coming from the House of Commons—it is not so easy to be brief. If I were going to make a political speech, I could make it in a minute, because I would simply say, "I do not like this Government; I do not like their policies", and I would sit down. It would be a little mean of me to say that today when the noble Lord the Privy Seal was so nice over my Question. We both come from the same part of the world. He knows that for 38 years I have been

231
fighting for my Party, and so sometimes I hope—I am sure he will—he will accept a joke from me.
However, there are the technical problems—for instance, of dealing with the mining situation. I am very fond of the miners; they have always given me an awful time politically, but I like them and I like putting forward some of the problems which they have to face. If you are making a complicated technical speech it is not so easy to be short.
There is another point, I should like to raise. Very often we in your Lordships' House know exactly what we are talking about—at least I hope we do. But when Hansard comes to be read it is sometimes very important for people all over the world who really do look at Hansard, because they learn quite a lot from it. For instance, the other day I intervened in the debate on China and I spoke for I think four and a half minutes. I have been to China, and I just thought of the problems of China, and the people who knew me when I was out there would not really have thought that a speech of four and a half minutes made in your Lordships' House was long enough. Of course, my noble friend who introduced the debate had a great deal to say too, and quite rightly.
If I might return to the question of the discussion on the mining position, it is hard for the miners, if they read Hansard, to see that one has spoken for only, say, 10 minutes, because you cannot deal with the mining situation in that amount of time. Therefore, I make a clear distinction between making a political speech which, as I say is too easy for words, and making a speech on a technical matter. I do not think this has been mentioned today, but it is important to remember that what goes into Hansard is read by a great number of people who will be interested in the points of view put forward. If you make a speech so short and leave out a lot of technical detail, it does not really help people all over the world who are interested in certain problems—and I am again referring to China. I knew that I had to be short, and I can be short, but I can assure your Lordships that I can speak for two hours without turning a hair. I am not going to today so nobody need be worried about it.
232
I never make notes. I never write a speech. I dare say that my speeches would be better if I did, because sometimes I think that my grammar is appalling. But I find it easy to speak and I could just get up now and go on for two hours, and rather enjoy it. When you look at what is dealt with in Parliament, and remember that frequently Members speak with technical knowledge, it is a pity that they do not take long enough to ensure that the tetails of technical matters are included in Hansard. We might, however, get into the position that it would be awfully boring.
If I attacked the Lord Privy Seal, well, we are both Northeners, and I like him even if I do not like his policies. I like a lot of people who make boring speeches, even if I do not like what they are saying. It is tremendously important, when we are making speeches, to realise whether or not we are making a political speech which, in your Lordships' House, we can make easily, or whether it is a technical speech. I have been in your Lordships' House since, I think, 1974 and I have listened to some absolutely magnificent speeches, because most of the people who speak really have some knowledge to offer. I think we have a great reputation in the world, and if you offer knowledge to the world you may be helping the world to get over some of the difficult and frightening problems which have to be dealt with.
I am not going to speak much longer because that would be unwise. I think it was right of my noble friend to talk about shorter speeches, but I hope that we shall not forget the fact that it is quite easy to be political and it is not so easy to be technical. Some of the matters that have to be dealt with now are so technical that it would be a pity if people did not take a little longer and make a speech on the subjects about which they know so much. For instance, I sometimes listen to people talking about the mines. They talk as though all mines were the same. If you have been in a mining area you will know that one mine and another can be quite different, and they need different kinds of treatment.
I know that sometimes people talk about Rhodesia, but you can have quite a different view if you have been out to Rhodesia. I always think that I have been

233
extremely lucky in that I have had an opportunity to travel all over the world. I know that I must be short in speeches. But when your Lordships who really have knowledge on so many important matters speak, I should like the Hansards which are being sent out all over the world properly to reflect that knowledge. Very often we are so busy in making our own speeches that we do not realise the influence that this country can have in these difficult world affairs that we are facing at the present time. I say thank you to my noble friend. As I say, some people say they do not suppose that anybody will take any notice of what we say, but, still, sometimes they do, and I have been delighted to have had this opportunity of speaking in this important debate.
7.17 p.m.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, it is always a great privilege to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside. She very nearly gave me immense relief because I thought she was going to touch double figures, and she almost did. Everybody else in this debate has admirably kept to their own prescription, the shortest speech being one minute and the longest being five. I feel that it would be unwise for me to go beyond five, and I hope that I shall not.
I have only one practical suggestion to make, and that is not one which will be thought acceptable. It would make speeches a great deal shorter if, instead of being spoken in political English, they were spoken in Latin. We have today had two Statements, both of which took a considerable time, followed by "Questions" and "Commands"; with the result that this debate of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has—if I may paraphrase Shakespeare—had" all too short a lease", having come on at a very late time in the evening.
I know no more Latin than most of your Lordships, but I remember one of the shortest "Statements" in Latin (spoken from his own brief) was by Julius Caesar: "Veni, vidi, vici", which I suppose in political English would be, "I arrived on the scene, I took a look around, and I was an overwhelming success". That was an easy brief to speak to, but he wrote it himself. Supposing he had had to say: "Veni, vidi, victus sum", that would have meant not
234
only four words instead of three, but seven syllables instead of six.
Before that, in an even more difficult position, a Roman Government had suffered—let us face it—a serious reverse at the Battle of Cannae, which was one of the great defeats in history. On that occasion, a Statement was made by an unfortunate member of their Lordships' House, or Senate, who came out on to the balcony to deliver it, in the words, "Magna pugna victi sumus". He had to use eight syllables and four words to say in literal English, "We have been defeated in a great battle", or in political English for anyone on either side of this House or possibly for the Liberal Party, "There has been an important engagement in which we have not perhaps succeeded in all our objectives, but nevertheless …" and so on.
That is why I believe that if speeches were made in Latin they would be shorter—first, because Latin is more succinct and, secondly, because fewer people would speak, if only because, like myself, they do not know how to pronouce it; in any other debate, I should be corrected.
The noble Lord, Lord Segal, quoted an admirable sentence from Horace,
"Brevis esse laboro, obscuras fio",
which he translated, probably rightly, as "When I am trying to be clear I only become obscure". I suppose one could translate it as, "If I have a Labour brief, the briefer it is the more obscure it becomes". That might not be a good translation, but I sympathise with any Front Bench spokesman who has a brief. Speaking from a brief or reading from a brief, as one is entitled to do, as the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, pointed out, can be done well—and the noble Lord, Lord Denham, does it beautifully—or less well; and the longer the brief the more bored the reader becomes.
Back-Benchers of course do not read from briefs, and they are the worst offenders in the matter of length, of whom I am one. In their case, one must not think of the word "brevis" or "brief" but the word "curt" as in "courteous", which I believe is from the same derivation. How to be curt or curtail one's speech without being rude but being courteous? Both words come—I do not know the Latin word—from "to curtail"

235
or "to confine" or "to condense" something, closing when one has said what one wants to say. I believe the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, pointed out that there is no contradiction between being short and being polite; that is what we in this House are supposed to be.
All I would say is that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, in setting the standard for us, was doing what this House should always do, namely setting a magnificently high standard. To make a speech which gets a great many points in, to condense it and to make it audible and acceptable to the listeners is not an easy thing to do. The noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, can make a speech of 38 minutes sound like three minutes or less; he differs from some of us in that way because he has a great gift. There are others—I have been accused of it—who can make a speech of five minutes sound like 50. I notice that I have already spoken for five minutes, so I will sit down, thoroughly agreeing with everything that has been said about the desirability of short speeches. But they are not easy to make.
7.24 p.m.
Lord KILMARNOCK: My Lords, I have been a Member of your Lordships' House for only a little over two years, and if that does not seem a sufficient qualification for taking part in this debate, I can only plead that in this time I have become something of an aficionado of speeches in your Lordships' House. Persuing the analogy, there is no doubt that the matador who despatches his opponent with one thrust is deservedly more popular than those who take a number of stabs before delivering the côup de grace.
I also have read through the distinguished debate on the Motion by the late Lord Egremont in 1965. In that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Somers, to whom we are indebted for the revival of the subject today, made a speech of 31 words—it was too short for the time to be recorded—thus beating the record for brevity confidently claimed earlier in the same debate by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, with 56 words, also taking a time too short to be recorded. Incidentally, just before the Leader of the House rose to reply on that afternoon, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, pointed out from the Woolsack that there had been
236
21 speeches in 86 minutes. I hope the reduced number of speakers today does not indicate complacency.
In that debate I do not think anybody was in favour of a statutory limit on the length of speeches. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, reminded the House on that occasion that the speech of the late Lord Keynes on the American loan, lasting nearly 1¼ hours, had not been a minute too long, while the late Lord Halifax had managed to swing the opinion of the Conservative Party on Indian Reform in nine minutes. Thus, there are no magic numbers.
In those perhaps more expansive days a voluntary 20 minute limitation earned the approval of a number of speakers. The late Lord Casey quoted the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, who had said 10 years earlier:
"I take the view that if you cannot say what you are going to say in 20 minutes, you ought to go away and write a book about it".
On that occasion also the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, said:
"You can get any subject into 20 minutes if you know what you are talking about".
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said on that occasion:
"I do not know which alarms me more, the noble Lord who rises with a large bundle of typescript or the one who rises with no notes at all. The one takes a long time to end and the other does not seem to know how to".
As against that, the noble Earl, Lord Baldwin of Bewdley said:
"Speaking from scripts, except when obviously necessary, is discouraged, I know, but if they are good scripts, they can help to keep matters within bounds".
How do we keep matters within bounds these days? I have done a little research. In the past three debates on Motions for Papers dealing with broad general issues, the average speech lengths were as follows: in the debate of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, on industrial recovery on 17th January, it was 19 minutes; in the debate introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, on 24th January on social and industrial policy, 17 minutes; and in Lord Carrington's debate on 25th January on the industrial situation, 18 minutes. It may be significant that the debate with the highest number of lady speakers, which was Lady Robson's, had the lowest average of the three.

237
If we turn to debates on specific reports, whether of committees of your Lordships' House or of other bodies, we find significantly shorter speeches. The debate introduced yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, on the fascinating subject of relations between the Westminster and EEC Parliaments yielded a 15½ minute average. Going back a little, an EEC debate on 11th November 1977 on the classification and labelling of dangerous substances averaged out at 12 minutes per speaker; while a Motion on the report of the Post Office Review Committee, debated the following day, worked out at 16 minutes. On the whole, it seems that the average of this type of debate has recently been running at 14 or 15 minutes.
It must also be borne in mind that debates of that nature generally attract fewer speakers than those on broad general subjects. This would seem to suggest that the greater the number of speakers the shorter the speeches should be, but in fact the opposite is the case. My sample of three recent major debates yielded an average of 18 minutes per speaker, which is surely far too high when there are frequently between 20 and 30 noble Lords down to speak.
Of course, there are various rules of thumb for controlling speech length. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has told us that his delivery rate is about 100 words per minute. There is also the kitchen clock or stop-watch method of timing oneself in private. If this method is adopted it should be borne in mind that 50 per cent. should be added for live delivery to an audience; eight minutes in the kitchen is 12 minutes in your Lordships' House. I suppose we might have a warning bell or red light or a buzzer operated by a button under the Woolsack or the Clerk's Table. I suggest, however, that the proper place for such a mechanism is inside each one of us. I see that I have now spoken for five minutes, and, my Lords, I must sit down—there is something jangling in my head!
7.29 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, once upon a time Gracian said that good things, if short, are twice as good, and Pliny agreed when he said,
"To be brief is almost a condition of being inspired".
238
Horace said that,
"Every word that is superfluous flows away from a full mind",
yet warned that
"brevity is many times the mother of obscurity".
A speech should be short and like an epigram. What is an epigram?—a dwarfish whole, its body brevity and wit its soul.
7.30 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I am afraid that unlike many Peers I am going to make what is a fairly serious speech, and it will certainly last just over five minutes. I have grave doubts about the wisdom of speaking in the debate because my own stock in trade for some time has been short, terse speeches. If I am frank, I will admit that in part that is because I hope to get the attention of the House for a Back-Bencher who is aware of the giants who stand on all sides. In the main, however, the reason is that this approach comes most easily to me, and I am not good at constructing long, flowing prose. I am treading on rather thin ice, but I believe that it is necessary to get to the root of the matter and consider some of the reasons why long speeches are made. Many Peers continue to make them, sometimes with comparatively little real content.
I suggest that as with almost everything else motives, constraints and incentives are mixed, and it would be quite wrong to accuse anyone of speaking solely for his record with posterity where a full analysis of a problem is obviously appropriate; or for the quality of the prose style; or to cover the complete case for an organisation in which he is interested; or simply, in the common phrase, that he enjoys "holding the Floor" and hearing his own voice. All these motives would of course be considered undesirable, but I suggest that to some degree they affect any assembly, and I mention them so that each of us can search our own conscience.
I suggest, however, that most of the difficulty is due to much more mundane considerations. Relatively few people are capable of speaking or dictating as shortly and as succinctly as when they write a speech or a letter in longhand, and in speaking they get led away into elaboration or side-tracked. On the other hand, if a speech is written out in full, it is often very

239
difficult to cut it down without losing the overall continuity and thus spoiling the effect. Moreover, the speech may well contain some choice passages which cannot be reintroduced after it has been cut down. Like the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, I have been surprised that so few Peers to whom I have spoken, if they write out their speeches, count the number of words and realise that the rate is in the region of 110 a minute. If one does this, it is not difficult to decide how long a fully written speech will take allowing for a certain time, one hopes, for departing from it. One can always look up one's old speeches in Hansard and find exactly one's own rate.
What can we do about the situation, apart from exhortation? The real problem is that there are always some Peers, as has already been said in the debate, like the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, to whom we can listen for a long time and think that it is only a few minutes. But they are usually experts in the subject under discussion, as of course he was the other day. It is invidious to try to make distinctions solely on that basis. One suggestion is that Peers, other than perhaps when introducing a Motion, should be asked to keep their speeches to under 15 minutes, except on not more than two occasions during any one Session. Most Peers who are the real experts in any field are very busy men and speak only infrequently: so they would be unlikely to be affected by this proposal.
Another possibility for shortening debates would be to encourage Peers to withdraw their names if most of what they intended to say had already been covered. At present when one does so, officials at the desk give one a feeling that it is "chickening out." To some extent they may be right, as it avoids staying to the end of what has become a boring debate, but with shorter speeches I think that the temptation to leave early should be much less.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, on one point, regarding Question Time. I think that one of the most interesting periods in the House is Question Time. Of course Question Time can get out of hand or go on too long, and people can abuse the privilege. Nevertheless, I should be extremely sorry if any genuine attempt
240
was made to shorten the time taken. I think that the Questions are valuable, and that the Government very often make no endeavour initially to "come clean" and really tell us the Answer to the Question; so in a way they deserve what they get. In any case, Question Time is entertaining, and I should think that the people in the Gallery enjoy it far more than some of the very lengthy speeches. That was six minutes, my Lords.
7.36 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will not take it amiss if I say that I shall reply to his Motion as briefly as possible. As Leader of the House I feel it incumbent upon me to set an example on this occasion, particularly as I found it necessary to make a very long speech last week—a speech of 30 minutes. I very seldom speak for as long as that.
The virtue of short speeches has been recognised by some, perhaps by most, of your Lordships for some time. We can go right back: Queen Elizabeth I held the same opinion as early as 1576 when she became impatient and interrupted the Lord Keeper, Bacon, and commanded him to cease when he was delivering a flowery speech of thanks for a subsidy Bill on her behalf.
In more recent times there have been several attempts to curb the verbosity of Peers. In 1887 Lord Denman introduced the Duration of Speeches in Parliament Bill. He recognised that some speakers might be able to delight the House for three hours, but for most 15 minutes was, in his view, adequate, and he implied that what was adequate was best judged by the House and not by the person speaking. I am sure this is true today. I am happy that no one speaks for three hours at a time now, but if the speech is a bad one, even 15 minutes can seem far too long.
I have no doubt that your Lordships are capable of brevity. In July, 1965, on a Motion by Lord Egremont in favour of shorter speeches, 25 Lords spoke by 5 o'clock in the afternoon. This demonstrates that it is quite possible to have a crisp debate in which a large number of Peers speak without the debate lasting for several hours. Our experience with Short Debates has shown the same result.

241
Many short debates do not last for the full 2½ hours, but on occasions when speakers are numerous and it is clear that time will be divided between them, those speaking in the debate have always agreed to co-operate. Indeed, on very rare occasions speakers agree to confine their speeches to between five and 10 minutes in other debates, although I must say that on these occasions the request is often unpopular.
However, although we now have clocks in the Chamber and no one can claim that he does not know for how long he has been speaking, the records show that the presence of the clocks has not made any difference to the length of speeches. They have merely succeeded in making noble Lords listening more conscious of time, but somehow this consciousness vanishes when noble Lords are on their feet. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, mentioned clocks. That reminded me of an incident when I was in another place. A Front Bench spokesman who was speaking had a very fine wristlet watch which was fitted with an alarm which went off while he was speaking. The whole House shouted, "Hear, hear!" So clocks or watches would not be suitable.
The sad but inescapable conclusion which must be reached by anyone who examines recent initiatives to persuade Members of this House to be brief is that they have all come to nothing. As Leader of the House, I have no cure to offer save vigilance of Members of the House. I could not support the introduction of a time limit on speeches imposed by Standing Order. This is a self-regulating House, and its procedures have remained relatively simple and uncluttered because we have not multiplied Standing Orders unless it has been unavoidable. In this case it is up to individual Members of the House to encourage brevity. If noble Lords feel shy about interrupting a speech, they can always approach the noble Lord after the debate and let him know of their view.
We must remember that we do not have a Speaker, and I do not think that it should be incumbent upon the Leader of the House to take on a Speaker's functions. I find that I have to intervene all too often for my own liking to bring Questions and questions on Statements to a close; but
242
I do so only if I feel that I am expressing the wish of the House. For these reasons, I should be opposed to any suggestion that the Leader of the House should be expected to control speeches in any way.
My own view is that 10 minutes is usually quite enough time in which to put forward a personal viewpoint. I regret that it is often not enough time to put forward a view which represents Government or Party policy; and, of course, it is unlikely to be enough for a Government spokesman who is expected by participants to answer points they have made during the debate. But here, my Lords, I should like to make a point from the Government angle. Government spokesmen all too often feel that the House or the initiator of a debate will regard it as discourteous if the Government reply is brief. The spokesman often feels obliged, by the acknowledged importance of the subject, to prepare to speak for 10 or 15 minutes in addition to the time required to answer points not covered by his prepared speech. If the House wants shorter speeches, I hope that it will also accept shorter Government replies.
In conclusion, my Lords, I can only join with the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and other participants in the debate, in exhorting Members of the House to be as brief as possible. Very few speeches benefit from great length, as noble Lords have said earlier, and short, incisive speeches are often those which provoke most comment and interest. However, as I have said, I am not a believer in imposing time limits on speeches, and in the last analysis I believe it must be up to individual speakers, and the Peers who have to listen to them, to do their best to ensure that more speakers speak briefly.
7.43 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, and particularly the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who has had the onerous task of listening to two complete debates and answering them both. I should point out, I think, that I was not recommending any imposed length of speeches. It was merely a recommended one; and if noble Lords want to enlarge on a technical subject, as my noble friend Lady Ward was suggesting, there is

243
nothing on earth to prevent them from doing so. They need the extra time, and they should have it. But this, as I say, was merely a suggested length for those who can keep within it.
I was sorely tempted, I must say, by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, not to withdraw my Motion, but I once read an account of what happened if one did not. That frightened me so much, my Lords, that I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CRIMINAL EVIDENCE BILL [H.L.]
7.44 p.m.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, after the short debate on State aid to political Parties and the short debate advocating shorter speeches, I nevertheless feel it necessary, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, to explain what it is about. I shall do it with such brevity as I find possible, bearing in mind that I have been subjected to great but not improper pressure from the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who is waiting in the wings to make, obviously, a very short speech, after all that has been said today. I shall not, I am sorry to have to confess, be present to hear it.
My Lords, it may come as a surprise to some of your Lordships to learn that it was only during the lifetime of some of the Members of this House—during the lifetime, for instance, of the noble and perennially young Lord Shinwell, and no doubt at a time when he was a nice little boy—that it became possible for any person accused of a criminal offence to give evidence in his own defence. That was made possible by the Criminal Evidence Act 1898. It would not have been fair to allow an accused person to give evidence if in every case he could be cross-examined as to his past record and character, and so provision was made to protect him from that. If it had not been, it might soon have been deduced that any accused who gave evidence had a good character and any accused who did not had a bad one.
So Section 1(f) of the Act provided that, as a general rule, an accused who gave evidence should not be asked, and,
244
if asked, be required to answer, any question tending to show that he had committed, been convicted of or been charged with any offence other than that for which he was then being tried, or was of bad character. That general rule was subject to three exceptions. The first was that he could be asked questions about previous offences if proof of them was admissible evidence to show his guilt of the offence for which he was being tried. The second was if he had put his character in issue, or if the nature or conduct of his defence was such as to involve imputations on the character of the prosecutor or the witnesses for the prosecution. The third, with which this Bill is concerned, permitted an accused being asked questions as to other offences and as to his bad character if he had given evidence against any other person charged with the same offence.
Your Lordships will note that that exception allows such cross-examination only if both are charged with the same offence; but persons are often tried together when they are not charged with the same offence. They can be tried together if the matters which constitute the individual offences of the several offenders are so related that the interests of justice are best served by their being tried together. So, if tried together but not charged with the same offence, one accused can, as the law now stands, give evidence against the other and, no matter how bad the record of the man who is giving evidence against the other may be, it cannot be brought out.
My Lords, a man with a bad record sometimes seeks to secure his acquittal by giving evidence against a co-defendant, or seeks to show that he played only a minor part in what happened by putting the blame on a co-accused. The accused against whom such evidence is given may well feel a considerable sense of injustice if he is convicted and punished in consequence of the evidence given by such a co-accused and his being unable to bring out that man's true record and character.
The Criminal Law Reform Committee drew attention to this in its 11th Report, published so long ago as 1972, and recommended that the law should be changed; and recently a case came before this House in its judicial capacity which raised the question. I should like shortly

245
to tell your Lordships something about that case. It arose out of an accident on Western Avenue. The driver of a van on the East-bound carriageway had stopped at an intersection to cross into the Westbound carriageway. He saw a car 100 to 150 yards away. The driver of the car said that he was about 150 yards from the intersection when the van turned right, out in front of him. There was a collision, and the car went off the road on to the pavement and killed a woman. Each driver was charged with dangerous driving causing death, but the dangerous driving differed so they were not, this House held, charged with the same offence.
At the trial, the driver of the car sought to blame the driver of the van for the accident; and it was not disputed that he gave evidence against him. At the trial, counsel for the driver of the van was allowed to cross-examine the driver of the car to show that he was an unqualified driver without "L" plates and without a qualified driver with him; that he had been convicted of dangerous driving and of driving uninsured in 1973; and that in 1974 or 1975 he had sought to obtain driving licences by falsely stating that he had passed a driving test. The result of that trial was that the driver of the car was convicted and the driver of the van acquitted. In this House the conviction was quashed as it was held that he should not have been cross-examined as to his record as he and the van driver were not charged with the same offence. If the driver of the van had not been allowed to bring out the car driver's record and had been convicted, he would, I think, have thought it very unfair.
My Lords, what this Bill seeks to do is to secure that in future no accused against whom a co-accused has given evidence should so feel. It does so by altering the words in the Criminal Evidence Act 1898:
"charged with the same offence"
to
"charged in the same proceedings".
The Eleventh Report of the Criminal Law Reform Committee proposed many changes in the criminal law, some of them very controversial; but this change recommended by them will not, I hope, prove to be controversial and should, I feel, be made without waiting for any Bill
246
to implement other changes recommended. It is now seven years since their report. I hope that there will not be much more delay because trials are going on in which this question may arise at any time.
My Lords, I should like to commend this to the House as an excellently drafted Bill. I do not think it is going to be easy to amend. I hope not; I hope it will have an easy passage. I say that I think it is an excellently drafted Bill because I do not claim to be the author of it. I should like to express my gratitude to the Government for enabling me to have the assistance of parliamentary counsel in drafting it, and I hope there will be no criticism of the drafting. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
7.54 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, it falls to me to make my own apologies to the noble and learned Viscount for not being in my place when he introduced his very valuable Bill. This was not entirely due to my own fault. There was a slight disturbance, I understand, including pickets, outside in Parliament Square, which delayed my arrival for a minute or two. Certainly, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, who is unable to be here, has asked me to apologise to the House for his not being present to hear the noble and learned Viscount who has just so ably moved the Second Reading of this useful Bill. My noble and learned friend would wish me to say on his behalf that he entirely supports this valuable Bill and that he regards it as a valuable correction in what we have heard to be—in this recent decision which was so ably spelled out by the noble and learned Viscount—a very serious anomaly which has been apparently created by the drafting of the various Acts which are proposed to be amended by this Bill. That is as much as my noble and learned friend wishes me to say. I am pleased to see that we had four noble and learned Lords in the House. I am not an expert in any of these matters. For my part, I believe it to be an admirably short Bill. I have listened to what my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham had to say and to what the noble and learned

247
Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has had to say. I believe it is admirable and that we should support it from these Benches.
7.55 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, it may be convenient to the House if I were to intervene in the debate, I hope only briefly, at this stage. I should like at the outset to say that I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, both for his introduction of this Bill and for the clarity with which he introduced it. I should also like to thank him warmly for what he has said about the drafting help that he has received. This extremely short Bill proposes a useful and, as the noble and learned Viscount has said, entirely uncontroversial change in the law of evidence in criminal cases. The point involved is a minor one but one which in certain cases could make the difference between conviction and acquittal. It may be that it did so in the case to which the noble and learned Viscount referred in his opening speech, and I think it would not be improper for me to remind the House that, in fact, the noble and learned Viscount sat on that very case of Hill and delivered the definitive judgment on that case.
The present law in general protects an accused person who is giving evidence on his own behalf from being questioned about his previous convictions and character. But circumstances are specified in the Criminal Evidence Act 1898, and the equivalent provisions in Scotland and Northern Ireland, in which he forfeits this protection. One of these is where he gives evidence—and I quote from the Act—
"against any other person charged with the same offence".
Cases do, of course, arise where two or more persons are tried in the same proceedings on charges arising out of the same incident or set of circumstances, although they may not necessarily be charged with the same offence in the sense of being jointly charged with committing an offence together. It seems right where a person gives evidence against someone tried with him—which will very likely be given in an attempt to exculpate himself and throw the blame on the other party—
248
that he should be liable to cross-examination about his own character, which may be relevant to the credibility of his own evidence. It also seems right—and I would agree with what was said about this—that this liability should not be limited, as it is at present, to cases where co-accused are charged with offences which are identical in every detail. The Bill would relax this limitation to the extent that common sense indicates, so that in future a defendant would be liable to this sort of cross-examination—about his character and previous convictions—if he gave evidence against anyone else charged—and I quote from the Bill—
"in the same proceedings".
The Bill is thus consistent with the approach that the accused should have an opportunity to impugn the character and record of a witness giving evidence against him, whether or not that witness is himself on trial. This is because it is important to test the credibility of evidence which may lead to a person's conviction.
My Lords, I do not think I need say more than that about the effect of the Bill. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has provided, if I may say so, an admirable explanation of the background and the defect in the law with which the Bill seeks to deal, and I need not detain the House by going over the same ground again. Indeed, there has been already a notable measure of agreement both from what the noble and learned Viscount has said and from what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has said. But perhaps I should add a word about the relationship between this Bill and the Criminal Law Revision Committee Report on Criminal Evidence and the work of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure. The law of evidence in criminal cases was reviewed by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, whose report was published in 1972. The draft Criminal Evidence Bill prepared by the Committee, and included in its report, contained a number of useful and in many cases uncontroversial reforms. But the Committee's recommendations have not been implemented because their principal proposals about, for example, the so called "rights of silence"—whether or not inference should be drawn by the judge or jury either from the accused's failure to give evidence at the trial or to

249
mention at the interrogation stage facts on which he relied in his defence—proved to be highly controversial. These major issues are within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, and the Government consider that it would be inappropriate to promote any substantial revision of the law of evidence while the Royal Commission is sitting. There is no reason, however, to object to limited amendments, of the kind proposed by this Bill, to deal with particular defects which can be simply remedied and which do not themselves touch on the more fundamental issues surrounding the law of evidence. Indeed, the point with which this Bill is concerned was considered by the Criminal Law Revision Committee; and although the wording of the committee's draft Bill was slightly different from that in this Bill, they both have the same intention.
The Government consider this to be a useful amendment to the law of evidence, and I am pleased to be able to tell the House that it has the Government's support. The noble and learned Viscount will, I am sure, understand that in saying that I cannot give any assurances that we will be able to assist the passage of the Bill, particularly if and when it comes to be considered in another place. But I commend the Bill to your Lordships' House for its approval.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to thank the Government and your Lordships for the way in which this Bill has been received. I listened with interest to what the noble Lord said about the Eleventh Report of the Criminal Law Reform Committee. I suggest this: there may be other completely non-controversial changes which were recommended by that committee and are long awaited; it would be a pity if they were delayed because of other much more controversial proposals they put forward.
I hope that if this Bill secures a speedy passage, other proposals of a non-controversial character may follow upon it. I omitted to mention, in my desire for brevity, that my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock, who sat with me on the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, referred, wished me to say that he very strongly supports this Bill but regrets that he has been unable to be here at this late hour.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOME OFFICE PENAL ADMINISTRATION
8.3 p.m.
The Earl of LONGFORD The Earl of LONGFORD rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree to the need for a thorough reorganisation of the Home Office in relation to penal matters. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I rise, suitably grateful to preceding speakers for their brevity, which I do not propose to emulate altogether. I must begin by warmly congratulating the new Minister, Lord Boston of Faversham, and the retiring Minister, Lord Harris of Greenwich, who I am so glad is going to speak later, on their new appointments. On behalf of myself and the whole House—both those who are here and the rather larger number who are not with us in the Chamber at the moment—I should like to express my good wishes to those two noble Lords. They are both well known for their all-round ability and public zeal. Lord Harris—and I am sorry that this compliment cannot wait until his return to the Chamber, because I believe we shall see him later—was always most courteous in answering the many questions and speeches which were placed before him in this House; and if I may say so, he was often highly ingeneous. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Boston, will prove a worthy rival.
I shall be dealing mainly with questions relating to prisons, directly or indirectly. That does not mean that I shall be embarking on a general survey of penal reform, treatment and prevention of crime, law and order or the compensation of victims. The House has often heard me on these far-reaching issues and, if I am spared, may suffer a similar fate in the future.
I do not, however, wish to restrict any noble Lord from interpreting the Motion as widely as he chooses. I could not if I wished, but I do not wish. Noble Lords of the utmost eminence are taking part, including my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, and my noble friend Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who was not

251
only the Permanent Head of the Home Office, but Deputy Chairman of the Prison Commission; and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who was chairman of the Parole Board and is now president of the Probation Officers Association. I hope that before long we shall have a general debate on probation, initiated preferably by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt.
If it were usual to adopt a text in your Lordships' House, I know one that I would select for this evening:
"By their fruits ye shall know them".
In regard to penal matters—and I hasten to say I am saying nothing about the Home Office outside the penal area—the Home Office has been criticised more and more severely from many disparate quarters. It is a long time since I heard a good word said on their behalf, except by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, but that was part of his professional role, and no doubt it will be discharged with equal passion by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham.
We have reached a point where the prison governors, in an open letter to the Home Secretary, can say—and I am quoting:
"The total breakdown of the prison system is imminent".
If I said that of course I could be treated as some long-haired or bald-headed crank. But as it is from the prison governors, something more of an answer is to be expected. The prison governors refer unequivocally—and again I am quoting a letter to the Home Secretary—to:
"a deplorable lack of leadership from the Home Office".
In a rather over-ripe experience now of public life, I cannot recall such blunt condemnation of Government administration from those best qualified to offer a professional opinion. So that is where we begin, so to speak, this evening.
It is by no means clear whether the Home Secretary realises the gravity of the situation: the fact that there is not only a short-term but a long-term crisis. Under the pressure of industrial action, the Home Secretary has set up an inquiry with fairly wide terms of reference which I welcomed here when I spoke in November. He has called for a report by
252
March. He seems to feel—and we shall have no doubt a more profound interpretation of his real state of feeling—that the main issue is one of improved remuneration for prison officers.
I entirely agree, as I have said before now, that prison officers, and, for that matter, prison governors, should be remunerated much more adequately and should receive the increase quickly, so there is no difference between my point of view and what may be the point of view of the Home Secretary on that matter. I am convinced, however, that the increase of pay, though important, is scratching the surface of the problem. Anyone who reads the governors' letter to the Home Secretary will realise that there are much more fundamental issues at stake. The opinion was expressed in an expert commentary by the organisation known as NACRO on the report of the House of Commons Committee published last year that it was full of excellent, if cautious, suggestions. It was said that this House of Commons report, excellent though it was, was not likely to be effective unless what was called the political will came into existence as it has not existed up to now. This assessment that our trouble up to now, the fundamental trouble, has been the absence of a political will is one on which we ought to pause for a moment.
It could of course suggest that individual Ministers were to blame. I am not taking that line tonight; I am not here to praise or blame Ministers. I am speaking at some length and I have not the time, therefore, to pay the tributes which sometimes clutter up these speeches. I shall, therefore, proceed without praising or blaming. For a real explanation of what has gone wrong, I look beyond the individual failing of Ministers. Most of these Ministers—and I am now casting my mind back to at least 10 Home Secretaries with whom I have had dealings since I became actively involved in penal reform—and their underlings have shown their capacity elsewhere. The present Home Secretary, for example, did a very good job in Northern Ireland on the whole and has shown himself a brave man in peace and war. I would say similar things of the civil servants concerned, but not with quite so much information as I should wish, because we are not allowed to meet them. We are told that we Members of the House of Lords are not allowed access to the advisers of the noble

253
Lord, Lord Boston. That seems to be the present situation and therefore one cannot praise them unreservedly as one does not know them, but I am sure they are excellent persons.
The essence of what I am submitting is that there are structural defects in the whole Home Office—the whole set-up. That really is one of the main causes of our penal provisions being the least satisfactory and least edifying of all our social provisions. I realise, of course, as I have said many times in this House, that this period of steadily increasing crime is one which imposes special strains on the leading people in the Home Office, whether they be Ministers or officials; but that is a reason for giving even more attention, and not less, to getting the set-up right—and the set-up at least does lie within our power, although the crime rate may not, or not obviously.
Let us take first the ministerial issue. It has been clear for a long time that the Home Secretary of the day, irrespective of his personality and his Party, is far too busy with other matters, of course the present time is an exceptional case but, even apart from this kind of industrial crisis, the Home Secretary is far too busy with other matters to give the kind of leadership with regard to the penal system which the governors beg for and which they find so signally absent. No other Minister, under any arrangement we have seen hitherto in the Home Office, has sufficient authority to provide that leadership in the absence of its being supplied by the Home Secretary.
In the result, the real conduct of these affairs has fallen to the officials. Most of them move in and out of the Prison Department without acquiring much first-hand knowledge of prisons. I must be careful here, but I have never actually met a prisoner during many years of prison visiting who has actually met a Home Office official. I do not doubt that these Home Office officials occasionally visit them—perhaps in disguise, for all I know—but at any rate I have never met a prisoner who was conscious of having met a Home Office official.
It would be ludicrous to assert that what I called on an earlier occasion "these high-minded birds of passage" could be expected to formulate far-
254
reaching schemes of penal improvement. It is just not part of their occupational prospectus. On the other hand, I can only use the words of my old master who was a well known figure here—Sir William, later Lord, Beveridge. He was asked by the War Office what he thought of their arrangements for using skilled manpower which he had been asked to investigate. He paused for some time and then replied: "A miserable show." He could not resist saying it again, because he was so pleased with the phrase: "A miserable show."—Now I have said it twice, and perhaps that is enough. The ministerial bottleneck strangles not only strategic planning but human lives.
Today's Home Secretary, in my recent experience—in fact in the last week—has taken exactly two months to confirm the negative finding of a Home Office committee regarding the parole of a prisoner whose circumstances were already well known to the Home Office, and at the end of the two months' deliberation a prison governor told me that he thought the recommendation of that committee would probably have moved across 20 desks by a process of what I believe is known in those circles as "passing the parcel". At any rate, two months are spent on this process and at the end of it all no reasons are given for this negative conclusion. No indication is provided that the preoccupied Minister, for all his personal humanity—and I hope anyone who reports me on this point will not forget to quote that sentence also—has any conception at all of the human being whose fate he determines.
On the ministerial aspect, I have been sure for some time that there is at least one obvious improvement to be undertaken. It is essential that a Minister of Cabinet rank should be publicly designated for penal affairs. I say in passing that I am not dogmatic about the title to be eventually chosen, but the phrase "penal affairs" indicates my argument. The new Minister would certainly be the ministerial head of the Prison Service. He should also be responsible for the all-important Probation and After-Care Service and for penal policy in a general sense. In the last resort, the ultimate responsibility for everything coming under the Home Office would have to remain with the Home Secretary.
After a good deal of reflection—there were arguments both ways—I have concluded that it would definitely be best if the Minister for Penal Affairs were actually a Minister in the Cabinet. You could have a Minister of Cabinet rank who was not a member of the Cabinet. There are plenty of examples of that, but I would submit that it would be best if he were a member. There are plenty of precedents for having two Cabinet Ministers within a single Department, the latest of them coming from the Department of Health and Social Security at the present time.
It seems to be agreed by everyone, including the Home Secretary, that the resources hitherto available to the Prison Service have been inadequate and should be expanded. The new Minister for Penal Affairs should be able to exert valuable pressure for more adequate resources in the Cabinet. He would do all this much more effectively if he were himself a member. I do not need to be told—perhaps I am one of those who least need to be told—that, whether in the Cabinet or out of it, the cause of penal reform is never likely to be a short cut to popularity. It has been said all too often in cynical moments that there are no votes in penal reform; but in the long run a wise penal system is in the interests not only of the criminal but of the general public. The Minister for Penal Affairs, actively assisted, I would hope, by his colleagues from the Prime Minister down, should rise to the challenge of educating public opinion in a fashion far beyond the capacity of any hopelessly overburdened Home Secretary.
I turn back to the prison governors. They may well feel that the ministerial structure is not their affair: at any rate, in anything of theirs I have read, they do not comment on it. They concentrate on the structure of officialdom at head office and a relationship between that structure and the structures at regional and prison level. The governors insist, in the first place—rightly I am sure—that their autonomy is being steadily diminished. They say that this tendency should be sharply reversed and they should get more, not less, independence.
There are admittedly two sides to this. On the one hand, there are governors and staff; and, if I may say so, prisoners and
256
those who try to help them are beset with endless pettifogging restrictions—some directly imposed by the Home Office and others giving effect to what are supposed to be Home Office requirements. For example, it took me six weeks to get permission for a hand-painted Christmas card to be sent to me by a prisoner whom I was visiting regularly. It took almost two years for another prisoner to receive a copy of Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, the delay being due to the fact that the donor did not know the man before he went to prison. I could give many more examples. For example, I met a prisoner a few days ago who recently won the Koestler Award for one of the outstanding literary achievements of the year in the prison world. While he was drawing up notes for this literary prize-winning novel, he was twice penalised for possessing unauthorised note-books. One could go on and on with these horror tales of pettifogging interference.
One can say: "That is all due to the Home Office", and there is a certain truth in that, but it is not the whole truth. On the other hand, I know of a prisoner who, in an earlier prison, had been allowed to have his small child sitting on his knee. But when the child came and sat on her father's knee at the next prison, the child was sharply interfered with and removed from the paternal knee, from which followed a good deal of blood and tears. In fact, there was quite a battle. That small example illustrates the fact that there has to be some harmony between the practices in the different prisons. Therefore, I do not think this is only a question of throwing the reins around the horse's neck and letting the governors decide things as they wish; that might be going too far.
The inspectorate should be made a much more effective instrument than it is at present. As in most other branches of administration, a balance must clearly be struck between administration and local autonomy. But I say with absolute conviction that, at the present time, the centralising tendencies are having things all their own way, and the autonomy of the governors ought to be much more strongly asserted.
There are many other defects in the present arrangements which I can do no more than mention. The governors find themselves dealing with at least seven

257
divisions within the Prison Department, which is bad enough, but even so they are not in direct relationship with the Establishments Division and crucial problems, such as those of staffing and industrial relations, are effectively outside the control of the governors. As the governors again point out in the open letter which they wrote to the Home Secretary, the Director-General of the Prison Service is not responsible nor accountable for the conditions and service of his staff, so that he is by no means the master of his own house, even under the Minister.
The relationship with the Probation Service is also of the first importance. Many of us believe—and I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, believes—that the greatest penal issue of the immediate future is how to arrange a massive shift of resources from custodial to non-custodial remedies. This is obviously not an issue which the new form of prison commission, department, or whatever we like to call it, can settle unaided, but it is one which cannot seriously be tackled without the new prison commission being involved and bringing its expert knowledge to bear at every point. As I suggested earlier, the Minister for Penal Affairs should clearly carry the ministerial responsibility for co-ordinating the indispensable contributions of the Prison Service and the Probation Service. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has given special attention to these problems, and I shall not be too dogmatic ahead of his speech.
The following propositions, at least, can, I hope, be acceptable in principle. First, in regard to penal matters, the Home Office needs a thorough reorganisation, in the light of the grave situation and the almost universal criticism. Secondly, a Minister of Cabinet rank specifically responsible for penal affairs should be appointed forthwith, though the ultimate responsibility for all Home Office matters must rest with the Home Secretary. Thirdly, a professional body, subject only to Ministers, with a professional head, should take over the work of the Prison Department. Fourthly, much more autonomy should be given to governors, along with a strengthened inspectorate. Much more opportunity should be provided for the constructive role of prison
258
officers. Fifthly, the lines of communication between head office, regions—if they continue—and prisons should be much simplified. It should be understood that the new prison authority would be responsible for its own staff and industrial relations.
Of course, I am not arguing that if you get the structure right automatically you get the policy right, let alone its operation. A good structure does not guarantee a good policy; but a bad structure, such as we have now, guarantees a bad policy, as I am afraid we possess at present. As well as the great problem of how to obtain the necessary resources and the other problem of how to distribute those resources wisely between custodial and non-custodial treatment, the still deeper problem may be felt of how to make the whole thing vastly more human, sensitive and ethical. These problems will not disappear, however we reshuffle the cards at the Home Office. But unless we carry out a drastic overhaul there, we are not really giving ourselves a chance. The new Minister comes in at what may well prove to be a moment of destiny. I can only say to him what I said at the beginning, and I repeat it still more earnestly now that I have explained what seems to me the grim reality in front of him, "With all my heart, I wish you well".
8.25 p.m.
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: My Lords, I should like to begin by adding my welcome to the noble Lord who will be playing his second innings this evening and replying to this debate. We sat together recently on the Select Committee on the Bill of Rights, and it is very good to see him on the Front Bench. He needs no warning from me that the occasions when he speaks on behalf of his new Department will not always be very confortable ones. He has probably already discovered that the Home Office is invariably wrong, from whatever angle the critic may be looking at it. The only thing is that the angles vary a good deal.
I should also like to add my word of appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. I understand that, freed from the cares of ministerial office, he has been able to miscalculate the speed at which this debate eventually came on, but I know that he will be joining us

259
later. I believe that his period as Minister of State in the Home Office was a notable one, and it is all to the good that he should feel free to make his personal contribution on an occasion like this, and even in the pages of the Daily Telegraph.
It is with some diffidence that I am joining in the debate, since for a number of years I was the Permanent Under-Secretary of State in the Home Office, and must take my share of responsibility for the state of affairs which is causing the noble Earl so much concern. But I felt that I ought to put my name down, partly because at one stage of my career I had some concern with questions of the machinery of Government, and mainly, as we have been reminded, because in the dim and distant past I served a period as Deputy Chairman of the Prison Commission. It seemed to me that this was particularly relevant as, for reasons which I can well understand, the noble Earl has tended to concentrate on the prisons in introducing this debate this evening.
The Prison Service certainly faces most formidable problems. I suppose it is hardly to be wondered at that the community puts prisons fairly well down the list when resources are scarce, and the persistent shortage of secure accommodation, with all that that involves, is certainly one of the main causes of present difficulties. It is not to be forgotten that bad conditions for prisoners make for bad working conditions for the officers. But as well, there are the problems of coping with prisoners convicted of terrorist offences, and the scale on which they are being dealt with is a comparatively modern phenomenon. There are now life sentence prisoners in numbers far exceeding anything that we have been used to in the past—nearly 1,400 of them—and they are not all let out after nine years, as the Press seem often to suppose. In a reply given to me today, I learned that 163 prisoners have already been in custody for more than 10 years—that is, life sentence prisoners. Then there are the alcoholics and the mentally disordered who ought not to be in prison at all. For the rest, the fact is that during the past decade the actual proportion of convicted offenders who are sent to prison has just about halved, which means that those who do go to prison are, more and more,
260
the failures of the penal system who, before ending up in prison, have been through the whole gamut of non-custodial penalties.
Against this kind of background, it is not surprising that the staffs, scattered around the country as they are in comparatively small groups, sometimes feel that life is treating them hardly and that they are members of a service forgotten by an uncomprehending and ill-informed community. Nor is it surprising that there have been cries for reorganisation. When things get difficult, it is often tempting to think that they might be put right by some measure of reorganisation. I fear that experience suggests that this is not necessarily so. Looking at Government itself, we have perhaps seen rather too much for our comfort of Departments being put together and then taken apart again, to be quite sure that reorganisation of itself necessarily solves many problems.
Mr. Justice May and his colleagues in the working group to which the noble Earl referred will be going into all these issues, but I should like to make two points at this stage which I think are of some relevance. The first relates to the suggestion that the right course for prisons would be to revive the old Prison Commission, or something like it. On this, I should like to say that it seems to me that there are many misconceptions floating around about the Prison Commissioners. Through a golden haze of memory there seems to emerge a picture of a body of independent, professional men dedicating the whole of their working lives to the Prison Service. This is compared with the make-up of the present high command for the Prison Service, whom the noble Earl a moment ago referred to as "high-minded birds of passage." On another occasion, when in a less charitable mood, I think that the noble Earl referred to them as "itinerant civil servants," but I fear that the comparison really is not quite like this.
When I arrived in the Home Office, Alexander Maxwell had just come back there after serving for a period as Chairman of the Prison Commissioners, and he went on to become an extremely distinguished head of the office. He was succeeded by Harold Scott, who later went on to become the Permament Secretary of two great Departments of

261
State and eventually Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. Lionel Fox, who had a long innings, and who was indeed an outstanding chairman, was himself an administrator, if I may be forgiven for using so old-fashioned a word, and not a product of the Prison Service. Indeed, when I first knew him he was acting Receiver for the Metropolitan Police District.
Of the five Commissioners in my time, three of us were administrators—again using that word—and two were from within the Prison Service. There is not all that much difference between that set-up and the composition of the present Prisons Board. There is, however, one sharp difference between the Commissioners and the Board; namely, that the members of the Board are of a good deal higher status than ever the Commissioners were. The present chairman of the Board, for example, ranks as a Deputy Secretary. The chairman of the Prison Commission never did.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord on that point, one of the complaints that I have made in this House for many years is that prison governors were never given sufficient status. If one looks at it in terms of honours, I cannot remember—although I am subject to correction—a prison governor who was knighted while serving as a prison governor. For a long time, no honours have ever been handed out to prison governors. They have been treated as a slightly inferior form of life by these eminent officials in the Home Office.
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: My Lords, happily it was not for the eminent officials in the Home Office to hand out honours. That was another's responsibility. I am afraid that this is not a matter for which I could assume any responsibility. What I can say, however, is that the Prison Service members of the present Prisons Board rank as Under-Secretaries, or near Under-Secretaries. The Prison Service members who were Prison Commissioners were much below that level in the old days of the Prison Commission. Perhaps it is hardly necessary for me to add that the old Prison Commissioners were not given a free hand to decide what demands they should make on national resources and to settle condi-
262
tions of service for themselves in splendid isolation.
My second point is that the noble Earl's Question is perfectly right in its assumption that concern with prisons cannot be divorced from other aspects of penal policy. You cannot decide what you are trying to do in the prisons in isolation from what you are trying to do in developing alternatives to imprisonment and keeping people out of prison. The plain fact is that the way in which the Prison Commission was separately organised simply became out of date in the increasingly complicated pattern which evolved to grapple with the wide range of problems arising from the growth of crime and from the changing attitude of the community to what penal policy might attempt to achieve. The one thing which is clear to me is that overall responsibility for this penal policy must remain with the Home Secretary, with his concern for the preservation of the Queen's peace and all that that implies and which is absolutely central to the role of the Home Secretary in this country.
In the prisons, we are concerned with individuals who have lost their freedom by due legal process but who are still human beings entitled to some measure of dignity and respect; no two of them exactly alike; and pretty well all of them due to return to society, as 1,500 of them do every week. I simply cannot see how a Home Secretary could hand over to another Minister responsibilities for the broad treatment of categories of prisoners or for deciding the fate of individuals.
Just to illustrate this point, I think that the Home Secretary of the day was bound to take a direct responsibility for deciding whether there should be a number of separate units for housing particularly dangerous prisoners, or whether there should be a single fortress in the Isle of Wight, or somewhere, or whether some other solution altogether should be adopted, or, another example, whether prissoners who are nearing the end of a long sentence can properly be temporarily released for work in the community or on spells of leave. It seems to me that only the Home Secretary can take the final decision, whatever advice he might receive, on whether the time has come to release a life prisoner on licence—not on parole, another popular misconception. Only

263
the Home Secretary of the day, I submit, could have decided whether the Price sisters should be moved to Northern Ireland. The Home Secretary can delegate certain day-to-day responsibilities to his Minister of State, but I fear that I cannot go along with the proposition that there is a place here for another Minister for Penal Affairs of Cabinet rank or within the Cabinet, nor do I believe that such a Minister in second place to the Home Secretary would have any greater success in getting more resources out of the Government for penal matters. I am now leaving what the noble Earl said. Nor at the other extreme can I see what responsibilities could be handed over, as some have suggested, to an outside quasi-independent body not directly answerable to Parliament.
Responsibilities here are of a totally different nature from those involved in providing, say, electric power or running railway trains—or not running railway trains, as the case may be. Indeed, I am left in some doubt whether there is really a separate role of management which could be divorced in some way from other responsibilities and carried out better than under the present arrangements, and whether the real causes of our problems do not lie elsewhere. But we shall have to await the findings of Mr. Justice May and his Committee. I see from today's papers, for example, that he has received proposals from the Liberal Party which do not bear much resemblance to the suggestions I have been putting forward this evening, and no doubt he will be getting a wide range of evidence from other sources.
There is certainly no ground for complacency, and no one would dream of claiming that the present set-up is in all respects ideal. I personally hope that the committee will have something to say on some of the other questions which cause me concern. Is the present prison staff college, for example, susceptible of improvement? Should more be done to involve the local community in the separate prisons and borstals? Should the rather odd form of Whitley Council in the Prison Service be overhauled? Are the relations between the prison medical service and the National Health Service the best that can be devised? Should something be done—and I take the noble
264
Earl's point here—to improve the relations between the Prison Service and the Home Office establishment divisions? Is there a case for examining whether accountable management, in the sense that we on the Fulton Committee understood it in a Civil Service context, has been sufficiently developed? Have prison governors been given clear enough ideas of what they are expected to achieve, and enough discretion as to the way they are doing it? In closing this little list I am bound to go along with the noble Earl in expressing my wonder that the committee is expected to reach an answer to all these questions and other related questions by March, given that their remit extends to Scotland and Northern Ireland as well as to England and Wales.
My Lords, I have tended to speak mainly about prisons, and although my theme has been that they really cannot be considered in isolation from other aspects of penal policy, I have said very little indeed about those aspects. There may well be a case for looking at the parole system and for seeing how this plunge which we took into the unknown has worked out in its first few years. There is, too, the long-term problem of the future of the Probation Service, nearly 400 of whose members, incidentally, work in the prisons; but my noble friend Lord Hunt is well equipped to speak on both of those aspects. I certainly must not embark on these issues and on the link-up with the Home Secretary's concern with the criminal law and with the police, on which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, may have some words to say, when I have already spoken for much longer than I intended, and that on a day when we have had a debate on the desirability of shorter speeches!
I should like to end by saying that although I have differed on a number of points from what the noble Earl said, we all owe him a debt of gratitude, with his continuing interest in penal matters, for raising this interesting Question tonight. But I should also like to say that there are underlying problems here which go a good deal wider and deeper than the organisation of the Department in which I was proud to serve.
8.46 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who intro-

265
duced this debate put the emphasis in his speech on prisons, but he invited other noble Lords to widen the field, and I should like to submit that any review of the Home Office organisation affecting penal matters must include some reference to the police—the crime detection agency without whom there would be fewer prisoners, empty prisons and in consequence fewer of the problems which we have been talking about for the last three-quarters of an hour.
While, like the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I should be opposed to any transfer from the Home Secretary of responsibility for the police and other services which come under the general heading of penal matters, I should like to know more about the current Home Office organisation and attitude towards police responsibilities. Some of the events of recent times have aroused misgivings that police thinking and organisation is falling behind the times and becoming out of date. In saying that I am not at all criticising police officers in the lower ranks, whom most of us admire greatly and who are taken as a model by many foreign countries. I am referring to what appear to be weaknesses in the system of organisation seen against, for example, what has happened recently in Lancashire. As we debated that story not so long ago I do not want to go over the same ground again, but it cannot be denied that misgivings have arisen.
Where are these weaknesses to be found? I think one is in the constitution and organisation of the inspectorate. Of course the inspectorate is not responsible for the Metropolitan Police, but it is responsible for all the other police forces in the country. The inspectors are, I believe, all former chief constables of distinction, but they have virtually no powers—or at least so they tell one after they have retired. So far as I can learn, they make no unannounced visits, and the inspection of our provincial police forces is largely carried out on an "old boy" basis, which is all right when all goes well, but when they run into difficulties that system is not quite good enough.
The Secretary of State also has few powers. Forty-two forces plus the Metropolitan Police—that is 43 forces in all—are in a certain sense independent of him and he is in no position to give them
266
instructions, except in the very narrow field where Parliament has given him powers. Hence his communications with the chief officers of police consist mostly of recommendations. Up to a point again the system undoubtedly works well, but there can be difficulties. Not having the police too closely tied to the government of the country is, on balance, a good thing, but it does produce its own problems and we must look at them. For example, does an inspector make an annual report on chief officers when he inspects the force?
I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that question across the Floor of the House on a previous occasion and, not having obtained a very clear answer, I am now trying it on his successor. Does an inspector in his annual inspection make a report on chief officers? If not, he surely ought to do so. Is the Minister happy about the general run of relations between chief officers and police authorities, the system which was set up under the 1964 Police Act? I would submit that police authorities in general are too large to be efficient. One rarely hears chief officers pay compliments to their police authorities. I have heard them do so, but it is rare. And similarly, on the other side, I have rarely heard police authorities say they consider the conduct of business and the example set by the chief constable as helpful as they would hope it to be.
Having said that, let us look at the background against which chief constables and police authorities have to work. The wording of the 1964 Act—which is our parliamentary responsibility, and not theirs—says that police authorities are responsible for maintenance of an adequate and efficient police force in their area. Then in the next section, it goes on to say that such police forces shall be under the direction and control of the chief constable. In practice, it must be extremely difficult to draw a dividing line between those two fields of responsibility, even with the best will in the world, because if one party or the other is slightly unreasonable you have the beginnings of trouble.
There is another flaw in the police authorities, as I see it, which is that there is no independent view. You have two-thirds county councillors and one-third

267
magistrates. It has seemed to me for some time that there might be an advantage in having, say, not more than two members who are genuinely independent of either of those two lobbies, the council lobby or the magistrates' lobby. Such members would have to be very carefully chosen. In order to show that I have given thought to this, I make the suggestion that they might be chosen for a period of years from among the deputy lieutenants of the county. But some independent view where the member is not responsible to the electorate or to his fellow councillors, or for the voting of the money, or again is not a representative of the judiciary could be an advantage.
I come to my last point, and I am really hoping to be short on this day when everyone has been so exhorted earlier on. My last point concerns the Police Advisory Board, an organisation which was set up under the 1964 Act, and about which we know very little indeed. What I may say, therefore, may not all be correct, but if so I can only say I am sorry and it would perhaps be better if we all knew just a little more. The members are drawn entirely from what one might call the police lobby, representatives of the staff associations, councillors, magistrates, Home Office officials, and the Minister or his Minister of State in the Chair. Again you will notice that there is no member of that body who is truly independent and I would suggest again that there would be an advantage. The police world is very inward-looking. If there could be two or three members of great eminence who brought a different experience of life from those categories from whom all the members at the moment are drawn it could add much.
No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, may be able to enlighten us here, but I am told that the full meetings of the board occur at the most twice, and sometimes only once, a year, that it is not always the case that a Minister takes the Chair, and that much of the business is in fact done through appointing subcommittees to study a subject, and then considering their reports. I would feel that with such membership, and particularly with the strength of the staff associations among the members, the decisions come to are much more likely to be compromises than anything very
268
clear. Certainly the only report that I have ever seen—which I hasten to say was sent to me by the Home Office, and not extracted from any waste paper basket—was a very weak compromise document.
Of course, a large amount of the work of planning police forces must be confidential, but, apart from that, there is room, I think, for more information to reach us both from the Home Office and again at the local level about what the police in these difficult times are trying to do. They will not get the support they deserve from the general public until there is rather more knowledge; without that knowledge there cannot be sympathy. When I suggest independent minds, it is no more than the non-executive director principle which is common to all big and successful public companies.
What we have heard recently has been due largely to the fact that a Royal Commission is sitting and some of the evidence submitted has reached the Press. Instead of a flow of information about routine business of what the Home Office is trying to do for us, we have heard from the Commissioner the age-old police cry of more men and more powers; from the Police Federation, in their propaganda statements, the age-old police cry of more pay and more powers; and the last time I read of anything uttered by the Superintendents' Association, the chairman or president was crying out for less to do with politicians; that is an age-old police cry, too. Of course, some of the police do look on politicians as something to be rated with the lesser criminals! I should like to think that we could get more regular authoritative information than we do at the present time, and that the people of this country have not got to depend quite so much on extracts from evidence sent in to Royal Commissions and headlines in the Press.
No one during this time has spoken of the need for better quality intake, better training, rewards for proficiency, or particular ways of winning the suppport of the public—no; one man has. The really responsible body in this field, the association of Chief Officers of Police, maintains throughout dead silence. It may have been a good tradition in the past, but I would like to think that today they would let us know rather more of the way they see

269
things. The Home Office and the police do appear to be too inward-looking. I am in no way hinting at a breakdown, such as the noble Earl quoted earlier on as something which was feared by prison governors—not at all, because we have a Police Service in this country that none of us would like to change for the Police Service in any other. None the less, I think it could be a better service still, and I hope your Lordships think I have made the case that in any reorganisation of penal matters in the responsibility of the Home Office, there should be reference to the police as well as to the Prison Service.
8.58 p.m.
Lord HUNT: My Lords, I should not wish to be left out of the welcome that has been offered to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, on taking high office in that Department of State about which I can claim to be the least ignorant of all the Departments of State during my time in your Lordships' House. I would formally and sincerely thank my noble friend Lord Longford for providing us with the opportunity to discuss organisational improvementsin our penalsystem, and I am flattered that he should think that I might be able to make a worthwhile contribution. I am not at all sure that that is likely to be the case. It is true that I have one advantage, which perhaps my noble friend, Lord Allen of Abbeydale and other civil servants at the time would have seen as a disadvantage, of having spent 6½ years lodged in the Home Office while I was with the Parole Board. In case he is anxious about that remark, I would hasten to say that I was full of admiration for the high abilities, the friendliness and the helpfulness of all the officials with whom I had to deal then, and with whom I still deal peripherally as President of the National Association of Probation Officers.
Both Lord Longford and Lord Allen were talking at length and mainly about the Prison Service. It is very tempting for me to offer some remarks that I should have liked to make, but in the interests of brevity I will not follow them but try to strike a middle line between their contrasting views. Therefore, I shall, as I was invited to do by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, move straight on to the parole system. Here I am in danger of speaking after too long an interval since I was chair-
270
man of the Board. However, I can claim to see it now from the viewpoint of the Probation Service, which has to make the parole system work and which is also involved with the problems of the families of prisoners who are eligible for parole. It is a different perspective.
Of course, an internal review has been in progress in the Home Office for many months and I hope—I have no means of knowing—that it will shortly see the light of day in the form of a Green Paper for public debate. Given that prospect, I see no case at present for an independent review such as was recommended by the House of Commons Expenditure Committee.
I hold the view that, by and large, parole has served the public and the nation well during the 11 years of its existence. I think that it has become fashionable to "knock" parole and there has been too much knocking of parole of late. There surely can be no denying the benefit of the conditional early release of some 35,000 prisoners over that period of 11 years, given that the recall rate has been, on average, well below 10 per cent. and that of that 10 per cent. only about half have been recalled for fresh offences during the currency of their licence. I am told that at any one time now some 3,500 offenders are with us in the community serving the rest of their sentence outside rather than inside. I would guess that that number could fill about eight reasonably large prisons.
However, the two main areas of criticism—the anxiety-making slowness in decision-making and the denial of reasons for refusal of parole—are still valid and overdue for reform. There is a great deal that I could say about this, but I shall limit myself to the Question posed on the Order Paper: whether, and if so how, changes in Home Office organisation might help to solve these problems and otherwise improve the parole system. I am inclined to think that progress in both these matters might now lie in decentralising much of the centralised work to regional boards contiguous with the Prison Service regions. Only a limited number of cases, which would have to be judged by carefully contrived criteria, would be referred to the national Board—it now handles at least 5,000 cases a year,

271
which is far too many—which would also be charged with providing a forum for liaison between the regional boards and the local committees. The national Board would have oversight over consistency in decision-making, and be the authority in matters of principle and general practice.
Talking of practice, I believe that the time has come, after 11 years of operation, to dispense with much of the elaborate and time-consuming processing of cases which is carried out in the Home Office parole unit. It is far more elaborate, and the case dossiers are far more voluminous than anything I have seen in other countries which operate comparable systems and with no less success than we do. It was quite essential in the early years, but the great body of knowledge acquired by the board and the committees about the types of offence and offender and the problems of reconciling the interests of prisoners with those of the general public, strengthens the case for simplifying and speeding up the system now.
At the same time, I am not one of those who make a case for changing the principle of discretion in granting parole or for changing the principle that formal responsibility for the decision to grant parole must rest with the Home Secretary, on grounds of his accountability to Parliament.
Before turning to my main point, I should like to say how glad I was to see that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has turned up. He was inadvertently almost responsible for making me a defaulter this evening. I should like to offer him publicly, as I have already done personally, my good wishes on his new appointment as Chairman of the Parole Board. He was sitting a short time ago on the Cross Benches and I was about to say how delighted I was that he had come to join us. I am not sure of his real intention, but he will be very welcome if he decides to come.
I shall be straying from the strict terms of the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, but he has very kindly said that I might offer a few thoughts which go wider than the ambit of the Home Office. I am not one of those who would equate the book of my friend and one-time colleague Sir Robert Mark with the
272
Gospel according to St. Mark, but I did find a useful quotation in it which I propose to use. He was quoting at length from his BBC Dimbleby Lecture in 1966 and was pointing out that the prevention and investigation of crime—which, of course, was his particular province—is only part of the system of justice. He referred to four stages: the enactment of criminal laws; the task of the police to enforce them; the criminal trial and, in his own words,
"what to do with the guilty"
all of which your Lordships would say with me is obvious. However, he went on:
"Each of these stages is the province of a different group of people. None of these groups is obliged to give much thought to the problems of the others or to consider the working of the system as a whole. This"—
suggested Sir Robert—
"is unfortunate, because the different parts are intimately connected".
That passage was Sir Robert Mark's cue for launching into some trenchant comments about the law, about lawyers—crooked or otherwise—the system of trial and the question of punishment. But I am using it as my cue to suggest that there could be, in logic, a case for a Ministry of Justice which would have in its purview all those four stages. I hasten to say that I do not believe that so drastic a reorganisation in our machinery of government, which would amount to rather more in principle than a mere large-scale administrative merger, is either desirable or acceptable. I fancy that the basic tenet of the independence of the Judiciary would make it suspect. Nor do I think that mergers of the executive services, which perform distinctive tasks and have specialist skills, are the answer in any organic changes at the level of central or local government. I am very unhappy about the present generic training for the Probation Service and the social services. From all I have heard about it, the merging of the Probation Service in Scotland with the social services has been a positive disservice to penal treatment.
However, I believe that Sir Robert Mark's thesis calls for more interaction through continuous consultation and, where appropriate, co-ordination at both central and local government levels between all Departments and agencies

273
which are involved in penal matters, in particular in the first and most important stage, that of preventing crime.
I believe that an authoritative link is needed in central Government, both to ensure co-related action and to demonstrate the need to emulate it in practical ways throughout the country in order to highlight the seriousness of crime among the nation's many other problems. I should like to see an inter-departmental committee consisting of Ministers and senior civil servants from all those Departments of State involved in, or able to contribute towards action in, the prevention of crime, the treatment of offenders and, not least, the interest of victims of crime. As an earnest of its importance in the affairs of State, the committee might be served by a secretary assigned by the Cabinet Secretariat. I suggest that its chairman should be a senior Home Office Minister, and that the committee should be answerable to the Home Secretary.
Apart from departmental action in Whitehall, I would also lay on that committee the task of stimulating interaction in local government and circulating practical ideas for crime prevention. The police cannot fulfil that first-stage task alone. It calls for massive support from other services and agencies as well as from the general public. I do not think that there is enough talking together—let alone acting in concert—between the various agencies which have, or should have, the same objective of preventing crime; for instance, between the Probation Service and the police.
I am delighted that this year Mr. John Alderson, who is the Chief Constable for Devon and Cornwall, is to address the annual conference of the National Association of Probation Officers. There is a great deal to be learned from his experiences in communal policing. I shall not give the details here. But it is perhaps not without significance that, whereas juvenile crime has continued to soar elsewhere, the number of offences attributable to juveniles in Exeter has been held to 4 per cent. of the total.
Returning to the Motion, I wonder whether, notwithstanding the Crime Policy Planning Committee and the unit which serves it, there really is effective liaison in the Home Office between those Depart-
274
ments and divisions which deal with crime in its various aspects. Those doubts—and as noble Lords have gathered, I have doubts—were recently renewed during a visit to the Probation Service in Dorset. I was informed there of a recent increase of 100 in the establishment of the constabulary in that county following a visit by the Chief Constable to the Police Department in the Home Office. I do not for one moment question the need for that increment. What I do question is whether the consequences of that reinforcement were taken sufficiently into account—that is, more arrests, more offenders brought to the courts, with consequent increases in the workload imposed on the Probation Service in making more social inquiries and in supervising more court orders; all that without any parallel additional resources in manpower or amenities being granted to the Probation Service.
That brings me to my last point: the Probation Service, especially in view of the Government's explicit policy of shifting the emphasis in the treatment of offenders from closed penal establishments to a range of alternatives in the community. The present establishment of just over 5,000 has been virtually frozen for the past two years. It will have to be increased if the more difficult offenders are to be placed under closer supervision in the community. There are welcome moves in some prisons to involve prison officers in welfare work, in collaboration with probation officers serving in prison welfare departments. To me there is nothing outrageous—indeed there is a precedent for it elsewhere—in the notion that this collaboration might be extended outside prisons, with some officers from the Prison Service being seconded to the Probation Service in order to meet the need to supervise greater numbers of more difficult prisoners.
However that may be, I believe that, despite its understandable reservations about having, in order to match the Government's professed intention, to switch its own emphasis from the relaxed tradition of after-care to the more disciplined character of supervision in some cases, the Probation Service would be prepared to accept the additional responsibility and the extra work, always provided that it was adequately manned and appropriately trained and equipped for the job.
9.14 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Longford, for enabling us to discuss this important Question tonight. Perhaps I ought to say that although President of the Howard League for Penal Reform and Vice-President of the Institute for the Study of Frequent Delinquency, naturally any views I shall express are entirely my own. The subject matter is a little difficult because the proposition advanced is that there are certain things wrong in our penal system and that all, or some of them, are due to wrong organisation in the Home Office. Therefore, one has to ask oneself first what one thinks there is wrong in our penal system, and then see whether or not the alternatives provided by the noble Earl would be the right answers.
To be realistic, one has to start with the proposition that a country gets the penal system that it is prepared to pay for. The difficulty, or so much of the difficulty, has always been resources. Very largely we have simply to persuade the public, who are not easy to be persuaded, that homes and hostels even in their own area are more sensibly provided than more prisons. Of course, the first requirement is preventatives of crime. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and I have too often said to repeat again that it is clear in any police station you like to go into and look at the facts, that if the conviction rates goes up crime goes down; if the conviction rate goes down then crime goes up. Every Government since the war have failed to increase the police force to deal with the increase in crime. However, that of course is not in any way due to the organisation of the Home Office.
The second question is how, having provided for an adequate police force, you then deal with the resources which are available for, broadly speaking, the treatment of offenders. When I say "the treatment of offenders" I am not using "treatment" in the sense of doing them good, or rehabilitating them, but the way in which they are disposed of. Are they to be sent to prison, or disposed of in some other way? At the present time there is an unhappy dispute going on, as no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Harris, knows, between my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and practically
276
everybody else. When I say practically everybody else, I cannot think of anybody that I know who shares the Home Secretary's view. The Howard League of Penal Reform, the ISTD, NACRO, the Expenditure Committee of the other place, the Liberal Party, and many others take the view that we are spending much too much of our resources on building more and more prisons when what we ought to be concerned with are alternatives to imprisonment.
I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Harris, play down the numbers slightly, but I am talking about tens of thousands in prisons, if you include all the fine defaulters, maintenance defaulters, alcoholics, cannabis users, those convicted of soliciting, those convicted of sleeping rough, and even those awaiting deportation because they have served the sentence imposed on them by the courts but they are kept in prison because they cannot get an answer from the Home Office as to whether or not a deportation order is to be made.
Then of course there are all the passive inadequates. I have never heard any very satisfactory definition of them, but I remember in the first conference ever held by the British Institute of Human Rights that the chairman of the conference, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, said this:
"Most prisoners are not like you and me. I was struck very forcibly in Edinburgh prison when I went into a room where a lot of men were sitting in silence. They were doing a job which you don't see very often now. They were sewing mail bags. I said to the governor, ' Are these men not allowed to speak to one another? ' He said, ' Of course they are, but these are people who never speak. They are solitary. They are non-communicators. They have no friends. They have nobody to visit them. They never get a letter, and when they leave prison they won't be out very long. They will be back here because they like sewing mail bags in silence'."
We have far too many in our prisons who prison is not doing any good. Our re-conviction rate for prisons, borstals, and detention centres is about the same; 70 per cent. will be re-convicted within two years. However you dispose of them you could hardly have a worse result than that. On the face of it, the prison policy of the Home Secretary, if I understand it, is that if there are any extra resources available it is all going on prison building.

277
There is nothing personal in this. I have the highest regard for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. As my noble friend Lord Longford said, he is a brave man in war and peace. I know a bit about Northern Ireland having been one of three Privy Counsellors to inquire into interrogation methods there, and later as chairman of the Government committee to overhaul security laws in Northern Ireland. I thought he was a most admirable Secretary of State in relation to Northern Ireland. But on the face of it, this has nothing to do with Home Office organisation. I am sure my right honourable friend would be the first to say that this was entirely his decision, that he is responsible, as a Minister, and that this is a matter he had to decide.
I also feel, with great respect to my noble friend Lord Longford, that I do not see what putting Lord Harris in the Cabinet would really do. After all, if he had been in the Cabinet all this time, what would have been the result? The present Cabinet is 24; I can quite understand that with a 12-12 division it would be useful for the Home Secretary to have a casting vote, but on the face of it this has nothing to do with Home Office organisation.
The Earl of LONGFORD: The noble and learned Lord has missed the point of my argument, my Lords, no doubt because I did not put it clearly enough. I am saying that the Home Secretary is too busy to consider these grave questions. Where the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and I and so many others agree on these grave matters of the right distribution of resources is that the present Home Secretary, responsible for law and order in the midst of strikes and the rest of it, has no time to give to that sort of problem, and therefore if the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, had been in the Cabinet he would have been able to tackle them. However, if Lord Gardiner did not understand that point, I do not suppose anybody else has because he is the most acute mind here and therefore I feel rather depressed.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I am not going to oppose Lord Harris, or anybody who takes his place, or the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, whom I am equally delighted to see here. I remember going to Faversham to try to
278
get the voters there to vote for him and I am delighted to see him in his present position. Certainly, I have no objection to his being in the Cabinet; I just cannot see how it would cure the problem.
When one considers whether this has anything to do with the organisation of the Home Office, I have to wonder. I shall be corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, in what I am about to say because I have access only to public works of record, but, as I understand it, the organisation of the Home Office is this. The chief civil servant is of course the Permanent Under-Secretary of State and underneath him there are three deputy Under-Secretaries of State, and although I say "one, two and three", they are all on the same plane; it does not mean that one is the head of two and so on. They are in charge of the three main departments—one, prisons; two, police; and three, establishment. Then, on a lower plane, underneath them, the three Deputy Under-Secretaries, there are 10 Assistant Under-Secretaries, and they are in charge of the following departments: one, the general department, as it is called; two, broadcasting; three, criminal policy; four, fire; five, community programme and equal opportunities; six, criminal justice; seven, radio regulation; eight, immigration and nationality; nine, statistical departments, and ten, probation and after-care.
If that is so, Ministers must depend to some extent on advice, and all the advice of the powerful committees, particularly the powerful Prison Department Committee, is obviously of a superior standing than probation and after-care, which is the only department which represents the view of alternatives to imprisonment.
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: My Lords, I am not up to date with the organisation of the Home Office, but I do not think the noble and learned Lord has it quite right. I can remember when I was the sole Deputy Under-Secretary of State in the Home Office some years ago, but in accordance with general practice numbers have expanded and I think one would find that all the different parts of the Home Office, including probation and criminal justice, are represented by the Deputy Secretary level.
Lord GARDINER: I can only take it, my Lords, from the current edition of

279
Dod's Parliamentary Companion, which purports to set out the principal officers of the Home Office. No doubt my noble friends Lord Harris of Greenwich and Lord Boston of Faversham will correct me if I am wrong.
It seems to me extraordinary that, as I understand it, it is still deliberate policy that any additional money available is going to the building of more and more prisons at a capital cost of between £2,000 and £4,000 per place, let alone the running costs. This is extending into the 1980s, in circumstances in which it is doubtful whether there will be the prison officers to staff these prisons if they are built. That seems to me extraordinary when one bears in mind that today it costs over £100 a week to keep a girl in a borstal. This seems a tremendous financial cost when compared with the alternatives, which of course do not cost nothing because, first of all, we should have to have more probation officers.
This matter has been considered by, among others, the Commons Expenditure Committee, and evidence has been provided by the Home Office and all kinds of bodies. They have done formidable work on this. They have characterised the alternatives, very much as the Howard League and other bodies have done: (1) Probation, (2) Intensive probation, (3) Day training centres, (4) Day centres, (5) Supported works schemes and sheltered workshops, (6) Intermediate treatment for children and young persons, (7) Community service orders, (8) Senior attendance centres, and (9) Bail hostels. The Howard League has similarly spoken about more day centres, hostels, crisis centres, community service, and so on, and has said
"Their results are no worse, and often better, and most are much less costly",
but they would obviously require a quite considerable expansion in the Probation Service.
If this is the last word of the Home Office on how any additional resources are to be spent, I find it difficult to believe that at least one of the reasons for this is wholly divorced from the fact that the body in the Home Office which deals with prisons is so much more powerful than that body in the Home Office which is responsible for probation and after-care.
280
What, in the general reorganisation of the Home Office should be done, is again entirely a matter of opinion. I do not like the word "bureaucratisation", but everything seems to have to go to headquarters. Governors have less responsibility than they used to have. I would support, as the Expenditure Committee of the other place has done very strongly, a strengthening of the powers of the inspectorate of prisons and the proposal that they should report direct to the Home Secretary. As in so many fields, everything seems to have gone more and more to head office. I suppose that the nationalisation of the prisons was inevitable, but they have lost their local contacts. I agree with my noble friend in thinking that more power ought to evolve to the regions and to prison governors.
I remember the shock I received when, after great difficulty, I obtained a vast collection of the standing orders and circular instructions issued by the Home Office to prison officers. The first thing that was obvious was that an enormous number of civil servants must spend all their time thinking out new standing orders and circular instructions for officers. The quantity of the papers was so enormous that I could not understand how any prison officer could possibly remember what was contained in them.
Take the situation regarding letters. I do not believe that any censorship of outgoing letters, except perhaps from category A prisoners, is necessary at all. Of course incoming mail must be censored in case of contraband. There is no censorship now in C prisons, and nothing awful has followed that change, but look at the time that prison officers have to take reading prisoners' letters and having to decide, "Is he to be allowed to say that in this letter to so-and-so".
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble and learned friend, he is making an extremely interesting speech, but could I put this particular point to him on censorship? The only reason why censorship continues at Category C prisons is because the staff associations have refused to agree to an abolition of censorship in those prisons. That is entirely the reason. It has nothing to do with the Home Office officials and Ministers, who wish to abolish it.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, that again shows an unhappy state of relationship, I should have thought, between the Home Office and the prison staff. One of the things that the Howard League, at least, has wanted to see for very many years is an improvement in the position of the prison staff themselves and, in particular, in their being taken into consultation when the Home Office are formulating policy which affects them. I understand that there is really no consultation all through the Home Office. There is with prison governors, but there is no consultation with prison officers at all when policy is being formed.
My Lords, what is supposed to happen to the letters is this. If there is a dispute with the prison officer as to whether or not the man is to be allowed to say something in a letter, in theory the governor decides. But nowadays everything seems to have to go to head office. I am told by somebody I believe—I am open to be contradicted—that there are, in London, buildings in which there are 300 Home Office civil servants doing nothing at all, every day, every week, every month, but deciding: Is this prisoner to be allowed to say this in this letter to so-and-so? We now have five cases admitted by the European Court which are under consideration, and these all relate to prisoners' letters. There is too high a degree of centralisation.
What, in these circumstances, is to be done? The Howard League is, I think, in favour of a commission for penal affairs, whatever one might like to call it. They say that both custodial and noncustodial services should be co-ordinated within a joint commission for the treatment of offenders or, if the word "treatment" is regarded as outmoded, joint commission for the penal system. They point out that a first, small step towards that would be the publication of joint reports on both prisons and after-care; and that consideration should also be given to bringing together the services to victims, such as official liaison with victims' support schemes, and crime prevention in the wide sense, involving community crime prevention and not merely security practices. This joint commission would not only run the penal system, but would explain its work to the public. That would not be wholly outside the Home Office, but it would mean that
282
the same body would be considering both prison and alternatives to imprisonment.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would like in a sense, I think, to see something which went further and also brought in to some extent the judiciary and those who decide who are to go to prison, the police and everybody affected by this system. My Lords, I do not know whether or not this was engineered by my noble friend Lord Longford, but this morning I went to Whitehall Place and I obtained from the Liberal Party the only remaining copy of their evidence to the Prison Inquiry. I think some photostats have since been made. They carry a good deal further, I think, what both my noble friend Lord Longford and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, have said. They think that prisons ought to be taken away entirely from the Home Office. This is now the official policy of the Liberal Party. I do not know whether we are to hear a speaker from the Liberal Party, but I regret very much that we have not heard from them so far.
This may to some extent appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I do not know whether the Liberal Party and Sir Robert Mark have been getting together, but what they say is this:
"The present illogical system which separates the policies that determine the number of prisoners and the periods of their imprisonment from those concerned with their housing and treatment must be ended. Responsibility for the Prison Service should be taken away from the Home Office and the prison department should form part of a new organisational structure which—

(i) Allows the work of the courts (i.e., the Lord Chancellor's office) and the prison service to be closely integrated.

(ii) Provides a career service with opportunities for those working in prisons to reach the highest levels.

(iii) Is capable of laying down clear objectives for the Prison Service, whilst permitting maximum flexibility in the treatment of offenders in each prison.

(iv) Encourages full cooperation including interchange of staff, between those concerned with trial, treatment and aftercare of offenders.

There are several ways in which these objectives could be achieved including an independent Prison Commission and a new organisation covering prosecution, sentencing policy, the Courts, treatment of offenders, the Probation Service and aftercare. Such reorganisation however raises the question of the future role and structure of the Home Office and ministerial responsibility for trial, treatment and aftercare of offenders. In view of this we recommend an urgent enquiry into this matter".

283
My Lords, I am far from saying that any of these bodies, or, certainly I personally, have the perfect solution. I feel that there ought to be at least one body which is responsible and can look at both prison treatment, on the one side, and treatment outside prison, on the other side, with an even hand so that their resources will receive more equal treatment. Whether we should go further than that I do not know. I was unaware of these views of the Liberal Party—as I think anybody was—until this morning, but I am sure your Lordships will agree that at least this debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Longford has given us a lot to think about.
9.37 p.m.
Viscount ULLSWATER: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing this Question for debate today. It is a great honour to follow so closely such eminent speakers whose knowledge and experience is so great and so broad. I want to deal more with the policy of the Home Office rather than its reorganisation, because my interest lies mainly with the young adult offenders aged between 17 and 21. To begin with, I should like to point to one or two reasons why these young people end up in custody. It always concerns me to read the statistics of how many young people finish school without qualifications, without being able even to read or write. Because of high labour costs, industry and commerce are unwilling to provide enough opportunities for the below-average-intelligence school-leaver to find employment, although the Government have now created the very useful Youth Employment Service. Having too much leisure and too little money when unemployed is more difficult to cope with than having too much work.
Modern society is very complicated and life in that society is tough for all—and tougher for those who are inadequately prepared for that life. We have to accept that we do not have unlimited freedom. From an early age we have to learn the disciplines imposed on us by the society in which we find ourselves. The young of all generations tend to push at the extremities of tolerance and in doing so sometimes persuade society to shift its position. However, the mere fact that we are a
284
civilised society imposes limits on all our behaviour beyond which it is unacceptable to go.
Some of the crimes that young offenders commit and that bring them into serious trouble and so into custodial sentences include muggings, assaults and arson. This shows a lack of concern for other people; and some of the muggings of old people for quite paltry sums demonstrate clearly to me that we have failed to teach in our schools and homes any form of respect for our fellow human beings. High rise flats and large tenement buildings breed a callousness that is evident to all and not easily overcome; and, more often than not, the fruststrations of the young inhabitants overflow into violence and anti-social behaviour, sometimes encouraged by the uninhibiting influence of alcohol.
Almost more important is the pitiful lack of self-respect that we witness among the drug users and abusers. To lose one's self-respect is a dire misfortune, and to see so many young people with no respect for themselves or others is a sad reflection on the standard of our society. Before we can hope to see the end of juvenile crime, we shall have to find a cure for the mistakes that we are making collectively in bringing up our children and preparing them for the life that they will be leading as adults. Bearing these things in mind, I want to move on to the ways in which we now deal with young offenders and to how perhaps we should deal with them in the future.
At present there are three sentences available to the courts for offenders aged between 17 and 21: detention centre, borstal and imprisonment. The distinctions between the three have exercised the minds of the courts considerably, and I believe the differences that were originally conceived for the three sentences have now become somewhat blurred and this has added to the difficulties of the Home Office in the need to allocate places in different parts of the country to satisfy the local needs of the courts. The sentences have to be specific when they are handed down by the courts and there is always a chance that not all the options are available to any one area at any one time because of the limited places at each establishment.

285
The Green Paper, Youth Custody and Supervision, A New Sentence, published in December, 1978, points the way to a much more satisfactory solution, whereby the existing sentences of detention, borstal training and imprisonment would be replaced by a single custodial sentence. Magistrates would still retain the power to sentence offenders up to a limit of six months as at present, and the Crown Court would have the power to sentence for a longer period. I believe that every alternative form of disposal should be considered before a custodial sentence, but if it is felt that there is no alternative to a period of custody then custody it should be.
It may be useful in some very exceptional circumstances to suspend this sentence, but, more often than not, in those circumstances the offender—and remember I am talking about the young offender—is seen by his mates to be walking out of the court scot-free. How much more sensible it would be to have the power under Section 47 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 (which is not yet in operation) to suspend part of a custodial sentence—something which I note with regret is not recommended by the Green Paper. Detention sentences were originally conceived to give a short, sharp shock and were like the treatment one might expect during basic training in the Army. As a soldier, however, one emerged from the training, battered and bruised maybe, but with a sense of achievement and pride in oneself at having overcome the obstacles placed before one, and one gains the respect of one's fellows in the unit. Although it may be that to survive such a detention sentence may give the offender a sense of pride in achievement, I think it should not rate any esteem in the eyes of his fellows and certainly should be nothing to boast about.
It must be a very harsh sound for the prisoner to hear as the prison gates clang behind him. The deprivation of liberty and inability to make contact with home or family must have a nerve racking effect on most human beings. However, man has shown that he is very adaptable and can tolerate the most extreme pressures, and so will a prisoner learn to cope with his new environment. He may not like it but he will live with it until his release, and will prepare himself for that stay, however long. Once this has
286
happened, the effectiveness of the punishment as a deterrent ceases and society's retribution remains. With a part-suspended sentence, the offender suffers the nerve-racking part and the deterrent effect, and on his early release knows that if he offends again he will be sending himself back into custody.
Lastly, I would urge the Home Office to adopt custodial régimes which involve attendance in community work outside their establishments, as well as the utmost self-sufficiency inside. These two measures would rectify in some degree the two main causes that have led the offenders to their present positions—a lack of respect for other people and a lack of respect for themselves. There are, sadly, many disadvantaged people in our community, from the handicapped child to the mental patient and the elderly; but the young offenders would soon find, working with these people, an increase in their social awareness and their respect for others. Learning how to cope with day-to-day life and providing for themselves, that self-sufficiency in the establishment will return to them the self-respect they need and have so often lost. Let us do our best to create a structure of community existence that reduces the temptation to commit evil deeds and to teach our children, in a manner that they want to learn, the limits of acceptable behaviour, and so relieve us of the sad necessity of putting young men and women behind bars.
9.47 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, may I begin with an apology to your Lordships and particularly to my noble friend Lord Longford, for not having been here at the beginning of the debate. I can produce no convincing explanation for my absence, other than the fact that I assumed that those speaking in favour of shorter speeches would make rather longer speeches than in fact they did. I am particularly sorry because I wanted to follow as closely as possible—and certainly I shall do that as far as Hansard is concerned—the analysis of my noble friend, who I know has devoted an enormous amount of time and enthusiasm to this question. Also, of course, I wanted to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, with his very substantial experience as Permanent

287
Under-Secretary at the Home Office. However, I think I can judge without a great deal of difficulty the general line of my noble friend's speech today, which follows very closely on that which he has argued in this House on previous occasions; and I should like to deal with some of the issues which I knew, because of a conversation we had, he was going to raise and also to deal with several other points which have emerged in this debate so far. I am doing this on what is probably the last occasion for perhaps three years when I shall be entitled to make a speech touching on this particular area, given the fact that on 1st March I become Chairman of the Parole Board and then for at least three years after that I shall not be able to address your Lordships on these particular issues.
Let me say at the outset that I should like to deal with two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and also with an argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. If I may deal first with the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on two specific questions, he first raised the matter of whether it was not desirable to have far closer contact between the Police Service and the Probation Service—a point which, if I may say so, I very strongly agreed with. For the five years I was at the Home Office I was responsible for both, and I certainly share his view that it is highly desirable to ensure that there are close day-to-day contacts between the members of those two Services. I was therefore particularly glad to have the opportunity, at a conference at Ditchley Park last March called by the Home Office for a number of chief officers of police, to preside at a meeting which took place on that occasion when there were representatives of the social services and education departments of the two large local authorities and also two representatives of the Probation Service.
As a result of that meeting, a Home Office circular in the names of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Social Services went out in, I think, December, saying that meetings should take place within six months, bringing together chief officers of police, chief probation officers, directors of education and directors of social
288
services. Maybe it is very obvious that such meetings should already have taken place, and perhaps in many areas it is arguable that they have taken place. But, for the first time, it has been suggested formally by the Government that chief officers of police, who would be the people calling together these conferences, should take the initiative. I believe that this is an extremely important initiative, and I hope very much that it proves to be successful.
If I may say so, I dissent on one point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the question of the establishment of the Dorset police. He will forgive me for dealing with this matter, but for two reasons I know a fair amount about it. First my parents happen to live in Dorset, and I worked there for a fairly substantial period of my life, so that to some extent I regard it as a home police force. Secondly, I took the decision, so far as the establishment of the Dorset police was concerned. The noble Lord asked: if the police were given 100 extra men—it was, in fact, a figure more modest than 100, though I cannot remember off-hand what it was—why should not the Probation Service get a significant increase as well? That appears a very logical argument, save for one thing. If we are to approach matters in precisely that way, then, as I am sure the noble Lord will on reflection agree, one is faced with a rather tiresome problem as regards the situation in the Metro politan Police area. There has been no variation in the establishment of the Metropolitan Police for around 50 years. But in that period—
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, when the noble Lord quotes that figure, ought he not also to mention the very large increase in the number of civilians employed?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Of course, my Lords. It was a Question which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, put down and I remember it very clearly. But even making allowance for that, and calculating the growth of crime in London in the last 50 years, it demonstrates a number of rather significant points. All I am saying is that if that had been the attitude of the Home Office, one would not have had the very substantial growth in the Probation Service in London, which has multiplied

289
several times over within that period. Therefore, I do not think it is possible to look at police and probation establishments as though they were largely the same thing, because they are not. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, of whose interest in the Probation Service I am well aware, I do not think it is true that the Probation Service has been badly treated in the last five, six or seven years. So far as the establishment is concerned—and I had direct ministerial responsibility for five years—the Probation Service has been very reasonably treated by the Government.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I reflect on the evidence of the Home Office given to the Committee on Expenditure. I thought they said that there had been an absolute freeze on the Probation Service since 1974.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will examine what I have said, he will see that there was not. There has been a significant growth since 1974. I do not have the papers in front of me, but certainly there was quite a significant growth during the period of my office as Minister of State, responsible for the Probation Service, and further growth is already planned, which will take place after 1st April, which is approaching, in the next financial year.
That deals with two points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I come now to the point to which I wish to address myself raised by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who put one or two questions concerning the Police Service. I do not think it is at all right to say—though I understand the motivation of the noble Lord, who takes a very close interest in these matters—that inspectors of constabulary are members of an old boys' club who do not go in for rigorous inspection of the police organisations within the areas for which they are responsible. As the noble Lord rightly said, all the inspectors of constabulary are former chief officers of police, with two exceptions. One is the present Chief Inspector of Constabulary, who was formerly a Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, and the other is the Inspector for Wales and the South-West, who is a former Deputy Assistant Com-
290
missioner of the Metropolitan Police. However, it is perfectly true, as the noble Lord says, that the others are former chief officers of police.
I am not quite clear, however, how one could get an inspector of constabulary to be taken seriously—as he should be, given the responsibilities of that office—if he was not a former senior police officer. They have to be senior police officers if they are to be taken seriously by their peers. That is absolutely inescapable. Although the report upon the very unhappy situation which arose in Lancashire was not written for us by an Inspector of Constabulary, it was written by a brother chief officer—by the then Chief Constable of Hampshire, Sir Douglas Osmond. Having read that report, I must say that it was a report of considerable integrity, of the kind that one would associate with Sir Douglas Osmond.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I made no comments at all about the report on the late Chief Constable of Lancashire. When I said something about the old-boy network, I was not assuming that it was inefficient in any way but simply that it did not have behind it the power that it ought to have. However, as the noble Lord has referred to Lancashire in this way, it is true to say that the Lancashire force was inspected a number of times over the years before that detective sergeant made his complaint. And nothing happened.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, about two months ago the noble Lord and I had a fascinating debate on this question. I think that it would be a mistake for me to go over that ground again, except to say that I do not accept that what the noble Lord has said totally accurately summarises the case that I then attempted to put before your Lordships' House.
Having dealt at the outset with those two particular questions, may I come to the substance of what I should like to say to the House today. I agree at the outset with a great deal of what I am sure my noble friend Lord Longford said—in my absence, I am afraid—and with what was said in my presence by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner about the need to limit the size of the prison population. It is an easy thing to say, but no

291
Government have any power to control the size of the prison population; they have to receive into custody those who are awarded custodial sentences by the courts.
In the final analysis, therefore, the first way in which a Home Secretary can determine the size of the prison population is by creating a series of non-custodial alternatives—by creating bail hostels and so on. This has been done to a significant degree—and rather more than was suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner. The only other way in which the Home Secretary can deal with this matter is by coming before Parliament and making specific recommendations that certain offences, which at the moment are imprisonable, should be non-imprisonable. I shall come to a particular example of where a change is arguably desirable. I believe that, if Parliament really wishes to take this matter seriously, it is to this area that it must apply its energies in the future.
Let me illustrate the kind of problem that arises at the Home Office. I am particularly glad to be making this speech in the presence of my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham who has succeeded me at the Home Office. I am no doubt covering some of the ground which he would otherwise be covering, but he and I have had the opportunity to work together, just as my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner had the opportunity to go down to Faversham at the time that my noble friend the Minister of State was a Labour candidate in the by-election. I am glad to say that the result was extremely satisfactory, as I am sure his speech today will be. I extend to my noble friend my very sincere good wishes. It goes without saying that anything which one can do in the future to make his task in this House more easy one will do, given the fact that we devote a great deal of attention to matters of this kind.
May I now come to one particular question about bail, to try to demonstrate the kind of problem with which Home Office Ministers are confronted. It is, of course, easy to say—and, indeed, it is argued by many—that there are far too many remands in custody. There has been a fairly significant reduction in the number of remands in custody. Certainly
292
that is very fortunate because conditions, at both Brixton and Pentonville, which are the remand prisons of London, are so intolerable at the moment that were there not to have been a reduction in the number of people remanded in custody there would have been the creation of an exceedingly serious situation in both prisons. Having said that, I must say that there is often a great deal of public anxiety, and often anxiety expressed by senior officers of police, about the consequences of courts allowing people bail.
I am a strong supporter of the Bail Act. I supported it in this House. Indeed, it was my duty to do so as I was the Minister in charge of the Bill, but in my view it happened to be the right thing to do. However, it is only fair to acknowledge that one meets operational detectives who give one a list of offences which are committed by people with significant criminal careers in the past but who, notwithstanding that, have been given bail; and they say: "It is all very well for you, Minister, to say that the Bail Act is a good idea, but may we point out the consequences of giving bail to X and Y and Z?" This is a serious matter, and despite the fact that I am a strong supporter of the Bail Act it is only right to acknowledge that there is often significant anxiety, so far as both the police and also a wider public are concerned, about the operation of the bail system. Yet I repeat, were it not for a more liberal attitude towards bail the situation in the remand prisons of London would be even worse than it is already. There is no easy answer to this particular problem but it highlights the need to examine the make-up of Britain's present prison population.
I submit at the outset that there are only a limited number of ways in which we can influence the size of the prison population, but let me be as constructive as I can by giving two examples of what I believe can be done. As I have already indicated, I believe that we must examine much more seriously than we have in the past the question of making some offences nonimprisonable. The most obvious and to some extent the easiest example is the question of how to deal with the prostitute. I do not pretend to know how many women convicted of this offence are at the moment in prison, but I suspect that the number is significantly over 100. This is

293
a fairly high proportion of the total number of women in custody, which is somewhere in the region of 1,400.
I am well aware of all the arguments that we have had on this issue in the past, but I believe that we shall have to look at this matter far more carefully in the future. Women's prisons are even more overcrowded than men's prisons and, with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, I had to take the sombre decision of deciding that a new establishment just outside the Rochester borstal, which was going to be for young men between the ages of 17 and 21—I am sure my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham will know the place because it is close to his former constituency—was in fact not going to be used for young men between the ages of 17 and 21, who were going to be kept still in most unsatisfactory conditions at Canterbury and various other establishments, but was going to have to be made over for women offenders, simply because of the pressures of the women's prison population. Therefore, I think there will have to be a re-examination of this particular matter.
I recognise that even if courts no longer have the power to sentence these women to prison, some of them will end up there because of their refusal to pay fines. Nevertheless, I believe this is one area where we must adopt a bolder policy than we have sometimes followed in the past, not of decriminalising this offence, because I do not think that would be possible, but certainly giving the courts the power only to award perhaps a very substantial fine indeed, and arguably a greater fine than at the moment the courts have the power to inflict on women who are convicted of soliciting.
Secondly, I want to raise the question of the inadequates, the social inadequates, who are imprisoned: I particularly want to raise the matter with my noble friend Lord Boston. I went to Pentonville Prison perhaps a year and half ago, and I was deeply disturbed to see the number of people who were clearly social inadequates, people simply going in and cut of prison the whole time. The governor said to me—and I think I reported it to the House at the time—that some of these people came in and out so often that it was impossible to know whether a particular man had been out before the governor saw him on
294
the next occasion. As a result of that we decided to put in hand some research to try to work out with some degree of precision how many people with these recidivist qualities there were in the prison population at that time. As a result, when I gave evidence to the Public Expenditure Select Committee in another place last Summer I gave them to understand that the results of this research would be made available to Parliament within the next 12 months. I should be grateful if my noble friend Lord Boston could confirm that the Home Office can in fact implement that particular target date.
My Lords, I wanted to come on to only one other question in this debate, and that is the undercurrent which has been visible to me from all the speeches that have been made on the question of the organisation of the Home Office Prison Department and whether some totally different system would be an improvement on the existing situation. Let me begin by saying that I start off with one very clear prejudice. I do not, I fear, agree with my noble friend, even when he is so beguiling as to suggest that I should join the Cabinet, that there should be more Ministers. Indeed, if I may say so, expressing an extremely heretical opinion, I believe that there should be fewer Ministers.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I was not saying that there should be more Ministers, but I was suggesting that there should be more strongly placed Ministers.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that again is an attractive idea from my noble friend, but I am making this point in a week when we have heard, or seen in the papers this morning, a recommendation of a committee saying that there should be a Minister responsible for marriage. I know my noble friend Lord Brockway is in favour of a Minister for disarmament. All I am saying to my noble friend, indeed to the whole House, is that I believe that Governments in the last 10 years, not simply the present Government but Governments for a significant period of time, have had far too many Ministers. I do not include the Home Office, the House will not be astonished to hear me say, in this censure; but I must say that when one looks at the

295
establishment of Ministers in some other Departments it raises the question in one's mind whether they are being operated on as cost-effective a basis as they properly should be.
I doubt, for some of the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, whether reorganisation of the kind suggested by my noble friend Lord Longford would necessarily achieve the objective that my noble friend has in mind. Let me just instance this by replying to one particular point raised by my noble and learned friend, Lord Gardiner. I do not believe it is true that the Home Office has given such high priority to prison building at the expense of non-custodial alternatives to imprisonment. That simply is not true. With great respect to my noble and learned friend, he did slightly, if I may say so, understate the number of Home Office Deputy Under-Secretaries; no doubt it is a mistake made in Dod's. I would assure him that there is certainly a Deputy Under-Secretary of State responsible for the Probation Service. Indeed when I had meetings on these particular questions within my Department I had a Deputy Under-Secretary who was in charge of the Prison Department and also a Deputy Under-Secretary of State who had a responsibility including that of the Probation Service. So, certainly so far as the structure of the Home Office is concerned, there is simply no truth in the suggestion that those within the Department who are responsible for non-custodial alternatives to imprisonment are under-represented at a decision-making level. I doubt whether a further Minister or even a Minister with greater powers is, in fact, what is necessary.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I hope that before the debate ends the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, or perhaps the Minister, will reply to the governors' criticism that there is a deplorable lack of leadership in the Home Office. Spokesmen for the Home Office are too much inclined to ignore that. Can the noble Lord say anything about it?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, there is a deep temptation to make a speech as though one were speaking from the Front Bench, but, with great
296
respect, I am not speaking from the Front Bench. However, I am sure that my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham can be relied upon to deal with those particular questions. I would only say that if prison governors have taken that view I am sure that my noble friend will deal with the matter. I do not believe that by creating some totally different apparatus or structure the situation will improve as radically as is believed. I do not believe that the recreation of something like the Prison Commission would be in any way a sensible idea. I say that as one who was rather in sympathy with the attitude of my Party when we opposed the proposal of the Party opposite to abolish the Prison Commission. It was a decision taken by the Party opposite when it was in office before the 1964 General Election. I thought at that time that it was a mistake. Everything that I have seen since has persuaded me that the Party opposite were right to abolish the Prison Commission. I do not believe that it would in any way be a sensible idea to start creating it all over again.
Having addressed the House for as long as I have, I do not want to go into the very detailed arguments within the Home Office as to why this simply does not make sense. However, I can assure my noble friend that there is no way in which one can insulate the Prison Department from all the other policy-making departments within the Home Office. I would point out to him that my opportunity of studying this matter goes back to 1966 and 1967 when I was special assistant to the then Home Secretary, Mr. Jenkins, who came into office fairly soon after the Prison Commission had been abolished. I must say to the House quite bluntly that some of the problems with which we were confronted at that time were created because of the existence of that separate Prison Commission. Some of the most serious problems faced by the then Home Secretary were entirely due to that factor.
Therefore, I must say to my noble friend that, although I understand that there is a strong current of opinion among governors and others who look back to these, what they regard as, golden days, when there was a separate Prison Commission, I believe that cold analysis of what in reality happened at that time does not, in fact, in any way justify that belief.
10.14 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the Minister for his elevation to the Front Bench and also to thank the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for raising this debate. My experience with penal matters has been as a member of the board of visitors of a borstal; helping with summer camps for borstal boys and undergraduates from Oxford; and from being connected with NACRO—the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. For about 18 years I have met hundreds of young men, some of them still only boys. All of them have problems. Most of them come from disturbed and often deprived families, and the majority have some degree of damaged personality.
This year is the International Year of the Child. The Home Office has let it be known that it intends to reorganise the young offender establishments, doing away with detention centres and having one type of establishment run on borstal lines. I think that a very close look ought to be taken at what those institutions will do in the future. Are they to train and try to rehabilitate these young people, both males and females? Very many of these young people are the most at risk parents of the future. We hear so much about child abuse these days; we hear about the cycle of deprivation and how those who batter or abuse their children have very often had disturbed and battered childhoods themselves; they have not had good parents to set an example, and many of them just do not know how to bring up children.
Having spoken to paediatricians working in the field of child abuse, I know that these parents are nearly always emotionally deprived and immature. They are often socially isolated and cut off from their families, in financial difficulties and mostly living in bad housing. Very many of the inmates of our young offender establishments will have all those problems before them when they become parents.
When these young people are collected together in an institution, is it not an opportunity at least to try to teach them how to be good parents, how to look after children and that it is important for their wives or girl friends to attend antenatal
298
clinics when pregnant? This training could be given with well-organised classes as part of their education programme. I have talked with boys who are themselves worried about what they may do to their families. A few weeks ago one young man in borstal told me that whenever his young child cried he wanted to shake it. The parents must learn the basics, that babies do cry when they are cold, hungry or want something. Paediatricians see the terrible results of child abuse. I know that they would be willing to help organise such classes. Having had borstal lads in my home when our children were babies, I know how well they respond, and very many of them would enjoy and benefit from training for parenthood.
There are just a few general points which I should like to mention. Being connected with both the Prison Service and the Health Service, I believe that sadly there seems to be a need for more secure units with specialised treatment and a high staff ratio. No doubt that unhappy fact reflects our confused society. The existing institutions trying to cope with these very difficult young people, with inadequate facilities and under-staffing, find that they are being disrupted. At present, many borstals do not have adequate psychiatric support. Would it not be practical if these secure units were joint-funded and staffed? It seems that with such a huge Department as the Home Office, it might be of benefit to the Prison Department if it had its own department linked by the Home Secretary at its head. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is not in agreement with this, and I am not a Liberal, but many people working within the Prison Service feel this way. After all, the Prison Department caters for about 42,000 prisoners of all sorts of categories and it employs over 20,000 people.
I should like to ask the Minister a question, and if he does not know the answer tonight perhaps he would write to me. Are governor grades of staff represented on the Prison Department's Whitley Council? If not, should not all grades be represented? I conclude by expressing the hope that when the young offender establishments are reorganised, it will not be a herding together process, but that the individual needs and problems

299
will be assessed and treated. The problems are very complex. There are many pathetic inadequates, and there are many tough guys who should not have their image reinforced. I am a believer that violence breeds violence. Perhaps the deterrent for crime should exist outside the institutions. Without an adequate, contented, well-trained staff who have energy and enthusiasm and who care, good morale and hope for improvements in the future of our young penal establishments will not succeed.
10.20 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow the moving speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. This debate has been in the great traditions of this House. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has put down an important probing Question, and we have had a combination of what one might call the collective wisdom of your Lordships dealing with many aspects of this vital problem. As so often happens in this House, nobody has agreed with the proposals of the noble Earl, but nevertheless I think he could end this debate being very happy with the extraordinarily helpful and constructive contributions that have been made by noble Lords on the subject that he has enabled us to debate this evening. I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister will find as his first homework that he will be kept busy for many weeks. We from these Benches wish him well both tonight and in the hopefully few weeks which he will have in which to complete his homework as a result of this debate.
The proposal that the noble Earl has made, of having a Minister for Penal Affairs, of possibly Cabinet rank, immediately raises the hackles of anybody who has any pretentions at all to being a student of constitutional affairs. I have always believed that the Government are responsible to the whole of the electorate for their wellbeing and security. Therefore, I should not have thought that it would be justifiable to have one Minister of Cabinet rank, one out of 24 or 25, solely concerned with penal matters. Clearly these are serious problems and they affect society, but the philosophical
300
approach of the noble Earl would surely lead to the logical conclusion that we would also have a Minister for Unemployment, a Minister for Ill Health and Social Insecurity, and one could go on right through the gamut of Cabinet offices each with their alternative responsibilities for the tragic consequences of the work that they are meant to be doing for this country.
It would certainly seem to me that whoever is responsible in Government for the maintenance of law and order within the United Kingdom must also, by the nature of his responsibility and the authority which lies within this responsibility at his command, be responsible for the politics relating to those who break the law, and who in fact cause breaches of the peace within the community. I cannot think that it would be right that the Home Secretary's powers should be split in the way that the noble Earl proposes.
I recognise the validity of many of the remarks that the noble Earl made, and I am sure everybody in this House would agree that no one knows better than he, with his long record of compassion and concern for those who have received prison sentences, and that one should take with the greatest of seriousness the comments that he has made. But I believe also that any new Ministry that he is proposing would in fact merely create a further bureaucratic machine, with all the waste of public money and manpower that that would entail.
Also, there would be no absolute guarantee of having any other Minister who would be more capable of remedying many of the problems to which the noble Earl referred. I do not think it is a question of a new machine: it may be a question of a new approach; it may indeed be a question of a new Minister. I say this in no way as a personal attack on the present Home Secretary. I do not think that that kind of remark is helpful. I am merely speaking in general terms. I would say the same of the Civil Service. After all, civil servants have to do the job they are told to do, and I do not think it is helpful in any way to attack any particular branch of the Civil Service who, I would say, give remarkable service to the community.

301
But the organisation of the Prison Service, which is the main subject this evening, is of course being reviewed by the May Committee, as many noble Lords have already mentioned. This is a committee which we on this side of the House, and indeed in another place my right honourable friend Mr. Whitelaw, welcomed. We look forward to hearing the conclusions and recommendations of that committee. Subject to those findings, I understand that when we are in Government we shall—it is only natural that we should—have a look at the prison governors and the staff structure in relation to the administration by the Home Office, but it would be irrelevant to pretend what the answer might be, and in any case I do not think any comments would be helpful until the May Committee has reported.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, surely this is an excellent moment, if one has something to say, to say it. I am giving evidence to the May Committee, but why not say it publicly? The May Committee is not a very strong committee; it has one or two people with a long interest in prison matters, but some of them are completely ignorant of such matters, and I suggest that we could help them a lot.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am sure that in the generality of matters individuals should give evidence to the May Committee, but it would be foolish of me from this Box to commit a Party which might be in Government in a few weeks as to the kind of policies they might follow. I do not think that would be the right approach to take at this juncture. Undoubtedly individuals in my Party are well aware of the difficulties and may wish to give evidence, but that is an individual matter and not a Party matter at this juncture.
In any case, there are certain aspects of the problems which the noble Earl and other noble Lords have raised, particularly in regard to sentencing and accommodation for prisoners, which must affect the working conditions and morale of the prison staff and where I believe some action could be taken within the existing legal and administrative provisions without any reorganisation. I think far too
302
much emphasis has been placed on the idea of reorganisation without looking at what the problems are and how they can be dealt with within existing circumstances. I would even add that they do not all involve extra financial resources. The noble and learned Lord rather stressed the need for additional resources, but certain matters could, I believe, be put right even without any further public expenditure.
We need only look at the very good example of Golda v.the United Kingdom, which took six years from the time of application to the European Commission to the time when a remedy was ordered by the European Court in Strasbourg and when the necessary changes were eventually made to the prison rules; in fact, I do not think they were made until 1976. That was nothing to do with reorganisation; it was a question of dealing with what was clearly a defect in the way the prison rules had been drawn up. That is not to apportion blame to any particular person. Nevertheless, here was a clear case of somebody who was being denied human rights, who was not able even to write to his MP, if I have understood the case—I have not read it right through, but that was one of the grounds for complaint. It seems extraordinary that it should have taken six years until some action was taken by a Government Department.
In my view, that has nothing to do with reorganisation. It is something which could be put right with goodwill. The noble Earl referred to the political will to do something, and here was a case which I think could have been remedied. There are many other examples on which I could draw, but I do not intend to delay the House by giving a full list of problems which I believe could be put right without reorganisation.
I have given the Minister notice of the questions I intend to put and I should particularly like an answer to this: what measures have the Government taken to implement the provisions of the Criminal Law Act 1977 relating to partially suspended sentences? My noble friend Lord Ullswater referred to this matter. The Government agreed with the Opposition at the time of introducing an Amendment in another place in 1977 that the introduction of this approach would be a

303
helpful contribution both for the offender and for conditions of accommodation in prisons, but, so far as I am aware, nothing has happened in the last 18 months. May we be told why nothing has been done?
I am given to understand that accommodation in open prisons is at present used only to the extent of about 50 per cent. I also understand that an undertaking is given to the neighbourhoods where open prisons are set up that no one with a record of criminal violence will be sent to an open prison. Surely there must be many cases of prisoners in other than open prisons who have been sentenced for failing to pay fines or maintenance defaulting, or for other similar reasons. They are the kind of people who could perfectly well be placed in an open prison, if they have to be detained in prison at all. I have always believed that a prison sentence is not satisfactory for people who fail to pay fines, and it would relieve the enormous pressure on prison accommodation if they were not so sentenced, but, if this is the law as it stands today—and, after all, we are here to uphold the law—why cannot at least some of these people be placed in open prisons?
Situations arise which, I am sure all noble Lords in the House would agree, are totally shameful. For instance, the issuing of unruly certificates in respect of young offenders means that in the end some of these young offenders are sent to adult prisons. That surely cannot be right by any standards, whatever we may call ourselves, and I feel that we cannot call ourselves even a civilised society if we allow this kind of thing to happen. I quite understand that community homes are allowed to refuse these cases, but surely the Government can find alternative accommodation for them. It cannot possibly benefit any child under the age of 21—and I use the word "child" as a generic term—to be put into an adult prison in the kind of conditions in which prisoners have to live in our country today.
These are the kind of matters I wish to raise, and I am very grateful to the noble Earl for being able to raise them, because I believe that they should be brought to the attention of both this House and the
304
public. Furthermore, they are matters with which the Home Secretary and his Department can surely try to deal more effectively than they have done.
I do not believe that reorganisation of the Home Office would provide ipso facto remedies for these failures to implement existing legal provisions within the existing opportunities, but, like the noble Earl, Lord Longford, all of us in this House with wide experience of social and legal activities over the years would certainly wish to see improvements in the implementation of the law, better protection for the law-abiding citizen and, certainly, the fair treatment of the offender.
10.32 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Longford most warmly for his very kind remarks about my new post; these I found immensely encouraging. I also wish to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Elles and Lady Masham of Ilton, and the other noble Lords who have been kind enough to make similar remarks. I hope that they will forgive me for not mentioning them each by name, at least at this stage in my speech. Their remarks are no less appreciated for that, and I am very grateful indeed. I include in my thanks my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich. I have already had an opportunity to pay tribute to his work, and I would join with other noble Lords tonight in wishing him well in his new post.
I am sure we are all grateful that my noble friend has given us the chance today to have this debate on Home Office organisation in relation to penal matters. His dedicated commitment to the cause of penal reform commands considerable respect and attention, even though we may sometimes differ from him in opinion on the matters in issue. I am all the more sorry, therefore, that in my first encounter with him in your Lordships' House since taking up my new duties, I must begin my Answer to the Question he tabled on, I fear, a rather negative note. I shall have something to say a little later on about the scope of his reference to "penal matters", but as he dwelt mainly on prison questions I want to begin with his proposals for radical change in that area. In doing that, I also wish to thank him for his kindness

305
and courtesy in having given me notice of points which he planned to raise in tonight's debate.
My noble friend first urged the immediate appointment of a Minister for prisons, to be answerable to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, but to have Cabinet rank; indeed, to be a member of the Cabinet—
The Earl of LONGFORD: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but perhaps the copy of my notes which I sent him contained a crucial misprint. I emphasised that it was a Minister for penal affairs. That is the essence of it. He would co-ordinate prisons and the Probation Service, for instance. It was not just prisons.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I am happy to accept my noble friend's further information on that point, and I am sorry for having got it wrong initially. I feel it only right to say straight away that Her Majesty's Government do not think that such an appointment as this is necessary; nor, indeed, would be helpful—in fact, rather the reverse. Doubtless there are many causes, in addition to penal matters, for which there are quite strong cases for representation in Cabinet; and I am sure that strong cases could be made out, and very vigorously sought, both by individual Members of your Lordships' House and, indeed, by Members of another place as well, for a variety of additional Cabinet posts. But we have to recognise that Cabinets have to be of a manageable size if they are to be effective. That would be quite a compelling objection in itself, I would suggest, to my noble friend's proposition, were there not a more direct objection—and I know, too, that other noble Lords who have spoken tonight share in the view which I am putting forward about this, including the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, with his very extensive experience of Home Office matters as Permanent Under-Secretary there, as well as my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner.
In this more direct objection I would refer to the fact that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, by reason of his responsibilities for the law and order
306
services as a whole, is in fact already admirably placed in Cabinet to give, so to speak, strong voice to the interests, both of the Prison Service and, in fact, of penal matters generally. I would suggest that to introduce a subordinate Minister (for that, indeed, is what he would be, though a member of the Cabinet) for penal matters would tend to complicate as well as divide the collective effort against crime which it is, after all, the Government's aim to unify. Perhaps I might interpose this thought in mentioning this particular point. I feel there has clearly been something of a conspiracy in your Lordships' House tonight to keep me out of the Cabinet. I can only make a confession to your Lordships, and it is that that is a conspiracy in which I join completely willingly as a co-conspirator.
The second point which my noble friend made was that he criticised the structure and working methods of the Prison Department, and commended the management, status and style of the Prison Commission.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, may I again interrupt? I am sorry, but I said that one would not expect to reproduce the old Prison Commission exactly, but I asked for a dedicated body with a professional head.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, with his customary expertise my noble friend has in fact anticipated the very next point I was coming to—the reservation which he has in fact himself placed upon his proposal. But the indictment, as I would suggest it is, in fact ranged quite widely. There was, it was suggested, lack of leadership, ineffectual career civil servants, bureaucracy and centralisation. I might also interpose another point here. It is perhaps a comparatively minor one, but nevertheless it was one which my noble friend mentioned in the course of his speech. He said he had never met a prisoner who had met a Home Office official. Here, I am able to provide him with very rapid reassurance. In fact, I myself saw that very thing happening only two days ago, on Monday, when I made the first of what I hope is going to be a series of visits to the Prison Service.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, I am very glad about that new departure. The Minister has already brought about a change.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I am grateful, although I do not accept commendation quite so rapidly as that. It is something which has been going on, and I was pleased to see that it had been going on, long before I got there.
There was also what I must call sombre reference to a decline in the morale of the Service; to the vexation of governors; and to the risk of total breakdown of the system. I feel that this is not the moment for me to deal specifically with all of these criticisms and I do not suppose that my noble friend expects me to do so today. There is a particularly appropriate course open to noble Lords. I feel sure that my noble friend, among others, will be submitting his views on these very important issues to the Committee of Inquiry into the United Kingdom Prison Services appointed by my right honourable friends last November under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice May. Whether or not the central management of the Prison Service needs reorganising is among the very matters covered by the committee's wide terms of reference. Although it is not for me to anticipate what view the Committee of Inquiry is likely to take on a particular piece of evidence, I feel sure that it will treat all the evidence that it receives, from my noble friend, from other noble Lords and from eleswhere, very seriously indeed.
There is a further point, while I am dealing with this series of criticisms that have been made, to which I ought to make further brief reference. That is the question of whether or not the Home Office would deal with the allegation by prison governors that there has been a deplorable failure of leadership. This has been posed and I feel that I should make some reference to it. The Inquiry into the Prison Services has been asked to:
"inquire into the state of the Prison Services and to make recommendations on a variety of matters including the management of resources and the organisation and management of the Prison Services".
The governors, of course, as others, have full opportunity to make their views known to the Committee of Inquiry and I clearly
308
hope that they will be doing so. But it would be quite inappropriate for me to comment on what they may have said before the Inquiry was established or what they might say to it, and to attempt to anticipate those matters in any way.
My Lords, the prison system cannot be isolated from the criminal justice system itself. This was a point that the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, made in his speech. Its role can have no meaning unless it is shaped by the general criminal justice strategy and resources are allocated accordingly. My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner made a substantial point, if I may say so with respect, on the question of resources. That in no way implies that the Prison Service should not be reformed to enhance its efficiency, satisfaction in the work there, and sense of corporate identity, if reform seems desirable. If the Inquiry should recommend new patterns of structure and management, a new deal for the regions, for example, even the relief of governors from what has been described as "castration", the Government will certainly give these most careful consideration.
Be that as it may, my Lords, L think the criticism of what has been called Home Office failure, since the Prison Commission was abolished, to formulate radical schemes of penal improvement, overlooks the very sizeable amount of work that has been done. Since 1963, there have been many positive developments within the prison system, for example, in prison industries, education, welfare, notwithstanding the accumulating demands upon inadequate resources. These improvements in their own way have matched the many innovations and developments in the non-custodial services. This was mentioned by a number of noble Lords tonight. Both programmes have sought to reduce pressure within and upon the prison system without loss of public confidence. There is a risk, I would suggest, when contrasting the current scene with the Prison Commission era, of exaggerating the present malaise within the Service. We should remember that we are in a new climate of openness and candour about work problems, whether in private industry or in public services.
The third major point which my noble friend raised was his suggestion that the

309
Home Office is ignoring the "fundamental issues". I know it is a keen disappointment to him that the inquiry into the Prison Service has not been empowered to consider wide issues of penal reform such as alternatives to imprisonment and sentencing policy. The reasons for this are simply that the Inquiry already has a large enough task as it is in reviewing questions of organisation, management, structure and pay in the prison services, and that it is in everyone's interest that it should complete that task as soon as possible.
Before passing on to other wider issues, I should like, as it were, to interrupt myself at this point and deal with some of the matters which have been raised by noble Lords during the course of this very interesting debate tonight. Perhaps I may turn first to the matters which were raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. I should like to thank her very much indeed for her courtesy and kindness in giving me notice of the specific points that she was proposing to raise. The noble Baroness asked about the Government's intentions concerning Section 47 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, which enables a court partially to suspend sentences of imprisonment and which has not yet been brought into operation. Also the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, mentioned this particular point of partially suspended sentences. I cannot make a definitive statement tonight.
The Government have been keeping this matter under very close scrutiny so far as the potential help that this provision might afford to the hard-pressed Prison Service is concerned, and we shall certainly continue to do so. Up to this point, however, they have felt it right to adopt a cautious approach. There is a risk, to which several Members of your Lordships' House drew attention when the House discussed the inclusion of this provision in the Bill, that the courts might use the new provision in such a way that at any rate the first effects would be to increase the prison population. That is a risk which in present circumstances the Government have not been prepared to run when the prison system has no margin to spare. It is clear of course that to introduce the provision could not initially reduce the adult population because it would not affect the numbers of people received into prison, but rather the length of time they
310
stayed there. The administrative processes would add somewhat to the burdens of establishments. I am able to assure the noble Baroness that the Government will certainly be giving further consideration to this matter and to the points that she has raised.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but he will accept that it is a bit disappointing. When this matter was raised in another place, the Minister, as I understood it, gave unqualified support to this idea. It was not a question of merely sending people to prison who might not have gone there otherwise, but of shortening the sentences and therefore making such places as are available more readily available when needed. I think that the Minister might see whether something could be done about this. It would make a really useful contribution, apart from the fact that it might be beneficial for the prisoner himself. The basis was that the short, sharp sentence of imprisonment would be just as beneficial, if not more beneficial, to the offender as keeping him there for a longer time. The question of not having any supervision order afterwards was something which I know the Government were not keen on at the time, but they may now regret not having introduced the necessity for a supervision order for somebody coming out of prison. I shall not pursue this any more, but I hope that the Minister will take this on board and have something done about it.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for not wishing to pursue this in further detail. I can certainly confirm the assurance that I have already given her that this matter will be actively further considered.
The noble Baroness also raised the question of open prisons and suggested that we could make much greater use of open prisons. In fact, the position is not quite as stated by the noble Baroness. On the 15th January, I understand that the numbers in open prisons totalled 2,947 and there were 581 vacancies. I can certainly assure her that every effort is made to find suitable prisoners for open conditions, but I fear this is probably too large a subject to take up in detail tonight.
So far as fine defaulters are concerned—a particular category she was concerned

311
about—there are about a thousand in custody at any one time. More than half of them are committed for one month or less, and a quarter of them settle their debt within three days. So there are comparatively few for whom transfer to an open prison is a possible move. In October last there were about 40 defaulters altogether in open prisons, but nevertheless it is something which is being catered for.
The noble Baroness's other specific point concerned the question of unruly young people and the question of secure accommodation in relation to that. I think this was also something to which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, made reference, in a rather different context, in his speech. During the last two years well over £53/4 million has been made available to local authorities from central Government in the form of capital grants for secure accommodation. As the noble Baroness will appreciate, this is very much a matter for the Department of Health and Social Security and the local authorities rather than my Department. However, when the number of places at present planned or under construction are completed, the existing provision will be more than doubled. I know there are problems about running costs, but local authorities' revenue expenditure on children's services has, I understand, increased by 30 per cent. in real terms between 1974–5 and 1977–8. If there are further details to be given, I would be happy to provide them for the noble Baroness, if she would be interested—
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I also mentioned that matter. Might I ask the noble Lord how many secure units are there at the moment, and where are they?
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, for reminding me that she also raised this matter. I am just rapidly looking through my papers, and I do not think I am able at this moment to provide her with the answer she needs. My right honourable friend Mr. Moyle, in another place on 24th January this year, referred to 34 community homes in England as having secure places attached, other than single separation rooms. He said that there were
312
296 long- and short-term secure places in community homes. Then he gave a table with specific details. Perhaps that goes some way towards meeting the point of the noble Baroness, but I will, if I may, follow up her query specifically and write to her.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I apologise for interjecting again. Is it not a fact that the community home can refuse to have somebody who has what is termed an "unruly certificate"? And is not that one of the difficulties in dealing with these specific cases and one of the reasons they are sent to adult prisons? Again, I will not press the matter now, but I should be grateful to have an answer from the noble Lord at a later stage.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I will certainly do that, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way this has been raised. Perhaps I can send to both noble Baronesses the information they have asked for.
It might also be helpful if at this stage I were to deal with one or two other points which have been raised in the course of the debate. I have already made a reference to one of the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater; and, in a constructive speech, if I may say so with respect, he also dealt with the question of young adult offenders. He particularly referred to the Green Paper, Youth Custody and Supervision: A New Sentence. I should very much like to follow that up and give him further details, but in view of the lateness of the hour I know he will forgive me for not going into further details. Perhaps I might say, however, that the House is very grateful to him for having drawn this to our attention during the debate.
This Green Paper is a good example of forward thinking by the Home Office. Perhaps I am in a reasonable position to say that, because the forward thinking was done before I got there, and so it is credit which I am passing on to other people. Comments are invited on the Green Paper by June this year and again, thanks to the noble Viscount, this provides an opportunity for those both here and outside to be reminded that there is this date to be aimed for. This was also a matter which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, mentioned, and I would join

313
with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in saying that her speech was characteristically thoughtful and constructive, and was, indeed, a most moving one, too. In the course of her speech, Lady Masham asked about the Whitley Council, and I am able to say that governors are represented on the Home Office Whitley Council. There is a Prison Department Whitley Council, on which the Prison Officers' Association is represented. The future form of industrial relations machinery is one of the matters on which the inquiry into the Prison Service has been asked to advise.
Then there was reference to police matters in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and I am grateful to him for letting me know that he was thinking of raising those points in this debate. He has, of course, taken a long-standing and very close interest in police matters. These are subjects which do not always attract as much public attention as they ought to do, so I am grateful to him for raising these matters tonight, as I am sure we all are. I should also like to join with him in recognising that penal affairs and the Home Secretary's responsibility for prisons must be seen in a wider law and order context.
So far as some of the noble Lord's individual points are concerned, one or two detailed questions have already been answered by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, to whom I am grateful, and, I can say—it is not really for me to say so—with complete accuracy. He mentioned the question of inspections. He also mentioned the Police Advisory Board, and it is the case that a Minister is always in the chair there. Again, I will certainly very happily provide the noble Lord with any further details, should they be needed, on the points that he raised.
My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner raised a number of points, to one of which I have already referred. But in the course of his remarks he raised the rather hair-raising spectre of—according to the information with which he had been provided—some 300 people dealing with the letters that he mentioned. I am very happy indeed to be able to give him a firm assurance, which he will be able to pass on to the source of that information, that that is not the case.
314
In fact, this number of people would represent broadly the strength of all ranks at Prison Department headquarters at Eccleston Square in London. I do not have the precise numbers of people who are engaged on this work, but I can assure him that it is a modest number.
At this point, it would perhaps be right that I should extend my response to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Longford a little beyond the area of prisons, and perhaps I may do this rather rapidly. For my own part, I confess—with the diffidence of one who is new to these matters seen from this angle, at least—that once or twice I was left in two minds whether the suggestion to reorganise the Home Office was confined to the Prison Department and the Prison Service or whether it went a good deal wider. Is it being suggested, for example, that over the whole field of Home Office law and order responsibilities there was a failure of Ministerial and Departmental leadership, an ineffective structure and organisation, a failure to grasp the gravity of the situation and so on? If so, I feel it only right to make clear that Her Majesty's Government emphatically reject any such assessment. If not, then it seems to me that, however well-intentioned, this view of the troubles of the Prison Service was taken within too narrow a focus. We should not forget, I venture to submit, that the Prison Service is a part—a very important part, but a part all the same—of the criminal justice system as a whole; nor should we forget that it is crucial to the criminal justice system that there should be a co-ordinated view of policies and administration.
The need for unity within the system imposes important constraints on its various parts. It demands, for example, the recognition of a common purpose and a strategy, a sensible sharing of available resources, the encouragement of mutual support between services and informed interest by the public. These are the objectives that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and his colleagues have been seeking in recent years and which were described in the working paper A Review of Criminal Justice Policy 1976, published by the Home Office at the end of 1977.
One example of the inter-relationships within the criminal justice system is the

315
problem of what are often called—indeed, tonight they have been referred to in this way—socially inadequate offenders. To illustrate this point, I should like to refer further to the programme of research that we have in hand on this subject, in which my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich took a special interest. I am sure that we are grateful to my noble friend for raising this matter today. Indeed, I am grateful to him for having given me notice that he was going to mention it.
There is, I think, a fair measure of agreement that imprisonment should be used as a last resort for offenders convicted of serious offences, particularly those involving danger to the public. Yet recidivist petty offenders serving short sentences continue to form a substantial part of the prison population. This group of offenders, many of whom are without stable community ties, in general constitute more of a nuisance than a danger to society, and a prison sentence is often an inappropriate method of dealing with them. It is clearly important to try to find alternative ways of dealing with these offenders, both in their own interest and in order to reduce the severe pressure on the prison system, and it is for that reason that we are actively undertaking a programme of research to examine this matter, particularly the three critical points—arrest, sentence and discharge from prison—at which it might be possible to intervene in order to reduce the frequency of contact between socially inadequate offenders and the criminal justice system.
There are separate projects for each of these three areas, as my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will know. The first—arrest—is designed to look at current police practice towards socially inadequate offenders to see whether any changes in approach would be desirable; the second—sentence—to discover more about the problems faced by magistrates in sentencing such offenders in order to see whether more can be done to encourage greater use of non-custodial alternatives to imprisonment; and the third—discharge—to explore ways in which the provision of after-care for these offenders can be strengthened.
Each of these projects has a different time scale, and it is hard to say when
316
final results will be available. Nevertheless, as my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich indicated to the Expenditure Sub-Committee in another place last July, we plan to publish an interim report on these projects in the summer, so I am able to confirm that that date is to be adhered to.
Many points have been raised. I think that we may well have an opportunity to have exchanges on some of them in the near future. There is, however, just one other matter which I should mention tonight; namely, the question of cost. Certainly, when we are considering alternatives, the cost of keeping a person in prison—about £5,000 a year—is much higher than the cost of fining him or of making a community service order, although facilities such as probation hostels and day training centres are not much cheaper than prison. But the cost of each place in prison is largely made up of staff salaries and maintenance costs. The Government cannot abruptly stop spending on these as a preliminary to a transfer of offenders to non-custodial treatment. They would first have to reduce the prison population to a point where fewer staff and buildings were needed. With the present rate of overcrowding, and with the continuing need to maintain a network of establishments throughout the country, the reduction in numbers would have to be very substantial indeed before any saving was achieved, and even then a reduction in prison expenditure would mean that we should have to carry on with the old and unsuitable buildings which we have now.
There are other alternatives to custody which have also been suggested but which, because of the late hour, it is not possible to go into tonight. However, a point which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the question of parole, is a particularly important aspect. Perhaps therefore I should just refer to that point.
I shall conclude the Government's Answer on the wrong note if, therefore, I do not finally qualify my rather negative response with a note of realism. Of course, circumstances change and systems and practices become out-of-date. The Department constantly keeps its arrangements under scrutiny. The present structure of the Prison Department arises

317
from a comprehensive management review of the Home Office as a whole conducted in 1975 in conjunction with the Civil Service Department. As I have said, if the Inquiry should recommend further and radical change, its recommendations will of course be most carefully considered. Indeed, one example of this is the question of parole. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Longford, that there is a case for re-examining the present arrangements. I think the case arises, however, not because of deficiencies in the present scheme—and I think that view was also taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—but because it is always desirable to examine new policies after a period of time. That certainly is something which is being done.
My Lords, although I have not been able to give as positive a response as my noble friend would have wished, I feel that in fact we can join in ending on a positive note, for I think we are all agreed on the need for action. There is dissatisfaction, otherwise there would not have been an inquiry and the need for one, and there may be other matters on which we share similar views and beliefs. Not least, I would hope that we are optimists, and one feature which gives grounds for optimism is the quality of people in the Prison Service itself. They do an immensely difficult task and they deserve our warm thanks for that. I have already been impressed by the quality of people in the Service and with the potential that is there. We must all seek to harness that and try to ensure that the feeling of enthusiasm, of which I have no doubt at all they are capable, is released to the full. If we can all join in that there are real grounds for hope.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE MANAGEMENT BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with Amendments, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
CUSTOMS AND EXCISE DUTIES (GENERAL RELIEFS) BILL [H.L.] ALCOHOLIC LIQUOR DUTIES BILL [H.L.] TOBACCO PRODUCTS DUTY BILL [H.L.]
  MATCHES AND MECHANICAL LIGHTERS DUTIES BILL [H.L.] EXCISE DUTIES (SURCHARGES OR REBATES) BILL [H.L.] HYDROCARBON OIL DUTIES BILL [H.L.]
  Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment, and re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  SENTENCES OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT
  SENTENCES OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT
  INLAND WATERWAYS: POLICY
  INLAND WATERWAYS: POLICY
  THE PUBLIC SERVICE: PREMATURE RETIREMENT
  THE PUBLIC SERVICE: PREMATURE RETIREMENT
  "BRITISH NATIONALITY LAW: DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE CHANGES": SUBMISSIONS
  "BRITISH NATIONALITY LAW: DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE CHANGES": SUBMISSIONS
  SALE OF GOODS ACT 1893: REVIEW CONSIDERATION
  SALE OF GOODS ACT 1893: REVIEW CONSIDERATION