Sitting of 15 January 1981

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

  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Thursday 22 January.

  GREATER MANCHESTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Monday 19 January at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  Northern Ireland

    Constitutional Position
    Mr. Marlowasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will take action to integrate Northern Ireland more fully and more inextricably within the United Kingdom.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and will remain so as long as that is the wish of the majority of its citizens. So far as the government of the Province is concerned, it remains our intention to create arrangements that will better meet the needs of all its people.
    Mr. Marlow: As we do not talk about Wales, Cornwall, Yorkshire or even Spelthorne remaining part of the United Kingdom so long as the people wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, would it not strengthen the Union if we were to drop this somewhat demeaning qualification about the constitutional position of Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Atkins: I must ask my hon. Friend to remember two things. The first is the distinctive nature of Northern Ireland with its two communities with different traditions and different aspirations.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Oh!
    Mr. Atkins: I think that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) ought to remember that, too. The second is the Government's determination to create arrangements that are acceptable to both communities.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As Northern Ireland is, in the official formulation of successive Governments, an
    1126
    integral part of the United Kingdom, what meaning does the right hon. Gentleman attach to the word "integral" in that formulation?
    Mr. Atkins: That it is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of which Her Majesty is the head, that its arrangements for governance are a matter for its people and this House, and that we have to keep in mind that government by consent is an essential part of our democracy. That is what Her Majesty's Government are seeking to do—to find arrangements that have the acceptance of both parts of the Northern Ireland community.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman has said that there will be no change in the constitutional position without a majority of the people of Northern Ireland desiring it. Can he explain why in a letter to me the Prime Minister added "and the wish of Parliament"? If it is the wish of this Parliament to destroy that link, should not all the people of the United Kingdom, including those in Scotland, England and Wales, have a real say in that decision?
    Mr. Atkins: As the hon. Gentleman knows, this Parliament is sovereign. The Government have said, and I repeat, that Northern Ireland will remain part of the United Kingdom as long as the majority of its inhabitants so wish, and that the future government arrangements of Northern Ireland are a matter for the people of Northern Ireland and this Parliament.

    The Taoiseach (Dublin Meeting)
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he intends to hold further discussions with the Government of the Republic of Ireland following the Dublin meeting on 8 December.
    Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Yes, Sir. My colleagues and I will be having further meetings with Ministers from the Republic from time to time.
    Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some Conservative Members, who have great good will for the Province and support the constitutional settlements of 1920 and 1949, nevertheless think that nothing but good will and goodness can come from regular contacts at the highest level with the Government of the Republic and hope that they will continue?
    Mr. Atkins: I agree with my hon. Friend. There are a great many matters of common interest. It makes every kind of sense, and is to the benefit of the people of the Republic and the United Kingdom alike, that we should be on the best possible terms with our immediate neighbours.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does the Secretary of State agree that the Dublin Government ought to withdraw their claim to the territory of a part of the United Kingdom, grant effective extradition rights, and institute effective control of the frontier as essential preconditions for the establishment of normal friendly relations?
    Mr. Atkins: All those are proper matters to be discussed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: In the communiqué issued after the Dublin summit the words "totality of relationships"

    1127
    were used. Can the Secretary of State say whether the totality of relationships includes the constitutional relationship? If it does not, why was the word "totality" used? If it does, why have the Government broken their pledge?
    Mr. Aitkins: The Government have broken no pledges. For the benefit of the hon. Gentleman I shall repeat that future government arrangements for Northern Ireland are a matter for the people of Northern Ireland and this House. Relationships in all their aspects between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, as two sovereign countries, are the totality of the relationships that we shall be discussing with the Government of the Republic.
    Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Opposition welcome any discussions that take place between the two Governments, because we believe that there is quite a lot to be gained on both sides? I am not so much concerned about future discussions. I am still trying to find out what occurred during the last round of talks. Many of us are especially concerned about that and would like more information. The Opposition are concerned about the lack of information that has emerged about the last Dublin summit and would like to be assured that more information will come out of the next round of talks. If there is to be a meeting shortly, will the Government be at one with the Irish Government on the decision of the Irish rugby team to visit South Africa?
    Mr. Atkins: I can do no better than refer the right hon. Gentleman to the communiqué that was issued at the end of the last meeting. As to future meetings, I am only too happy to report to the House, whenever appropriate, about discussions that I have with Ministers in the Republic, either about rugby football or about any other matter.

    Housing Finance
    Mr. Bradfordasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total amount being allocated to housing in Northern Ireland for the 1981–82 financial year.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Mitchell): I expect to be in a position to announce detailed financial allocations within the next few weeks. I am hopeful that these will be adequate to sustain a publicly assisted programme at least as large in real terms as in 1980–81.
    Mr. Bradford: Do not our constituents deserve to be told about the number of houses that will be made available in Northern Ireland? When the Minister gets round to supplying a detailed breakdown of the allocation, will he try to afford the Northern Ireland housing associations as much of the £31 million as they require? Will he try to make it possible for the Housing Executive to build as many homes as it feels are needed, namely, 5,000 in addition to the 1,200 homes that are to be rehabilitated during the coming year?
    Mr. Mitchell: I hope to be in a position to announce the precise details in the next few weeks. When I do so, I shall certainly have in mind the comments made by the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Minister aware that even before the public expenditure cuts the Housing Executive was
    1128
    building only one-fifth of the total new housing that is desperately required in Northern Ireland, which has the worst housing situation in the whole of the United Kingdom? If he recognises the hardship that is caused to families on the ever-increasing waiting list, will he ensure that enough money is now made available to build the houses that are needed?
    Mr. Mitchell: One cannot view the Housing Executive's programme in isolation, but must look at it in the context of, and with, the provision of the housing associations. As the hon. Gentleman will know, one must at the same time take into account the income from the sale of existing Housing Executive houses. On Monday I had the pleasure of handing over the deeds of the thousandth house sold by the executive. That helps towards the funds for house building.
    Mr. Pendry: I congratulate the Minister on his new appointment and hope that he will be happy in his new role. Does he agree that an urgent statement of intent about next year's housing allocation is long overdue? Notwithstanding what he said in reply to the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), does the hon. Gentleman agree that he should match the words of his Department on the need for housing in Northern Ireland with the cash to remedy the situation there?
    Mr. Mitchell: Housing authorities in the rest of the United Kingdom are suffering a reduction of 15 per cent. in their capital allocation, but I am hopeful that we shall fare somewhat better in Northern Ireland.

    Unemployment Statistics
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the most recent unemployment figures for the Province.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Butler): I am deeply concerned about the present level of unemployment, but the numbers out of work are likely to remain high for some time. The Government are taking active steps to promote employment and to assist the unemployed, including the recent package of special measures. But I believe that for Northern Ireland, as for the rest of the United Kingdom, the real solution lies in the determined pursuit of the Government's policies, which will provide the necessary sound industrial base for the economy of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Parry: Is the Minister aware of recent statements by trade union and Church leaders about the appallingly high level of unemployment in Northern Ireland? What positive steps do the Government have it in mind to take substantially to reduce the unemployment figures in the Province?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the details of the special measures to which I have just referred, including a sum of about £9 million to provide additional trading schemes, and so on. He will also know of the additional sums of money that have been allocated and, indeed, reallocated, within the resources available to help the industrial and energy sectors. Those will go some way towards helping a situation, which, I admit, is grave.
    Mr. McCusker: The people of Northern Ireland will be glad to know that the Minister is concerned about the situation. However, as we approach a figure of 100,000

    1129
    unemployed in the Province, what level does the Minister believe the Province can tolerate before there is a real breakdown in the community?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman knows well enough that it is not the practice of Ministers to make forecasts. I believe that the level of unemployment will continue to rise for some little while.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: As many indigenous Ulster firms which have good order books are running into difficulty and must close clown because of cash-flow problems, will the Minister take that fact into consideration and ensure that they get the same favourable financial consideration as firms that come in from outside the Province?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. It will continue to be my policy to try to attract new investment into the Province. Equally, I believe that we must try to assist those companies that are there.
    Mr. Pendry: I welcome the Minister in his new role and understand why he does not wish to forecast the unemployment level. Does he accept that we hope that he will not equal the all-time record of his predecessor, who oversaw a 35 per cent. increase in unemployment in Northern Ireland within 19 months? Does he accept also that his urgent task is to prod his right hon. Friend into standing up in the Cabinet in order to ensure that an allocation of funds is given to Northern Ireland to meet the requirements there?
    Mr. Butler: I do not think that my right hon. Friend needs any encouraging from me to fight the corner of the Province in the Cabinet. The allocation of public funds to the Province is approximately one-third higher per capita than it is for the rest of the United Kingdom. I assure the House that I shall do everything that I can to ensure that the increase in the rate of unemployment is as small as possible and that as soon as possible we shall work towards a reduction.

    Hunger Strikes
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what contacts he has had with the various categories of hunger-strikers in the Maze prison.
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present position regarding people on hunger strike in prisons in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present situation within Maze and Armagh prisons.
    Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I have had no contact with the hunger strikers myself. They were made aware of the regime that I described in my statement of 19 December through the established machinery of prison administration. Since the hunger strike ended, 40 prisoners have ceased their protest at Her Majesty's prison Maze, and are now benefiting from that regime. They have been moved to clean, furnished cells, have been given the new civilian-type clothing, have been allowed to send for their own leisure clothing to wear out of working hours, and have been given the privileges of association, visits, letters and parcels available to all conforming prisoners. They are in the process of being assessed and allocated to suitable activities during working hours.
    1130
    Once they end their protest, the same facilities will be available to the 428 prisoners still persisting in their protest at Maze, and also, in their essentials, to the 29 women protesters at Armagh. A group of protesters were moved to clean cells at Maze on Monday as part of the normal cleaning cycle. Some of these cells were furnished normally. The prisoners have not fouled or damaged them and I am repeating this move today. As this process continues I hope that all protesting prisoners will be encouraged to end their protest altogether.
    Since 19 December the Government have pursued exactly the course set out in my statement of that day. The privileges available can apply only to those who conform with prison rules. The Government cannot, and will not, introduce a regime which would give a group of prisoners the substance of their demand for political status.
    Mr. Adley: While congratulating my right hon. Friend on the success of his policy, may I ask whether he agrees that it would be helpful also to congratulate his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason)? Both right hon. Members have resisted the temptation to give in to terrorism. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the moral of the way that he has dealt with the problem is that the prime requirement in dealing with the IRA is patience?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I cannot speak for the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), but I have no temptation to give way to the terrorists. I agree that we have to be patient and firm in our efforts, which I hope will be successful, to bring an end to this uniquely disgraceful and revolting protest.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Secretary of State aware that the ending of the hunger strike was greeted with great relief by hon. Members on both sides of the House? Is he aware also that he has an opportunity to ensure that there are continuing improvements in prisons in Northern Ireland? The hunger strike has ended, but the issue has not been resolved, and unless there are continual improvements, we might find ourselves back in the situation that existed only a few weeks ago.
    Mr. Atkins: Not only the whole House, but the whole of Northern Ireland, was relieved when the hunger strike ended shortly before Christmas. As I have told the House before, it is the Government's business constantly to study the prison regime and to make sure that it is humane, but secure. I do not agree that the issue has not been resolved. I believe that it has. The prisoners recognise that there is no way in which the Government will give them the political status that they have been demanding all these years.
    Mr. Ross: I add the congratulations of my party to the Secretary of State on the stand that he took in a difficult period. He has been proved right. What indications are there that the pledge, reported last Monday, that newly furnished cells will not be dirtied—and the first group of prisoners to be moved into those cells are not doing that—will be continued? What is the situation at Armagh, where 29 prisoners are still on the blanket? Are there hopes that that protest will also be ended?
    Mr. Atkins: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks. The prisoners in Maze who have been moved into clean cells—which happens regularly anyway—with furniture have not fouled the cells or

    1131
    destroyed the furniture—and destruction was the original reason for the removal of furniture from the cells. I hope that as more clean cells become available, and protesters are moved into them, the process will continue and that we shall see an end to the dirty protest and, indeed, the whole blanket protest. I also hope that the same thing will apply with the women prisoners in Armagh, though we have no positive evidence that that is happening.
    Mr. Kilfedder: As the Provisional IRA is attempting to hide the fact that the hunger strikers capitulated to the Government, will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear to the Ulster people that no privileges have been granted to the Provisional IRA hunger strikers in Maze that are not being granted to all prisoners in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Atkins: I am happy to do that. Every prisoner in Maze is being treated in exactly the same way. It is the Government's business to carry out the decisions of the courts, and prisoners who are committed to prison are treated in precisely the same way, whatever their previous political or other associations. There can be no justification for treating prisoners convicted by the courts differently from each other.
    Mr. McNamara: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, even though this matter has been resolved, there is a great opportunity for the Government to examine the legislation under which many of the prisoners were convicted? Is it his intention to establish an independent judicial inquiry, or other inquiry, to look into the need for the Emergency Powers Act, various scheduled offences and other derogations from the normally accepted standards of this Island for the conviction of prisoners?
    Mr. Atkins: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. It is not something that I have in mind to do, because the inquiry into the continuing need for the Emergency Provisions Act is best carried out by the House every six months.

    Security
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Trippierasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the present security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the security situation in the Province.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about the security of the Province.
    Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Since 27 November, when I last answered questions in the House, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, supported where appropriate by the Army, has continued its drive against all forms of crime. Sixty-six people have been charged with offences arising from the present campaign of violence, including five with murder and 18 with attempted murder. One man has been charged with six murders committed in 1975 and 1976. Recent convictions demonstrate that the passage of time offers no protection to criminals. Acts of violence persist, though
    1132
    happily on a lower scale than during the same period last year. Two members of the security forces and five civilians, including a prison officer, have died. One of those deaths, that of Mrs. Pollock of Strabane, once more demonstrated the total disregard of terrorists for the safety and well-being of ordinary members of the public. The widespread condemnation of this particular attack clearly demonstrated the utter rejection of violence by the community at large.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first those hon. Members whose questions are being answered together.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Can the Secretary of State assess the true significance of the value of recent arms finds south of the frontier? Has there been any evidence to suggest that terrorists are now less able to launch attacks on the United Kingdom from the territory of the Irish Republic?
    Mr. Atkins: Co-operation between the RUC and the Garda continues, and it is encouraging. I am also encouraged, of course, by arms finds. Every time that arms and explosives are removed from the terrorists' control, that reduces their capability to mount further attacks. I should be misleading the House if I were to indicate that they do not still have the capability to mount serious attacks. They do. But the co-operation between the two police forces is slowly producing the effects that we all desire and slowly reducing the capability of the terrorists, which is something that we all want.
    Mr. Trippier: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the House is much encouraged by arrests such as those made by the RUC in Downpatrick earlier this week?
    Mr. Atkins: Yes, Sir. As the House may know, a routine RUC patrol stopped two cars in Downpatrick on Tuesday morning. One was a mobile car bomb carrying two beer kegs full of explosives. The occupants, four men and one woman, are still being questioned. It is that sort of police activity of a preventive nature, as well as the activities of the police in catching criminals after they have committed crimes, that is most encouraging. We all congratulate the RUC on what it is doing.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the considerable presence of Army units in the border area has resulted in a marked falling off of terrorist activity? Can he also say whether that same presence is allowing the RUC to act with greater flexibility in those areas?
    Mr. Atkins: I have never given the House details of the deployment of the Army or the RUC in particular areas of Belfast—and I do not intend to do so now, for reasons which I know the House will understand. There is no doubt that the activities of the RUC and the Army in border and other areas are having a marked effect. We all hope that they will so inhibit the activities and movements of terrorists that the level of violence will continue to diminish markedly.
    Mr Biggs-Davison: I acknowledge the excellent co-operation between the police forces of the United Kingdom and the Republic, but will my right hon. friend say whether there was any truth in the report in The Daily Telegraph some time ago that we were moving towards further co-operation between the armies of the two countries?
    Mr. Atkins: We are seeking to prevent crimes and to apprehend and bring before the courts offenders who commit those crimes. This is essentially a police activity. Obviously, I am responsible for what happens in Northern Ireland, but the police there take the lead in these operations and are supported as and when necessary by the Army. I have no reason to believe that the position is any different in the Republic.
    Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that, as well as giving reports to the House on the changing face or emphasis of terrorism in Northern Ireland, he could be a little more helpful and encouraging to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) about the judicial inquiry into the courts system? He may find such an inquiry helpful, as we found the last one helpful. That does not necessarily mean that there will be wholesale changes, but an outside body would look at the system, and that might prove helpful to the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Atkins: The right hon. Gentleman has made that suggestion before. I accept that it might be helpful, and I have promised to undertake such an inquiry. I said earlier that we had not reached a decision so to do, and I reminded hon. Members that the House decides once every six months whether the emergency provisions should continue.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the view of the people in Fermanagh is not in keeping with his view that there is good co-operation between the Army and the RUC on the Fermanagh border, bearing in mind that there have been 50 deaths and those who perpetrated those murders are now safe in the sanctuary of the Republic?
    Mr. Atkins: I have never claimed that the co-operation is perfect. If it were, there would be no crime—and there is. There are certain areas, of which Fermanagh is one, where, understandably, people feel themselves at risk. However, I claim that the efforts of the security forces in the North are being directed as efficiently as may be towards the areas that matter most. The co-operation between them and the authorities in the Republic is better now than it has been for many years.
    Mr. McNamara: With regard to the answer that the Secretary of State gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), and in view of the fact that the House reviews these matters every six months, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what additional facilities he is prepared to put at the disposal of hon. Members in order to reach decisions that they may wish to take on the renewal of these orders? Will he also bear in mind that they are statutory instruments and therefore we have no opportunity to amend them?
    Mr. Atkins: The arrangements for hon. Members to inform themselves about Northern Ireland are long-standing, and they are implemented by the Government in the same way as they were by their predecessors. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular suggestions to make, perhaps he would like to tell me about them.

    Electricity and Gas Supplies
    Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the review of future electricity and gas supply arrangements in Northern Ireland which he has commissioned.
    Mr. Adam Butler: The interdepartmental committee has almost completed its work of reviewing future electricity supply arrangements for Northern Ireland. Its report will shortly be submitted to Ministers.
    The Government's policy on piped gas supplies in Northern Ireland remains that set out by the previous Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in his statement of 23 July 1979. Further information has been requested from the Republic of Ireland to enable us to evaluate whether natural gas can be economically supplied to Northern Ireland from the Kinsale field.
    Mr. McCusker: Does the Minister accept that a 25 to 35 per cent. differential in the cost of fuels in Northern Ireland and on the mainland represents an intolerable burden, not only on domestic consumers, but on our manufacturing industries and on the intensive livestock sector of our agricultural industry? Would it not improve the deplorable employment statistics, to which he referred earlier, if that differential were removed? How would his constituents feel if they were paying between 25 and 35 per cent. more for their fuels than were constituents in a neighbouring county?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman is more aware of the reasons for this than I have been. The matter needs to be examined seriously, but it should not be over-exaggerated. The position for industry is that the cost is 7 per cent. above the average for the United Kingdom, but nevertheless it is an extra cost for industry. Equally, as the hon. Gentleman is well aware, substantial subsidies are given to the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland in order to keep that differential at the present rate. We have to be aware of that extra cost and of the implications elsewhere.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Does the Minister agree that it is important that negotiations on energy supplies across the border should be speeded up? If there is a chance of getting to the Kinsale gasfield, surely that should be taken advantage of in the North?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman is right in principle. I should not like to make any comment on the prospects for the supply of natural gas from the Kinsale field, at least until we have answers to some of the questions that we have put to the Government of the Republic.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Minister aware that the people of Ulster are suffering because of the discrimination in the cost of coal and electricity in Northern Ireland, and that many families are experiencing hardship as a result of the cost of those two essential elements? Will the Government look at this matter again and ensure that something is done to resolve this unfair situation?
    Mr. Butler: A great deal is being done in subsidising industry to keep the differential in tariffs where it is. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind where that money has to come from. It might be at the expense of employment in the Province. We are keeping matters under review, but I cannot promise any early decision.
    Mr. Pendry: Now that the Minister is ensconced in his office, will he recognise that it is not simply his questioners this afternoon, but the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland, who expect an early end to the pussy-footing around on the question of a sensible energy policy in the Province? High energy costs act as an albatross around the necks of industry and commerce, where, as has already been stated, energy costs are far higher than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. What has happened to our suggestion for a public body to co-ordinate energy supply and prices for the Province?
    Mr. Butler: I reject the suggestion that my predecessors in the Northern Ireland Office have been pussy-footing around. The statement of July 1979 was positive and took some difficult decisions which, had the hon. Gentleman listened, he would have realised were shirked by his Administration. With regard to electricity supply, we are awaiting the report of the interdepartmental committee—which I shall have on my desk within a week or two. That will enable us to see whether we can take further decisions about the future.

    Taoiseach (Dublin Meeting)
    Mr. Stanbrookasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will describe more fully the "institutional structures" referred to in the communiqué issued by both Governments after the Dublin talks.
    Mr. Humphrey Atkins: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, this is one of the matters that are to be explored. It is one object of the joint studies now being put in hand to consider whether new institutional structures might be devised as a means of developing further the unique relationship between this country and the Republic of Ireland.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Whatever those words may mean, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the internal affairs of this part of the United Kingdom are not matters for negotiation with the Irish Republic or any foreign State?
    Mr. Atkins: Yes, Sir. The future of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland and Parliament. Of course, the Republic is interested because it is next door. The ultimate decisions on what happens in Northern Ireland will be taken here.
    Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State not realise that this question underlies the fact that issuing a communiqué after such an important meeting was insufficient and that a proper report back should have been made to the House by the Prime Minister so that we could all have questioned her on precisely what happened? Is he aware that we all think that a great deal more happened than was conveyed in that communiqué?
    Mr. Atkins: Hon. Gentlemen should not be so suspicious. That was one of a series of meetings that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had with other Governments, and the communiqué described accurately what took place.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: As the communiqué spoke about the totality of relationships within these Islands, will the Minister explain to the House how different that was from the basis of the Sunningdale talks? Will he give an assurance that as these iniquitous talks go on the House will have an opportunity to receive reports and be able to discuss them?
    Mr. Atkins: I was not at Sunningdale so I cannot, from my personal knowledge, give the hon. Gentleman any information about what happened there. I know what happened when my right hon. Friend and I and other members of the Government met the Taoiseach. We discussed a range of matters, which are detailed in the communiqué. We agreed that there were ways of developing the relationship between the Republic and the United Kingdom that ought to be explored, and studies are being put in hand to see how best that can be done.
    Mr. James A. Dunn: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note once again that grave anxieties have been expressed about the outcome of the Dublin talks? The communiqué satisfied very few, if any, in this House, and was to the disadvantage of the House and, in particular, of Northern Ireland. Will he take an early opportunity to clarify all the important issues discussed in Dublin, and perhaps seek from his right hon. Friend a commitment that she will come to the House and explain fully the agreements that she made?
    Mr. Atkins: This was one of a series of meetings that my right hon. Friend has had with the Prime Minister of a neighbouring country which is also a member of the European Community, and there will be further meetings. I think that the whole House agrees that it makes every kind of sense that we should develop relations between ourselves as best we can. The communiqué points out certain areas where we believe it is worth studying further how best to do this, and we are getting on with it. I shall, of course, be reporting to the House.
    Mr. Concannon: Is the Secretary of State aware that these excuses simply do not wash in the House, and that it is for the benefit of the House that we stress that it was a great mistake for the Prime Minister not to issue a statement to the House on her return from Dublin so that she could be questioned, and so that we could have open government, as the Taoiseach has in the South? When the next round of meetings comes up, we shall again press that the Prime Minister should report back so that she can be questioned and so that some of the rumours and innuendoes can be scotched at once.
    Mr. Atkins: I do not think that this is a question for me, but I shall take whatever steps are necessary to make certain that my right hon. Friend knows the right hon. Gentleman's point of view.

    District Councils
    Mr. Wm. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will now seek to remove the right of district councils to consult with the Housing Executive, the Roads Service and the Water Service in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. David Mitchell: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, because of the meaningless consultation arrangements, the electorate believes that the councils have real power, whereas in fact the power resides with the Minister, who either overrides the decisions of boards—as he did on rents in Northern Ireland—or exercises his authority through his nominees on the boards or through his officials and services? Is it not time for this meaningless charade

    1137
    to come to an end and for the Minister either to accept responsibility himself or to restore powers to local representatives and local government?
    Mr. Mitchell: The consultation procedures are an essential and vital link between the Government in Northern Ireland and the local communities, and it is certainly our intention to listen before we act.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to the level of rents. The level of rent increases in Northern Ireland is lower by 50p than it is on the mainland. That is in addition to the £1 reduction, making the level of rent £1·50 lower in Northern Ireland than it is on the mainland.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Minister aware that the people in Northern Ireland would be better served if more functions were given to local government, than if the few rights that it has were taken away?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will know that constitutional changes are a matter for my right hon. Friend.

    Parliamentary Boundary Commission (Report)
    Mr. J. Enoch Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to receive the final report of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Michael Alison): The Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland is required to submit its report to my right hon. Friend before June 1984. I understand that the Commission hopes to be in a position to report well in advance of that date.
    Mr. Powell: Do the Government recognise that it is in the interests of the democratic process generally in Northern Ireland that the new constituencies, which will be radically different from the existing ones, should be known and determined as soon as possible? Will the Government ensure that there are no obstacles in the way of a much earlier announcement and order being laid before the House?
    Mr. Alison: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there are no governmental obstacles in the way of the earliest possible report by the commission, but the commission, is an independent body. I was able to tell the right hon. Gentleman in my substantive reply that the commission hopes to be in a position to report well in advance of the 1984 deadline.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the parliamentary representation in this House is inadequate numerically, and that, failing a satisfactory increase in the number of parliamentary representatives in this House, the Government should give serious consideration to the proper integration of Ulster and Northern Ireland into the rest of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Alison: If I may give a purely quantitative reply to my hon. Friend's question, he will note that the Boundary Commission has proposed that there should in due course be 17 seats rather than the existing 12.

    Prime Minister (Engagements)
    Ql. Mr. Heddleasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 January.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
    Mr. Heddle: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the plight of industrial and commercial ratepayers, particularly those with premises in areas run by extravagant Labour-controlled councils? Will my right hon. Friend consider that perhaps local democracy might receive a much-needed shot in the arm if consideration were given to the reintroduction of the business vote at local government elections?
    The Prime Minister: Where local authorities ignore the need for making economies, a very heavy burden rests on business, and particularly on small business men, many of whom feel that they have taxation without representation. It can also have a very bad effect on jobs, as small busineses move out to other areas with lower rates. My right hon. Friend has the rating system under review, and the aspect of the business and commercial people not having a vote is one that certainly needs to be looked at.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Now that it has been determined—thanks not least to the Prime Minister's own determination—that political status for any prisoners is inadmissible in Northern Ireland or elsewhere, will she take time to consider how best that status can now be withdrawn from the 350 prisoners in Northern Ireland who still enjoy it?
    The Prime Minister: A number of us share the view of the Gardiner report that there should not be a separate category of prisoners and that there should be no such thing as special status. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, both the previous Labour Government and this Government decided that no further people should be admitted to that status. At the present time, apart from anything else, there would he practical reasons why one could not withdraw the special status from the others, because there is just not enough cell accommodation. But I should not wholly rest upon that immediately. There are wide considerations relating to withdrawing retrospectively the terms on which those sentences are being served.
    Sir William Clark: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to look into the after-effects of strikes? Is she aware that after the engineering strike in 1979, 130,000 jobs were lost, and that after the steel strike last year about 110,000 jobs were lost? What conclusions does she draw from that?
    The Prime Minister: It seems to me that my hon. Friend has drawn the conclusions, almost by virtue of the question, that strikes lose jobs, and the sooner the lesson is learnt the better.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Prime Minister find time today to read the speech last night by Sir Leslie Murphy, formerly the chairman of the National Enterprise Board, in which he particularly referred to the board as one of the victims of the battle between the extreme Right and the extreme Left in British politics? Is the right hon. Lady prepared to learn some lessons from that, or will she retreat further into a narrowing group of Right-wing Conservatives?
    The Prime Minister: I rather thought that that gentleman's speech condemned politicians carte blanche.
    Mr. Bob Dunnasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 15 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I have just given.
    Mr. Dunn: Does my right hon. Friend share the view that staffing levels in local government have increased partly because of the nature of the legislation that has been passed by successive Governments? Does she agree that local bureaucracies could be further reduced by repealing some of that legislation?
    The Prime Minister: Over the years increasing burdens have been placed on local authorities. That alone has led to increased manpower. Indeed, over the past 30 years manpower has doubled. We have reduced some of the functions and statutory duties of local authorities by means of the recent Local Government, Planning and Land Act. The Community Land Act has been repealed and planning powers are no longer duplicated. In addition, there is a good deal of relaxation of capital controls. Two things are involved: a reduction in the number of functions and the scope to carry out existing functions more efficiently and economically.
    Mr. Foot: During the right hon. Lady's study of speeches today, has she had a chance to study the speech by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury? From the very heart of the Government—I think that that is the description she approved of in The Times—could she tell us whether it is a good idea that the Financial Secretary should declare that, despite the fact that the two main pillars of the Government's economic policy—money supply and the public sector borrowing requirement—have crumbled, the Government will continue building the same old edifice?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman were to read the whole speech thoroughly—it is in the Library—he would probably agree with leader writers who, almost unanimously, called the speech "remarkably frank and intelligent", "modest and intelligent" and so on. They said that it was intelligent.
    Mr. Foot: I have had a chance to read the whole speech. Does the right hon. Lady agree with the proposition underlined in that speech—it has never before been so candidly admitted—namely, that the right hon. Lady's Government have increased the real burden of taxation? Is that part of the policy that the right hon. Lady is so determined to continue?
    The Prime Minister: I cannot in any way disagree with that highly intelligent speech. The person who made it is a lot more intelligent and perceptive than some of his critics. I do not disagree that the total burden of taxation, for the time being, has increased. However, it has not been increased on personal incomes. Indeed, the burden has been shifted from personal incomes to indirect taxation. That was part of our manifesto, which we intend to continue to carry out.
    Mr. Moate: On the controversial subject of the compulsory wearing of seat belts, may I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that it is still the Government's policy to abide by the results of a free vote in the House?
    The Prime Minister: The Government's policy has not changed.
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave some time ago.
    Mr. Price: Given the right hon. Lady's recent interest in leaks and in briefing small groups of the Lobby, will she find time today to consider genuine open government? Will she tell the House why her Chief Whip has told all her Ministers to cancel their engagements tomorrow and to be on a parade at 2·30 pm? Will she assure the House that the reason is that they will be able to vote for my motion, which contains the recommendations of an all-party group and which seeks to make a modest increase in open government in relation to Select Committees?
    The Prime Minister: Conservative Members will vote with or against the hon. Gentleman as they wish. [Interruption.] I think that I heard one of my right hon. Friends say that he would vote against the motion, and I believe that he will be followed by quite a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I understood that the objection of the Leader of the Opposition to the speech made by the Financial Secretary was that it was open.
    Mr. Latham: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the fight against inflation it is important to ensure that the nationalised industries do everything possible to absorb price increases, rather than pass them on to the consumer?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. There is a strong feeling that the private sector is much better at cutting costs than is the public sector. Over the past six years the increases in nationalised industries' prices, taken as a whole, have greatly exceeded any increases in prices in the private sector. [Interruption.] Opposition Members seem to be muttering "Gas". When the revenue from gas is taken into account, about £3 billion of taxpayers' money still has to be paid to subsidise the nationalised industries.
    Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the right hon. Lady reaffirm an undertaking that she gave in 1974 to the effect that the domestic rating system would be abolished during the course of a Parliament? If she does, she will certainly have my support.
    The Prime Minister: I must consider whether I find that prospect tempting. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the manifesto issued during the last election. We did not undertake to abolish the domestic rating system during the lifetime of this Parliament. It has always been my view, and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that the rating system will have to be abolished at some time. It is thoroughly undemocratic and unfair. I stand by both of those descriptions.
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 15 January.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave some time ago.
    Mr. Montgomery: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to remind people that while the latest figures show that the living standards of those in work rose last year, they did so at the expense of many jobs, because people priced their products out of the market? Is there not a lesson there for the seamen?
    The Prime Minister: It is a tragedy that, by demanding wages that are far greater than can be borne by their

    1141
    productivity, people price themselves out of jobs. As a result, the jobs and businesses go overseas. Not only do people price themselves out of jobs, but they price others out of jobs, some of whom have been very careful not to demand large wage increases. With my hon. Friend, I hope that the lesson will be learnt. More strikes mean more unemployment.
    Mr. James Hamilton: Given the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about the Financial Secretary's speech in Geneva, does the right hon. Lady accept that that speech proved conclusively that consumer prices have risen faster than the tax reductions announced by the Government? If the right hon. Lady is uncertain, will she do what she did during the election? Will she go round shopping centres with her shopping basket and ask housewives what the situation is, and so get the true picture?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend's speech is receiving so much publicity. I hope that everyone will read it. They will learn that before the last election prices were increasing at a very considerable rate.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: During my right hon. Friend's busy day, will she seek a meeting with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry on the situation facing the textile industry? Will she consider asking him to allocate to the textile industry, in one form or another, about one-tenth of the aid that the Government intend to give to the British motor industry and to British Leyland? The textile industry employs many more people than does the motor car industry. One-tenth of the aid given to British Leyland would save tens of thousands of jobs in the textile industry, where strikes are unknown, investment is tremendous—second only to that in chemicals—and where the people traditionally back Britain in every possible way.
    The Prime MinisterI am well aware of the essential truth of my hon. Friend's remark that far more people are employed in the textile industry than in some of the heavy industries, and that some of those jobs are at risk. As my hon. Friend knows, we shall require a very strong multifibre arrangement, which will be renegotiated soon. I support everything that my hon. Friend said about the people who work in the textile industry. We shall do all that we can to help in the renegotiation.

Business of the House
Mr. Michael Foot: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Paymaster General and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Francis Pym): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 19 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Criminal Attempts Bill.
Motions on the Local Authority Grants (Termination) (Scotland) Order, and on the undertakings relating to Highlands and Islands Shipping Services.
At Seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
TUESDAY 20 JANUARY—Remaining stages of the European Assembly Elections Bill.
Second Reading of the Water Bill.
WEDNESDAY 21 JANUARY—Supply [5th Allotted Day].
Debate on an Opposition motion on energy policy.
Motions on the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order, and on the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Orders.
THURSDAY 22 JANUARY—Debate on Welsh Affairs.
Motions on Northern Ireland consolidation orders on firearms, clean air, and road traffic, and on orders on Road Traffic (Consequential Amendments), Leasehold (Enlargement and Extension), Housing and Building Societies.
FRIDAY 23 JANUARY—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 26 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Forestry Bill.
Mr. Foot: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his elevation and wish him a short spell in office? I know that the House is eager to get on to the important debate ahead, but I should be grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's assistance on four points.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Criminal Attempts Bill, to be debated on Monday, is a proper Bill to be put to a Special Standing Committee for examination? Will he accept that suggestion? Will he indicate when the Chancellor will introduce such sections of his Budget as have not been previously leaked or announced?
There are two important matters that we pressed upon the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor and that I press upon him. The British Nationality Bill has been published this week. The more we look at it, the more we believe that the only proper way for the House of Commons to deal with a major constitutional measure of this nature is on the Floor of the House. We renew our appeal that the right hon. Gentleman should agree to our proposal.
Every day fresh appalling announcements of unemployment are made, like the announcement by Vauxhall today. Many more are coming. May we have an undertaking from the Leader of the House that when the next figures are announced, the week after next, time will be provided immediately for a debate? We will renew that demand every month while the figures are on their present scale.
Mr. Pym: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. I hope to be in this position for rather longer than he hopes, but I am grateful to him.
I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we intend to refer the Criminal Attempts Bill for consideration
1144
under the new Special Standing Committee arrangements. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor intends to introduce his Budget on Tuesday 10 March.
I have made no announcement this week about the British Nationality Bill, but I have noted the exchanges that took place beween the right hon. Gentleman and my predecessor. I do not want to cause the right hon. Gentleman to entertain any false hopes on this matter. I simply say that I shall consider what he said.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about a debate on the unemployment figures. We are having a debate today on the economy generally, to which unemployment is relevant. Other opportunities for such a debate have been taken in the past and will no doubt occur in the future. I take note of his request, but can give no undertaking.
Mr. John Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend allow time for a general debate on immigration before the British Nationality Bill is discussed in the House, bearing in mind that immigration is so rarely debated here?
Mr. Pym: I regret that I do not think that there will be time to include an extra debate on immigration. There will be an opportunity to debate it when the Bill comes before the House.
Mr. John McWilliam: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why my copy of the British Nationality Bill, which was not leaked to me but which I collected from the Vote Office on the way here, is marked "Restricted". What effect will that have on the debate?
Mr. Pym: I do not think that it will have any effect.
Mr. Michael Brown: Has my right hon. Friend noticed during his first few days of office the new printed form of Hansard? Has he read the speech of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) on 26 January 1978, when he announced the new printing arrangements for Hansard? The right hon. Gentleman said that it would not lead to the sort of inefficiencies, photocopying and duplicating that we have seen today, just 72 hours after those promises of two years ago came into effect. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that Hansard will be produced in the form indicated by the right hon. Gentleman when he informed the House what the new printing arrangements would be?
Mr. Pym: I regret that there was a little difficulty in respect of Tuesday's Hansard. An emergency arrangement was made to print it in another form, but since then the proper version has appeared. Naturally, like the whole House, I hope that no further interruptions will occur.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Is the Leader of the House aware that hardly a day passes without the media shedding crocodile tears over poor Mr. Roy Jenkins and his future? As there is an excellent motion on the Order Paper in my name setting out some of the details and facts about this poor, hard-working and now part-time employed man, will the right hon. Gentleman find time for a debate.?
[That this House notes that Mr. Roy Jenkins, the man who did so much to get Great Britain into the Common Market, with so much financial and other benefits to himself, has returned to Great Britain and notes that, according to Nigel Dempster's column, Daily Mail, 29th December 1980, his efforts have been rewarded to the extent described as follows, "A Roy Worth Robbing"

1145
headed 'A tax-free capital sum of more than £150,000, I estimate, has been amassed by former Home Secretary Roy Jenkins during his four years as President of the EEC Commission, from which he retires on New Year's Eve. Jenkins, 60, was appointed at a virtual tax-free salary of £43,500 a year, plus a further £14,319 in living allowances, and the salary has since gone up to £60,000 p.a. with a commensurate increase in perks. For the next three years he will receive £30,000 a year, free of British lax and paid in Belgian francs, as a 'transitional allowance'; and at 65 he will be eligible for a weekly pension of £200, also paid in Belgium. It has been a heady financial transition for Jenkins, a Labour MP for 28 years, who was earning £7,500 a year after tax before he took the post. He quit politics after being beaten by Jim Callaghan for the Premiership, following Harold Wilson's resignation; observes that this is not too bad for a person who loudly proclaims himself in favour of an income policy for others but not for himself; acknowledges that these amounts were paid for in part by the hard-pressed British taxpayer, employed and unemployed; and would welcome a public declaration from Mr. Jenkins that he intends contributing at least 50 per cent. of these amounts to the General Fund of the Labour Party, which did so much to enable him to be in such fortunate circumstances in 1981.]
Everyone is interested to know in which direction dear Roy is going.
Mr. Pym: Not next week, Mr. Speaker.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that on Welsh day on Thursday it will be in order to debate the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs?
Mr. Pym: That report will be relevant to the debate. I have it in mind to state that fact on the Order Paper on the relevant day.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: In view of the gravity of the dispute in the shipping industry, do the Government intend to make another statement on the subject at an early opportunity? Will the Government consider persuading the employers to go to arbitration?
Mr. Pym: Obviously, the whole House hopes that the dispute will end. It is essentially a matter between the employers and the union concerned. The Government are of course in touch with the situation. I shall convey the hon. Gentleman's views to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade. If a statement is appropriate, it can be arranged.
Mr. Nicholas Scott: Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that the Government intend to have a debate on the Armitage report before 10 February?
Mr. Pym: I am aware that there is a great deal of interest in the report. A great many hon. Members want a debate, and I want to seek as early an opportunity as I can to make arrangements to enable that to happen. I have no date in mind at the moment, but I appreciate that a debate will be highly desirable.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those right hon. and hon. Members who have been rising in their places and then to move on to the main business of the day.
Mr. Douglas Jay: As there is to be a Budget on 10 March, may we assume that there will be
1146
a statement every week in the press on the Government's Budget intentions, similar to that which occurred last Tuesday?
Mr. Pym: I sincerely hope not, but it would not be a bad idea if we had some more speeches such as that just made by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury.
Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate the Race Relations Board, bearing in mind the nonsense that it keeps issuing? Does he appreciate that British Leyland was prosecuted for racial bias in Leeds when the only crime that it had committed was to insist that application forms should be filled in in English? It will surely be agreed that if we continue to allow the Race Relations Board to look upon the use of English as an offence, there will soon be a need for notice boards in Urdu and Chinese. Is it not time that we discussed how the Race Relations Board should keep its feet on the ground and prevent the board damaging the race relations in which we all believe?
Mr. Pym: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's interest in the Race Relations Board and the matters with which it deals. There is widespread interest in the House. I do not, however, see an opportunity for a debate in the foreseeable future, but I shall keep my hon. Friend's request in mind.
Mr. George Foulkes: Will the Leader of the House say when hon. Members will have an opportunity to consider the recommendations from the all-party talks on the consideration of Scottish business by the House? These talks were concluded some time ago. It would seem appropriate to deal with the matter expeditiously and so enable the Scottish Grand Committee, for example, to meet in Scotland—if that is one of the recommendations, as I hope it is, to emerge from the talks.
Mr. Pym: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I say that I should like further notice of the question and that I shall consider the point that he has made.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the important jobs facing the country is to bring down the level of pay settlements to between 0 per cent. and 5 per cent. rather than 5 per cent. and 15 per cent.? Does he agree that the House cannot pass legislation on this matter but can provide a lead and consider it properly, although not by the sort of motion that is before the House today, which allows party feelings to play a bigger part than is necessary?
Will my right hon. Friend try to initiate, through the usual channels, the possibility of a discussion on how to bring down the general level of pay settlements by acceptable means so that hon. Members on both sides can contribute in a bipartisan way? This will be necessary if the matter is to be handled effectively.
Mr. Pym: I doubt whether it is practical to think of a way of achieving on the Floor of the House what my hon. Friend proposes. I note that hon. Members on both sides do not hesitate to take the opportunity to express their views on these matters. The economic debates that take

1147
place are reasonably frequent, taking Supply time into account, and are probably the best way of pursuing the important points that my hon. Friend raises.
Mr. David Ennals: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to early-day motion 104, signed by many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House?
[That bearing in mind the overwhelming evidence that the wearing of seat belts saves loss of life and serious injury in road accidents and the fact that on three occasions in the last five years the House has overwhemingly voted in favour of the compulsory wearing of seat belts, this House urges the Secretary of State for Transport to accept in the Transport Bill now before the House an amendment making provision for the wearing of seat belts to be made obligatory.]
Is it not illogical that a Bill that deals with road safety does not cover one of the most important aspects of road safety? Will the right hon. Gentleman have words with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport about this situation?
Mr. Pym: We had a debate on the Transport Bill earlier this week, when a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House referred to the question of seat belts. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport explained his position. I do not think that I have anything further to add.
Mr. Robert Adley: Has my right hon. Friend received, or looked at, the letter I sent him asking for an early debate on the recommendations of the IBA, particularly the introduction to this country of the American habit of breakfast television? Does he agree that social implications are involved which have nothing to do with the granting of contracts? Absenteeism from work and truancy from school, for example, may result from the proposal. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the House should at least be allowed to express an opinion on a change that could have more far-reaching effects than he may so far have considered?
Mr. Pym: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. The fact is that Parliament devolved to the IBA the responsibilities that the authority has just carried out. There is no reason why the House should not debate the matter. I would have thought that it was a subject more suitable for a Private Members' day than a Government day.
Mr. John Maxton (Glasgow, Cathcart);Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be considerable anger among Scottish Members on the Opposition Benches and among local councillors in Scotland about the timing and the length of the debates on the rate support grant for Scotland and the housing support grant for Scotland? Is he aware that this could mean that 40 Opposition Members who represent local authorities hard hit by the Government's proposals will have 15 to 20 minutes between them on the rate support grant? Does he agree that if the Tories had carried out their promises in the 1974 manifesto and had supported the idea of a Scottish Assembly, this sort of situation would never have arisen?
Mr. Pym: I was aware of a view—it had been represented to me privately—that matters might have been better arranged in a different manner. I considered this view but I came to the conclusion that what I have announced is, in all the circumstances, reasonable.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there was apparently not only trouble on Tuesday over the printing of Hansard but that this morning the first part of Hansard, up to 7 pm, was printed normally, but the second part, which was the best part—because it contained my speech—was only a roneoed version? This trouble has occurred many times in the last year or so. As my right hon. Friend will recall, we were told that the new format would make easier the regular printing of Hansard. Can action be taken over this matter?
Mr. Pym: I hope very much that there will not be further difficulties with Hansard. I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates that a very big change has been made. New technology has been introduced on quite a large scale to make the change possible, and problems have arisen as a result. Discussions between the management and the unions have been going on. I can only say that I hope that they are successful so that there are no further interruptions.
Mr. Alfred Dubs: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a better reason than the one he gave the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) for the House not discussing the Race Relations Board, namely, that the board ceased to exist several years ago and was replaced by the Commission for Racial Equality?
If the Leader of the House will not allow hon. Members to discuss the Committee stage of the British Nationality Bill on the Floor of the House, will he say whether he intends to allow the Committee to have the benefit of the suggested new procedure, whereby a number of sittings of the Committee will be devoted to hearing evidence before hon. Members deal with the substantive part of the Bill?
Mr. Pym: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the British Nationality Bill. Without raising any hopes, I will consider that aspect. It is not only fair but true to say that this Government introduced a new procedure. We said that we would put two or three Bills to it for an experimental Session. That is now happening. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says. We can discuss it when I mention it in a business statement in the next week or so.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Would it not be more conducive to the well-being of hon. Members and the possible efficiency of their work if we were to abandon the new technologies and returned to the old ones, specifically the old format of Hansard and the old ticker tape annunciator of what was going on in the House, instead of the unreliable television screens, which frequently fail to function?
Mr. Pym: I note that the hon. Gentleman would prefer to go backwards rather than forwards. I doubt whether there would be a majority for that view.

Orders of the Day
  SUPPLY
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

Economic and Monetarist Policies
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
3.49 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: I beg to move,
That this House, gravely alarmed by the continuing decline in output, employment and investment in British industry, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to abandon its disastrous economic and monetarist policies, which are impoverishing and dividing the nation.
We have taken this opportunity, the first since the recess, to open our attack on the Government's economic policies which, as our motion states, are
"impoverishing and dividing the nation."
I give notice that we shall continue to press our attack with all the force that we can command until we achieve the abandonment of these dangerous and damaging policies.
Not for 50 years has economic policy been so important and so worrying, or the stakes so high. Indeed, ever since 1945 the House and numerous Governments have directed their minds to the question of inadequate economic growth—growth that has been less than that of our main competitors and less than we could and should have attained, and yet which, by any standard of the past century, was faster than we had had before. It was a growth reflected in a remarkable improvement in the living standards of the British people. Since the oil price explosion in late 1973 and early 1974, with all the painful national and international consequences that have flowed from it, growth everywhere has slowed down, and in Britain it has been reduced to a snail's pace.
Now we have entered a new and, I believe, far more dangerous phase. Since the advent to power of the present Government in May 1979 and the implementation of their policies a few months later, the economy has lurched from stagnation to decline. The dimensions of that decline are truly terrifying. Unemployment—I refer only to the recorded figures—has risen by over 945,000, and more than three-quarters of it is in manufacturing industry. Nationally, one in 11 of our people is out of work. In many of the regions the figures are far worse. In the West Midlands one in 10 people is unemployed; in Scotland and the North-West, one in nine; in Wales and the North, one in eight; and more than one in seven in Northern Ireland.
As the House well knows, in the past six months there has been a sharp acceleration of job losses. The increase in unemployment is now running at about 100,000 jobs a month, and, as a consequence, over 2,100,000 people who are able and willing to work are condemned to idleness. It is the highest level certainly since the early 1930s.
I have never liked the expression "shake-out", but it would be a minor consolation if that were the situation—if production had been sustained and manning reduced by a great surge in productivity. However, production has not been maintained. National output has fallen by 6 per cent. since the second quarter of 1979, and
1150
manufacturing output has fallen by no less than 15 per cent. since the general election of May 1979. It is a sharper decline than we had even in the great depression of 1929–31. Those are undeniable facts. That is why, if for no other reason—and there are plenty more—1980 will be burnt into the memory of the British people, and why the Government will not be forgiven for what they have done.
The broad picture of the disaster that is overtaking the British people was plain when the House last debated economic affairs on 27 November, about seven weeks ago. It was a remarkable debate, for several reasons. First, there was a confession of failure by the Government in terms of their own blinkered objectives—control of the money supply and the dimensions of the PSBR; the fact that the money supply was running at 22 per cent. against the aim of seven to 11 per cent; and the fact that the PSBR, set at £8.5 billion in the Budget of 1980, will almost certainly reach—well, what is it? Is it £11½ billion or £12 billion or more in the course of this financial year? Secondly, in that debate strong pleas were made to the Government to reverse their policies, not only by Her Majesty's Opposition but by the former Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who spoke for a substantial body of opinion in his party and in the Cabinet.
The key question today is what the Government's reactions to those events are? What, in the more relaxed period over the Christmas Recess, has been their serious appraisal of their experience so far? What lessons have they learnt? What remedial actions do they now propose to take?
Since our debate in November there has been a large flow of additional and highly relevant information that must, too, be weighed by the Government and by the House in our continuing deliberations. First, we have had the Department of Industry's survey of industry's investment intentions in 1981 and, as we accept, the much more tentative first appraisal of 1982. Across the whole field of manufacturing, distribution and services a fall of between 4 per cent. and 9 per cent. in investment is predicted for 1981. For manufacturing industry, the fall is estimated—I am taking account of leasing arrangements—at between 11 per cent. and 16 per cent. That fall will follow the decrease of about 6 per cent. that we have already had in 1980 over 1979.
Then we have had the Department of the Environment's figures for the construction industry. Construction output as a whole in the third quarter of 1980 was 11 per cent. lower than for the same quarter in 1979. New orders were down by 19 per cent. over the same period. Within that total, private housing new orders were down by no less than 38 per cent. and those for public housing by 35 per cent. over the same period in 1979.
The public sector figures will have been influenced by the Secretary of State's moratorium in the summer. Now that we have knowledge of the further savage reductions in the housing investment programmes announced for 1981–82, that trend is hardly likely to be reversed.
I emphasise those figures for industrial investment and new construction not only because they have become available since we last debated economic affairs but because, more than any other economic indicators, they help to reveal the national performance, just as they will help, above all, to determine the future progress of our nation in the years ahead.

1151
Next, I turn to the spate of forecasts about the overall performance of the British economy this year and next. To save time, I shall refer only to the summary of domestic forecasts that appeared in the business survey of The Sunday Times a week last Sunday, together with the OECD's latest economic outlook. All of us are rightly wary of individual forecasts, but the weight of evidence cannot be ignored, particularly when independent and reputable forecasting bodies corroborate the Government's own forecast, published under the requirement of the Industry Act as recently as 24 November.
It is generally agreed that output will fall yet again in 1981, with manufacturing output at least 4 per cent. down. Whether output will stabilise later this year at its appallingly low level seems to depend more on decisions about stocks and the level of personal savings than upon any other factors. One of the most worrying features in those surveys for 1981 is the expected decline in British exports, with the OECD, in particular, forecasting a substantial deficit on the United Kingdom balance of payments in 1982.
Inflation will of course fall. It is even possible that two years after they came to power this Government will actually reach the level of year-on-year inflation that they inherited on taking office in May 1979, but the forecasts certainly do not suggest any substantial improvement beyond that level, and what a price has been and is being paid for that in terms of employment or, rather, unemployment.
The debate on 27 November took place just after the monthly unemployment figures had been published, with the appalling leap to just over 2,100,000, to which I earlier referred. The December figures came out on, I believe, 23 December and brought the total to over 2,200,000. There have been many forecasts of the level that unemployment is likely to reach in the next 12 to 18 months. I do not intend to add to them at this stage. However, if the present trend of weekly unemployment of about 20,000 to 25,000 were to be more than halved and reduced to 10,000 a week, and if that continued throughout the year, at least another 500,000 people would be unemployed at the end of 1981. The House will bear that prospect in mind.
I emphasise and invite the House to consider the enormity of what has happened already. In the last 12 months about 900,000 people have been flung out of work, with all the misery for individuals and families and the disruption of communities which that involves.
In the light of all the further information covering the main sectors of the economy, which does not contradict but confirms and corroborates the Government's own estimates of the period ahead, it is beyond all reason that current policies should still be pursued. That is why we looked for evidence of change in the weeks of the recess. That is why we shall listen with close attention when the Chancellor of the Exchequer speaks.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Before the right hon. Gentleman explains what the Labour Party thinks should happen, may I refer him to the last year when there was a large drop in manufacturing output? Average levels of pay increases for people who have kept their jobs have been 15 to 20 per cent. As there has not been a Government incomes policy, pay increases have been left to the free market, one side of which involves the trade
1152
unions and the people who negotiate at work. Will the right hon. Gentleman make a plea today at the the Labour Party conference or at the TUC conference for a method of bringing pay settlements down, not by a voluntary incomes policy but through a general understanding that that is one of the ways to stop the rise in unemployment?
Mr. Shore: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but that does not reflect exactly the type of thinking on the Government Front Bench. The first step towards achieving the necessary agreement on incomes is to stop putting up prices.
The Government's reaction so far to all the events and the accumulating evidence has been extraordinary and, indeed, frightening. I include yesterday's comments by the Financial Secretary in Zurich. Two sentences in his remarkably intelligent speech deserve to be quoted, given the accolades bestowed upon their author by the Prime Minister a few minutes ago. The Financial Secretary told his distinguished Zurich audience:
"I am not trying to pretend that our record so far has been one of unalloyed success."
He went on to say something which is far more worrying, and I invite the House to bear his words in mind in the light of my remarks and what is known about the economy. He said:
"the signs suggest that, taking the economy as a whole, we have now more or less reached the bottom, and better times are clearly in sight."
In the last few weeks we have experienced a sustained public relations exercise; I include the Financial Secretary's speech. We have had "Operation Optimism" led by the Prime Minister, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Ministers playing supporting roles. However, nowhere have I been able to detect any recognition, let alone real concern, of the appalling state of the national economy. I have rehearsed the evidence to the House. There is an additional fact: more companies went into liquidation in 1980 than in any other post-war year.
In her new year interview on "The World This Weekend", the Prime Minister suddenly discovered, to her comfort and to the amazement of her listeners, that a few more new companies were formed last year than in previous years. Since the object of forming a company often has nothing to do with productive activity but has to do with the arrangement of tax affairs, that should have caused her to pause. Even more should the fact that individuals and partnerships fearing bankruptcy should opt for company status for the precise reason that limited liability safeguards personal assets against trade creditors in liquidation. For the Prime Minister, however, all that was evidence of stirring new activity in the small business grass roots of British industry.
Again, the Prime Minister took comfort in the fact that the number of firms or individuals coming on to the VAT register was as great last year as the number coming off. With the current rate of inflation, that surely is only to be expected. It tells us nothing about economic activity.
The Prime Minister informed us that 250,000 people come off the unemployment register each month—as she put it, one every 10 seconds. She omitted to mention that 350,000 go on to the register each month—or one every seven seconds. She also claimed that in 1980 we increased our share in world trade with our exports. I cannot find the evidence for that. According to the Treasury's export report, our export market increased by

1153
an estimated 8 per cent. in 1980 while our exports increased by only 1 per cent. If that is so, our share of exports could not have risen. I hope that that will be cleared up.
As if, like Joan of Arc, the Prime Minister had been listening to voices, she instructed herself on the lessons of the last year. She said "First continue your policies for sound money, that is, keep the increase in the supply of money in line with the increase in the supply of goods and services. Continue your policies to ensure that industry becomes competitive and then keep the incentives in the tax system so that the moment that you start to get an expansion there really will be something for people to go for."
What does the right hon. Lady mean by "sound money"? Prices have increased 27p in the pound since May 1979. What about keeping money supply in line with the increase in the supply of goods and services? National output has fallen 6 per cent. since the second quarter of 1979 and the money supply has been running at the rate of about 22 per cent. What about ensuring that industry becomes competitive? The latest figures suggest that since May 1979 the competitiveness of British industry has declinded by about 40 per cent. in relation to its world competitors.
What about incentives in the tax system? There was some incentive for people earning more than £10,000 a year but no incentives for over 90 per cent. of the population, who earn below that level. I do not believe that the country has ever been subjected to so frivolous, false, frighteningly unreal and introverted an address as that made by the Prime Minister on that day.
No less discouraging has been the thinking aloud by Treasury Ministers during recent weeks. I have already referred to the Financial Secretary. What about the others? The conclusions drawn by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his article in The Sunday Times last month were—surprise, surprise—that his strategy was basically right, and that whatever happened we must not pull the lever labelled "demand management". He said that the people had a dangerous tendency
"to exaggerate the power of Government in economic affairs."
I accept a little of that. There is a danger of people exaggerating the power of Governments to do good. But that they do not exaggerate the power of Governments to do evil there is no question.
The former Chief Secretary, now Secretary of State for Trade, was, as expected, by far the most interesting of the Treasury team. He refused our invitation to make public the speech that he delivered to Conservative Back Benchers in mid-December. I suspect that, arch monetarist that he is, he has grown increasingly sceptical of the wisdom of attempting to run the economy by setting public and quantitative monetary targets. His reflections on the lost first year—I recall his vivid description—became clear during the course of his radio interview on 1 January. He was frank enough to admit the major impact of a rising sterling exchange rate which, as he put it, had had
'a serious effect on the general fortunes of our manufacturing industry and upon the levels of unemployment".
The right hon. Gentleman's other conclusion was that the Government had not acted brutally enough when cutting public expenditure. His remedy was clear. If the money supply is not as controllable as it should be, if public expenditure fails to come down according to plan and if the public sector borrowing requirement is higher
1154
than its target, the right hon. Gentleman's answer is, inescapably, that the Government must raise taxation. That is embarrassing, is it not, because it has always been the Government's contention that we are over-taxed as a nation? Discussion of that very matter was the source of recent press reports and a remarkable leak, judged against the background of a series of remarkable leaks. The then Chief Secretary said that the Government had made a specific commitment only in the sense of direct personal taxation. It is that specific commitment, especially in relation to income tax, that, if the leaks are correct, has apparently been maintained.
Where does that leave us? Will there be further taxes on industry, already flattened by recession, or upon the consumer in the form of VAT, excise duties, licence fees and so on? The fact that such fresh exactions will raise the retail price index and increase year-on-year inflation is irrelevant to the true monetarists. "Inflation has nothing to do with prices; it is all about wages and salaries."
The crucial point that I wish to make is that the only lesson that the Government seem to have drawn from the appalling experience of the past 18 months is that if they cannot deflate far and fast enough by one policy instrument—monetary supply—they must deflate by using the tax instrument as well. Deflation is, and remains, the Government's objective, with all that that means for the future contraction of output and for the further rise in unemployment. The Government know that. Their protestations of concern about unemployment are nauseatingly false.
The Government have failed to learn the fundamental fallacy of their analysis, that the problem that they have sought to remedy is cost-inflation, not demand-inflation, and that the more energetically they cut demand, the more certain it is that unit costs will rise, that public expenditure—in spite of continuing cuts—will maintain the same proportionate share of a diminishing national output, that investment will continue to fall and that the nation will continue to be impoverished and divided.
My conclusions about the results of the Government's cerebrations during the recess have been reinforced by the new appointments made by the Prime Minister. For one marvellous moment I thought that I heard on the BBC that the Chancellor had been sacked. Alas. it turned out to be the Chancellor of the Duchy, not the Chancellor of the Exchequer—not the old dead sheep, but the sacrificial lamb. I assume that the main purpose of his dismissal was pour encourager les autres—to read the Riot Act to those other Cabinet Ministers who have become totally disillusioned with the economic policy of the Prime Minister. We congratulate the new Chief Secretary on his great promotion. We pray that he does not have too close a relationship with his remarkable brother.
Next, there is the appointment of Professor Alan Walters. What a remarkable display of distrust by the Prime Minister in her Chancellor of the Exchequer is that appointment. Professor Walters, a hard-line monetarist, the most highly paid servant of the government, will be working directly to the Prime Minister—a sort of intellectual policeman ensuring that the will of the First Lord of the Treasury prevails over whatever doubts and hesitations the Treasury team occasionally entertains. What distinguishes the professor from other monetarists, and no doubt justifies his appointment, is that he has not been exposed to any experience of Government.

1155
When I read the views that Professor Walters expressed in such intellectually distinguished publications as a pamphlet issued by Aims of Industry, I shudder for Britain and fear that the learning curve of that very influential academic could be the most dangerous and expensive period for this nation—indeed, for any nation since Rasputin won the ear of the Empress of Russia. We shall hear the tired old refrain that there is no alternative and that the Government are committed to folly and the nation to disaster because folly and disaster are the only options. That is not so.
The Government have nailed themselves to the cross of dogma. Let me assist them to escape. Let them accept the undeniable real world fact that in the British economy—with 2 million unemployed and more than 80 per cent. of our firms working well below capacity—the major problem we face today is lack of effective demand. Let them recognise, without fudging, that their own central policies for the money supply and the public sector borrowing requirement, judged by their own criteria, have now failed. Let them be aware that in the circumstances of national slump the Opposition and the country are thankful for small mercies. I shudder to think what would have been the position for our industry and our people—the bankruptcies and the further unemployment—if either or both of those targets had been achieved, or if the Government were still trying to achieve them in 1980–81.
Now that the Government have suspended their monetary targets, at least until after the Budget, let them take the opportunity to rethink their whole stance and to recognise that the economy cannot be run, other than to destruction, by the excessive pursuit of that wayward mistress, M3, or any other monetary harlot that the Financial Secretary decides to woo. Let them instead enter at once into a serious dialogue with British industry, with employers and with trade unions on the real problems of our economy, including, of course, the need for effective counter-inflation measures. Let them address themselves seriously to the great problem of our loss of international competitiveness. The costs of British industry must be reduced. An agreed counter-inflation policy is crucial to that, but so are a number of other specific measures.
First, we must reduce our energy prices, especially for bulk power users, to bring them into line with those of our competitors, as the recent NEDC report made clear. Secondly, the national insurance surcharge should now be considerably reduced and eventually repealed. In present circumstances that cost on British industry should be reduced with the purpose of phasing it out at the earliest possible moment. Thirdly, minimum lending rate must be reduced to single figures. Fourthly, it must be a principal objective of the Government to achieve and maintain a competitive exchange rate, lower interest rates—
Mr. Tim Eggar: The right hon. Gentleman has made a number of criticisms of Government policy. May we have a coherent explanation from him of the exact nature of the Opposition's economic policy?
Mr. Shore: If the hon. Gentleman listens, he will hear the first instalment. He will hear in successive debates very much more about all the matters that concern him.
Lower interest rates will help with the exchange rate, but they may need to be fortified by other measures.
1156
Fifthly, the Government must abandon their ridiculous target for the financing of nationalised industries that will result in a swing of over £2,000 million from deficit into surplus in the course of four years. All these measures will assist, as they are intended to, the competitiveness of British industry at home and abroad.
Finally, let the Government reconsider their attitude to public expenditure and the public sector borrowing requirement. Surely it must have dawned on them now that cuts in public expenditure of the sort that they have embarked upon damage rather than assist industry, both private and public. Every time the mad axeman of Marsham Street attacks the local authorities, the regional water boards and the other public sector agencies that come within his great Department, he inflicts fresh penalties on the construction and building industries, which are overwhelmingly private enterprise. The apparent savings made by him and other Ministers in other large spending Departments are substantially negated by the increase in payments that his colleague the Secretary of State for Social Security has to make in the form of unemployment pay and supplementary benefits and by the loss of tax revenues that his colleague the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to bear. This is precisely what the Chancellor had to acknowledge in his statement of 24 November in explaining why public expenditure had remained higher than he had planned.
Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: I take it that the advice that the right hon. Gentleman is giving us on the need to increase rather than to diminish public expenditure is precisely that which he gave his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in 1976. No doubt he told his right hon. Friend then that cutting public expenditure would lead to increased unemployment. Will he tell us why the reverse happened?
Mr. Shore: There was an entirely different situation in 1976. What I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is what I said to him. It is not what I am going to say in the House. I have some respect for the privacy of Cabinet.
Mr. Eggar: Oh.
Mr. Shore: That may seem a somewhat old-fashioned view, but I have that respect. I do not come to the House and, to use a famous phrase
"like a whore unpack my heart with words"
about the opportunities that I have had to argue, debate and discuss with my colleagues in the privacy of Cabinet.
What we need now is not cuts in public expenditure but, as the hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) rightly assumed that I was going to say, a substantial and well-judged increase in expenditure on housing and roads and on other infrastructure programmes.
Yesterday I met the leaders of the National Federation of Building Trades Employers. The disaster that they revealed to me and other Labour Members is, I believe, true. I believe further that, if it is not corrected, we shall do irreparable damage to those industries. Never in our history have the building and construction industries sustained such injury—not even in the days of Neville Chamberlain—as they are sustaining now. On the contrary, even to the Government of the 1930s, improvement in the physical assets of the country—for example, housing and roads—was a principal counter-recession measure.

1157
Let the Government consider seriously and soberly what they have done this year to London and other major cities. The massive cuts in Goverment grants, both capital and current, to local authorities in inner city areas will this year be devastating. The cuts will have no effect other than to increase the level of unemployment that is already too high and to delay the improvement in the infrastructure and environment of our decaying inner cities.
Let the Government review their regional policies. Let them consider again whether it makes sense to withdraw assisted area status from the intermediate areas, and let them consider the case for reintroducing regional employment premium in the development areas.
I have suggested no more than an interim programme to rescue British industry and to arrest and reverse the present disastrous increase in unemployment. Let there be no doubt that there has to be a major reversal of the Government's present economic policies.
We are on the road to ruin. It is a paradox and a tragedy that, at the very moment when Britain has become self-sufficient in that most valuable and expensive commodity, oil, we are facing the worst experience and outlook for our economy for the past 50 years. It takes an extraordinary capacity for mismanagement to turn an asset that should be enriching us into a burden that is impoverishing us. Policy must be changed. It will be changed. The only question is how much more damage will be inflicted before this stubborn, myopic and divisive Government are forced to alter course or, far better, to hand over to a new Administration.
4.28 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
"this House, while recognising the severity of present economic difficulties, endorses the priority given by the Government to mastering inflation and improving competitiveness, and calls on the Government to maintain its present policies for economic recovery, which alone offer the prospect of a lasting reduction in unemployment."
The amendment is addressed quite properly to the subject that was at the heart of the speech of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore), the three topics about which successive Governments and successive Parliaments have been concerned for a number of years—namely, unemployment, inflation and lack of growth. I can understand why the right hon. Gentleman gave prominence to the subject of unemployment. What I fail to understand is by what right or title of common sense the right hon. Gentleman seeks to claim for his party a monopoly of concern about unemployment. It has always struck me as being legitimate to have discussions in the House about whether we have the appropriate methods and policies with which to deal with these problems. However, for either party to suggest that its opponents are unconcerned about employment is the height of folly.
The Government will stand for judgment by the British people like any other Government. We are as concerned as every other party about the success of our economic policies. By the end of this month I and my right hon. Friends will have visited Scotland, Ulster and the North-East. I shall be as intensely aware as any other hon. Member of the demoralisation and waste that are involved in avoidable unemployment.
1158
I am also aware—it is a pity that hon. Members opposite are not more aware of it—that under the previous Government, whom they supported the number of people out of work more than doubled. We do not accuse them. It is wrong to suggest that the high level of unemployment is a consequence of this Government's policies. To suggest that the problem could disappear, although it failed to disappear under the previous Government but grew in size, as a result of any sudden or undiscovered change of policy is cruelly to deceive all those who are unwillingly without a job.
The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar knows well that there are two distinct sets of causes for rising unemployment. The chairman of the United States Federal Reserve Bank said the other day that America's problems had been decades in the making. If that is true of the United States, how much more true is it of the United Kingdom?
In our economy, under successive Governments and for too long, too many people have been paid for doing jobs that ought not to have survived. Governments have connived in that. In State-owned industries, in steel, in railways, in central and in local government and sometimes even in the most respected private companies, overmanning has not merely been the scourge of efficiency: in the end it has turned out to be the cause of today's unemployment. All that has been made far worse by pay levels rising much faster than those of our overseas competitors.
Those are the causes. The right hon. Gentleman acknowledges that all those domestic causes have been compounded by more potent factors—for example, the upheavals that have taken place in the world oil market. It is estimated that a 10 per cent. rise in OPEC oil prices would reduce gross domestic products throughout the OECD by over ½ per cent. In the last two years, those oil prices have risen by over 150 per cent. The OECD calculates that the impact of those oil price increases alone on GDP throughout the member countries has been 6½ per cent. this year.
The point is dramatically underlined by today's increase in the price of petrol, which has affected every industrialised country in a sharp check to growth and a sharp rise in unemployment. It is no wonder that those factors have affected our country more seriously than many others.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Was not the whole burden of the lurid advertisements in relation to unemployment that appeared on hoardings during the election that the Conservative Government would somehow miraculously be able to transform the situation? If not, what was the purpose of proclaiming those figures so loudly? Is it not a fact that the situation is now beyond the control of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and that he has exacerbated the situation? What is his prognosis on unemployment?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to make a speech, he can make it in due course. The policies on which we were elected were policies presented for a Parliament to correct the health of the nation's economy. They will take time to do that, as we have made clear.
An example of the policies with which we are concerned is that of policies on the international oil situation. In our last debate we were rightly reminded by

1159
my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that we should do everything possible to check the explosive growth in oil prices. I give the House the assurance that the Government fully recognise the importance of that task. Like so many things, it is a matter of continuous application rather than of a single gesture or initiative.
Last year, along with all the other Western nations, we were again threatened by the prospect of massive oil price increases following the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq war. The situation remains serious, but thus far it has been contained and further sharp upward surges in prices, which we had feared, have not materialised.—[Interruption.] Far beyond that which appears to concern the hon. Member for Dunfermline (Mr. Douglas).
The matter is still serious, but those sharp rises which could have happened have been avoided because of the firm and well-judged measures which have been agreed by the International Energy Authority and by the European Community. It is right that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy has played a leading part in the formulation and presentation of those proposals. The Government will continue to do exactly what is necessary in that respect.
When we consider the domestic economy, it is our belief—all our experience suggests that it is right—that the key to recovery must be success in the fight against inflation. We agree with virtually every other major OECD country on the top priority of the reduction of inflation. Surely the lesson of all recent years is that more inflation means more unemployment and less growth. In that battle against inflation, monetary policy, which the right hon. Gentleman has sought specifically to discard, has a fundamental role to play. A detailed discussion of the monetary targets which we shall set for the next year must wait until my Budget Statement on 10 March.
As my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary explained in his first-class speech yesterday, monetary control is essential and is part of the permanent framework of a stable economy. There is universal international recognition of that. I will now quote on that matter not a familiar source, but one authoritative source, which said the other day:
"If the money supply continues to increase, it is possible things will go out of control. If this situation occurs all of the improvements that have been made to the lives of the people will be lost."
That wise observation comes not from Professor Friedman or Professor Walters, not even from the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), but from the Chinese Workers Daily last week. I cite it in order to underline the extent to which the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar is departing from the rest of the human race—even from the Chinese People's Republic.
We heard a most explicit and astonishing set of proposals from the right hon. Gentleman. He has called for a dramatic change in policy. He has called for a total change in the policies of this Government. But he has been going much further than that. We have heard a proposal for a dramatic change in almost every policy of the previous Labour Government. He has proposed the abandonment of almost every principle distilled by the
1160
hard experience of British economic policy since the war, to be encapsulated in his repeated parrot cry that in this country we need more effective demand.
The truth is that over recent years we have had all too much demand and all too little supply. In the three years towards the end of the previous Government, final demand in money terms was expanding on a dramatic scale. But that solved nothing. It was only a fraction of a solution—demand never translated itself into increased output. The pressure of demand and monetary expansion stirred up huge inflationary pressures.
A simpler lesson than that is contained in our failure to produce the number of motor cars we should like to produce in this country, and in our failure to produce the amount of steel that we should like to produce. That is not a consequence of shortage of demand. The motor car market of the United Kingdom is still more than 1½ million units, but more than half of that demand is filled by imports. The sad truth is that, over the last 15 years, while European car production has increased by 4 million units, our supply has fallen by 600,000 units.
Mr. Shore: The motor car industry has often been quoted in exchanges and in debates. At the moment I shall not challenge the right hon. and learned Gentleman on that industry.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman emphatically reaffirms that there is not an inadequate level of demand. What does he have to say, not just about one industry, but about the report of the CBI, which says that 84 per cent. of British firms are seriously under-utilising their capacity? Does he not think that that is an indication of lack of demand? Does he not think that the sterling exchange rate and other factors upon which the Government have a great deal of influence have played a major part in that?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman's question enables me to make the point very clear. British firms are not working to capacity, and not because of shortage of demand for their products around the world. Around the world, in other countries, new factories are coming into existence, new products are being generated to meet the demand that now exists—even in a world recession—but British firms are failing to work to full capacity because their goods and products are not competitive in quality, price or delivery. That is the reason.
Why does the right hon. Gentleman think that we have lost our share of the United Kingdom car market? He chooses to leave that on one side, but we have failed to meet our share of the United Kingdom car market because our products are not available at a price and quality that people want. That is the reason—not a shortage of demand, but a shortage of supply.
The right hon. Gentleman is repudiating not merely the policies of the last Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, but also the policies and learning of his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). Indeed, he appears to be repudiating and forgetting almost all his own learning.
It is worth while the House remembering that the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar was for a brief space the Secretary of State in the late lamented Department of Economic Affairs. Speaking in that capacity in the House in 1967 about the policies that he was then about to embark upon, he said:

1161
"… I want to make it perfectly plain that we are not embarking on a policy of general demand reflation. This is because we know exactly what happened in 1962 … It did not make the slightest impact on unemployment in the winter of 1962–63"—
although then we thought that it was far too high—
"but it certainly had an impact on the general inflationary boom … That took place late in 1963 … and brought about the crisis … of that year."—[Official Report, 1 November 1967; Vol. 753, c. 295–6]
That was his insight then. If it was true then that general demand reflation was ineffective, the lesson is just as true today.
Mr. Shore: Really! When one is dealing with an economy with an unemployment level of, I think, 2·3 per cent. and when one knows very well that one can divert home manufacture into a record and booming export market, one has a slightly different approach to demand management from when there are 2¼ million people unemployed and there is under-used capacity.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Not in terms of analysis—
Mr. Michael Foot Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale) indicated dissent.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Leader of the Opposition need not shake his head—because at the time of which the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, in 1962–63, unemployment, if I remember correctly, was about 600,000. That was a figure which the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) was in those days describing as "a disgrace" and as "intolerable". At that time, the analysis and the lessons were exactly the same.
The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar simply cannot escape the fact—he must remember these lessons, because he has learnt them all before—that an attempt to solve our problems by pumping in more demand as an apparently easy way of creating jobs in the short run would absolutely certainly ensure in future even fewer jobs and even higher unemployment.
By contrast, on the vital problem of inflation, this Government's success is becoming increasingly apparent. Year on year, the rate of inflation is down from 22 per cent. last June to just over 15 per cent. now. A further large fall is expected this month. The rise in the retail price index has been less than 1 per cent. in each of the last seven months. When the Labour Party left office, prices were rising, measured over its last six months, at an annual rate of 13·8 per cent.
In the last six months—without price control, without subsidies and without an incomes policy—the rate is down to 8·4 per cent. The underlying rate is a little higher than that, but many forecasters expect single-figure inflation this year. So the progress is being made and it will be sustained.
However, if we are to maintain that progress, we must challenge the extent to which inflation has become part of the way of life for so many people. This attitude of regarding inflation as part of one's way of life was well illustrated by a quotation in the interesting article about the Labour Party in last Sunday's Sunday Telegraph. It was a quotation from a member of the general management committee of the Gorton constituency Labour Party. Incidentally, it seems that no fewer than 75 per cent. of that general management committee are buying their own homes. Congratulations to them on that high proportion of home ownership.
The quotation was this:
1162
"Inflation did not matter any way so long as wages kept ahead of prices. 'The more inflation goes up,' he explained, 'the cheaper my mortgage becomes, and it's even more so for the lads who've got mortgages three or four times as big as mine.'"
That is the kind of attitude that inflation breeds and it is the kind of attitude that we must challenge, because it is only one of the habits and attitudes that have become deeply ingrained over the years.
We must stop thinking in terms of automatic indexation of every aspect of Government spending. We have to break the pattern—as we are—of basing wage demands on past price movements. We must stop thinking of expenditure in real terms as though inflation did not matter. As an important step in that direction, I am hoping to be able to get away from the habit of planning public expenditure entirely in volume terms—in so-called "funny money". We must focus more on what our expenditure actually costs the nation in cash.
Mr. Peter Tapsell: I fully support my right hon. and learned Friend in his reaffirmation that the conquest of inflation is the essential prerequisite for the recovery of our national economy and a reduction of unemployment, but does he not agree that it is much easier to bring inflation under control when production is rising and unit costs are falling than when production is falling and unit costs are rising?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Of course I agree with precisely that. That is why I was moving on to just that subject in my next sentence.
Apart from the progress that we are making on inflation, there are other encouraging signs as well. There are real prospects, in the absence of any further oil price shock, that the world recession will bottom out in the course of this year. I want to look at some forecasts. The right hon. Gentleman looked at several that he chose to quote. He said that he was wary of individual forecasts and then went on to quote the two most gloomy that he could find. Let me take a rather broader spread.
In this country. the CBI and the Financial Times surveys are showing, for example, the start of an improvement in business confidence. Recent forecasts by people outside the Treasury—by the London Business School. by Phillips and Drew—as well as our own forecasts, show that the fall in output is coming to an end, although the timing, of course, will be hard to predict. One sees signs of this as well.
One sees increasing evidence of new businesses establishing themselves to replace those which have gone. Just one example is a report from the work of the Industrial and Commercial Finance Corporation. It is concerned, as the House knows, with the encouragement and start-up of small and medium businesses throughout the country. The number of start-ups that the corporation financed in 1978–79 was 112. In 1979–80, it had risen to 309. In the first six months of 1980–81, it had already passed 200, and the corporation expects the total in the full year to be 400—a record number, including, incidentally, a record number of businesses in high technology. That is only one example.
There are other reasons, even in relation to our export performance, to he more optimistic as well. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar took some pleasure in looking for signs of lack of success in the export market. What he might have remembered is that the forecast made as recently as the Red Book of last year for the balance of

1163
payments in 1980 was of a deficit of £2¾ billion. The outturn, in fact, as a result of sustained performance in the export markets, beyond expectations, was a surplus of £2 billion.
Of course it is difficult, but there are reasons for being much less gloomy than the right hon. Gentleman has been. Even in the difficult conditions which exist, many exporters are performing very well. Figures for the aerospace industry, for example, show that exports in the first nine months of 1980 were higher than the total for 1979 as a whole. The pharmaceutical industry in 1980 showed an increase of 30 per cent. over the previous year. In terms of resisting import penetration, figures show that we are holding and increasing our market share of products which have frequently been dominated by imports. This is true with regard to appliances such as refrigerators, freezers and washing machines. In all those areas our manufacturers are fighting back successfully. In relation to the North Sea, in 1974 United Kingdom-based companies won 40 per cent. of orders placed for goods and services to be used in the North Sea. The latest figure is almost exactly double that.
All that shows the extent to which British industry can rise and is rising to the challenge and is winning a return for itself and for the nation. The reality is that the policy of transforming and restoring the energy of the economy had to be set in hand in a particularly adverse world climate. Unemployment is likely to go on rising for some time yet. But much of the worst is over. There are distinct signs of hope, both on output and on inflation, in this country as well as in the rest of the world. Of course, there is a long and difficult period of adjustment still ahead. The Government are determined to do all that we properly can to help industry through that period.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: On the central point of improving competitiveness in the current world situation, since the pound rose in nominal value by some 12 per cent. and in real terms by about one-fifth during 1980, this must do considerable harm to our competitiveness, as it is effectively a tax on exports and a subsidy for imports. The effects of that have still to come through. How does the Chancellor see British industry surviving with that ball and chain round its foot in a world competitive situation?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House is entitled to take into account the extent to which, notwithstanding the undoubted difficulties created by the speed of the rise in the external value of the pound, British industry has been able to defy the gloomiest forecasts and to do as well as it has.
I understand the case that is implied in the hon. Gentleman's intervention and that can be argued for a lower exchange rate. Indeed, it was put to me by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar, although he was noticeably coy in answering any of my hon. Friends' questions as to how he would set about achieving that. The call for a lower exchange rate reveals a clear misconception about what can be achieved by Governments. The exchange rate is set, beyond all else, by market forces, and notably at the present time by world oil prices, given our oil self-sufficiency.
Experience in this contry in relation to interest rates as well as to everything else shows that Governments who try
1164
to set an exchange rate different from that set by the market, whether it be higher or lower, fail in that purpose. The last Labour Government tried to do both and failed in both respects. In 1977, which is the most relevant experience, they followed a policy of massive intervention. They also followed a policy of lowering interest rates from over 14 per cent. to 5 per cent. in an endeavour to hold down the external value of the pound. Notwithstanding all that, the exchange rate rose by 7½ cents against the dollar and the policy was abandoned.
Sir Frederick Burden: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the former Leader of the Opposition and Prime Minister at one stage in 1976, and again in 1978, when there were clamours for control of the exchange rate downwards, said that it was quite impossible and he would not undertake it in any circumstances?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I also remember the former Leader of the Opposition saying that it was a great deal easier to talk about keeping exchange rates down than to achieve it. That is the lesson that we learnt from the experience of the last Government. The truth is that the intervention which they then attempted caused damage to the economy and promoted a rapid explosion in the money supply, and the inflationary consequences of that were serious.
Even assuming that there was a way of lowering the rate, it would surely be dangerous to overlook the consequent bad effects upon prices. If devaluation serves only to stoke up inflationary fires, one risks gaining nothing at all in competitiveness. The harsh truth—and of course it is harsh—is that industry must continue doing all that it possibly can, as indeed it is, to adapt to sterling's strength by controlling is own costs, because that is not something which it is in the power of the Government to command.
Mr. Shore: The exchange rate is a matter of first-rate importance. But what is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attitude? Is he saying that his reason for, as it were, not attempting to influence the exchange rate is that he thinks that it is too difficult an enterprise to undertake? That point of view has been reflected in some Back-Bench contributions. Is it because he believes that we actually benefit by an increase in the exchange rate in the way that he suggested in the last part of his remarks? Or is it because he regards a competitive exchange rate as an objective of lower priority than that of control of the money supply, which it might otherwise upset, just as he obviously thinks that lowering the rate of unemployment is a less important objective than controlling inflation?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There are a number of answers to each of the right hon. Gentleman's questions. First, it is extremely difficult to know at what level the exchange rate should be set. Secondly, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve anything like that, even if one set out to do so. If one sets out to achieve that, one is likely to achieve the opposite effects by damaging the domestic money supply. One would be pursuing an illusion and either not achieving it, or, if one does achieve it for a moment, doing damage in the opposite sense as well.
All the reasons and all the experience suggest that it is not possible at the same time to pursue a responsible policy for the conquest of inflation and to try to pursue the unattainable objective of an exchange rate target.

1165
There are, however, other ways in which the Government can play a part, and we are doing so. Most important is the control of public expenditure. I was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman criticise us for our attempts to control local government spending. I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman goes if he does not hear business men up and down the country saying that one of the most formidable costs that they face is the soaring cost of local government and above all of local business rates. We have an example clearly before our eyes in the huge rate increases being imposed upon businesses and householders alike in the London borough of Lambeth. Is it not a legitimate purpose to try to prevent increases of that kind in order to keep down the burden upon British industry?
It is only by responsible control of public spending that we shall be able to see further cuts in interest rates, which the right hon. Gentleman demands. Already they are 3 per cent. below their peak. On the estimates of the CBI, that is already worth £¾ billion to the company sector. When I come to consider the appropriate size of the public sector borrowing requirement at which to aim next year, I shall certainly give full weight to the need to ensure further progress in that direction.
Of course, within the resources that are available, we are doing a great deal to ease the impact of the recession on those worst hit. We are maintaining regional programmes concentrated upon the areas of greatest need, at a cost of £450 million this year. We are maintaining, and indeed extending, special employment measures and industrial training. We are continuing the special measures run by the Department of Employment. The take-up of the short-time working compensation scheme, in particular, has increased very rapidly, so that we are spending very large sums indeed. [Interruption.] Labour Members cannot have it both ways. If we sustain the kind of programme that they commend, they cannot then complain if the programme continues to rise in cost. We are probably spending more than £400 million on that scheme alone in the current year. That makes it all the more important to keep the whole area under review and to be certain that the money is put to the most constructive use.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What will happen to the many industries now taking up the short-time working compensation scheme when it runs out?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is precisely the kind of point that I had in mind when I said that, as the money being spent on those schemes is rising, it is all the more important to ensure that we make the most effective use of the money available. It has to be remembered that, however legitimate the case that can be made for help of that kind, every pound that is spent in help of that kind is a pound raised by taxes from the rest of the economy.
We have also been increasing spending on industrial assistance, and we offer the prospect of a substantial improvement in the stock relief scheme.
As the House will have seen, we have had a useful discussion at the NEDC last week of the principles of economic pricing for energy. It was not disputed at that time that there should be no departure from the policy of economic pricing. It was also agreed at the NEDC that, although comparisons between the United Kingdom and Europe were difficult, the majority of United Kingdom
1166
prices were not out of line with those in the rest of Europe. There is some evidence of particular sectors where there may be higher prices than usual for large industrial users of gas and electricity: hence the decision to appoint the NEDC task force to establish the facts. We shall certainly take account of what it reports.
Sir Hugh Fraser: As a monetarist, will my right hon. and learned Friend explain how it is correct for a nationalised industry, gas, to charge its consumers 10 per cent. more than the rate of inflation?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is because the nationalised industries—and gas is one example—have been charging prices held well below the natural economic price, and they are being allowed to rise to market levels. Indeed, they are still short of market levels. If we have removed the restraints on those prices, the gas prices are achieving the level that can be set by the market. If we fail to do that, we shall be adding a burden to the public sector borrowing requirement. We shall be consuming and wasting gas that could be more effectively used. The point raised by my right hon. Friend is answered by the fact that at the NEDC meeting last week it was agreed on all sides—by the CBI and by the TUC—that it was absolutely right to set the prices for energy at the market economic price, and that is what we are doing.
There is one other aspect of the nationalised industries which concerns industry, and that is the extent to which in many cases—this cannot be denied—costs in those industries have been rising well ahead of those in the rest of the economy. Over the last decade, employment costs per head in all the major nationalised industries have risen much faster than the average for the economy. They have risen much faster in energy and telecommunications, and in posts and steel the absolute level of productivity has declined. In the British Steel Corporation, unit labour costs rose 50 per cent. faster than in the rest of the economy. That is why it is so important for us to do everything we can to make those industries more competitive and more efficient, to establish competition alongside them, and to refer them, as we are doing, to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, to give them competition from the private sector and to offer them the prospect of privatisation.
Those who urge us, as they do, to use North Sea oil to restructure British industry should remember the extent to which we are massively obliged to do so already in relation to the nationalised industries. The Government are accepting costs, which are sometimes huge, of restructuring those industries to improve their efficiency in the future.
This year we have increased the external financing limits of the four industries—steel, shipbuilding, rail and airways—by £590 million to over £2 billion. Those figures make me tremble when I Think of the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition on Monday of this week, calling, of all things, for the Socialist transformation that Britain requires, and asking, of all things, for
"a more ambitious Socialist programme than has ever been attempted in the past".
When we contemplate the wrecks created already by bouts of Socialism, I can think of absolutely nothing more disastrous than that the Leader of the Opposition should have the opportunity to put that policy into practice.
I was delighted to see that one or other of the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues—a Shadow junior Minister who

1167
serves the Labour Party's parliamentary consultative committee—was reported in this week's Sunday Telegraph as complaining about the prospect of having
"to pay lip service to the garbage with which our manifesto would saddle us".
How right he is. The truth is that industry is being given by this Government the help that it needs, that industry is recognising the case for helping itself, and that industry is achieving great success in reducing its own unit costs by bringing down the costs of pay settlements.
The latest figures show that most manufacturing settlements in the new pay round are under 10 per cent., and we are determined to keep pay in the public sector over which we have control under similar restraint. That is why we have set the 6 per cent. pay cash limit for local authorities. This is essential if we are to restrict the growth of public spending and borrowing so that totals are consistent with the medium-term strategy.
Thus, in the public and private sectors alike, moderation in pay is as vital as ever. We can derive much encouragement from the progress made so far. It needs to be sustained over a long period. The truth is that the problems which have taken years to develop cannot and will not be solved overnight, but we must stick steadfastly to the only policies that offer the real prospect of rebirth of the productive economy.
The truth—and many Labour Members recognise it—is that there is nothing by way of an alternative to hope for from the Opposition. Indeed, the same Shadow junior Minister quoted by the Sunday Telegraph also had this to say. [interruption.] It would indeed be interesting to know who it is. It might be one of a number of colleagues of the Leader of the Opposition. What he said was this:
"The assertion that we as a party have the answers rings false even to those who make it … I don't believe that any sensible thinking person would now join the Labour Party. That is why I think the party is dying and the position is irrecoverable."
By contrast, under this Government we are now seeing the first signs of success. Inflation is falling. Many signs of enterprise are reasserting themselves. Companies are tackling problems which they have ignored for far too long. Of course sacrifices have been and are being made. It would be totally crazy to throw away those gains now. We should do nothing to betray the confidence of the workers and of industry by changing course now. It is in that spirit that I invite the House to reject the Opposition motion and to accept the amendment.
5.7 pm
Mr. Tony Benn: I have listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on many occasions, and today for the first time I felt that the magnitude of the crisis that is overcoming this country had really swamped his arguments, his statistics, his jargon and his rhetoric. Because the reality is that for many millions of people his arguments are not credible. I refer not only to those who are out of work but to those who live in homes where the breadwinner is out of work, to those people who are on short-time working, to pensioners, and to others on social benefit. For them, and for localities, and for whole industries, such as textiles, paper and board, steel and even coal, and for whole regions such as the North-East and the
1168
North-West, the Chancellor's arguments for what he is doing are not credible, because he is not being candid with the House.
I do not for one moment believe that the Front Bench has been converted to a faith in monetarism. It has decided that over a long period of time this country has been weakened by the fact that profit margins have been too low, and that if profit margins are to be restored two things must happen. One is that real wages must be reduced, and the other is that public expenditure must be cut.— [Interruption.] I am glad that some Conservative Members are at least candid in agreeing that that is the objective. In order to achieve that objective, the power of the trade union movement has to be broken, because the trade union movement, by its organisation, is able to maintain by collective bargaining the real value of wages, and therefore, in order to reduce the power of the trade union movement, unemployment has to be deliberately raised.
When members of the Cabinet or the Government Front Bench speak of unemployment as though they regret it, they are being less than candid, because the Chancellor's policy is to push up unemployment. No wonder the Prime Minister speaks of the success of the policy. Unemployment is beginning to reach a level at which it might have an effect on wage settlements.
When unemployment reaches the present level, industrial dictators such as Sir Michael Edwardes and Mr. MacGregor can go to their work forces and say "Unless you accept either a wage freeze or a 6 per cent. pay rise when inflation is 15 per cent., we shall sack the lot of you". That is the basis on which the Chancellor is founding his hopes. That is what it is all about. Anyone who talks to industrial managers or industrial workers throughout the country knows well that what is called the new note of realism is not that Professor Friedman's ideas have penetrated this side of the Atlantic, but that most workers are terrified that they will lose their jobs, because they believe that the Prime Minister would be prepared to see unemployment rise to 3 million or 4 million rather than give up her attack on the trade union movement.
That is the reality. If the Chancellor wants to be credible, he must be honest and drop the jargon and the statistics and tell the British people what his policy is about. He follows it up by a second line of argument which is that there is no alternative. What he means by that is that there is no going back to the policies of the last 25 or 35 years. I agree with him.
When I read the Liberal policy statement published this week, I saw the summary of the policies—
Mr. Eggar: Did the right hon. Gentleman get one?
Mr. Benn: I did not get a copy, but then the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) told me that he did not get a copy either, so I am in very good company. The Liberal Party statement was superficially attractive, if not innocuous. It was based on an amalgam of what had been attempted by successive Prime Ministers, including the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), Mr. Harold Macmillan and a succession of post-war Prime Ministers. The Chancellor is saying that if one attempts that policy again, it will not work. He is right. It was tried and it did not work.

1169
If there are not many recruits for the Liberal appeal, it is because two, three or four Governments have fallen in an attempt to carry that policy through. That policy will fail for two reasons. First, it is authoritarian. A statutory pay policy is an authoritarian policy because it purports to put in the hands of a Prime Minister, a Secretary of State for Employment, or a Chancellor the power to settle wages that should be negotiated at the place of work. Hon. Members must not think that it is only the trade unions who are disciplined by pay policy. Managers are also disciplined by pay policy, because they cannot negotiate with their own workers.
I say to the Liberal Party, not for the first time, that in its new corporatist image—pro-European and pro-statutory pay policy—it is too Stalinist for the liking of the Labour Party or the Tory Party. However, I congratulate the Liberal Party on its influence. I was telephoned today by a woman from the "World at One" who said that she was asking every Labour Member whether he would leave the Labour Party in response to the Liberal appeal. Whether the Liberal Party exerts undue influence with the "World at One", since Sir Robin Day was once a Liberal candidate, or whether there is some fellow feeling between the soggy centre ground of politics and the BBC, I do not know. All she told me was that she had not yet found anyone who was going to respond to that plea.
The second reason why the policy will fail is that the Chancellor is right to say that if we tinker with market forces, without tackling the centres of economic power, they will beat us. They beat us in 1976 when the IMF imposed on the Labour Cabinet policies based on the same philosophy as the Chancellor has today. Everyone knows that that is true. If one tries to lick the problem by one of the proposals in the Liberal plan—what is called massive intervention, which looks so good, or huge policies of paying for this and that—the Common Market will not allow it, because it is contrary to the Treaty of Rome.
If the policy statement issued by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) were implemented, it would be contrary to the Treaty of Rome and unacceptable to the IMF. It is authoritarian in character and it would bring a Government down, as it brought down the Governments of the right hon. Member for Sidcup and my right hon. Friends the Members for Huyton and Cardiff, South-East.
The Chancellor is right. There is no going back to the policies of the last 35 years. But there is no going forward on policies of mass unemployment either. That is the issue to which the House should turn its mind—the failure of the past and the disaster of the present. We know in our hearts that it will not get worse before it gets better, but it will get worse before it gets much worse, and much worse before it gets disastrous.
All hon. Members who meet managers and trade unionists in their constituencies know well that there is a deep and abiding fear that British industry is being destroyed and it is also taking down our health and education with it, our provision for the old, the sick and the disabled. Public expenditure is the order book for industry. Public expenditure feeds itself into manufacturing industry. When new schools and hospitals are built, that is the work load for the construction industry. When public expenditure goes into the coal industry, it comes out as orders for transport and mechanical handling equipment and feeds back into industry.
1170
I will not provoke the House by saying what colour the next Government will he, though I believe that it will be Labour, but the Government elected in May 1983, or 1984, will find when they come to power that British industry has been destroyed to the point where it cannot sustain living standards for our people. In some areas the crisis will be so deep and so great that there will be no hope. Parts of Liverpool, through which we marched on 29 November, have 50 and 60 per cent. unemployment. There, there are youngsters of 19 and 20 who have never worked since they left school, have no hope of working as far ahead as they can see. In Derwentside, where the Consett steel works has closed and where Ransome Hoffman Pollard has closed, there is 50 per cent. unemployment. It is no good another Government saying "Watch M3" or "We have Professor Walters, do not worry". The truth is that we shall inherit a situation in which measures far more radical than those attempted by other post-war Governments will be forced upon us because people will have lost their jobs. The steel furnaces will have gone cold. Research and development will have stopped. The market will have gone. Skilled men in the oldest industrial country in the world will find no outlet for their skills. Apprenticeships will have stopped. The flood of imports financed by oil will not go on for ever.
The next Government—I believe that it will be a Labour Government—will be driven to a great investment programme on public account. Do not tell us that the country is poor. The oil revenues—my legacy to the Prime Minister—are £30 billion. Hon. Members may laugh, but the money that we received from the oil companies under the previous Labour Government, and which is now financing the flood of imports that are helping to destroy our industry, amounts to £30 billion. There is £10 billion every year in new pension fund accumulations. There is more money now wasted through unemployment and the dole—which is bumping up the public sector borrowing requirement. There is defence expenditure that we should not be undertaking in the Trident missile and the upgrading of our weapons system. It will be from those sources that we shall have to finance the expansion of our industry.
All right, if that means we must plan our trade, so be it. We shall have to do so. If it is said that that will mean a longer wait for a Japanese car, I ask whether hon. Members are aware of how long people have to wait for non-urgent operations in the NHS. They have to wait a very long time unless they can afford to pay. If we go for a planned reconstruction of our industries and public services, it will mean not a policy of the market deciding, but "first things first" and "fair shares", and that will involve a huge intervention in the mechanism of the market.
As technology spreads, the re-equipment of our industry will mean that we shall be able to produce more with fewer workers and we shall see a growth of demand for employment in the public sector. Anyone who wants to know where there will be a demand for jobs should look at the public services. That is where work is needed. Consider the old people who need round-the-clock care, look at the need for an expansion of education and training of those aged between 16 and 19 in a world in which everyone is going to be affected by the microchip industry. Consider housing, because more homes are broken by poor housing than by almost any other cause. Yet the construction industry is flat on its back. The public sector

1171
and public services will create a demand and the money will filter through to industry to supply the hardware that is required. Nothing short of that will do.
I see no point in the trade union movement continuing to involve itself in the Government's policies. The time has come for the Labour movement to disengage from the Government. We should not have trade union general secretaries on nationalised industry boards that are busy selling what is profitable and closing what is not profitable. The Labour movement should disengage from giving support to the Government and, hence, legitimacy to policies that are fundamentally hostile not only to Labour, but to the interests of the country.
The reason for such a disengagement is not merely negative. If changes are to be made in the short run following a change of Government, the preparatory work must begin now. I would rather see general secretaries, regional secretaries and others in the trade union movement working to prepare plans for the day when a Labour Government have returned. It will be much too big a job to be left to an incoming Whitehall Administration alone.
Work must be done in every locality. It is beginning in Sheffield, where the Labour council has called together the local trades council and some community groups and small businesses to plan the recovery of the city. Unless that sort of work is done in every town and village throughout the country, it will not be possible to found the recovery of our economy.
If we are to found the recovery on sound plans, they must be laid now. That means that there will have to be plans for the industries that have been hived off. We will not compensate again for taking back public assets that have been hived off. If there has been a running down of public education and health and a build up of private education and private health, funded by the taxpayer, we shall bring them together and use them to improve the state school system and cut hospital waiting lists.
That will involve an economy that is far more democratically planned—though not, I hope, all at the centre—than we have had at any time since the war. I do not want to go back to the authoritarianism or the bureaucracy of the post-war period, when the chairman of a nationalised industry could run it without regard to the views of the workers. I believe in workers control and self-management. The workers know their industries best.
The Government bring in a MacGregor, but what does he know about steel? He is being paid a large sum of money to cut back on the nationalised sector in steel. He is being paid to do that job. When he threatens to close the whole of the BSC, he is hoping to earn his salary more quickly because a closed BSC would return to profitability quickly enough to earn him the money that he has been offered by the Secretary of State for Industry.
Some will laugh at what I have said, but I do not believe that, within a year or two, what I have said will be regarded as so laughable. What I have said is being advocated and argued throughout the Labour movement and is reflected in our conference policies.
When the nation sees the damage that is being done by this Cabinet, it will realise that nothing less what I have described will be adequate to recover this country's capacity to earn its living, and to provide for our children
1172
a future other than permanent unemployment or mass emigration, which is the inevitable logic of what the Chancellor has told us today.
5.25 pm
Mr. Chris Patten: I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I thank the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) for his spectacular generosity to us all in donating the oil to this nation. We are all grateful to him for that, but I suggest that he should go a stage further next time and follow Mr. Baldwin's example by donating a fraction of his personal fortune.
We are also grateful to the right hon. Gentleman that we get in the House nowadays the full flavour of the speeches that he makes to those little cells of colleagues in draughty halls up and down the country. We cannot grumble that we do not get the genuine article. I sometimes think that, when listening to the right hon. Gentleman, one can catch the distant prospect of men in white coats. His speeches certainly demonstrate that paranoia and the conspiracy theory of history are not the best guides in practising politics.
I want to say something that may be unpopular.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Why not say something sensible?
Mr. Patten: Just before Christmas I read a speech of staggering length that the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) made on the economy. No doubt we shall have to sit through something similar today. I shall listen to him and I am sure that he will listen to me.
I do not believe that there is much that we can do to affect the economy over the next few months until we get to the bottom of the recession. Of course we can limit some of the damage that is an inevitable consequence, given the structural problems of our economy, of the reduction of inflation. That is why I welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment announced before Christmas to help the young unemployed and the measures for changes in stock relief. The interesting questions are not what happens between now and the bottom of the recession—the precise timing of which is a matter of dispute between the Treasury and the Select Committee—but what happens after that to help the economy to start moving forward and what we can do to ensure that when that occurs we generate not more inflation but more jobs.
I confess that I have some intellectual difficulty in tackling the first of those questions, because I formed most of my prejudices about political economy before the quantity theory of money came back into fashion. I watched the events of the summer, trying, like many other averagely puzzled well-wishers, to fathom exactly what was happening. It occasionally appeared to some of us that we were seeing the reverse of the theory, namely, the amount of money in circulation increasing to accommodate the previous rate of inflation.
Some argued that the money supply was out of control, though I understand that ever since Locke we have been led to expect that, when that happens, output goes up. Others, such as Walter Eltis, argued that money supply was under perfectly adequate control, thank you very much. The Labour Party tries to have it both ways. It attacks the Government for being wickedly monetarist, but tut-tuts about the money supply figures.

1173
As usual, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade put his finger on the matter last year. In welcoming my right hon. Friend's successor as the new Chief Secretary to the Treasury without reservation, I hope that we shall still continue to hear from the Secretary of State for Trade on such matters. His honesty is, and remains, one of the more amiable features of British public life. Commenting on the money supply figures, he said before Christmas in an interview with that widely read magazine Now! that sterling M3 was "a wayward mistress." My ignorance of mistresses is all that it should be, but I should have thought, with a mistress quite that wayward, while keeping in touch—just in case—one would be well advised to look up one or two other telephone numbers.
What happens when we get to the bottom of the recession? What then happens to move the economy forward again? The excellent supply side changes that the Government have put forward will help industry to produce more to satisfy the market. But where does the market come from? Where does the demand come from? The Chancellor began to address himself to that question during his speech.
First, as I undertand it, the demand is created by a fall in the level of savings and an increase in personal expenditure as inflation tumbles, thanks to the Chancellor's strategy. Secondly, we get an end to de-stocking. There will be restocking later this year and next year. Again, the Treasury and the Select Committee are in dispute as to when that will happen. There will also be an upturn in world trade towards the end of the year, particularly in some of our better markets in Continental Europe and in the OPEC countries.
I am sure that that will happen but the proposition rests at least in part on an act of faith. I wonder whether that will prove enough. That is why, in order to get a sustained increase in the level of economic activity and a sustained fall in the numbers of unemployed, I once again urge the Government to cut the national insurance surcharge that is paid by employers.
The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) referred to the national insurance surcharge this afternoon. That was a pretty cheeky thing to do. The surcharge was introduced by a Labour Government to show us how much they cared about the problems of British industry. It is a tax on jobs and a tax on exports. All the arguments against it are well known by my right hon. Friends, and they were advanced when they opposed the introduction of the national insurance surcharge when we were in Opposition and when we opposed its increase later during our period of Opposition. Those arguments were put strongly again this week in a letter to the CBI from its director-general, who argued that no other budgetary measures to help industry would be as important as taking imaginative action on the national insurance surcharge.
As I understand it, there is an argument in the Treasury to the effect that easing the national insurance surcharge is not a good way of helping industry because it is not sufficiently selective. That is precisely the sort of argument that can be constructed or understood only by clever people. It is a curious argument: the burden carried by industry is indiscriminate, so it follows that to relieve it of that burden is also indiscriminate.
I should also like to comment on the cost of reducing the national insurance surcharge. Of course, any cut in the
1174
surcharge would not have a pound for pound knock-on effect on the public sector borrowing requirement because it would lead to an increase in economic activity. Nevertheless, it would be expensive. For example, to halve it would cost about £1½ billion. I could contemplate with equanimity a small increase in the public sector borrowing requirement in the short term, produced by a cut in the taxes that industry has to pay, in order to secure a smaller public sector borrowing requirement in the longer term through an upturn in economic activity and through the continuing control of public expenditure. We would be advised to move in that direction. I am not one who believes that the main trouble with the British economy is that we have not squeezed it hard enough yet. We may well have to do our bit in due course to increase demand by rebuilding profits and, hence, investment. There is an old adage that the Lord gave us two eyes, one for demand and one for supply. We shall have to keep both eyes open in 1981–82 and in the years after that.
What happens to pay, and therefore to jobs and industrial competitiveness, as the economy turns up? Alan Budd of the London Business School argued convincingly last week that the problems of industry had been caused not just by the increase in the exchange rate of sterling over the last year, but by the increase in pay. Certainly the present squeeze has meant that there is a great deal more realism in pay bargaining.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Desperation.
Mr. Patten: Squeezes normally have that effect. That is a perfectly legitimate point for the hon. Gentleman to make. But I am worried about what will happen when the squeeze ends. Even if we look back to the 1930s, we see a period of high unemployment coinciding with a period of wage inflation. If those wage pressures build up again, when the rise in unemployment—to which we must look forward—ceases to be so steep, it will spell the end to any real prospects of cutting the jobless figures.
I am pleased that the Government have given a strong lead on pay. I am glad that they have taken such a strong line in the public sector. I hope that all Conservative Members who have pressed the Government in the past to take a firm line will not collapse in a heap as soon as a seductive case for special treatment comes along—as it will. Many people think that the Government's resolve in controlling public expenditure and abating inflation is represented by the medium-term financial strategy. It was once said that for people who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like. For my part, the Government's resolve would be indicated far more, and it would have far more effect on inflationary expectations, if we were to announce that no one in the public sector could expect the cash limits on pay next year or the year after that to be higher than they have been this year. If we are serious about controlling public spending and about getting a more sensible balance between capital and current spending, that is the least we can do.
I realise that this is not the most propitious moment for talking about pay bargaining in the private sector, or about some of the discussions that we have had in the past about trying to establish a dialogue with both sides of industry about ways of making our pay bargaining structure more responsible. However, I hope that we have not entirely jettisoned those ideas and that in the months ahead we shall breathe a little more life into them. If it is part of our

1175
purpose—as it should be—to restore more sense to economic management, it would be dangerous and foolish to leave pay bargaining out of that process.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and his right hon. Friends have argued in a good-natured way in the last year or so that there has been no sensible alternative to what they have been doing. That may or may not have been so, but what is true is that, as the Government give more constructive support to industry to help it weather the recession and rebuild for the future, and as they take a continuing firm line on public sector pay, it will really be increasingly true that there is no sensible alternative to what they are proposing.
5.39 pm
Mr. Richard Wainwright: The Chancellor's speech fully confirmed that the Government appear to believe that the disarray of the Opposition enables them to treat the public as having no choice but to put up with their stubborn attempt to salvage the policies which they introduced when they came to power, and that the impotence of the Opposition enables them to continue in that stumbling manner, unchecked.
It is a profound mistake for the Government to think that, just because there is almost a two-party monopoly of seats in the House, there is also a two-party monopoly of the ballot box. Happily, that is not the case. Even with our absurdly primitive and almost uniquely surviving electoral system, the ballot box has not become the monopoly of two-party machines. The British public, God bless them, have demonstrated over and over again—not least in 1974—that, if they have become entirely fed up with the two main parties, abstention is not the only course available and that they can vote to the extent of 4 or 5 million for another political force. It is for that reason that at the beginning of this week the Liberal Party thought it timely to produce a compendium of its existing economic policies. It was not something that was newly devised. It incorporates policies that have been democratically arrived at by the party (war the past few years, and we decided to make them available to the country as a whole.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) devoted a large part of his speech to the Liberal document. I must begin with a brief but heartfelt apology. Apparently, the right hon. Gentleman was not on our circulation list. Perhaps he will understand if I explain that the decision to restrict the circulation to about 400 hon. Members was a Presbyterian one, based on a combination of economy in stationery, which is a prime Presbyterian doctrine, and the Presbyterian view that only some souls can be saved. I personally would have sent the document to every hon. Member, because, as a Methodist, I believe that salvation is for all without exception. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not receive his private copy.
There are two reasons why the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to bring Liberal policy into disrepute as impractical is invalid. I notice that he did not suggest that our programme was intrinsically undesirable, although he may have views on that. His case was that it had been tried several times and had failed. I refute that. No Government have been elected on a programme of this sort. When Governments have had resort to rapidly expanding demand and have also tried to introduce incomes policies, they have done so as second thoughts, and often desperate
1176
second thoughts, after already having exhausted at least half their terms of office. Emphatically, the Liberal programme has been put to the country not as a sectarian document but as an attempt to achieve some degree of agreement among a number of people from all parties in order to provide the country with a programme which will have a public mandate behind it and which can be put into force the moment a Government take office.
That is a big difference from Governments who, in the past, have turned to incomes policies and have turned on the tap of demand without proper preparation or a public mandate and, usually, in a ham-handed manner. It will not have escaped the attention of the House that the other factor which in our view now makes conditions quite different for a programme of this sort, as well as much more auspicious, is British possession of North Sea oil.
I must state at once that Liberals are grateful to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East for recognising when in office that God gave the oil to the people. The right hon. Gentleman did not go the whole way, but commendably, and with Liberal support at the time—although he may not have been aware of it—he at least arranged that the country's oil revenues should be at the disposal of this House and not at the disposal of monopolists from the capitalist sector. As a God-given natural resource, it is quite clear that the oil revenues should be at the disposal of Parliament and should not be in private hands.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the possession of this temporary boon in the North Sea entirely transforms the possibilities for an economic policy, which, admittedly in the early years runs the risk of possible balance of payments difficulties. We do not have here a total protection for our balance of payments while we try to bring the economy round, but at least we have a far greater protection than the British economy has ever had in the past. That is what enables us to believe that this time we should not be brought to a grinding halt in our demand policy by balance of payments problems and an organised world-wide capitalist run on sterling to prevent our carrying out the programme.
The Government do not fully appreciate the horror of the fact, which is beginning to dawn on the British people, that such incidental benefits as there are from their policies will be short-lived. They contain no structural elements which will remain with us, whereas the damage which they are doing will for the most part, unfortunately, be lasting. We are losing a great deal of our manufacturing capacity, not merely in old-fashioned industries which perhaps could be allowed to go with a sentimental farewell. We are losing a considerable amount of our industrial capacity, the skilled teams of workers that have been built up and all the rest of the apparatus in a way that may be permanent. The Government have chosen to inflict this attempt at a particular version of monetarism at a time when industrial technology is making enormous advances world wide. As a result of the paralysis which the Government have induced in British industry, this country is being left behind. Those damaging results will remain when the transient reduction in inflation has long since passed. As a result, we shall suffer for years without any concurrent lasting benefit.
All the forecasts indicate that, although inflation may dip into single figures—I profoundly hope that it does—during the present calendar year, it is likely to go up again during 1982 and the years there after. That is because the Government's policy has in no way changed

1177
the structure of pay bargaining in this country. The Government have done nothing to loosen the grip of monopolies which keep up prices. In fact, they have set a bad example through their attitude to the nationalised monopolies and have made monopolists feel that it is some kind of public virtue to put up prices to the highest level which the captive customer will tolerate.
I do not know how the Chancellor could stand at the Dispatch Box today and pontificate about the gas industry being at the mercy of the market, when so many of our constituents are at the mercy of the gas industry, and would give the earth to have smokeless zones cancelled and have a good old coal fire put into their council house so that they could cock a snook at the gas man. In fact, they are the gas man's prisoners. Yet the Chancellor thinks that it is a virtue that gas should be so heavily over-priced. That is egging on the public monopolist to put up prices. Unfortunately, there is now no statutory control over prices. The disaster of the disarray of the Government's programme is highlighted in a major sphere of the Liberal programme, namely, that of development, modernisation and the re-equipment of industry.
Which Conservative Back Bencher or Front Bench spokesman is prepared to describe the Department of Industry's strategy? In my part of the country, namely, Yorkshire and the North-West, business men are at a loss to know on what criterion the Secretary of State for Industry gives more money to certain industries and companies than has ever been distributed before. He has no consistent criterion.
When the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Varley) was in office, I used to complain that the criteria on which decisions were made were not always clear. But at least he did not open the entrails of a chicken every morning to see whether the intestines were on the right or the left before deciding how much to give to British Leyland, Rolls-Royce, Chrysler, British Airways and the other random recipients of this Secretary of State's erratic generosity.
Our view is that such matters are better dealt with at one remove from the political sphere. That is why we have always been keen supporters—although tried a little when the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East adumbrated his version of the NEB—of an NEB that would stand between the Secretary of State for Industry and our industries. In the Liberal view, the Government's treatment of the NEB is the negation of a statesmanlike approach.
Sir Leslie Murphy now tells us that, of the commendably small and highly expert team that he assembled to carry out the NEB's work, only three or four remain. The NEB is almost a headless creature. It shrinks in size with every week that passes. I cannot emphasise too strongly that we believe that that is the very opposite of how things should be done. We should like not just one NEB but enterprise agencies in the great regions of England and a continuation of the existing agencies in Scotland and Wales. They could seek out those branches of technology that industry is interested in and could discover how far Government help was needed. They could also ascertain how far Government assistance might speed up British developments in technology.
There would be great demand in England for high technology products if only the State would unleash the coffers a little and allow, for example, telecommunications, British Rail, hospitals and so on to modernise. Such
1178
modernisation is urgently needed. That is why, with the backing of North Sea oil revenues, we urge that there should be a substantial programme of careful capital investment in the infrastructure of our country. However, that will depend largely on interest rates being reasonable.
The most objectionable feature of the Government's stumbling monetary policy is that it requires that interest rates should be far higher than industry can stand, and higher than the taxpayer should be asked to pay as regards the national debt. If the Government acknowledged the failure of their monetary policy, there might be a substantial drop in the minimum lending rate next week and there would be a prospect of further reductions during the year. I hope that the Government will reverse the trend—I do not ask for a tremendous drop in interest rates at once—and that industry will be allowed to feel that hope is on the way. It could then look forward to a year of reduced interest rates.
Such a change in interest rates would also have an effect on the exchange rate. Nobody can predict the extent of that effect. Indeed, we agree with some of the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) on that point. The way in which to lower the exchange rate of sterling is open to discussion. On its own, any single approach to the lowering of the exchange rate is open to doubt. It must be within the Government's power to find various measures and devices, for example, to penalise foreign money coming in to the country. One could consider a different way of funding Government securities that would be much less attractive to foreign money. Such methods could be assembled for a blitz attack on the exchange rate. The Liberal view is the opposite to that expressed by the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar in one respect. In our view, if we can lower the exchange rate of sterling to a marked extent, it might prove an apt moment for entering the European monetary system.
Another main theme behind the Liberal proposals is that of partnership in industry. Without running the risk of a U-turn, the Government could take considerable steps. I do not know whether the Tory Party means it, but for many years it has said that it is in favour of partnership in industry and that it would like to see a community of interest in industry that is recognised both in legislation and the tax system. The trouble is that Conservative Ministers do so little about it.
The moment is ripe for the Government to use some of the nationalised industries as pioneers. Those industries would start from a basis of very little profit. However, the Government could say that they wanted future profits to be equitably shared between those who work in the industry or service and those who provide the capital. If the Government were to put forward an imaginative scheme, it could transform the industrial climate. At present, there is a climate of confrontation that is subdued only by fear of unemployment and redundancy.
There is an urgent need not for sectarian planning or for the devices of one political sect or another but for a common businesslike programme that would receive the assent of those of various democratic political faiths. The programme could be put to the people for their endorsement. For the first time since the war a Government could put into practice a policy that commanded the assent of the majority of this nation.
5.58 pm
Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The great thing about recesses is not that we go on holiday and relax so much as that we have an excellent opportunity to go back to our grass roots and, by means of intensive tours, really to get to know how our constituents feel about our actions in this House.
During the last recess I visited industries in my constituency. It is vital that all hon. Members, particularly those on the side of Government, should constantly test the Government's policy against the only important template, namely, industries' reactions. The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) made a forceful attack on the Government. If anything nearing such criticism were true one would find massive disillusionment in one's constituency and criticisms that the policy was a great disaster, and there would be a widespread feeling of hopelessness. I must report that that is not true of my constituency.
The picture painted by the Labour Party in the country and Labour Members in the House is far too gloomy and inaccurate for us in Burton. I am fortunate in representing a constituency that has a diversity of interests and industries. I am equally fortunate, because of that diversity, in having a constituency where the level of unemployment is 2,500—about 6½ per cent., or one in 15 of the population, compared with a level of one in 10 in the rest of the West Midlands and one in 11 in the rest of the country. Burton's industry centres around beer. For whatever reason—and part of it is that last summer was very bad—the consumption of beer has fallen substantially in the past six months—by about 10 per cent. That means that the industries in Burton that service the brewing industry have felt the storm of the recession—the harsh sting of unemployment. The engineering industry there has not been happy in so far as its activities depend on servicing the brewing industry.
Other industries in Burton that are not connected wholly with the brewing industry have gone out into the world to win business. One of them—D. G. Robert Morton—has been to America and secured a contract worth £2·5 million. Numerous small engineering companies in Burton have broken out into new markets. They have not suffered the effects of the recession to the degree that other companies have.
The rubber industry is also located in my constituency. In so far as Pirelli is dependent on selling tyres to the motor industry, it has felt the chill wind. Other rubber concerns providing industrial equipment, however, have gone out into the world and have managed to expand part of their operation.
Burton also has the food industry, which is one of the last to suffer in a recession. It also has the agricultural and construction machinery industries. Since agricultural machinery is affected by the world depression, our firms have been hit quite hard. The construction industry, too, is in a serious depression.
Burton has its service industries. Companies there service the woollen manufacturing industry. They produce Nescafé and Unigate butter. A glass factory has unfortunately closed, but we are hoping to resuscitate it. Burton also has its farming. I make the point about the diversity of industries in my constituency in order to set the scene, because I appreciate that my constituency may
1180
be different from others in which industry is concentrated in a narrow band. Nevertheless, it is right to tell the House the reaction of a constituency such as mine.
The message that Burton would give the House is that for a number of years we had a Labour Government and we experienced Labour policies. Even before the world recession took a grip the outlook for some of our companies in Burton was disastrous. On the basis of Labour's history of achievement people therefore have no faith when the Labour Party asks them to espouse it, on the basis that it has never been a success. For Burton it never has been.
Part of the reason for the cynicism about the Labour Party is that it tried—I do not blame it for trying, but the result did not fill the industries in my constituency with glee—a series of national attempts to lead, guide or be led by the trade union movement through solemn and binding agreements, social contracts, declarations of intent and concordats and yet utterly failed to produce an adequate level of productivity from the work force. There is cynicism and fear that if the Labour Party came to power, those policies would be revived and their failures would be visited upon us again.
The second message from the leaders of big companies, the entrepreneurs in the smaller concerns and the work people is that they have no confidence in the Opposition's alternative policy because they do not tell us how it can be paid for and because it is obviously inflationary. The message has got through to employed and employer alike that inflation is at the root of the damage done in the past and that it must be dealt with.
The people are not stupid. Excellent speeches can be made from the Opposition Dispatch Box, but if they do not explain how they can spend more in the public sector, stimulate demand and drive up the amount that the Government have to borrow to pay for their activities without being inflationary, they are rumbled, and if they thereby increase interest rates, which are an infliction borne by private industry resulting from Government action, business men do not want to understand such a policy.
If Labour's policy will drive up costs and prices, ordinary people can understand that the result is a lack of industrial and commercial competitiveness, the closure of factories, and massive unemployment. Neither employer nor employee, therefore, has any trust or faith when, irrespective of how excellent the speeches may be, they are not told how inflationary the policy will be or how the cost will be met.
The other fear about the Labour Party's disclosed policy—we had this from the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), who today delivered one of his characteristically stimulating speeches—is that if the Labour Party is to go on encouraging trade union leaders who will strike at the drop of a hat, there will be a repetition of past events. There was a massive strike in the engineering industry in 1979. It resulted in 113,000 fewer jobs. The steel industry suffered a massive strike in 1980. The result was 110,000 fewer jobs. People are frightened that that sort of approach by trade union leaders will be inflicted upon them again if ever a party that pays those leaders more respect or attention than is properly due to them is returned to power.
The third message from my constituency is that, because the conquest of inflation is so central to the Government's drive to get the country back on its feet, and

1181
every fibre of their policy is directed to controlling inflation, it supports the policy and the leadership that is given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.
It is simple to understand why the people of my constituency give the Conservative Government their support. As an exporting nation—a greater exporting nation in terms of GNP than many others in the Western world, including the United States and Japan of our main competitors—it is ridiculous to conceive of any policy working other than that which cuts our costs and makes us competitive. Looking around the world in recession, we see that most nations, except West Germany and Japan, "enjoyed" more or less the same level of unemployment as ourselves. None of them "enjoyed"—I use the word sarcastically—the same level of inflation.
When people ask me "Why is Mrs. Thatcher bringing in the policy with so much harshness? Can she not go a little easier and relax the reins?", I reply that the future of this country must depend upon our meeting the upturn out of the world recession, when it comes, with a level of prices no higher and, it is to be hoped, lower than that of competing nations. If we are not ready when the upturn out of the world recession comes in the middle of this year and later, we can kiss goodbye to the extension of our businesses and the taking of people off the unemployment register that is the longer-term aim of our policies. That is why we must move as quickly as humanly possible to a lower level of inflation.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully. The problem in Northern Ireland is how to take advantage of the upsurge when it comes if all the factories are closed,.
Mr. Lawrence: Of course, if all the factories are closed, one cannot do so. I am trying to confine my remarks to the activities that I know most about, which are the activities in my constituency. The position in my constituency, as I have already stated, is apparently very different from the sort of situation that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) describes.
If Government policy means, unfortunately, some high degree of suffering, it is no more than the suffering that will be visited upon us if this policy is not pursued. If we do not meet the upturn out of the world recession and if our industries do not expand, the situation can only get far worse. If there are 2,500 people on the dole in Burton-on-Trent and the surrounding areas I dread to think what is likely to be the unemployment situation if we do not get our rate of inflation down to single figures as quickly as possible. That suffering, after all, is substantially mitigated in our society.
We do not now see the hardship that used to come with unemployment. We see the emotional hardship of people on the dole. Conservative Members are certainly as capable as and sometimes perhaps more capable than, hon. Members of other parties of feeling that hardship. The truth is that for all sorts of reasons that are well known to the House there has not so far been a massive amount of personal financial suffering, even among those who are unemployed. It is ridiculous to hear repeated, long after it has been discredited as an argument, the assertion that the Government are following mad, Friedmanesque policies, the outpourings of a lunatic professor from Chicago who knows nothing of real life.
The reality is that no pure monetarist would support the expenditure of £3,000 million in bolstering the inefficient
1182
failing industries—British Leyland, British Steel, British Rail, British Airways, and goodness knows how many other companies that are in need and are taking money from the Government to keep them in operation. The consequences of their not being in operation are too hideous for this Government to consider. It is absurd to say that these are pure monetarist policies, regardless of the misery that is caused. That criticism is even less true when one considers that there are 750,000 people who would be unemployed or not receiving training for the upturn when the recession bottoms out were it not for Government subsidies. Criticism that the Welfare State is being wound down bears no relationship to the increased expenditure on the Welfare State and particularly to the Government's health and social security measures. The hardship—we understand the hardship—is often exaggerated. That hardship, in any event, I hope, will end when the policies that we are putting forward succeed.
Another reason why the industries and business in my constituency say "Yes, we support Mrs. Thatcher. We support the Conservative Government's programme" is that there are clear signs, that it is working. If there were not such signs they would perhaps be less enthusiastic. It cannot possibly be claimed that there are no signs of success. The reduction of the rate of inflation from over 22 per cent. to just over 15 per cent. in 12 months, to about 9 per cent. in the last six months, and to about 7 per cent. over the last three months, is a certain sign that the very aim of our policy is beginning to show a result. As inflation comes down, so will the price of the goods that we produce, and so will productivity and competitiveness improve.
With inflation coming down, there are signs that Burton companies are going out again into export markets. In visiting factories and talking to business men I have found that, because of the recession, they have been forced to look at markets that they had never dreamt of investigating previously. That is where the future of British industry lies—in the expansion of markets; getting out of office chairs, going out and searching. The markets certainly exist. I spent part of the recess in Florida, the gateway to 350 million people in the southern countries of the American continent. Florida is attracting massive investment from all over the place. There is there a whole world of market availability for British industries. It is because industries in my constituency have been motivated to go out and search for such new markets that there is greater hope for the expansion of those industries and the salvation of other industries in the future.
With the Government's policy has come a reduction in interest rates. It is true that the exchange rate has not come down and that the pound has not grown weaker, contrary to what we were told by industry would happen when interest rates were reduced. Interest rates will continue to come down—a definite encouragement to industry and a further indication that the policy is working.
Unit costs are down. It is true that they are down because of unemployment, but, time and again, small business men have said to me "If you had said a year or two ago that by reducing our work force by half we could increase our productivity, we would never have believed you, but that is what is happening." I hope that the reduction of the work force is temporary. As unit costs come down and companies become competitive and find new markets they will expand and be able to take people back on to the work force.

1183
Business men are optimistic that that is happening. That is why they are still continuing in business, perhaps even expanding the process or starting new businesses. In Burton-on-Trent there is a substantial area of derelict land where the local authority has set up factory units. They were snapped up even before they were advertised, which shows that there is some tendency for small industries to want to spring up even in this recession.
I have heard time and again that industrial relations in factories have improved out of all measure. It is partly because of fear of unemployment, but the opportunity has been taken by work people, whether unionised or not, to consider the position. They realise, as perhaps they had not realised before, that excessive wage claims, overmanning and attitudes to work that diminish the factory's output, have failed and will continue to fail. A new attitude has entered into the industries in my constituency, not only on the part of the work force but on the part of the managers.
Managers tell me that they themselves have been forced to reconsider their procedures and the way in which they go about things. They have been forced to consider maintaining and expanding markets in a more sensible way. The change in attitude of employers and employees has brought an undoubted gain, which will be the basis of future expansion when the recession comes to an end.
Those are all encouraging signs. Industry in my part of the world is beginning to show the developments and improvements hoped for.
Of course there is criticism of the Government. There is criticism of the high energy costs, as against the subsidised energy that our competitors in the remainder of the world receive. There are realistic criticisms of some of the Government proposals that run counter to the promise to make things bureaucratically easier for small businesses. There is fear that sickness benefit being paid for the first six weeks of absence will be bureaucratically strangling. There is also fear that rates will increase substantially and put pressure on costs.
However, the greatest fear is that the Government will not do enough to control the growth of the Civil Service and stop the public sector pay bill ever increasing. The Government must respond to such fears if those companies are to maintain their support, encouragement and enthusiasm for what the Government are doing.
Finally, there is the belief that there will inevitably be a bottoming-out of the recession, and industry will be better placed to reap the rewards when they come. Already some of Burton's industry is installing new capital equipment to improve productivity when the recession ends.
I move rapidly to a conclusion. I believe that industry in my constituency would send three messages to the Government and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The first is: keep it up. It is the only policy, and it is beginning to work. Do not turn back. Those businesses that are still in operation are overwhelmingly in favour of what the Government are doing. [Interruption.] One cannot expect those that are not in operation to be overwhelmingly in favour. The point is that under this policy only a small proportion of businesses are not in active operation. The policy is right. For goodness sake stick to it, even if it hurts. That is industry's message.
I convey a message for free to the Labour Party—I do not have to but I am happy to do so. Since it has no sensible alternative policy that has been properly thought out and costed, at least let it not go around whining and trying to
1184
undermine the confidence that is so necessary if we are to expand our productivity as a nation. If there is any whining from my hon. Friends, that message applies to them as well. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, who has been speaking for 27 minutes.
Mr. Lawrence: I understand your message, Mr. Speaker. I have conveyed to the House Burton's message to the Government and to the Labour Party. I have only one other message to give to hon. Members: for goodness sake, not only for economic reasons but in the interests of good taste, carry on drinking Burton beer.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I may have misled hon. Members earlier. I had thought that everyone would be called tonight, but 14 hon. Members wish to speak and we have only two and a half hours remaining. If hon. Members are good at mental arithmetic, they will see that, unless speeches are very much shorter, all hon. Members will not, after all, get called—and I almost invited them to speak.
6.25 pm
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: While we are dealing with messages, may I remind Tory Members of two messages that they received from two previous Prime Ministers? The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), speaking on a BBC radio programme on 4 November, said:
"People realise now what the merits of the last Conservative Government were compared with the catastrophic things which they see happening to themselves today."
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) referred to Harold Macmillan. He was interviewed on BBC television on 14 October, when he said:
"I saw the little triumph of monetary policy—a slight fall in the money supply last month. But how much fall has there been in the employment supply? How much fall in the production of wealth?"
I give one other interesting little message from Mr. Brian Kingham, chairman of the Association of Independent Business, who wrote to a Minister stating:
"Our problems are more severe than ever before and the prospects for the future are grim. The extreme hardship forced upon smaller businesses has given rise to feelings of bitterness and betrayal that the minor measures introduced to assist our sector can do little to subdue. Our emergency trade survey revealed that:
—bad debts are increasing with business insolvencies
—slow payment is now endemic
—margins have been reduced too far to ensure the survival of businesses if trading conditions do not improve soon
—part-time working, redundancies and closures are running at the highest level in memory and are certain to increase
—public sector price rises are now producing the major inflationary component in manufacturing costs."
The members of that association are not members of the
Labour Party. They are not members of the Left wing of the Labour Party. They are not members of the Right wing of the Labour Party. They are not even Liberals, as far as I know, unless the two ex-Prime Ministers have since been converted to the Liberal Party. However, that is the message that they have given to this Government because of this Government's policy.
I want to make a point that I consider to be important. I do not blame all the problems of this country and its economic difficulties on the right hon. Lady and her Ministers. To do so would be to fly in the face of history

1185
and would be to misunderstand what is really happening in the world. We live in a capitalist society; we are part of a wider Western capitalist society and it is impossible for that society to solve the basic problems of unemployment.
At the end of the second world war the Labour Party had some memorable theoreticians. In fact, a book has been written about one of them, Crosland. He was a fine theoretician of the Labour Party, but I did not always agree with him. Colleagues like Crosland were saying to people like me in our party "What has happened is that the nature of capitalism has changed because of the type of Keynesian policies that are now being pursued". They said that we were not to worry any more. There would be problems, and we would have to use the regulator and manipulate taxation. But the truth, they said, was that the booms and slumps of the 1930s were gone for ever. Now they know, we know and the people know that those booms and slumps have not gone for ever. One cannot change the basic character and nature of capitalist society. As long as capitalist society exists we shall have booms and slumps, though they do not have to be quite as bad as the present slump in Britain. The Government are deliberately pursuing policies that are exacerbating the situation and making the slump that already exists much worse.
We have heard some very interesting statements from Conservative Members today. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said that the hardship was being exaggerated. I suppose that if one is a lawyer, if there is no danger of being thrown out of work, and if one has never really suffered unemployment, one can easily say that the hardship is being exaggerated. I should like the hon. Gentleman to come to my constituency and see one area in which 40 per cent. of the people are unemployed. I should like him to walk round the streets of Walton and say to the people "Your hardship is being exaggerated". I know what they would do to him. I can assure him a suit of armour would not be sufficient protection.
Other remarkable statements were made today from the Government Benches. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is a most remarkable man, anyway. He was not quite as boring today as he has been in the past. One of the things that he said, with which I totally agree, was that the Government would have to stand in front of the British people and receive their judgment. There is no doubt about that. The judgment of the people will be clear. When the next general election comes, this Government will be swept aside and we shall have a Labour Government. However, let me say to my hon. Friends that when we have a Labour Government, that Government must not be based on the Butskellian concepts of the past. I do not say that all our views were Butskellian, but they did exist.
I read the Liberal Party statement in The Times.
Mr. John Bruce-Gardyne: Did the hon. Gentleman receive a copy?
Mr. Heffer: I did not. Parts of that statement, all the best parts, are included in Labour's policies anyway. Those are the parts that I support. But most of it was policy that has been tried in the past and that cannot succeed in the future.
The British people are not looking for a middle, centrist answer to the problem. There is not one. It has been tried in the past and it has not worked. Now we are presented
1186
with the clear laissez-faire concepts of the Conservative Party, and they are not providing the solution, either. In fact, they are providing the opposite.
So creeping Socialism, as the hon. Gentleman said—though I and anyone else with intelligence will recognise it as Government intervention—has been necessary in the past to bolster and sustain the present economic system. The removal of that Government assistance is undermining even the present economic system. It is making it more difficult for the system to operate. The Government are removing part of that support. But their policy does not work. It leads to mass unemployment.
There must be a radical solution to our problems. The radical solutions are available. The alternative is that put forward by the Labour Party in its policy document "Peace, Jobs, and Freedom" and the Trade Union Congress-Labour Party document that was also approved at the last Labour Party conference. We need to have greater Government intervention in economic affairs, but that intervention must be carried out in a more positive way than in the past. The National Enterprise Board should have powers to extend industry by making it publicly owned.
We said that we would use the National Enterprise Board to create jobs in areas such as Merseyside and the North-East coast. It was not used. The next Labour Government will learn from that experience, and the board will be used. We must also extend public ownership in other directions. Let us consider the construction industry. Believe it or not, the Labour Party receives deputations from the National Federation of Building Trades Employers, providing us with excellent documents outlining what is happening to the construction industry. Its opinion is totally in line with my trade union's views on the matter.
In the past such employers fought tooth and nail against the Labour Party. They supported the Conservative Party and helped to put it into office. Now they believe that if the public expenditure cuts continue, their industry, which is falling to pieces anyway, will collapse totally.
Hon. Members should take note of the number of skilled craftsmen who are unemployed in the construction industry. Crafts unemployment more than doubled in the last year, from 34,000 to 74,300. The latest unpublished figures for December will show that the figure has risen to 88,000—a rise of 163 per cent. in 13 months. This is at a time when constituents come to me, as they do to all hon. Members, saying that they need somewhere to live.
The Government's policy is causing a moratorium on housing. We were easing our way out of that, but now we shall experience overcrowded houses, domestic problems, mental breakdowns and the destruction of families. That happened in the past and it will happen again. The Government are responsible for that. The British people will not tolerate it. They want Government action and an extension of public ownership, with the working people involved in self-management.
We need more training, public works schemes and more investment to deal with the short-term problem. However, that will not solve the basic problem. The technological revolution will be responsible for much unemployment. Therefore, we must adopt a different approach and new attitudes, although we need old attitudes in the sense that the time has come to plan our resources

1187
in a Socialist way. We must have production for the use of the people rather than production for profit, which leads to the type of crisis that we are experiencing today.
6.44 pm
Rev. Ian Paisley: The inflexibility of the Government's policy has not only severely damaged the Northern Ireland economy; it has damaged some of it beyond remedy. The Northern Ireland economy is speeding towards total disaster. The Province is already an economic wasteland, that is becoming more and more desolate. With over 93,800 people unemployed—the worst figure in Ulster's history—and prospects of at least 20,000 more in the near future, no words of mine are strong enough to denounce the Government's policy, which is pushing Ulster over the edge.
In December 1979, 63,400 people were unemployed in Ulster. In December last year, 93,800 people were unemployed, or 16.3 per cent. in the Province as a whole and in some areas 40 per cent. I am appalled by the Government's attitude to the figures. The responsible Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, told us in July that the figures were grim but that there was a silver lining. Today the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has just visited Belfast, said that there were signs of success. We see no silver lining or any signs of success.
Agriculture is Ulster's main industry. It provides 60,000 people with jobs. Farm incomes fell by 60 per cent. between 1978 and 1979. The figures will show the same fall between 1979 and 1980. A fall of 50 per cent. in farm incomes, in real terms, means that the farming community's income this year is only 20 per cent. of the 1978 level. In order to keep in business, farmers borrowed the amazing sum of £37 million in the 12 months up to August 1980. That cannot be continued, so many farmers will go out of business. The Government have made no real attempt to grapple with the problem.
Money for the less favoured areas in Northern Ireland would be available from Brussels, but the Government said in a recent debate that they refused to make the necessary submission to the EEC until the whole less favoured areas programme for Wales, Scotland and England is complete. That means that money that could be available in Northern Ireland will not come.
The Government refused to contribute to the proposed EEC £40 million agriculture structure grant, which was to be backed by the Government, pound for pound. That is also held up in the Council of Ministers. The money is available but the Government have not seized the opportunity.
The same can be said of the EEC integration proposals. Naples and Belfast were chosen to take part in the scheme. Naples has already made its submission, but we were told in Strasbourg this week that Northern Ireland's submission was only in its first draft. That scheme could bring £100 million to Belfast. I am totally opposed to the United Kingdom's membership of the EEC, but we are talking about United Kingdom money. We should get back our own money as quickly as possible.
I welcome the fact that today history was made. For the first time the British Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food met the Ulster Farmers Union with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I trust that the Minister has heard for himself what is happening in Northern Ireland'
1188
agriculture. A fraction of the money spent on creating new jobs in Northern Ireland could have saved thousands of jobs in agriculture.
The textile and clothing industries are being hammered in the Province. Many factories are being closed, and most others are on short time. In my constituency, Courtaulds, which once employed 3,000 people, now employs 250. ICI, which once employed 1,800 people, is to close in a few weeks. I fail to understand how any hon. Member can say that when the upsurge comes we shall all be happy and things will go well. There will be no factories. There will be no management. There will be no skilled employees. There will not be the markets. There will be no products to sell in the upturned market.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to the construction industry in Britain. In Northern Ireland more than 20,000 jobs have been lost during the past few months. That has resulted from drastic cuts in public building. Public building in Northern Ireland is vital, because all the houses being built to serve the public are under the Housing Executive. It is a public body which must supply the contracts for public building.
The Government have stopped stage 2 of the Kilroot power station project. The five-year contract has been cancelled. We do not know when we shall have word of what will happen to that. It amazes me that the new Minister for Northern Ireland said that he would not meet the workers concerned and the electricity service. The workers who were under contract had as much right as the contractors to receive compensation. They have taken on obligations of mortgages and so on. Why should there not be some compensation for them?
As the House is well aware, Northern Ireland has the lowest average wage, the highest cost of living, and energy costs that are vastly above those in Britain. The fact that we are robbed of a share in North Sea Gas and the fact that our electricity prices are rising combine to tell against the businesses of Northern Ireland and against the ordinary people who are being pushed down to, or below, the poverty line.
I could not live with my conscience if my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and I tonight did not vote for the Opposition motion. If my other colleague, the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. McQuade), had been well enough to attend, he would have voted for the motion also. It is the only way that Northern Ireland can express to the Government the fact that the present policies are disastrous and ruinous to the economy of Ulster.
6.52 pm
Mr. K. J. Woolmer: The Government have been in office for almost two full years. Contrary to the remarks of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who is not in his seat, I believe that the position in many parts of the country is one of unmitigated disaster. Unemployment in Yorkshire has increased by 100,000 since May 1979. The position in the textile towns of West Yorkshire is appalling. Batley, in my constituency, has a male unemployment level of 20 per cent. There is scarcely a home that is not touched by unemployment, by short-time working, or by the threat of it. To attempt to draw a veil over that, to try to wish away that position with the hopeful signs that some firms and some people are doing well—thank God that some are

1189
doing well—and not to recognise the enormity of the position would be a failure on the part of the House at this crucial time in our history.
The Government, like all new Administrations, tried to pass off the results of their early failures as the consequence of the policies of the previous Administration. Many Conservative Members may have fallen for the party propaganda line in the early months, but even they must have felt just a twinge of doubt when the battle against inflation started off by doubling VAT. That was the first early sign—and it came very early—that things would not go well.
As the months dragged on, as factories went on to short-time working—and then closed—as unemployment mounted, as profits slumped and as investment fell, it became crystal clear to everyone that something had gone seriously wrong. Surely the Government never intended, even in their worst dreams and imaginings, that things should go this badly wrong. Criticisms have come not only from the Government's political opponents. As has been said by many Labour Members, many of the loudest, and often the most violent, criticisms have come from the Conservative's natural allies. When Sir Terence Beckett of the CBI spoke of a bare-knuckle fight with the Conservative Government, that was surely a sign that things were going badly wrong.
Yet today the Prime Minister and her colleagues had the effrontery to put before the House an amendment that calls for the Government to maintain what they call
"its present policies for economic recovery".
They claim that those policies alone offer the prospect of a lasting reduction in unemployment. That is a fantasy world that is unrelated to the real world of people and industry.
For the first time in my political life, which now extends to many years, I feel genuinely and deeply angry about the way in which this country is being led into a holocaust. I am deeply concerned for three basic reasons. First, whatever the kind, nice words spoken from the Government Benches, I wonder whether the Government are aware of the appalling damage being inflicted on our people in their everyday family lives, and also upon much of our industry. The strain and the worry caused by unemployment, threatened unemployment, or no job prospects, touch almost every family in many regions of Britain. We are seeing the re-creation of two nations, both geographically and economically. Industry has reached the stage where even respected, efficient firms are going to the wall—a senseless waste and loss of machinery and human talent and experience. Factories can be closed in a day, but it takes years to reopen and rebuild them and to repair the damage being inflicted on them by the Government.
Experienced, hard-working business men and management cannot understand what the Government are doing. I think that I must speak to very different industrialists from those referred to by some Conservative Members. Of course, industrialists agree that there is a need to fight inflation and to bring some sense into wage bargaining and price setting. But they simply cannot understand how the massacre of efficient businesses can be called a policy for economic recovery. Yet that is the policy in the amendment before the House tonight.
1190
Secondly, I see no credible link between present economic policies and the prospect of a lasting reduction in unemployment. The only hope that the Government have of bringing down inflation appears to be to maintain a high level of unemployment and a greatly over-valued pound on the foreign exchanges. The Government have no credible policy whatsoever, nor do they seriously offer the prospects of reducing unemployment significantly, however far ahead we look. That is a serious and deeply worrying position.
At one time, reactionary political argument blamed unemployment on scroungers. It is not long since Conservative Members and the Tory press preached that line. They said that if only scroungers would stop living off social security, we would not have unemployment. They said that only a couple of years ago, before the last general election. Now, the insidious line is that large-scale unemployment is inherent in modern industrial economies. We must reject such nonsense. Are we seriously saying that there are not a vast number of things that need doing in our society, that cry out for workers? There is still a huge shortage of housing in many of our cities. There are thousands of outdated schools and hospitals. There is inadequate provision for our increasing elderly population. There are inadequate further education training facilities for people at all stages of their lives, not only the 16 to 19-year-olds. All that is quite apart from the tremendous demand for better and improved living standards for our people. In addition, there is the vast poverty of the Third world, which is crying out for assistance and for goods and services which countries such as Britain can and should produce. It is surely unbelievable and unacceptable that two or three million must remain unemployed in the face of the world that I see around me.
It is a political problem that lies at the heart of the matter. It is no good standing back and letting blind market forces work out their logic and blaming "the people" for the consequences. It is for Governments to come to grips with the modern economic and social system and so govern as to overcome the difficulties and consequences of the system.
I have similar doubts about the credibility of the lasting nature of any reduction in inflation that the present policies of high unemployment may bring. The Government appear to justify the horrendous economic and social cost of their policies on the ground that inflation will come down in the end and stay down. If the Government's aim is then to reduce unemployment—presumably, they will say that that is their ultimate aim—what is to stop inflationary wage settlements starting again? If an expansion of the economy is ruled out now because it would be inflationary, why will expansion in two or three years' time not be inflationary? The Government must produce a considered and serious answer.
I shall be extremely surprised if the Government do not eventually have to seek some understanding and agreement on prices and incomes if we are to avoid having suffered unnecessarily and in vain. I realise that talk of prices and incomes and ways of combining expansion, full employment and low inflation will be painful to Conservative Members and to some of my right hon. and hon. Friends as well as to some in the trade union movement. The Government are correct in wishing to reduce inflation, but I disagree totally with their methods and with the anti-social policies that they are pursuing.

1191
The next Labour Government will have to seek, too, to reduce inflation. This Conservative Administration has brought home the lesson that so-called free collective bargaining is often a myth, and that where it exists it benefits the strong and harms the weak while creating unemployment and social problems that are unacceptable.
My third and final reason for being caused concern by the Government's policies is that they show no serious or real understanding of the requirements of an industrial and economic future that will deal with our immediate problems and lay the foundation for a general improvement in the growth performance of the economy.
It is extraordinary and bizarre that North Sea oil revenues are pouring into the Treasury and disappearing down a plug hole without contributing to the creation of new wealth in the economy. We are frittering away the benefits of North Sea oil in higher consumption, and this is largely through imports because of an over-valued pound. North Sea oil is proving a disaster for our productive base instead of a source of revitalisation. The complete and abject failure of the Government to grasp the opportunity for improving investment in our infrastructure, in our community base and in our manufacturing and service industries is symptomatic of the basic failure of the Government's industrial and economic policies.
The Prime Minister and her Government have failed the country in almost every aspect of their economic policy. The right hon. Lady has blamed everybody but herself. She is presiding over a serious collapse of much of our manufacturing industry and is creating personal and social hardship. She must change her policies or go, and I am confident that that will be the message that the electorate will give to her and her Government in the local council elections on 7 May.
7.6 pm
Mr. Raymond Whitney: The hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer) chose to shy away from the realities that he understands very well. I suggest that the most interesting part of his speech was his reference to the fundamental differences between himself and a number of his right hon. and hon. Friends. I shall return to those differences.
We all have reason to be grateful to the Opposition for giving up yet another Supply day to discuss the vital subjects of the economy and the state of employment. None of us needs any convincing of the importance of the two subjects. It gives my right hon. and hon. Friends the opportunity to explain yet again—the explanation can never be stated too often—the fundamental, deep-seated and long-established causes of our present problems. It also gives an opportunity for us all, both in the House and outside, to continue the process that is as painful as extracting an eye tooth—namely, extracting from the Opposition their proposals for alternative policies. The effort that we are all making is beginning to yield results. We have the glimmerings of not one alternative policy but perhaps three or four.
The Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), has begun to offer some alternatives. These usually appear in the long interviews with which we are disturbed when taking our Sunday lunch. They are not especially detailed. If the right hon. Gentleman is famous for anything, it is for his distaste for
1192
detail. We are told about the Socialist transformation of society and occasionally, if he gets down to detail, he talks about a new partnership with the trade unions. We have experience of the two memorable years that the right hon. Gentleman spent in departmental office at the Department of Employment. We had a partnership with the trade unions that was rather akin to the man who goes for a ride on a tiger. That is the opportunity that the right hon. Gentleman presents in his analysis. That is the solution that he is offering.
Further down the scale, if that is not too discourteous a way of putting it, we have the alternative policy of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore). We were told merely that MLR and the exchange rate would be lower. We were offered no mechanisms for achieving such transformations. We were then offered more expenditure on nationalised industries, local government, housing, roads and a regional employment premium. The list continued ad nauseam. There was no attempt to put a price on such expenditure. There was no suggestion of what such a policy would add to the public sector borrowing requirement and what it would do to inflation. There was no acceptance of what inflation does to our employment prospects and to our economic health.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us what deflation, depression, unemployment, under-used resources and high interest rates add to the public sector borrowing requirement. Will he quantify that?
Mr. Whitney: I shall return to that. We have been told what those factors are doing to the economy and we are well aware of all that. However, there is a proposed doubling or trebling of the PSBR consequences. That is the recipe that we are being offered by Opposition spokesmen but not by the Leader of the Opposition, which is rather different.
We have from the leader of the alternative opposition, the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), with his left-hand man, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), a different solution. Contrary to the view of the hon. Member for Batley and Morley, the hon. Member for Walton believes that the capitalist system—that is what most of us refer to as the mixed economy—cannot be used to cure unemployment. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East and the hon. Member for Walton argue that the capitalist system, the mixed economy, is a failure. They tell us about their Socialist Utopia that they will bring to us once they manage to achieve their successes, whether by the election of their Labour Party or by some other mechanism. They stop short of analysing any example of how their version of Marxism in practice achieves the sort of goal at which they are aiming. If either of them really believes that the problem of unemployment has been cured in Marxist States, I suggest that they should stop writing their articles for The Times and other journals and do a little more reading. They would then clearly understand what is at issue.
Another set of alternative policies for which we have been waiting has recently been vouchsafed by the Liberal Party. Obtaining clear policies from the Liberal Party is by no means an easy operation. One understands the fissiparous pressures which exist within that small band of brothers.
It is an exciting time, because the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) often strikes

1193
me now as the owner of a small and singularly underpatronised night club who suddenly perks up and thinks that he might get the custom after all. He does so because next door there is a big, rowdy night club where a hell of a fight is going on. As some of the moderates are creeping out of the door because the club is too extremist and Left-wing, there he is trying to lure them into his night club. He lures them in with the bill of goods that was offered on Tuesday.
Like the hon. Member for Walton, I was not on the mailing list for the Presbyterian approach of the Liberal Party. Perhaps that was not surprising. We now have a list of offers by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles that is in three parts.
The Government would accept one element and are trying to put it into practice with all the present problems. We subscribe to much of it. Another part of it is clearly impractical and unacceptable. That is the statutory incomes policy. What would a statutory incomes policy do for this new economy? What would happen to new jobs and adjustments to a new technology? What would happen if everyone's wages were frozen within a statutory incomes policy?
Finally, the list of offers moves into a series of areas which involve compulsion and direction from the centre. The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East called it Stalinism. He should know about that. [Hon. Members: "Oh."]. That was the word he used. It is not surprising that that is difficult to identify as Liberal policy. It was also not surprising that the hon. Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) said that it was social democracy. Many Conservative Members have often wondered what social democracy is, and perhaps it is this programme.
That range of policies has been tried out in this country and elsewhere, and they do not work. The real debate tonight and over the next few months will be on this side of the House. Perhaps that is not surprising. We accept the basic tenets, but between us we see different shades, and believe that different buttons should be pressed harder or softer.
I offer to press one little button on my own. We should further consider this matter. There are basically three elements in our policy. We must ensure that the expansion of domestic credit is brought under control and steadily held down. We must ensure that the same happens to public spending and that it is gradually restricted as a percentage of the national wealth. We must do whatever is appropriate in this legislature to set the conditions in industry so that both sides of industry can get on with the job of creating the wealth which we here should like to spend.
I bring to the attention of my right hon. Friends the element of monetary control. I do so with the greatest diffidence because, as may be known, I make no claim to be a professional economist. I am not a professional banker, not even a barrister, and none of my relatives works on the Financial Times. With all those drawbacks I offer my suggestions in an interrogatory manner.
When one considers the mechanism which we have chosen for the money supply side of our aims, and what has happened to sterling M3, we must recognise that it is a difficult story. We all understood the famous problem with the relaxation of the corset and re-intermediation, to use the jargon. However, that was months ago. We are still talking about money supply, by the chosen measurement, expanding at 22 per cent. It is therefore right to wonder
1194
whether this is the right way to tackle this problem. I am moved to be so heretical as to ask whether our financial establishment—the Treasury, the Bank of England and the City as a whole—are not too clever by half at producing bits of paper.
When one considers the liquid assets ratio, with the elements of Treasury bills, other commercial bills and the discount houses' function, one sees that this is a closed system whereby the banking system creates its own liquid assets and there is little or perhaps even no control.
I should put a question mark at the end of these statements, because it is not for me to make these bold assertions. Is it not right that we should look hard at another way round the problem? I recognise that my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer accepted that on 24 November when he said in the House that the various measures which he had announced would
"be consistent with a gradual evolution towards a monetary base system and will help us to judge how tar such a system would contribute towards our medium term monetary objectives."— [Official Report, 24 November 1980; Vol. 994, c. 313.]
That statement followed the Green Paper, after which there were more discussions.
In its Quarterly Bulletin in December, the Bank of England was a little less enthusiastic than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It said:
"The conclusion of this examination is that it is not possible immediately to move to a form of base money control, nor to judge at this stage its possible later desirability."
I submit that a change in our approach towards this area of our policy seems to be called for on the basis of the figures. I recognise that there are serious problems. The volatility of interest rates is one problem which has always been referred to, and understandably so. Another difficult tproblem arises if this Government or any other Government virtually hand over to market forces important areas such as the mortgage rate. What would happen to the overdrafts which we, or at least I, love so dearly and which would be hard to live without? If we use our monetary base, how do we set the target, and how do we set this rate?
I understand that those are difficult areas where we cannot be in the least precipitate. I suggest to my right hon. Friends, with a repeat of the apology for my humble ignorance in these matters, that we should look hard at these matters. Everyone, even the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), accepts that the control of domestic credit is a vital element in the sensible conduct of economic policy. If the other method is not working, will this method work or will it not? I hope that the study conducted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. Friends can be speedily concluded. That is a vital element of policy, which is crucial to this country's success. This debate has shown that there are simply no alternatives on offer from hon. Members opposite.
7.20 pm
Mr. Stan Thorne: I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) into a consideration of night clubs, corsets and the Marxist notions of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn)—which I am sure the hon. Member did not understand, anyway.
The Opposition motion deals with the economic situation. I am sure that all hon. Members realise that an

1195
economic situation, wherever it may be, is difficult to separate from social and political questions. When we discussed the rate support grant yesterday we were also talking about the economy and the social effects of our decisions. During the last few days, Lancashire county council has announced that 1,000 teachers and education staff must go in the next few weeks. That shows that there is a feedback from economic decisions.
Social statistics of the results of our present economic situation would make interesting but depressing reading. They would be a story, for instance, of busy doctors' surgeries, where complaints are becoming more complex and difficult to deal with, with the emphasis on such illnesses as depression and anxiety neurosis, and where middle-aged men and women are asking for Valium and other drugs. Increased alcoholism is another of these social results, as is frustration among young people, with consequent increases in violence and petty crime. An example of this is the analysis in The Psychiatrist of a multi-storey block that showed a marked increase in attempted suicides.
It could be said that many of these problems have an environmental basis, but they are also closely related to our economic situation. The root of many of them is unemployment, which brings frustration because of people's inability to express themselves in the realistic environment that work offers to most of us. The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) suggested that we were exaggerating the problems. If he can say that he must have little contact with one-parent families, the elderly, the disabled, and those who are homeless. All those groups have been radically affected by this Government's economic policies.
The North-West is no exception. It is not for me to get involved in a discussion of the depressing prospects facing the constituents of Merseyside Members, but I am directly concerned with yet another factory closure in my constituency. Thorn Lighting Ltd., a massive and wealthy company, intends to close this factory on 3 April. The management says that one reason is over-capacity, a downturn in the home market because of high interest rates. Another reason they give is cheap dumping of imports.
Conservative Members must be familiar with this case since the company has made representation to the Secretaries of State for Trade and for Industry about the import of cheap bulbs that do not meet our safety requirements. The Government have not attempted to deal with this problem. As a result, companies that seek to maintain safety standards and compete with cheap imports inevitably talk of rising costs.
On paper, the closure of the Thorn factory will mean a loss of 250 jobs. I attended a packed meeting, comprising 80 or 90 per cent. of the work force, in the factory canteen last week. Many of the workers were women and many of them openly admitted that they were separated, with children, and were trying to keep their heads above water by making bulbs. A number of Asian women can now earn a living in that sort of factory. What will they do now? Their prospects of alternative employment are virtually nil. One young man had been in the factory for 18 months as an apprentice acquiring a
1196
particular skill. After 3 April, where will he get alternative employment that will permit him to continue his apprenticeship? His prospects are poor.
In Merthyr Tydfil, where there is high unemployment, the company has another factory with under-capacity, so it is transferring the bulb production there. It might be said that if a consequence of this closure is an increase in employment prospects in Merthyr Tydfil, we in Preston do not want to become involved in an argument about whose jobs they are. However, the extra production will be made not by recruitment of extra labour but by full-time and possibly overtime working in the same firm. Therefore, no relief emerges.
However, I am glad to report that the workers have decided not to take this lying down. They have decided to fight the closure so as to defend their jobs—their right to work. They have told management that cooperation will cease henceforth.
The management of the company has referred to the tremendous efficiency in the plant, the loyalty of the work force and the absence of industrial disputes for many years. In the light of those comments, it is instructive to consider what redundancy payments it proposes. Someone who has worked in the factory for more than 15 years—the longest period for which payments are provided—will get an additional eight weeks' money. Fifteen years' work in a factory is recorded by management saying "Well done", with eight weeks' pay.
Needless to say, there are some in the factory whose years of service permit them to get reasonable redundancy payments. They are just at the margin, wondering whether to accept and leave the matter where it is, or to fight. It says something about the work force in the plant, who are not experienced as are the workers in the building industry on Merseyside to which my hon. Friend the Member for Walton referred earlier, that they have decided to unite and fight together and not to accept this terminal payment way of avoiding a major confrontation.
So much for the action that the work force proposes to take. But what do the Government intend to do about the situation? I hope that the Secretary of State for Industry will meet a deputation from the plant in the next few days, but I am under no illusion about the kind of response that we are likely to get.
We hear a great deal about what the Government might be doing in 1982–83. One can imagine that it will be possible to have major tax reliefs for those who are working and that various other bribes will be introduced to try to cajole the electorate into re-electing this Government to carry on their particular brand of activity. I do not believe that they will get away with it, but if we are to avoid their getting away with it the Opposition Front Bench and the Labour movement in Britain generally must take on board the need to put before the people an alternative strategy that can be seen to be a real alternative and not merely the message of previous Labour Administrations dressed up in new garb.
In my view, the kind of strategy that we need to put forward must contain a major sector of public ownership. It must represent a considerable step towards a real Socialist society, and it must contain within it, as was said in a previous manifesto, a determined intention to shift wealth and power to the work people.
7.33 pm
Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Nothing could have shown more clearly that the Government's broad economic strategy is the only sensible one than the speech of the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore). In the latter part of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman outlined a number of matters which he described as Opposition policy. It turned out to be merely a list of objectives. Only one item actually amounted to policy. I am glad to be able to show that that item integrates within the Government's own policy, but I shall develop that point in a moment.
It is self-evident, and has been often stated, that our principal problem in industry is a lack of competitiveness. This stems, and has stemmed in fluctuating measure for years, from paying ourselves more than we earn. In the conduct of public affairs, it stems from spending more than the country can afford.
The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar referred to spending control, but failed to distinguish the need to control current spending and the need to control capital spending. My first point is supported by a most helpful and revealing answer to me from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at Question Time before Christmas. It concerns the obvious awareness on the part of the Government—that perhaps sounds patronising, as I am sure they thought of it long before I did—that if we are to have the capital available for objectives such as alleviating unemployment in the way that the Opposition have suggested, it is absolutely essential that we control current spending.
There is a lack of willingness on the part of the Opposition to go along with control of current spending. Yet it can be achieved. When we consider the way in which we spend, whether it be local authority or central Government spending, there is still plenty of opportunity to restrict current spending, sometimes by cutting out services which are marginal, sometimes by doing things in less lavish ways or by ensuring that they are more carefully beamed at the targets at which they ought to be aimed.
Current spending must be strictly controlled, for the following reasons. We inherited—I state this as a fact, not as an excuse—at a time when we were not in deep recession, the highest levels of unemployment that the country has known since the war. When one plunges into recession and tackles the structural problems of heavy industries such as steel, shipbuilding and textiles, which are rapidly being tackled, one is bound to have, for a considerable period, a substantial level of structural unemployment. One will wish to use the power of Government to alleviate that.
It was clear from the Prime Minister's answer on 18 December that she regarded it as important to distinguish capital and revenue spending, and to cut down revenue spending in order to have sufficient for capital spending, which means roads, construction and equipment. I therefore wholeheartedly support the Government's policy of tight control with that objective.
Above all current spending means pay. In relation to public sector pay, the Government's duty is, rightly, not to make available more money than they are currently making available to meet public sector pay claims. There may be flexibility. There may be choice. One may cut back the number of people in a department and pay them
1198
more. But the amount of money available for public sector pay must be controlled. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) that the Government ought to make clear that they intend to go on controlling the amount of money made available for public sector pay, not just for a season but for as long as is necessary.
The Government's monetary policy has been castigated as though it were an easy stick to wield. I suppose that it is an easy stick to wield, simply because it has become a slogan. But I support that broad monetary policy because, to put it in simple terms, it is nonsense to suggest that we can cure our ills in the long term by printing money in order to create short-term, artificial demand. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), I do not pretend to be an economist or to have a deep understanding of the niceties of monetary control.
Mr. Austin Mitchell: That is clear.
Mr. Lyell: That is generous. If my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary were present, I would draw to his attention, although I am sure that he is already well aware of it, the final paragraph of his brother's article in The Financial Times of 8 January, entitled
"Where next on monetary control".
That article contains a wealth of wisdom. Referring to money GDP it says:
"This is now rising at just over 10 per cent. per annum. Much the most important thing is to make it clear that it will not be allowed to drift into high double figures again and that people will have to make their own choices about whether to take this expansion in the form of output and employment or higher pay and prices with continuing depression."
That sets the choice for the country, and it is a choice which will be clearly understood by my constituents.
Hemel Hempstead is in some respects fortunate in that the level of unemployment there is lower than in many other parts of the country. However, it suffers from short term working. People who suffer from short term working realise that it is better to have pay rises that are not as high as they could wish and remain in work. By doing so they can sell their goods competitively either abroad or in the home market, thus getting overtime and achieving a net figure in the pay packet at the end of the week. I am sure that they would prefer to do that rather than to seek over-high pay increases, thereby pricing themselves out of the market. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about textiles?"] That applies to textiles as much as anything else. The textile industry has particular structural problems to which I have referred. No doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) will also refer to them, and I am sure that he will agree with my points on capital spending.
I should like to illustrate the sort of area of capital spending which is available to the Government, and which does not necessarily draw wholly on the public purse. Understandably, cash limits have been placed on businesses such as the Post Office, British Rail and other areas where investment is necessary. It so happens that the centre of Hemel Hempstead is occupied by the Post Office and the gas board. Hemel Hempstead has a long, linear high street which provides a superb site for a new multiple store. That would probably attract private investment, even at the present time. But I am told that the Post Office is unable to consider this kind of thing because of cash limits. I ask my right hon. Friends to look at that kind of restriction—the reasons for which I well understand—to

1199
see whether, with flexibility, it could not be eased somewhat, so that private money could be attracted and the Post Office could move to a less central site, which it wishes to do. That would produce a more efficient site, involving investment, which everyone would applaud.
Although it is easy to get postmen today, once we come out of the recession we shall be back in the old position where it will be difficult to get a postman for love or money, apart from those who have given such good service over the years. I regard that suggestion as a constructive approach to the kind of problem that I have outlined.
I want to make a longer-term suggestion. Here I expand on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) in earlier economic debates. He drew the attention of the House to the fact that over decades it has been the policy of successive Governments to encourage money to go into housing via mortgage relief. I applaud the fact that the Government are holding back on the maximum level of mortgage relief. We should seek to enable private citizens who have a financial surplus to put it into risk capital, which is investment. I hope that we shall continue to hold the maximum level of mortgage relief to approximately its present level. I also ask the Government to look at the enormous incentive that is given to people to put their money into pensions.
It is obviously wise for people to save for a pension. However, many people are able to take a longer view for the future. If they could get the same kind of reliefs for risk spending—the details would have to be worked out—that would make more money available for investment. I happen to be self-employed, and I know that in the past—particularly when income tax rates were at their highest—the self-employed have been tempted to salt away money for the long distant future. They might well salt away less and put more into risk capital, which would stimulate investment, if such an incentive were available.
I wish to move briefly to another point relating to unemployment. I cannot develop it because of shortage of time. However, it relates to the country's defence problems and the level of youth unemployment in particular. I am thinking of those coming through the 18-year-old barrier. We should bear in mind the shortage of people to defend the home base. That should appeal to Labour Members, who I am sure would approve of defending the home base, whatever else they may not approve of in the area of defence. Are not such young people a resource that is under-used? We should remember that 200,000 young men reach the age of 18 each year, as well as nearly 200,000 young women who might well be brought into this scheme. Surely there is a great deal of sense in training them for that role—probably for about six months, rather like the Swiss.
Obviously, one should consider the question of money, and I have. The cost of a single person in work under the youth opportunities programme is, I believe, £38 a week. I think that we must all appreciate that the number of young people unemployed is likely to remain consistent for the foreseeable future. However, if the 200,000 young people to whom I have referred are each paid £38 a week for the training that I have suggested, we get a significant
1200
amount of money for a worthwhile task. It is worth while in relation to the security of the country, and it will also benefit the young individuals who undergo the training.
Mr. Ernie Roberts: And end up unemployed.
Mr. Lyell: They will be unemployed anyway, but perhaps that does not worry the hon. Gentleman. If 200,000 young people are taken off the unemployment register, the chances improve for those who remain on it. I ask the Government to think about this matter seriously. There is nothing bizarre about it, because, with the exception of Luxembourg and Eire, we are the only country in Western Europe which does not train its young men for that purpose.
At the time when we did away with that kind of training, there was great pressure on employment, which was one of the reasons for doing away with it. I am not suggesting that these young people should be trained by the regular professional Army. Those who come out of the Army could do it. I put forward that suggestion. In due course I hope to develop it further on paper for the benefit of my right hon. Friends. The principle of making use of an available resource—in this case, our young people—for an obvious need, the home defence of this country, is certainly worth considering.
7.48 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: It has always seemed to me that there are three basic criteria by which economic policy should be assessed. The first is whether there is evidence that the policy is working, or, to be fair, at least evidence that it will produce the intended results. The second is whether the costs demanded by the policy are reasonably justified compared with the benefits conferred. The third is whether alternatives are available for the pursuit of agreed targets which, without compromising on objectives, would be less damaging or onerous. On all three criteria it seems perfectly clear that current Government policy is wholly misconceived. I should like to spell out the reason why.
First, on whether the Government's economic policies are likely to produce the intended results, it is difficult to see how anyone can seriously have faith in that, so thoroughly discredited are the fundamental premises on which those economic policies are based. The first of those premises is that the sole, or at least the main, determinant of the rate of inflation is the rate of growth in the money supply. As far I know, that is still the fundamental hinge of the whole of the Government's policy.
In fact, if one looks at what has happened in the last 18 months, as opposed to having a theoretical view of the world, one will find that a sharply rising sterling M3—accelerating throughout 1978–79 from an annual rate of 8 per cent. to 20 per cent.—has not led, as we expected as a result of the alleged monetarist time lag of one and a half to two years, to steadily rising inflation throughout 1980–81. In fact, it has led to the reverse—a considerable decline in inflation, perhaps to an annual rate of about 11 per cent. at present. Presumably, the Government would therefore have us believe that the acceleration of M3 over the past six months to an annual rate of more than 20 per cent. will not generate another great burst of inflation.
Doubtless, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will produce all sorts of reasons why the theory does not apply

1201
when it is inconvenient, but if the monetarist doctrine has been shown in the past few years to be such a thoroughly bad predictor of real events, why are the Government determined to cling to it so tenaciously?
The second premise underlying the Government's economic policies is that money supply growth can be reduced only by reining back the public sector borrowing requirement, which is why we have all the immense pain that is caused by the cuts. That is also why the Prime Minister continues to assert that the main causes of inflation now are nationalised industry borrowing, the social security budget, and public sector pay claims, and why all the emphasis of Government policy is on those items.
That view is convenient to the Prime Minister's political prejudices but it neglects the crucial point that the main reason why the growth of M3 has spiralled out of control in the past year is not the extravagance of public sector spending but the fantastic growth of lending by the banks to the private sector. The Government's own publications show that in the first 10 months of last year—the latest period for which figures are available—Government borrowing contributed just over £7 billion to the expansion of M3, while bank lending to the private sector contributed £9½ billion. Borrowing in the private sector has accounted for four-fifths of the total domestic credit expansion during the Government's period of office.
Why do the Government continue so perversely to attack the wrong targets? I do not know the answer to that question, and I should be glad to hear it.
The Government's own figures also belie the Prime Minister's repeated accusation of the past few months that the responsibility for money supply excesses lies at the door of nationalised industries. That is the premise on which we may expect a major attack on those industries. The reply of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to my parliamentary question on 27 November showed that public sector corporations' borrowing contributed a mere 3 per cent. to the public sector borrowing requirement in 1979 and that in the first three quarters of last year its contribution was negative. The corporations made a net repayment to the Exchequer of about £¾ billion.
If the two central assumptions underlying the Government's economic policy are not merely not proven but manifestly misleading in explaining events, it seems that the economic rationale for maintaining the Government's present policies—as opposed to the political rationale, which most of us think is the Government's real motivation—is decidedly threadbare, all the more so when one considers the second criterion of economic policy namely, the cost demanded by that policy, compared with the benefits of reducing inflation, which is a goal that I fully support, though I believe that the method chosen by the Government for achieving that goal is wrong.
It is likely that the fall in national output in 1980–81 will be 6 per cent. Almost everyone who has made a forecast of unemployment expects it to more than double from the figure that the Government inherited and to reach 2¾ million by the end of 1981. That means that for every 1 per cent. reduction that the Government have achieved in the rate of inflation there will have been a 1 per cent. drop
1202
in national output and a 200,000 increase in unemployment. Does anyone in the House, including the Prime Minister—though perhaps I should exclude her—seriously believe that such a price can be justified? I am sure that the Secretary of State for Employment does not believe that, though no doubt he will not say so when he replies to the debate.
The pyrrhic nature of the Government's achievement can be seen by comparing current figures with those of previous slumps. We should bear in mind what a 6 per cent. fall in output means. It is three times the fall that occurred during the recession of 1974–75 and it is only slightly less than the 7 per cent. decline in the great depression years of 1929–31.
Even worse, while manufacturing output fell by 11 per cent. between 1929–31, it is expected by various independent economic forecasters, such as Phillips and Drew, the City stockbrokers, that the fall in manufacturing output between 1979 and 1981 will reach a staggering 14 per cent. One-seventh of our manufacturing output will be knocked out. As was stated earlier, the Government have achieved far more in decimating industry than Hitler's bombers ever managed.
Given that the Government's own tax changes added an estimated 6 per cent. to the rise in the retail price index over the past 18 months—that figure is not likely to be challenged—can anyone—and here I include even the Prime Minister—seriously assert that the relatively minor reduction in the rate of inflation justifies such a catastrophic cost in terms of lost output and soaring unemployment?
My third criterion for judging economic policy is whether there are alternatives available that could secure similar or better targets at a lower cost. Ministers constantly reiterate the claim that there is no alternative, but of course there are alternatives. In particular, the case for a phased reflation of the economy in present circumstances, when there are no signs in the economic landscape of any sustainable recovery of demand, is overwhelming. The only major question is whether that can be done without precipitating a further unacceptable burst of inflation. If one can show that that is possible, the case for reflation is overwhelming. I believe that it can be done.
A fundamental cause of inflation over the past two decades has been that when Governments of either party have stimulated the economy, using a variety of tax reduction or increased public expenditure measures, industry has failed to respond by increasing production or investment to a similar degree, because of its not unjustified fears that the boom will be short lived and that most of the benefits will go on imports and not on home production.
The gap between the extra money that the Government have put into people's pockets and the little or no increase in production is filled by inflation. Indeed, that is one good definition of inflation. We need techniques of management on the supply or production side of the economy that can match the traditional Keynesian techniques of management on the demand side. That is precisely the role that it is proposed should be filled by the agreements made with the largest companies in the economy, which have always formed the centrepiece of Labour's alternative strategy.
Far from representing Socialist dogma, such agreements represent a plain common-sense way—perhaps the

1203
only way—of ensuring that demand can be steadily expanded by ensuring, or at least going a long way to ensuring, that production and investment are expanded to a corresponding degree. That entails detailed examination of the current position of our economy. Because the Labour Party offers a serious, realistic alternative to this central economic problem, and because the Government's economic policies are patently failing and involve a catastrophic cost, I have no doubt that the vast majority of people support the Opposition's motion. If one thing is certain in British politics today it is that, if the Government do not change course, they will be irresistibly swept away.
8.1 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) always presents the House with interesting statistics and well-prepared technical cases. I am not sure that some of the cases would work in reality, but today he has presented a case that should be fully considered by the Government. However, I am not for one moment saying that I agree with his conclusions. It is a sad reflection on the House that when we are discussing economic matters, monetarism and the current economic policies of the Government, so few Members are present. We are talking about jobs, people and industry, which create the wealth out of which the Government, in due course, can provide services, some of which have been referred to earlier.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West paid much attention to the money supply. The money supply has risen for one simple reason: some Government policies have contributed to the increase in unemployment, and unemployment increases the money supply. Some people believe that for every 1 million unemployed the cost to the country overall could be as much as £5 billion. That is because of unemployment pay, social security benefits, the loss of production, the loss of national insurance contributions, the loss of PAYE, and so on. There is no doubt that the increase in the money supply, with unemployment increasing at the present rate, must be expected. For the Government to continue to expect manufacturing industry to shoulder the burden that it has been carrying for the last 18 months is untenable. Our manufacturing base is shrinking fast.
Many people—perhaps the media—consider me to be a Right-winger, but at the same time I am a compassionate and pragmatic person, and I care about what is happening to the manufacturing base of this country. As I have said to my right hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, I see it as my duty in this House, whether or not I am a member of the Government party, to ensure that there is a permanent manufacturing base which is as wide as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said that recesses provided good opportunities for hon. Members to visit businesses, trade union officials and representatives of the work force in their constituencies, to see for themselves at the grass roots what was happening, and the effect of Government policies on their constituencies. I do that in every recess, as do many other hon. Members. However, on this occasion I moved a little further north, to the heartland of the textile industry in Lancashire. I visited mills in Royton, Bolton, Burnley and Nelson. I am sad to say that the story in all four areas was
1204
the same. The companies that I visited had answered the request of successive Governments to rationalise. They had answered the call of successive Governments to install the most modern and sophisticated machinery in the world. In doing so, they had the co-operation of all the trade unions within the textile industry. They are operating in an extremely competitive world-wide arena, and the unions are as anxious as the employers that there should be a viable textile and clothing industry.
What has happened? For example, Unit 1, the Carrington Viyella mill at Atherton, in the north of Manchester—another factory and mill that I have visited—had £6½ million of investment, and employs 80 people, but the unit is now working approximately a two-day week. Previously, the unit was working one week in two. That is a thorough waste of taxpayers' money and investment. It has happened for a number of reasons, including high interest rates and the over-valued pound that was not created by industry but is a result of ours being a petrocurrency. Our industry has been placed in such a position that it cannot trade fairly with other parts of the world.
I am deeply concerned about the fate of British industry, which produces our wealth. It is vital to our prosperity and future. I am also desperately worried about the levels of unemployment. I share the view of the hon. Member for Oldham, West that unemployment will probably reach about 3 million. I hope that it peaks out below that figure. We must evaluate the cost to the nation in money terms and in social terms.
I agree with the Government's overall objectives of reducing inflation and cutting public expenditure as a percentage of our gross income, but one objective is missing from the Government's strategy. We must ensure that this country can be competitive in its trade with overseas countries. Unfortunately, the Government's policies have made industry less competitive.
Interest rates have dropped by three percentage points, but that is not far enough. Therefore, we are trading with many countries at a time when our country is having to shoulder interest rate burdens that are twice those of countries such as Germany, and many other countries with which we are in fierce competition.
I turn now to energy. There is one of the great con tricks that has been played on this country. To say that gas prices have had to be increased to the levels that they have been increased is nonsense. I do not believe that the chairman of British Gas could substantiate that, or would even desire to do so. The price of gas has been forced up in order to make it less competitive with electricity and other forms of fuel. I say to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench—it is a pity that the Treasury does not comprise more people with business experience—
Mr. Ioan Evans rose—
Mr. Winterton: I shall give way in a moment. It is because of energy costs that the newsprint mill in Merseyside was closed and 1,200 people were put out of work. Indeed, I gather that the Government offered £7 million to try to persuade the management to maintain that mill. But that was only a temporary expedient. The company knew that its energy costs were enormous, that the sum of £7 million would tide it over only for a few months, and that the problem would soon raise its head again. Why do we not use our indigenous sources of

1205
energy more to the advantage of British industry? It is nonsense to follow a policy of forcing up energy prices to the extent to which they have been forced up in the last 12 to 18 months.
Not only the textile and clothing and paper and board industries are suffering. Representations have been made to me by Oldham Batteries. One of its directors lives in my constituency, but the company is located in the constituency of the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), who, unfortunately, is not present in the Chamber. The director concerned has also seen him about the company's problems. It has factories in America and in France. The cost of energy in this country is well above the cost of energy that it has to meet in the other countries in which it operates. Why should the company expand here and develop a new battery—as it is seeking to do—when costs in other countries are lower? I am not speaking of the Third world or the developing world, which many of us want to help in one way or another. I am speaking of the developed world, in which there are standards of living even higher than in this country. Why is this advantage given to our competitors? Why do the Government not act in the best interests of British industry? It should be the objective of the Government to provide competitiveness in this country for British industry. We are loading industry with burdens that it cannot accept. As a result of that, many people are being put out of work.
I refer again briefly to the textile and clothing industries. They have invested huge sums of money and are prepared to invest more, but until the Government are prepared to act in the national interest—just as the Government of France act in the interest of French industry and French commerce, just as the Government of the Netherlands act in the interest of Dutch business, and just as virtually every EEC Government act—we shall suffer a shrinking and a reduction in our manufacturing base, which will create levels of unemployment which, socially and in every other way, are unacceptable to the people. The objectives are right but the methods by which the Government are seeking to achieve them are utterly wrong.
The right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) referred to Sir Michael Edwardes as an industrial dictator, and said that the Government—he referred particularly to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment—were trying to beat down the working people of this country by attacking the trade union movement. I wanted a stronger Employment Bill, but I was opposed by my right hon. Friend, who fell that we should take the matter stage by stage—the gradual approach. Perhaps he is right; I do not know. Perhaps we should have acted on picketing more strongly, and on blacking, secondary action and the closed shop. But we have not done that. We have sought instead to work with the trade union movement. So, far from being a party that is seeking to tread down the working people in this country, we are seeking to work responsibly with them and their representatives.
I believe that Sir Michael Edwardes is the only man who can save British Leyland. I wish that he were a Member of Parliament, sitting in this House. I wish that he were a member of the Treasury team. If he were, I suspect that different methods would be used to assist and organise British industry from those being followed by the Government at the present time. I pay full tribute to Sir Michael Edwardes for what he is endeavouring to do.
1206
I have reserved views about Mr. MacGregor, of the British Steel Corporation, but the man is of considerable ability and he has been given a brief to do a difficult job. I wish him well in doing it. It is very early days to say that he is an industrial dictator who has been appointed in order to close down the steel industry in this country.
Before sitting down, I want to pay tribute to a Minister who is no longer on the Front Bench. I refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), who was Under-Secretary of State for Employment until the reshuffle—or whatever it is was—which took place a week or so ago. Having represented the interests of the textile industry, I can say that my hon. Friend's visits to the North-West, over the 18 months during which he was in office, were tremendously appreciated. He established a first-rate reputation as a competent and understanding Minister, and I regret his leaving, because he understood the industry, which is going through a very difficult time. At three of the mills that I visited recently on my tour of Lancashire the directors as well as the members of the work force asked why that Minister was no longer holding the portfolio that he accepted when the Conservative Party came to power 18 months ago.
I say to the Government, as I said to them in an unemployment debate in the House on 29 October, "Your objectives are right but for heaven's sake do not overlook the fact that we must be a pragmatic party." Just because inflation is coming clown does not mean that the inflexible policies are working. Inflation will come down automatically because of the deep recession that we are suffering in this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton talked about the brewing industry having a slightly hard time in the last 12 months. That is not because we had a bad summer. I have to declare an interest here. I am non-executive chairman of Camra (Real Ale) Investments Ltd., so I am involved in the industry. I know why turnover is down; I know why takings are down: It is because people have less money in their pockets. That is affecting the rate of inflation.
I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench, in the Department of Employment and the Treasury, that we can see the level of inflation dropping below 10 per cent. because of the recession alone, quite apart from any of the other policies that are being implemented by the Government. For heaven's sake let us protect the manufacturing base of this country, because it is paying the salaries of the bureaucracy and all those civil servants.
Let me put a question—perhaps an embarrassing one—to Ministers. How many of the officials in their Departments have ever been in business, or run a business, or had to pay a wage bill at the end of the week? I am sure that very few of them have had that experience. [Interruption.] I agree that some of them may have. There are, of course, those very fortunate senior civil servants who take lucrative employment on their retirement. I am not saying that they should not be able to do that. I should like to see in the Treasury, the Department of Industry and the Department of Trade more people with practical experience of what goes on on the shop floor. I should like to see people with that experience advising Ministers. The people in the Departments may have legal training, but they have very little industrial training or knowledge of what makes industry tick and what makes people tick.
I am sick and tired of the theory that is trotted out by journalists. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for

1207
Knutsford (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) has just come into the Chamber. I want people to get on the shop floor and see the effect of policies on people on the shop floor.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is not unsympathetic to some of my views, because he is as caring a man as I am and has shown it in all the things that he has done. For heaven's sake, let us make sure that the Government's policies are in the best interest of this country. Do not let us play cricket while everyone else is playing his own game. The French have a system of import licensing. If they want to hold up imports of something, they jolly well will. I know that our customs and excise authorities, through the Minister, are more accountable to this House than are the civil service and the customs and excise in France and other European countries, but if the French can find ways round things why the devil cannot we do the same?
The Prime Minister has promised a tougher MFA for the clothing and textile industries in this country but, unless she acts very quickly with the new American Administration there will be very little of the textile industry left to take advantage of a stronger MFA when it finally becomes effective.
Mr. Ernie Roberts: Will the hon. Member agree that the case he has been making shows that so-called free private enterprise is unsuccessful and cannot do the job? Is not that why he is calling on his colleagues in the Government to give private enterprise a handout and as a Government to do the things that free private enterprise cannot do?
Mr. Winterton: No. I am not saying that at all. What I am trying to say that too often it is because of Government interference that private industry is not able to survive. It is the Government who take the decision about interest rates; it is not the private sector.
There was reference earlier to the amount of borrowing by the private manufacturing sector. The reason for the high level of borrowing by the private sector is that it is borrowing in order to survive to pay off the borrowing which has already taken place for the purpose of investment in factories or works. All the profits that companies are making are now going to the institutions, the banks. Regrettably, too often the banks are not recycling that money as they should, and that is a crying shame. The present system is working towards a situation in which a Socialist Government, in taking over the clearing banks, would almost be able at the same time to take over the manufacturing base of this country because so much of it was indebted to the banks. That is a crying shame. It is a miscalculation, and it is wrong.
We must get our policies right. We must help manufacturing industry. Until we do so, the prosperity of this country will be in doubt, and unemployment will increase. No matter what party may be in power, a Government who follow such policies cannot be acting in the national interest. Something must be done. As I said in October, we must act before it is too late.
8.20 pm
Mr. Derek Foster: I am happy to speak after the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), because he made a tough and uncompromising speech. He has learnt what can happen from painful
1208
experience, both of his own constituency and of the situation throughout the North-West. I come from the North-East, and that area has been struggling against unemployment for the past 50 or 60 years. Many attempts have been made to wrestle with the problem.
From 1963 to 1974 a great deal of success was achieved by Governments of both political complexions through positive regional development policies. A large amount of restructuring was undertaken and the economic base was considerably widened during those years. It is sad that I should have to relate that some of the achievements of 15 or 20 years have been lost during the past 18 months.
The hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) seemed to reiterate the wishful thinking of those industrialists who support the Tory Party. He said that things were not too bad in his constituency even if they were not exactly rosy. As a member of the Select Committee on Industry and Trade, I did not recognise the evidence that he put before the House. Week after week industrial associations, companies, the CBI and other organisations representing industry, both large and small, told the Committee that interest rates and energy costs were too high and that the pound was over-valued. Indeed, they mentioned many other things.
I admit that those who gave evidence said that they supported the overall strategy and that, in particular, they wanted a more severe cut in public expenditure. Nevertheless, they severely criticised high interest and energy costs and the over-valued pound. Is it not true that the country has lost about 40 per cent. of its competitiveness during the past 18 months? Is it not also a fact that almost half of that 40 per cent. loss has been due to an over-valued pound? The Government complacently say that they will not and cannot do anything about it.
The Government's case that they cannot do anything has not been made. Many industries are not yet convinced that everything has been done, or that the will exists to bring down the over-valued pound. Unless something is done about such problems, many of our industrial areas will face even greater destruction.
The hon. Member for Burton also said that the amount of suffering was often exaggerated. That is false. I wanted to become a Member of Parliament partly because I wanted to get rid of unemployment. I was unemployed for 12 months and I had to go through the indignity of going to the supplementary benefit office to collect my £5. I had to tramp round the streets of Sunderland because I could not afford to take a bus to look for work. I know that the problems of deprivation in our inner city areas and in regions such as the North-East, the North-West, Scotland and Wales are not exaggerated.
I should love to take some hon. Members to visit areas in the North-East where unemployment is as high as 30 or 40 per cent. I should like to take hon. Members to areas in Sunderland where no one over the age of 16 stays at school or goes on to full-time further education. What opportunities do those young people have, particularly when no jobs are available and when apprenticeship schemes are being axed? Their only hope is the youth opportunities programme.
Let no Conservative Member think for one moment that the problems and sufferings of the deprived and the disadvantaged are exaggerated. The opposite is true. Tory Members should work, as many of us have, in areas of severe deprivation. They would then understand the

1209
almost insuperable problems that face those living in such areas. Indeed in the House, we sometimes hear about cases of suicide. It is offensive to suggest that such problems are exaggerated.
I wish to be constructive about the youth opportunities programme. I welcome the Government's determination to give guarantees to young people. However, I warn them that there is a grave danger that those guarantees will not be fulfilled. Stories are coming from the careers service to the effect that the service does not have the staff to provide the work experience placements needed if the Secretary of State's guarantee is to be fulfilled. As a result, the young will not be able to take up the opportunities given.
I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State for Employment. He said that he wanted the programme to develop into a programme of vocational preparation for all young people. I should like a programme that would envelope the whole of the 16 to 19-year-old age group in an education and training programme. Let us not be fooled into thinking that fine words from the Government Front Bench or from the Opposition Front Bench will achieve that. We are a long way from achieving the type of programme that the Secretary of State would like to see.
Co-ordination in the youth opportunities programme is inadequate. The problem of how to co-ordinate the programme has not been thought through. We have not begun to wrestle with the problem of the educational and training content and the quality of the programme, nor with how one can know whether objectives have been achieved.
To my cost, and to that of many of my colleagues in the North-East and in Wales, I know much about the problems of the long-term unemployed. The chairman of the Manpower Services Commission is reported to have said to the Select Committee that there were likely to be 700,000 long-term unemployed by 1983. All the Government have done so far is to produce a measly community enterprise programme. I support that programme, but it will provide only 35,000 places at most. In addition, they have reduced benefits for the long-term unemployed. Then Conservative Members will continue to complain about the long-term unemployed as though they are feckless and work shy and do not want to do a good day's work. I can tell the House that the long-term unemployed in the North-East, Scotland and Wales would love to have work to go to every day, to have the money in their pockets as we do, to buy the necessities, let alone the luxuries, of life that many of us in this House take for granted.
We urgently need a programme to enable the long-term unemployed to come back into working life. We urgently need a training programme. We heard a great deal from the Conservatives before and during the last election campaign about how much would be done for training and retraining. We want evidence of that. There is none so far. The only evidence we have seen is of cutbacks in the kind of training programme that my right hon. and hon. Friends fought so hard for when they were in power.
So we want to have done with these fine words. The Government's crocodile tears about the unemployed are not good enough. We want from them action and a programme that will at least put some flesh on the compassionate words spoken by the hon. Member for Macclesfield.
8.30 pm
Mr. John Major: As a number of other hon. Gentlemen still wish to speak, I shall shorten my remarks as much as I can.
There is one aspect of the debate and the asides within it that worry me considerably. So far as I can gather from what has been said, appear to be the only Member in the Chamber who has received a letter from the leader of the Liberal Party in the past week. If the right hon. Gentleman would care to write to me again and explain why I am so signally honoured and what I have done to deserve that honour, I shall seek never to do it again.
The charge that the Opposition have sought to sustain this afternoon is serious. It does not call for any degree of flippancy. I have listened to the debate throughout and I do not believe that they have substantiated that charge in the fashion that they would wish.
The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) spoke with his usual charm but with startling simplicity about many of the underlying causes of what has happened. He spoke with greater simplicity and, in some cases, omission when it came to alternative policies that the Opposition would promote. Many of those omissions have been referred to by my hon. Friends and I shall therefore elaborate on only one.
A remarkable speech was made at the Lord Mayor's banquet in 1976 by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who was then Chancellor. It is correct to paraphrase the right hon. Gentleman as saying that there is a substantial time lag between economic cause and effect. He put that time lag at 18 months and possibly longer. If we are to have a mature debate on the problems we face we must accept that, if the right hon. Gentleman was right then—to the best of my knowledge he has never indicated that he was wrong then or any other occasion—many of the root causes of unemployment and inflation in the past two years were built into the system long before the present Government took office. I hope that Labour Members will bear that in mind when they speak.
The right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar spoke about lack of demand in the economy. There will be much sympathy for that outside. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has just touched on it. How would the Opposition expand demand in the economy, however? They certainly would not do it, judging from their present rhetoric and past history, by cutting taxes. They have never promised to do that. It would be credible for them to promise to expand Government investment, to let loose the printing presses yet again, and to borrow money with an expanding public sector borrowing requirement. It would not be credible, however, for them to advance a policy of expanding public investment by enlarging the borrowing requirement while promising to reduce the level of MLR at the same time.
Shortly before the leadership election translated the right hon. Member for Leeds, East to other responsibilities—after his defeat by a lesser man—he was speaking of expanding the borrowing requirement by £7 billion and reducing the MLR by 4 per cent. It defeats me to determine how he proposes to achieve that trick. We have had no indication of that from the Opposition. If it is to be funded by taxation—and I hope that the right hon. Member for

1211
Chesterfield (Mr. Varley), will deal with that—and if my calculations are correct that will lead to an addition in direct taxation of about 11 p in the pound.
From what we have heard from the Opposition today, it is clear that they oppose what is happening, that they deny logic, and that they seem to deny reality as well. The Opposition also seem to ask us to believe that, if they were in charge, it would be all right on the night. "I will fill in the details later", said the right hon. Member for Stepney and Poplar, implying that it would be all right on the night. I recall the expression "It will be all right on the night" being referred to as the bridegroom's plea. I am bound to say—I hope that it will be taken in the spirit in which it is intended—that when the chief bridesmaid falls over so often and breaks his leg on the way to the chamber, I doubt whether I would accept that sort of plea as a guarantee of future policies.
I do not deride the genuine anxiety that many Opposition Members feel about unemployment. I resent, however, the way in which they seem to regard Conservative Members as having no care and simply paying lip service to the need to resolve this problem. I concede immediately that my constituency does not have the unemployment problem faced in many hon. Members' constituencies week in and week out. Nevertheless, the unemployment rate in the northern part of my constituency is about 9 per cent. and in the southern part 6 per cent. In both, it is rising dramatically. Another 150 jobs have been lost in the last week at Samuel Jones, an excellently run and managed firm.
Hon. Members on the Conservative Benches have a practical and realistic understanding of what is happening. I hope that the Opposition will not charge us again with being neither knowledgeable nor concerned about current events. We can differ and argue about the relative importance of the causes of the unemployment and inflation and the industrial decline seen in recent years. In the round, the causes are clearly identifiable—international recession and a domestic recession, inflation—with the measures necessary to cure it themselves deflating demand—excessive over-manning, excessive pay settlements and technological advances that so often destroy jobs. Above all, perhaps, there has been an enormous transfer of resources from the industrial West to the Middle East oil producers, occasioned by the increase in oil prices since 1973–74. Not all these problems are within the cure of even the most dynamic and forceful Government, not even one led by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot).
I should like to illustrate with some figures the enormous deflation in the whole of the industrial West created by the change in oil prices. The current account surplus of the OPEC countries in 1973–74, expressed in United States dollars, was $6 million. In 1979, it was $80 billion. In 1980, it is estimated to be about $120 billion. That is a deflation in the West that makes any public expenditure cuts by this Government seem like petty cash from the piggy bank. We must recognise that the effect is not just a temporary change but a permanent and continuing change in our trade patterns unless we can deal with the problem of recycling the surpluses built up by the OPEC countries. At the moment, they are being recycled in an unsatisfactory way, frequently as hot money, and frequently they do great damage to the system
1212
I should like to mention one point to which I hope the Minister will direct himself. I do not believe that any Government will be able unilaterally to take sufficient initiatives to encourage a greater recycling of the oil surpluses. I should like to know, however, what initiatives the Government have in mind, in company with our partners in Europe or other trading nations, collectively to seek a greater recycling of these funds. Unless we are successful, I doubt whether we shall attain the increased demand that most hon. Members recognise that we need and without which the regeneration of manufacturing industry is unlikely to take place on the scale that we believe necessary in the foreseeable future,
I believe that the Government will be right if they decide selectively—I emphasise "selectively"—to intervene in industry to help areas where the problems are clearly temporary and clearly the result of the present unsettled trading conditions in the world. Selective intervention will have my total support from these Back Benches.
Where I would not wish to see the Government spending taxpayers' money is in those industries and areas that we believe—and there is much evidence in many cases to support this—are practically in terminal decline. I do not believe that that would be a good use of Government funds and neither would it be fair to the next generation of children who would inherit those jobs in the years to come.
Many tens of thousands of workers today know that they are working in jobs that do not really exist and that may vanish at any time. It will be no help to the next generation to leave those jobs for them to inherit. It may perhaps be a short-term kindness but certainly no real benefit for those who will be inheriting those jobs in the next few years.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: What industries?
Mr. Major: My hon. Friend asks from a sedentary position "What industries"? Specifically, if I may give one example, it would be a great mistake if we were not to permit the steel industry to find its relevant level in this country, where it is producing a sufficient quantity of goods to meet the demand that exists. We cannot continue over-producing in steel and other industries as well, a subject with which we may deal on another occasion.
What I hope that my right hon. Friend can direct his speech to when he replies is, first, the question of what initiatives the Government will be taking over recycling the oil surpluses. Secondly and equally important, what proposals do the Government have for seeking over a period of years the provision and growth of new industries and employment in those areas where industries can be identified as being in terminal decline? That will be an ongoing problem and policy for Government after Government in the years to come. The sooner that we can direct our minds to it with a positive plan for what is proposed, the sooner we can encourage those who are working in declining industries to recognise that there will be a future for their area, even if the industries in which they are working are at present in decline. I will end on that point, as I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not leave the matter there. I am not arguing with him, but is he not aware that the situation

1213
occurred under both Governments? We had Beeching, who ruined our railways, and now we are paying the price. We had Robens, who ruined the coal mines, and now we are paying the price. How can we get the experts to advise us? We cannot use the Treasury experts, because they are always wrong. Mostly the civil servants are wrong, too. I do not believe that Ministers of either party can be complimented on their knowledge. Who is to decide?
Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to follow him. Contrary to tradition, this Government have brought in at least two people from outside who are experts in their field to advise them on precisely such matters. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will be prepared to support that.
Let me deal with one final matter that the hon. Gentleman may agree with, so he may care to listen for just one moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield said that he had visited many factories and areas during the parliamentary recess. I did, too. There is one matter to which I hope that we can direct concern and expenditure in the foreseeable future, which I do not believe will involve large sums. Archaic and appalling conditions exist in many unemployment offices.
I attended one such unemployment office recently on a Monday morning, and found a large number of middle-aged or quite elderly men and women who were attending for the first day of unemployment in order to register for their unemployment benefit. They found themselves queueing in the unemployment benefit office, or outside in some cases, for four or five hours. They were then interviewed by girls who were no doubt splendid but were often young enough to be their grand-daughters. I hope that as a small human gesture we can send some directions from the Department of Employment to try to improve those archaic and humiliating conditions. I hope that my right hon. Friend will take that message on board.
8.43 pm
Mr. Austin Mitchell: I do not propose to waste time discussing the Government's economic policy. It is now irrelevant. It has obviously failed disastrously in relation to the real economy and failed even on its own terms. It has failed to control the money supply. It has increased the public sector borrowing requirement. When it comes to the Budget, we shall find that it has put up taxes as well.
The prognostications we now hear about the depression bottoming out, or to the effect that there is light at the end of the tunnel, are nothing more than the normal response of Governments who find themselves in the mire and have to pretend, because there is no alternative, that being there is a beneficial, even an enjoyable, experience, that it is part of their planned policy, and that something good will come out of it. It will not.
The only safe prophecy made by the Government was that of the right hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), who prophesied an invisible miracle. It is rather like the Berkshire vicar who prophesied that the world was going to end in 1697. I think he was the vicar of Lilley. When, at the end of the year, his parishioners asked "Why has the world not ended? What was wrong with your prophecy?" he explained that the world had in fact ended and that no one had noticed. It will be the same with the invisible miracle when it comes.
In the year ahead the real problems will get worse, output will decline further, unemployment will rise to 3
1214
million, and we shall have a declining share of world trade in 1981, as we had in 1980. The economy will continue to be savaged by a dead sheep, and the Prime Minister will continue to take the failures of her economic policy out on those members of the Cabinet who disagreed with it in Cabinet. She will continue to prate on—we have government by the Central School of Speech and Drama—in meaningless economic gobbledegook.
We are in a situation from which there is no escape. Failure is built into the Government's policies. Every time incomes are squeezed below the cost of living, demand is cut. Every time deflation squeezes profits, investment is cut. We are eating the seed corn and preparing the way for future disaster. Even to try to fight inflation by deflation means, essentially, that no recovery is possible. The Government have to go on deflating and holding down the lid, because, as soon as there is any relaxation or expansion, inflation automatically resumes its upward course.
Indeed, it is possible that the success of the Government's policies will make the situation worse, because the value of the pound has been going up. Last year, it rose faster than earnings in manufacturing industry. I shall not go into the causes of that at this late hour, hut, in so far as confidence is a cause of the pound's going up, everything that makes the Government's policy look successful in Government terms—holding down wages would make it look successful in their terms—contributes to confidence and helps the pound to go up even further. So success in Thatcherdom is failure in the real world. As the pound goes up, so our competitiveness is further undermined.
The pound is now our basic problem. Last year, the nominal rate went up by about 12 per cent. The real rate must have gone up by about one-fifth last year. That amounts to a tax on British exports and a subsidy on imports. The effect will take months and years to feed through. The main effects will probably come in three-quarters of a year, but the absolute effects go on for four years. We shall not feel the effect of the increase only in 1980, but we shall feel the effect of the earlier increase in 1979 and of the increase in 1978. Those effects still have to feed through to the economy, cutting and squeezing our exports and stimulating imports.
What other country would have allowed its currency to go up to this extent? I can think of no comparable rise in a currency's valuation in any advanced industrial country since the war. Other countries have the sense to manage their currencies so as to encourage their manufactured exports, the international trading sector of industry, to be competitive.
We manage our currency in the interests of finance and the City, which are directly harmful to the interests of manufacturing industry. That action guarantees that the situation will get worse. We cannot expand the economy, because such an expansion automatically sucks in imports at an accelerating rate. Unemployment will increase and our trade will suffer. That is one reason why unemployment will continue to increase. We are cutting output, cutting production and increasing our unit costs, and in so doing we are making ourselves less competitive. Meanwhile, other countries are managing to survive the depression caused by the increase in oil prices. In some cases their economies are actually growing. In all cases they are investing and struggling to survive difficulties to which we—an oil Power which should be able to

1215
survive them effectively—are succumbing. We shall finish harmed and weaker, with production and output down and industry in no state to compete when other countries have become more competitive, more efficient and more dynamic. That is the seed of future disaster, particularly when we are shackled with overvalued currency.
The answer lies in a concerted attempt to bring down the value of our currency. I was sorry to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) argue that the expansionist strategies applied in the past would not work now. In a sense, that plays directly into the Government's hands. It does not mean that Keynes is dead. In a more managed situation in which we can improve our competitiveness, either by controlling imports and coming out of the Common Market or by a directly operated devaluation strategy, we can expand the economy. The Keynesian solutions can apply if we solve the problems of competitiveness.
The Government solution to hold wages will not work. It did not work in the 1920s and it will not work now. The agony is enormous and the effect small. Import controls would work, but I believe that a devaluationist strategy would be better. That involves bringing down the value of the pound—talking the pound down. That is possible. For the Government to hold up their hands in horror and say that they cannot affect the value of the pound is an abdication of their direct responsibility to keep the international trading sector of our economy competing and thereby keep up employment.
The Government can talk the pound down. They can bring down interest rates. If the financial markets then refuse to buy gilts, they can use the printing press to fund the Government borrowing requirement. The country now needs an increase in the money supply. Resources are so drastically under-used that a massive increase in the money supply is all that will bring the resources back into production and bring down unit costs.
If the money supply increases, that money will be saved and interest rates will be reduced. Alternatively, it will go abroad and bring down the value of the pound, or it will be spent and stimulate British industry. That is our central problem. The problem can be tackled only by bringing down the value of the pound, by expanding the money supply and by arranging for the valuation of our currency to be geared to the competitiveness of our internationally trading sector so that it can survive in a world which is increasingly hard, cruel and difficult.
Galbraith has prophesied that Britain is a laboratory or test case for the theories of monetarism. That is nonsense. Friedman will wriggle out of his predictions and dissociate himself in the most devious fashion from the Government's actions. At the same time, the Government are already retreating from monetarism in as good array as Napoleon came back from Moscow—walking backwards towards Moscow in their view, but really retreating from monetarism.
The real experiment in the next few months will be the effect of the exchange rate on our economy and competitiveness. I fear that the effect will be disastrous and will lead to further decline in the year to come with no recovery in 1982.
8.53 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I have sat through the whole of the debate and found it interesting. At times I wondered whether hon. Members were debating the motion on the Order Paper. However, I am not an economist but a business man and part-time pilot. I treat economists and their economic forecasts like I treat "Met" forecasts—with considerable reservation and little respect. Conditions can often be worse than the forecast. Often they are better. In my experience they are rarely exactly as forecast.
Many Opposition Members mentioned Scotland. I am the only Scot to take part in the debate so far. In my constituency unemployment is about 14 per cent. The people living in the small town in which I live know that that is not caused by the present Government's policies. Factories in the town closed down before we came to office. The responsibility must lie elsewhere. We should examine why it lies elsewhere.
As a business man, I travel around the country talking to people who speak my language—the business language of profit and loss. They tell me "Whatever you do, Bill, you tell Mrs. Thatcher to stick to her policies, because uncertainty is the worst possible environment in which to operate, plan and control a business". I have some experience of the export market. I have travelled Europe and elsewhere on my flat feet selling our products. It is vital that inflation is brought down to the level of our major overseas competitors. When brought down, it must be kept down so that we can quote prices 12 and 18 months ahead and make deliveries on time. That is vital.
The business world wants no more repeats of the demand management policies practised by previous Governments. They did not create the demand for British products; nor were they managed effectively. In every instance they resulted in large inflows of foreign goods and rising inflation, which led to inflationary wage demands, which in turn were followed by pay and incomes policies which resulted in savage damage being inflicted on our manufacturing industry. We are living with the effect of that compounded over many years.
Regrettably, the Government have been labelled a monetarist and hard-nosed Government. Such a description is false. Opposition Members are more interested in sticking labels on the Government than in examining their policies in detail. Let us examine the facts. When they came into office, the Government accepted, and implemented, the post-dated public sector pay awards. They accepted the need to sustain British Steel, British Leyland, British Shipbuilders and many other major industrial concerns by massive injections of public funds. They accepted the need to increase Government spending through special employment measures. That has happened. The youth opportunities programme has been enlarged and there have been temporary employment subsidies and increased training grants. All those were implemented by the Government. Much to my regret, they also accepted real increases in spending by local authorities. That resulted in a substantial increase in public sector borrowing.
I sat through the whole of the debate wondering whether Opposition Members realised what was happening. My complaint is that we are being labelled a hard-nosed and monetarist Government, but we are not practising policies which merit that title. During a period

1217
of world economic depression the Government are being sensible, prudent and pragmatic. They are attempting to reduce the effects of world depression by policies that should he described as realistic and caring.
The policies are realistic because they attempt to reduce inflation in a manner that can be absorbed and accepted by the viable sections of British industry. They are realistic because they acknowledge that the only area of pay bargaining that the Government can directly influence is that of local authority and Government employees, where the Government foot the bill. The sort of collective bargaining practised in Britain can be practised only in the private sector where the real pressures of supply and demand are effective.
The Government are realistic because they recognise that some sectors of British industry need assistance during these difficult times. Indeed, they are receiving that assistance. We must acknowledge that. The Government do not have any money—it is either public money or borrowed money. Substantial funds—thousands of millions of pounds—are being used to sustain areas in difficulty. That is quite proper. I do not object to that. My quibble is that some of it should have gone to other areas. I am sure that many other Members have the same quibble. The Government are realistic in recognising that we can enjoy only those services that can be sustained by acceptable levels of taxation and borrowing—acceptable to the public at large, to the industry that generates wealth, and to the House.
The Government are caring because they are ensuring that redundancy payments in the old traditional industries, such as steel and shipbuilding, are paid at a level that minimises the hardships both for the individuals and for the communities affected by redundancies. They are caring in ensuring that vital areas of the health and social services are kept at a level that eases the effect of the depression on the old, the sick, the disabled and the less well-off in our constituencies.
The speech of the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) did more to convince me that the Government are, in the main, on the right track than anything else. I am confident that it will have the same effect on the British people. In my experience, the British people—especially workers, and by that I mean those who want to work, including management—wish to co-operate with whatever democratically elected Government is in power. It is wrong to suggest that any sector of Britain should not co-operate. That is the road to anarchy and disruption. I sometimes wonder whether some Labour Members have a vested interest in that happening.
The British people were only too well aware that it was about time that the nation faced the real problems of low productivity, overmanning, endemic high rates of inflation, intransigent unions and inept management. My friends in management and business assure me that for the first time for many years they have been given an opportunity to manage. In the past they have not been allowed to do so because of interfering Governments. I have made profits and I have made losses and I know what running a company is like. The country is facing the problems. Managements and unions—I am a former active trade unionist—are tackling their respective problems. They are doing so sanely, rationally and honestly, and that is more than can be said of some Labour Members.
Mr. Heffer: Get lost.
Mr. Walker: It is up to the Government to continue with their realistic and caring policies and to adjust in some areas as required. In my view, and in the view of the majority of the British people, they should see the job through.
9.3 pm
Mr. Ioan Evans: The Opposition have been fully justified in using their Supply day to initiate this debate. It has succeeded in revealing as a myth the contention of the Prime Minister and other Conservative Members that there is no alternative to the policies that the Government have been pursuing. Opposition Members have rejected the Government's policies throughout the debate. We heard an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who, in the manner of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), talked about the catastrophic effects that the Government's policies are having on industry. There is a realisation among some on the Government Benches that there is an alternative to the disastrous policies that the Government have been pursuing.
Britain's industrial and economic policies are guided by a blind adherence to a crude ideology that has been borrowed from Professor Milton Friedman. The Prime Minister has been like the captain of the "Titanic". She can see the iceberg in front of her, yet she is saying "Full speed ahead". She has appointed as her adviser Professor Alan Walters, who apparently is more of a Friedmanite than Professor Friedman himself.
At the same time, the Government are calling upon workers to restrain their demands for wage increases. However, the Prime Minister is appointing a personal adviser to help with the problems that she is getting continually from the Treasury. The appointment is based on a two-year contract, which could take us to the next general election. It appears that £100,000 will be paid to Professor Walters. It is not moral for the Government to ask for restraint from working people when they are prepared to pay such a salary.
What successes have the Government had with their policy? They have argued that they have succeeded in reducing taxation. That was the great gimmick that they put before the British people. Conservatives said that, if a Tory Government were elected, they would reduce taxation. Yesterday, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury spoke to Swiss bankers in Zurich, the gnomes of Zurich. The title of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was "Thatcherism: a progress report". What progress have the Tories made in the economy?
The Secretary of State for Employment should tell us where in the world Milton Friedman's ideas are succeeding. Where are they being put into practice? Yet the Government have embarked on this experiment, and week by week terrible human suffering has been caused by their policies.
It is wrong for the Government to talk as if inflation were the only problem which faces us. The Government are like the huckster in the market selling a medicine which he claims will cure dandruff, baldness, rheumatism and stomach complaints—in fact, all complaints—we have only to buy a bottle and all our problems and complaints will be cured. That is how monetarism is being presented to the people. The Government say that they have the solution and that it will solve everyone's problems. The tragedy with this Government is that they

1219
are giving the people extra doses of this elixir to solve all their problems. However, we have ended up with all the medical complaints that are listed on the bottle. Instead of solving problems, the Government have aggravated them.
The problems we face are partly a consequence of our membership of the EEC, which has aggravated our difficulties. We should realise that. Membership of the EEC has not helped but has harmed agriculture and industry.
Another reason is the continual failure of British industry to invest in new plant and machinery. During the previous Tory Government, there was a massive boom in property speculation. It is interesting to hear Tory Members in this debate, with over 2 million unemployed, talking of investing in property as a method of solving our problems.
We under-use our indigenous productive capacity; and the powerful multinationals influence the fixing of prices. I believe that one of our problems is the diversion of resources for investment abroad and also as an escape from taxation.
Another of our problems has been the failure to exploit North Sea oil, gas and other energy wealth in order to stimulate industrial production. It is amazing that we have the benefit of North Sea oil and gas, and yet are worse off, as the economic indicators show, than our overseas competitors.
As well as being concerned with the control of the money supply, it is equally important that we should seek to achieve full employment. It is the task of the Opposition to throw back into the teeth of the Government the Saatchi and Saatchi poster displayed at the last election, which said that Labour was not working. Will the Government say that to the million or more people who have joined the unemployment queues as a result of their policies? In my constituency, over 17 per cent of the male population are unemployed. About 38 per cent. of the children leaving school are moving on to the dole queue. Job centres can report only nine vacancies for over 3,000 unemployed. That is how monetarism is working and how it is failing the people. As well as achieving full employment, we must see that there is sustained economic growth, that our external payments are balanced and that adequate finance is generated for health, education and the social services.
The Government are pursuing a policy that members of the Cabinet themselves realise must be changed. We do not have the power in the House to defeat the Government, but it is important for Conservative Members to realise that, if they are to go blindly along with the Government's policies, the result will not be just the defeat of the Tory Party—although it certainly will be defeated in the next election. They talk about arguments in the Labour Party, but we will be there winning the next election. The danger for them is the emergence of a centre party to replace the Tory Party as the only alternative to a Labour Government.
9.10 pm
Mr. Eric Varley: Every hon. Member who has spoken tonight, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has agreed that the nation is now afflicted with a grave economic crisis. Many of my hon. Friends have described the impact on their constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer),
1220
in an outstanding speech, told us that practically every household in his constituency was affected by unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) told us of the impact of the Government's policies on the construction industry, with which I shall deal later. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster), with all his experience in youth work and training, told us of his doubts about the possible success of the youth opportunities programme.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) made a devastating attack on the Government, implying that they had given no thought to the survival level of British industry. But the most bizarre speech was the 27-minute contribution of the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who told us that he had been travelling around his constituency during the recess and who related all the wonders of the world in Burton but failed to admit one vital statistic—that unemployment in Burton had risen by 100 per cent. over the last 12 months.
Mr. Lawrence Mr. Lawrence indicated dissent.
Mr. Varley: Oh yes, it has. That has been checked. As soon as the hon. Member rose to his feet, we asked for that piece of vital information.
The differences tonight have arisen over the questions of who is responsible for the crisis, whether it will get worse or better, and what should be done to put it right. There can be no doubt about the depth of the recession. The latest figures show that during the past year company liquidations in England and Wales totalled 6,876—the highest figure since 1916. Profits are plunging, industrial production is catastrophically down, and output in the latest three months for which figures are available was 4½ per cent. down on the previous three months and 9 per cent. down on the same period in 1979—the latest quarter in which output in manufacturing was less than the current three months' average in 1967.
That is a record that almost makes the nation look back with nostalgia to the period of the three-day working week, seven years ago, when production was way above today's levels. But then, of course, it was a three-day week for nearly everybody. Now, it is a four-day week for some, a three-day week for others, a one-week fortnight for others still—and a no-day week at all for the highest number of unemployed for half a century.
Of course we all acknowledge that world conditions can play some part in this. It is refreshing to hear Ministers and Conservative Members talk about world conditions, since for them world conditions began on 4 May 1979. Up to then, no one in that party would acknowledge their existence. World conditions had gone into hibernation for five years, after making a dramatic appearance in 1973 with the famous pilchard famine in South Africa, on which the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) used to blame all our troubles. Now, world conditions have made a triumphant reappearance. The Opposition will certainly continue to acknowledge them.
Other countries, however, are managing to survive world conditions much more successfully than we are. Any examination of the facts now shows that the policies pursued in Britain are making the United Kingdom recession worse than the world recession. Far from producing a rejuvenated economy, the measures adopted by the Government will leave us trailing behind other countries, and we shall be in a worse competitive position if and when the world economy picks up.

1221
Growth in output has been slowing down in most other countries, but in Britain output has actually fallen. In 1980, our GDP fell by 2½ per cent., compared with a modest growth of about 1·2 per cent. in EEC and OECD areas. Industrial production here has slumped. Other countries have maintained or slightly increased production. West Germany's Bundesbank recently reported that German companies were financially more secure than they were after the 1973 oil price rise.
Since the second half of 1979 our unemployment rate has been higher than the OECD average. According to the Government, high unemployment is the price that we have to pay for reducing inflation, but the United Kingdom inflation rate is still higher than that of many major industrial countries.
The figures for investment are equally dismal. In the United Kingdom over the past two years investment has fallen by more than 2½ per cent. and is forecast to fall this year by 6½ per cent. In OECD countries, over a comparable period, investment increased by 4½ per cent., and even next year a modest increase is expected.
The Treasury predicts that our exports will decline this year by 3 per cent. as compared with last year. The facts show that Britain's recent record has been uniquely bad. I quote the evidence of one of the most recent leaks from this most leaky Government. The Prime Minister may have difficulty in tracing it, because this leak was not committed in one of the usual places, such as Quaglino's or the Garrick Club; nor did it take place in what has now been revealed as the most fashionable new location for Government leaks—the Prime Minister's study at No. 10 Downing Street. Was it in the study? Was it in the Cabinet room, or the State room? Was it there that the Prime Minister entertained the correspondents of The Times, The Guardian, the Financial Times and The Daily Telegraph last Monday afternoon?
In the light of the Chancellor's speech this afternoon, I suppose that on the next occasion the right hon. Lady will add to the guest list the Lobby correspondent of the Chinese People's Daily. Last Monday's disclosure by the Prime Minister to these privileged journalists, that the income tax rate would not be going up in the Budget on 10 March, proves that when she wrote to her right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) exonerating him from being the secret leaker she was very honest.
The significant leak to which 1 refer, however, took place in a somewhat unusual location—the Chamber of the House on Monday. It was committed by a Minister in whom the Prime Minister must retain at least some confidence, as she appointed him only 10 days ago—the new Minister of State for Industry, the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker), who is not present tonight. This is what he said:
"I am very concerned … at the drop in manufacturing output last year. The most powerful contractionary force operating in the manufacturing sector in 1980 was the reduction in inventories and stocks. The level and rate of the reduction was unprecedented in the recent economic history of any country."—[Official Report, 12 January 1981; Vol. 996, c. 1119.]
By far the largest part of the country's troubles stems directly from the actions of the Government. Companies are going bankrupt because of the artificially high exchange rate. Companies are going bankrupt because of the enormously high minimum lending rate, which stood at a record 17 per cent. and 16 per cent. for a year until November. It is always helpful on these occasions to recall
1222
what the Prime Minister said in Opposition when the MLR went up to 14 per cent. for a short time during the period of the Labour Government. She said:
"an increase in interest rates to 14 per cent. is a potential disaster for home buyers … and the small business who are having to pay the price"—[Official Report, 8 February 1979; Vol 962, c. 550.]
More companies will be in severe financial difficulties because of the ruinous effect of the rate support grant settlement on businesses, particularly in our large cities. Workers are being thrust on to the dole queues as a result of all these factors and also because of the huge public expenditure cuts that are being imposed by local authorities.
I take one example—the construction industry—which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Walton. Unemployment has gone up from 160,000 to 274,300 since the Government took office. That is a 71 per cent. increase. For craftsmen in that industry, the increase has been a massive 114 per cent. More jobs have been lost as a result of the Government's attack on regional policy, and practically every decision that the Government have taken in the industrial sphere has brought about unemployment.
When the Government need something to boast about and when they need a success story to tell, they turn to the companies that were either rescued or created by the Labour Government. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Prime Minister will turn her attention from the gnome of Zurich, the Financial Secretary, and take this point on board. When she wants to boast about British industry, she turns to companies that were saved by the Labour Government.
The Prime Minister sits at the wheel of the Mini Metro and proclaims that it is a super car. So it is. But there would be no Mini Metro today had the Conservative Party succeeded in its opposition to British Leyland. During a recent censure debate the Prime Minister, with her face blushed as it usually is when she stands at the Dispatch Box, pulled a rabbit out of the hat by announcing that the Inmos silicon chip factory was to be located in South Wales. Yet Inmos would not have existed today had the Conservative Party succeeded in its opposition to its launching. These are isolated islands of promise in an ocean of gloom. We are faced with a serious crisis that has been made worse by the Government's deliberately inflationary and deflationary policies.
What are the objectives of those policies? It is all part of a perfect plan, which goes as follows: control the money supply and inflation will be conquered; cut direct taxation and industrialists will be galvanised; cut public expenditure and roll back the frontiers of the State and room will be made for these galvanised industrialists to create the British economic miracle that will bring us all unparalleled prosperity. That was their perfect plan, but it turned into the perfect crime, because in the past 20 months all the right, hon. Lady's magic stimuli have not worked.
To begin with, money supply is out of control. That was the linchpin of Government policy. That is disastrously out of control. The House will recall that in his Budget Statement last spring the Chancellor forecast a PSBR of £8,500 million for the current financial year. In November, he revised it upwards to £11,500 million. But this week's figures show that the total Government

1223
requirement in the first nine months of this year is £13,059 million, and even the Treasury is now admitting that it could go way above that forecast.
Another central objective of the Government was the cutting of direct taxation. They made a start in their first Budget. It is true that the majority of it went to top salary earners, who got 30 per cent. of the taxation cuts. But by the second Budget the Government were increasing direct taxation. Since then they have increased it in at least three ways. They increased national insurance contributions in the November mini-Budget. The increase in council house rents announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment last month added another £875 million. All over the country ratepayers will soon be faced with large increases in that form of direct taxation as a result of the rate support grant that we debated yesterday. Even the post-election burst of taxation cuts, which has now petered out, failed to galvanise our industrialists—quite the reverse.
In a newspaper article yesterday, the Secretary of State for Industry was still prattling on about unlocking the talents, skills and energies of the British nation and breaking away from attitudes that stifle risk taking. But the facts are different. The Times reported three weeks ago, just before the House went into recess:
"The number of people leaving Britain to settle abroad is increasing rapidly as the economic recession deepens. As factories close and unemployment spreads, highly trained workers are emigrating to countries where their skills are wanted.… Interest came from a wide cross section of people, including executives, engineers and sometimes science and engineering graduates".
The Secretary of State for Industry talked about promoting enterprise and risk taking. The risk that these valued members of our working population—executives, engineers and science graduates—are refusing to take is to remain in this country, at the tender mercies of the Government. We used to hear much talk from Conservative Members about the brain drain. Now people whose skills are desperately needed are running away from this country.
The Government talk about rolling back the frontiers of the State to make room for newly created industries. They are tampering with our publicly owned assets in a squalid manner. They are meddling with our nationalised industries. The effect on those industries of the economic crisis, for which the Government are largely responsible, has meant that the Government are having to pour unprecedented sums into nationalised industries. A great part of the disaster into which the British Steel Corporation was plunged as a result of last year's unnecessary strike was provoked by the Government's interference in the corporation's wage bargaining. That forced the Secretary of State for Industry to sign what amounted to a blank cheque for the British Steel Corporation. Huge sums have to be injected into British Shipbuilders. Vast quantities of moneys are required for British Leyland because of the collapse of the market in 1980 and the collapse of its export prospects. I hope that the Government will soon reply to Sir Michael Edwardes's request for further resources for that company.
The new Secretary of State for Trade—who we all thought would stick it out if necessary, as the last remaining monetarist in Britain—this week increased the borrowing powers of British Airways by £85 million.
1224
The House has always been very fond of the right hon. Gentleman, but I should warn him that that fondness will be sorely tried if he follows this week's precedent and emulates the disagreeable practice of the Secretary of State for the Environment in using written answers to make unpalatable statements. It would have been better if he had confessed, as the good monetarist he is, that he had got it wrong and that he had to bail out British Airways. The Government promised that large parts of the public sector would be restricted and tamed but, because their economic policies are failing, they are having to put unprecedented amounts of money into the nationalised industries.
Meanwhile, the blight is spreading all over the country. The Financial Times recently brought news of a new growth industry in Britain which is a booming export industry. The Financial Times article stated:
"Thousands of tonnes of second-hand factory machinery are being sold weekly at auctions and through private sales as a result of the tide of factory closures in Britain."
It goes on to refer to how many tonnes are going away. It is a tragedy and disgrace that, after 20 months of the present Government, the Prime Minister is increasingly making sure that some of our skilled men and women are leaving the country and that the machines on which they were working are also going. Until a short while ago those machines were fully employed in our factories, but now there is no use for them.
It is not only men and women workers who are being affected. Boys and girls ought to be acquiring skills for the future, but the Manpower Services Commission, when presenting its recent report to the Secretary of State, made a grim announcement:
"The Commission has informed the Secretary of State for Employment that in looking ahead to 1985 it has had to plan reductions in its employment and training services to levels which it believes are inadequate and not in the interests of the labour market from either the economic or social point of view."
The amendment asks the House to endorse
"the priority given by the Government to master inflation".
When the Government took office in May 1979 the inflation rate was 10·3 per cent. The latest figure, for November 1980, was 15·3 per cent.—half as much again as the rate that the Government inherited. There are rumours that the statistics to be published tomorrow will show that the rate has risen again. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will know the figures.
Inflation will be increasingly affected by higher rates, private and council rents, fuel prices and postal charges, which we already know about, not to mention the higher indirect taxes that will inevitably have to be included in the Budget in eight weeks' time if the Prime Minister is to keep her promise of no increase in the basic rate of income tax that she made to the four posh journalists whom she entertained on Monday. It is by no means certain that inflation will fall consistently as the Government hope.
Let us give the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt and suppose that by the time this Parliament is dissolved inflation is back to the 10 per cent. rate that the Government inherited. In that respect, we will be back to where we were, but to attain that objective the country will have had to pay a catastrophic price of thousands of firms going out of business, rotting public services, deteriorating housing conditions, poorer and more expensive public transport, a deteriorating education system, a reduction in

1225
real terms in pensions and other benefits and, worst of all, a sorry catalogue of unemployment having increased by millions.
It is intolerable that the resources of our industry and our precious North Sea oil revenues are being diverted into financing unemployment when we could be exploiting them usefully and constructively. It is intolerable that there should be 300,000 building workers on the dole when there are 1,200,000 people on housing waiting lists. We need to use our wasted resources to revitalise Britain. We need to put our construction industry to work to house our people. We need to re-equip our railway system, especially the seedy parts, where commuters are paying higher fares for less frequent trains and intolerable conditions.
We need to use the public purse to finance the potential growth industries and to train our eager youngsters to operate them. That is the policy to adopt. The Government's refusal to do that is a sorry commentary on them. At the Tory Party conference last October, the Prime Minister said:
"The Lady's not for turning."
Very soon the British people will make sure that, come the next election, she will be turned out of office. That is the reason why we are moving our motion tonight.
9.35 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. James Prior): At a time of high unemployment, and with the anxiety that it causes, it is not surprising that we are having frequent debates on this subject. Today's debate has been rather less than the relentless attack and exposure that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) promised us in his Sunday morning address to the nation, except that it has been a bit of an exposure. It has shown clearly that, first, there is very little in the Opposition's case to put forward. I shall deal with that later. Also, behind the Opposition there is the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), who is taking a totally different view from his Front Bench. Presumably, there is also the view—which has not been expressed today, but which we know must be around—of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and hon. Members from a number of other constituencies, who take yet another different view from that of the Leader of the Opposition. To that extent, there has been more exposure today than we might have expected.
When Labour Members accuse us of not caring about unemployment, I remind them of the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker), who said that, if we did not care, we should not be spending on British Leyland, British Shipbuilders, British Steel and a host of other industries the vast sums that we are spending; nor should we be spending vast sums on youth unemployment and many other aspects of unemployment.
Again and again during the course of this debate Labour Members have shown that they are not able to make up their minds about whether they believe that our monetary policy is too tight or not tight enough, or whether they believe that the public sector borrowing requirement should be higher or lower. I suspect, from all that we have heard from the Opposition Front Bench, that they believe that we can cure our serious problems by a dose of old-fashioned reflation. That was the general view of the right hon. Members for Stepney and Poplar (Mr. Shore) and
1226
Chesterfield (Mr. Varley). I should like to take them through what happened when they were faced, in similar circumstances
Mr. Heffer rose—
Mr. Prior: No, I want to get on. I have lost five minutes already. I shall not take long on this matter, and I shall take even less time if I can get on with it. It is important. When the Labour Government were in office, and when we had high unemployment, they found themselves in the clutches of the IMF—
Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Prior: No, I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in good time, but first I should like to make my points.
For a short time the Labour Government heeded what the former Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition said to his party conference:
"We used to think that you could spend your way out of recession. I tell you in all candour that that option no longer exists."
They accepted that for two years, and then between 1977 and 1979 they allowed the public sector borrowing requirement to go up again. There was a sharp increase in real earnings and real standards of living. What happened to unemployment? It fell by a mere 150,000. That was despite pouring money into the economy and a large increase in real earnings and real standards of living. What the Opposition have not understood is that by reflation, as happened last time, unless we get the economy competitive in the meantime, we simply suck in the imports all over again.
Mr. Heffer: Is the right hon. Gentleman totally ignoring the two quotations that I gave from two former Tory Prime Ministers, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and Mr. Harold Macmillan, who made it absolutely clear that they thought the present Government's policies were leading to catastrophe and disaster?
Mr. Prior: I am sorry that I gave way quite so early, because I shall be dealing with that point in the course of my remarks. I was pointing out that, by reflating the economy in the bad competitive position of British industry, all we do is to encourage imports.
It is interesting to look at a study of United Kingdom import penetration In the last three years. In 1970, we imported about 50 per cent. of our office machinery. Now we import nearly all our office machinery. We used to import 50 per cent. of our electronic computers. Now the figure is 85 per cent. We know what has happened to cars and to watches and clocks.
I have to point out to the Opposition Front Bench that, although, of course, the high exchange rate has been an important factor in making us less competitive, it is by no means the only factor that has made us less competitive. On the basis of relative labour costs, the level of competitiveness in 1980 is estimated to be 40 or 50 per cent. less favourable than in 1978. Of this change in competitiveness about three-fifths has been due to United Kingdom unit labour costs increasing faster than those of our competitors. The other part is due to the exchange rate.
So although we have a serious difficulty with the exchange rate, we also have to accept—as the previous Labour Government had to accept—that it is our own

1227
labour costs that have prevented us from selling our goods in the volume in which we need to sell them abroad and that have also had the effect of sucking in imports.
We have been importing other people's unemployment for a number of years, so we cannot go back once more to those old methods of trying to reflate ourselves out of a depression. Yet the Opposition want us to repeat that process. It would lead us straight back to inflation, and it is these inflationary bouts—ever intensified over the last 20 years—which have brought upon us the uncompetitive state of much of our industry today. If we were to return to that policy, in two or three years' time we should not be decrying very high levels of unemployment such as we have today but wondering why they were very much higher still.
We owe it to our people to ensure that the real suffering and indignities through which many of our people are now passing are not in vain and will not be repeated in an even more acute form in an even shorter time scale. This means continuing, above all, with the campaign to get inflation under control. We are succeeding in that, and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this afternoon, the last six months' figures show that prices have risen by 4–1 per cent. That is a slightly optimistic figure but it is a vast improvement on the figures that we have had since about 1977.
With regard to food prices—a very important matter for pensioners and others—the year-on-year figure is down to 9·7 per cent.
Mr. David Ennals: When does the right hon. Gentleman think that inflation will reach the level that the Government inherited from the Labour Administration?
Mr. Prior: Unlike Labour Ministers, who always told us what would happen to the levels of unemployment and to the levels of inflation, but who never got it right, I am not in the game of forecasting to that extent.
Provided that we continue to hold wage increases to sensible levels and provided that we continue to lower the rate of inflation so that output can once more start to expand, we shall soon see a very large increase in productivity and a very much better position for competitive British industry. Despite all the bad things that are only too evident, we can take comfort from the fact that in a most difficult time there has been great co-operation between management and the work force on the shop floor. That is evinced by the very low figures for industrial disputes.
In November, there were 53 new stoppages and that is the lowest number since the war. If one considers the number of working days lost— [Interruption.] I had thought that on the whole Opposition Members would like to hear good news. I thought that that was what they were interested in. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] I am the last person to object to the fact that Labour Members are not coming into the Chamber. I should have thought that Opposition Members would be particularly interested in the figures for industrial disputes and for the number of working days lost. During the past five months those figures were lower than for any corresponding period since 1966.
No one doubts that management is having to take some hard and painful decisions. Those decisions have been
1228
made all the more difficult because they have been postponed for so long. With hindsight we can all see that, if we had placed more emphasis on making industry competitive and profitable in the easier years, we should not have been faced with such harsh and difficult problems.
I turn to the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East. During the British Leyland dispute the right hon. Gentleman spoke on Independent Radio News. The broadcast was made on the Sunday morning on which the Metro workers were taking a decision on whether to accept the union's terms. He said:
"I think that the bullying nature of the management offered by Sir Michael Edwardes is a disgrace and I believe that people in this country should support the British Leyland workers in trying to maintain decent standards of civilised conduct".
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that those remarks were mischievous in the extreme. They were regarded as mischievous by responsible trade union leaders. Before any decisions are taken on vital disputes and problems within British industry which involve not only large sums of taxpayers' money but the future employment of many workers, it does no good to the Opposition's cause or to the country's to try to incite those workers to take such a line.
Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many workers in industry who are now being threatened daily by management, that, unless they accept what the Government lay down their work will be taken away from them believe that the right hon. Gentleman is guilty of odious hypocrisy in supporting free trade unionism in Poland and denouncing it in this country?
Mr. Prior: In his speech this afternoon the right hon. Gentleman called for the setting up of communes and advised trade unionists and trade union leaders to withdraw all the co-operation and support that they are giving the various bodies that are connected with the Government. He went on to say that he disagreed strongly with the policy of the Opposition Front Bench, or parts of it. He said that the only future was one in which industry was completely dominated by the State. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to tell me about Poland, I suggest that he goes there. He got as near this afternoon as he ever has in giving his description of the sort of society that he wishes to see in Britain. He is not like the hon. Gentleman sitting next to him, his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), whom I regard as an old-fashioned Socialist. The right hon. Gentleman has stepped over the boundary.
The right hon. Gentleman purports to understand the British working man, but he does not have a clue about the British working man. The British working man would eat him for breakfast any day of the week. Let me return to more serious matters than dealing with the right hon. Gentleman.
There are two factors to be dealt with concerning the high level of unemployment. First, we must do all we can for those areas and those groups that are hardest hit by it. A second point was brought out forcefully by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten). If we are not to drift back into the old ways, we have to accept that new challenges and opportunities will arise as we move out of the recession and that we have to deal with these matters perhaps in a different way.
The story of Britain's decline over the past 30 years has been one of repeated failure to make the most of the

1229
opportunities presented by the rapid growth in world trade. We can all see the consequences of that throughout the land today. We can no longer afford to shy away from this challenge.
Today we have published a Green Paper on trade union immunities. I hope that the document will be read by everyone in the House and by many people and organisations too, but I want to mention just one paragraph in the introductory chapter, because it ties in closely with what my hon. Friend said. It says:
"The absence of reasoned debate leading to a wider understanding of common problems seriously hampers progress. If it were possible to establish clear and acceptable relationships between these dissimilar bodies."
—the TUC, the employers' organisations and the Government—
"as a working understanding, the incessant flexing of industrial muscle to impress Government might be replaced by more constructive activity."
What we need to do in this country, wherever we can and in any way we can, is to find the common ground. If industry is to prosper, if we are to get investment up again and if we are to make better use of investment, it is a mistake for the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) to think that investment is the end of the story. The British record over the last 15 years in manufacturing investment has not been bad. The truth, however, is that we have not got, as the right hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Barnett), who shared a platform with me, knows, the results from that investment that other countries have achieved. The Germans have invested less than us in manufacturing industry as a percentage of their output but have got about twice the amount of work out of it.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton rose—
Mr. Prior: I am sorry. No.
Hon. Members: Give way!
Mr. Winterton: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the point he makes about unsatisfactory industrial relations in some industries does not relate to textiles and clothing where employers, the work force arid the trade unions have worked closely together but are being totally destroyed by unfair competition?
Mr. Prior: Everyone knows that the textile industry faces extraordinarily difficult problems. It has faced difficult problems over the past 20 years since I have been a Member of the House. The problems have been made more difficult by the unfair practices that the United States has been using in holding down the price of oil. My hon. Friend has been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We are aware of the matter. My hon. Friend said in his speech today that he hoped that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would raise the question with President-elect Reagan when she goes to see him. I am certain that she will do so.
I want to end by saying a word about the youth opportunities programme and what we are doing to try to help these special groups of people. I take up the point made by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster). If he has evidence that we are not going to get the places that we require for the youth opportunities programme in his area and if he will let us know, we shall do all that we can to help get them. I am pleased to say that the CBI unit, under Lord Can's chairmanship, has been in contact with 50 companies. It has about 7,000 firm
1230
offers of places and about 10,000 more in the pipeline. That is the result of six weeks' work by a small unit of people.
Overall, we shall have trebled the amount of money for the youth opportunities programme from £68 million in 1978–79 to £208 million in 1981–82. Last year, 180,000 to 190,000 young people went through the scheme. We have put up that figure this year to 300,000. We are expanding the scheme next year to 440,000. That does not look to me like a Government who do not care about unemployment and young people.
We have put the new community enterprise programme into action with 25,000 places available from April onwards. My right hon. Friend said this afternoon that the temporary short-time working compensation scheme was now running at a rate of over £400 million a year. We are aiding, in one way or another, over 750,000 people to try to hold jobs that otherwise, in this recession, they would not be able to hold.
All that suggests to me that, difficult though our present situation may be, the policies of the Government will succeed in bringing about higher employment and higher prosperity. In the meanwhile, we shall do all that we can to protect our people from the worst effects of this recession.
Question put,That the original words stand part of the Question:
The House divided: Ayes 244, Noes 304.

Division No. 42]

[10 pm

AYES

Adams, Allen

Cunningham, Dr J. (Wh'n)

Allaun, Frank

Dalyell, Tam

Alton, David

Davidson, Arthur

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ernest

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Ashton, Joe

Davis, T. (B'ham, Stechrcd)

Bagier, Gordon A.T.

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Dewar, Donald

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

Dixon, Donald

Beith, A. J.

Dobson, Frank

Benn, Rt Hon A. Wedgwood

Dormand, Jack

Bidwell, Sydney

Douglas, Dick

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Douglas-Mann, Bruce

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Dubs, Alfred

Bottomley, Rt Hon A.(M'b'ro)

Dunn, James A.

Bradley, Tom

Dunnett, Jack

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

Eadie, Alex

Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

Eastham, Ken

Brown, Ron (E'burch, Leith)

Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n S E)

Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

Buchan, Norman

English, Michael

Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

Ennals Rt Hon David

Campbell, Ian

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Evans, John (Newton)

Canavan, Dennis

Ewing, Harry

Cant, R. B.

Faulds, Andrew

Carmichael, Neil

Field, Frank

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Fitch, Alan

Cartwright, John

Flannery, Martin

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Cohen, Stanley

Ford, Ben

Coleman, Donald

Forrester, John

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Foster, Derek

Conlan, Bernard

Foulkes, George

Cook, Robin F.

Fraser, J. (Lamb'th, N'w'd)

Cowans, Harry

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Craigen, J. M.

Freud, Clement

Crowther, J. S.

Garrett, John (Norwich s)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Cunningham, G. (Islfngton S)

George, Bruce

1231

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Newens, Stanley

Ginsburg, David

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Golding, John

Ogden, Eric

Gourlay, Harry

O'Halloran, Michael

Graham, Ted

O'Neill, Martin

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Grant, John (Islington C)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Hamilton, W. W. (C'tral Fife)

Palmer, Arthur

Hardy, Peter

Park, George

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Parker, John

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Parry, Robert

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Pavitt, Laurie

Haynes, Frank

Pendry, Tom

Healey, Rt Hon Denis

Penhaligon, David

Heffer, Eric S.

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Hogg, N. (E Dunb't'nshire)

Prescott, John

Holland, S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

Price,C. (Lewisham W)

Home Robertson, John

Race, Reg

Homewood, William

Radice, Giles

Hooley, Frank

Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

Horam, John

Richardson, Jo

Howell, Rt Hon D.

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Howells, Geraint

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Huckfield, Les

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Robertson, George

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Rooker, J. W.

John, Brynmor

Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Rowlands, Ted

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

Ryman, John

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Sandelson, Neville

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Sever, John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Kerr, Russell

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Kilfedder, James A.

Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Kinnock, Neil

Silverman, Julius

Lambie, David

Skinner, Dennis

Lamborn, Harry

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Lamond, James

Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

Leadbitter, Ted

Snape, Peter

Leighton, Ronald

Soley, Clive

Lestor, Miss Joan

Spearing, Nigel

Lewis, Arthur (N'ham NW)

Spriggs, Leslie

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Stallard, A. W.

Litherland, Robert

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Stoddart, David

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

Stott, Roger

Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

Straw, Jack

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

McElhone, Frank

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

McGuire, Michael Ince)

Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)

McKelvey, William

Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

McNally, Thomas

Tilley, John

McNamara, Kevin

Tinn, James

McTaggart, Robert

Torney, Tom

McWilliam, John

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Magee, Bryan

Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Walker, Rt Hon H.(D'caster)

Martin, M(G'gow S'burn)

Watkins, David

Maxton, John

Weetch, Ken

Maynard, Miss Joan

Welsh, Michael

Meacher, Michael

White, J. (G'gow Pollok)

Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

Whitlock, William

Mikardo, Ian

Wigley, Dafydd

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

Williams, Sir T.(W'ton)

Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H.(H'ton)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Winnick, David

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Woolmer, Kenneth

1232

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Mr. Frank R. White and

Young, David (Bolton E)

Mr. Hugh McCartney.

Tellers for the Ayes:

NOES

Adley, Robert

Eggar, Tim

Aitken, Jonathan

Elliott, Sir William

Alexander, Richard

Emery, Peter

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Eyre, Reginald

Ancram, Michael

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Arnold, Tom

Fairgrieve, Russell

Aspinwall, Jack

Faith, Mrs Sheila

Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorfe)

Fell, Anthony

Atkins, Robert(Preston N)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Baker, Kenneth(St.M'bone)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Fletcher, A. (Ed'nb'gh N)

Banks, Robert

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Fookes, Miss Janet

Bell, Sir Ronald

Forman, Nigel

Bendall, Vivian

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

Benyon, Thomas (A don)

Fox, Marcus

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Bevan, David Gilroy

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Fry, Peter

Biggs-Davison, John

Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.

Blackburn, John

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Blaker, Peter

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Body, Richard

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Glyn, Dr Alan

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Goodhart, Philip

Bowden, Andrew

Goodhew, Victor

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Goodlad, Alastair

Braine, Sir Bernard

Gorst, John

Bright, Graham

Gow, lan

Brinton, Tim

Gower, Sir Raymond

Brittan, Leon

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

Gray, Hamish

Brooke, Hon Peter

Greenway, Harry

Brotherton, Michael

Grieve, Percy

Brown, M.(Brigg and Scun)

Griffiths, E.(B'y St. Edm'ds)

Browne, John (Winchester)

Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Grist, Ian

Bryan, Sir Paul

Grylls, Michael

Buchanan-Smith, Hon Alick

Gummer, John Selwyn

Buck, Antony

Hamilton, Hon A.

Budgen, Nick

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Bulmer, Esmond

Hampson, Dr Keith

Burden, Sir Frederick

Haselhurst, Alan

Butcher, John

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Butler, Hon Adam

Hawksley, Warren

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Hayhoe, Barney

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Heddle, John

Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

Henderson, Barry

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Hicks, Robert

Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Chapman, Sydney

Hill, James

Churchill, W. S.

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

Holland, Philip (Carlton)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hooson, Tom

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hordern, Peter

Clegg, Sir Walter

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Cockeram, Eric

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

Colvin, Michael

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Cope, John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Cormack, Patrick

Hurd, Hon Douglas

Corrie, John

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Costain, Sir Albert

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Cranborne, Viscount

Jesse!, Toby

Critchley, Julian

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Crouch, David

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Dickens, Geoffrey

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Dover, Denshore

Kershaw, Anthony

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Kimball, Marcus

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Durant, Tony

Kitson, Sir Timothy

Dykes, Hugh

Knox, David

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Lamont, Norman

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Lang, Ian

1233

Latham, Michael

Neale, Gerrard

Lawrence, Ivan

Needham, Richard

Lee, John

Nelson, Anthony

Le Marchant, Spencer

Neubert, Michael

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Newton, Tony

Lester Jim (Beeston)

Normanton, Tom

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Nott, Rt Hon John

Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

Onslow, Cranley

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Loveridge, John

Page, John (Harrow, West)

Luce, Richard

Page, Rt Hon Sir G. (Crosby)

Lyell, Nicholas

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

McCrindle, Robert

Parkinson, Cecil

Macfarlane, Neil

Parris, Matthew

MacGregor, John

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Pawsey, James

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Percival, Sir Ian

McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)

Peyton, Rt Hon John

McQuarrie, Albert

Pink, R. Bonner

Made!, David

Pollock, Alexander

Marland, Paul

Porter, Barry

Marlow, Tony

Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

Marshall Michael (Arundel)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Mates, Michael

Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

Prior, Rt Hon James

Mawby, Ray

Proctor, K. Harvey

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Raison, Timothy

Mayhew, Patrick

Rathbone, Tim

Mellor, David

Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Renton, Tim

Mills, lain (Meriden)

Rhodes James, Robert

Mills, Peter (West Devon)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Miscampbell, Norman

Rifkind, Malcolm

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Moate, Roger

Rossi, Hugh

Molyneaux, James

Rost, Peter

Monro, Hector

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Montgomery, Fergus

Scott, Nicholas

Moore, John

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Mudd, David

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Murphy, Christopher

Shepherd, Richard

Myles, David

Shersby, Michael

1234

Silvester, Fred

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Sims, Roger

Trippier, David

Skeet, T. H. H.

Trotter, Neville

Smith, Dudley

van Straubenzee, W. Ft.

Speed, Keith

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Speller, Tony

Viggers, Peter

Spence, John

Waddington, David

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Wakeham, John

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Sproat, Ian

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Squire, Robin

Walker, B. (Perth )

Stainton, Keith

Waller, Gary

Stanbrook, Ivor

Walters, Dennis

Stanley, John

Warren, Kenneth

Steen, Anthony

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Stevens, Martin

Wheeler, John

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Stewart, J. (E Renfrewshire)

Whitney, Raymond

Stokes, John

Wickenden, Keith

Stradling Thomas, J.

Wiggin, Jerry

Tapsell, Peter

Wilkinson, John

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Williams, D.(Montgomery)

Tebbit, Norman

Winterton, Nicholas

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wolfson, Mark

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Younger, Rt Hon George

Thompson, Donald

Tellers for the Noes:

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Mr. Carol Mather and

Thornton, Malcolm

Mr. Anthony Berry.

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 32 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House, while recognising the severity of present economic difficulties, endorses the priority given by the Government to mastering inflation and improving competitiveness, and calls on the Government to maintain its present policies for economic recovery, which alone offer the prospect of a lasting reduction in unemployment.

Steel Industry
[Relevant documents: Nos. 8472179 and 6534/80]
10.13 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Norman Tebbit): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents No. 10180/80 on Production Quotas for Steel and Nos. 10179/80 and 10879/80 on Social Measures for the Steel Industry.
The debate this evening is held on the recommendation of the Select Committee on European Legislation &c., and is for the purpose of considering European Commission documents on two subjects relating to the steel industry. The first subject is the Commission's proposal to declare a state of manifest crisis under article 58 of the Treaty of the European Coal and Steel Community and to impose mandatory production quotas on Community steel producers. With the approval of the Scrutiny Committee, for which I am grateful, the Government's agreement to these proposals was not delayed by the need to wait for this debate, and production quotas under article 58 are already under operation.
The second subject is the Commission's proposals on the social aspects of the restructuring of the steel industry. These proposals are still being considered by the Council of Ministers.
Before I come to the proposals themselves, I shall remind the House briefly of the problem faced by the European steel industry and the steel industries of other developed countries.
The investment decisions that were taken a decade ago were based on assumptions of a continuing growth in the demand for steel industry products. Those assumptions led to the development of new production capacity. Reduced demand in the far less buoyant economic situation since 1973 has failed to match that capacity. The result has been severe pressure on prices, reduced output and losses throughout the steel industry.
Since the end of 1977, the Community has met these conditions with various anti-crisis measures, generally known as the Davignon plan. These have included measures to prevent the collapse of prices to uneconomic levels, voluntary arrangements with the principal steel-exporting countries to restrain exports to the Community and voluntary delivery ceilings under which Community producers agreed to limit the tonnage of steel that they sold to the internal market.
At the beginning of 1980, there were those, especially in Germany, who had hoped that an easing of the steel crisis might be in sight. Although other Community producers maintained production in the first half of the year—of course, they were helped by the British Steel Corporation strike, which reduced output in Britain in the first quarter—it became obvious by the third quarter that demand had fallen away sharply, and prices slumped.
The Commission drew up plans for increased voluntary restraint on deliveries, which it put to the producers. Most were willing to accept these but some, mainly German and Italian, were reluctant, and the position was made worse by a breakdown in mutual confidence among the producers.
The Commission therefore decided to invoke article 58 of the ECSC Treaty, which provides for emergency action in the form of production quotas when the Community is confronted with a period of manifest crisis. Its proposals
1236
were produced early in October and were immediately laid before the Council of Ministers. We would have preferred a voluntary system, provided that it was effective and fair, but we recognised that in the prevailing circumstances in the industry that was not possible. The Government therefore gave the proposals full support, and in doing so we had the British Steel Corporation, the independent producers and the steel unions firmly behind us.
All the other member States agreed except the Federal Republic of Germany. Germany was strongly opposed to the degree of interference with the industry which the Commission proposals involved, but in the end, after three Council meetings, all of which were attended by my predecessor, the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), unanimous agreement was achieved on 30 October. Some compromises were necessary to achieve unanimity, but the final outcome was reasonably satisfactory and should have a stabilising effect on the market.
The agreement was reached on the basis that the Commission would allocate mandatory production quotas to each undertaking producing more than 6,000 tonnes per quarter. The quotas were to cover the last quarter of 1980 and the first two quarters of this year and to take the form of a reduction from the best level of production achieved by undertakings in the corresponding months of the previous three years. Smaller firms can produce without a quota, but their output is still monitored. The aim of the quotas was to bring output more into line with demand and to help to stabilise the market. The quotas for the last quarter were calculated by the Commission to hold overall Community production to some 14 per cent. below the level of the last quarter of 1979. In the light of experience, the quotas for the first quarter of this year will reduce production by a somewhat larger amount.
The quotas are for total crude steel production and also for four major product groups covering most ECSC steel products. The Commission has established a system of production supervision which includes returns from producers and checks by inspectors recruited for the purpose. Although the levels may be exceeded for certain alloy steels, my predecessor obtained the Commission's assurance that it would consider prompt corrective action if this caused disruption of the market for any particular products. It has recently issued guidelines to Community producers of special steels and has urged them to reduce exports to the United Kingdom. A few steel products have been excluded from the quotas, notably steels for tube making, but these also are being monitored and in some cased are subject to special Commission guidelines. It is still much too soon to say how the quota system is working, but there are some signs of prices recovering from the wholly uneconomic levels to which they sank last year.
As regards social measures, I should first like to say that the Government have always recognised the special problems associated with loss of employment in the steel industry. The industry is frequently the major employer in an area, and special measures are needed to cushion the effects of a closure destroying a large number of jobs in such a small neighbourhood.
We shall continue to do whatever we can in these difficult circumstances, not least by taking full advantage of help that may be available from the Community. Provisions already in force to this end are contained in the iron and steel readaptation benefits scheme, which is funded jointly by the Government and the ECSC and

1237
enables income-support benefits to be paid to eligible redundant steel workers for up to two and a half years, depending on a worker's age. To date, the Commission has allocated some £58 million to the United Kingdom under these arrangements.
In addition, the ECSC provides loans toward the cost of projects creating new employment opportunities in coal and steel closure areas, with interest rebates depending on the number of jobs available to ex-coal or steel workers. Loans totalling more than £36 million were also disbursed by the Commission for such projects in the United Kingdom in 1980.
The proposals contained in Community documents 10179/80 and 10879/80 provide for further ECSC assistance towards the cost of helping steel workers affected by the contraction of their industry.
Mr. Barry Jones: I have corresponded with the Minister's office about the fact that redundant steel workers in my constituency are aggrieved because, although women can convert their readaptation benefit into a lump sum or early occupational pension at the age of 50, men have to wait until 55. Neither I nor the male steel workers regret the fact that women can do this at 50, but the men feel that it is unjust that they should wait until 55. Is there any way in which the Minister can help on this matter?
Mr. Tebbit: That will be very difficult. I am aware that the hon. Member has taken this matter up persistently with my predecessor. The problem is that these arrangements are designed to assist those who are within 10 years of normal retiring age. Such is the discrimination in this world against us poor males that in this case things work out more beneficially for women than for men.
Mrs. Peggy Fenner: Not in this House.
Mr. Tebbit: My hon. Friend points out that there is one place where we do not discriminate, and that is in the House. I am not hopeful that I shall be able to help in this area. I will certainly look at it again, but I doubt whether my predecessor missed anything that I would be able to uncover.
As I was saying, the proposals take the form of a Community contribution to costs incurred by member States in aiding early retirement, including severance payments and some short-time working. At the same time, the Commission sought agreement to financing this assistance by a transfer to the ECSC budget from the general budget of the EEC.
Commission proposals for mitigating the social consequences of the steel crisis had been made much earlier, but they were unacceptable to most member States as the work-sharing which they included would have added to the production costs of steel undertakings and harmed the competitveness of the industry while tending to delay the necessary restructuring.
The Government have warmly welcomed the revised aid measures proposed by the Commission in the document under discussion, and my predecessor personally supported them in the Council since, as he rightly said, they provide valuable assistance in meeting the high cost of early retirement pensions and severance payments to redundant steelworkers. Indeed, the United Kingdom Government put in a claim last summer for a Community contribution of £85 million.
1238
At the same time, we have argued that Community aid should be linked to restructuring. It is generally accepted in the Community that the restructuring of the steel industry to bring capacity into line with demand and to restore competitiveness is essential. It is right that member States which are undertaking the necessary restructuring should be helped in this way with the heavy social costs. As the House will recognise, restructuring in any one country will bring benefits to all the Community steel producers, and the United Kingdom would be a major beneficiary of any such aid.
This would be expenditure under the terms of the ECSC Treaty. Given the objections to increasing the levy on steel and coal production, which is the traditional source of revenue for the ECSC, the United Kingdom is supporting direct contributions by member States to the ECSC budget as the appropriate means of financing the measures rather than a transfer from the EEC.
I must stress that there is still disagreement among member States both on the principle of the proposals and on their funding. Discussions are, however, continuing in the Council, and I can assure the House that we shall do all we can to secure a satisfactory outcome.
I am sure that the House will welcome the support given by the Government to the Commission's proposals for production quotas to prevent the collapse of the steel industries of the Community in the face of the continuing slump in demand and for additional Community provision towards the costs to member States of the social measures needed to help mitigate the worst effects on steel workers of the inevitable contraction of the industry.
10·27 pm
Dr. John Cunningham: I thank the Minister for giving us a careful resume of the history of these documents. There are almost 40 pages in the documents listed on the Order Paper, and by their very nature they are somewhat complex. It takes some time to understand many of the cross-references. The hon. Gentleman explained them with clarity, and we appreciate that.
We also appreciate the Government's apparent conversion to interventionist policies. In document 10180/80 we are really discussing massive Government intervention in the steel industry on a European-wide basis, which is quite contrary to the publicly stated philosophy of the Government, and especially the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Industry.
The Minister said that there was a manifest crisis in the steel industry within the Community. This document is a massive and somewhat "Eurocratic" device, firmly based in intervention and control, to produce a regulated market. or a cartel, as some people would call it. We do not complain about that, because we favour Government intervention, particularly when it is aimed at saving important industries, such as the BSC. The whole steel industry in Europe is supported, overtly and covertly, by subsidies. There is no free market in steel in Europe and no market forces operating in steel production and sales. The Government had little choice but to grasp the nettle, but we welcome the fact that they have done so.
It is yet another example of how fatuous some of the Secretary of State's theorising about a free market economy has been. He has stumbled on yet another major hurdle. It must be anathema to many Conservative Members to be asked to support such measures, but

1239
without them there would be further damage and a serious collapse in the steel industry in Europe and particularly in Britain, where there is so much penetration of the market by steel produced in Europe.
We are painfully aware, especially in constituencies represented by my hon. Friends from South Yorkshire, North and South Wales, the North of England, and Scotland, of the social consequences and effects on employment of that penetration. We certainly support measures aimed at preventing any more of that.
The Minister said that the quota system set out in the document was already in operation. Does he mean that it is operating only in Britain, or throughout the Community? Has everyone accepted its implementation? It is important to know that, since the previous measures failed because some producers were reneging—perhaps I should say cheating—on the voluntary agreement. It was the old story. We played the game, and our industry and employment were undermined by those who reneged on the agreement. If hon. Members think that my statement is too strong they should read the Commission document, which makes clear that that took place.
If the new system does not work we shall be in desperate trouble. I hope that the Minister will give a firm commitment to monitor closely what happens. Without the detailed supervision outlined in the document we shall find that, by one method or another, people will be trying to get round the provisions, to the detriment of both the public and the private sector of the British steel industry.
The Minister referred to exports. There has been a major and rapidly growing penetration of the British market by steel produced in other EEC countries. I referred to that on 16 December 1980. The figures are not contested. If that level of imports can be reduced it will be a good opportunity for the British Steel Corporation and for private steel producers to claw back some of that significant share of the market that has been lost. I hope that we can be assured that the Government will give the BSC every possible assistance to do that.
I turn now to one or two more detailed questions about the document. I have asked about the decision being accepted universally. Pages 19 and 20 of document 10180/80 refer to the need for extensive additional measures of a social nature. The document states:
"In these circumstances, we must not only devise and implement new measures, as the Commission has already proposed, but also provide for sufficient financial resources so that the conventional measures can be applied fully. There is no denying the fact that large-scale redundancies and short-time working may seriously affect the economic and social climate and even cause severe social conflict, with deleterious effects on the restructuring of the steel industry and on society as a whole."
That is a grave statement. It is the sort of statement that Labour Members have been making about the rundown in steel for many months. It has often been criticised, and in most cases refuted, by Ministers and other Conservative Members. Here, we have the Commission saying exactly that to the Council of Ministers. I hope that the Government will accept the reality of that statement, and the need to give the commitment that is called for in terms of resources.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Like the hon. Gentleman, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply to the question. It would also be interesting to know the official attitude of the Opposition to this request by the
1240
Commission for additional funds in order to meet these social needs. As I understand it, it is still the policy of the official Opposition to resist any demand by the Commission for larger funds to be made available for use at its discretion for this purpose.
Dr. Cunningham: I shall not be side-tracked by the hon. Gentleman's intervention, except to say—I am almost sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman—that the questions are for Governments to answer. The Opposition are not making these decisions. No doubt the situation will be different when we again—sooner rather than later—occupy the Government Benches. The position of the Opposition on the disbursement of resources within the Community budget is well established. We have argued for many years for a reallocation of these resources within the EEC budget and for direct contributions on a larger scale from our Exchequer to deal with these problems. The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) knows about this probably better than many hon. Members because of the closure of Shotton, in his area. I should have thought that he would be the last to want to make that kind of point about that kind of matter.
In document 10179/80 a figure of 58,000 redundancies, or job losses, is quoted. It is not clear to me from the document whether those redundancies are additional to the ones that have already been declared. The figure is mentioned in the context of France and the United Kingdom. Will the Minister of State tell us exactly what those figures mean?
I now turn to the documents relating to proposals for social assistance. There are several of them, and they go back over many months. They contain a number of quite impassioned appeals by the Commission to the Council of Ministers for action in this area. This follows exactly on the point that I have just been making in quoting from the document about intervention in the industry.
As the Minister of State candidly said to the House, there is as yet no agreement. The documents date from September 1979 until the latter part of 1980. We are now in January 1981. I gave the Government some credit a little earlier for their efforts on intervention. Although it is their stated policy to try to get agreement in this area, they have failed—and failed consistently—to achieve any progress. In the light of prognoses about the industry and the redundancy figures—not simply the ones to which I have referred but the likely redundancy figures because of the slim-line exercise of the BSC and because of the further proposals within the MacGregor plan—this is a matter of the utmost urgency. I barely need to impress that upon the Minister of State, but it will be wholly unacceptable to the Opposition if no agreement is reached and if no major provision is made for the social consequences of what is happening in our communities in regard to the rundown in the steel industry.
It is just not on to put to us that we should accept proposals for restructuring an industry in the absence of adequate finance for the social measures that will be necessary to deal with the situation in Shotton, Consett, and in other such places. There is inadequate provision at the moment, given the magnitude of the task, so we cannot impress too strongly on the Government the need to redouble their efforts to get some agreement.
The Government are in a doubtful position here, because one of the reasons why there has been no

1241
agreement is that they have questioned the legality of one of the proposals for a transfer payment between budgets—from the general budget to the European Coal and Steel Community budget—made by the Commission. The Government's position hitherto—it may have changed recently—has been that they were not clear on the legality of the proposal, so they are themselves partially responsible for the fact that no progress has been made. I hope that the Minister will clarify that. It is like fiddling while Rome burns to argue about what may be a legal technicality and to hold up such an important decision.
It is clear that the Commissioners are appalled by this failure to reach an agreement. In December, when the Council refused to let the Commission have the 112,000,000 units of account requested for funding social measures under the restructuring plan, Vice-President Vredeling and Commissioner Davignon expressed their profound dismay about the failure to agree in no uncertain terms. An EEC bulletin states:
"Mr. Davignon and Mr. Vredeling … did not mince their words in expressing the deep disappointment of the Commission faced with a council which refuses to shoulder its responsibilities and observe its social obligations. These obligations stem not only from the ECSC Treaty but also from its own adaption and restructuring policy in the steel sector. It would be an illusion to expect the next January's Council session"—
that is a reference to this January's session—
"to establish all the social consequences and the resulting financial implications".
There can be no doubt of their grave disquiet about that failure to agree. We share that disquiet.
I understand from the Minister's remarks—with which I agree—that that failure to agree is the most crucial outstanding issue. It is at the heart of this debate. I do not think that the Minister told us when he expected any likelihood of progress on this subject. If he did cover that point,. I hope that he will forgive me.
Mr. Tebbit: I did not refer to that. Only today I heard that it was unlikely that this subject would come up for discussion at this month's meeting of the Council. I hope, and I am assured, that both the steel industry and these measures will be the prime items at the February meeting. As the hon. Gentleman can imagine, that causes me some anxiety. I should prefer to get on with the matter at once, but am not my own master on this issue.
Dr. Cunningham: In that statement and in what has gone before, the strengths and weaknesses of the Community are cruelly exposed. In some respects its strength has been its ability to reach some agreement, even at the eleventh hour, on intervention measures. Its weakness is its hopelessly inadequate response to the social consequences within the Community. More than 8 million people are already unemployed.
We were told ad infinitum that membership of the Community would be our economic and industrial salvation. Not only has that vision turned out to be a mirage; there is a failure to grapple with something that has been building up for a long time. It has not built up under this Administration alone. The Government should redouble their efforts. We shall not be satisfied until a major package of proposals has been agreed.
As with other industries—fishing and motor cars—our steel industry has been outmanoeuvred and probably even cheated in a number of regards because of failure properly to adhere to agreements within the Community. We cannot afford to see the people who are thrown out of work also
1242
cheated of some support by and from the Community. That would be intolerable, and judging from his remarks I believe that the Minister of State would find it intolerable, also. He must get on with the job. Unemployment is mounting inexorably. That is the heart of the Government's task in dealing with these documents.
I must say one thing in defence of the other Governments—the Federal Republic of Germany is probably the outstanding candidate—who have been stumbling blocks throughout the discussions. I refer to the situation in West Cumbria, where my constituency is located.
The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Michael Marshall): Copeland.
Dr. Cunningham: As the hon. Gentleman says, Copeland, which is the metropolitan borough worst affected by the Government's rate support grant proposals.
There is a steel plant at Workington where many of my constituents work. Other Governments are bound to think it odd when they are asked to provide resources for the restructuring of the industry but see decisions being taken like that recently announced to close Distington foundry. The foundry was opened early last year, after investment of between £10 million and £11 million of the public money that the Government tell us so much about and that they say is so important. Within months of its being opened amid fanfares as the most modern and best-equipped foundry in Europe, we are now telling our partners that we are closing it and that we want even more public money to do so. That is fatuous. People in West Cumbria can barely believe that it can happen. I am not surprised that some people in other Community countries are objecting to putting in even more money when they can see the wrong-headedness of such decisions.
In the debate on 16 December the Secretary of State made a curious statement in response to a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). He said, referring to the involvement of the unions in decision-taking in the corporation,
"The law on the subject was introduced by a Labour Government."
He was referring to the 1975 Act.
"It is for the corporation to decide its performance under the law and to take such other action in relation to trade unions as it judges fit."—[Official Report, 16 December 1980; Vol. 996, c. 267.]
That is curious. It is not for the corporation to judge its performance under an Act. Surely it is for Parliament and the Secretary of State to make judgments on the question whether the corporation is carrying out the provisions of an Act. I raise this issue now for two reasons. One of the arguments about the closure of the foundry at Distington concerns the facts and information. We should be told the facts behind the decision and, for that matter, behind decisions for other closures, such as in South Yorkshire. Without them, how are we to make proper judgments about the performance of the corporation?
I raise the point for another reason. Mr. MacGregor came to the corporation, as I said in the debate at the time, with a very high reputation. I said then, and I repeat now, that he has got off to an unbelievably bad start. He has not carried out the provisions of the Act which require him to involve the unions in discussions about his plan. Not in the tiniest sense could he claim to have done so. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel (Mr. Marshall), shakes his head. If he believes that Mr.

1243
MacGregor can make such a claim, I shall be interested to hear how he justifies it. We were promised a capital reconstruction—
Mr. Tebbit: I hesitate to intervene at this stage in the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I am not sure that they are close to the heart of the matters we are discussing. I am conscious that I took over these responsibilities only recently. I must say, however, that one of the most useful documents that I have found in learning more about the British Steel Corporation was a document prepared in order that the management could tell the unions what was going on in the corporation.
Dr. Cunningham: I do not deny for a moment what the Minister says. It is not the point I am making. The hon. Gentleman was politely suggesting that my remarks were not perhaps in order in the context of the documents we are discussing. I believe that he is wrong. All these matters will be to no avail if the corporation fails to grasp the opportunity provided. The corporation will not be best placed to take that opportunity if there is no coming together of the unions and the management in a positive approach to the future of the industry.
It is known that the Government are committed to a capital reconstruction. It is known that there is a statutory requirement to involve the unions in discussion of fundamental decisions about the industry. Why do not the Government call Mr. MacGregor and the unions together in what we would call tripartite discussions? It does not matter really what they are called. In financial terms, the slate is in some sense to be wiped clean. This is a golden opportunity to get a fresh start, given the support that will come from the intervention plan, developed and successfully implemented, we hope, by the EEC.
What can be lost by the Government trying to take the opportunity to get some measure of agreement and to enhance the possibility of future success for the British Steel Corporation? With or without the success of the EEC measures, we recommend strongly that course of action to the Government.
10.58 pm
Mr. Tom Normanton: This debate, as may have flashed through the minds of hon. Members as the Opposition Front Bench spokesman was speaking, is concerned with a series of Commission documents. I was greatly surprised when the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham) said that he regarded the documents as highly complex and requiring a considerable amount of experience to find a way through the cross-references. I would have thought that that was a confession of the Opposition Front Bench's lack of depth of experience and knowledge of documents that have been available to the Opposition and to industry as a whole ever since the date that is recorded in the documents themselves. That point needs to be emphasised. We are dealing not with a matter that has suddenly come out of the secret archives of a Government Department in Whitehall but one that has come through the many public channels of the European Community, which are available to all who have the wit, will and intelligence to gain access.
The debate is not about the reorganisation of the British steel industry, whether by the MacGregor plan or a plan that has been pulled out of a pigeon-hole in a Government
1244
Department. It is about these particular documents which deal with one significant aspect of the steel industry of the Community as a whole but which are of more direct interest to us in the steel industry in Britain.
We should be very ill advised indeed if we in this House or those engaged in the British steel industry allowed ourselves to believe that the strongest emotion of the Community draftsmen who drafted these propositions was sympathy or a burning desire to run to our rescue. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Labour Benches, who when in Government were responsible for handling—some would say mishandling—our affairs, are regrettably and conspicuously not in the Chamber to hear about the consequences of their actions. They were responsible for one achievement—alienating such prospects of understanding and sympathy as were available when Britain joined the European Community in January 1973. The subsequent five years rapidly dispelled those prospects.
What is being achieved by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and her right hon. Friends is in large measure due to her resolute rejection of the previous Government's policies, ideas and attitudes and her insistence that we are in the Community and are determined to remain members. That forms the foundation on which policies can be formulated, agreed and implemented on a Community basis to help to reduce the more painful consequences of the crisis in our steel industry in particular and in the steel industry of Europe as a whole. At the same time, it will enable us to help to create a much more hopeful prospect for an efficient industry in the future.
The social measures referred to in the documents provided by the Community, though by no means adequate in themselves, at least provide help which the British Steel Corporation or the Government alone could not provide.
In that context, I remind the House of the role and work of the European Parliament. It is not simply to generate a plethora of words or to create papers, as some critics suggest. It is to demand and get Community funds made available within the budgets of 1980 and 1981 for such projects. The Parliament, which has been derided by some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, is the joint authority for the Community budget, together with the Council of Ministers. The European Parliament takes the joint duties and powers seriously in general and in particular in relation to the British steel industry.
In such political situations, there must be considerable compromise if agreement is to be reached. Members of the European Parliament have been striving on account of the social fund and within the Coal and Steel Community to increase the resources available to relieve the blow of unemployment and to help to retrain people who are able and willing to be retrained. In no circumstances should the British steel industry or the House expect that aid to be given by insulating the industry from the cold, crude economic realities of a competitive world.
The introduction of quotas for steel plant production is an interim measure to stabilise production until longer-term and major reorganisation has been worked out by the industry in co-operation with the Commission and the Coal and Steel Community. Not for the EEC are the State management of industrial undertakings and the interventionism to which the Opposition are so totally committed.

1245
The proposals enshrined in the documents for the commercial aspects of coal and steel policy are realistic in that at least they are aimed at stabilising a desperately critical situation which applies not only to the British steel industry but to the industry throughout the Community.
The proposals are realistic, but they are not the remedy. They are a tonic. The breathing space provided by that tonic must be used to restructure on a vast scale with only one objective—to be competitive. Any hon. Member who believes that Britain's steel industry can and should continue in an atmosphere which impedes its ability to compete in the world is irresponsible.
Mr. Peter Hardy: The hon. Gentleman uses political medicine which is particularly unpalatable when one has to take it. He has chided the Government for appearing to ignore the documents produced on 8 October last. He refers to competitiveness. Will he note that the Government were presented with hard evidence from the private and public sectors of the industry in South Yorkshire which demonstrated that our potentially and past successful steel industry in South Yorkshire could not compete because of its appallingly unfair energy costs compared with those of its French and German neighbours?
In addition to seeking to perpetuate that energy cost advantage, some European competitors will not be particularly keen to co-operate in the crisis measures. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the dilatory approach of the Government—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. It is unfair to make a speech in the middle of a speech.
Mr. Normanton: In response to the hon. Gentleman's intervention—not his speech—I must say that it is stretching imagination beyond breaking point to touch upon that red herring of the cost of energy supplied to the British steel industry. There are many other aspects of the way in which the industry has operated in the past. Output per man-hour is only one of many relevancies from which the Opposition have consistently, and with political forethought in mind, turned away their heads. Those are the Achilles heels from which the Opposition rigorously turn their sense of realism and purpose. That is not the matter before the House tonight. The debate concerns the Commission documents.
I wish to repeat a point that I have made on many occasions during debates of this sort. Those of us who believe that our scrutiny procedures for Commission documents and these late night sittings are not the means to influence the drafting, the formulation and the finalisation of Community legislation believe that the sooner the procedures are changed, the better. They are little better than a charade. The Government and the Opposition should be using a potentially useful and worthwhile method to draft EEC documents—namely, our representatives in the European Parliament. I regret that we still have that lesson to learn.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and those of us who serve in the European Parliament are increasingly aware of and appreciate the role that the elected Members of the European Parliament can play in going through the whole range of intensive scrutiny of proposals emanating from the Commission. This operation tonight, by way of scrutiny or contributions to the debate, is a charade.
11.12 pm
Mr. Stan Crowther: Two matters puzzle me considerably. I hope that I receive some explanation of them when the Minister replies. First, why is it that we are only now, in January 1981, debating a matter that was raised by the Commission in October 1980? The House sat for several weeks before the Christmas Recess. It is disgraceful that Members representing steel constituencies are only now being given the opportunity to debate a matter that is of great concern to us.
Secondly, why are we being asked only to take note of a document that is merely a letter sent by the Commission to the President on 7 October, but not to take note of the decision that was made on 31 October? Unlike the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton), who also has the benefit of representing East Cheshire—a world-famous steel making area—in the European Assembly, I do not profess to be an expert on the convolutions of EEC legislation. It may be that there is some obscure legalistic reason why we are asked to take note not of the decision but only of a letter that was sent in advance of the decision. I shall be interested to hear why we are not debating the decision itself.
The two points are relevant, because the quota system has been made retrospective to 1 October, and therefore the first quarterly period has been completed before we debate the matter in the House. That is deplorable. The decision, of which I have a copy, does not entirely accord with the proposals set out in the letter of which we are now being asked to take note. The letter of 7 October proposed to divide into four categories the products that are covered by the quota system. The categories are set out on page 11. The proposed rates of reduction within certain tolerances for the four categories are set out on page 13.
The decision of the Commission of 31 October set out four categories that were defined in terms slightly different from those that appeared in the letter. It proposes a rate of reduction which in three of the four categories is greater than that proposed in the letter that we are debating. There are significant differences, and I still do not understand why we are not debating the actual decision.
I could ascertain no ground on which we could oppose the principle of a quota system in the present dire circumstances that face the industry. I am rather worried about some of the exclusions that have been made for special steels. I gather that the exemptions have been made at the insistence of West German producers. It is alarming that the Commission has found it necessary to introduce the system. It is especially unfortunate from the British point of view that the quotas will be based on percentages of production levels during a period when the British steel industry was suffering from problems more severe than those faced by its European competitors. These are problems that have been referred to on many occasions by Opposition Members, including the problem mentioned in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy)—namely, energy costs. There are other almost equally severe problems faced by the British steel industry that do not confront its European competitors—for example, the transport and coking coal subsidies and the general decline of our steelmaking industries.
It appears that for the time being we are to freeze the British steel industry in a position in which it is at a disadvantage, in both private and public sectors, when

1247
compared with its European competitors as the result of British Government policies. That cannot be avoided. If we are to have a quota system it must be based on percentages at some period in the past. However, it is especially unfortunate for British industry that it is to be frozen into a disadvantageous position.
I find it difficult to understand how the Commission—I am talking of the decision and not the letter—arrived at the precise percentages that it has laid down. I hope that the Minister will offer an explanation when he replies.
I do not wish to say much more. It is nothing less than tragic that the position that has given rise to these measures arose in the first place. I hope that it will bring home to the Government the fact that British manufacturing industry needs a more positive Government attitude towards the management of the economy so that the steel and steel-using industries are not constantly at a disadvantage vis-a-vis their overseas competitors. If the present rate of decline of British manufacturing industry continues much longer we shall see it contract to the point at which Britain is no longer a major manufacturing nation.
11.18pm
Sir Anthony Meyer: Like the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Crowther), I shall not defend the procedure under which we are debating the documents that are before us, or under which we debate any of the EEC's activities.
I was heartened to hear the hon. Gentleman welcoming the application of quotas in the manifest crisis in which the European steel industry finds itself. I was interested to hear so redoubtable an opponent of the EEC positively welcoming these quotas, and I shall be particularly interested in the Minister's comments on the extent to which the quotas that have been applied are fair to the British industry. My understanding—I should be grateful for the Minister's reply to this—is that up to now we have not even been able to fill the quota that has been allotted to us.
The crisis of the European steel industry encapsulates the European crisis itself and Britain's own crisis within Europe. The European steel industry is becoming less and less competitive with the steel industry of Japan and with those of the developing countries.
A sobering figure is that continuous casting, which must be the steel technology at any rate for the rest of this century, is now in operation in, I think, about 47 per cent. of the Japanese industry—a rise from 20 per cent. in 1973—whereas in this country only about 15 per cent. of the steel is produced in that way. Surprisingly enough, the figure for the United States is no better than our figure. That suggests that the newer steel industries are rapidly distancing themselves from the industries of the traditional producers.
Within the crisis-torn European industry, the British industry, crippled by the self-inflicted wound of the strike, is still less able to meet competition—certainly not able to meet on level terms competition from the rest of the world, and not even able to meet competition from the European steel producers, with their higher wage costs. So it comes about that we, more than any other producer, want these
1248
compulsory quotas, and it is not surprising that Germany does not. In that situation, it is fascinating to hear the views of Labour Members.
I listened with increasing difficulty to the long, confused and dull speech of the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham), hoping that at some stage he would make it clear where the Opposition stand. The Government have made it plain that despite their unfriendliness towards intervention they accept the need for it in the manifest State crisis. There has been no such unambiguous declaration from the Labour Party.
On the other part of these documents, referring to the special social measures for redundant steel workers, it is perhaps the Conservative Party that finds itself in the more awkward situation. If there is to be effective aid of this sort, and if, as we must recognise, there is no early prospect of a dramatic reduction in the amount spent on the common agricultural policy the Community will clearly need larger funds in order to provide the social aid that is necessary. That manifests itself in one particular transfer of funds from the EEC to the ECSC in this context.
I suspect that once again, despite its great reluctance to admit a large expenditure by the Community, it is, as ever, the Conservative Party that will show itself pragmatic and the Labour Party that will persist in its dogmatism.
I finish this brief speech with one thought. The object of these measures is to secure an orderly rundown of the steel industries in our countries. We should not lose sight of those words—"orderly" and "rundown". The object is to avoid the distress that comes when peole who have spent their lives in an industry suddenly find themselves without employment.
We must not kid ourselves that there is any long-term future for bulk steelmaking—I am not talking about specialist steels—in this country or any of the countries of the EEC. This is an industry in which the value added is extremely small. We should be thinking much more in terms of industries that use steel in order to produce goods of high added value rather than clinging to the remnants of a bulk steel industry.
Some capacity will have to remain for purely strategic purposes, but we should never lose sight of the fact that, as The Economist said in one of its business briefs:
"The trade that counts is trade not in steel itself but in goods made of steel. Much steel goes around the world in small boxes known as cars, or big boxes known as ships."
If we lose sight of that and concentrate solely on maintaining a large steel capacity, we condemn ourselves to being economically second-rate.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister has intimated that he would like an opportunity to begin winding up the debate at 11·;35 pm.
11·26 pm
Mr. Frank Hooley: The Minister said that the policy was to cut capacity in line with demand. I should have thought that it would be more far more intelligent to expand demand up to the capacity that we have. That, alas, would require a total reversal of this Government's economic policy and a wider reversal elsewhere.
I take it that when we talk about quotas we are talking about production quotas and not capacity quotas. It would be disastrous to slash capacity by 40 per cent., and then

1249
by more and more, so that when we have a change in the economic climate or in Government policy, which is bound to come eventually, there is not the capacity to make the steel that we need.
I should like some information on just what the quota system is for the alloy steels, because they are important for the Sheffield area. As far as I can judge from what the Minister said, there is no clear policy on that. Is it a fact that we shall have to go on importing alloy steels—not from Brazil and similar places, but from our Community partners—seriously damaging our home market?
Because of the shortage of time, I should like to put just one or two precise questions. First, when shall we receive the money? The Minister said that he had not the foggiest idea. The matter is not even to be discussed this month. It may be discussed next month. In other words, we are really talking about a hypothetical system, and we have no real assurance that this money for social purposes will be forthcoming at all.
The second and more serious question is whether the money, assuming that we get it, will be extra. If we receive the £85 million, or whatever it is, will the Treasury swallow it up, saying "We do not need to spend on redundancy, and so on, all the money that we were going to spend on the steel industry. We have this Common Market money, so we shall make a saving in public expenditure"? Will it in fact be additional money for the British steel industry over and above what the Treasury would have had to expend anyway on redundancy payments, and so on? That is an important question.
Thirdly, will our Community partners argue, if we receive the money, that it is part of the famous rebate package that the Prime Minister has been prattling about ever since she negotiated it? Will they say "We promised you a £600 million rebate. Here you have £85 million"—or £50 million, or whatever it is—"for the steel industry, and you have to take that out of the total. We shall count that as if it is part of the retour"—or whatever they call it—"in the settlement that the British Government negotiate"? We should be clear about that, because it could be a nasty bit of double-dealing if that kind of argument were advanced, as I am pretty sure it will be.
Because of the time. I come to what must be my final point. There is no mention of retraining in the scheme. I take the point about the great importance of the redundancy payment and the temporary short-time working payment, but we are talking about retiring people 10 years before their working lives are ended. I refer to women aged 50 and men aged 55, or perhaps a year older. Surely, given that they have 10 years of working life left, we ought to be talking not solely in terms of redundancy payments but in terms of comprehensive and substantial schemes of retraining, financed by public funds and if possible, by some of these Community funds. If the Minister could pick up one or two of those points in his reply should be grateful.
11.30 pm
Mr. Roger Moate: I, too, shall be brief, because I want other hon. Members to have the chance of speaking. The debate has one thing, in common with other Common Market debates, and that is that it generates a lot of paper–60 pages. As I have both paper and steel interests in my constituency, in one way or another some minor benefit might accrue.
1250
I wish to comment briefly on the quota system. It seems that while hon. Members have welcomed the mandatory quotas, that is, in effect, only because they see that the system is not affecting the United Kingdom because of the major cutback we have experienced. They feel that it will not apply to British Steel and, therefore, it is harmless enough in itself in its application to the United Kingdom. Were it in any way to require any cutback in production at any steel plant in any constituency represented in this House, I think that people would be objecting strongly in principle to the application of mandatory quotas.
The problem with a system of this kind is that it penalises the successful. There are very few successful steel firms in this context just at present, but there are some. I very much hope that the system will not impinge on their success or result in any cutback in the production of any steel firm in this country. It alarms me that we have here a brand new system, produced very quickly, and yet, even in such a case, this new bureaucracy is able to spawn inspectors immediately. I know of an instance when three inspectors have suddenly and miraculously appeared to check the production levels of a particular steel company. Bureaucracy can always do that.
My main point is that I am genuinely puzzled about the amount of political discussion that this issue has generated and the amount of importance attached to it by hon. Members when the scheme is scheduled to finish on 30 June 1981. It is a very short scheme indeed. As I understand it—my hon. Friend the Minister should deal with this—there is no intention or likelihood of the mandatory scheme continuing after 30 June. Given the levels of stocks no doubt held in the German steel industry and the like, it seems, without arguing about the principle, that a quota application over such a short period of time will have very little relevance to production levels in Britain. It will produce very little benefit for us. Is it really worth it? Does it have any significance at all? Or is it the case that there will be something which will follow this mandatory quota system?
We are entitled at this early stage, because the scale of operation is so short, to know whether there is evidence that the Germans are cutting back in accordance with their obligations under the quotas. If they are not, and I have a suspicion that they are not, the whole thing has not been worth the amount of political discussion that has been generated.
11.33 pm
Mr. Bill Homewood: I can make the point that I wish to raise in a couple of minutes, and I shall have to throw away the rest of my speech. I want to apply myself wholly to the question of the social payments and to say that there is a strong feeling in industry that the Government are not pressing the EEC for money that is available for readaptation payments.
I should like to give a specific instance concerning 26 men in Corby who work for the Pipe Erection Development Company, which is wholly owned by the BSC. These men are to lose their jobs some time this month but are not eligible—according to the Government—for readaptation payments.
That is complete and utter nonsense, because these people worked cheek by jowl with the pipe fitters who were employed by the BSC. They work cheek by jowl with people employed by other contractors, in many cases doing exactly the same job. The readaptation payments are

1251
being paid to people who have jobs remote from the actual production of steel. In some cases those payments have been made to bar staff, yet people actually working on furnaces are deemed to be ineligible. I am convinced that this is the Government's fault entirely and that the ECSC does not examine these matters in sufficient depth. The matter is in the hands of the Government.
11.35 pm
Mr. Tebbit: As there is not sufficient time for me to deal with all the points that have been raised, may I express the hope that hon. Members will understand if I write to them setting out some of the longer explanations that I wish to give.
On the general point raised by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Dr. Cunningham), may I say that I agree with him that this is economic intervention. As he knows, I am not an interventionist by nature. The problem is that there has been long-term intervention in the steel industry by Governments of all political complexions who, over a long period, have subsidised the creation and the maintenance of excess capacity. We ourselves have not been guiltless in this respect. However, it is now necessary to intervene to deal with the intervention of the past. The sooner we get out of the cycle of intervention, the better.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would seek to avoid the cheating. Of course we will. I have heard it said that there are corners of the Community in which people say that they have never heard of Davignon. It is our purpose to ensure that those people are brought to hear of him and to understand that there is compulsion in these quotas.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has said, we are talking of a quota scheme which extends only until 30 June of this year. I shall do my best to persuade the other member States of the Community that we should continue with some form of control upon the excess of capacity which there is in the Community. I simply do not know whether I shall be successful, but I shall do my best and I am confident that I shall have the support of the House in my efforts.
That brings me to a general point which has been made by several hon. Members. The question has been posed of why we are debating these documents in this manner. I do not accept the assertion of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton) that if only the matter were debated in the European Assembly all would be well. Whatever opinions we may have about the structure of the Community, it is this House to which I am responsible; and it is to this House that I look for advice and consent as to what I should do in my negotiations in the Council. We are in the main agreed upon that. So it is entirely appropriate that we seek to have these debates in advance of discussions in the Community—sometimes it is not possible—so that the House should know what I shall be trying to achieve in the negotiations.
The fact that we have not been able to get an agreement upon the social measures has not detracted from what is being done already in the United Kingdom in that respect. It is true that these measures will not of themselves add to what we are doing at present. They will ease the general
1252
financial problems of the Government. We hope that that will help to enable us to deal with the demands for money from the steel industry, along with many other nationalised industries and the private sector, which has great problems.
Like all hon. Members, I regret the closure of good steel-making facilities, but there is no point in making steel for which there is no market. We cannot eat the stuff. We have to sell it to someone, and none of our steel producers has been damaged by the quotas, because none has been able to sell as much steel as it is allowed to produce under the quota.
I agree strongly with the hon. Member for Whitehaven that the unions and the management must work together if the industry is to survive. I hope everyone will accept that the one thing that Mr. MacGregor has brought to the industry is the enthusiasm of a man who believes that it can survive provided he has the full co-operation of all involved in the industry.
Dr. John Cunningham: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Tebbit: I will not engage in a discussion on that point. That discussion took place on 16 December, and I am sure that the matter will be debated again. Let us at least agree to close the debate on the agreement that the two sides must co-operate, or there will be no future for the industry. Let us emphasise that common ground.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) was naturally anxious about alloy steels. He is right in saying that the position there is not hard, but guidelines have been given to producers and they have been urged to reduce their exports to the United Kingdom by 20 per cent. in consideration of the shrinkage of the United Kingdom market.
The hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Homewood) raised a case which I know he has been active in raising before. I do not think that we shall be able to help him. We shall write to him, but it would be wrong for me to deal with a particular case in the short time at my disposal.
I should emphasise particularly that it would be wrong for me to attempt to oversell the value of these considerations. We are not certain that we shall be able to extend the quotas, but I will do my best. I am not certain that we shall find a way through the thicket to get money from the Community, but I will not hesitate to negotiate hard. I know that the hon. Member for Whitehaven would not want me to say too much about the negotiating position that I will take up, but I assure him that it will be a practical one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) was right to caution against the hopes of Europe ever having a bulk steel industry again. We shall have to look closely—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTYSPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business).
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents No. 10180/80 on Production Quotas for Steel and Nos. 10179/80 and 10879/80 on Social Measures for the Steel Industry.

Glasgow (Housing Association)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Cope.]
11.43 pm
Mr. Jim Craigen: I asked for this debate because Glasgow's voluntary housing movement is facing serious problems. Some of the difficulties are common to all housing associations in Scotland, but several are more specific to Glasgow, where rehabilitation of the older tenemental properties represents the main thrust of housing association activity.
House building has reached a post-war low under this Government, with Government housing policies throttling local authority building and skewering the unique contribution of the Scottish Special Housing Association. Voluntary housing associations now represent the final hope in rehabilitating many inner city areas which must otherwise languish in slumdom.
According to the Scottish Office's own figures, one house in 10 in Glasgow is sub-standard. The problem is not entirely an urban one—a number of rural areas have an equally serious problem—but the proportion of housing stock in Glasgow that is below tolerable standard is twice the Scottish average. Fifteen thousand homes below tolerable standards in Glasgow are included in housing action areas, and about 10,000 of those have been acquired by housing associations for improvement. The housing associations have saved many of the city's tenemental properties from the bulldozer, and awakened hopes that were virtually dead among the local residents that something might be done after all to provide improved housing and better surroundings in areas that they know.
In a little under a decade, Glasgow's rehabilitation programme has become the largest in Europe. Much of this progress was made possible by the 1974 housing legislation and the efforts of the community-based housing associations, which are approved by the Housing Corporation. Perhaps no new housing associations should be established, because the existing ones are already competing for a diminishing cake.
The 1977 Green Paper on housing in Scotland, which was almost bipartisan in its tone, recognised the growing role of community-based housing associations in housing action areas. It is generally recognised that the work of housing associations has been supported by all parties and that it is a non-partisan issue. However, resources are not non-partisan. Ministers in the present Administration have recently spoken enthusiastically about the voluntary contribution. Tonight, I want the Minister to back up those words in practical terms.
I understand that there was a feeling that, because the Secretary of State has partly lifted the moratorium that he imposed last November on tender approvals in Strathclyde, tonight's debate was not necessary. I have no doubt that the timing of the announcement coincided with the fact that this debate was called, because many building contractors have been waiting until 19 January for an announcement on what would happen to the building projects that were frozen last November. While 33 of the 42 projects in Strathclyde can go ahead with no expenditure commitments in the year 1980–81, a further nine, including two in my constituency, will require consultation with the Housing Corporation. Keeping properties empty and open to further deterioration hardly
1254
represents an economy. I wonder how much this moratorium will save the Government at the end of the day.
Let us take, for example, the frustrations experienced by the Maryhill housing association over the moratorium. The Minister will recall our meeting in Glasgow on 18 November 1980, when I led a deputation to see him about the rehabilitation of 1839 Maryhill Road. For its part, Glasgow district council came forward in respect of environmental work, and I feel that the Minister will not wish to go back on the assurances that he gave me and the the deputation that day. Again, five closes on which a great deal of work and negotiation has been carried out at 7 Lochburn Road and 1490–1534 Maryhill Road have been caught up in the moratorium. Those delays stand in the way of builders getting on with the job and people moving back into new and better homes.
Today, the Minister informed me in a written answer that 31,357 houses in Glasgow are below tolerable standard. Many more buildings would benefit from renovation, although we have to accept that some are beyond rescue. This week I received a letter from residents at 1070 Maryhill Road, and I have asked the district council in Glasgow to investigate. It says:
"Could you help us to find out what is to happen to our building. The three top flat houses are all leaking from the roof, in two of the flats the ceilings fell in a vast area, and one of the chimneys is dangerous."
The Government frequently talk of a choice in housing, but diversity is a bigger issue. I think that the Minister will agree that the housing associations have been caring for many of those special needs that are otherwise overlooked—the needs of young couples, the elderly, particularly those requiring sheltered provision, the single person, the disabled, or the many on low incomes for whom house purchase is a sheer irrelevance.
A letter from an 30-year-old widower, Mr. E. Halleron, sent to the West of Scotland housing association, which has completed some sheltered housing provision in Gourley Street, in my constituency, puts it very well. The widower writes:
"It's really lovely and just the ticket for an 80-year-old pensioner".
It shows the sense of appreciation of a new home at that time of life.
Glasgow district council's housing plan envisaged that 14,000 houses would be rehabilitated by 1983 and that by the mica–1980s the voluntary housing movement would overtake the traditional private rented sector in housing provision in the city. All this requires Government support, just as, I suggest, does the level of assistance given to owner-occupiers in terms of improvement grants where their homes form part of an improvement scheme.
What support will be forthcoming from the Government in the near future? I warn the Minister that there are dangers of bringing into question the credibility of housing associations with the people with whom they have to deal, including local residents and shop owners.
In respect of shops and commercial premises, I should like the Government to undertake a special study of the problems involved for housing associations and the difficulties arising for many shop owners and housing associations over rehabilitation in tenemental properties, which include shops and commercial premises. Glasgow, among all the Scottish cities, has the highest percentage of tenements built above shops, which many housing associations feel requires special legislation, and certainly

1255
additional grant aid to overcome the problems of common repairs and even the temporary closure of shops during periods of redevelopment. In the Possilpark area of my constituency this is an especially worrying problem for the Spring and Possilpark housing association. It is just one of many associations that are caught up in this difficulty.
I should also like the Scottish Office to examine the existing procedures for dealing with housing associations working on rehabilitation projects with a view to cutting out unnecessary bureaucracy and double scrutiny by both the Housing Corporation and the Scottish Development Department, because at the end of the day it adds to cost and frustration. The examination should include a realistic appraisal of existing cost limits, especially for projects involving the amalgamation or the integration of flats into bigger and more suitable housing units, so that bathrooms, kitchens or extra bedrooms are fitted in. Even after rehabilitation, many of these flats, as the Minister will know, have a small floor space compared with equivalent public sector housing provision.
Moreover, cutting corners now will be wasteful for the future. The BBC's "Money Programme" is sponsoring the construction of an energy saving house of the future. Some housing associations are having difficulties over their cost limits in respect of heating arrangements for the present. We should not be building houses for yesterday's energy requirements.
If aid is running out for the housing associations, time is certainly running out for many of the properties that they could rescue and for many of the local communities that they could hold together. The Government must not leave housing associations in the lurch at this crucial stage in their development.
I have spoken primarily about the problems of rehabilitation and the role of housing associations in inner city regeneration. There are also many new-build projects in which housing associations are fully involved. Perhaps that form of activity is more evident in the east of Scotland, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) has a particular interest. Indeed, he has asked me whether he might say a few words in the debate.
I shall ensure that the Minister is under no illusion as to the answers I seek. First, I want to know what is happening about the left-overs caught up with the moratorium. I refer particularly to the two in my constituency. Secondly, I want to know about the future funding available to housing associations. Thirdly, what will the Minister do about the cost limits, particularly in respect of the integration or amalgamation of flats, and the vexed issue of double scrutiny? Fourthly, will he agree to a special study being made of the shops problem?
I am told that I might be pushing at an open door on that issue. However, I told the person who made the suggestion that it would be one of the few doors that this Government have opened.
11.55 pm
Mr. Robin F. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) on raising this vital issue and I thank him for giving me a brief opportunity to emphasise that the housing moratorium has had a grave impact on Edinburgh as well as on Glasgow.
1256
Last November, the Minister had the privilege of opening a modernised tenement in my constituency. He may not have been aware that immediately round the corner from that tenement was another tenement. The same housing association had invited tenders for modernisation for that tenement. As a result of the Minister's moratorium—which was imposed suddenly and without warning—that same housing association had to ring round to the contractors and request them to return the tendered documents.
That tenement still lies empty, derelict and mouldering. The cost of modernisation will eventually be higher, not simply because of inflationary pressures but because of decay to the fabric during the interim period. As my hon. Friend said, a convenient statement has been made today. It does not lift the moratorium. It merely allows housing associations to commit in advance the money that they will receive in the next financial year. That will only compound the financial pressures on the budget that they will inherit the following year.
Those pressures would be intense anyway. As the Minister knows, the total budget for housing associations next year will be £69 million. However, the housing associations estimate that they will require £150 million to meet their programmes. The responsibility for the resulting crisis will rest squarely with St. Andrew's House. Over the years it has encouraged housing associations to acquire substandard tenements, yet it is now denying them the resources they need in order to carry out modernisation. As a result, housing associations will find themselves trapped in the position of being slum landlords, and thousands of residents—both tenants and owneroccupiers—will find themselves cheated of the modernisation that they had been promised.
It is perverse that we should have a housing moratorium when one in every four construction workers in Scotland is unemployed. Future generations will regard with bewilderment the economic policies of a Government who stop the housing work that is desperately needed when the skilled resources to complete the job are standing idle.
11.58 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) on raising this debate, which has resulted not only from his natural interest in the housing associations' activities in his constituency but from his deep and long-lasting interest in the housing association movement in Scotland in general and his chairmanship of the all-party housing association parliamentary group.
Much comment has been made about the funding of the housing association movement. Both the hon. Member for Maryhill and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) might have made a fairer presentation if they had acknowledged two things. First, they could have acknowledged that in the current year the Government have given housing associations in Scotland greater resources than they have ever had before. They could have acknowledged also that for the current year the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations has recognised the important contribution that the Government have made. In one of its publications, the association stated on the front page in large capital letters that the Government had kept their promise to the housing association movement in Scotland. If an objective overall picture affecting the

1257
housing association movement in Scotland had been presented to the House this evening, there would have been some reference to those facts.
At a time of sharply reducing public expenditure, which has had a dramatic effect on housing expenditure, the housing association movement in Scotland has to a large extent, by the deliberate decision of the Government, been protected from that problem in comparison with other housing authorities and other areas of public expenditure. For the two hon. Gentlemen to make the remarks they have without referring to that fact, without acknowledgment of or even passing comment on it, shows a very one-sided and prejudiced outlook on the whole issue.
Mr. Craigen: Is the Minister suggesting that the housing associations should be grateful that they have not been treated more harshly—in the way that he has treated the local authorities and the Scottish Special Housing Association?
Mr. Rifkind: I am saying that if the hon. Gentleman had wished to give a fair and objective assessment of the position of the housing association movement and of the Government's attitude to it, he might have referred to the facts I have mentioned.
I also take this opportunity—I am sure that I have the support of both hon. Gentlemen in this—to congratulate the Housing Corporation on its difficult task, being as it is the intermediary between the Government and a large number of individual housing associations, each with its own characteristics, its own identity and its own different problems and requirements. I am sure that I speak for other hon. Members in welcoming Mr. Gordon Muir, the new chairman of the Scottish committee of the Housing Corporation, who, with his long and detailed experience of housing matters in Scotland, will have a distinct contribution to make.
I turn next to the question of the moratorium, and I must correct a point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. He suggested that one of the immediate effects of the Government's moratorium, which I announced in November, was the various harmful consequences for certain housing associations in Edinburgh. That is not the case. Before the Government announced any moratorium, the Housing Corporation, without any request or instruction from the Government, had ceased making new contracts in the east of Scotland. The effect of the Government's moratorium was solely applied to the Strathclyde area, which was the only area in which at that time the Housing Corporation was continuing to place contracts. The' hon. Gentleman was incorrect in his cause and effect.
As both hon. Gentlemen have indicated, an announcement has been made today. That was not a coincidence because of the debate this evening. The hon. Member for Maryhill will recollect that when we were both at a forum in Glasgow I said that the housing moratorium would continue at least until the end of the year, after which there would be a review. I said that an announcement would be made in January. That is why the announcement is being made early in January. It was a date I indicated some time ago. It did not arise out of the debate.
The need for the moratorium arose because, on the information that the Housing Corporation had submitted to my Department, there was a serious likelihood that its
1258
cash limit of £63·5 million, the largest it had ever had, would be breached if tenders for housing association developments continued to be let through the remaining months of 1980–81. I do not wish to ascribe blame to the corporation in this matter, since I believe that it has exercised commendable prudence in the management of the programme of housing association developments in order to stay within its cash limit for the provision of loans to associations.
Two factors, however, made it essential in our view that the moratorium should be imposed last November. The first was our conclusion that the corporation could not be exempt from the wider measures in which we were then engaged in our concern to contain the risk of over-expenditure on cash-limited funds. More particularly, however, there was a clear possibility of over-expenditure on the corporation's own allocation, as I have indicated, in respect of tenders let by its own Edinburgh office. Thus, the Secretary of State's moratorium only did for new projects in the Strathclyde region what the corporation itself had already done for similar projects elsewhere in Scotland.
I accept that there was some feeling on the corporation's part that the measures taken in November were stringent and that, left to itself, it would have been able to adjust its programme to keep within the cash limit for the year as a whole. Whether this would have been the case cannot now be known, but, as it has happened, the fears which I expressed to the corporation's chairman at the time regarding possible escalation of expenditure seem to have been borne out—due, no doubt, in part at least, to events which were unable to be predicted with certainty at that stage.
As hon. Members will know, the rate of expenditure incurred during the working through of a building contract is particularly difficult to predict, due to what is termed the slippage factor. At one extreme, adverse weather or other difficulties can induce slippage in the progress of a scheme and, hence, the rate at which instalment payments are earned. At the other extreme—this seems to be what has happened on this occasion—progress can be faster than originally anticipated, so that planned payments are liable to be exceeded in any given period of time. The likelihood of an overspend which was identified in November has become more evident in the information now available.
We are entering the last 10 weeks or so of the present financial year, and the need for continuation of the moratorium has been carefully reviewed against this fact. The Government are most anxious not to continue the present moratorium on the letting of contracts any longer than is absolutely necessary. On the other hand, given the volume of existing commitments against the balance of the corporation's cash limit, I am clear that it has become essential for it to avoid any expenditure against the cash limit before 1 April if that expenditure is unnecessary.
At a meeting yesterday with the corporation's chairman and the chairman of its Scottish committee, I indicated that I was prepared to end the moratorium and to allow the resumption of the letting of contracts on the very clear understanding that none of these would result in the making of payments during the remainder of the current financial year. I have since learnt from the chairman that he has put arrangements in hand for the letting of contracts subject to the particular restriction I have described.

1259
The effect of the Government's lifting of the moratorium has been substantial. Of the 42 outstanding tenders, no fewer than 33 can now proceed. Regarding the other contracts to which the hon. Member for Maryhill referred, there will be discussions between the individual housing associations and the Housing Corporation to see what might be arranged to enable an early start to these tenders. In some cases there may be a continuing delay, but that should not last for more than a few weeks at most, which we hope will minimise the inconvenience and problems for the associations concerned.
All the associations involved at present are Glasgow-based. It is, therefore, fortunate that we are able to indicate to the Housing Corporation that as a result of the lifting of the moratorium a substantial number of contracts in the city of Glasgow will now be able to proceed, as the hon. Gentleman was clearly hoping to anticipate. The hon. Member for Maryhill raised the particular problem of rehabilitation schemes that include a shop or several shops in the property that is to be rehabilitated and the particular difficulty that owners of shops are not entitled to improvement grants or grants towards the rehabilitation of the property. As he is, I am sure, aware, there is a statutory restriction in that the various statutory provisions that enable grants to be paid refer only to housing rehabilitation. Because shops do not fall under the housing category it is not possible under the existing statute for shops to be included in this provision.
The Government are conscious of the problems that can be caused, particularly for small businesses and for shopkeepers in small properties which, because of the part of the city in which they are located, do not tend normally to be particularly prosperous establishments. The owners often do not have substantial means with which to pay for improvements carried out to the block of property in which they are situated.
Some local authorities, particularly Glasgow district council, have provided loan assistance to shopkeepers to enable them to make a contribution towards the cost of improvements. It would appear that this has been of some assistance in those areas.
The hon. Member for Maryhill made the specific request to me that we should undertake a special study of the consequences of shops being excluded from entitlement to grant. I am happy to tell him that that is exactly what we intend to do. The GEAR management group, recognising the serious difficulties of dealing with the problem, has approved the mounting of a research proposal designed to define the problem, to examine previous successful solutions and to suggest alternative methods of approach.
The scope for action is necessarily limited by all the normal resource factors and, indeed, by the need for primary legislation, if there is to be any change. However, it is hoped that the research project—which, I may say, is being financed by the Scottish Office—will be completed within nine months of the date of formal
1260
approval. It is a matter that is in hand. It is sponsored within Glasgow by the GEAR project, it is being financed by the Government and we hope that it will produce some answers to exactly the sort of problems that the hon. Gentleman has quite correctly identified.
Another area in which the hon. Member called for action from the Government was in regard to the allegations that have often been made in the past about possible duplication in the control and supervision of projects that are being assessed by the Housing Corporation. He suggested that in many cases there appears to be duplication in that both the Scottish Office and the Housing Corporation become involved in considering and assessing the same information, thereby causing delay and frustration. He called on us to set up a committee to investigate the matter.
Mr. Craigen: Not a committee.
Mr. Rifkind: Well, I am not certain of the form of examination that the hon. Gentleman had in mind, but I am happy to inform him that, although it was a committee, the investigation took place some time ago. About a year ago, having discussed the matter with the Federation of Housing Associations, I set up a tripartite working party, involving the Scottish Office, the Housing Corporation and the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations. The three groups of officials got together with all the advice that they could muster and produced an agreed set of recommendations in order to help to deal with the problem. All the recommendations that they put forward have been accepted by the Government and have been or are in the course of being implemented.
We do not see that necessarily as the end of the affair. Clearly, if new ideas or proposals are brought forward by any party, we shall be happy to consider them constructively and with an open mind. We are anxious to help. Indeed, we took the initiative some time ago, and the fruits of that tripartite activity involving the housing associations have been significant improvements in the area.
In conclusion, I hope that the hon. Member for Maryhill will acknowledge that the cash position is not as grim as he suggested. The figure of £69 million given to the housing associations for next year is a very substantial sum indeed.
Mr. Cook: What about inflation?
Mr. Rifkind: One accepts that inflation modifies the value of the grant, but it is still a substantial sum. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Maryhill seriously expected a doubling of the resources for housing associations, whichever Government were in office. Therefore, I believe that an objective assessment would suggest that the housing associations are getting a very fair deal at present, and I am sure that most of them would accept that view.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at thirteen minutes past Twelve o' clock.

Overseas Development
  Jamaica
  Jamaica
Employment
  Redundant Persons
  Redundant Persons
  Service and Manufacturing Industries (Employment Content)
  Service and Manufacturing Industries (Employment Content)
  Wolverhampton
  Wolverhampton
  Maternity Pay
  Maternity Pay
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Bank Holidays
  Bank Holidays
  Training Boards
  Training Boards
  Absenteeism
  Absenteeism
  Trade Union Immunities
  Trade Union Immunities
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
Trade
  Garages (Repair Work)
  Garages (Repair Work)
  Petrol Sales
  Petrol Sales
  Manufactured Goods (Exports and Imports)
  Manufactured Goods (Exports and Imports)
  European Community (Imports)
  European Community (Imports)
  European Community (Exports)
  European Community (Exports)
  Wood Pulp Imports
  Wood Pulp Imports
  Wisley (Airport)
  Wisley (Airport)
Energy
  Fuel and Energy Prices
  Fuel and Energy Prices
  Burmah Oil Company Ltd.
  Burmah Oil Company Ltd.
Northern Ireland
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  The Taoiseach
  The Taoiseach
  Maze and Armagh Prisons
  Maze and Armagh Prisons
  Political Leaders (Meeting)
  Political Leaders (Meeting)
  Home Leave
  Home Leave
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Political Initiative
  Political Initiative
  Security
  Security
Home Department
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
  Immigration Appeals Tribunal (Remuneration)
  Immigration Appeals Tribunal (Remuneration)
  Suspected Persons (Detention)
  Suspected Persons (Detention)
  Prisoners (Restraints)
  Prisoners (Restraints)
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Commission for Racial Equality
  Electoral Statistics
  Electoral Statistics
  Parliamentary Boundaries (Birmingham)
  Parliamentary Boundaries (Birmingham)
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  Bullwood Hall Borstal
  Bullwood Hall Borstal
  Wormwood Scrubs (Incident)
  Wormwood Scrubs (Incident)
  Prime Minister (Engagements)
  Prime Minister (Engagements)
  Republic of Ireland (Member's Correspondence)
  Republic of Ireland (Member's Correspondence)
  European Community (Food Sales to USSR)
  European Community (Food Sales to USSR)
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Canadian Constitution
  Canadian Constitution
  The Taoiseach
  The Taoiseach
  Employment Policy
  Employment Policy
  Paris
  Paris
  Kilmarnock
  Kilmarnock
  Nuclear Weapons
  Nuclear Weapons
  European Community Funds
  European Community Funds
Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
  Hong Kong (Students)
  Hong Kong (Students)
  European Units of Account (Sterling Equivalent)
  European Units of Account (Sterling Equivalent)
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
European Community
  Manpower Costs
  Manpower Costs
Scotland
  Housing Standards
  Housing Standards
Social Services
  One-Parent Families (Incomes)
  One-Parent Families (Incomes)
  Medical Audit Procedures
  Medical Audit Procedures
  Hospital Patients (Deafness)
  Hospital Patients (Deafness)
  Cromwell Hospital
  Cromwell Hospital
  Pensions (Girobank)
  Pensions (Girobank)
  Remarriage Gratuity
  Remarriage Gratuity
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Mental Health
  Mental Health
House of Commons
  Souvenir Sales
  Souvenir Sales
  A4 Prepaid Envelopes
  A4 Prepaid Envelopes
National Finance
  Family Taxation
  Family Taxation
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Imports and Exports (Forecasts)
  Imports and Exports (Forecasts)
  Economic Forecasts
  Economic Forecasts
  House Purchase (Stamp Duty)
  House Purchase (Stamp Duty)
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Potable Spirits (Excise Duty)
  Potable Spirits (Excise Duty)
  Taxable Income (Stoppages)
  Taxable Income (Stoppages)
  Beer and Spirits
  Beer and Spirits
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Bank Profits
  Bank Profits
  Allowances and Surcharges
  Allowances and Surcharges
  Tax Thresholds and Break-even Points
  Tax Thresholds and Break-even Points
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  European Community (Greek Membership)
  European Community (Greek Membership)
  Alcohol, Betting and Tobacco (Taxes and Duties)
  Alcohol, Betting and Tobacco (Taxes and Duties)
Defence
  Fast Patrol Boats
  Fast Patrol Boats
  Sting Ray
  Sting Ray
  Civil Defence Expenditure
  Civil Defence Expenditure
  Defence Contractors
  Defence Contractors
  Binary Nerve Gas
  Binary Nerve Gas
  Chemical Weapons
  Chemical Weapons
Environment
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  Allotments
  Allotments
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Housing Capital Expenditure
  Housing Capital Expenditure
Transport
  Heavy Lorries
  Heavy Lorries
  A45 Weedon (Street Lighting)
  A45 Weedon (Street Lighting)
  Type Approval Certificates
  Type Approval Certificates
  Central Line (Epping-Ongar)
  Central Line (Epping-Ongar)
Northern Ireland
  Republic of Ireland (Ministerial Discussions)
  Republic of Ireland (Ministerial Discussions)
Industry
  Flexible Manufacturing Systems
  Flexible Manufacturing Systems
  Machine Tools
  Machine Tools
  Microprocessor Application Programme
  Microprocessor Application Programme
  Courtaulds' Hadrian Mill, Carlisle
  Courtaulds' Hadrian Mill, Carlisle
  Machinery Sales
  Machinery Sales
  British Steel Corporation (Special Steels Division)
  British Steel Corporation (Special Steels Division)
  Showa Denko Limited (South Wales Factory)
  Showa Denko Limited (South Wales Factory)
  Dr. D. Green
  Dr. D. Green
  Moss Morran (Petrochemical Complex)
  Moss Morran (Petrochemical Complex)
  Textile Machinery Exports
  Textile Machinery Exports
Education and Science
  Head Teachers
  Head Teachers
  16 to 19-year-olds
  16 to 19-year-olds
  Computers
  Computers
  Secondary Education (Bolton)
  Secondary Education (Bolton)
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Advanced Further Education
  Advanced Further Education
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
  European Community (Commodity Exports)
  European Community (Commodity Exports)
  Swine Vesicular and Aujeszky's Diseases
  Swine Vesicular and Aujeszky's Diseases
  Hops Marketing Board
  Hops Marketing Board
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Green Pound
  Green Pound
  European Community (Product Prices)
  European Community (Product Prices)
  Grey Squirrels
  Grey Squirrels
  Cereals (Exports)
  Cereals (Exports)
  Butter (European Community Exports)
  Butter (European Community Exports)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

Nuclear Attack: Checks on False Warnings
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have noted the US Congressional report that defence computers flash false warnings of Soviet nuclear attacks nearly twice a week and that within an 18-month period four alarms were regarded so seriously that senior commanders met to consider retaliation; whether the United Kingdom Ministry of Defence is alerted to such alarms; and whether such alarms have been flashed by defence computers in Britain.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, the Government have noted this report. The United Kingdom Ballistic Missile Early Warning Station at RAF Fylingdales has been alerted to such alarms and have been able to help in verifying errors.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, are not these facts very disturbing? Is it not the case, as recognised by the noble Viscount's predecessor, that human error could accompany computer error? Would the noble Viscount not agree that if there was an epidemic in the world which threatened all life, then world action—West and East, North and South—would be taken; and is this not a man-made epidemic just as disastrous, potentially, for mankind?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the seriousness of atomic warfare is, of course, understood by all in the House. I cannot myself understand how the noble Lord could read the report to which his Question refers and which I have read myself, and still maintain any alarm whatsoever. As my predecessor has explained before now, there are many immediate checks and cross-checks, human and mechanical, and there are many stages of conference after an apparently ambiguous set of data appears on a warning system. On no occasion has retaliatory action been even considered. I quote from the report on which the noble Lord bases his Question:
"The final action taken is to convene a missile attack conference which brings in all senior personnel, including the President. No such conference has ever been convened".
I believe the noble Lord's alarm is clearly false alarm.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, may there not be some alarm from the other direction? If "Wolf!" is called quite as often as this, have we any assurance that a real danger call will be taken seriously?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I welcome having to reply to the question that way round. I believe the systems and cross-checks are so numerous that the real attack would be quickly verified here and in many places in the United States; but there would still be more than one investigatory and precautionary stage when aeroplanes might take off, well before any final decisions for retaliatory action were even considered.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that this series of questions which is being asked by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and other members of the CND follows very much the historical precedent set by the Peace Pledge Union before the last war, and that that did so much to encourage our would-be enemies in those days to think that we would not defend ourselves that these questions should be seen in proper perspective?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I agree.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for his full reply, and though not agreeing with it entirely, may I ask him whether, if the Government recognise the danger of a nuclear war, they would take the initiative at the disarmament convention now meeting at Geneva on the instructions of the United Nations to propose a treaty which would dismantle nuclear weapons all over the world, in the East as well as the West, with adequate verification?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I think that is a separate question which has also been answered many times. Her Majesty's Government will support any steps towards the practical control and limitation of atomic weapons, but the operative word is "practical".
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, while personally feeling confident that the democratic processes which occur in the West, as underlined by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, are fairly certain to make sure that we are protected from pressing a button too soon on our side, are we by any means happy that on the other side, where there is a rather less feeling for human life, they might not press a button too soon?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, our security is the realisation—and I believe that our potential enemies are realistic—that if a button were pressed light-heartedly the retribution would be such as to make sure that they did not do it.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, if Her Majesty's Government are willing to support steps that are taken, why do they not themselves take them?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am being very dense; I have not fully understood the supplementary question put by the noble Baroness.
Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, the noble Viscount said in answer to a previous question that Her Majesty's Government would support steps in certain directions. I am asking why, if they are willing to support steps taken, they do not themselves take them.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I had not realised that the noble Baroness was referring to the question before the last. I think that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has taken every opportunity, both unofficially and officially, to look for ways of furthering the cause of practical control of nuclear weapons by all countries.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, bearing in mind that the Question referred to accidental release of nuclear weapons in response to false data and not to the deliberate loosing of them, is the noble Viscount convinced that the precautions on the other side, on the side of the potential enemy, as he put it, are adequate to prevent that? Surely, nuclear deterrence, as such, would not work in these circumstances. Has he any communication with the Soviet bloc on these matters?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I think that I have answered that already. I think we are satisfied that any potential enemy knows the serious consequences and takes the same careful measures as we take.

BSC: Measures to Reduce Losses
3.16 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: 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 measures they have taken to ensure that the British Steel Corporation's losses are reduced and what further measures are proposed in the future.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, the BSC chairman, Mr. MacGregor, submitted a corporate plan to the Government on 12th December. The plan contains proposals for increasing efficiency and reducing losses significantly. The Government are currently considering the plan, and expect to announce decisions on it at the end of January.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend tell the House how much of the present subsidy of £971 million in the current financial year is accounted for by redundancy payments? Can he assure the House that, while the Government are considering the plan for next year and for the future, they will ensure that substantial economies are made and that the cash limit for the coming year will be a substantial reduction on the present cash limit?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I can say to my noble friend that my advice is that, of the present provision of some £971 million, about £300 million represents a sum for redundancy and is therefore a one-off payment. I cannot comment on the second part until the Government have come to their decision about a corporate plan, but I can say that we would expect a significantly smaller figure.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the Government how we can have confidence in what the
172
Government are doing when the moment that Mrs. Thatcher's "wonder man", Mr. Ian MacGregor, put his foot into this country 27,000 men lost their jobs and more have lost their jobs since then? How can we have confidence in what the Government are doing?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think that one of the few things which are not controversial between the parties, or indeed in other areas, about British Steel is that it has been over-manned for a very long time.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, can the noble Earl say, in addition to the £300 million paid out for redundancy, how much is being paid in interest payments on money already borrowed?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I should need separate notice of that question.

The "Official Report": Format
3.18 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the awkward and inconvenient dimensions of the new version of the Official Report he will consider reverting to the perfectly satisfactory traditional format.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, I would not recommend that. As I announced in a Written Answer on 13th November, the change to the new A4 size took place at the beginning of this Session in accordance with a decision of the House on 21st December 1976, following a recommendation from the Offices Committee. A similar change has been agreed for copies of the Commons Hansard printed after the Christmas Recess.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his reply. Nevertheless, would he not agree that the dimensions of the new style of Official Report are such that it is difficult for the average postman to get it through the average letterbox without creasing or, occasionally, tearing it; secondly, that it is too large to fold and put in one's inside pocket for ready reference; and thirdly, that its inherent lack of rigidity means that it flops about when one is trying to quote from it—in other words, that its design is not an ergonomic one?
Lord Soames: My Lords, all these matters were taken into account by the Offices Committee who knew what the size was going to be. There is a considerable saving in machinery. New machinery has been installed. It was realised at the time that there would be a considerable saving in both machinery and in practice and day-to-day working. Many of us have been accustomed—some of us for many more years than we choose to remember—to a particular size of Hansard. Perhaps we are all creatures of habit.

173
I have no doubt that we shall adapt outselves to it, and that postmen will adapt themselves to deliver it through a letterbox.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, will the Lord President look at this matter again? As one who does her own filing—and presumably he does not—may I ask whether he is aware that this really is a problem if one has shelving or boxes in which to store Hansard? If these difficulties are also being encountered in the Printed Paper Office, as I understand they are—I do not know whether they were consulted—will the noble Lord look at it again? It makes one's filing system quite impossible.
Lord Soames: My Lords, I think I should say to the noble Baroness that this has quite a lot to do with the introduction of metrication and I understand it is likely that more and more papers will be printed on A4 size paper. So in any case filing systems will gradually be adapted to take more and more A4 size paper. Whether one does one's own filing or somebody else does it, the same applies. I do not for the moment do my own filing and I hope that I shall continue not to have to do it for some time.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when this matter came before the Offices Committee nearly five years ago all these points of convenience were very well ventilated, because we all felt that we liked the old size and it had many advantages? But we were eventually persuaded that the economies that could be made by turning to A4 size were so substantial that it simply would not be in the public interest to continue with the old size, and therefore it is with much regret that I must support my noble friend in the stand that he is taking.
Lord Soames: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for those remarks. That was reflected also in the short debate that took place in this House afterwards.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he may be doing his own filing much sooner than he thinks?
Lord Soames: Well, perhaps the wish is father to the thought.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord might agree that it is a proper occasion for a quotation from Ruskin:
"There is nothing on earth which cannot be made a little cheaper and a little worse".
Lord Soames: I think that that is a rather pessimistic view, my Lords.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that, if we are saddled with this new size, something should be done to provide envelopes which fit it rather than that we should have to use envelopes of enormous size which are the only ones now available in the Library?
Lord Soames: My Lords, I take the noble Viscount's point.
Lord Segal: My Lords, can the noble Lord give an estimate of the cost of the additional paper required for printing Hansard in its present format?
Lord Soames: My Lords, I can only give the estimate of the savings which was made at the time. I am afraid that we have not been at it long enough to be able to give an exact figure. The figures are £182,000 on machinery and £36,000 a year on manpower.

Sickness Benefit: Widows
3.23 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. May I mention that originally this Question stood in the name of my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve. She regrettably cannot be here because she has sustained an accident, so I am asking the Question on her behalf.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the forthcoming transfer to employers of responsibility for the payment of sickness benefit for the first eight weeks of sickness, they will arrange for widows who become sick while in employment to receive this benefit and that for this purpose the operation of the overlapping benefits provision shall be excluded.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, employers' statutory sick pay will count as earnings for social security purposes, in the same way as ordinary sick pay does at present, and it will thus not affect the payment of widows' benefits. The overlapping benefit provisions only apply when two or more benefits are payable out of public funds.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that reply? In view of the anxiety of various widows concerning this, will the noble Lord make this fact known as soon as possible to them so that we need have no further fears?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I think that your Lordships know that we shall be having a Bill on this whole matter of the employers' statutory sick pay probably introduced into another place next month so the whole of the provisions of the Bill will be debated in both Houses. There will be plenty of time for everybody to be informed as the provisions are not expected to come into force until April of 1982.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, will the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend to keep in mind that if the Government follow up this proposal of transferring the payment of sick benefit to employers they will be doing exactly the opposite of what they advocated in Opposition? When the last Government were in office I was responsible for the Employment Bill. In that Bill there was a provision that the maternity benefit should be borne by the employers. There was strong opposition from the Tory Benches in both this

175
House and the other place. In consequence of that opposition, the Minister kindly agreed to withdraw one whole clause of the Bill and introduce a new clause which did exactly what the Tories were asking for—to make it funded rather than borne by the individual employers. Do you do one thing in Opposition and another thing in Government?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, that I think has been done in the past by both parties. However, I would say that the noble Lord is discussing maternity benefits, and not widows' benefits which are the subject of the Question. The whole position of maternity benefits is at the moment under discussion, and the method with which it will be aligned with the ESSB provisions has not yet been decided.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware on the matter which has been raised that there is no distinction between maternity and sickness benefit? In both cases the question was whether it should be borne by the employer or funded. In Opposition you wanted it funded; in Government you want it borne by employers. Con, con. You cannot have it both ways.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, the noble Lord is in splendid form. We have, however, decided that there is a great advantage—maybe we did not decide it before—in going through this new system of employers paying the first eight weeks of sick pay. It is liable to save £400 million a year, and 5,000 civil servants.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that it frequently happens that what a party advocates in Opposition, when they have further knowledge proves quite impossible when they are the Government? Would he not further agree that the worsening of the economic situation, which of course was worsening when the last Government left office, may alter a great many attitudes to what is practical and what should be done?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his supporting remarks.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, will the noble Lord take steps to see that widows are informed that they ought not to be in a position where they can claim maternity benefit?

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time.
The Committee stage of the Contempt of Court Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 o'clock for approximately half an hour.

Animal Health Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Diseases of Animals Act 1935, the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, the Ponies Act 1969, the Rabies Act 1974, the Diseases of Animals Act 1975, and certain related enactments. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

English Industrial Estates Corporation Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the law relating to the English Industrial Estates Corporation. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

Bearsden and Milngavie District Council Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.
Churches and Universities (Scotland) Widows' and Orphans' Fund (Amendment) Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.
Cumnock and Doon Valley District Council Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Dunfermline District Council Order Confirmation Bill
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be now considered on Report.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
Lord Hughes: My Lords, I was asked to come along here temporarily in case the noble Earl made a speech on these Bills. I therefore took the precaution of reading them and, having seen that the matter has to do with stray dogs, all I want to say is that, having come along here, I feel somewhat in the nature of a stray dog myself! I hope I shall not be detained for 10 days and destroyed at the end of that time if not claimed, because that is what will happen to the dogs under these three orders.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I think it depends on whether the Labour Party puts a collar on the noble Lord, giving a name and address. If that is done and if the proper charges are paid, the noble Lord will not be so destroyed.
Lord Hughes: My Lords, it is nice to know that there is a possible solution to some of our difficulties!
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Peterhead Harbours Order Confirmation Bill
Considered on Report.

Sheep Variable Premium (Protection of Payments) (No. 2) Order 1980
3.34 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 28th November be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Sheep Variable Premium (Protection of Payments) (No. 2) Order 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved. I should explain that this order revokes and replaces the Sheep Variable Premium (Protection of Payments) Order 1980. That order was brought to the special attention of both Houses by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which questioned whether the enabling powers given in the Agriculture Act 1957, under which the order was made, were adequate for certain provisions of a fairly technical kind. In the circumstances my right honourable friends the Minister and the Secretaries of State decided not to seek the approval of both Houses for the order but to lay an alternative order which met the Committee's concern. This is the order in front of your Lordships today. Its purpose is to protect payments under the sheep variable premium scheme, which the United Kingdom is operating under the new Community sheepmeat régime, which was introduced on 20th October.
Your Lordships may recall that on 12th November last we debated another order connected with the sheepmeat régime. That order provided general protection for the Community support system for sheepmeat, while this order we are considering covers the variable premium scheme specifically. We had a very useful debate on the sheepmeat régime, and discussed the understandable concerns of some noble Lords on certain aspects. I hope that I was able to convince them of the very substantial benefits which the régime brings and the very satisfactory nature of the settlement which brought to an end the long-standing dispute within the Community on this subject.
In particular, under this scheme our sheep producers obtain a considerably higher level of support; the variable premium level is 12 per cent. above the previous support level under our fat sheep guarantee scheme; and sheep breeders will benefit from annual premium payments on ewes from this summer. Our
178
consumers will benefit from ample supplies of lamb at reasonable prices, as a result of the continuation of a deficiency payments system and New Zealand also benefits from a voluntary agreement which halves the previous rate of duty, on condition that her sendings are within a limit set at a little more than recent quantities. The cost of all this is met not from Exchequer funds, but 100 per cent. from Community funds.
I did not then hide the fact—nor do I do so today—that while the régime was generally advantageous to the United Kingdom, there had been some difficulties, particularly for our export trade under the provisions for the clawback of the variable premium on exported meat. I am pleased to say that there has been some improvement. As a result of our representations, the Commission have introduced a regulation exempting exports to third countries from the clawback until 31st March. Before then there will be a thorough review of the Community's export policy for sheep-meat, during which we shall press strongly for the measures necessary to protect our export trade.
I am glad to say that trade with other member states has recovered from the low levels in the early weeks of the régime and was running at above the pre-régime level before Christmas. As we expected, exports to France, where illegal levies have ended, have increased significantly, although there may be some slight falling-back in the lean period after New Year. We hope that the recovery will be sustained, but we shall be keeping United Kingdom exports to the various destinations under review so that we can make the Commission aware of any further problems as soon as they arise.
My Lords, the variable premium scheme with which the order before the House is concerned is basically a continuation of our traditional deficiency payments method of support for the sheep industry, but with a higher guaranteed price level and clawback to prevent significant sales of subsidised lamb into French intervention. Responsibility for administering the scheme and making payments (which are fully reimbursed by the Community) lies with the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce. To ensure that the payments are made only in the circumstances permitted under the Community regulations, the Board need powers to inspect and mark animals which are eligible for premium, to require proper record-keeping and on occasions to visit and enter traders' premises to inspect records. It is entirely that to which this order refers. There and other powers necessary for proper administration of the scheme are provided in the order, wich I commend to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 28th November be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Peart: My Lords, I support strongly what the noble Minister has said about the scheme. I am sorry that I missed the previous debate in which several Members of your Lordships' House spoke, including my noble friend Lord Ross of Kilmarnock. He made a very effective speech, as indeed did all those who participated. It is a very important matter for the uplands and for our sheep industry. I am glad to have been able to understand more about how the payment is made and I welcome the fact that reference

179
has been made to our system of deficiency payments, a system which is virtually enshrined in our agricultural support policy for many products.
I take the view that this is a good bargain. It will help our uplands farmers very much. It will give certainly tremendous help to the farming community, who deserve it. One thinks about the weather now in those areas and the difficulties faced by our farmer friends. Sometimes some of our townspeople forget that the production of food on the hills and uplands is really a very hard job. I am glad to say that this will also help the supply of lamb. I am also pleased to learn that we have an agreement whereby New Zealand will have a certain measure of protection now. I think this is a good deal and therefore I do not wish to oppose it.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I would merely like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Peart, for those kind remarks. He is absolutely right. This is a good bargain. He is also absolutely right in saying that life on the hills is a very difficult life, particularly for sheep farmers; and in so far as this régime will help those people, that fact by itself requires this scheme to be supported.
On question, Motion agreed to.

Contempt of Court Bill [H.L.]
3.40 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD AIREDALE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Limitation of scope of strict liability]:
Lord Gardiner Lord Gardiner moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("or any section of the public").
The noble and learned Lord said: On the Second Reading of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the onus should be on anybody who wanted to differ from the valuable report of the Phillimore Committee. What has disturbed a certain number of people is that there are a large number of points on which the Government have amended the proposals, or have not adopted the proposals, of the Phillimore Committee, and that in each case it seems that the amendment is made to have the effect of increasing the sphere of contempt of court and, therefore, of decreasing the freedom of speech of the individual.
On Clause 2, the Phillimore Committee took some trouble to arrive unanimously at a definition of the word "publication", which is as follows:
'..'includes any speech, writing, broadcast or other communica-into in whatever form, which is addressed to the public at large",
and to this the Government have added the words "or any section of the public". The first question which I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord
180
the Lord Chancellor is whether he agrees that the effect, if not the intention, of this is, obviously, to increase the area of contempt of court and thereby to reduce to that extent freedom of speech.
The reason he gave on the Second Reading of the Bill for making this amendment to Phillimore was that there might be a publication to a section of the public which ought to be covered and would not be properly covered by the words "addressed to the public at large". An example that he gave was a small local paper. With great respect, I should have thought it was obvious that the Phillimore Committee's wording covered this. No doubt, a local paper will be mainly bought by those living in the locality; but it is in no way limited to them and it is, I think, clear from paragraph 80 of the report itself that this was intended to be covered and, I should have thought, clearly would have been covered.
Secondly, I have to submit that the adding of the words "or any section of the public" serves only to make matters more difficult for everyone. There is no definition of a "section of the public". What is a "section of the public"? Does that include two people in a bedroom? Are they a "section of the public"? Does there have to be some specific number? Obviously, a meeting of a branch of a trade union is not a publication for the public at large, but is that not a section of the public?
There being no definition, and if it is agreed that the right principle is that we are to start by assuming that Phillimore was right, I submit that no sufficient grounds have been given in this case for departing from Phillimore and for adding these words, which, in themselves, would create very considerable difficulty for editors and journalists. They know what is a publication for the public at large, but what they are to understand by the words "section of the public", I do not know. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: These words "section of the public" have given difficulty in two branches of the law. One was in regard to race relations, where there was considerable litigation about the meaning of the words "section of the public", although in fact your Lordships' House sitting judicially interpreted them, as was subsequently disclosed, in accordance with the construction and assurance that was given by the Lord Chancellor when conducting through your Lordships' House the Race Relations Bill. The other sphere where there has been a good deal of discussion is in the law of charity. But I think—and I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will confirm this—that the use of these words is now reasonably clear.
The words "the public" or "section of the public" are used in contradistinction to persons aggregated in their private capacities. I am bound to say that, although there has been litigation about these words in the two branches of the law that I mentioned, their meaning is now reasonably clear and it seems to me that the leaving out of these words will narrow the ambit of the Bill and withdraw protection from a number of publications which might well get it.
For example, a house magazine might well be a publication to a section of the public. It might, of

181
course, fall on the other side of the line and be a section of persons aggregated in their private capacities. But it would be open to argument in that class of specialised publication that the words "publication to a section of the public" were not really wide enough to protect what it is obviously the intention of this Bill to protect. Therefore, I myself would view with great misgiving the passing of this amendment as being restrictive of the ambit of the Bill.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): The purpose of this amendment, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has pointed out, is to align the definition of "publication" in this clause with the Phillimore Committee's recommendation as they have expressed it. The present clause as drafted follows the words of the Phillimore recommendation closely, except that the words now sought to be deleted by the amendment proposed have been added. The situation, as we see it, is that the Phillimore recommendation at paragraph 216(8) is merely a summary of the discussion at paragraph 80 of the report. It was not, of course, drafted as an Act of Parliament by parliamentary counsel and, as such, it was not intended to provide a comprehensive legislative formula.
In our view, the formula in Clause 2(1) reflects more accurately the substance of Phillimore's views as set out when one reads paragraph 80 in full. Phillimore made it clear that words addressed to a public meeting, or any function or entertainment to which the public is invited, should be covered. The phrase "or any section of the public" has been included in Clause 2(1) to cover these and other cases where less than the whole public is involved.
In our view, the amendment which the noble and learned Lord has proposed would have the undesirable effect of excluding such cases from the operation of the clause and, at the least, would put these matters in doubt. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has said, the phrase here in question has been the subject of litigation, particularly in the fields that have been referred to. I specially refer to the use of the phrase,
"in relation to the race relations legislation"
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale said, it has been held in this House, sitting judicially, that members of a club who have been genuinely selected on a personal basis are not a section of the public. These words were words of limitation, "public" being used in contrast to "private" so that there was no public element when a personally selected group of people met in private premises. This distinction between public and private situations is the sort of distinction which Phillimore in the substance of paragraph 80 was seeking to achieve.
We would respectifully agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that it would be wrong to restrict the operation of this clause by accepting this particular amendment and that we should attract the benefit of the litigation and the discussion of this phrase in your Lordships' House, sitting judicially, and apply it here. I therefore invite your Lordships not to give effect to this proposal.
Lord Gardiner: Drafting, of course, is always susceptible to argument. The noble and learned Lord
182
did not, I think, answer the question whether it was not the object to enlarge the area of contempt beyond Phillimore. It is clear that that must be the effect of the addition of the words "or any section of the public". This is not the kind of point I would wish to press to a Division, but I ask the Government to think again about it before the Report stage of the Bill.
It must be remembered that this is dealing only with publications of strict liability. That is to say, you may have meant no harm at all; you certainly may not have intended to commit anything which could conceivably be a criminal offence. But this only applies in cases of strict liability where you may find yourself in prison, however honest your intentions were. In paragraph 80 the committee said:
"The arguments for drawing the distinction between publications and other conduct lead us to the view that the strict test should be applied only to publications which are intended to be distributed or addressed to the public at large and not those intended only for private circulation. Publication can take many forms. It may be printed, broadcast on radio or television, or a film, a tape-recording or a dramatic performance. We would also include words addressed to a public meeting or any function or entertainment to which the public is invited, as well as to private meetings or functions to which the press is invited, but not an address to a private meeting to which the press is not invited. If in the latter case a person present at the meeting communicated what was said to the press, he and the publisher should be liable to contempt proceedings, but the speaker should only be liable if his conduct were shown to be intended to cause prejudice as described in the previous chapter. In the remainder of this chapter, our concern is only with publications as described in this paragraph".
The decision of the committee to end at the words "public at large" was unanimous. I still think that the departure which has been made by the Government from it, clearly intended to extend beyond that which the committee intended, is unhappy. With those observations I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.55 p.m.
Lord Elwyn Jones Lord Elwyn Jones moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 16, after ("a") insert ("substantial").
The noble and learned Lord said: I raised this suggestion at Second Reading. We acknowledge the importance of the change in the strict liability rule which the Bill accomplishes by adding "seriously" before "impeded", as it does in line 18. However, we think that the risk itself, that the course of justice in the proceedings in question should be a serious one, ought to be underlined in this new statutory provision. It is not enough that the risk should be merely trivial, or minimal, or marginal. It should be substantial. The word that I suggested at Second Reading was "serious". It was the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who initially put down the word "substantial", and on second thoughts I felt that that was a preferable word. Incidentally, the noble Lord asked me to apologise for not being here to move the amendment, and I undertook to do so in his place.
I am supported in this amendment by the views of the International Press Institute that some addition to the mere noun "risk" should be made. They suggested the adjectives "serious" and "immediate", but I venture to think that "substantial" meets the point and that in legislation it is preferable not to use two adjectives where one will do. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I am happy to say that in this case, whatever our views about the merits of the amendment as an amendment, there is no difference of opinion about policy between the noble and learned Lord and myself. I took the view on Second Reading, and I still do, that we are talking here about the number of angels that exist upon the point of a needle and that it is quite impossible to consider a case in which a risk of substantial prejudice would not be itself a substantial risk. I stick to that. However, because of what both the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who I am glad to see in his place, despite his apology, and the noble and learned Lord have said, I took the trouble to consult the very able retired draftsman with whom we have been operating in this Bill, and he does stick to the original text of the Bill. He points out, I think with justice, that not only does this, if I may echo the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, on the previous amendment, stick to the ipsissima verba of the Phillimore report but that those ipsissima verba were very carefully chosen. If one looks at paragraph 113 of their report we read:
"… the law should aim at preventing serious prejudice, not serious risks. It has been emphasised many times by the courts"—
that is, independently of the terms of the Bill—
"that trivial cases ought not to be brought before the courts, and the triviality relates to the degree of prejudice. On the other hand, the creation of a risk of serious prejudice should always be prohibited unless the risk is so slight as to fall within the ordinary de minimis rule".
Having, in deference to the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, reconsidered the matter with the draftsman, I adhere to my previous opinion that on balance this does not improve the Bill and that Phillimore was right, for the reason I have quoted. I do not think myself at the end of the day that it will make very much difference one way or the other, but the balance of my judgment is as before and I suggest to the noble and learned Lord that, as I have reconsidered the matter and taken professional advice upon it, it might be wiser to say that I was right.
Lord Wigoder: May I apologise to the Committee for not being present when this amendment was called. I had arranged for a more than adequate junior to cover me! I have listened to what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said. I am in the slight difficulty that I am not aware of exactly to what extent the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, developed the argument when he moved the amendment. Therefore may I merely make three observations: first, that the amendment appears, to some extent at least, to be in line with Phillimore, paragraph 112, where that report certainly quotes with approval the divisional court's test in the Sunday Times case, namely, whether the words complained of create a serious risk.
A serious risk is something rather different from a remote and fanciful risk. It has been put to me, for example, that if a local radio station in Doncaster cared to comment upon proceedings that were taking place before a magistrates' court in the Isle of Wight it might be said that that was creating a risk of serious prejudice. That would not be the same as creating a
184
serious risk of serious prejudice, because of the extreme improbability that any of the magistrates who sit in the Isle of Wight would happen to be holidaying in Doncaster at the time of the particular broadcast. It is therefore of some importance to the media that the risk should not be a slight, remote or fanciful one but should be a very real one, if contempt is to run.
The only other observation I would make (and it may be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has considered this) is that the amendment is perhaps more consistent than the Government draft with the European Court's decision in the Sunday Times thalidomide case, which, as I understand it, indicated that there should be interference with freedom of expression only if it were absolutely certain—I think those were the words used—that the authority of the judiciary might be tampered with or impaired: and the words "absolutely certain" clearly imply a substantial, serious risk rather than a risk without any adjectival qualification at all.
Equally perhaps the amendment might be more consistent with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, where again it is said that restrictions on freedom of expression should exist only so far as they are necessary to maintain the authority of the judiciary. I should have thought that it would be necessary to maintain the authority of the judiciary only as against a serious risk rather than a remote or fanciful one. So it may be that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, after listening to the rest of this debate, will still be good enough further to reconsider the matter before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: In addressing the Committee, I was in the difficulty of not knowing whether the noble Lord was appearing, or at what moment of time, in my endeavour to be his junior! He has added two further matters for consideration. I do not think that this is an issue on which he may be disposed to divide the Committee; I do not intend to do so myself. I will withdraw the amendment but I think there is substance in what we have said.
In my brief observations I acknowledged the important change achieved in Clause 2(2) of the Bill by requiring that the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced, and I think that what has happened is that "serious "came in there, whereas previously it came in with "risk". I think the form of the provision is better as it is than as it was, but that it could be still better; and perhaps even further consideration might be given to the point by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Defence of innocent publication or distribution]:
4.5 p.m.
Lord Wigoder Lord Wigoder moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) A person is not guilty of contempt of court under the strict liability rule as the publisher of any matter to which that rule applies if at the time of publication he believes upon reasonable grounds that the relevant proceedings, although active as defined in Schedule 1, are not imminent.").
The noble Lord said: This is really a probing amendment. It deals with the question of the time from which strict liability is to run, which is covered in Schedule 1 to the Bill, and it deals with it from the point of view of one who, like myself, accepts in general terms the starting point which is envisaged in the schedule of being the time of arrest or the issue of a warrant. I appreciate that there is a difference of opinion, which we will come to when we deal with Schedule 1, as to whether that is the right starting point. If it be the right starting point I am only anxious to probe a little the thinking of the Government on the issue as to what the position of the press would be where a warrant has in fact been issued but, for one reason or another, it is perfectly apparent to everybody that the proceedings are not imminent. The obvious case to quote is that of Lord Lucan. That is not in any sense an exceptional case. There are a very large number of cases in which warrants are issued for people who it is known have fled the jurisdiction and in which it would be unreasonable to bar the Press indefinitely from comment simply on the basis that a warrant has been issued.
In my somewhat amateur attempt at drafting this amendment, my purpose is simply to provide that where a publisher can show that although the relevant proceedings are active in the sense that a warrant has been issued, nevertheless he has reasonable grounds for believing that the proceedings are not imminent. The strict liability rule therefore would not apply and there would be a statutory protection for the press in those circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: Many of us have been confounded before (and therefore looked at Phillimore with relief) by the use of the word "imminent". One notices that the amendment, although very frankly spoken to, as one would expect, by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, as being a probing amendment, repeats the word "imminent" and thus would introduce again a measure of complete uncertainty in regard to a provision in this Bill if that amendment were accepted.
I go further, having in mind certain contemporary events, in resisting, so far as I am concerned, any such amendment. I believe that many of your Lordships who felt that it was right that the freedom of the press and of the media should not be curtailed and indeed therefore wanted to encourage the principles behind this Bill, have also felt somewhat disillusioned over the past weeks and wondered whether your enthusiasm ought not to be a little curbed. I do not intend to mention names because I should be defeating the very object that these words of mine were intended to further, namely, the course of justice.
Your Lordships will know of an event which occurred during the past few weeks, when somebody was arrested and charged with certain offences of a most serious nature, and those of us who watched independent television and who had any ideas of the principles of justice were horrified, when we read the news items recording these events, to see not only congratulatory messages on that arrest being passed by one police force to another but furthermore to see upon the screen articles which presumably had been taken from a certain vehicle connected with the accused, to show some sort of connection with the crimes with which
186
he was charged. There were interviews with employers, there were interviews with neighbours and I say frankly that, as a humble lawyer, I began to tremble as to where indeed any release of the law of contempt might lead us all, in the interests of justice which all of us hold so dear and which indeed extend to anybody until a jury has found him guilty.
So I felt that instead of minimising the question of the date of strict liability, it may be that we ought to consider very carefully every word and every stage when there drops upon the media the necessity to be careful about what is reported. So I do not view with any favour, especially with that lesson in mind, the excuse that might be given that proceedings which are relevant are not imminent. One does not know whether any charges of contempt are going to be proffered in this case and in regard to these matters or whether some vague defence might be put forward such as, "Well, we understood from the solicitor who appeared for the prosecution that the committal proceedings might not take place for some time". Does that given an excuse for saying that the relevant proceedings are not imminent? No; I think with that lesson in our minds—and it was a very salutary one—one ought to look at this amendment, which was only intended to be a probing one, with the greatest possible care. So far as I am concerned, it is an amendment to which I would not wish to lend my support.
Lord Wigoder: If I may respectfully say so, I clearly have not probed with any skill, because the amendment has not got the slightest reference to any of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He is referring to a case in which there was an arrest, and once there is an arrest or a warrant issued the amendment I have put down has absolutely no relevance unless and until the media can show that thereafter they had reasonable grounds for believing that proceedings were no longer imminent. This deals entirely with the sort of situation where somebody is being looked for by the police, a warrant has been issued and that person has disappeared. All I am saying is that in those circumstances it might be wrong to impose an indefinite gag upon any comment by the press.
The Lord Chancellor: Since the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, described this as a probing amendment perhaps it might be convenient if I took part at the other end of the probe. I do not think that this would improve the Bill, and primarily for the first of the two reasons, or the related reasons, given by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Phillimore, which I am endeavouring to legislate here, came down against the imminence test; he came down against it very strongly, very hard and very firmly. The reason was that the expression "imminence" was too vague and uncertain. I do think, therefore, that what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, says—which, if he will forgive me, I do not particularly want to comment upon, for reasons which have nothing to do with the imminence of any proceedings—is particularly irrelevant, because the fact that we have just listened to those two speeches indicates that Phillimore was right in describing the imminence test as too vague and too uncertain.

187
Although this is introduced by way of defence, with a burden of proof on the defendant, I still think Phillimore was right to get out of the imminence test and introduce the test of activity of the proceedings as defined in the schedule. I therefore would ask the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, to be satisfied with this answer to the probe which he has made, and to reflect that the publisher is adequately protected under Clause 3, which endeavours to follow Phillimore, if he can establish on the balance of probability that he does not know and has no reason to suspect that the relevant proceedings are active, having taken reasonable care, and that the distributor is protected if he does not know, equally having taken reasonable care, that it contains a matter in regard to which there is a risk that it would impede and prejudice seriously the administration of justice in a particular case, and had no reason to suspect that it was likely to do so.
There are other objections which, if we were pursuing this discussion at any length, I would wish to make, and there are also defects in the amendment from the technical point of view, which I do not pursue because I have taken exception to the policy underlying it. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will find it possible to withdraw this particular amendment.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: May I add a word about my own experience as Attorney General, when this aspect of the law of contempt was the one about which I received most representation from editors in Fleet Street that the concept of imminence is too vague, that they did not know where it began. The pleas I received then were many and continuous that imminence would not do as a test.
Lord Wigoder: I again must apologise, because clearly not only is the drafting defective, not only should I obviously not have used the word "imminence"—and I am fully aware of all the disadvantages of that word even in a probing amendment—but I fear I still have not made quite clear the one simple point upon which I would ask for some assurance from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It is merely this. As at present defined in this Bill, is the Lucan case a case which is still active? If it is still active, what defence have the press got if they wish to comment on it?
The Lord Chancellor: I endeavoured to deal with this at length in my Second Reading speech. Of course it is active because the conditions are found, but I cannot conceive of anything that an editor might wish to say about it or which he is at all likely to say which would either satisfy the test in Clause 2 or would not get the benefit of the defence in Clause 3. The fact that the man is almost certain—well, I must not speculate. I think that the Lucan case is a gigantic red herring here in the context of this particular Bill, and I explained why in my Second Reading speech.
Lord Wigoder: If it were a solitary red herring, of course, I would not pursue the matter. It seems to me that there is perhaps a point here in which the
188
press have a viewpoint which is worthy of consideration. I entirely accept that the amendment as at present drafted is not the correct way to deal with it, and perhaps in those circumstances I might be allowed to withdraw it and consider whether to come back to the matter later.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Contemporary reports of proceedings]:
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
4.19 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 6:
"Page 2, line 24, leave out first ("the") and insert ("a substantial").
The noble and learned Lord said: In my submission this amendment would appear to achieve consistency with the language of Clause 2, and line 17, which we have already been discussing. What is required to make the strict liability rule applicable is that the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced. We are similarly, in Clause 4(2), dealing with the risk of prejudice to the administration of justice in proceedings, and it would therefore seem to be at least consistent and, indeed, desirable that the risk should be designated as substantial. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I seem to have received notice of this amendment somewhat late. If I may, I should like to consider the matter. There may be something in it because it corresponds with substantial prejudice in Clause 2. I think that if the noble and learned Lord would withdraw it at the present stage, perhaps we can correspond about it or he could put it down again at the Report stage. I think that there is something to be said for it because there is an element of consistency involved, and it might seem inconsistent if I were to resist it, at any rate without further thought.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Most certainly, in the light of the assurance of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. I apologise that it was put down late, but such is the nature of the pressure of work and the facilities provided for us in this great House that inevitably these things happen, if I may say so, as regards legislation introduced also by the Government. In those circumstances—
Lord Foot: Before the noble and learned Lord withdraws the amendment I should like to make one suggestion for the consideration of the noble and learned Lord when he is looking at the matter again. Might not this subsection be made to conform with what appears in Clause 2? Might it not be made better to conform if, instead of inserting the words "a substantial" before the word "risk", we were to put in after the words "risk of" the words "serious prejudice"? That would make it comply and conform with the words in the earlier clause.
The Lord Chancellor: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Foot. At first sight I think that he is right.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 7 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.24 p.m.
Lord Gardiner: I should like to say a few words on the Question, Whether Clause 4(2) should stand part of the Bill; and I do so, of course, only for the purpose of asking the Government to take some observations into account before the next stage of the Bill. Subsection (2) is that which gives the courts a power to order the postponement of the report of proceedings and that, of course, is entirely in accordance with the recommendation of the Phillimore Committee.
The question which I desire to raise is one with which the Phillimore Committee did not deal at all, and that is the question whether the circumstances in which a court could so order should not be defined or at least guidelines provided. I expect that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and others have received a memorandum on the Bill from the Law Society. They have put forward this point as follows. They say:
"… although it may be necessary to give the judges a power to order that publication of any report of proceedings should be postponed, we think a much more precise definition of the circumstances in which such a power can be exercised should be provided.
One of the main sources of difficulty in relation to contempt law at present … is as to whether courts can order publication of reports of proceedings to be delayed … The issue arises often when an accused in one case is likely to be prosecuted on other charges when the case is completed. There is an extensive conflict of judicial views on whether the press should be able to report the first proceedings before the second are complete or not. For example, Mr. Justice Lawton (as he then was) said in R. v. Kray: 'I can see no reason why a newspaper should not report what happens in court even though there may be other charges pending. The reporting of trials which take place in open court is an important part of the function of a newspaper and it would not be in the public interest, in my judgment, if newspapers desisted from reporting trials, and from reporting verdicts and sentences in those trials, merely because there was some indictment still to be dealt with … I have enough confidence in my fellow countrymen to think that they have got newspapers sized up … and they are capable in normal circumstances of looking at a matter fairly and without prejudice even though they have to disregard what they may have read in a newspaper.'".
The Law Society goes on to say:
" As against this, in R. v. Border Television Limited, ex-parte the Attorney-General and R. v. The Newcastle Chronical and Journal Ltd. ex-parte the Attorney-General … the Lord Chief Justice said that every reporter should know about one simple form of contempt, the publication of material 'relating to offences committed by or alleged against an accused other than those charged'.
Our view is therefore that unless the situations in which the judges can exercise their powers to order reports of legal proceedings to be deferred are defined in detail the conclusion which now so often arises will continue ".
That, therefore, is the point which I would respectfully ask the Government to consider before we come to the next stage of the Bill although, of course, if the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, would care to make any observations on it now I should be extremely happy. However, it is a difficult position for newspapers when the point is one which has received conflicting decisions in the courts.
The Lord Chancellor: Obviously, as the noble and learned Lord has spoken, I shall consider this matter before the Report stage. But my first feeling about it is as follows. The object of the Bill is to make things clear for the potential editor and there is all the difference in the world, therefore, between the test of activation, which is in Schedule 1, or the test of what constitutes contempt, which is in Clause 2, and the case which arises where the court has, in fact, forbidden, or ordered the postponement of, reports, because there the matter is plain, subject to innocent publication, because of the existence of the order. Therefore, a quite different set of considerations arises in relation to a case where there is a direct order of the court from that which there arises, where there is no direct order of the court and therefore the editor may be in some doubt. The matter was, I think, referred to in paragraph 133 or paragraph 134 of the Phillimore Report, and I think that this is the conclusion to which that committee came.
The power to order postponement is a quite old one and has been exercised over more than 100 years. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord was quite right in saying that it may be that the case where other charges may be pending against the same defendant is the only type of case, or even the typical type of case, where an order of this kind is made. I think that the first occasion—and this is a matter of rather peculiar legal history—when the postponement of publication was directed was as long ago as the Cato Street conspiracy, which was really quite a long time ago! I think that the reason it was there ordered was precisely the kind of reason which might occur today: they prosecuted one conspirator in advance of the others. It was thought that the publication of the report relating to the one conspirator would prejudice the trial of the others when it came to pass.
I think that another case, which of course was more recent than that, was the well-known case of Poulson, when I believe another order was made for postponement because a case was then pending but had not yet been brought into court against Poulson together with a man called Pottinger. I am not sure that the Kray brothers was not a third. I do not think that this is a case where I shall be likely to alter my opinion about the clause but, considering the eminence of the source from which the observations have come, I shall certainly put it back in order that I may take advice about it.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Discussion of public affairs]:
4.31 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 3, line 1, leave out (" in good faith ").
The noble Lord said: In the Marshalled List your Lordships will have noticed an amendment which was not in fact moved but which related to Clause 4, and to which my noble friend Lord Gifford attached his name. That was an attempted amendment of Clause 4 which, as your Lordships know, deals with the question of contemporary reports of proceedings, and the amendment asked for the omission of the words "and in good faith". Those words are to be found in the Phillimore Report as a recommendation and,

191
indeed, the Phillimore Committee takes the trouble to say why the words "good faith" are recommended by it. At page 60 of the report, at about line 6, it says:
"The requirement of good faith removes the defence recommended above from any person who publishes a report maliciously and with the deliberate intention of causing prejudice".
Your Lordships may well think that there is very good reason for importing the element of good faith into the offence which is covered by Clause 4 of this Bill, which deals with the reports of legal proceedings. However, when one turns to the clause with which this amendment deals—namely, Clause 5—one sees that it relates, not to a report of criminal proceedings or any other proceedings, but to a discussion of public affairs. Again, this recommendation follows Phillimore. But this time Phillimore does not use the words "in good faith".
One will have noticed the great care with which—and those of us who knew him remember him with such respect—the learned judge guided the committee with such precise language, not only in the wording of the report, but in the wording of the recommendations. Therefore, it is worthy of note that, as I say, in this recommendation there are no words such as "in good faith". In this connection one can well see why it would seem to be useless—indeed, almost irrelevant—to include those words, if, indeed, one could not go further and say that to some extent they would defeat the whole purpose of the clause.
Perhaps, very briefly, I can refer to what is this defence. It is that:
"A publication made as or as part of a discussion in good faith"—
those are the words now included—
"of public affairs or other matters of general public interest is not to be treated as a contempt of court under the strict liability rule if the risk of impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely incidental to the discussion ".
We are dealing with a public discussion, a matter of general interest, and to have a proper defence the defendant would have to show that there was no risk of impediment or prejudice to a particular legal proceedings, or, if there was such, it was merely incidental to the discussion. To impose upon the defendant in that case—and Phillimore must well have had this in mind because of the wording of the recommendation—that in addition he has to show that he acted in good faith, is surely not only, as I have said, unnecessary, but introduces into this sort of situation—unlike Clause 4—a complete unreality as to how one manages to show that there was, in fact, good faith in any such discussion of a public matter. Therefore, I am merely recommending that Phillimore be followed—and, of course, Clause 4 of the Bill should be supported—with the omission from this clause of the words "in good faith".
Lord Gifford: First, briefly, I should like to apologise to the Committee for not being present to move amendments which were down in my name, and I should like to thank my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, for moving one of them. I certainly do not intend to abuse my position by making the speech that I would have made on Amendment No. 4.
192
In support of the amendment which my noble friend Lord Mishcon has moved, perhaps I may add this: Surely we do not want circumstances where courts trying cases of contempt are in the position of having to scrutinise the motives of those who have been taking part in discussions of public affairs. It is everyone's right to take part in discussions of public affairs, and, if they do so, let their liability for contempt of court be judged on the objective test which the clause, with this amendment carried, would allow, so that the courts can fairly see whether or not the risk of prejudice was incidental to the discussion. However, all sorts of unpopular organisations could be in jeopardy, and the courts themselves could be in some danger of appearing to be questioning the motives of those who discuss politics, if the requirement of good faith has to stand as part of this clause.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, need not have apologised to the Committee. We are always glad to see practising members of the Bar take part in our debates. We all know that they have difficulties which are not shared by Ministers. Therefore, he need not think that his courtesy in apologising was necessary either to me or to those who know how difficult life can be for practising members of the Bar who want to play a part in parliamentary life. However, the noble Lord is at least consistent in that he wanted to omit the words "good faith" from the report clause as well as from this defence.
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I do not think that he is in quite such a good position from the point of view of consistency as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford; because although the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, is technically quite right—as he would be, being so careful about everything—in saying that the words "good faith" do not occur in Phillimore, I rather think that he is wrong in saying that our present draft does not accurately reflect what Phillimore said. In paragraph 216(14) of the Phillimore Report we have the report of legal proceedings defence where the words "good faith" occur totidem verbis.
In sub-paragraph (15), which deals with the special defence, with which we are now concerned in Clause 5, Phillimore says:
"It should be a defence to an allegation of contempt to show that a publication formed part of a legitimate discussion of matters of general public interest".
That is what we have sought to do in Clause 5, but noble Lords will not have failed to note that we have used "in good faith" in place of the word "legitimate" I think we were right to interpret "legitimate" in that sense. One has only to ask oneself whether one really wants an illegitimate public discussion to take place to see where we would be getting. One starts with a publication which, to satisfy the requirements of the Bill at all, renders a thing liable to the law of contempt in strict liability. One recognises that whatever is published there is a risk of seriously prejudicing the course and administration of justice and a fair trial which, after all, is the fundamental right under the European Convention which the law of contempt exists to protect. As I say, one has only to ask oneself whether it should be a defence to have an illegitimate public discussion to realise that we would be getting

193
into very strange water indeed; if we were to provide a defence to say that illegitimate public discussion of matters of general interest (notwithstanding that there was a risk of seriously impeding the course of justice) should be allowed as a defence.
What is the difference between legitimate discussion and discussion in good faith? Personally I do not see any difference, but with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, one has only to ask oneself again: supposing one wished to put it plainly and said that one wished to provide a defence for a public discussion of matters of public general interest published in bad faith. Should that be a defence? That must be the consequence of the amendment if it was passed. It would therefore be undesirable in our view to allow an accused person or litigant seriously to be prejudiced in his defence in a criminal case by a discussion which was not genuine, not in good faith, but orchestrated ad hoc for the purpose of causing embarrassment to the litigant or accused person.
It so happens that what is legitimate in the form of a discussion about judicial proceedings has been the subject of judicial decision and observation. Lord Atkin, in a well known Opinion—I do not have the exact citation with me—said this about the law of contempt and public discussion:
"But whether the authority and position of an individual judge, or the due administration of justice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any member of the public who exercises the ordinary light of criticising, in good faith, in private or public, the public act done in the seat of justice. The path of criticism is a public way: the wrong-headed are permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice, and are genuinely"—
I emphasise "genuinely" and would say that it means nothing else in the context but bona fide—
"exercising a right of criticism, and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of justice, they are immune".
I should have thought that our draft correctly reflected both the trend of the wiser element injudicial opinion—and nobody doubts that there were periods of time when perhaps the judges took too authoritarian a view of their contempt jurisdiction—when we had the words "in good faith" in this defence because what we are discussing of course is a defence available to an editor who finds himself in the position of having published a discussion of which there is a risk of seriously impeding or interfering with the course of justice, and we think he should have that defence only if he is in good faith. I cannot put it more plainly than that and I do not think we are being unfair to him.
Lord Mischon: As always, I admire the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for acknowledging parentage of even extraordinary arguments like legitimate and illegitimate discussions. Perhaps he will allow me to say with the utmost respect that he should realise the comparative difficulties of an advocate (nobody knows of those difficulties and nobody has taken advantage of them with greater skill in the past than the noble and learned Lord Chancellor) in endeavouring not to show that a discussion was legitimate but that the discussion for which he was responsible, and where there was only incidentally a risk in regard to current proceedings, was in good faith. I would regard it as
194
a comparatively straightforward task, following the language of Phillimore, if he were merely to have to show that it was a legitimate discussion permitted by our law—perfectly in order, not grossly defamatory or anything of that kind—but when you import not into the dictum of a very learned judge in describing somebody but into a clause of a Bill which deals with criminal offences the necessity to translate into that discussion the element of good faith, I say, though I get no advantage out of a repetition of the argument, that you are creating a difficulty and a vagueness.
I should say that this is the view not of this humble member of your Lordships' Committee but of learned bodies associated with the press and indeed associated with the law. I therefore hope that, if nothing else, the noble and learned Lord will agree to have a further thought about this matter, especially as the draftsman here has chosen not to use the word that was used by Phillimore but to use a different expression. If the noble and learned Lord will be good enough to consider the matter further, I shall, with equal grace, withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paget of Northampton: Can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor assist me by giving an illustration of a discussion of public affairs or other matters of general public interest which is not in good faith? I have been racking my imagination trying to think of one.
The Lord Chancellor: I should have thought that would not be very difficult. One could discuss almost anything in such a way as to cast obloquy on an actor on the scene and I think it would be easy to invent a set of circumstances in which one entered into a discussion of public affairs designed solely to take away the good character of almost any one of your Lordships.
I do not want to make this a last-ditch fight and I will certainly accede to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Mischon, to discuss the matter again. On the other hand, I do not want to pretend to be wholly impartial about this; I shall not say I have a closed mind, but I have a mind which at any rate is a long way towards being made up. With that qualification, I certainly accede to the noble Lord's request.
Lord Mishcon: I said that provided the noble and learned Lord would in good faith think again about the matter I would ask leave to withdraw the amendment. That I do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Gardiner Lord Gardiner moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
("Influence and pressure
. Bringing influence or pressure to bear upon a party to proceedings shall not be held to be a contempt unless it amounts to intimidation or unlawful threats to his person, property or reputation.")
The noble and learned Lord said: The 19th recommendation of the Phillimore Committee is as follows:
"It should also be provided by statute that bringing influence or pressure to bear upon a party to proceedings shall not be held

195
to be a contempt unless it amounts to intimidation or unlawful threats to his person, property or reputation ".
The committee made that recommendation because it was anxious to ensure that our new law, whatever it was, should not conflict with the decision of the European Court in the thalidomide case. The recommendation has not been accepted by the Government, and in the view of many unless it is accepted and incorporated in the Bill, it will be gravely open to doubt whether or not our law is now in accordance with the law of the European Court.
The Law Society itself has raised the point as well in the following way. It says:
"As to the claim that enactment of the Bill will ensure that United Kingdom law on contempt conforms with the requirements of the European Convention on human rights following the Sunday Times case, this is in our view questionable. As will be recalled, this case arose as a result of articles in the Sunday Times urging Distillers … manufacturers of the drug thalidomide to pay generous compensation to children injured as a result of the use by their mothers of the drug while pregnant, even though it was doubtful whether Distillers were under any legal liability … Distillers complained that a final article which the Sunday Times proposed to publish would constitute a contempt in that it would put them (Distillers) under undue pressure not to exercise their legal rights and they sought an injunction to prevent the publication. In the action which ensued, an injunction against publication was granted at first instance, by the Divisional Court, removed by the Court of Appeal and reimposed by the House of Lords.
"The Phillimore Committee were able to consider the House of Lords' decision (Attorney-General v. Times Newspapers Ltd.). They took the view that the law as laid down in that case imposed unnecessary restrictions and they made the following recommendation:
'It should also be provided by statute that bringing influence or pressure to bear upon a party to proceedings shall not be held to be a contempt unless it amounts to intimidation or unlawful threats to his person, property or reputation'.
"Following the House of Lords decision, the Sunday Times then appealed to the European Commission of Human Rights, by whom the case was referred to the European Court of Human Rights requesting it to give a decision as to whether or not the facts which the Commission had found disclosed a breach by the United Kingdom of its obligations under Article 10 either alone or in conjunction with Article 14 or 18 of the European Human Rights Convention.
"The court concluded that the restrictions imposed by United Kingdom law did not correspond to a social need sufficiently pressing to outweigh the public interest in freedom of expression. The reasons for the injunction were therefore insufficient and the restraint was not proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued by the House of Lords and was not necessary in a democratic society for maintaining the authority of the judiciary. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 10.
"The Phillimore recommendation has been omitted from the Bill, but it seems clear that had it been included, the United Kingdom law would have complied with the Convention as interpreted by the Human Rights Court. Without it, it is difficult to see what change the Bill makes which is sufficient to achieve this result.
"It has been suggested that the adoption of the proposed definition of contempt in relation to publications as regards strict liability, that is, that proceedings will be seriously impeded, impaired, or prejudiced, would provide sufficient protection for the publisher of the comment of the type contained in the Sunday Times article, and that the additional Phillimore proposal is therefore not needed.
"However, it does not seem that this claim is justifiable. This proposed test of contempt is not in fact new. It is based on that adopted by the Divisional Court in the Sunday Times case and seems to have been accepted by both the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. It seems therefore that the decision of the House of Lords was made in the light of general acceptance of the test laid down by Clause 2(2) of the Bill. If this is so, statutory adoption of the test would make no difference to the law as it
196
applies to the kind of situation that arose in the Sunday Times case. In fact the reason why the Government has decided to reject the Phillimore recommendation is made clear in the discussion paper Contempt of Court, where it is said:
'Accordingly it may be contended that the Phillimore recommendation (i.e. on influencing litigants to continue, abandon or compromise proceedings) would tip the balance too far against the interests of justice and that a distinction can and should be drawn between private influence and pressure on one hand and public obloquy on the other'.
"Whether or not one accepts the view that the Phillimore recommendation would tip the balance too far may be open to argument, but we suggest that the failure to include a provision implementing the Phillimore recommendation casts doubt on the claim that the Bill will ensure that United Kingdom law conforms to the requirements of the European Human Rights Convention. The Government should therefore proceed to explain how they justify this claim ".
I should have thought that we should all agree that in the existing situation it is very desirable that United Kingdom law in this field should conform to that of the European Convention and the decision of the European Court in the thalidomide case. That I understand to be the Government's view.
Now of course lawyers may always differ on various points, but if there is any doubt about this at all, then I should have thought that it would be wise to follow the view expressed by the Law Society and many others by incorporating in the Bill that which Phillimore expressly recommended should be included in the Bill. After all, this is pure Phillimore. Here is an express recommendation as to exactly what should be included in legislation, and it is done for the purpose of ensuring that our law does conform to that of the decision of the European Court. In those circumstances I strongly express the hope that on this point the Government will accept that this is a valid argument and that the recommendation of the Phillimore Committee should be incorporated in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Mishcon: I ventured to raise this matter and this omission from Phillimore with some amount of diffidence during the Second Reading debate, and I then tried to interpret to the House, I hope without the exaggerated learned language that lawyers are accustomed to use, what I humbly thought to be the position following upon the three courts that had dealt with the Sunday Times thalidomide case—the Divisional Court, the Court of Appeal, and the House of Lords—and how that was dealt with in the European Court of Human Rights.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with his usual courtesy and gentleness, intervened in the speech that I ventured to make and said that I had not correctly interpreted, as he saw it, quite how the House of Lords made their decision and what the European Court had said. I always take it for granted when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor intervenes in any speech of mine that it is not only necessary to correct me but that the correction is absolutely right, and so I went away in all humility duly chastened.
I hope that I shall not be guilty of getting somebody else into trouble, but I noticed with some amusement in a publication that reached me ony this morning, and which is issued by a body called the Outer Circle Policy Unit, that these dreadful words occur in the script:

197
"Lord Hailsham was absolutely wrong in this interpretation of the ECHR's judgment. The U.K. Government had always urged that the protection of the reputation and rights of others called for a balance between Article 6 and Article 10".
I now omit some sentences only because I do not want to take up the time of your Lordships' Committee. The article then goes on to say:
"In an exchange with Lord Mishcon (Hansard p. 675) Lord Hailsham also said that 'the so-called prejudgment criterion which we get rid of in this Bill' was the criterion adopted by the House of Lords as distinct from other courts, was the one attacked by the Phillimore Committee's report and was the only live issue before Strasbourg. He implied that it was unnecessary to provide, as recommended by Phillimore and supported by Lord Mishcon"—
I regard myself as being in very high company in that quotation—
"that pressure upon a party to proceedings should not be a contempt unless it amounts to intimidation or unlawful threats In fact"—
says this journal—
"the pressure on Distillers was very much a live issue before the European Court ".
It was not my purpose (except, I must confess, almost out of amusement) to quote this paragraph. I am not saying that by way of any disrespect to this publication, which is a most useful one; but what I really wanted to emphasise was that there must be a little bit of doubt about the position, and the laymen in your Lordships' Committee could appreciate that if someone responsible takes up the argument which occurred during the Second Reading debate on this Bill.
If I could put it in the most simple terms—and I hope, therefore, not inaccurately—the divisional court granted an injunction in this case; the Court of Appeal in fact dealt with the judgment of the divisional court; the House of Lords in turn dealt with the judgment of the Court of Appeal and reveresd it, and then the matter came before the European Court. The only relevant thing I want to point out to your Lordships is this: there was an injunction that was granted, and the unjunction that was granted by the divisional court was an injunction granted on grounds which are strictly relevant to the Phillimore recommendation and to this amendment, because it was granted on the grounds that the divisional court felt that there was an interference with the course of justice by virtue of the pressure which was then being placed upon Distillers.
Now there had been introduced into this case other criteria, such as the prejudgment issue, but not the question of pressure. But the European Court—and this is the point that I want, I hope with some simplicity and clarity, to make—dealt with the question of whether there was a contravention of Article 10 of the Convention on Human Rights by virtue of what the courts in this country had said about pressure on litigants; and, indeed, in some of the judgments in the House of Lords comment had been made upon that matter. The inference from the European Court's judgment is that there would be a non-observance of the Convention on Human Rights if what the divisional court had decided to do when it granted the injunction, thinking that there was pressure upon the litigant, was allowed to remain as being the law.
It is a fact that the judgment of the divisional court has been quoted since in support of applications for
198
injunctions upon precisely those grounds, so it still remains a matter which is (if I may use that phrase) argued and tossed before the courts when one is dealing with questions of contempt which originate in the idea of pressure being brought upon litigants. So it is a question of doubt as to whether, if you do not bring this recommendation of Phillimore into the Bill, you are in fact complying with the European Convention on Human Rights and whether you are not walking once again into the difficulties of the matter being challenged before the European Court.
Therefore, if one merely puts it upon the basis of dubiety, and not on the basis of whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was right in his analysis or was, most unusually, incorrect, if there is a doubt, as there must be, is it not right to make it quite sure in our law that, when dealing with the same sort of cases as that dealt with in the divisional court in the Sunday Times case, our law on contempt is clear, and that the pressure which is deemed to be contempt is the one that is clearly defined in a Bill which is meant to deal with our law of contempt? It is therefore in that spirit that I would wish humbly to agree with this amendment.
5.5 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Naturally, I do not propose to discuss the thalidomide case at all, because I was a member of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House in that appeal; but as a former matrimonial judge I do venture to express some misgivings about this amendment. On many occasions I have known what I regarded as improper pressure being brought on a spouse, particularly a wife, not to exercise her rights before the court, not least where children were concerned. The pressure was far short of intimidation or unlawful threats. I share the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that it is important that, now that we are codifying the law, we should not be doing anything which is contrary to the European Convention, which is indeed part of English law on ultimate analysis.
I need hardly say, I hope, that I have the highest respect for the Phillimore Report. Its chairman was a very old friend of mine, and, indeed, he was himself formerly a matrimonial judge. Nevertheless, in those circumstances, if the Government say that this amendment is necessary to bring our law into line with the European Convention, so be it. I should regret it in the sphere that I have mentioned. If it is not in contravention, I venture to urge on the Government some reserve in accepting it.
Lord Scarman: Like my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I have misgivings about this amendment. I am not convinced by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, even with the support of the Outer Circle Policy Unit, that there is anything in this Bill without this amendment which is inconsistent with the European Convention. I think it is sometimes a little easy in this Chamber to forget the way the European Court goes about its business. It respects national laws of the contracting states; and, faced as it will be with a code which makes it clear that contempt in this context can take place only where there is

199
a serious risk of prejudice, I am quite sure the European Court will not be quick to say that pressure which, even though it does not come up to the standard of this amendment, is nevertheless pressure which has caused serious prejudice, is something which can be ignored.
Like my noble and learned friend Lord Simon, I have also been a Family Division judge and I know all about the insidious power of pressure which cannot come anywhere near the language of this amendment. I have also conducted for two and a half years an inquiry into certain disturbances in Northern Ireland, and I spent days, indeed months of my life, considering all sorts and forms of intimidation which did not of course amount to intimidation as a lawyer would use that word, but yet was immensely effective upon the minds and hearts of the people at whom it was directed. The European Court would not be so foolish as to say that there must be the standard set in this amendment before it can recognise pressures which ought never to have been exercised but which have nevertheless threatened the course of justice. I would say again that I have very grave misgivings about this amendment. I think it is unnecessary, and I think it may weaken the protection of litigants.
5.10 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I am deeply grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this interesting discussion, and particularly to my two noble and learned friends on the Cross-Benches for what they have said; because what they have said reflects largely what has been in my mind from the outset of this debate about this particular aspect of the matter. I am not so much concerned (for reasons which I will give) about what the Strasbourg Court is thought, wrongly I think, to have decided—and I shall say why I think the conception about it is wrong—as about the demerits of this amendment itself, even though it happens to correspond with something in the Phillimore Report—and I will come to that.
I will tell you why what in my opinion was decided by the thalidomide case in a moment; and I speak with trepidation in the presence of those who sat on the Appellate Committee on that occasion. One starts with the fact that we have to give effect not only to Article 10, which preoccupied the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, but with Article 6 of the European Convention; and, with the greatest respect to the proponents of this amendment, I believe it to be contrary to the European Convention itself. What does Article 6 of the European Convention say? One has to start by reading it because it is of far greater importance to look at what Article 6 says before you look at the amendment and before you look at the judgment in the thalidomide case, either at Strasbourg or the House of Lords.
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against it everyone"—
yes, even the most unpopular man in the world, in Northern Ireland, in Scotland, in England and Wales, everyone—
"is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".
200
That is his right. How does the amendment stand up against that right? It does not stand up at all, notwithstanding the eminence of those who put it forward. Everyone is entitled to his day in court. That is what that article says—and a court of law, not a court of public opinion or a court of demonstration or a court of pressure or a court of insidious suggestion or a court of vilification. He is entitled to go to court to get his rights determined. That is what Article 6 says.
I now turn to what happened in the thalidomide case. I am totally unrepentant, despite the "outer circle". I would far rather take it from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, than from anybody else; but I am totally unrepentant despite the "outer circle" and despite the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon; because the fact is that although the divisional court in thalidomide went a great deal too far along the lines with which this amendment is designed to deal, in the House of Lords—and in the Court of Appeal for that matter; but at the moment I am concerned only with the House of Lords—the Sunday Times won its case upon this issue.
This is the basic fact which I do not think either the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, or the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, have really faced. They won their case on this issue before the House of Lords. The Sunday Times won its case. The articles got by in the House of Lords; they got by on this issue in the Court of Appeal although not in the divisional court. The House of Lords ruled in favour of all the articles—by a majority in the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal—that a temporary campaign against a party is permissible. And the Sunday Times campaign fell within that description. It was on the prejudgment test that the House of Lords and the Court of Appeal ran foul of Article 10. It was not on the grounds with which this amendment is designed to deal.
Lord Mishcon: I do not want to interrupt the noble and learned Lord in his flow, but I wish to point out two things with the utmost deference. The first is that the grounds, surely, that the Appellate Court decided on in regard to the divisional court judgment were that the proceedings were dormant. It was not that any newspaper in any circumstances would be quite entitled to deal with the matter as the Sunday Times had. Secondly, would the noble and learned Lord permit me—he is always so kind and patient—merely to say that the European Court in its judgment at paragraph 65 when dealing with Articles 6 and 10—and I quote from the translation—said:
"The court is not faced with a choice between two conflicting principles but the principle of free expression that is subject to a number of exceptions which must be narrowly interpreted".
They dealt with Articles 6 and 10 and came to that conclusion.
The Lord Chancellor: I know they did; and they also said that where necessary—and this is the whole point of the case—Article 6 took precedence over Article 10. They explained, too, what they meant by "necessary". Heaven forbid that I should object to being interrupted in what the noble Lord was courteous enough to refer to as my "flow". I want, if I may, to come back to the actual decision in the thalidomide

201
case because although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, argued his case with his customary eloquence and skill in advocacy, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, the most skilful art of advocacy consists in starting on a false premise and then arriving at an unjustifiable conclusion. It is the premise of the argument upon which they founded their case that is now under attack.
What I was intending to show, first, was that the Sunday Times had won on this point in the House of Lords on a majority. Lord Reid—and may I pause once more to pay my tribute to somebody whom I personally regarded almost as a hero in the judicial world; I think that he was one of the great judges of English law in the 20th century, and I think he was all the greater because he was brought up as a Scots lawyer and his contribution to English law was quite incomparable over 25 years as a Law Lord; and therefore I pay particular attention to what he said. Dealing with the point in question, Lord Reid said:
"The crucial question on this point is whether it can ever be permissible to urge a party to litigation to forego his legal rights in whole or in part. The Attorney-General argues that it cannot. I think that the divisional Court has accepted that view. In my view, it is permissible as long as it is done in a fair and temperate way and without any oblique motive".
Then he went on to one of the published articles and said:
"It is plainly intended to bring pressure to bear on Distillers. It was likely to attract support from others. It did so. It was unspoken. It said there are times when to insist on the letter of the law is as exposed to criticism as infringement of another's legal rights and clearly implied that that was such a time.
If the view maintained by the Attorney-General were right, I could hardly imagine a clearer case of contempt of court. It could be no excuse that the passage which I quoted earlier was combined with a great deal of other totally unobjectionable material. It could not be said that it created no serious risk of causing Distillers to do that which they did not want to do. On the facts submitted to your Lordships in argument. It seems to me to have played a large part in causing Distillers to offer far more money than they had at the time. But I am quite unable to subscribe to the view that it ought never to have been published because it was a contempt of court. I see no offence against public policy and no pollution in the stream of justice by its publications".
You could not have a stronger position than that. As it happens, it was supported by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Cross of Chelsea and Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, to whose memory I also pay a deserved tribute.
These two Law Lords said—and I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, who was delivering the opinion:
"I am sure that a layman who reflected on the matter would consider that a rule prohibiting the publication of any statement likely to influence, even though it did not relate to, the issues in the action, was an unwarranted interference with the freedom of expression. Surely, he would say, ought it to depend upon the way in which that influence is exerted. That is I think in fact the legal position. To seek to dissuade the litigant from prosecuting or defending proceedings by threats of unlawful action by an abuse, by misrepresentation of the nature of the proceedings or the circumstances out of which they arose and such like, is no doubt a contempt of court. But if the writer states the facts clearly and accurately and expresses his view in temperate language, the fact that the publication may bring pressure and possibly great pressure to bear on the litigant should not make it contempt of court".
I think that those three Law Lords got it right. I think that that is the way to put it. The reason I said
202
that Strasbourg was not concerned with this aspect of the matter and made only one oblique reference to it is precisely that the Sunday Times had won its case upon this aspect of the matter. The Strasbourg court was concerned with the pre-judgment test upon which the Sunday Times lost its case. I think that the noble and learned Lords have got it right. I am encouraged in that view and I hold it the more strongly precisely because of the sort of reason that my noble and learned friends on the Cross-Benches put forward: this amendment would limit contempt unless the publication amounts in itself to intimidation or unlawful threats to persons, property or reputation.
How can you limit it in that way without infringing Article 6 absolutely flagrantly? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, with his immense experience as president of the Family Division, says: "How do you apply the amendment in cases of matrimonial dispute, in the kind of thing which we know is going on every day?" I must say this in parenthesis: that the main difference between my first term of office as Lord Chancellor and my second term of office is the increasing volume of complaint that is coming from the constituencies, through their Members of Parliament, about the operation of the matrimonial jurisdiction. It is becoming far more important than it was 10 years ago.
I reinforce what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, says: how can you confine the kind of pressure which you are going to exonerate to intimidation and to threats to the person or property, in the light of the situation that you get in Northern Ireland? Also in the light of the situation which, alas!, you get in certain parts of this country? Think of race relations. In parts of this country there are lots of ways of intimidating people, vilifying them, abusing them or misrepresenting their conduct or nature of their proceedings which do not amount to unlawful threats or intimidation. Mind you, if this amendment were passed it would be the publication itself which had to amount to intimidation, the publication itself which had to amount to unlawful threats to the person or property. A publication which did not in itself do these things but excited others to do it or which had the effect of making other people do it would be immune. Think of the growth of anti-semitism, the sensitiveness of race relations, the trouble about matrimonial affairs and the state of affairs in Northern Ireland, and then look at this amendment. It is true Phillimore was in favour of it.
There is a technical reason why I was very dubious about the amendment. I am going to add it not for good measure because it is a very light measure indeed, but it is a question of policy which I think I was wise to take at the very outset. I want this Bill to get on the statute book. I do not care particularly whether every word that we approved a year ago when we got Government approval for it gets on the statute book, but I want it on the statute book. I deliberately limited it. I excluded the law of civil contempt as far as I could; I excluded the law of deliberate contempt so far as I could and I stuck to the strict liability rule so far as I could.
This amendment is about deliberate action and not about the strict liability rule at all, although I think that if it was inserted at this place in the Bill it probably

203
would be limited to the strict liability rule. I think that the House of Lords got the thalidomide case right on the subject of the pressure brought on parties, and I think that this amendment gets it wrong. I think that if we went to Strasbourg again on the Northern Ireland case, a matrimonial case or a race relations case—and we might be taken there any day of the week for aught I know—we should find that Article 6 was coming into its own; and if we pass this amendment we should be found to break it. That is why, despite the evidence and despite the authority of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the "outer circle", and the even more eminent authority of Phillimore himself and his colleages, I should not wish to see the Committee pass this particular amendment.
Lord Gardiner: This has been a most interesting discussion. Those members of the Committee who are not lawyers may have had experience already of the fact that lawyers, however distinguished, do not always agree. That has been the case in this discussion. It has been a most interesting one. I have been persuaded by the arguments of the noble and learned Lords, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Scarman, that I ought not to press this amendment to a Division. My basic reason for raising the point was that here was an express recommendation of the Phillimore Committee. It had not been carried into a Bill. There was undoubtedly a body of legal thinking which felt that unless this recommendation of the Phillimore Committee was carried into the Bill there was at least a grave danger that we should find ourselves again in breach of the European Convention. The future alone will show whether that is right or not. My feeling had been that if there was a doubt about it, it seemed sensible to accept this recommendation of the Phillimore Committee. But because of the arguments put forward by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor I do not propose to press this amendment to a Division, and I ask leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Savings]:
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 13, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: I have in mind very much the words that have just fallen from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in saying, with consummate wisdom, that he intended to limit the area of this Bill in order that a very worthwhile Bill should find its way on to the statute book. I do not wish in anything that I shall say now to impede that very worthy aim. In those circumstances, I hope very much that this amendment will be treated as a probing amendment.
If one looks at Clause 6(c) of the Bill, it will be seen that it reads:
"Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Act—
(c) restricts liability for contempt of court in respect of conduct intended to impede or prejudice the administration of justice".
204
At first sight that would seem to mean that within the compass of this Bill the whole of the contempt procedure, as it has gone on up to now except as provided for in this Bill, should still be the law of this land. The reason I say that I am addressing myself to what I regard as a probing amendment is that it might obscure or for ever consign to the wastepaper basket of history an important recommendation that was made by Phillimore—No. 6 on page 92—which dealt with the other questions of contempt which are not contempt in the course of current proceedings and which Phillimore says ought obviously to be dealt with not by the summary procedure of contempt but in accordance with our criminal law, as it normally stands.
That, too, was a recommendation made in the report on offences relating to interference with the course of justice which, if I remember correctly, was contained in the Law Commission's Report No. 96. So it was thought proper to draw attention to this and to wonder whether, on Report stage, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor might not think it worthwhile to substitute for Clause 6(c) something which in principle goes along those lines so that it does not seem as though entombed within this Bill for ever is the law of contempt and its procedure, as we know it now, and that this recommendation of Phillimore has been lost. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in his reply, once again would intimate that consideration could be given to this matter—and, as I say, I have raised it in this way on purpose—I personally will be content, although other noble Lords may have other views.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern: May I say first of all that the purpose of paragraph (c) in this clause, as we intend it, is to ensure that the restrictions contained in Clauses 2 to 5 on the scope of the strict liability rule will apply only in real cases of strict liability: that is to say, in cases where a publisher has not intended to cause any obstruction or prejudice to the course of justice. So it is not intended, by this clause, to give effect to the Phillimore recommendation to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred.
The recommendation they made was that conduct which is intended to pervert the course of justice in particular proceedings should continue to be capable of being dealt with as contempt of court, but only if the proceedings in question have started and not yet been finally settled or concluded. That is in the nature of a purely procedural recommendation. It does not affect the substance of the matter, and the committee certainly did not suggest that conduct deliberately designed to pervert, prejudice or obstruct the course of justice should cease to be a crime merely because the proceedings to which the conduct related had not started. There is no suggestion of that kind. Therefore, it is a purely procedural recommendation that over a certain period proceedings of this kind could be treated as contempt of court; otherwise they should be treated in another way.
We have given this careful consideration, but on balance have thought it was not really pursuing this purely procedural recommendation. As a matter of prosecution practice, it would be extremely rare for proceedings for contempt to be taken, as opposed to criminal proceedings, for the common law offence of perverting or attempting to pervert the course of

205
justice in the case of deliberately caused prejudice or obstruction before proceedings begin. Accordingly, we took the view that this is really a matter which depends upon prosecution practice and the spirit of the recommendation could be given effect to in that sphere without the necessity of legislation to deal with the matter. I hope this sufficiently answers the probe of the noble Lord.
Lord Scarman: I think there is a little more to it than that. I myself sympathise with this amendment. It would be extremely valuable to preserve or to establish in our law the recommendation of the Phillimore Committee that the operation of the law of contempt should be confined to circumstances where a swift and summary procedure is necessary.
The trouble about the amendment, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, appreciated, is that it is premature. There have been recommendations for reforming the criminal law in this field, and when those recommendations have been studied and fully implemented it may then be possible to amend this section, as I hope it will then be, by deleting paragraph (c). But until we are absolutely sure that the criminal law takes care of all these matters then paragraph (c) has to remain, so that there may be some remedy for what is a very serious offence. It is only for that reason I suggest to your Lordships that this amendment should be withdrawn. It is well intentioned and it is sound in policy, but it is premature.
Lord Mishcon: I could not have described my amendment in better or more fitting terms that it has just been described by the noble and learned Lord. The purpose, as I hope I intimated to your Lordships, was to keep the Phillimore recommendation alive. The record of these proceedings will have done that. I am content, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
5.39 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones Lord Elwyn-Jones moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
("Consent of Attorney-General.
. Proceedings for a contempt of court under the strict liability rule (other than Scottish proceedings) shall not be instituted other than with the consent of the Attorney-General.")
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move the insertion of this new clause, which proposes to require the consent of the Attorney-General to proceedings for a contempt of court under the strict liability rule. Your Lordships will notice that it is confined to proceedings under the strict liability rule and no other kind of contempt proceedings.
The Attorney-General, in practice, gets involved in most contempt of court matters. I remember, when I held the office of Attorney-General, being asked many, many times to take proceedings for contempt against the press. I found the circumstances complained of did not justify that. I only did so myself on one occasion, and I have regretted it, at any rate in some respects, ever since. I got into very hot water indeed. However, I am quite impenitent about the decision—but that is another matter.
The sieve or protection which the consent of the Attorney-General would provide is, I think, important. What is his role? His role is to apply, impartially and independently, his consideration to whether contempt proceedings are necessary for the protection of the public interest. That is the approach which I verily believe inspires the Attorney-General in considering these matters.
One's regret—if I may say so as cautiously as I can—is that Government departments do not always seek the advice of the Attorney-General. Some of the mischief, although I mention no cases at all, which has arisen has tended to arise when there has been a failure on the part particularly of Government departments to consult the Attorney-General. I hope that due note will be taken of that cautionary word.
But the value of the protection which is given by a requirement of the Attorney-General's consent is recognised in Clause 8 of the very Bill that we are considering, when the new form of contempt with which it deals in relation to the publication of jury deliberations is made subject to the Attorney-General's consent. As I said in my opening observations, this amendment goes no further than to subject to the need for consent the system of strict liability contempt.
As the House well knows by now—and has, indeed, known all along—that it is a rule of law whereby conduct may be treated as a contempt of court when it is tending to interfere with the course of justice, in particular in legal proceedings, regardless of intent to do so. It is a strict rule, and a rule which certainly, and rightly, imposes important limitations on the press. But, in my submission, it is a situation where a requirement of the intervention of the Attorney-General would prevent some of the difficulties that have arisen recently—if I may say so, without identifying any cases.
In moving the amendment, I am encouraged by the support which it is given by the International Press Institute in what seems to be a well-informed statement. My recollection is that that great judge, Lord Goddard, the late Lord Chief Justice, was rather in favour of a requirement of the Attorney-General's consent in all contempt cases. I am more modest than that. I may be wrong about that, but I do not think I am. Accordingly, I hope that this amendment will receive sympathetic consideration.
I appreciate that on Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not find this an attractive proposition. Indeed, he regarded it almost as a basic human right that the ordinary man in the street should have the facility and opportunity to take proceedings for contempt of court. But I think there is a big element of public interest and public responsibility here. I think that in any real case where proceedings are justified, particularly to protect the reputation and integrity of an individual, wrongly and unfairly harassed, an Attorney-General would proceed anyway. Accordingly, I hope that the view may be taken that the additional protection which this would give to a responsible press should receive the approval of the Government. I beg to move.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: Might I venture to support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has said,

207
particularly if in due course we find that Clause 7, in some form or another, stands part of this Bill? I say that because that will then mean that the strict liability rule in relation to reports and comments on proceedings will extend not merely to the courts as we have always known them but to hundreds, and indeed thousands, of administrative tribunals that are growing in an ever-increasing number. The result of extending the strict liability rule to that very large number of tribunals will inevitably be a temptation to the parties concerned to indulge in proceedings for contempt of court, very often of a vexatious or frivolous nature, and that strengthens the case for some form of sieve in the form of the Attorney-General's consent being necessary.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: I apologise to your Lordships, and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, in particular, for not being here when he first began to speak on his amendment. I am doing that which a legislator very often does but ought not to do; that is, joining in an argument not having heard the whole of the argument. I apologise to your Lordships, but particularly to the noble and learned Lord. Again, I am doubtful whether it is good manners for former Attorneys-General to disagree, but I fear that I do disagree in this matter. I remember being very personally embarrassed at the Sunday Times thalidomide case. I could not see why the Distillers should not have brought their own complaints before the court, and I am not altogether sure that to force, in some ways, a public officer—in the form of the Attorney-General—to do this function is totally desirable.
I also believe that giving a right to the individual to apply to the courts, particularly where fair trial may have been said to be prejudiced, is a right that ought to be retained for the individual in certain circumstances. Though I see the great force of the argument which the noble and learned Lord has put with regard to the public interest element—because it is enormously important—I feel that to exclude altogether any other person from having any such right would not be wholly desirable.
Therefore, with diffidence, because I have not heard all the argument of the noble and learned Lord, and also because this is a matter about which people can have differing views—and I can see good arguments on both sides—I must say to your Lordships that I come down against the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Mishcon: I intervene but briefly, only to introduce what is possibly a fresh issue. There is a very precious principle that we have been discussing the whole time on this Bill, and that is the issue of freedom of speech. A prosecution under this Bill—and, obviously, the Bill must provide for the causes for such prosecution, because there are other valuable liberties at stake—is a serious matter and a serious threat for those who are concerned with not only the promulgation and publishing of news but comments upon what is happening.
I should have thought that it was an attractive proposition, while still we have the greatest respect for our judicial officers who, we find, with remarkable
208
ability are able to remove political and subjective considerations from their minds when dealing with matters of this kind—and I am talking about the office of the Attorney-General—to say that the responsibility should rest upon the Attorney-General, whose fiat must run before contempt proceedings are brought.
If I may say so with respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, it is an evenly balanced judgment. One can come down in one way or the other. But I should have thought it was, at least, worth a trial run in the Bill to make the fiat of the Attorney-General an essential element before a prosecution is brought. If one finds that there are cases where the public feels that it has been let down because prosecutions have not been brought, or because other considerations, such as politics, have somehow entered into the matter, there is always time afterwards to alter it. But it is very difficult, once you have passed this Bill, suddenly to alter a public right and then introduce the necessity to have the fiat of the Attorney-General.
I repeat that it is an evenly balanced argument, but I should have thought that on balance it was just in favour of the Attorney-General's leave being necessary for proceedings to be brought under the Bill.
5.50 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not belong to the trade union of ex-Attorneys General. My father did. I do not pretend that I have found this absolutely easy to make up my mind about, and I am not even sure that I shall not change it to some degree, but not absolutely, at the Report stage. So I am not yet dying in any ditches. However, I should like to make one or two general observations in support of my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell.
I was, of course, the victim of contempt proceedings brought, I thought frivolously, by a Mr. Blackburn and thrown out contemptuously by the present Master of the Rolls. I minded it enormously. I had a very good counsel on that occasion. His name was, I think, Sir Peter Rawlinson. He would not let me ask for costs, which I richly deserved. He said it was beneath my dignity, and I took his advice reluctantly. I can see both points of view but, as I say, I do not want at this stage to die in any ditches.
First, it is a general rule of English law that the private individual has a right to bring criminal proceedings, although I believe that is not so in Scots law. We Englishmen value the right to bring criminal proceedings. We do not think, as a general rule, that other Directors of Public Prosecutions or Attorneys-General should stop us from exercising that right. There is a limited number of cases where the Attorney-General's fiat is required. Incest is one. There was a day, when my father was Attorney-General, when he was entitled to charge the fee of one guinea every time he gave his fiat. Those happy days have unfortunately ended. They ended long before any present members of the club joined it.
As I say, there are a number of cases where the Attorney-General's fiat is required, but I rather question whether this ought to be one of them. I can see that a vexatious attempt to introduce contempt into civil litigation might be one of them. If you tried to interfere with a libel proceeding by introducing contempt

209
under the strict liability rule, I can see that there might be said to be a very strong case for the intervention of the Attorney-General at some stage. As a rule, Attorneys-General are not very keen on this class of case. In England, they are not very keen on assuming responsibility for giving a fiat as a condition precedent to criminal proceedings because our jurisprudence is based upon prosecutions by the police. This matter was discussed the other day in the Phillips Committee, so I do not intend to go into it. As I say, Attorneys General are not very keen on assuming this responsibility. Attempts to get the Attorney-General's fiat by private litigants of one sort or another sometimes take a great deal of time when, in the law of contempt, time may be very much of the essence.
What rather moves me against the amendment in this case is the matter of criminal proceedings. Who is the prosecutor in the case of criminal proceedings? It may be the Attorney-General himself, but it is always the Crown. Cases are labelled Regina v. So-and-so. Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention says:
"In the determination of his civil rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law".
What is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, proposing in this amendment? In a criminal case in which the Attorney-General may well be a party—the Director of Public Prosecutions is always a party in homicide cases and otherwise takes on rather serious cases—who is to say whether contempt proceedings can be brought at the instance of the defendant? Why, the Attorney-General, the same man who is prosecuting him. Is that really sense? I should have thought that it is not sense.
It so happens that in connection with a quite different amendment I had brought to me a contempt case which was decided a long time ago—in, I think, 1945. No order was made. It was in connection with appellate proceedings. It was about an article in the News of the World. A man had been indicted on 10 counts of abortion. He was a doctor. He had been convicted and that was why it was in contempt proceedings. Just consider this. The article was headed: "Doctor unmasked. Scotland Yard were after him for 20 years". In the body of the article the following statements were made:
"The first complaint ever received against him was 20 years ago. Without evidence to justify an arrest, the police were patient. The principal question still puzzling Scotland Yard is the whereabouts of the fortune Doctor "X" is believed to have amassed…".
Just imagine that that article had been published when proceedings were active before a jury. Why should it depend upon the Attorney-General whether the accused man should go to the court and say, "I have been seriously prejudiced in my defence by the publication of an article of this kind"?
I do not want to dogmatise about this because I see that there is an argument on both sides. I have not come to any positive conclusion. However, I would ask that we should all go away and think about it because at the moment I would resist this amendment in its present form. I am wondering whether civil litigation might be covered or whether some limitation might be put on the average member of the public, the common informer-type member of the pubic,
210
introducing contempt proceedings, as Mr. Blackburn did against me. I am not at all sure that one would be right to make a universal rule that the Attorney-General's fiat should be required before contempt proceedings were brought, especially in criminal cases. It may be at the instance of the person who has a genuine interest in the fair trial to which he is entitled under Article 6.
I should have to consult my colleagues—obviously my own colleague, the Attorney-General, would have to be consulted—before I could accept an amendment of this kind, and at present my instructions are to resist it. Having said that, it may be a little more difficult than the noble and learned Lord suggested. I am grateful for the kind of argument that my noble and learned friend on my right put before the Committee. Perhaps the right course would be for us all to go away and see whether or not some limitation on the right to institute proceedings would be appropriate and whether this particular amendment is really the right one to pursue.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: I am most grateful for that helpful, constructive intervention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner has drawn my attention to the relevant part of the Phillimore Report. An interesting suggestion is made at the end of paragraph 187:
"We believe…that the normal practice should be, especially where the alleged contempt is in relation to criminal proceedings"—
this is the matter which the noble and learned Lord has been emphasizing—
"that the attention of the Attorney-General should be drawn to the matter before any private proceedings are begun".
If that could be put into statutory form it would be some protection against—I will not use the word "vexatious" but the hopeless proceeding which can cause a great deal of concern and expense to defendants.
The report also draws attention to the fact, which I have not wholly overlooked, that there is the additional safeguard that the leave of the court must be obtained before an application can be made. I am certainly prepared to look again at this matter, particularly in view of the infidelity of my successor as Attorney-General to the unions' rules on solidarity, et cetera, but in the light of what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said—somewhat more encouraging, if he will permit me to say so, than his more robust rejection without qualification on Second Reading—I am happy to ask leave to withdraw the amendment, looking forward to further discussion of this important matter of public policy, both for the press and for the ordinary individual.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.1 p.m.
Lord Scarman Lord Scarman moved Amendment No. 12:
Insert the following new clause:
("Defence of confidentiality of source.
.—(1) A person is not guilty of contempt of court merely on the ground that he refuses to disclose the source of the information contained in a publication for which he is responsible unless it be established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime.
(2) "Publication" has for the purpose of this section the meaning assigned to it in section 2(1) of this Act.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My noble and learned friend Lord Salmon I know would have wished to be able to move this amendment. He very much regrets that he cannot be here this evening and has asked me on his behalf to make his apologies.
I cannot pretend that this amendment is a modest attempt to improve the drafting or the substance of this Bill, or to give effect to a Phillimore recommendation. It raises a question of legal principle. As to the merits of the proposal, I should like to confine myself to two quotations, one from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, and the other from my noble and learned friend Lord Salmon. Both quotations are to be found in the recent case of the British Steel Corporation v Granada Television, although I hasten to say that the issue with which this amendment is concerned was not of course directly raised in that case.
The noble and learned Master of the Rolls and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, were both so eloquent in that case upon the principle enshrined in this amendment that I cannot do better than to use them as my weapons of advocacy. Indeed, I would say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that, in addition to one test of advocacy, moving from the false premise to an unjustifiable conclusion and carrying your audience unanimously with you, there is a second test; that is, when you can make use of what other people have said it is so much better than just putting it forward yourself.
I have observed that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made use of the outer policy circle unit—or whatever it was called—but I think I am in slightly better company and it is to that company that I now move. In the course of his judgment in the Granada case, on the point with which this amendment deals, the noble and learned Master of the Rolls put it in this way:
"After studying the cases it seems to me that the courts are reaching towards this principle. The public has a right of access to information which is of public concern and of which the public ought to know. The newspapers are the agents, so to speak, of the public, to collect that information and to tell the public of it. In support of this right of access the newspapers should not, in general, be compelled to disclose their sources of information, neither by means of discovery before trial nor by questions or cross-examination at the trial".
A little later in his judgment he puts the principle perfectly clearly, as follows:
"It is not so much a privilege or freedom of the newspaper—of the press—with which this principle is concerned, as with the right of the public to be informed upon matters which it is in the public interest that they should know."
My noble and learned friend Lord Salmon put it in this way—and again I quote part of his speech. It was, of course, a dissenting speech when that case reached the House of Lords. He said—and I will quote just the critical words:
"The immunity of the press to reveal its sources of information, save in exceptional circumstances, has been accepted by the courts for so long that I consider it is wrong now to sweep this immunity away".
I will just insert a comment of my own here. I doubt myself whether that sentence is a correct statement of law, but it certainly is a correct statement of the
212
practice of the courts; that is to say, the courts strain—and in my experience have always strained—to protect a journalist, as they strain to protect a priest or a doctor, from revealing the confidence upon which he has acted. With the journalist it is the sources of his information; with a priest it may be the confidence of the confessional; and with the doctor, of course, it is the confidence of the bedside or of the consulting room. As a matter of practice that observation is certainly correct, even though I doubt, with respect, that one can say that the existing law recognises any such immunity as a matter of law.
Then the noble and learned Lord went on to say:
"The press has been deprived of this immunity"—
and, bear in mind, immunity in practice—
"only twice, namely in the Clough and Mulholland cases".
Your Lordships will remember that those two cases were decided, I think, in 1962 or 1963. They were the cases of the journalists who had published some material about the Vassal inquiry, conducted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Radcliffe, and who refused to disclose the sources of their information. Of course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Radcliffe, and his tribunal acted under the statute of 1921 and certified a question for the High Court. The question was, of course, should they be compelled to disclose the sources of their information? They were put under an obligation to do so; they refused to do so and they went to prison.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, went on, after his references to those two cases, in this way:
"The exceptional circumstances in each of those cases were that the security of the nation required that the press's source of information must be revealed".
Plainly, this is a situation in which the immunity of the journalist must give way and this amendment takes care of that situation. My noble and learned friend Lord Salmon continued:
"I do not say that national security will necessarily always be the only special circumstances, but it is the only one which has been effective until now".
Again, as a matter of practice and experience, I think the noble and learned Lord was right. That is the way in which the courts, in their discretion, have handled this matter.
Then a little further on my noble and learned friend said—and these are important words:
"The freedom of the Press depends upon this immunity. Were it to disappear, so would the sources from which its information is obtained, and the public would be deprived of much of the information to which the public of a free nation is entitled".
I cannot better that eloquent description of the case for the principle enshrined in this amendment. It is because I and those of us who put our names to this amendment take that view of the importance of the freedom of the press, particularly in meeting the right of the public to be informed about matters of public interest, that we venture to put this amendment forward in this Bill.
It may well be asked—and I will deal with it now because I do not wish to detain your Lordships longer at a later stage—is this Bill an appropriate place in which to introduce this amendment? First of all, we have not fallen into the trap of putting our new clause among those clauses that deal with the strict

213
liability rule. We hope that if passed it will be the first clause under the heading "Other aspects of law and procedure". But, secondly, it may be said that this is a Bill concerned with contempt of court, concerned with the business of implementing Phillimore; here is a matter which is, of course, not covered by any Phillimore recommendation and it has implications that go wider than contempt of court. I accept those observations, but I propose, not to ride roughshod over them but, at any rate in perhaps a quixotic way, to take a tilt at them and move on my way.
First of all, although this Bill has the bleak title "Contempt of Court Bill" it is largely, and the first six clauses are I think almost entirely, concerned with the freedom of the press and the rights of the public to be informed. Of course these matters, which are very closely allied with the subject-matter of this amendment, if looked at as matters of positive law have their own importance. They appear, of course, in our extraordinary system, in a Bill dealing with contempt of court, because even today one has to look for one's positive and fundamental rights and freedoms in the interstices of our procedural law and in the powers of the courts. Of course, in a civilised system the whole of this subject would be dealt with as a matter of positive and substantive law; but there, we cannot do that; we have too long a history, and therefore we deal with the rights of the press, the freedom of the press and the rights of the public to be informed in a Bill bleakly entitled "Contempt of Court". Therefore I am not dissuaded by the title of the Bill from believing, and suggesting to your Lordships, that it is appropriate to put this amendment into this Bill.
It is not covered by Phillimore; that is true. If, for that reason, it is thought that this amendment should not be allowed, I for one would be very disappointed. I can understand that point of view being taken. It is not the point of view I take because it seems to me that as a matter of substantive law this amendment is indeed a direct cousin, a blood relation of many of the provisions in this Bill.
Finally, there is the point about further implicatons. There are implications in this amendment which touch on other branches of the law—I am too old a lawyer to pretend otherwise—the question of privilege, lawyer's privilege, should the priest have privilege, should the doctor, should the journalist. These are questions which are mooted in a way quite independently of the law relating to contempt of court. The journalist in the matter of his sources of information is in a special position. I think the freedom of the press derives from the duty that our society sees imposed upon the press—I use that term, of course, to cover all the media of mass communication—to keep us informed, and to keep us informed about matters that go wrong in high places, in the corridors of power, commercial, political, industrial or social. That being so, it seems utterly wrong, I would suggest, that a journalist should run the risk of contempt of court because he desires to keep a confidence with sources of information which he has published and which it may be of immense public importance should be known.
There is one final point. Your Lordships may take the view that the let-out part of the clause is too narrow; that is to say, that he will be guilty of con
214
tempt if he refuses to disclose his sources of information only if it be
"established to the satisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in the interests of national security"—
which happens to be the only one which seems to be effective in ordinary life—
"or for the prevention of disorder or crime";
and that takes care of the criminal side. It is because in this particular respect there seems to be a duty upon the press that should not be interfered with, even in the cause of other people's litigation, that it is as confined as that. The two terms are in fact taken, as your Lordships will no doubt appreciate, from Article 10 of the European Convention. I am well aware that this is a difficult amendment to move in the context of this Bill, but I am also deeply conscious, as is my noble and learned friend Lord Salmon, that it is a vitally important amendment and that if it should commend itself on its merits to your Lordships it ought to go into the Bill. I beg to move.
6.18 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: I intervene in this debate with considerable hesitation in view of the formidable array of noble and learned Lords who up to this point have for the most part been debating these amendments. But this amendment before the House raises a question in the mind of a layman in the law which I think must be voiced. I presume that this clause would give to journalists a particular and special privilege in the courts; that if they were to be asked what was the source of their information they could refuse to answer the question and their refusal would not be interpreted as contempt of court. If this is the case, am I not right in thinking that it opens a door through which a great many other people, with perfect right and legitimacy, could ask to pass?
There are certainly doctors, certainly welfare workers, who would feel that their information and the sources of their information were just as important as those possessed by journalists, and would claim that they ought to have the same privilege that this amendment would give to journalists. I think also of that great army of people who have arisen in recent years who belong to the various counselling services, such as marriage guidance counsellors, Samaritans and so on, who in the course of their work hear very intimate information and confessions from individuals which they would not in any circumstances reveal but yet which might be very important in the courts. I think especially, of course, of the clergy and the ministers of religion, not only of the Christian religion but of other religious faiths, who do, either under the seal of the confessional or in the confidence of pastoral advice, receive information from individuals which is given to them only on the clear understanding that it will never be revealed to anybody else.
I was not quite sure when listening to the interesting and important speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, whether he did, in fact, presume that doctors and clergy are privileged in their information. But I have had at least some experience in this matter which is, I think, relevant. Some 10 to 15 years ago we were revising the canon law of the Church of England. The canons of the Church of England

215
were made in the past by the convocations and are now made by the General Synod. They are made under Royal licence and they can only be made and passed so long as they do not conflict in any way with the existing law of the land.
If the Church of England wants to make a canon which we are told conflicts with the law of the land, then we first of all have to change the law of the land before we can make a canon. Those of your Lordships who can recollect when we were involved in the laborious process of revising the whole of the canon law of the Church of England, will remember that we had to bring a lot of Measures before your Lordships' House and another place dealing with matters that one would have thought were of minimal importance but which we were told were technically illegal, and therefore we had to change the law before we could make a canon.
We had a great desire to make a canon imposing upon a priest of the Church of England the absolute discretion as regards any information that he might receive under the seal of the confessional in the course of his professional duties. We were told that we could not make this canon because it was a grey area of the law and lawyers were not entirely of one mind as to whether information given under the seal of the confessional was privileged in the courts. "Very well", we said, "then let us change the law of the land; let us introduce a Measure which will leave it without any doubt that this is privileged and then we can make a canon". But we were warned that if we attempted to do so we would be opening a gate which was so wide that it would be difficult to know where the process would stop. Because if we were to claim absolute legal privilege for the information given in the confessional, then doctors, journalists, welfare workers and all others who received confidential information in the course of their work would feel that they ought to have the same privilege.
So the best that we could do was to retain in our existing canons one clause from the old canons of 1603 which otherwise were repealed. For there is a proviso to Canon 113 which reads as follows:
"Provided always, That if any man confess his secret and hidden sins to the Minister, for the unburdening of his conscience, and to receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind from him; we do not any way bind the said Minister by this our Constitution, but do straitly charge and admonish him, that he do not at any time reveal and make known to any person whatsoever any crime or offence so committed to his trust and secrecy (except they be such crimes as by the laws of this realm his own life may be called into question for concealing the same), under pain of irregularity".
That exceptive clause was to deal with the situation in those days when a confession of high treason might be made to a priest and later, possibly under torture, the individual would confess to the crime of high treason and that he had told the priest, and in that case the priest himself would have set his life in jeopardy. But we have retained this clause in our present canons, although we are told by the expert lawyers that this does not entirely clear the situation and that it is doubtful as to whether a priest or a minister of religion could be privileged in the courts.
It is largely an academic problem because I do not think that any judge would be likely to compel a minister of religion to reveal in the witness box information
216
that he had received in the confessional or in the privacy of his pastoral administration. Certainly no priest would be prepared to reveal it and he might have to go to prison. Indeed, there were those other priests at the end of the last cenutry who went to prison for contempt of court because they would not abandon the use of the stole, which Lord Penzance told them that they must abandon under the Public Worship (Regulation) Act. They were a confounded nuisance because nobody could get them out of prison and it was only after a year or so that Mr. Green languished in the Lancaster Prison because he refused to accept the jurisdiction of a secular court that he was released.
I merely introduce this matter because I think it is very doubtful as to whether in those matters in which I am most concerned there is a complete privilege. I think it unwise that we should be legislating for one group of people however great may be their need to establish privilege. Therefore, I think that this is an unwise amendment and that if we want to deal with this kind of privilege then it ought to be examined on a much wider scale and the position of not only clergy but doctors, and all others who receive confidential information by way of their professional duties, should be considered in the light of the privilege which they do or do not possess.
6.28 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I hope that I may intervene at this stage because I think that there is a real danger that this discussion is getting a little out of hand. This amendment was put down at rather late notice. I must say that I was a little surprised to see the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman on it because, as he knows, I not only respect his judgment but seek his counsel on a number of matters upon which I require to be informed and assisted.
Let us just consider what we are asked to do in this amendment. This is not an amendment which gives any privilege to the newspaper man at all. It does not give or take away any privilege to a priest or a doctor at all, or anybody else for that matter. It gives a privilege in a particular class of case to everybody in the island—all 66 million of us. It says that, even though relevant to a cause or matter, anybody, whether the information was given to him in confidence or not, whether he is a professional or not, is entitled to say to a judge, "You may have ordered me to give this information, but I am not going to do so". And, alone of all the orders of the court, this is to be privileged from the law, not of criminal contempt but of civil contempt.
This Bill is concerned only with criminal contempt, as far as I can understand it; and therefore the judge can say that a piece of information from any member of the public is absolutely vital to the determination of litigation and, because it happens to involve the disclosure of a source of information, it is absolutely privileged and the court can be set at defiance. That is what my noble and learned friend is saying.
Let us take a very simple case, a case of slander or libel. Let us suppose that in the course of my social duties I am asked to give a character reference for someone because I know that he wants employment, and that I write or say to his prospective employer:

217
"The man is a scoundrel"; he sues me for slander or libel, as the case may be; he says "You have prevented me from earning my living because you said to my prospective employer that I am a scoundrel". I plead the qualified privilege; I did it in the ordinary course of a social duty or a common interest. I was entitled to say—and I claimed honestly to believe it to be true—that that was what I believed; I believed him to be a scoundrel.
At the present time the very first question that counsel for the plaintiff would ask me, as a defendant, when I went into the witness box is, "Where did you get that information from?" I would say: "I plead the Scarman amendment; I will not tell you". The judge would say: "But you must tell us. Did you make it up?" I would say: "I will not tell you what was the source of my information". Malice is the one matter at issue in that case, and it is absolutely vital for the administration of justice that in that case the defendant should reveal the source of his information. If he does not have it, one would assume that he was malicious. If he obtained it from a totally disreputable source—a source that he knew must have been disreputable—he must have been malicious. If he made no attempt to check the source, which was doubtful, the plaintiff's counsel would say that he must have been malicious.
However, the Scarman amendment says that he is absolutely privileged; and this applies to anybody, however malicious and however scanty may be his source of information. This is what my noble and learned friend is seriously asking me to include in the Bill in the course of law about criminal contempt. The one case of civil contempt which he is asking me to include in the Bill is a provision entitling every person in the island to refuse to obey the order of a court in a particular class of case. Can that be what my noble and learned friend is asking us to do? I must say that I think it cannot. I must say that I am not being pedantic; I am not being a dull old lawyer; I am not being a protector of the courts when I say that this is part of the law of confidentiality, which may well be in need of reform, but it has no proper part in this Bill. The consequences of putting this into the Bill would not only be inappropriate, but would also be disastrous.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Morris: In all my life I never thought that I should be in the position of having to attempt to rebut not only a Lord Chancellor of England but also a right reverend Prelate. Frankly, I am astonished; but with the greatest respect, they both have the wrong end of the stick. I would suggest that the fundamental objection of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is that this amendment, as drafted, has flaws. To the right reverend Prelate I would say that this amendment is not designed to give protection to Grub Street, and still less to give protection to an informant. These results are nothing other than incidental to the reasoning that lies at the heart of this amendment.
I believe—as, indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, believes—that the public interest would be severely threatened if an amendment like this were not to become part of this Bill. Modern Governments are increasingly responsible for spending millions
218
upon millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money. By way of analogy, the Government, either directly or indirectly, are trustees of other people's funds. Should a person responsible for the publication of a document be compelled in court, under the sanction of contempt—and there lies the relevance of its inclusion in this Bill, if I may respectfully say so—to disclose his source, there is no doubt in my mind that the well of truth would dry up. The public would be deprived of information by which they might well be better placed to judge whether those trustees of their funds were handling those funds competently or otherwise, let alone recklessly, negligently, carelessly, or, indeed, fraudulently or criminally.
It has been accepted for more than 100 years that the public interest is best served by offering those responsible for publication a measure of immunity from compulsion to disclose their source of information. I most respectfully agree with the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, read to us. For no other reason than that the financial wellbeing of the taxpayer is ever in need of protection, I most humbly suggest that this clause, or one like it, is not only necessary but essential in the public interest.
Lord Scarman: I intervene for only two purposes. I had not intended to intervene again, but I am stimulated, if not provoked, into doing so by the scintillating display by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of that first advocate's skill that I mentioned; that is to say, arguing from a false premise to an unsatisfactory conclusion and appearing, by the very force of his eloquence, to carry some of your Lordships with him.
The false premise was this. Of course, this amendment, though its drafting no doubt can be improved, does not apply to every Tom, Dick, and Harry who says anything anywhere in this country. If one looks at the amendment carefully, one sees that the application of this amendment is exactly the same as the application of my noble and learned friend's strict liability rule. What is said about this amendment could be said with equal force about the strict liability rule. The strict liability rule applies under Clause 2 only in relation to publications, and then publications are defined. This amendment relates only to publications; subsection (2) of the amendment says so.
On one other point of information, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London was asking about the law in regard to the immunities of priests and doctors. As I understand it, "immunity" is the wrong word, and he was quite right, with respect, in saying that this is a grey area in the law. As I explained when quoting from the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, in the Granada case, the immunity which journalists, priests, doctors and so forth enjoy in our courts is an immunity in practice and not in law because, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, judges go to great lengths to avoid insisting on a reply to those questions, even if they allow the questions, which they do not normally do.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton: This is one more occasion when the Committee will have the edifying spectacle

219
of lawyers not agreeing with one another, because I rise to oppose the amendment. I do so with diffidence and wishing to be careful in what I say, because I was one of the court who took part in the decision in Granada v British Steel Corporation; I was one of the majority and my noble and learned friend Lord Salmon was in the minority and he dissented. It would be unseemly and probably quite contrary to precedent for Law Lords to engage in long arguments in your Lordships' House in its political sphere on a matter of this sort, and therefore I shall be brief. However, as the case of my noble and learned friend Lord Salmon was put forward on his behalf so eloquently by my other noble and learned friend today, I think it right that I should refer briefly to the other side of the case.
First, however, I wish to make it clear that I agreed with every word that fell from my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman when he suggested that the case figured by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—of the man who writes to a potential employer—does not fall within this amendment because it deals only with publications, which is defined to mean to the public at large. Therefore I do not think that a malicious letter to an employer comes within its ambit.
It is true that the proposed clause does not refer to journalists. Although in a sense it applies to everybody, in reality it is giving protection only to refusals to disclose the source of information contained in a publication for which somebody is responsible, and that must in real life and practice mean publications by journalists or people in the professions allied to journalism; so it is really a protection for journalists. I oppose the amendment because I believe it to be the law that the journalist, if this were enacted, would be in a position almost unique of being not obliged to give information which he has in his possession when ordered to do so by the court. The only exception to that rule at the moment is the lawyer, who is not obliged to disclose advice he has given to his client, but that is not for the benefit of the lawyer but for the benefit of the client. Apart from that one case, all other members of other professions, businesses and people having other interests are obliged to answer a relevant and proper question in court when ordered by the court to do so.
It is true that in practice, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said, there is a grey area about what actually happens; but I do not believe there is much doubt as to what the law is. To fortify myself, I also propose to follow the example of my noble and learned friend and quote Holy Writ. It is well known that the devil can quote the Bible to his cause and I intend to do just that and quote no less a man than the Master of the Rolls, Lord Denning. On this occasion I can do a bit of one-upmanship on my noble and learned friend because I shall quote from a judgment given by Lord Denning in 1963 which was quoted by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce the other day in the Granada case, when he referred to it as a classic passage; so I am reading some words of Lord Denning with the blessing of Lord Wilberforce as being a classic passage. Lord Denning said:
220
"The only profession that I know of which is given a privilege from disclosing information to a court of law is the legal profession, and then it is not the privilege of the lawyer but of his client. Take the clergyman, the banker or the medical man: none of these is entitled to refuse to answer when directed to by a judge. Let me not be mistaken; the judge will respect the confidences which each member of these honourable professions receives in the course of it and will not direct him to answer unless not only it is relevant but also it is a proper and indeed necessary question in the course of justice to be put and answered".
That I believe to be the correct statement of the law. If so, the amendment, it seems to me, will put the journalist in practice in a position above that of the minister, doctor, banker and any other professional man who receives confidential information. It is conceivable, though I very much doubt it, that that would be a desirable thing to do; but is it a desirable thing to do in the course of this Bill by a sort of side wind, by way of a little amendment? It appears to me to be obviously not. I do not wish to develop the argument further and must leave it to your Lordships to decide, but for those reasons I hope the amendment will not be accepted.
The Lord Chancellor: I feel I should speak again, because unwittingly I misled the Committee by not reading the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, with the body of the Bill, and not appreciating fully that he was limiting his use of the word "publication" to the special meaning which the Bill would otherwise give to the word "publication". For the purposes of the law of defamation, as he is aware, the words "publish" and "publication" have a different meaning and I can only apologise to the Committee for making a mistake on that.
However, I must tell the noble and learned Lord that in a sense it does not invalidate the points I was making. This, with respect, is not a privilege for journalists. It is not a privilege for anybody who issues a publication of any kind within the meaning of Clause 19 of the Bill. It is essential for the purpose of the law of defamation—to give an obvious example, but it is not the only obvious example—for a person to say from where he gets his information. It can be relevant and vital for the administration of justice, and this situation can arise only if the court has in fact decided that that is so and says to a man, "For the purpose of the administration of justice, the source of your information is invaluable". It would not have protected Mulholland, as my noble and learned friend frankly admitted in the course of his opening; it would have given no assistance to Mr. Mulholland (I think his name was in fact Mr. Clough) because he was connected with a case of security. But in the case of civil litigation, one of the commonest questions which one can be asked is, "Why did you say that, who told you so and from where did you get your information?" The amendment, provided the information was contained in a publication, no matter how malicious, would protect it absolutely.
In cases of fair comment—in cases of qualified privilege which a newspaper has in my experience often pleaded; "fair comment" very often, indeed practically always—the question of malice is absolutely crucial, and the question of malice involves almost always (I would say always) the question, "From where did the information come and what steps did you take

221
to check it?" As I say, the amendment was put down at the last minute. I believe my noble and learned friend would be wise to get in touch with my department and go through the possible implications of what he is now suggesting. Otherwise I should have to ask the Committee to divide against the amendment, which I should be very reluctant to do.
Lord Scarman: Perhaps your Lordships have heard enough of these unanimous beings, the lawyers, on this amendment, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord Chancellor for what he has said, namely, that they will consider the amendment. In those circumstances, bearing in mind that it came in late and that it came in designed almost to set going a mini-Second Reading in Committee, for which I apologise, I am grateful that it will be considered, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor: I should like at this point to take the view of the Committee. The Chief Whip came to me a short while ago and wondered whether, after dealing with the last amendment, this might be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn for a short time. I do not know what the Front Bench opposite thinks about that suggestion.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: The answer to that question depends on how short will be the "short time".
The Lord Chancellor: Half an hour, anyway.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: It would seem that a little locus poenitentiae until 7.30 would be even more acceptable.
The Lord Chancellor: Therefore may I move that the Committee do now adjourn until 7.30 of the clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The sitting was suspended from 6.50 to 7.30 p.m.]
Clause 7 [Scope of jurisdiction to protect inferior courts]:
Lord Gardiner Lord Gardiner moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 20, leave out from ("of") to end of line 23 and insert ("the inferior courts and tribunals specified in Schedule 5").
The noble and learned Lord said: The amendment I have put down to this clause is not perhaps the perfect amendment, since there are many who take the view that this clause ought to be removed from the Bill. This is merely the minimum amendment which I think ought to be made. My first difficulty is in understanding where on earth all this about inferior courts comes from. The Phillimore Committee made no recommendation on the scope of jurisdiction to protect inferior courts, and we have consistently been told by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that there are many recommendations of the Phillimore Committee which cannot be included in this Bill because then the Bill would take up too much parliamentary time. There is, for example, the very important Recommendation No. 6 of the report that,
222
"such conduct normally should be dealt with as a criminal offence unless there are compelling reasons requiring it to be dealt with as a matter of urgency by means of ordinary contempt procedures".
This is dealing, of course, with non-strict liability.
Therefore, if I may repeat what I have already said for the benefit of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the first difficulty, I think, is to see where on earth this comes from. It is not Phillimore at all. We are constantly told there are very important provisions for safeguarding the freedom of speech of the subject which are contained in Phillimore but which unhappily we cannot include in the Bill, so far as it is not a question of strict liability, because this is a very limited Bill and it would take up too much parliamentary time if we included all the recommendations in this one Bill; yet here we get something which is nothing to do with Phillimore at all. Phillimore made no such recommendation about the scope of jurisdiction to protect inferior courts, and the issue does not seem to have been raised at all until this year, as a result of the decision of the House of Lords in Attorney General v. British Broadcasting Corporation, in which it was decided that a valuation court was not a court of justice.
As the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill points out, Clause 7 is not intended to overrule the House of Lords decision, but this in fact applies only to the specific point on valuation courts, since the House of Lords considered more widely to what inferior bodies in the nature of a court or tribunal the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court should apply. Various of the judges in that case took the view that the extension of contempt jurisdiction should be treated with considerable caution. For example, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, said:
"The host of modern inferior courts and tribunals do not in my view require, and do not have, any protection against comments which may be made by the press and the like in respect of matters which those courts or tribunals have to decide".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, said:
"The second objection is even more serious, because if protection is extended widely—that is to say, to courts and tribunals which are not courts of justice in the full sense—the right to freedom of expression would be correspondingly reduced".
A further objection to Clause 7(1) is that the definition of those bodies to which the High Court contempt jurisdiction is to extend is uncertain. For example, is a rent assessment committee an inferior court, tribunal or body which is constituted by law and exercises any part of the judicial power of the state? As to its power to fix rents it perhaps does not exercise any part of the judicial power of the state. However, as to its power to order notice to quit to be deferred, it seems that it does. I would therefore contend that there are two possible objections to Clause 7(1). First, it extends the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court to too wide a range of inferior courts, tribunals and bodies; and, secondly, its definition of those inferior courts, tribunals and bodies to which the jurisdiction extends is unclear.
I submit that the contempt jurisdiction should apply only to courts of law. I therefore put down this amendment to raise, before the next stage of the Bill, the whole of the contents of Clause 7; and, as I have already said, my amendment is the very minimum

223
amendment which in my submission to your Lordships' Committee ought to be made. It is merely to require a specification of what courts and tribunals are being referred to. It seems to me absolutely impossible for any editor or journalist to decide which courts and which tribunals of the present enormous numbers of committees and tribunals we have are covered by this extraordinary definition about exercising any part of the judical power of the state. So while I respectfully move this amendment, I do so on the footing that it is in my judgment the very minimum amendment which ought to be made to make the thing work at all, to make it at all possible for any editors or journalists or anyone to decide where they are; and it may be that at the Report stage of the Bill someone will put before the House a very much wider amendment. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): Before putting this amendment, I should explain that if this amendment is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 14.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: As the proposer of Amendment No. 14, which would be excluded if this amendment were carried, perhaps I might indicate that I would propose not to move Amendment No. 14 in any event because I think, upon reflection, that Amendment No. 13, the present one, is a more satisfactory approach to this difficult problem. I urge upon the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor the desirability of reconsidering the whole approach in Clause 7 of this Bill, and I do so first of all for this reason. As I understand it—and I would be very grateful if the noble and learned Lord would intervene at once if I were wrong—Clause 7 seeks to extend to tribunals and inferior courts not only the strict liability rule as laid down in the previous clauses, but also the law about contempt in the face of the court. If that is right, then the first question that I would suggest needs careful consideration is whether those two areas ought in fact to be coterminous, as they necessarily must be so long as the clause remains in its present form.
Perhaps I might put the matter in its simplest form. I can well see an argument for saying that the chairman of a local valuation court ought not to have, in classical terms, a dead cat thrown into his face, and that if that happens in the course of the proceedings that may well be a contempt which ought to be dealt with as being a contempt in the face of the court. But I do not think it necessarily follows that because you include tribunals of all sorts and seek to protect them against contempts that are committed in the presence of the court, in the face of the court, in that way, then equally one ought in precisely the same number of tribunals to seek to apply the strict liability rule.
I say that for this reason. As noble Lords will know, in the last 10 or 20 years there has been a vast growth in the variety of administrative tribunals which, indeed, I think, the Royal Commission on Legal Services eventually decided are now trying approximately six times as many cases as all the High Court and county courts put together. It would be, I think, very undesirable that the strict liability rule should extend so far as the press are concerned to comments
224
on every single one of those administrative tribunals. There seems to me to be a case for reconsidering the whole approach to this problem and for splitting it up, first, to say what are the tribunals where we will punish a contempt if it happens in the face of the court; and, secondly, and quite differently, is it necessary to extend the strict liability rules to any tribunal and, if so, to which ones?
I think that the approach adopted in the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, is in the highest degree desirable and that the present wording in Clause 7 of the Bill which seeks to extend, for example, the strict liability rule to tribunals exercising "any part of the judicial power of the state" really is contradictory in its terms to the observation made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor earlier this evening, when he said that one of the objects of the Bill was that editors should be able to appreciate exactly where they stand. One can imagine the animated discussion in a newspaper office whether, for example, a rent assessment committee exercises "any part of the judicial power of the state"—and there are hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of tribunals, all with different names, functions and purposes, in respect of which the unfortunate journalist would have to come to a decision as to whether it exercised "any part of the judicial power of the state".I do believe that there may be some tribunals—perhaps, for example, the Lands Tribunal is one, and the Employment Appeals Tribunals may be one—where it may be desirable to extend the strict liability rule; but I think there is a very strong case for asking the Government to prepare a schedule, putting into that schedule such tribunals as are to be covered by the strict liability rule, so that the press will know in future precisely where they stand in dealing with this difficult problem.
7.44 p.m.
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton: I should like also to support this amendment in principle. I think that the words of the present Clause 7 are taken from the recent decision in this House of the Attorney-General v. British Broadcasting Corporation, when the question of the extent to which contempt of court applied was considered. In that case—in which, again, I was one of those involved in the decision, so I must be careful what I say—we were assured, I remember, that on any definition of this sort the number of tribunals falling within the definition was really fairly limited. The spectre was held up of hundreds and even thousands of trivial bodies dealing with fairly trivial matters being protected by contempt of court rules, and this seemed rather horrifying. But when we considered it we were assured by counsel on both sides that the number likely to come within this sort of definition was much less than one might have supposed. I do not have a note of the figures; but in any case it is only somebody's opinion and they might not have been accurate.
The principle which is enshrined now in Clause 7 as originally drafted is derived, I think, from the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman in that case of the Attorney-General v. British Broadcasting

225
Corporation. He said this—and I am quoting Lord Scarman:
"I would identify a court in or of law, i.e., a court of judicature, as being a body established by law to exercise, either generally or subject to defined limits, the judicial power of the State. In this context, judicial power is to be contrasted with legislative and executive, i.e., administrative power. If the body under review is established for a purely legislative or administrative purpose it is part of the legislative or administrative system of the State, even though it has to perform duties which are judicial in character".
That was the principle on which the decision was largely based and which, I take it, is intended to be included now in Clause 7.
Your Lordships will appreciate that when the BBC case, or any other case, is being decided by a committee of your Lordships' House which happens to be dealing with it, all that the committee can do is decide a particular case, state some principle and apply it to that case. It is quite impracticable to them to draw up a list of tribunals which will fall within the principle. Even if they did do that, it could be said to be entirely obiter, apart from the one tribunal in question.
I must say that it seems to me that when we come to have legislation of this sort seeking to apply a principle stated by your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity, it is most desirable that an attempt should be made to include a specific list of particular tribunals, courts and bodies which fall within that principle. It is a very difficult thing to do and I can appreciate that the Minister concerned may shrink from undertaking such a major and perhaps rather controversial task. But how much better equipped are Ministers, with the assistance that they can summon to their aid and with a reasonable time to consider it, than the unfortunate editor who has to do it within the next hour? I must say that it seems to me to be a little unreasonable to impose this burden upon editors when Parliament could resolve the matter, once and for all, now by drawing up a list.
I hope I am not speaking in any spirit of levity, but it seems to me to be not all that important whether Parliament gets the list right first time. Parliament might not get the list right the first time but it could be amended. It is more important that there should be a definite list which shows which courts and tribunals are protected by contempt. If it turns out that the list is too big or too small, too short, no doubt it could be amended. So far as I can see, in principle, I should have thought it might be acceptable that it be amended by Order in Council, subordinate legislation, without the necessity of a separate Act. I do not know whether that is a controversial matter or not, but that might be possible. In that way, a definite list can be produced now, subject to amendment as time goes on if it turns out to be unsatisfactory.
On a much lower level with regard to the clause as drafted, I have some doubts whether Clause 7, as it stands, is intended merely to restate the existing law or to state something new. If it is intended merely to restate the existing law, I wonder it it is entirely satisfactory; because I have in mind the peculiar case of the Scottish Land Court. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will correct me if I say anything wrong, but I know I am right in saying that the Scottish Land Court is presided over by a chairman with the status of a judge of the Court of Session. When the Land Court is being presided over by the
226
chairman, if there is any contempt committed, the court or the chairman can deal with the contempt himself there and then. But the Land Court may be presided over by another member. The chairman is not always present. When he is not present, the Land Court has no power itself to deal with contempt but must report the matter to the Court of Session where a Lord-in-Ordinary deals with it.
I am not sure whether Clause 7 would not change the law. It seems to imply that the Court of Session could, in every case of a contempt of the Land Court, deal with it. If so, it seems to take away the power of the chairman to deal with contempt when he is present. I mention that as a minor matter of drafting and of no matter of principle. I suggest that it is most desirable that Parliament, with respect, really would be shirking its responsibilities if it refused to draw up and publish a list which editors or others could rely upon. I hope that this amendment will be approved.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: It is a crazy thing for anyone practising at the Bar to disagree with the noble and learned Lords who sit in the judicial committees but, taking my future life in both hands, I disagree with what the noble and learned Lord has just said. He referred to "unfortunate editors". Not long ago, I did feel for unfortunate editors; but, as may have been said already this evening, my views have been very much amended by what has been happening recently, as to whether they are "unfortunate editors", and whether or not we are getting into the state where the railroad is getting out of control and the assassin kind of press publicity, which has probably been referred to previously, is not now being accepted. Therefore I do not believe at the present time that "unfortunate editors" so much concern us.
I think that because of what has happened recently we are seeing a new fashion appear, and one which we have to watch carefully. The great advantage of this House is that one does not have constituents and therefore one can say things without being brought to answer those who have control over one's fate in that sense. When we are talking about contempt and contempt of court of newspapers, I always have a sneaking suspicion that some people are rather concerned by their image in the public eye to be popular with the broadcasting authorities, to be popular with the newspapers. To be that lovely liberal person whose views can be published with great satisfaction in newspapers is a very attractive role to play. It is rarely attractive to play the role which says: "Look out! Be careful of having too much liberty given in matters such as this". That leads to license. So though having been a great supporter of the Phillimore Committee and of the recommendations in the Phillimore Report, we ought to have learned a little lesson over the past few weeks about what can happen if people are able to snap their fingers—not only the press but other public authorities as well—at the principle of the fair and unprejudiced trial.
Just to give an example, if you give an inch there are people who take a great amount of power into their hands to alter the law for their own satisfaction and for their own purposes. I am sorry about this and I

227
regret it. I as counsel at the present time have daily duties in respect of parts of the press; but I think we have to view the matter sensibly and try not to put a halo the whole time over everything that the public press does as always being correct, because that is a popular and indeed easy thing to do.
One has to look at the situation with a balanced view. I cannot see why in this particular clause we should not leave it as it is. Why not require the editors not to do anything to prejudice the proceedings in inferior courts? We all agree with that, do we not? Why should there be any prejudice for a person standing trial or having an issue before an inferior court? Why should the tribunals which have these particular judicial powers have their proceedings prejudiced? Who is to gain by this freedom? What about the unfortunate people whose issues come before the tribunals?
I think that we should look with a little care at ideas that "unfortunate editors" find it very difficult and that therefore there ought to be a list. I know not whether the list is going to be two volumes long or a short list. The principle that it has to be set out before a responsible editor takes care about publishing what he says about somebody or something which is coming before a particular body for judicial review, seems to me to be part of the ordinary duty of a responsible editor. A responsible editor and a responsible journalist will accept that and will honour that.
So therefore, with the appropriate diffidence of one of the gentlemen of the long robe who appear before the judiciary at any time—maybe before a tribunal or inferior court—I believe that the tribunals and inferior courts should be given these rights. Unless it can be shown to my satisfaction that we have to have a list, I think it is just as sensible to keep the wording which has perhaps been taken from something which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, may have said in one of his speeches. Nevertheless, I think it is attractive wording and therefore I should like to leave the clause as it is.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: With great respect, I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord has been shooting at quite a different target from that which we are considering in this amendment. Nobody questions—at least I certainly do not—the fact that the rules of contempt of court should apply to inferior courts and tribunals. I do not think that the amendment has anything to do with the over-reaching abuse de pouvoir by press lords on the lines that the noble Lord was indicating in his speech. It is simply a question of whether it is not reasonable, as has been said, when the Bill extends the scope of the law of contempt so widely that those who will be affected by that change ought not to be assisted to know what courts, what tribunals, are covered. Rather significant support to what we are contending is that the noble Lord, Lord Rawlinson, said: "I do not know whether the list is long or short". That is precisely the trouble. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said from a sedentary position "Nor any of us". But surely the unfortunate man at the receiving end of this
228
machinery of contempt of court ought to be in a better position than that.
I wonder how burdensome it really is going to be. We have the Council on Tribunals; we know the extent of its jurisdiction. We had not so long ago in the devolution legislation massive details covering this ground. There is a good deal of available information, I should have thought, in the Lord Chancellor's Department—I know that they have a lot to do—which could give very quick guidance on this. We must not carry our views of the press to a point where we are treating them unfairly in the way which I think the Bill now does. I hope that when we hear from the Lord Chancellor he will be able to meet us at least some of the way on this matter.
7.58 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not sure I can meet the noble and learned Lord, although that is always a most agreeable occasion if I am able to do so. What I hope to do in the course of my slightly rambling remarks to is persuade the Committee that this is a rather more difficult question than they have yet realised. When I was much younger, I read an absolutely charming book called Some People by Harold Nicolson. I do not know whether other noble Lords have enjoyed that pleasure. He described how when he was a very young member of the Foreign Office he was confronted by a Foreign Secretary who was displeased with a draft which the office had put up. "It is perfectly simple", he said. "Just say: 'The following is the case—see Annexe 1'". When he got to Clause 2 he said: "The following is the case—see Annexe II". Annexe I and Annexe II were notably absent from his suggestions.
What we are faced with at the moment—and this is the whole problem—is that the noble and learned Lord who moved this amendment is in the position of that Foreign Secretary. He said that we are going to have a little list like Ko-Ko. It says that Schedule 5 is going to contain the little list. When we look for Schedule 5 in the amendment of course it is not there. So we do not know what his little list is going to be. That brings us back to what the problem really is, which, with great respect to the noble and learned Lord sitting opposite me, I do not think has been faced. I think perhaps my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches has not really faced this either; but I have had to face it.
Incidentally, I am suffering very much from the absence of my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman, who, having put on a dinner jacket, has had to fulfil a longstanding engagement with the Law Society and who told me what he was going to say—and it was exactly what I should have wished that he would say. He also gave me some leave, with suitable reservations, to indicate that he was going to advocate the retention of the clause as it is without the amendment, for reasons which are not dissimilar to those which I am now going to put forward as my own, although I must take all the responsibility for those. However, I am conscious of the gap on the Cross-Benches, because he was going to say that the clause is better as it is, just as my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell has said in his characteristically modest but nonetheless authoritative way.

229
The problem really is this: to what bodies does the law of contempt apply? The law of contempt—I am quoting now from Phillimore—
"…is required as a menas of maintaining the rights of the citizen to a fair and unimpeded system of justice and protecting the orderly administration of the law".
Those are the exact words of the Phillimore Committee and it is also virtually what Article 6 of the European Convention says in very different words. Since the war the judicial power of the State has come to be exercised in a vast array of different ways by a very large number of different bodies. Some of them have plainly purely administrative functions; some have arguably purely judicial functions; and even more have functions which are sometimes administrative and sometimes judicial. It was this kind of consideration, in a very different context, which led a predecessor of both the noble and learned Lords opposite and myself to set up a council on tribunals. They, of course, had very wide terms of reference.
Is the law of contempt to apply to any and, if so, which, of those? Of course, there are certain things we know. For example, we know that it does apply to a coroner's court; it applies to the consistory court in the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts; it applies to a county court and to a court-martial. All this has been decided by a series of judicial provisions and, ex post facto, as a result of some so-called "unfortunate editor"—though I have never understood why editors should be thought more unfortunate than Lord Chancellors or, at any rate, than members of the Bar who are prosecuted for contempt, as I was—having broken the law of contempt, as applied to those bodies to which the judicial process has said that it does apply.
Equally, we know that since the war the licensing jurisdiction of the magistrates' court, under the Pet Animals Act, does not attract the law of contempt, because in this case a "fortunate" editor succeeded in persuading the Court of Appeal that this did not attract the law of contempt. We now know, after a procession to the House of Lords, assisted by my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, that a local valuation court does not attract the law of contempt.
There are really three or four different options that can be followed and they are not at all so easy as I think the Committee has been tempted in its various speeches to think. The easiest thing for me would be not to legislate at all—and, frankly, rather than accept this amendment, which contains a reference to a schedule which does not exist, I should prefer, rather than follow Ko-Ko along this line, not to legislate at all. It would save me a lot of bother and it would probably do the same for the Attorney-General.
Nobody who has taken part in this debate has suggested that among the varied tribunals which have been set up since the war there are not bodies which ought to attract, at any rate in some of their proceedings, the law of contempt. All noble Lords who have spoken recognise that people who are put to administer what I can only call "justice", who are usually lay people, apart from perhaps legal chairmen, and who may be of quite humble standing, are liable to be harassed, frustrated, intimidated or interfered with in one way or another, should be protected by the law
230
of contempt. If it failed to do that, our law of contempt would not be doing the job which the Phillimore Committee said we ought to be doing. It would not be doing the job of maintaining the rights of the citizen to a fair and unimpeded system of justice. So we cannot exclude by legislation the whole of the apparatus of "tribunaldom", if I may coin a phrase.
Option 1 is to do nothing, which I should vastly prefer. Option 2 would be to exclude the whole range of tribunals; and nobody has suggested that that is right. Option 3 is that suggested by the noble and learned Lords opposite and by my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Tullybelton—and that is to have a little list, like Ko-Ko. Of course I was attracted— I do not conceal the fact—to the Ko-Ko position. I said to the draftsmen that it should be quite easy to go through the various departments and find out the various tribunals that had been set up. I said: "Why not let us say that any body to which the Schedule of the Council of Tribunals and Inquiries Act refers should be within the law and a body which would not be within the Council of Tribunals and Inquiries Act should be outside the law?" They said: "Unfortunately there are a lot of bodies which ought to be within the law, like the Mental Health Appeals Tribunal, which directly affects the liberty of the subject, or the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, and, above all, the industrial tribunals, which affect the employment of citizens. They obviously ought to be within the law".
There are equally obvious cases like the local valuation courts which come before my noble and learned friend which ought to be outside. There are a lot of other courts which are sometimes administrative and sometimes judicial, which ought to be protected by the law in some of their activities and not in others, because they have some functions which are judicial and some which are non-judicial, like the Traffic Commissioners or the Civil Aviation Authority. So it is all very well to say: "Let us have a list contained in a Schedule 5"—which you have not bothered, or been able, to draft, or perhaps have not got around to drafting. All I can tell your Lordships—and this is why I am trying to make your Lordships see that the matter is a little more difficult—is that I have got round to that possibility.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: With great respect to the noble and learned Lord, he has a great department at his disposal. We poor men on this side of the Committee have no such privilege for the moment—maybe it will come some day before very long—and the more the noble and learned Lord speaks, if he does not mind my saying so, the more strongly he makes out the case of the impossible position the editor is in and the far better position that noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is in for telling the world what the entitlements are.
The Lord Chancellor: Not at all. Everything the noble and learned Lord is saying is simply underlining the position that I am in. Of course, I have resources which are not available to the noble and learned Lord. I would not pretend the contrary. I have been in his position and he has been in mine, and we have been facing each other from opposite sides of the Committee.

231
So, of course, I have them. But I have used those facilities; I have used them to the full, and I have used them almost employing the identical words of my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches. I have said: "Find me a list. It cannot be difficult. Go along, do some work, root about and force the departments to declare". This is exactly what I have done—of course I have. I should not have been doing my duty if I had not. But they have said "We cannot". With all the resources that I have, with all the advantages at my disposal, with all the numerous and talented counsellors that I have, they have said that such a list cannot be drawn up.
When I made my modest little suggestion about the schedule to the Council on Tribunals and Inquiries Act, they just pointed out the defects in that. "Moreover", they added—and this is what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, would have said, had he been here and dressed more informally than he is—"you will have to add a rule-making power", which did not frighten my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Tulleybelton on the Cross-Benches, "because the number of tribunals which exist is constantly being added to and subtracted from. So you will have to have a rule-making power to add to and subtract from the list".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, was saying: "I would rather have the plain, guiding principle contained in your Clause 7, than have a variable list which could be added to and of which nobody can foresee the wisdom or unwisdom". Very well. That is where I am now, and that is why I suggest that the matter is possibly not quite so simple as the noble Lord opposite, with his Ko-Ko list which does not exist, seems to think it is. He has underlined the very point which I was seeking to make, because he has not got down to the nitty-gritty of the problem. He then says: "I am only in opposition. Let the Lord Chancellor do it". That is all very well, but the Lord Chancellor has already tried to do it.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: The noble and learned Lord keeps on bringing in Ko-Ko and his little list, but that was simply a list of the prejudices and preferences, human and official, of the dear Ko-Ko. This clause purports to give legal definition to those bodies which are to enjoy the protection of contempt of court. It is not comparable. He is not little Ko-Ko; he is the Lord Chancellor.
The Lord Chancellor: Then I am Iolanthe, too. But, on the other hand, the noble and learned Lord must not push too far my humble analogies, which were intended to entertain as well as to instruct. In fact, he has quite clearly said in his clause: "Let us have a little list", without saying what the list should be. I have told him that I do not think one is possible. I have also told him that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, agrees with me that the disadvantages of having a little list outweigh the advantages.
So I myself believe—and I shall not dogmatise about this; I am simply trying to illustrate the problem with which the Committee is faced—that the options are really two. We can not legislate; the problem is too difficult for us. We can leave the thing as it is, or
232
as it has become since my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches, and his noble and learned colleagues, have dealt with it in the BBC case. Or we can use some guiding principle by which the so-called unfortunate editor or the courts can be, and must be, guided.
I know that Parliament—and I think wrongly, because it is a battle that I have fought on many occasions—is always afraid of guiding principles and tries to turn what are basically questions of fact and degree into questions of law. That is one reason, in my opinion—probably wrong—why our statute law is in such a dreadful and disgraceful state. It is because Parliament in debates, of which this must be the fiftieth that I have taken part in during the course of the last forty years, will try to turn questions of fact and degree into questions of law, thereby complicating and rendering impossible of fulfilment the aspirations of the legislators themselves.
There is, in fact, a guiding principle laid down in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in the BBC case. We can leave the situation as it is. That is one perfectly viable option and that is the one that I should adopt, rather than have a list which I do not believe is viable. In that case, the confusion will be greater than it is now. The law will be less clear than it is now, because instead of having one clear and guiding principle we shall have five, each of the five Law Lords having stated his reasons in slightly different language.
If Lord Dilhorne had only lived to hear this debate, it is quite clear that he would have been on my side, because in that case he said:
"I recognise that this conclusion still leaves an area of uncertainty. If your Lordships agree with me about this it will still be open to argument, whether a court established by Parliament discharges administrative or judicial functions, about whether or not it is a court of law, but the area of uncertainty will be much diminished".
The different Law Lords said different things. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, I think used words which have been translated and lifted, without respect to his copyright, into the draft of the draftsman. He said:
"Though the ubiquitous presence of the state makes itself felt in all sorts of situations never envisaged when our law was in its formative stage, the judicial power of the state, exercised through judges appointed by the state, remains an independent and recognisably separate function of Government".
He went on to deal with the law as it then was.
I think it is possible for intelligent judges to apply the words in the section. I think it is possible, and not very difficult, for an intelligent editor—and I would tend to add to the word "editor" not the Homeric epithet "unfortunate" but the Homeric epithet "intelligent"—to do what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said was possible; and the noble and learned Lord has provided a guiding principle which will enable both the courts and the intelligent editor to come to rational conclusions, as and when the situations arise.
But having said all that—and I have said a good deal, I am afraid, and hope that I have not bored the Committee to distraction; my object was to try to show that this problem is a little more difficult than noble Lords originally thought, or would have originally thought from the first three speeches in this debate,

233
and from that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones—it is a difficult problem, and I am quite prepared to think more about it. I do not conceal the fact from my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches that I am a convert from his point of view, which I once held. But I am a convert who is all the more fanatical, in a sense, because I have been converted. I am not the only example of that kind of convert.
I do not say that his point of view is at all irrational or unsustainable. Nor do I say that to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for whom I have profound respect, or to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for whom I have equal respect. But I have come to the conclusion, rather against my will, that I cannot let it alone, that a list is not viable and that, therefore, I have to state a guiding principle for intelligent but not stupid editors, and intelligent, but not I hope unintelligent, judges. This is the conclusion I have reached.
I do not think we shall finish it tonight. I rather hope that we can all have another think; I shall certainly try to have another think. As I say, my opinion has not been unchanged throughout my lucubrations, but as of now I prefer the draft. If I can be persuaded that it is reasonably viable to have a list, which will none the less be a changing list from time to time, then I will pursue the course of Ko-Ko with the enthusiasm of the Lord Chancellor in Iolanthe.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I hope to be brief. If ever there were a principle of law that ought to be enunciated at this moment it is that editors and other citizens of this country, whether they be unfortunate, whether they be malicious, whether they be wicked, nevertheless come within the fundamental principle that the criminal law, if it is to apply to them, must be certain and that they must know whether or not they are breaching it. If we are told that to omit this clause creates even more uncertainty than the clause itself, that must be an option we cannot take. We therefore come back to the clause itself, to see whether or not we can make it more certain.
On Second Reading the noble and learned Lord said very clearly that he had taken advice on valuation courts. I will not trouble the Committee at this stage by quoting his learned words, but they amounted to this: "Those who advise me believe that the valuation courts would not come within this provision, and I believe that to be the case". We cannot leave it at that belief.
If the noble and learned Lord wants what I hope is a helpful suggestion from this side of the Committee, I will make it, but will claim no originality for it because it is the suggestion of the Law Society. It is that if one looks at Schedule 1, paragraph 1, of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957, there is a list of holders of judicial offices which could, with adaptation, serve as a model for a schedule. With that, I hope, constructive thought I sit down, but not without echoing again the cardinal principle which the noble and learned Lord has defended all his life as a lawyer: that when you are dealing with the criminal law the citizen must know what it is and whether he is breaching it.
Lord Gardiner: It had been my intention to ask the Committee to divide on the amendment, but as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said that he will reconsider the question, I do not propose to do so now. However, I want to make one or two brief observations. First, I can see no practical difficulty about having a provision in the Bill that these committees and tribunals to whom this shall apply are to be contained in a schedule which can be altered by statutory instrument. Secondly, I feel bound to repeat what I said at the start as to the origin of this particular clause, which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has not really explained.
I thought that this was a Bill to implement some of the recommendations of the Phillimore Committee on Contempt of Court. It is apparently not possible to implement those recommendations which assist to defend the rights of the citizen, like the right to send cases to trial on indictment and by jury, because we are told there is not enough parliamentary time, unfortunately, to include all Phillimore's recommendations in this Bill. Of others we are told that this has been overtaken by a report of the Law Commission which is to be considered by the Home Office some time during the next 10 years. There is not a word in the Phillimore Report on Contempt of Court about inferior courts or tribunals. We are still very puzzled therefore as to how this ever got into the Bill.
Finally, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has told us that in his opinion learned judges will be able to decide which committees and tribunals are referred to in this clause. He is of the opinion that it is quite fair to expect editors to decide which committees and tribunals are referred to, but that it is utterly impossible for a Government department, or for all the Government departments put together, to put them down in a list. I should have thought, with the greatest respect, that both those things cannot be right. If all the Government departments in London are incapable of drawing up a list, what editor or journalist is going to be able to do so? However, we can return to the matter at the Report stage. Accordingly, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: Before the noble and learned Lord formally asks leave to withdraw the amendment, I would say that I cannot quite accept what he has said and that if he should want to divide the Committee in that spirit I would have to accept his challenge.
First, it is not correct that we have neglected to legislate those provisions of the Phillimore Committee's report which enlarge the rights of the citizen and the freedom of expression. On the contrary, as was generally accepted during the Second Reading debate we have in fact done so. What we have not done is to go beyond a certain point. What we have also done is to reject one of the noble and learned Lord's amendments which we have already debated and which we thought was wrong. That is all we have done.
Secondly, what the noble and learned Lord has failed to understand is that the question is not so much, or not only, to what bodies the law of contempt should apply, but to what proceedings of bodies the law of contempt should apply. Let me give a very well-known

235
example—the magistrates' court. We know that the law of contempt applies to magistrates' courts. Equally, we know that it does not apply to licensing proceedings. The question concerns what proceedings they apply to rather than what bodies they apply to.
Having said that, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will pursue his intention of withdrawing his amendment. However, I think that his criticism was unfair. It is not simply the case that we are saying that the editor can judge, that the courts can judge but that the Government cannot. We are saying that if you try to draw up a list you will get into an inextricable muddle and that the list itself will be a transient and embarrassed phantom.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
House resumed.

  CANCER: WORKERS WITH RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS
  CANCER: WORKERS WITH RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS