Sitting of 12 December 1967

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

  LESOTHO (GIFT OF A CLERKS' TABLE AND CHAIRS)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that I will give directions for the presentation on behalf of your House of a gift of a clerks' table and chairs to the Lesotho National Assembly and assuring me that you will make good the expenses attending the same.
  It gave me the greatest pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

  BOTSWANA (GIFT OF A PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY AND SILVER INKSTAND)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that I will give directions for the presentation on behalf of your House of a gift of a parliamentary library and a silver inkstand to the Botswana National Assembly and assuring me that you will make good the expenses attending the same.
  It gave me the greatest pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

  INCOME TAX
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that, on the ratification by His Majesty the King of the Belgians of the Con-
  178
  vention set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Belgium) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before your House in the last session of Parliament, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.
  I will comply with your request.

  INCOME TAX
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that on the ratification by the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Netherlands) Order 1967 a draft of which was laid before your House, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.
  I will comply with your request.

  INCOME TAX
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Malaysia) Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
  I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords]
  Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster, signified,—
  Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

PETITION

  Public Order Ordinance, Hong Kong
  Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present to this honourable House the humble Petition of the Reform Club of Hong Kong. Your Petitioner comprises over 30,000 full and associated members of all walks of life in Hong Kong and is one of the biggest associations in Hong Kong.

  179
  Your Petitioner is most disturbed by the Public Order Ordinance which was passed by the Legislative Council on 15th November, 1967, inter alia, for the reasons set out below.
  The Reform Club welcomes action by Government to better the laws of Hong Kong for the greater safety of the people, but regrets that the Public Order Bill 1967 will not have the intended result. The wording of the Bill largely follows emergency laws of previous African colonies; it embodies some Emergency Regulations recently enforced in Hong Kong which the Governor stated would be repealed as possible, and it makes every peace-loving resident of Hong Kong a potential criminal.
  The Bill does not seem to have been translated into Chinese, nor has the Act, but the Reform Club repeats that it urges Chinese to be made an official language. The situation in Hong Kong is in no way comparable to that in Kenya before independence, and the Reform Club does not consider legislation appropriate to Kenya either necessary or suitable for Hong Kong.
  Your Petitioner then proceeds to recite numerous potent criticisms of the new Act and to urge that a definite distinction be made between regulations designed to meet an emergency and the ordinary law of the land applicable in normal times.
  In conclusion, your Petitioner prays, for all these reasons, that you will advise Her Majesty the Queen to disallow this present Public Order Ordinance.
  And Your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  COAL

    Coal Mines (Employees)
    Mr. David Griffithsasked the Minister of Power what was the number of men and boys employed underground each year from 1963 to the most recent date, and the number of persons engaged in an official capacity from area general managers down to deputies and shotfirers.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): With permission I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great indignation about the number of miners being lost to the industry, while at the same time there is an overwhelming preponderance of area general managers? Miners in the coalfields are disturbed about this, and I hope that the figures given by my hon. Friend will be satisfactory. I doubt it.
    Mr. Freeson: I think my hon. Friend will find that the figures show a drop in the number of persons to whom he has referred, as well as underground workers. The figures range from 34,900 in 1963, to 29,700 early this year, but further details will appear.
    The following is the information:

    Men and boys employed under ground at N.C.B. mines excluding overmen deputies and shotfirers)

    Persons engaged in an official capacity from area general managers down to and including shotfirers

    1963 End December

    373,000

    34,900

    1964 End December

    354,000

    33,600

    1965 End December

    324,000

    31,700

    1966 End December

    299,000

    29,900

    1967 End March

    295,000

    29,700

    Mineral Rights (Compensation Payments)
    Mr. David Griffithsasked the Minister of Power what has been the total amount paid to date to the former coal owners for the mineral rights of the various coalfields.
    Mr. Freeson: The total amount paid in respect of the mineral rights transferred to the Coal Commission under the Coal Act, 1938, was about £68½ million. This includes interest less Income Tax from 1st July, 1942, the vesting date, until the compensation was fully satisfied.
    Mr. Griffiths: This is another instance of there being no question of public indignation about the amount of compensation for mineral rights which has been given to these people.

    Industry (Coke Supplies)
    Dr. David Kerrasked the Minister of Power what representations he has received concerning the guaranteed supply of coke for industrial use during the next five years; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Freeson: Following representations from the trade, the Department have had discussions with the London and Counties Coke Distributors' Association about facilities in the London area for handling the additional supplies of hard coke that will be needed as supplies of gas coke decline. We are examining the position further with the producers and distributors.
    Dr. Kerr: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Is he aware that the problem is by no means confined to London and the Home Counties, and that the question will be of great urgency, particularly during this forthcoming winter, when Midlands industry particularly will face shortages of absolutely essential coke fuel?
    Mr. Freeson: I was asked whether any representations had been received by the Department and answered that we have not had representations from the source referred to. In the first instance, such complaints and queries should go to the board, but, if there is a general policy issue here, no doubt, if my hon. Friend or others write to us, we will look into it.

    Coal Mining Industry
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on his talks with the Chairman of the National Coal Board regarding the loss of 300,000 jobs in the coal mines, and how far devaluation has affected the coal mining industry.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hudders-field, West (Mr. Lomas) on 20th November and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) on 5th December.—[Vol. 754, c. 267 and Vol. 755, c. 256.]
    Sir C. Osborne: While I do not remember those Answers, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman why Lord Robens
    182
    should not be given a free hand for two years to see if he can really produce coal as cheaply as imported oil and so save these 300,000 jobs which the miners will lose?
    Mr. Marsh: The important point to get quite clear here about the figure for mining manpower run-down by 1980 is that there are no figures which can be justified with any reasonable argument. Having said that, I wish to make it clear that, from the point of view of flexibility to enable the coal mining industry to take advantage of increases in productivity, this is allowed for in the White Paper. If the coal mining industry does better and better in future, as it has done in the past, nobody will be happier than the Minister of Power of the day.
    Mr. Swain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in November, 1965, the then Minister of Power said that if coal output fell to below 170 million tons a year this would have a serious effect on the nation's balance of payments? Has my right hon. Friend decided what further serious effect on the balance of payments devaluation will have in terms of the import of further stocks of oil?
    Mr. Marsh: I was trying to make this point earlier. Preliminary calculations show that the effect of devaluation on oil prices has meant an increase in the price of oil by an amount which is well within the margin taken into account in the second case in the Appendix to the White Paper, and not sufficiently large to distort the economic balance of payments advantages.

  GAS

    North Sea Gas
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Power if agreement has been reached on the price of North Sea gas; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Power what reply he has given to the request made by companies engaged in the North Sea gas project for increased prices consequent on devaluation.
    Mr. Marsh: No agreement has yet been reached on the price of North Sea gas.
    Mr. Roberts: Would not my right hon. Friend agree, however, that if the price charged is in excess of 2d. per therm it will make it uneconomic for many industrial and chemical purposes? Will he at this stage say that under no circumstances will he accept a price in excess of that figure?
    Mr. Marsh: If my hon. Friend really expected a full answer to that question, all I can say is that he has an enviable level of optimism. I think that this is a very complex subject, rather more complicated than my hon. Friend has presented it. Clearly there will be no purpose in purchasing North Sea gas at a price at which it is not viable.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a revised application has been received consequent on devaluation?
    Mr. Marsh: Not yet. The companies are reworking their calculations, and we are in fact reworking ours.
    Mr. Neal: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that this argument about prices is not depriving consumers of early participation in the use of North Sea gas?
    Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend has raised a very important point. There is no evidence that this is holding up supplies or development. Gas is coming ashore, and development is continuing, but clearly both sides are faced with a new situation in which they have to re-do some of their calculations.
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied that the cost to the developers of extracting North Sea gas was more than 1½d. a therm, spreading exploration and development costs over a 20 year period and a 10 year period, respectively; and what estimates he has of these costs.
    Mr. Marsh: As I explained to my hon. Friend on 4th July, cost estimates made by my Department are confidential. —[Vol. 749, c. 205.]
    Mr. Roberts: But would not my right hon. Friend agree with me that as the developers must know these figures already, there is nothing to hide, and surely the general public who have to pay the piper are entitled to know what it costs the companies to develop this gas?
    Mr. Marsh: I think the companies will feel that there is a great deal to conceal from each other. The cost details are commercial secrets. They are given to the Department in the strictest confidence, and the companies would not want one another to know some of the details.
    The other point which my hon. Friend must get clear is that some of these costs have not yet been incurred. The costs will be in respect of fields which have not been found, much less developed.

    Prices
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Minister of Power what is his estimate of the increase in costs to the Scottish Gas Board of devaluation and the accompanying measures.
    Mrs. Reníe Shortasked the Minister of Power what effect the Government's decision to devalue will have on development in the West Midlands Gas Board area; and what estimate he has made of the effect on prices to be charged to consumers.
    Mr. Laneasked the Minister of Power by what further percentage he expects gas prices to rise as a result of devaluation.
    Mr. Freeson: Gas prices are at present being considered by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, which will no doubt take into account the effects of devaluation on the Boards' costs, along with all other factors. I do not expect devaluation to have any significant effect on the course of development in the West Midlands Gas Board area.
    Mr. Campbell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the price of gas in Scotland is already too high compared with the average in the rest of the country? Will he examine ways of ensuring that it is not increased?
    Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this question is now with the N.B.P.I. and that we must await its report.
    Mrs. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that, the day after devaluation was announced, a spokesman of the West Midlands Gas Board said that prices would probably go up and development would have to be cut back, and that,

    185
    during October, the increase in the cost of living was largely due to the increase in coal and electricity prices? Does he not think that he is putting the wrong burdens on the wrong people for the wrong reasons?
    Mr. Freeson: I am not sure what the point was of the last part of that Question. The rest of it was a statement, of which one takes notice. This matter is now with the Prices and Incomes Board and we must await its report before reaching a decision.
    Mr. Peyton: What on earth does the hon. Gentleman think the Prices and Incomes Board knows about this matter? Why not deal with it in his own Department rather than put upon the very doubtful Olympian judgment of the Prices and Incomes Board responsibilities for things about which it knows nothing?
    Mr. Freeson: I take note of the jovial remarks of the hon. Gentleman about the work, the nature and the quality of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Minister of Power if he has now made a study of the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes regarding high gas prices in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeson: The question of gas prices in Scotland, as elsewhere was referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes on 3rd October. The Board has not yet reported.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that this indefinite delay could have been avoided by using a common denominator which would indicate that prices are higher in Scotland? Is he aware that consumers are now handing back gas heating appliances because of high cost? Will he do his utmost to speed up this investigation?
    Mr. Freeson: I think it was right that all the price proposals should have been referred to the Board and that no exceptions should be made. On the second point my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. My last information was that there was a considerable expansion in gas domestic heating going on in Scotland today.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that he should stop hiding behind the Prices and Incomes Board and the Minister should accept the decision as his? Does he know that the price of gas in Scotland is already 24 per cent, above the national average and that a general increase is not justified?
    Mr. Freeson: Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. There have been queries about not having the electricity prices referred to the N.B.P.I. and now we are criticised for having gas price increases referred to the Board.

    Industry (Gas Supplies)
    Dr. David Kerrasked the Minister of Power what proposals he has for ensuring a guaranteed supply of gas of consistent quality to industry during the next five years.
    Mr. Freeson: The gas boards have a statutory duty to maintain supplies of gas and their plans are framed accordingly. Quality standards are prescribed by Regulations, and the Department's gas examiners make periodic tests to ensure that they are complied with.
    Dr. Kerr: None the less, is my hon. Friend not aware that certain industries in the Midlands are complaining that the variations in the quality of the gas which is supplied to them is hazarding some of their processes? What conversations are being undertaken between industry and the gas boards in the Midlands on this subject?
    Mr. Freeson: If an industry or group of industries and companies has complaints about the service which it is receiving it must raise the complaints with the Board concerned.
    Mr. Emery: Would the hon. Gentleman say that, to obtain this consistency and quality, there is a need for some of the greatest investment in the gas industry in the next five years? Will he assure the House that this will now be available, even in the present economic restrictions?
    Mr. Freeson: There are no proposals to prevent investment on the introduction of natural gas and the further modernisation of the industry, whatever adjustments are being made or considered under the heading of public expenditure.

  MINISTRY OF POWER

    Steel Prices
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Power whether he will make a further statement on the question of steel prices for the shipbuilding industry.
    Mr. Marsh: The British Steel Corporation is still discussing the price of shipbuilding steel with the shipbuilders, and I hope it will be possible to reach an agreement to the advantage of both industries.
    Mr. Willey: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. Will he see that the importance of steel prices to the shipbuilding industry is borne in mind, otherwise this industry will be sorely prejudiced if its main competitors have the advantage of £5 to £6 a ton?
    Mr. Marsh: I think that devaluation will help the shipbuilding industry. The Corporation, in its own interests, is very much concerned to do what it can to work with the shipbuilding industry in their mutual interest.
    Mr. Emery: As far as the shipbuilding industry in concerned—in fact this applies to all the steel-consuming industries— where there has been a major increase in price since devaluation, sometimes as much as 16·6 per cent, on present prices, do the Government intend to refer this to the Prices and Incomes Board?
    Mr. Marsh: So far there has been no increase in the price of shipbuilding steel. If, at some time, the Corporation came forward with an application for an increase in price, it would be judged on its merits as to how big it was.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Power by what percentage he estimates that steel prices will rise as a result of devaluation.
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Minister of Power what application he has received regarding an increase in the price of steel; and, in view of the damage such an increase would do to industry and exports, if he will refuse his approval to the application.
    Mr. Marsh: The British Steel Corporation is still considering how far it can absorb the increase in costs due to de-
    188
    valuation bearing in mind also the advantages it hopes to gain.
    Mr. Ridley: But why does not the Minister tell us by how much the price of steel will rise? Will he give an undertaking that he will not allow the British Steel Corporation to drift into deficit when it is clearly part of the policy of devaluation that steel prices should rise if they have to?
    Mr. Marsh: As I have already explained, the Corporation has put no proposals to me for a major increase in prices. If it did, that application would be treated in the same way as any other. As to the industry drifting, one has only to consider its record in the last year or two to realise that this is its only hope of stopping drifting.
    Mr. Hamilton: My right hon. Friend is reported in the Press as saying that the price will increase by 16 per cent. If it does increase, will it be the same for the whole country? Can he assure us that Scotland will be considered very much in this?
    Mr. Marsh: As hon. Gentlemen on both sides know, the question of steel prices is a very complex issue affecting the problems of the market generally. What the Corporation is doing is working out how best to change its pricing policy in the light of devaluation. If that involved any increase of any note, the necessary application would be treated in the same way as any other.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many other industries are complex yet have already worked out their prices, including the motor car industry where exports are a main consideration? Will he note that industry's example and get something done quickly?
    Mr. Marsh: Some sections of the motor car industry took one path, and some took a different path. With an industry as big as the Steel Corporation, the important thing is to get the answer right.

    Indigenous Fuel
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Power (1) what alteration he estimates will occur in the demands for indigenous fuels as a result of devaluation;
    (2) what consultations his Department has had with indigenous fuel industries

    189
    as a consequence of devaluation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the consequences for indigenous sources of power of the recent devaluation of sterling.
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Power (1) what changes he estimates will occur in the demand for indigenous fuels as a result of devaluation;
    (2) what consultations his Department has had with indigenous fuel industries as a consequence of devaluation; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Marsh: As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Elfed Davies) on 5th December, the main effects of devaluation will be to reduce slightly oil's competitive advantage over coal in the home market and to make British coal cheaper in export markets. I do not expect the White Paper conclusions about the likely future pattern of demand for the various fuels to be more than marginally affected.— [Vol. 754, c. 438.]
    Mr. Eadie: Would my right hon. Friend agree that coal is no burden on our balance of payments? Is he aware that several hundred miners at Michael Colliery have been given notice? Would not my right hon. Friend help the balance of payments problem by issuing instructions to reopen Michael Colliery? Does not he believe that an increase of 17 per cent, in the amount of oil imported must make a difference to the use of indigenous fuel?
    Mr. Marsh: The increase is not as large as that. With regard to oil imports, it seems at the moment that the effect of devaluation will be less than that, with the increased fuel tax in the fuel policy White Paper.
    Michael Colliery is a separate question, but I think that to reopen what is now virtually a new coalfield at a cost of about £5 million must, as it has done, cause the National Coal Board to think.
    Mr. Biffen: Has not the right hon. Gentleman given a most extraordinarily imprecise Answer as a member of a Government who are supposed to be committed to central economic planning?
    190
    Does not that Answer show that devaluation was unexpected and unplanned?
    Mr. Marsh: Nothing is ever unexpected. Obviously, an Answer which informs the House that we are in the process of working out the effect of this on the White Paper which has only recently been printed is obviously bound to be somewhat indecisive. It becomes decisive only when we know the calculations. At the moment, as I said, it looks as if they will have only a marginal effect.
    Mr. Cronin: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no further substantial increase in the import of oil? Having regard to the enormous sums spent every year by this country on imported oil, will he bear in mind that, if it were not for the large increase of oil imports permitted by the last Conservative Government, there would be no balance of payments crisis this year?
    Mr. Marsh: In a modern industrial economy, it is rather difficult to prevent oil imports and, under the policy of the White Paper both the rate of increase in oil consumption will be much lower than in the past and the amount of oil as a proportion of the power economy will be much less than in most other countries.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that oil's competitive advantages are likely to be reduced only if the price of oil rises to meet increased costs? Is it his policy to allow the price to rise?
    Mr. Marsh: I am not sure what the hon. Lady has in mind. The cost of oil would have to rise considerably before it cast doubts on the White Paper figures.

    Oil Prices
    Mr. John Smithasked the Minister of Power what is expected to be the percentage increase in oil prices due to devaluation; and by how much he expects this will increase the price of a gallon of petrol.
    Mr. Marsh: I have not yet completed my examination of the effects of devaluation on oil prices.
    Mr. Smith: How does the prospective increase—for increase there will be—in the price of a gallon of petrol square with the Prime Minister's statement of

    191
    19th November that the pound in one's pocket or purse has not been devalued?
    Mr. Marsh: I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying too hard. The point is, as I explained at the beginning, that we have not yet agreed on an increase in price for oil. Neither have we agreed on what is the effect of devaluation. I think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman should have kept that supplementary question for a future date when I may be able to give him some of the reasons.
    Mr. Ridley: As the point of devaluation is to increase the prices of imported raw materials, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will not hold them down at the expense of the oil companies' profits for political reasons?
    Mr. Marsh: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman's withers are wrung at the prospect of the oil companies' own problems. However, there is a national problem as well, and my responsibility is to look after that.

    Gas and Electricity Boards (Advertising)
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Power, in view of the fact that the gas and electricity boards advertise on television, cinema screens and in newspapers and periodicals and offer free gifts to customers with a view to securing new consumers at the expense of each other and as this cost is eventually passed on to the consumers, whether he will issue a general direction to gas and electricity boards that they should cease this practice.
    Mr. Freeson: No, Sir.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is it not quite ludicrous that two public bodies like these should be encouraging customers to do precisely what the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want them to do and which, we understand, he will be having to introduce legislation in the next Budget to prevent them from doing, and using public money to do it?
    Mr. Freeson: We have had this Question often before—[Interruption.]—but this time it is more loaded than previously. It must be borne in mind that these industries, whatever views there may be about different kinds of advertising, spend
    192
    less than 0·5 per cent, of their combined turnover on advertising, which is a much smaller percentage than that applicable to industry at large. As for the general position of publicity and promotion, we are now looking into this matter.
    Mr. Palmer: Would my hon. Friend agree that publicly-owned commercial undertakings are expected to compete in the market with every other form of consumer demand? Will he do nothing to combat the normal and proper advertising methods of these publicly-owned commercial undertakings?
    Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend's question gives me an opportunity to make it clear that it is incorrect economically to speak of these industries just competing with each other. They are, in fact, competing with other forms of consumption; and, therefore, a certain amount of advertising is inevitable and right.

    Petrol Coupons
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Power (1) how many books of petrol coupons he instructed to be printed as a result of the Middle East War; how many have actually been printed and how many remain on order; if he will state the total cost and the cost per book; and why coupons are continuing to be printed in spite of the fact that the crisis is over;
    (2) what is the normal level of stocks of petrol coupons kept in case of an emergency.
    Mr. Marsh: Fifteen million basic ration books and 26 million coupons were ordered as a result of the Middle East war; 9 million books and all the coupons have been printed. Printing of a further 6 million books continues as a precaution against a future emergency. The books cost about l½d. each.
    Mr. Lubbock: Did the right hon. Gentleman go out to tender for this very large order, or did he place the order with one company at a very inflated price? Is it not a monstrous waste of money to continue printing these books now that the emergency is over?
    Mr. Marsh: No, Sir. To answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question about the process, these sorts of documents can be printed by only a limited

    193
    number of printers. I understand that there is more than one printing firm involved in carrying out the work. This is a matter of judgment. The hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a waste of time.
    Mr. Lubbock: I do.
    Mr. Marsh: He is entitled to his view, but if he is serious in his question, I suggest that it would be more profitable for all concerned if he gave me a chance to answer it. One of the things we discovered when the crisis began was that the biggest bottleneck in taking very quick action was the lack of books and coupons. I believe that we should ensure that we have the preparations made, for this would enable us to have a simplified rationing scheme, which would save us about £750,000 in about six months.

    Fuels (Annual Expenditure)
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Minister of Power how much of the £3,000 million a year spent on fuel is for domestic and industrial purposes, respectively; and approximately how much in each group is spent on the different fuels.
    Mr. Marsh: Excluding purchases of fuels for transport, purchases by domestic consumers accounted for about one third, and by industry one quarter, of the estimated £3,500 million annual expenditure on all forms of fuel; in both cases about 45 per cent, being on electricity and 30 per cent, on solid fuel. Purchases of gas by domestic consumers accounted for 20 per cent, and by industry 5 per cent., and of oil 5 per cent, and 20 per cent, respectively.
    Sir C. Osborne: Do those figures mean that any increase in the cost of fuel will fall proportionately more on the domestic consumer than on industry? If so, will it not be a more onerous charge on the poorer section of the nation than on industry? Should not this be looked into?
    Mr. Marsh: It is rather more difficult than that. One of the things we have been seeking to do in the last electricity increases has been to begin to redress the balance in favour of industry in relation to industrial costs, and fuel costs, as a part of the industrial costs, are a
    194
    very large fraction. This means that some of the extra cost must be diverted to the domestic consumer.

    Power Stations (Capital Investment)
    Mr. Ogdenasked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the effect of the Government's decision to reduce capital investment by the nationalised industries will have on proposals for nuclear powered electricity generating stations.
    Mr. McGuireasked the Minister of Power what effect the proposed reductions in capital spending by the nationalised industries will have on the construction of nuclear power stations.
    Mr. Marsh: Final decisions have not yet been taken, but the effect will probably be to defer the start of one power station.
    Mr. McGuire: In view of the lower capital cost involved in building conventional power stations, will my right hon. Friend look again at the high cost which will be involved with devaluation in building nuclear power stations? Surely this is a further reason for a review of the White Paper?
    Mr. Marsh: I am sure my hon. Friend will ensure that that point does not escape my mind in the next few weeks. We have this in mind, but a power station is built to last for a long time—30 years.
    Mr. Ridley: When will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the details of the cut-backs in investment programmes of the nationalised fuel industries as a result of the measures announced last week?
    Mr. Marsh: As soon as I can.

    White Paper on Fuel Policy
    Mr. Ogdenasked the Minister of Power what action he has taken to make the intentions of the Government White Paper on Fuel Policy known to those employed in the British coal industry; and what further action he intends to take.
    Mr. Marsh: I have arranged for copies of the pamphlet "Fuel for the Future"

    195
    to be made available at collieries and I have also sent a personal message to miners outlining what the Government were proposing to do for the coal industry and the miners. I intend to visit various parts of the country where there is a particular interest in this subject.
    Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend accept an invitation to visit the Lancashire coalfield, where we will give him not only a warm but an understanding welcome?
    Mr. Marsh: Perhaps I may seek an opportunity to discuss with my hon. Friend exactly what he meant by "warm".

  ELECTRICITY

    Seaton Carew (Power Station)
    Mr. Willeyasked the Minister of Power whether a decision has yet been taken on the proposed Seaton Carew power station.
    Mr. Marsh: No, Sir.
    Mr. Willey: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he will be able to make a statement before the end of the year? Is it a fact that the National Coal Board has offered a long-term contract at very much reduced prices? Can my right hon. Friend make a statement about the cost benefit analysis which has been made on this?
    Mr. Marsh: I do not think that these discussions will take very much longer. Many of my hon. Friends wanted this job to be done properly to take into account all the various factors in this, and the National Coal Board's application will be one of them, though it is sometimes suggested that if there is coal at this price it would be useful to purchase it anyhow.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this matter of considering the building of the power station has gone on for many months? The fact is that 2,000 jobs will be provided by constructing the power station, and it is therefore imperative that a decision be made which will mean that work can start within the first few weeks of the new year.
    Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend has highlighted a particular problem. He is in favour of a nuclear-powered station. Many of my hon. Friends favour a coal-fired power station. I shall do what I can as quickly as possible to reach a compromise between them.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman confide in the House of Commons about the comparative cost of a coal-fired station at Seaton Carew, and a nuclear-fired station? Does he not recall that many of us on both sides of the House believe that coal ought to be used at this new station, and not nuclear power?
    Mr. Marsh: There is a strong view that this should be a coal-fired station. This controversy has gone on for a long time. As I understand it, hon. Members on both sides of the House want a proper cost benefit analysis done in relation to which is the best station to put there. It does not necessarily follow that if we do not have a nuclear-fired station at Seaton Carew we have a coal-fired station on that site. It might well be elsewhere.
    Mr. Shinwell: In view of the importance of the Government reaching a decision on this matter, from the point of view of the Durham coalfield, and indeed for miners generally, may we have an assurance that before any decision is taken the House will be consulted? Is not this a matter which ought to be determined by the House before a final decision is taken?
    Mr. Marsh: At the moment I see no reason why the House should not be informed of what the Government have in mind about this. The Government have no particular angle other than to get the best sort of station. This is an arguable matter. I see no reason why it should not be announced in the House.

    Prices
    Mr. Laneasked the Minister of Power what will be the average percentage rise in the electricity bills of private consumers, arising out of the September 1967 price increases.
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Power what will be the average percentage increase in electricity bills for farmers as a result of the recent increases in prices.
    Mr. Freeson: Fourteen-and-a-half per cent, for private consumers and about 14 per cent, for farmers.
    Mr. Lane: How strong a reassurance can the hon. Gentleman give to consumers that there will be no further increase in 1968 or 1969?
    Mr. Freeson: I can give a general observation that we do not expect prices to rise for some time to come. One could not at this stage expect any more specific answer than that.
    Mr. Ridley: On what basis is it decided whether industrial, domestic or farming consumers are to be hit hardest? Is it a question of which will bear the increase with the greatest fortitude, or is there some logic behind this madness?
    Mr. Freeson: The lower increase for industrial consumers, which is the central point of the hon. Gentleman's query, partly reflects the relative cost of supply and the fact that they faced an increase in April last year when coal prices went up. It should be borne in mind in considering these price increases that, as compared with the general run of price increases of 89 per cent., since the industry was nationalised the rise in electricity prices has been only about 61 per cent.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that pensioners and low wage earners are not able to afford the fixed minimum charges which the boards are now charging consumers? Is he further aware that one of my constituents has complained recently—[HON. MEMBERS: "Only one?"]—about being charged more than double the cost of the electricity consumed?
    Mr. Freeson: It is difficult for me to comment on individual cases put forward in this fashion. There is machinery for these complaints—if there are grounds for complaint—to be taken up; in the first instance with the board concerned and, subsequently, with the appropriate consultative council.
    Mr. Albert Roberts: Is it not possible to steady the price by bringing about increased efficiency in the gas industry?
    Mr. Freeson: In terms of increased productivity it has experienced in the years since it was nationalised, this in-
    198
    dustry has nothing of which to be ashamed.
    Mr. John Smithasked the Minister of Power by what further percentage he expects electricity prices to rise as a result of devaluation.
    Mr. Marsh: Devaluation will effect only those consumers whose tariffs contain a fuel price adjustment clause. No revision of tariffs is contemplated.
    Mr. Smith: Would not it help to keep electricity prices down if we abandoned the unfair policy of making today's consumers, out of today's charges, pay for future development for the benefit of future consumers?
    Mr. Marsh: That is a rather different question from the one on the Order Paper. I am afraid that one of the sorrows which I have discovered in the office which I hold is that today's consumers are almost bound to pay, in one way or another, for future developments.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Minister of Power what is the average percentage increase for industrial consumers resulting from the rise in electricity charges of September, 1967.
    Mr. Freeson: Six per cent., but the effect of the higher fuel costs had already been passed on to some industrial consumers.
    Mr. Taylor: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give any guidance about the future trend of electricity prices over, say, the next 18 months? Would he agree that it is hopeless to try to restrain these prices when costs, under the Government's direct and indirect control, keep soaring?
    Mr. Freeson: I indicated, in answer to earlier Questions, that we do not expect electricity prices to increase again for some time to come.

    Research
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvineasked the Minister of Power what representations he has made to the Electricity Council regarding the level of its appropriation for research.
    Mr. Freeson: None, Sir.
    Mr. Irvine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that out of the total revenue of

    199
    £1,141·4 million, only £7·6 million is spent on research and that this compares with a business like I.C.I., which, out of total revenue of £496½2 million, spends £30 million on research? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—that this represents 0·66 per cent, spent on research compared with 6·0 per cent, respectively? Is he also aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] —that about £17 million is spent on re pairs to typewriters and so on, compared with only £7½6 million on—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.
    Mr. Freeson: I wish to deal with this subject in a rather more serious vein than the content of the hon. Gentleman's supplemnetary question. The position is that the amount spent on research by the industry totals about £10·6 million today compared with £2·2 million in 1959–60. That is a considerable increase, and about £270,000 in the current programme is being spent on research into underground cabling alone.

    Electricity Boards (Hire-Purchase Terms)
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Power whether he will give a general direction to electricity boards to bring their hire-purchase terms into line financially with terms offered by free enterprise electrical contractors.
    Mr. Freeson: Private enterprise rates vary considerably. I have no evidence that rates charged by electricity boards are either excessive or uneconomic.
    Mr. Lewis: Does the Minister not agree that the electricity boards are able to provide advantageous rates because they can raise money more easily from the Government? At this time will he see that this kind of advantage which they secure over private enterprise is not permitted?
    Mr. Freeson: Hon. Members opposite should try to hide their prejudices a little more in regard to the nationalised industries. There is nothing wrong with the commercial practice of the boards in this respect and they are making a good profit out of it. Taking all the 12 area boards together, a profit of something like £2·7
    200
    million was made out of this side of then-business. It is something which should be encouraged.

  AUSTRALIA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)
  Viscount Lambtonasked the Prime Minister what requests he has had from the Prime Minister of Australia to supply armaments to Australia; and what reply he has given.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): None, Sir.
  Viscount Lambton: Will the Prime Minister say whether any requests have been made for nuclear armaments of any sort by the Australian Government in view of the vacuum we are creating in the Far East?
  The Prime Minister: No such requests have been received from the Australian Government. I cannot think it conceivable that there would be, and if there were they would be refused.

  CIVIL SERVICE
  Mr. Onslowasked the Prime Minister what steps he takes to keep himself informed of increases in the size and cost of the Civil Service.
  The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to a similar Question by him on 20th December, 1966.—[Vol. 738, c. 1184.]
  Mr. Onslow: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is aware of—indeed, responsible for—the increase of 52,000 in the non-industrial Civil Service since October, 1964, an increase in annual wages and salaries of over £115 million? If there are to be cuts, is not this the place to begin?
  The Prime Minister: I am certainly aware of the figures given to the House yesterday, but I remind the hon. Member that under the last Conservative Government the Civil Service increased by 36,000.
  Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very many hon. Members opposite are constantly pressing for increases in a variety of public services

  201
  and that they crib when the personnel have to be found to fill those jobs?
  The Prime Minister: Yes. The point had not escaped me. I know that hon. Members in all parts of the House will be pleased that one of the biggest increases is in the social services, an increase of 7,200.

  PRICES, RENTS AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES
  Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister which Ministers are responsible for keeping a check on increases in prices, rents and mortgage interest rates, arising from devaluation; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: For prices, the Minister with responsibility for the industry or service concerned, for rents, my right hon. Friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, and for mortgage interest rates, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs has a co-ordinating function.
  Mr. Winnick: Is the Prime Minister aware that while there is a tremendous amount of good will to get Britain out of her economic troubles, there is a great deal of resentment at unjustified price increases? What action do the Government propose to take over price increases which have simply nothing to do with devaluation but with a desire to make more profits?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs told the House last week what discussions we are having industry by industry on this problem. The whole House, I am certain, will agree that price increases not directly attributable to increased import costs following devaluation are totally unjustified.
  Mr. Tom Boardman: Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement made by the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to the effect that there was bound to be a cut in the standard of living of British people in the next 12 months— the statement made on 9th December?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with the statement which was made last Saturday. As the Government have made clear, hopes of a substantial rise in standards of living in the following year depend on the efforts of all of us to get the imports-exports balance right early next year.
  Mr. Gardner: Has my right hon. Friend seen Motion No. 133? In view of the fact that a great many people are making unjustified price increases and blaming this on to devaluation, will the Prime Minister take a simple measure of putting the onus of justifying those increases on to those who make them?
  The Prime Minister: I have seen the Motion on the Order Paper. We are watching very carefully some of these quite unjustified price rises, and my right hon. Friends are in discussion with the industries concerned.
  Mr. Maudling: Is it not part of Government policy that prices should rise faster than wages in order to choke off imports and divert expenditure from home consumption to exports?
  The Prime Minister: It is Government policy that where increased costs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]—I am trying to answer the question so that even hon. Members opposite can understand it. Where there are increased costs due to devaluation it is right that prices should rise in those cases, but not in other cases. As the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, this does account for part of the diversion of resources. He is quite right about that. In regard to wages, we feel that the maximum restraint is needed. How far earnings will go up as a result of increased opportunities for production is another matter.
  Mr. Whitaker: Why should not employers' associations such as the C.B.I. vet price increases in the same way as the T.U.C. is vetting wage increases?
  The Prime Minister: We are having discussions with the C.B.I. So far, I believe that the discussions have been reasonably constructive, but we shall need to have discussions with individual trade associations in individual industries.
  Mr. Maudling: Do I take it that the Prime Minister's answer to my earlier question was "Yes"?
  The Prime Minister: I have forgotten what the question was now.
  Mr. Maudling: My question was—is it not part of the Government's policy that prices should rise faster than wages in order to choke off imports and divert resources to exports?
  The Prime Minister: Taking prices as a whole and the year as a whole, the answer is "No". As regards prices attributable to import costs, it is inevitable that they will rise.

  ECONOMIC DEPARTMENTS (CO-ORDINATION)
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to improve co-ordination between Economic Departments since devaluation.
  The Prime Minister: The work of these Departments is already closely and effectively co-ordinated, Sir.
  Mr. Marten: In view of the need to tell the people the harsh truth about devaluation, and in the light of the Prime Minister's television broadcast, would it not be helpful to the country if he had a special adviser specifically to advise him on telling the facts about devaluation more forthrightly and more frankly?
  The Prime Minister: I did, despite the attempt of hon. Members opposite to create a legend by taking one sentence out of context, in that broadcast state plainly that prices would have to rise. I then went on to say that it would be unjustifiable to raise prices which were not caused by devaluation.

  U.S.S.R. (TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP)
  Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister what progress has been achieved towards the conclusion of the Treaty of friendship and peaceful co-operation between Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics upon which he and Mr. Kosygin agreed in February, 1967.
  The Prime Minister: We have put a number of ideas for the content of the Treaty to the Soviet Government, and await their comments, Sir.
  Mr. Blaker: Bearing in mind the disregard by the Soviet Government of accepted standards of international behaviour in the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke, does the Prime Minister think that there would be much substance in such a Treaty if it were concluded?
  The Prime Minister: We continue to press the case of Mr. Brooke. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in his strictures on the Soviet Government in this matter. I think, for all that, that it would be a mistake not to press on with, and we are pressing on with, the Treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union and to try to get other means of agreement with the Soviet Union. If this can be done, perhaps it will help even in this one case where we believe that the behaviour of the Russians has been unacceptable.
  Mr. Mendelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the announcement when Mr. Kosygin was in London that such a Treaty was being discussed received widespread support throughout this country? Will he take an opportunity after his visit to the United States to have another meeting with Mr. Kosygin so that the Treaty can be brought forward to a successful conclusion?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot at this stage say exactly when my visit to the Soviet Union will be, but we are pressing on with the Treaty of friendship. We have sent our draft. We are waiting for the Soviet Union's comments. The Soviet Ambassador told me as recently as yesterday that we may expect to get his country's comments very quickly.
  Sir C. Osbome: Despite the very unhappy temporary differences, which no one under-estimates, between the Soviet Union and ourselves, will the Prime Minister press on with the long-term policy of increased friendship and trade with the Soviets, as both are essential to the survival of this country?
  The Prime Minister: Yes. I thank the hon. Gentleman. As I have already said to the House, I think that the recent visit by a very authoritative group of British industrialists to follow up the technological initiative was a very helpful step in this direction.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that the spokesman on

  205
  foreign affairs for the Opposition made a television speech in Moscow six years ago in which he said that we must not only co-exist with the Soviet Union but we must co-operate with the Soviet Union? Is it not time that these negotiations were speeded up, because the British people want to see friendship with the Soviet Union?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the then Foreign Secretary, I think it was. This was what we have sought to do on my own two visits to Moscow and on Mr. Kosygin's visit to this country. The Treaty of friendship is not being held up at the moment by us. We hope it will not be delayed much longer.

  PORTS (NATIONALISATION)
  Mr. Ian Lloydasked the Prime Minister what consultations he had with the Confederation of British Industry, the Shipper's Council, the Chamber of Shipping and other user interests, before making his statement on the nationalisation of ports.
  The Prime Minister: There was no new statement of policy in what I said on this issue at the Port Industries Conference last month, Sir. The policy was announced in a White Paper (Cmnd. 3057) nearly seventeen months ago. As to consultation, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has been discussing details with those concerned since July.
  Mr. Lloyd: Why is the Prime Minister apparently so unaware of the almost universal hostility to these proposals? If he claims otherwise, why does he treat with such obdurate indifference those upon whose co-operation and investment confidence the modernisation of our port system depends? Or is he absolutely determined to go down in the history books as the disc jockey of catastrophe?
  The Prime Minister: I am not unaware—indeed, this is a result of my right hon. Friend's consultation—of the views of the industries concerned. It does not follow, however, that we have to be told by the industries concerned what the position is and what needs to hi done. Too many people in the port
  206
  industry have been far too complacent for far too long about the state of the ports.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there are many people engaged in the port industry who welcome this decision to nationalise the ports, and that if the users to which the Question refers had put in the necessary capital, had treated the men with a degree of humanity and had tried to get rid of some of the distrust and hostility that have existed over the last 100 years, the ports would be a much more efficient and happy place in which to work?
  The Prime Minister: I would not be able to comment on all those points, though I have seen recent expressions of some of the matters referred to in the supplementary question on Merseyside during the period of that strike. As the House is voting very large sums for this overdue reorganisation and modernisation of the ports, I think that it is necessary to have a much more direct form of control over how. that money is spent.
  Mr. Maudling: In the course of the consultations to which the Prime Minister referred, have any users welcomed nationalisation?
  The Prime Minister: The particular users mentioned in the Question have not. As I have said, others have, particularly on the trade union side. As I have said, and as the right hon. Gentleman will know, there has been too much complacency in the ports and we need to modernise quickly. This is the right way to do it.
  Mr. Ogden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the lessons of the last months is that there should be the utmost consultation between workers in the ports and the Government before legislation and that afterwards the intentions of the legislation should be fully reported to those employed in the ports?
  The Prime Minister: Yes. These consultations are going on with that end in view. The conference where I made this particular speech was a very valuable operation in consultation between the employers, the users and the trade unions in the Merseyside area so far as dock modernisation is concerned.

  EUROPE (TECHNOLOGICAL CO-OPERATION)
  Mr. Ian Lloydasked the Prime Minister to what extent his proposals for technological co-operation with Europe require the encouragement of arrangements involving a high degree of mobility of the personnel of British and European firms.
  The Prime Minister: As I explained in my Guildhall speech, an important element in these proposals lies in the concept of the European company, which would involve a very considerable degree of interchange between British and European personnel.
  Mr. Lloyd: I thank the Prime Minister for that mildly encouraging reply. Does not he agree that the unhampered movement of men, ideas and capital has been the fundamental condition for prosperity in Europe and North America for at least a century? Will he discourage his right hon. Friends from implying in their many speeches that in order to be pro-European or pro-British it is necessary to be anti-American?
  The Prime Minister: I thought that the Question was about technological cooperation with Europe, which would envisage a very considerable movement both ways, not only of capital, as the hon. Gentleman says, but of ideas and of men and women of every kind of skill. Once this is achieved, as suggested in the Guildhall speech, it will help to make Europe as a whole much less dependent on American technology.

  NATIONAL PLAN
  Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the coordination between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs with regard to the preparation of the revised National Plan; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Blaker: Does that mean that there is to be another National Plan? Can the Prime Minister tell us when it will be published?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we are dis-
  208
  cussing this question at the moment with the National Economic Development Council. We are now beginning work on this in the light of the new situation following devaluation. The first work will obviously have to be on the foreign balance, on exports and on import saving. From that, we hope to be able to move forward to the wider work for national planning. I cannot at this stage indicate to the hon. Gentleman when it is likely to be published.

  WINTER EMERGENCIES COMMITTEE
  Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the present state of the work of the Winter Emergencies Committee.
  The Prime Minister: As the Answer to this Question is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman oblige the House by giving us a summary of the results of the activities of this Committee?
  The Prime Minister: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will study the Answer, but I might now give one point from it. The Winter Emergencies Committee, which was set up in November, 1965, was to ensure, in particular, that the fuel and power industries would be able in successive winters to meet the load put upon them, which was not the case then largely because of long delay in deliveries of equipment from various manufacturing firms.
  The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the latest estimates are that the maximum output capacity of the electricity supply industry in an average cold spell this winter will exceed maximum demand by 12 per cent., compared with a calculated margin of only 2½ per cent, three years ago. A very similar position applies as regards gas for most of the gas boards, although there is no national grid for gas.
  Mr. Peyton: Why does not the Prime Minister entrust the task of preparing a new National Plan to the Winter Emergencies Committee? He could then have it reviewed by the Prices and Incomes Board, and after that he could burn it.
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should not under-rate the achievement of this Committee and all working with it in having secured this margin of capacity of 12 per cent, compared with 2½ per cent, three years ago. It is a very satisfactory achievement, and, when the hon. Gentleman has put away his joke book and studied the Answer, he will be able to appreciate more of the work done by the Committee.
  Mr. Bessell: Is it within the scope of the terms of reference of the Winter Emergencies Committee to inquire into the failure of local authorities and others to deal rapidly with the emergency road conditions caused by snow over last weekend?
  The Prime Minister: It would not have been possible for the Committee to go out and de-ice, sand and salt the roads, any more than it could have dealt with problems of icing at points and so forth on the railways. What is certain—my Answer makes this clear—is that one of the things all who have influence in these matters must ensure is that local authorities move more speedily and are ready to move more speedily. Even so, some of the conditions which certain authorities had to face, for example, on the South Coast, where there were large snowfalls or blizzards, would have been almost impossible to deal with immediately. But more needs to be done more speedily.
  Mr. Maudling: How much margin of generating capacity would have been available if industrial production had risen vigorously in the last three years?
  The Prime Minister: I should want notice of that question. There would still have been an adequate amount. The right hon. Gentleman should recall that he left us with an election boom, after years of stagnation, in which he had entirely failed to plan for electrical generating capacity or gas capacity to provide an adequate margin in the winter of 1965.
  Mr. Palmer: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that, because of continued commissioning troubles with new plant, it is probable that the generating position is not in practice quite as good as it may seem on paper?
  The Prime Minister: This is the overall position, allowing for some of the difficulties which have occurred in commissioning. In 1965, there were some bad cases of breakdown at the very worst part of the winter. In the case of gas, there is rather more anxiety, I think, in two of the area boards, though most of them now have plant which is adequate, and also great progress has been made in increasing grid facilities between one area board and another.
  Following is the information:
  The Winter Emergencies Committee was set up in November, 1965, to ensure, in particular, that the fuel and power industries would be able in successive winters to meet the load put upon them by a normal and, so far as this is possible, an abnormal winter. Especial attention was directed to reducing the delays in the completion of gas making plants and power plants, to the extension of the gas grid and to ensuring that deliveries of plant and equipment from private manufacturers, which had fallen behind schedule, were speeded up.
  In addition, attention was given to steps necessary to ensure that distributed stocks of coal were maintained at a reasonable level; that coal supplies could be moved to areas of need in winter conditions; and that special transport facilities, including helicopters, would be available for maintaining food and other essential supplies in remote areas normally cut off by bad weather.
  When the work of the Winter Emergencies Committee was merged with the main Emergencies Committee of the Government, it informed me that the progress of plant buildup in gas and electricity had been such that, for this winter, given normal conditions, there would be an overall capacity exceeding normal winter peak load by substantial amounts. The latest estimates are that the maximum output capacity of the electricity supply industry will exceed maximum demand in an average cold spell this winter by 12 per cent., compared with a calculated margin of only 2½ per cent, three years ago. The margin next winter should be even higher. Comparative calculations are not possible for the gas industry—because there is as yet no equivalent of the National Grid—though almost all area gas boards should have adequate surplus capacity this winter, and, again, the position is expected to improve further by next winter.
  Under the new arrangements, the work I have described, including that of providing for coal supplies and contact with remote areas, is continued.
  The House will agree, not least after the experience of last weekend, that more needs to be done, particularly by certain local authorities whose areas may be suddenly affected by severe winter conditions, so that they may be ready to take with all speed whatever action may be required and possible. But to be able to make full provision in advance

  211
  for every contingency in every area would be impossibly expensive, and hon. Members will be aware that even in countries normally subject to nation-wide severe weather conditions for many months at a time it is not possible to avoid disruption, frequently on a large scale, when blizzard conditions and abnormally severe snowfalls occur.

  RHODESIA
  The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson):
  With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on Rhodesia.
  On 14th November, I gave the House a report on my visit to Rhodesia. As I said then, Mr. Smith and I agreed in Salisbury that we should consult with our colleagues and reflect on our positions. This Her Majesty's Government have now done. I promised to make a full statement as soon as we had considered all the implications and I am grateful to the House for the indulgence which it has shown in not pressing for details.
  I feel that the time has now come when the House should know the full position, especially since there has been a widely observed contradiction between my statement that the talks revealed new and fundamental divergences and Mr. Smith's public assertion that there is no great difference between us. I think that the facts should now be known so that the House can judge for itself.
  During our 10 hours of talks in Salisbury, Mr. Smith proposed a number of changes in the draft constitution worked out on board H.M.S. "Tiger". Since the details are lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I should like to try to summarise their more important features.
  Put simply, the most important effect of Mr. Smith's changes would be to remove the safeguards provided by the "Tiger" arrangements against what the second principle called retrogressive amendment of the Constitution. The main change he proposed was that all the African members of the Senate should be Chiefs. This would mean that African elected representatives would no longer have it in their power to block amendments which would weaken the protection given to Africans against discriminatory
  212
  legislation or place obstacles in the way of progress to majority rule. In other words, there would not be enough of them to make up a "blocking quarter".
  I fully recognise the important place of Chiefs in African society. But in good conscience I could no more accept the Chiefs now as the proper guardians of African political rights than right hon. Gentlemen opposite could accept the Chiefly Indaba as representative of African opinion as a whole in October, 1964. Moreover, it must be recognised that the Chiefs are dependent on the Rhodesian authorities for their pay and allowances, and in the last analysis for their appointment or dismissal.
  Because of its implications for the procedure for constitutional amendment, this proposal for a change in the composition of the Senate is a fundamental one. In addition to this, Mr. Smith went on to press for the removal of a further safeguard proposed in the "Tiger" discussions. This was the safeguard providing that amendments to the specially entrenched provisions should be made subject to appeal to a Constitutional Commission consisting of the Rhodesian Chief Justice and other judges, with the further right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Mr. Smith wished to drop this safeguard.
  As the House will realise, the changes I have mentioned so far run directly counter to both the first and second of our principles—that there should be guarantees both of unimpeded progress to majority rule and against retrogressive amendment of the Constitution.
  Mr. Smith further proposed the abolition of the system of cross-voting embodied in the 1961 Constitution and a reduction, as compared with the "Tiger" arrangements, in the number of B Roll African seats. These proposals would derogate from the third principle, which calls for immediate improvement in the political status of the African population—and would also substantially delay progress towards majority rule.
  Mr. Smith made certain other suggestions about the Constitution. As these were put to me they do not necessarily involve fundamental departures from the six principles, and I indicated that we should be very ready to consider them if a general settlement were in prospect.

  213
  To sum up, it is the considered view of Her Majesty's Government that the main changes I have described are fundamentally incompatible with the essential principles agreed by both sides of the House. They could not, therefore, form a basis for discussion of a possible settlement which could honourably be commended to Parliament. This is what I gave Mr. Smith in Salisbury as my own immediate reaction. I have now confirmed it to him as the considered view of Her Majesty's Government and have expressed the hope that he will reconsider I he position which he took up during our talks.
  Failing this, the House will understand that we have no alternative but to pursue the policy of sanctions in conjunction with the United Nations. Meanwhile, we stand by our pledges to the Commonwealth, including, of course, our declaration on Nibmar.
  I refuse to despair of the régime's recognising the dead end in to which they lire leading Rhodesia. For our part, we are certainly not going to slam any doors. Her Majesty's Government remain ready to discuss any proposals for a settlement in Rhodesia that are consistent with principles to which both sides of the House are committed.
  Mr. Maudling: The Secretary of State has made a very serious statement, which both sides of the House will wish to consider before they give any judgment on it. No one would want to take any step or say anything that could impede the still remaining chances of an agreement. Certainly, on this side of the House we want above all to have an agreement. We do not want to do anything that might prevent an agreement being reached, and I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there is still a door open. I have just one question for him. Will he inform the House straight away when he receives Mr. Smith's reply?
  Mr. Thomson: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman says. I confirm that it is our desire to obtain a settlement, but, of course, one that must be consistent with principles accepted on both sides of the House. I shall inform the House as soon as I receive a reply from Mr. Smith.
  Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Leader of the Opposition spoke for almost everyone when he said on 10th December, 1965, that the whole House abhors the aspects of the police State which have been and are being introduced into Rhodesia today? Is it not a fact that after two years it has become quite apparent that talks will not bring about a change of heart in the rebel régime? When can the right hon. Gentleman give us details of the tightening of sanctions to make them really effective?
  Mr. Thomson: I should not like at this stage to take the pessimistic view of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party that there is now no prospect of making further progress, although I freely confess that the outlook is not very promising in the light of what I have just described.
  On the question of sanctions, I said in my statement that we are bound to continue, in conjunction with the United Nations, the pressure of sanctions on the régime. As the House knows, the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee is presently discussing this, and as soon as there is something to report I shall tell the House, although I have told the House on other occasions that the essence of sanctions arrangements is that one does not give notice to those whom they affect.
  Mr. Roebuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House will want to congratulate him on the patience he has exhibited in dealing with a bunch of thugs? But will he take note that there is serious concern about the breaking of sanctions by a number of other countries, particularly the French and the Japanese? Can he say that he will take action with his colleagues to try to stamp out this sanctions busting by other countries?
  Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. One of the subjects I have raised in the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee is precisely the need for joint action to make sure that all the countries which voted for the mandatory resolutions are taking all practicable steps to ensure that firms under their jurisdiction honour those resolutions.
  Mr. Rose: Is my right hon. Friend aware that sanctions will be effective only if they are universally applied and backed up by other means? If we do not intend to tighten the screw, would he consider placing the matter fairly and squarely before the United Nations as its responsibility?
  Mr. Thomson: The matter is already before the United Nations. We are operating under mandatory resolutions of the organisation. I would ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who have differing views on the question to be realistic about the operation of sanctions. It would be quite wrong to believe that sanctions are not having an important effect on the Rhodesian economy. But, equally, it is wrong to believe that there is a dramatic short-cut to 100 per cent, effectiveness with sanctions. What sanctions do, I hope, is to place clearly before the Rhodesian community the plain choice between continuing with rebellion and economic stagnation, on the one hand, and returning to legality and economic expansion, on the other.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is not the important effect of sanctions which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned to consolidate all European and much African support behind Mr. Ian Smith's Government? Are not the new difficulties and differences to which he has referred the result of the protraction of sanctions and the failure of the Government to reach a settlement earlier?
  Mr. Thomson: No, Sir. I do not accept that. I think that the impression of consolidation of African opinion behind the Smith régime of which the hon. Gentleman talks is the result of the censorship imposed by the régime and not a result of the sanctions.
  Dr. Gray: Will my right hon. Friend pursue sanctions more ardently and seek new ways of making life uncomfortable for that racist and illegal régime?
  Mr. Thomson: I hope that my hon. Friend will not need to complain about my lack of ardour, but I try to pursue these matters, together with other associated matters, realistically.
  Mr. Turton: As the continuance of the disagreement will damage everyone in
  216
  Central Africa and this country, will the right hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to the suggestion of Sir Roy Welensky that the matter be submitted to a Commonwealth mediator, preferably Sir Robert Menzies?
  Mr. Thomson: I think that when the right hon. Gentleman has seriously studied the statement I have just made, and, in particular, the more detailed material that will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will discover that Mr. Smith has departed from the principles which we understood that he accepted in such a way that it is very difficult to see what rôle a mediator could play in the circumstances.
  Sir Dingle Foot: Did my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to discuss with Mr. Smith the continued detention of the African political leaders, who represent far more people in Rhodesia than do Mr. Smith and his colleagues?
  Mr. Thomson: That was one of the questions I raised directly with Mr. Smith, and it is closely linked with any possible test of acceptance, assuming that one could reach the stage of establishing a constitution that conformed with our principles and pledges.
  Mr. Sandys: While I hope that these very serious differences can be narrowed, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, in view of the obvious failure of sanctions—he must be realistic about that —the British Government will have to accept terms which are less favourable than those which they asked for a year ago, or else they will get no settlement at all?
  Mr. Thomson: No, Sir. I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. With respect to him, I think that the great majority of the House is ready to seek a settlement only within the six principles, of which he is one of the joint authors.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Since successive bouts of negotiation have widened the gulf between Her Majesty's Government and the illegal régime, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the next initiative for talks, if there be one, does not come from our Government but from Rhodesia?
  Mr. Thomson: I think that the first thing to do is to await what response I get from Mr. Smith to the announcement I have now made.
  Mr. Hastings: Is it not indisputable that the growth of an internal opposition to the present Rhodesian Government of the kind which Her Majesty's Government might approve depends entirely upon an agreement? Has the Secretary of State ever considered that?
  Mr. Thomson: The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, is putting the cart before the horse. He is saying that one should accept a settlement on Smith's terms in order to create an opposition in Rhodesia against that settlement, if I understand him correctly.
  Mr. Bellenger: As my right hon. Friend has given the impression that there is nothing much more to do in the way of negotiations with the Government of Rhodesia—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not a Government."]—what legal steps are to be taken by this country to make the break complete? Will he give the House an opportunity of debating these issues at an early date?
  Mr. Thomson: The question of a debate on Rhodesia is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Have the Government made any assessment of the continuing cost to our own balance of payments of implementing the sanctions policy? What estimate have they made of the length of time, in view of our present financial stringency, that they can continue to bear this great burden?
  Mr. Thomson: Careful estimates have been made. Although balance of payments calculations of this character are extremely complex, because one must try to guess what the situation would have been had there been no U.D.I., I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I have said on other occasions—that the cost to this country, although grievous, is a great deal less than the estimate generally made. But this is a cost which I think that we must bear in support of the principles which both sides of the House £e have accepted.
  Mr. Raphael Tack: How long is the door to remain open—until 1970, or 1980, or 1990? When Mr. Smith again slaps
  218
  Her Majesty's Government in the face, will they turn the other cheek again or blockade Lourengo Marques and take other sterner measures?
  Mr. Thomson: I have made our position on the question of sanctions clear. The first thing is to make sure that the existing sanctions are implemented as effectively as possible. Other measures are under study by the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee.
  Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman produce as quickly as possible a White Paper analysing the application of sanctions in other countries and identifying what legislative provision has been made in other countries for the application of sanctions and how far this has proved effective?
  Mr. Thomson: The Secretary-General of the United Nations published at the end of last week a lengthy report containing the information from the member countries of the United Nations about the degree in which they are implementing the sanctions resolution. I will ensure that this report is placed in the Library of the House. Certainly, in the first instance, it will give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a good deal of the information he seeks.
  Mr. Maxwell: What positive assistance, if any, are the Government receiving from the Government of South Africa to bring the illegal régime back to legality?
  Mr. Thomson: As I reported on 14th November, I took the opportunity to pass through Pretoria to discuss the Rhodesian problem with Dr. Müller, the South African Foreign Minister, and also to raise with him the direct matter that faces us—the presence of South African forces on Rhodesian soil.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: Will not the right hon. Gentleman accept that everything in his statement merely indicates a growing gap between two political philosophies —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]— and that the whole policy of sanctions is an intolerable price imposed on the people of this country for a bargain which steadily gets worse as the months pass?
  Mr. Thomson: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question,

  219
  but I am not sure, because of the noise, whether or not I understood him to say in the second part that he wished to close the gap by abandoning our democratic philosophies and adopting the kind of philosophy Mr. Smith has.
  Mr. Kelley: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the time has arrived when we must determine whether the sanctions policy is to be abandoned and whether we should approach the problem of a solution of the Rhodesian question by approaching people in Rhodesia who have other ideas than those of Mr. Smith about the political future of that nation and trying to attain an agreement with those who are opposed to the present régime?
  Mr. Thomson: I still believe that the best method of bringing peaceful pressure to bear on the régime and of seeking a peaceful outcome to the problem is through the application of sanctions under United Nations authority.
  Several Hon. Members—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.
  Following are the details:
  The proposals put to the Commonwealth Secretary by Mr. Ian Smith at their talks in Salisbury on 9th November, 1967 for the amendment of the constitutional proposals in Part I of the "Tiger" Working Document (Cmnd. 3171, pp. 87 and 88) were as follows:
  Composition of the Legislature
  2. Paragraph 2 of the Working Document provided for a Legislature consisting of two Houses, composed as follows:
  Legislative Assembly

  33 "A" Roll Seats.

  17 "B" Roll Seats.

  17 Reserved European Seats.

  Senate

  12 Europeans (elected by Europeans on the "A" Roll).

  8 Africans (elected by Africans on the "A" and "B" Rolls voting together).

  6 Chiefs (elected by the Chiefs' Council).

  3. Paragraph 8 of the Working Document provided that the Specially Entrenched provisions of the proposed Constitution should require a vote of at least three-quarters of the total membership of both Houses voting together. The total membership of both Houses together would be 93, three-quarters of which would be 70 (to the nearest whole number), so that a proposed amendment would
  220
  fail to be carried if twenty-four members refused to support it. The 17 "B" Roll seats in the Legislative Assembly could be assumed to be filled by Africans or persons acceptable to Africans as their representatives, and together with these members the 8 elected African members of the Senate would supply a total of 25 elected representatives of Africans, i.e. one more than the minimum "blocking quarter" of the total membership of both Houses together required to prevent amendments of Specially Entrenched provisions.
  4. On 9th November Mr. Smith pressed for all the African members of the Senate to be Chiefs (elected by the Chiefs' Council). At the same time he said that he would wish the numbers of members in the various categories in the two Houses to be altered as follows:
  Legislative Assembly

  35 "A" Roll Seats (instead of 33).

  15 "B" Roll Seats (instead of 17).

  15 Reserved European Seats (instead of 17).

  Senate

  12 Europeans (no change).

  0 Elected Africans (instead of 8).

  12 Chiefs (instead of 6).

  The total membership of both House together would then be 89. The number required for the passage of an amendment to a Specially Entrenched provision would be 67, and the number required for the "blocking quarter" would be 23. Against this number, the Africans' elected representatives would be able to count on supplying only the 15 elected to the "B" Roll seats in the Legislative Assembly, unless and until Africans were elected to "A" Roll seats. Eight "A" Roll seats would have to be won before the "blocking quarter" could be made up of the Africans' elected representatives.
  5. It should also be noted that, under the changes proposed by Mr. Smith, the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly which could be counted on as returning the Africans' elected representatives from the start would be reduced from 17 to 15, while the number of seats likely to be held by Europeans, at least to begin with, would remain unchanged at 50.
  Constitutional Appeals
  6. Paragraph 8 of the "Tiger" Working Document provided that, in addition to the three-quarters majority of the total membership of both Houses together required for the passage of an amendment to a Specially Entrenched provision, there should also be a system of appeal against such an amendment. Such an appeal would lie in the first instance to a Constitutional Commission in Rhodesia, consisting of the Chief Justice and other judges: with further appeal as of right to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
  7. Mr. Smith said on 9th November that this system of appeals was objectionable in principle and should be dropped.
  8. Quite apart from his objections in principle, he had the following objections of detail

  221
  to the proposed machinery for the appeals and to the formulation of the permitted grounds of appeal:
  (a) the Working Document provided that amendments subject to appeal should not come into force until the time for appeal had expired or the appeal had been finally disposed of. He objected to the delay which this would cause to the commencement even of legislation eventually held to be unobjectionable. In offering to consider whether it would be possible to meet Mr. Smith on this point, the Commonwealth Secretary reminded him that the "Tiger" discussions had envisaged arrangements for the rapid disposal of these cases and for summary rejection of frivolous or vexatious appeals;
  (b) the Working Document provided that an appeal might be brought on the ground that the amendment in question "discriminates unjustly or has the effect of discriminating unjustly between the races…". Mr. Smith objected to the phrase" or has the effect of…" on the ground that it greatly widened the scope of the provision and was in fact contrary to what had been agreed on the "Tiger". The Commonwealth Secretary said that he was advised that the account of the relevant discussion on page 81 of Cmnd.3171 was accurate: he commented that this appeared to be a drafting point which could be left to be settled by the constitutional draftsmen;
  (c) the other permitted ground of appeal was that the amendment in question "contravenes any of the provisions of the Declaration of Rights contained in the Constitution". Mr. Smith objected that this would have the effect of making it impossible to amend the Declaration of Rights. The Commonwealth Secretary replied that the reference was clearly intended to be not to each and every amendment affecting the Declaration of Rights, but only to those held by the Courts to derogate from its fundamental principles.
  Cross-Voting
  9. The 1961 Constitution provides for the country to be divided into 50 "constituencies" (to have as nearly as possible the same numbers of "A" Roll voters) and 15 "electoral districts" (to have as nearly as possible the same numbers of "B" Roll voters). All the voters in a constituency or an electoral district, whichever Roll they are on, can vote in elections in that constituency or electoral district; but in
  222
  a constituency in which there are more than one-quarter as many votes cast by voters on the "B" Roll as by voters on the "A" Roll, the number of "B" Roll votes received by each candidate is to be reduced proportionately so that the total number of "B" Roll votes received is equal to one-quarter of the "A" Roll votes received: and vice versa in the electoral districts.
  10. This system is known as cross-voting, and serves to give "B" Roll voters an influence in the election of members from the (primarily "A" Roll) constituencies, and likewise "A" Roll voters an influence in the election of candidates from the (primarily "B" Roll) electoral districts.
  11. The "Tiger" Working Document provided for this system of cross-voting to continue. Mr. Smith proposed on 9th November that it should be abandoned, so that "B" Roll electors would vote only for the "B" Roll seats, for which "A" Roll electors would not vote.
  12. In addition to pressing for the abolition of cross-voting (see paragraph 11 above) Mr. Smith pointed out that it was presumably a slip for paragraph 3 of the "Tiger" Working Document to say that cross-voting would be applied to "all seats", since some seats were expressly described as to be elected by voters of a specified community and on a specified Roll: thus, the 12 European seats in the Senate were to be elected by Europeans on the "A" Roll. It was agreed that the clear intention was that cross-voting should be applied only to the "A" Roll and "B" Roll seats in the Legislative Assembly.
  Delimitation Commission
  13. Paragraph 4 of the "Tiger" Working Document provided that alterations in the composition of both Houses and in the number of seats should be effected by the Special Entrenchment procedure; it also provided for the incorporation in the Delimitation Commission's terms of reference of an agreed formula regarding the Commission's "over riding objective" in dividing the constituencies. Mr. Smith argued on 9th November that it was not right—and had not in fact been agreed in the "Tiger"—that both the "agreed formula" and Section 37 of the Constitution should be made Specially Entrenched provisions. It was agreed that this question would require further legal study if sufficient progress were made on other points to justify it.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1949 (AMENDMENT) (No. 2)
  3.55 p.m.
  Mr. Denis Coe: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable reference to be made on nomination and ballot papers at parliamentary and local elections to the political or other allegiances of candidates, and to make provision to avoid inaccurate use of such allegiances.
  Since introducing a similar Motion last Session—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly.
  Mr. Coe: Since introducing a similar Motion last Session, I have been encouraged by the support I have received from both individuals and associations. Recent local elections have persuaded people that this matter is somewhat urgent. As we move towards larger units of local government, perhaps towards regional councils, it is impossible for electors personally to know all the candidates standing at an election. It is, therefore, inevitable that they vote according to the party allegiances of the candidates. The G.L.C. elections earlier this year provided electorates in excess of 200,000 and electors were expected to remember the names of up to four candidates from among as many as 21. This demands a prodigious feat of memory, but for many years before that, in parish and rural district councils, the number of candidates has been large, so that that problem is not new to local elections.
  One dramatic consequence to be observed at the G.L.C. elections was the large number of electors who did not use their full quota of votes. In some London boroughs, this was in excess of 10,000. I suggest that this was because those electors could not remember the names of all the candidates they wished to vote for so that, rather than vote for someone they would be against, they did not use their full quotas. This situation would be avoided if political allegiances were shown on the ballot papers.
  Again, there is some evidence that the alphabetical order on the ballot paper influences voting habits. The Bill would also avoid that difficulty. Where candidates have the same or similar names, an even more spectacular result can occur. Where—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for an hon. Member to address the House against a whole series of background conversations.
  Mr. Coe: As I was saying, where candidates have the same or similar names, the difficulties can be spectacular. The best example in the G.L.C. elections was at Wandsworth. There was a very well-known retiring Labour councillor called Pritchard. He got 6,000 votes less than his Labour colleagues on the ballot paper while a Liberal candidate also called Pritchard obtained 6,000 more votes than his Liberal colleagues. Thus, confusion over names can seriously affect results and this, too, would be avoided by the Bill.
  I have drawn examples from local government because the difficulty is most urgent there. My Bill, however, would also cover parliamentary elections. I draw the attention of the House to the confusion in Anglesey when, in 1955, on the ballot paper, there were three candidates called Hughes and one called Jones. In 1964, it was the other way round— there were three Joneses and one Hughes. In the light of possible confusion, I am sorry that Mr. Speaker's Conference has recently recommended no change and that political allegiances should not appear on the nomination and ballot papers of parliamentary elections.
  In my view, therefore, on the grounds of size of electorates, the dominant rôle of party politics today, the confusion which arises from large numbers of candidates, their places on the ballot papers and similarity of names, my Bill would be a practical way of helping the electors to vote for the candidates of their choice.
  While many people would accept the principle of the Bill, some believe that it would be difficult to carry out in practice. There is the danger that party labels might be used indiscriminately and, therefore, might cause more confusion. Equally, there is the task of adjudicating between labels, which could hardly be left to a returning officer. I believe that too much can be made of this, but in that it is a legitimate fear my Bill would endeavour to overcome these difficulties by the registration of party labels.
  The actual details could be further discussed in Committee, but broadly, the

  225
  first provision would be to change Schedules 2 and 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1949, so that political and other allegiances could be added to existing descriptions. Secondly, my Bill would provide for the registration of parties by the Registrar of Friendly Societies and this would enable a party or association which was so registered to have the sole use of that particular label. This would not hinder individuals from standing for election, because they would continue to be independent, and that would be shown by the fact that no political allegiance would appear after their names on the ballot paper.
  There is nothing new in this principle. It is followed in other countries which register parties and insert the allegiances of candidates on ballot papers, but, unlike some other countries, we would retain the right of individuals to stand for election without party assistance. It will be said that I wish to make voting too easy for the electorate who should know the names of candidates. To me, the important democratic act is when the Sectors go to the polling stations and put their crosses against the names of the candidates of their choice; and if my Bill helps them to do that, it is of some importance.
  Lastly, it is said that my Bill would recognise political parties. Indeed it would, and why not? Surely we should
  226
  have sufficient confidence in our political system to be prepared to recognise not only that political parties exist, but that our political system would fail if they did not. While party politics have their excesses, they also have their virtues in addition to being established fact. The Bill would, therefore, go some way to raise the status of parties in the eyes of the electorate and have a beneficial effect on the democratic system as a whole.
  For all those reasons I ask the House for leave to bring in a Bill which would be widely welcomed and would have a modest influence for good on our Parliamentary democracy.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Coe, Dr. Ernest A. Davies, Mr. Hamling, Mr. Alexander W. Lyon, Mr. Tinn, and Mr. David Watkins.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1949 (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2)
  Bill to enable reference to be made on nomination and ballot papers at parliamentary and local elections to the political or other allegiances of candidates, and to make provision to avoid inaccurate use of such allegiances, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 22nd March, 1968, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EDUCATION BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.3 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I would like, by way of introduction and because there seems to have been some misunderstanding on the point, to make one thing quite clear straight away. Although the Bill arises out of and is in a sense drafted in the terms of the interim injunction granted by the Court of Appeal in the case of Bradbury and Enfield Borough Council, its provisions will not affect in any way whatever the way in which the Enfield authority's proposals for the future of the eight schools involved in the case will be dealt with. These schools are being dealt with and will continue to be dealt with in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeal on the basis of the law as the court held it to be. There is nothing in the Bill to change that.
  To come now to the terms of the Bill, it is a short, but, I am afraid, rather technical Bill. To make things clearer, I have adopted the device of publishing in the Third Schedule the text of the relevant Sections of the 1944 Act as they would read were the Bill to become law. The Amendments proposed in the Bill are printed in heavy type.
  I think that it will assist the House if, before I describe the provisions of the Bill in detail, I explain briefly how the present legislation operates, which it is intended to amend or elaborate. Section 13 of the Education Act, 1944 requires that when a local education authority or the promoters of a voluntary school propose to establish a new school, or when a local education authority proposes to close an existing school, they must give public notices to this effect, so that inhabitants of the locality can, if they wish, submit objections to me. After a two months' interval for those objections, the proposal is subject to my approval. In most cases it is clear enough what is meant by the establishment of a new school, namely,
  228
  the setting up of a new education entity in a new set of buildings.
  The present Act also provides specifically for one type of change to an existing school being treated as the setting up of a new school. Under Section 67 of the Act, that is how an enlargement is treated if I determine that the resultant school is so different from the old that it can reasonably be considered a new school. Apart from this, it has been the practice throughout the currency of the 1944 Act—under every Administration— to treat most changes to existing schools as not constituting the setting up of a new school.
  The Court of Appeal ruled otherwise. It held that a change in the age range of the pupils of a school or a change in the sex composition of the pupils—even if this occurred in existing premises—was so fundamental as to constitute the discontinuance of the school and the setting up of a new one and thus required the publication of notices. On this basis, large numbers of schools, running into hundreds, now operating in the country have been established without complying with the requirements of the law as the Court of Appeal has now interpreted it. Not only secondary schools involved in reorganisation are affected. The separation of the infants' department of a primary school—if, as was almost always the case, no notices were given—would be an unlawfully established school.
  The full implications of the Court's judgment are not clear because it was not called upon to go into this. But we cannot exclude the possibility that any schools that were, under the Court's statement of the law, unlawfully established are now being unlawfully maintained by the local authority, which is unlawfully spending the taxpayers', or ratepayers', money on them. I am sure that the whole House will agree that we cannot leave the legal status of so many schools and the validity of the action of local education authorities in this state of doubt.
  The first purpose of the Bill will be to regularise the legal position of those schools. This is achieved by Clause 1 subsections (1) and (4). I make no apology for proposing this act of mass legitimisation. My predecessors of both parties—more on the other side of the

  229
  House than on this—and the local education authorities have acted in good faith in taking the decisions which have now been shown to be invalid. Their actions have not been a cause of great controversy and the schools in question are undistinguishable from those whose official birth was properly sanctified.
  Although this is in one sense retrospective legislation, it is not so in the sense that is often found objectionable by the House. The Bill does not render unlawful anything that was lawfully done. It does not deprive any individual of any legal rights vested in him. Nor does it —as I have explained—reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Bradbury and Enfield Borough Council.
  The next main purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the future. This is done by giving statutory force to the substance of the Court of Appeal's decision. If it is proposed to make any substantial change in the age range or sex composition of a school after the end of the summer term, 1968, notices must be issued and two months provided for objections to be made to the Secretary of State, who must, of course, consider them before coming to his decision. This is achieved by Clause 1(2) and (5).
  The Bill, in fact, extends the effects of the injunction by providing that any substantial change in the ability range of a school must in the same way be done by notice. The Court of Appeal held that the present law imposes no such obligation. I felt that the law should provide a statutory right to parents and others to object on the question that often concerns them most, namely, whether or not a school should become or remain comprehensive.
  Of course, all these provisions work both ways. Parents will have a right to object to any changes in the character of a school by way of alteration in its age range, sex composition or ability range, if it is proposed to make a selective school comprehensive. But they will have the same right to object if the opposite were proposed, namely, to make a comprehensive school selective. In both cases I would have to consider the objections and come to my conclusion.
  If such changes in the nature of a school were proposed for purposes other than those I have mentioned, the right of
  230
  objection would, of course, apply. It may be asked why we did not leave these matters to be settled in future according to the terms of the Court of Appeal's injunction. There are two reasons. One I have just mentioned, namely, the desirability of extending the right of objection to changes in the ability range of a school.
  The second reason is technical but very important. If, in the future, we went on the basis that a change in the character of a school is so fundamental as to constitute the closure of one school and its replacement by a new one and thus to bring Section 13 and its public notices into play—if we went on this basis, we would run into technical difficulties over changes to special agreement and controlled schools.
  These are matters of great detail which my right hon. Friend will explain if hon. Members wish to raise them further. But I can assure hon. Members that this is a point which makes necessary a change in the basis of the law as laid down by the Court of Appeal.
  But let me say again that the substance of the law as laid down by the Court of Appeal is not altered. Indeed, it is extended by the Bill. All that is done is that the effect of this judgment will in future rest upon a statutory basis, instead of upon the terms of the judgment. In this connection, I should refer to Schedule 1, paragraph 3, which should be read together with paragraph 5(c). This is a point which may have caused some concern to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  The effect is to give -the Secretary of State the power to decide whether a change in the character of a school or an enlargement of school premises is significant and, therefore, whether the notices procedure should come into play. The reason for this is exactly the same as the reason why the 1944 Act gave the Minister the power to decide whether an enlargement of a school was substantial, namely, that the absence of such a power would lead to doubt and delay.
  I am referring here only to changes in the character of a school which, in fact, continues in existing buildings. The Bill does not affect the existing provisions in regard to a new educational entity in new buildings or out-and-out changes

  231
  such as turning a boys' school into a girls' school or a secondary school into a primary school.
  The Bill, however, provides, in Clause 1(1), that other changes in size and character should not be regarded as replacing an old school by a new one. Nevertheless, under the Bill, such changes, if significant, will be subject to the process of publication of notices and representations.
  Sir Edward Boyle: I have one important question here. Why is there discretion in the Bill, in Clause 1(1,b)? Why does the right hon. Gentleman make this sharp distinction between turning a boys' school into a girls' school or vice versa, as compared with turning a boys' school into a mixed school?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: This is because that was really the terms of the judgment given by the Court of Appeal, which talked about a change in the sex composition. I quite agree that, if this is not provided for in the Bill, it certainly ought to be. This would be a change in the sex composition and this is what I am intending to provide for in the Bill. If we find that this is so it could be amended in Committee. I am certainly not intending to exclude a change that really does amount to a change in the sex composition of a school.
  Paragraph 5 of the First Schedule defines "significant" in relation to a change in the character or size of a school as implying a substantial change in the function or size of the school. The concept of a substantial change in the function of a school is a new one, which, I think, would be helpful.
  The need for such discretion arises out of the wide gamut of changes that can be made in the character and size of a school. At one end, for instance, there might be a change from a single sex to a mixed school. That would clearly be a substantial change in the function of the school and the notices procedure would apply.
  At the other end of the scale it might be proposed to admit a small number of girls to the sixth form of a boys' school, for instruction in a particular subject not available in their own school,
  232
  or two neighbouring single sex schools might wish to organise joint arrangements for giving special help to backward pupils. Equally, quite small changes might be made in the premises of a school that did not substantially increase the number of pupils in it.
  It would be idiotic to go through the notices procedure with its two months' delay before quite minor changes in the character or size of a school could be made. But unless L.E.A.s could be given decisions by the Secretary of State about what amounted to significant changes, they might, to avoid challenge in the courts, go through the whole notices procedure for every change they made, however insignificant. This might well cause serious delay in local administration in regard to a whole range of desirable small changes which ought to be made quickly.
  If the Bill becomes law, I shall give L.E.A.s some general guidance on this subject. Any change about whose significance there might be any doubt would be referred to my Department.
  The Bill makes some change, in Clause 2, in regard to school premises and the securing of proper standards of accommodation. Under the existing law, when proposals for a new school have been approved under Section 13(4) of the 1944 Act, the local education authority or other persons are required to submit for my approval, plans and specifications of the premises to be provided. Here, again, the Bill does not alter the law where new schools in brand-new premises are concerned, or where a school is established in new premises not previously used as a school, such as a country house.
  The changes made by the Bill relate to the establishment of a new school in premises which were in use as a school at the time when the proposals for the new school were approved. In such cases it will be for me to decide whether plans and specifications should be supplied by the local education authority. There is no point in requiring such plans and specifications in regard to premises when no change is being made.
  I should, of course, require plans and specifications when alterations to the premises are proposed, or in cases when I may not already have sufficient information. This change is effected by Clause 2(1, a).

  233
  The Secretary of State has always had power to relax the prescribed standards of schools in certain circumstances. The proviso to Section 10(2) of the 1944 Act and Section 7(2,b) of the 1948 Act enabled the Minister to relax the standards if this was necessary because, in the words of the Act, of a
  " shortage of labour and materials ".
  These words may have been appropriate in the post-war period—but everyone knows that the rate at which school premises are brought up to standard is governed by the school building programme, which, in its turn, is dependent upon the Government's policy with regard to the control of public expenditure. By the use of suitable words in Clause 2(3), the Bill brings things up to date by stating the true ground on which the Secretary of State may have to relax standards.
  By Clause 2(2) the Bill also puts right the anomaly that a dispensation given in respect of premises of an existing school lapses and cannot be renewed, if these premises are taken over by a new school.
  There are a number of other detailed points, some of which my hon. Friend will deal with at the end of the debate together with any points that hon. Members may raise. There are also points which we would take up in Committee. Meanwhile, I commend to the House the principle of this Bill, which is a useful and in some ways an important Measure. It is absolutely essential if we are to avoid doubts about the past and intractable difficulties in the future.
  I am sure that the clarification and extension of the law, and the simplification and modernisation of our procedures proposed in the Bill, will be beneficial to all who are concerned in the running and organisation of our schools.
  4.20 p.m.
  Sir Edward Boyle: I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for his exposition of the Bill. As he says, it is a short Bill, but it has a technical and, indeed, fairly formidable appearance. I should like to thank him for the drafting decision to include the revised Sections of the 1944, 1946 and 1948 Acts as Schedule 3 to the Bill.
  I would also underline very much what the right hon. Gentleman said about the
  234
  guidance which needs to be sent to local authorities when the Bill is passed through Parliament. I venture to say to him that something more than the normal circular will be needed. Local authorities should have a detailed explanation of the implications of the Bill.
  The other initial remark which I should like to make is this. I do not want to spend a lot of time in going over the past, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would disagree that in all probability we should not have had the Bill today if the Enfield parents had not forced the issue. I wish to make two comments on that episode. First, what caused us on this side of the House most concern was not simply the legal aspect of the Enfield affair, but the fact that the right hon. Gentleman laid himself open to the charge in the courts of acting in a "thoroughly unreasonable manner in the circumstances."
  Mr. Gordon Walker: That decision does not have any relationship to the Bill at all. The Bill arises from the decision in the case of Bradbury and the Enfield Borough Council. The case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers has no relationship to the Bill whatsoever.
  Sir E. Boyle: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman is literally accurate, because Schedule 1, paragraph 2, deals with the question of articles of government.
  Secondly, I think, that the world outside should be clear that the Bill does not in any way strengthen the powers of the Secretary of State against an authority which does not wish to reorganise its existing schools. It is important to be clear that the Bill does not touch on that issue. I make that point because it was only last Thursday, I think, that the right hon. Gentleman emphasised, in answer to a Question, that
  " we cannot afford money at the moment for any large-scale building of comprehensive schools."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 1653.]
  In these circumstances, we on this side of the House are very glad that, at a time when there is not money to enable viable comprehensive schemes to be provided, the right hon. Gentleman is not taking fresh powers against authorities concerned about their existing schools.

  235
  Having said those few words on what the Bill does not do, I should like next to follow the Secretary of State and deal with the principal function which the Bill performs. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Bill gives statutory force to the Court of Appeal's decision. The purpose of the Bill was lucidly expressed by Sir William Alexander, in last week's edition of the A.E.C.'s journal Education.
  He said:
  "… the Bill acknowledges the grievances ventilated at Enfield, and concedes to parents, local government electors, and other third parties, the right to lodge objections to proposals for a significant change in the character or size of existing schools, by requiring specific notices of any such proposals under Section 13 "—
  subsection (3), I think—
  " even though the proposals do not constitute the establishment of a new school or ceasing to maintain an existing school."
  This is an important change in the law, and, speaking as a former Minister, it clarifies what has hitherto always been a somewhat difficult and perplexing issue for Ministers: exactly what in the old days was the precise ambit of Section 13 of the 1944 Act and when should local government electors, parents and others, have the opportunity to lodge objections in accordance with the procedure of subsection (3)? For myself, I always found this a somewhat difficult issue. My own bias, when in doubt, was always on the side of giving parents and others the opportunity to lodge objections.
  I do not blame the Secretary of State, because he could act only on the advice which he was given, but I think that perhaps he went a little far in suggesting that on all the points at issue in Clause 1 there had never been any questioning of the legal position in the old days. If he will look—I will not take up the time of the House with the point now—some time at a debate which we had in April, 1957, on the subject of a change at Aylesbury from a mixed school to a single sex school, he will find that I then regarded it as a Section 13 matter. But the point is that the issue is now being clarified once for all. I would advise my hon. Friends to look on Clause 1(2) as an important clarifying step which the House should welcome.
  236
  Something on which I should like some more information from the right hon. Lady the Minister of State when she replies is this. Clearly, the force of Clause 1(2) depends very much on the word "significant". What is to rank as a "significant" change? I feel that the more specific the Department can be on this point, the better for the whole education service.
  As I understand, and as I understood the speech of the Secretary of State, there is no doubt that a change from a single sex school to a mixed school, or vice versa, will constitute a significant change. Likewise, a change from either a selective school or a secondary modern school to a comprehensive school will constitute a significant change. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point that the opposite way round equally applies. We on this side of the House would recognise that. I imagine that a change from any form of existing secondary school to what is usually called a sixth form college would be regarded as a significant change.
  I ask that, because it is exactly at the margin that these matters are important. When the Leicestershire scheme was introduced, 10 years ago, the Leicestershire grammar schools, instead of being selective schools from 11 to 18, became grammar schools with an age range of from 14 to 18. I think that change was not regarded at the time as requiring the invoking of the Section 13(3) procedure. However, I should have thought that if the age range of a school was changed from 11 to 18 and it became a sixth form college that would be a significant change.
  Mr. Christopher Price: Is not the right hon. Gentleman contradicting himself? Although the Leicestershire grammar schools changed their age range only quite slightly, surely they changed from being selective to non-selective schools and yet were allowed to be exempt from issuing Section 13 notices.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: That was the then law.
  Sir E. Boyle: Yes, and on second thoughts, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that for the reason which he has given this should count as a significant change.

  237
  There are two other types of change which are important. First, let us remember that the Bill presumably also applies to primary schools; it is not solely concerned with secondary schools. Therefore, a change from 5 to 7 to 5 to 11 would be a significant change. Lastly, some of us on this side of the House and some local authorities would particularly like to know more about the position of the middle schools under the Bill. How are the schools with age ranges of 8 to 12 or 9 to 13 placed for purposes of the Bill? I imagine that they will be covered, but I think that their position under Section 13(3), and also the standards and specifications required for them, should have their proper statutory provision in our educational legislation.
  There is also the question of what constitutes a "significant enlargement". Here, I think, I know the answer, but perhaps the right hon. Lady could just confirm this. I think that for the purposes of Section 67(4) we have always recognised 25 per cent, as being a significant enlargement, and that would seem to me a perfectly reasonable scale to continue to operate.
  Having spoken about Clause 1(2), I should now like just to say something about subsection (1). As I understand it—and I think that the right hon. Gentleman may agree that on this the Bill is somewhat technical—it is exactly here that we meet the essential point in the drafting of the Bill, and it is that the Bill makes a distinction between the procedure for notices under Section 13(3) of the 1944 Act and the procedure for establishing a new school involving as it does the submission of plans and specifications. That is to say, the whole point about Clause 1 is that certain changes do not involve the establishment of a new school even though they do justify the operation of the notices procedure under Section 13(3).
  It is at this point that I come back to my question which, I think, I may have put to the right hon. Gentleman wrongly just now, and if I did I apologise. On Clause 1(1), I still am a little bothered about paragraph (b), which says, in effect, that a school is not to be regarded as a new school simply because it has been a mixed school and is now a single sex school or vice-versa.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I agree that this is highly technical. Subsection (1, a, b, c) is dealing with the past. This is retrospective, and it has to be read with subsection (4), which says:
  " Subsection (1) above shall be deemed to have had effect since the beginning of April 1945 "
  up to today. This is the one which clears up the doubts which have arisen owing to the decision. It is only when we get to subsection (2) that we are dealing with the future.
  Sir E. Boyle: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that that subsection (1) is to be read in conjunction with subsection (4). Of course, I must accept what he says, and also that this is a matter which we can more profitably pursue in Committee.
  But I am, as I say, concerned on this general point, that we should not make a distinction between, on the one hand a direct change of sex and, on the other, a change from single sex to mixed or vice versa. I mention this because we know very well that while the comprehensive issue is most in our minds today, the question of single sex and mixed schools can create extremely strong feeling in local authority areas.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Any sex change.
  Sir E. Boyle: Any sex change, exactly.
  On the retrospective issue, that is, Clause 1(4), I accept, of course, the right hon. Gentleman's general point that the Bill does not render unlawful anything which has previously been done in good faith and thought to be lawful. We can discuss that subsection upstairs. I have always personally believed, as a former Financial Secretary, that there is, as it were, a spectrum of retrospective situations which can arise; certainly, one felt this about Finance Bills. I do not wish to take up a strong position on this subject this afternoon.
  One rather interesting point was raised, again, I think, in Education: was there any danger to authorities which had already done as Enfield proposed without issuing notices if challenged on a district audit for spending money to maintain schools which had been established illegally? Perhaps we can have it confirmed that should that eventuality arise it is something which is seen to by the

  239
  relevant Sections—I think Section 228 and Section 230—of the Local Government Act. 1933.
  Before coming to my concluding remarks, I should like to say something on the subject of Clause 2. Here, I must confess to the right hon. Gentleman that I am a little less happy about what he is proposing. As I understand the situation, it is this. Section 10 of the 1944 Act imposes on the local education authority a duty to secure that the schools which it maintains shall conform to the standards prescribed in the regulations made by the Secretary of State, and the latest regulations are the Standards for School Premises Regulations, 1959, but Section 7 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1948, entitles the Secretary of State to approve plans for a new school in existing buildings if he is satisfied that
  " having regard to the shortage of labour or materials it would be unreasonable to require conformity with a requirement of the regulations relating to buildings ".
  I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman that those words have a rather old-fashioned ring these days. They reflect the fact that in 1948, immediately after the war, it was shortage of materials which was most in our minds —indeed, this was a long time before the present system of control of capital expenditure took its existing form. I think that none of us would attempt to deny that some reform of those words is needed, but I must say that the right hon. Gentleman's proposition just to replace them with
  " having regard to the need to control public expenditure in the interests of the national economy "—
  simply to use those words to give him an unqualified dispensation from making comprehensive schools in existing buildings conform to the 1967 standards, is, I think, to give too wide a latitude.
  May I put it this way to the House? I think that I shall have on this the support of all my hon. Friends. I certainly have never taken the position and I do not take it this afternoon, that it is always wrong to reorganise existing schools and always wrong to have comprehensive plans for existing school buildings which do not conform to the 1967 building regulations. Such a view
  240
  as that would be quite unrealistic and would rule out a number of perfectly sound reorganisation schemes. I should like to make it plain that I am not asking for anything so restrictive as that.
  At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, and many hon. Members opposite must be aware, that even among those who are not unsympathetic to the general direction today in secondary education—even among them—there is a great deal of concern about comprehensive plans which involve existing buildings, and, of course, particularly so when the buildings themselves are widely separated. I am not trying to evoke prejudice on this matter, but I heard only very recently of one comprehensive plan involving buildings which are two miles apart.
  That sort of thing really does cause very great concern, and the degree to which comprehensive proposals fall short of the 1967 building standards for new schools, is, I think, a matter which legitimately does cause anxiety; I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that his proposed words give him really too much latitude and that we should have something more like:
  " Provided that if the Secretary of State is satisfied… that, having regard to the need to control public expenditure in the interests of the national economy, the proposals of the authority sufficiently approximate to the standards of the regulations relating to new school buildings ";
  something, in other words, which makes it clear that where a local education authority is planning to bring about a reorganised school in existing buildings, we should aim to get as near as we can to the standards for new comprehensive schools.
  Of course, as the House will agree, these are all matters which we can take up profitably in Committee. My present feeling is that we on this side of the House should welcome Clause 1, with the statutory force that it gives in subsection (2) to the Court of Appeal's judgment. This is something which clarifies the law in a valuable way. I feel rather less happy about the ambit of the dispensation which the right hon. Gentleman takes to himself in Clause 2(3).
  In conclusion, I would just say this. I have always believed that the law of education is important. We, all of us, including Ministers, move within its

  241
  framework. Education is about institutions and, among others things, about the legal rights of individuals, of parents, of local government electors. At the same time, no change in the law can make up for the lack of wise policy. Ultimately, the value of this Statute must lie not just in its legal provisions, but in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman or any other Minister operates it, especially Clause 1.
  I am one of those who still think that it is right that education should be a local government service. We have to establish the conditions of partnership between central Government and local government in this sphere of activity, as in many others. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is a good deal of feeling today that, with many reorganisation plans, there has been inadequate consultation. One reads criticisms of local schemes on educational grounds from sources which cannot be regarded as biased. The party opposite hooted at me the other day when I spoke to the Enfield Association for the Advancement of State Education. However, that Association is a totally non-political body which is by no means biased against comprehensive schools. As its chairman, Margaret Jepson, has written:
  " The majority of our members are in favour of comprehensive education."
  In her letter, she goes on to say:
  " We have been critical of the local scheme because we have been concerned not only with the ending of selection, but also with the quality of education to be offered in the new schools."
  Ultimately, the justification for any education proposals and the success of the workings of any Statute, must be measured by the way in which both central and local government co-operate together towards what is educationally right. We on this side of the House accept that the trend of educational opinion is rightly against patterns which involve segregation at the ages of 11 or 12. None the less, I believe that we shall see before us years in which it will be of special importance both for central and local government to exercise a great deal of trouble, and a certain amount of mutual forebearance, in the devising of plans which are educationally sound.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do all that he can to make local authorities, parents and all those con-
  242
  cerned with the service feel that educational values must be paramount—and that is vital—so that as many parents as possible can feel that the law, along with policy and financial resources, is being used for the benefit of individual children, to the advantage of the nation, and for their personal fulfilment as well.
  4.44 p.m.
  Mr. Austen Albu: I begin by giving a brief welcome to this very necessary piece of legislation, and perhaps I might draw attention to the very different tone of today's debate from that in which the matter from which it arises was last discussed, on 12th May.
  This may no doubt be because, on this occasion, the Opposition are represented principally by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), whose interest in education and whose deep feeling for its real meaning is fully appreciated on this side of the House, and not, as on the last occasion, by the two Conservative Members for the constituencies in the Borough of Enfield, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) and the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), who made nothing but party political speeches.
  Now that legislation is being introduced which clarifies the law and quite rightly extends and makes clear the rights of objections by parents, I hope that the education authority in Enfield will be allowed to get on with its job.
  As my right hon. Friend said, this is not a Bill to protect the Enfield education authority. As the town clerk of the borough has put it, in a sense Enfield was a guinea pig which suffered from the disease of litigation in order to gain its immunity. The Bill will now vaccinate the many other authorities which may be in danger of suffering from the same disease.
  No one wants to prevent reasonable objection by parents who have doubts about the plans being proposed by a local education authority for closing schools, opening schools or changing the nature of existing schools. But it must be said that the campaign which was waged against the Enfield scheme by a very small number of parents, supported by an association and petitions with signatures collected from widely outside

  243
  the borough, in addition to the support given to it by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West and an ex-Conservative candidate, was based on a fundamental hostility to the system of comprehensive education itself.
  On the other hand, it is the popularity of comprehensive education and the hostility to the selective system which has led the right hon. Member for Handsworth to support the moves towards a system of comprehensive education in this country and to resist pressures from more reactionary members of his party who demonstrated so clearly at their party conference this year and again when the Conservatives won the Greater London Council. If anyone doubts that I draw attention to the petition which has been drawn up by the Enfield Parents' Association and for which signatures are being subscribed by citizens in the Borough of Enfield. It bears a very large number of signatures, and the number is growing.
  Sir E. Boyle: If the hon. Gentleman is under the impression that my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) is a doctrinaire opponent of comprehensive education, he has been misinformed. My right hon. Friend has a thriving comprehensive in his constituency at Potters Bar, which, in fact, he opened himself. In his speech, his concern was with the nature of the Enfield plan. It is a concern which I have myself expressed, as has the Enfield Association for the Advancement of State Education.
  Mr. Albu: The Enfield Association for the Advancement of State Education is a new body, and some of its objections are based on a lack of information about what is taking place, which is not surprising as it is such a new body. However, the complaints which it is making about the conditions in some schools are already out of date and, in a few months' time, will be completely out of date as the schools are brought up to standard. Meanwhile, I am concerned about the effect on the children themselves, and I have no doubt that these demands and the uncertainties about the future of education in the Borough of Enfield are harmful to the children.
  The Enfield Teachers' Association has expressed its concern about the tem-
  244
  porary arrangements being made for the pupils affected by the injunction, and I urge my right hon. Friend to give his decision on the schools as soon as possible, so that the council can implement its comprehensive plan at the earliest opportunity and both teachers and parents shall know exactly what sort of schools there, will be in the borough to which their children can go. The parents of those children who are already going to schools where the change has taken place have expressed considerable satisfaction.
  The improvement in the law which is made in the Bill is welcomed by us all. It is a technical piece of legislation, and there are some difficulties in understanding it fully. I take the points made by the right hon. Member for Handsworth, but I do not accept them entirely, especially that which he makes about Clause 2. However, now that the Bill is to become law, apparently with unanimous approval, I hope that the authorities who are trying to get on with improving their systems of education will be allowed to do so without the sort of partisan intervention which I cannot help feeling took place in the Borough of Enfield.
  4.51 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Silvester: The constituency to which I have just been elected is diminishing in size— the Boundary Commission is constantly looking at it with reforming zeal—but the House will agree that it is showing in its old age a continued independence of spirit. Part of this is due to the work of former Members and candidates, whose work I have the honour to inherit. The House will know that Earl Attlee one represented Walthamstow, West.
  I want to say something special about my immediate predecessor, Mr. Redhead. It is appropriate that this occasion should have arisen in an education debate. Mr. Redhead was Member for Walthamstow, West for 11 years. In that time he espoused many causes, but he had a special interest in education, and I know that his period of office as Minister of State for Education was a great joy to him. The House will know better than I the considerable contribution which he made as a Member, and I add my tribute to the work that he did in Walthamstow. He served for many years both on the

  245
  council and in the House. He was, therefore, in a unique position to look after the interests of his constituents, which his did unstintingly. He was always forwarding their advantage. I suppose that we disagreed on almost every political issue we ever discussed, but it is an honour to recall his service to the people whom I now represent.
  This Bill is, in many respects, non-controversial. One aspect which particularly engages my attention and receives my support is that it seems to be safeguarding the local involvement in education. The trouble that I find with most debates on education is that it is much easier to discuss the theory than the practice. The strongest influences in education are the state of the buildings, the quality of the staff and the encouragement of pupils in their homes. These are essentially specific, detailed and local matters. It is, therefore, of great importance that we should give maximum emphasis to local opinion in matters concerning education.
  I am glad that this Bill recognises, to some extent, the importance of local involvement. It makes clear that public notice will now be required and local objections may now be given where changes in the character of a school are involved. This, I think, is good. However, as I think was said earlier, the important thing will not so much be the legal safeguards which will be operated as a result of this Bill, but the attitude of mind which will govern the administration of education under the law.
  One thing of which we can be sure is that quite small groups of people are affected by decisions in education. We should not, therefore, concern ourselves simply with the numbers of people involved; but with the local susceptibilities on quite a narrow scale.
  This Bill arises out of the Enfield situation. I will not go into that again. One thing which struck me about the Enfield affair was that the activities of the parents were motivated by a feeling of frustration in that decisions were being rushed through and they were not, therefore, able to play a meaningful part in the future plans of the schools involved. To some extent, this feeling exists in Waltham Forest, where both the Minister's constituency and my own are situated. There have been many dis-
  246
  cussions, but they have always been in the nature of trying to wring minor concessions from a predetermined plan rather than a debate on the question: What form should secondary education take in this borough bearing in mind its peculiarities, its resources, and its traditions?
  I ask hon. Members opposite to believe that when I speak of delay and tireless discussion about schemes of comprehensive education, it is not from a desire to kill them off. The Minister last Thursday said that there was a general tide in favour of comprehensive education. I think he is probably right. I doubt the wisdom of this in many respects, but I accept it. However. I can see no great case for rushing. There is not enough public interest in education.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Nonsense.
  Mr. Silvester: I think it is true that there is not enough public interest in education, or at least we can agree that we would like more of it. If we rush too much we may damage any enthusiasm which has been aroused, and demoralise those people who devote trouble and time to education. This is something we should seriously seek to avoid.
  There is another danger in rushing. We cannot over-emphasise the importance of established schools for the tradition of education in the localities in which they are situated. For many people—particularly working class families and their children—the schools which have existed over a large number of years have been their first major contact with the importance of education. The parental support which some of these schools get is a very real factor in the enthusiasm which parents can give to their children and to their educational development. New schools will in time develop just that same support—I would not suggest otherwise—but it seems to be a danger to try and do this in one go over the whole of the local authority area. There are advantages in going slowly.
  There are plenty of cases where urgency is required in education. Nursery schools in high flats is one. An understanding of what to do with the extra year when the school-leaving age is raised is another. If the Minister would like to celebrate my

  247
  maiden speech with an act of generosity, I can suggest some capital works in Walthamstow, West which we should be delighted to have.
  What I am trying to make clear about rushing is that, even if one is a convinced supporter of comprehensive education, there can be nothing but good to come out of a state of mind which will permit one to take it at a more realistic pace. The corollary is that if one goes at a more measured pace and does not stimulate local offence, it may be necessary to recognise that, for a period of years at least, the organisation of secondary education may not be uniform over a whole local government area.
  The Minister's reactions to the I.L.E.A. proposal will be interesting, because this is just such a proposal in which comprehensive, grammar, junior and senior high schools and some other secondary schools, and, I believe, sixth form colleges, are planned to subsist together. I believe that is possible. I do not believe that there will necessarily be any administrative chaos.
  It will be recalled that in 1965 in the I.L.E.A. it was possible for parents to have a free choice of the schools to which they wanted their children to go. I understand that it was possible for the authority to place 85 per cent, of the children in the schools of their first choice. That was arrived at by parents and teachers discussing the matter together. There is a lot more sense than people give credit for in the way in which parents approach the education of their children.
  I have taken up the time of the House long enough. I am very glad that this Bill has been brought forward. It will certainly have my support. I would add that, in the carrying out of this massive programme of reform of secondary education, we should be prepared to accept concessions to local feelings both in the matter of the speed with which we take it forward and the willingness to accept variety in the forms of education in local authority areas, at least for a certain period of time.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Forrester: I am pleased to have the honour of following the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester). I am
  248
  sure that the House joins me in congratulating him on a most interesting maiden speech. He is obviously well versed in the matters which he has brought to our attention, and he has given us much food for thought, even though some of my hon. Friends would not agree with everything that he said. The hon. Gentleman referred to his constituency and paid tribute to his predecessor, who, I am sure, was well respected on both sides of the House and served his constituents with great distinction. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be remembered by those who listened to him and by those who read them. We hope that he will join in these debates on many occasions in the future.
  I would like to turn away from the main issue of Enfield and all the surrounding issues and address my remarks to how some of the changes in the character of schools will affect the primary sector of education and to express some fears about this.
  We tend to think in terms of changes of school buildings between secondary, grammar and comprehensive schools, and to overlook the effect which this may have on the primary schools. The Plowden Committee suggested that the primary school sector should range from 5 to 12 instead of from 5 to 11. This will mean that in many local education authority areas the main burden of raising the school-leaving age to 16 will fall not on the secondary schools but on the infant schools. This will be especially so with local education authorities such as that at Stoke-on-Trent, which has embraced the sixth form college approach to a comprehensive secondary system of education.
  If a purpose-built sixth form college is erected, with a four-year course, as now, in the secondary school, the effect will be that a number of secondary school buildings will become surplus to requirements. One cannot imagine that the new glass and concrete palaces will be those which will be discarded by education authorities, but rather that a number of the smaller, older type of secondary schools which have outlived their usefulness will be put on the market. Local authorities will have to decide whether to sell these buildings, to lease them, or to use them in some other sector of the education service in their cities or boroughs.

  249
  The primary school of the future, with a four-year course, although with a different age range from that which now exists, could be affected from the point of view of accommodation, because it is this type of school which is already overcrowded and understaffed. I shall be interested to see whether an 11 to 12 year class in the new middle school will qualify for a teacher-pupil ratio of 1 to 30, or whether it will have to come down to the primary standard of 1 to 40. It will be an interesting exercise, to which we look forward. If it is the former, with an increase in the school population, more accommodation will be needed in tie primary schools.
  These schools are not unused to receiving second-hand furniture and equipment, and perhaps they will not be unduly perturbed if they are expected to receive secondhand buildings as well. Although we in the primary school sector believe that education is like one big family and that a good family shares its belongings, we object to being looked on as the poor relation who must live off the charity of its elders, or perhaps even receive crumbs from the rich man's table.
  The infants' school will be expected to provide full three-year courses. This means that they will need even more accommodation, as they will bear the main brunt of raising the school-leaving age. The extra accommodation may come from secondary schools which are no longer required, and approval for this will have to be sought from the Minister under the terms of this Bill. In the past the temptation has been to say, "This will do for the primary schools. They will have to manage until we can afford to give them something better". I hope that the Minister will resist any attempt by local authorities to build up superior accommodation for the secondary sector of education, at the expense of the primary school, and will not allow any old building to be designated a primary school because a secondary school no longer wants it. I know that my right hon. Friend will forgive my suspicion, but it has been acquired after many years in primary schools and watching them fall further and further behind their secondary brothers.
  I wonder whether, in fixing its targets for raising the school-leaving age, my right hon. Friend's Department based
  250
  its calculations on what it expected from Plowden and concentrated its efforts on the primary sector, or whether we are catering for new secondary accommodation which may not be needed but which will release these older buildings on which the Minister's decision will be required at some time in the future.
  I am not convinced that the Government or local authorities are paying other than lip-service to the cause of parity between the primary and the secondary sphere. I know that it is a comparatively short time since the introduction of the Plowden Report. I know, too, that the neglect of 20 years in the primary sector cannot be righted in a matter of 20 months, but the primary schools would like real evidence of the good will and intentions of the Government and local authorities in this direction. I think that the ideal opportunity for this was lost during the last salary negotiations, which, incidentally, came after Plowden. It became clear then that the powers that be did not recognise the very strong feeling in the schools amongst the teachers against the injustice of the primary-secondary differential, and it has taken this unprecedented action by the teachers to make this point stick. It is for these reasons that I want the Minister to show great wisdom and discretion in using his powers under Section 7(1,c) of the 1948 Education Act, as it will be amended by the Bill.
  According to the Press, my right hon. Friend has announced that there will be cuts in public expenditure. No doubt everyone could suggest areas in which cuts might be made, and we could all sit down and agree to differ about our suggestions. In the past the need to control public expenditure in the interests of the national economy has been to the detriment of the primary sector. I appeal to the Minister not to let any emergency work in the same way in the future. Suffer we will in the primary schools if we must, but let us suffer together, and suffer equally.
  5.9 p.m.
  Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I am delighted to be the first hon. Member on this side of the House to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) on his able maiden speech. I am sure that we all enjoyed listening to him, and look

  251
  forward to hearing him again on many occasions.
  It is with some trepidation that I rise to speak, because although since my return to the House I have spoken during proceedings in Committee, this is the first time that I have taken part in a Second Reading debate.
  To make one's maiden speech is one of the worst ordeals which one can undergo and I can assure hon. Members that to make a second maiden speech on a return trip is just as agonising. I have been very lucky, because for five years I had the honour to represent Newcastle, East and I was very happy there. Apparently, in 1964 the electors were not as happy with me as I was with them and I had to go. Earlier this year, the people of Brierley Hill took a chance on me and I have become a Midlander. I will live in the constituency, not just to help me in my constituency work, but because I have found such friendship and honesty there that I want to live among the people I represent.
  Brierley Hill is an enormous constituency, with 87,000 electors, which is growing all the time. It has an enormous industrial area, great new housing estates, a commuter belt of people who work in the Black Country and live in more pleasant surroundings, and an agricultural area. It is a microcosm, with just about everything. I pay my tribute to my predecessor, the late John Talbot, whose sudden death caused so much shock to so many people. He represented the constituency for seven years and did an enormous amount during that time to help the people whom he represented.
  I wanted to speak on a subject related to education, because for nine years I taught in State schools. Having taken the Bill home to read, I began to wonder whether I had been well—advised, since I found it almost unintelligible. I wondered whether my faculties had deteriorated or whether the draftsmen were much brighter than the common man—
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): That certainly is not so. We are all in the same boat over this.
  Mr. Montgomery: I am glad to hear that, because the more I read, the less I felt I understood.
  252
  The Bill was undoubtedly conceived because of the Enfield case. Writing in Education Sir William Alexander said:
  " This Enfield Bill, as it will come to be called, gives effect to the promise made by the Secretary of State, which was that he would not appeal against the interlocutory injunctions granted by the Court …"
  This comes about because of the valiant fight of the Enfield parents. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) who felt that it was all the parents' fault that there was trouble in Enfield. Had it not been for their fight, we should not have this legislation, because, by their actions and their determination, they showed that the rights of parents have to be heeded. Practically every hon. Member will agree with that.
  The Government have only themselves to blame. I do not blame the present Secretary of State, because he was not in charge at the time of the issue of Circular 10/65, which is one of the root causes of the trouble and the political bitterness in education today. I deplore this, because, as far as possible, education should not be a political subject. That circular asked local education authorities to prepare a completely new secondary school system within a year, but without any extra money.
  Some people are completely opposed to comprehensive schools—we must face this fact—but an enormous number of people are opposed to getting what they call comprehensive education "on the cheap."They are perfectly happy about purpose-built comprehensive schools serving an area. What they are deeply unhappy about is having linked together two schools, perhaps one or two miles apart, which are then called a comprehensive school. Circular 10/65 was a thoroughly bad circular and the party opposite will soon realise the wisdom of the saying" Act in haste: repent at leisure", although, since my return, I have seen little sign of repentance by hon. Members opposite.
  The Bill comes about because of the actions of the Enfield parents. They were astonished at the speed with which the local council and the Department moved. They were not the only ones, because anyone who has ever dealt with Government Departments knows that they usually take a very long time to

  253
  act. Then, the London Borough Council elections were postponed until May of next year. After the losses inflicted on the party opposite in April and May of this year, one realises why. I can assure them, however, that the holocaust has only been delayed and we will wait with interest to see how the people give judgment on the way in which they were deprived of their right to vote this year.
  In view of all this, the Enfield parents felt that their ony recourse was to fight their battle in the courts. The courts decided that, for eight schools in Enfield, no public notices in accordance with Section 13 of the 1944 Education Act had been issued, because the Council said that the Minister had advised it that no notices were required for those schools. As Lord Denning rightly said:
  " The advice of the Minister is not law."
  Now we have this Bill, aimed at clearing up the confusion. If it becomes law, it will concede the point raised by the Enfield parents and will give parents and local government electors the right to lodge objections to any proposals to make changes in the character and size of existing schools by requiring specific notices of such proposals under Section 13 although they do not constitute the establishment of new schools.
  The Bill goes even further, because Clause 1(4) proposes that it should operate retrospectively to 1st April, 1945, which was when the 1944 Act came into effect. Generally, I am opposed to retrospective legislation, which worries me, but I agree in this case with the Minister and with the editorial in Education on 1st September, 1967:
  " What about authorities which have already done as Enfield proposed without issuing notices?…Will they be challenged at a district audit for spending money on maintained schools which have been established illegally?"
  In fairness, to safeguard these people, who acted in good faith, this legislation must certainly be retrospective.
  Clause 2 deals with standards of school building. The 1944 Act contained the phrase, "… having regard to the shortage of labour or materials ". Of course, in the immediate post-war years, shortage of labour and materials was of great importance, but times have changed and it was no doubt right to delete those words and insert instead:
  254
  "… having regard to the need to control public expenditure in the interests of the national economy…"
  This makes sense, because we can spend on education only what the national economy can afford. If we can strengthen the economy, we will be able to afford more, and I am very worried whether the present economic crisis will mean that we will not be able to spend sufficient to keep the expanding educational building programme which the country needs.
  I return in conclusion to my complaint—it is obviously that of the Minister of State as well—that I found the Bill almost unintelligible. I was consoled not only by what the right hon. Lady said but by the fact that almost every educational journal has complained about this. I would commend to the right hon. Gentleman an extract from the current edition of The Times Educational Supplement, which states:
  " A study of the new Education Bill has given rise to strong observations from the National Secular Society. 'The least literate of Ministries,' it says, ' has now produced a Bill which will be intelligible only to minds that have never emerged from fetid bureaucratic cellars'."
  Since I found it unintelligible to begin with, that extract raised my morale no end because for once I was on the side of the angels.
  5.20 p.m.
  Mr. Christopher Price: Anybody who has seen the Department of Education and Science may have some sympathy with the National Secular Society when it describes the Bill as having emerged from "fetid bureaucratic cellars ", for the accommodation into which we put our education civil servants is some of the very worst in Government Departments.
  My first comments must be about the Enfield judgments. It has been wisely said that the Bill is unintelligible, but I suggest that it is a picture of clarity compared with some of Mr. Justice Donaldson's judgments which he handed down last summer in his various pronouncements about Enfield Grammar School, particularly about building regulations. It is not right or proper in this place to criticise judgments made in the High Court, but I believe that those judgments were such that it was perfectly right that a Bill should have been immediately introduced to clear up a lot

  255
  of muddle which was created simply by the very perverse decisions of Mr. Justice Donaldson, which I do not—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher):Order. It cannot be in order to accuse a judge of the High Court of giving a perverse decision. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that adjective.
  Mr. Price: I immediately withdraw any implication that I should not have made. Suffice to say that those judgments needed a Bill immediately to clear them up, and that many of the misunderstandings that need clearing up arose out of those judgments. I say no more than that and, before I tread further on any High Court toes, I turn to some other aspects of the matter.
  I accept the Bill, somewhat reluctantly, because I feel that a new education Measure, and a far wider one, is urgently needed. However, I fear that the Bill will only postpone still further into the dim and distant middle or late 'seventies the day when we actually get our new education Measure. All this uncertainty about Enfield has been created because the 1944 Act is based on schools and not on the needs of children. It is so based because it was a necessary, I believe magnificent, compromise between the Church and the State, a compromise which no other country in Europe has succeeded in creating. To that extent it was a magnificent Act.
  Because the 1944 Act was so utterly obsessed with the rights of particular schools to exist in the state in which they had always existed, it created—and, as long as it is the basis of the law on education, it will continue to create—constant difficulties. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that this Measure in no way postpones the preparation of a new and comprehensive education Bill to bring the whole of our education scene, from the infants and nursery schools right up to higher education, up to date.
  In this Bill the word "character" has been more rigidly defined—again, under pressure from Mr. Justice Donaldson in his High Court judgments—than ever before. I regret this because the word "character" appeared in the 1944 Act for one purpose only; to assuage the fears of Nonconformist and Church of England headmasters that their schools would be
  256
  taken over as county schools by the State and their religious character destroyed. The word "Character" in the 1944 Act was never intended to apply to where a school was a grammar, comprehensive or secondary modern school. One can go further. There was a lot of discussion before the 1944 Act was passed about whether or not the definitions of "secondary school" should be included in the Act. Because of the efforts of a very far-sighted band of Labour hon. Members in Parliament during the war years, all mention of different types of secondary school was kept out of the Act, which finally simply referred to "secondary schools ".
  In the light of that, to introduce in a new Bill, more than 20 years later, the word "character" as being an important element of a secondary school—an element needing a tremendous amount of discussion—is something quite alien to the ideas of the 1944 Act. It is perverting the purpose of the meaning of the word "character" compared with the meaning it held when it first came into that Act.
  The effect of the Bill will be to make the issuing of Section 13 notices far more numerous than before. This does not matter all that much; indeed, I do not know how many hon. Members have seen a Section 13 notice. It is a piece of scruffy paper written in unintelligible language—far more unintelligible than this Measure—and three copies of it must be displayed by the authority. Each of the three copies must be placed in a different place. One must appear on the door of the school.
  I recall that a Section 13 notice was issued in respect of the school at which I was teaching. The school had been enlarged, and so on, and the notice was issued. It being quite a large secondary school, with 25 doors, the headmaster had to decide on which door to stick it. Eventually he pasted it up on one of the doors, but as a result of a cold snap with some snow, in addition to some larking around on the part of the students, the notice did not stay in place for more than three days.
  It is usual to place the second copy on the notice board in the education office. A mixed batch of notices always appears on these boards, including official notices about newspaper deliveries, health clinics and so on. The Section 13 notice

  257
  was stuck on this board, but it quickly became covered by other notices and I doubt very much whether many people saw it, let alone read it.
  The third copy must appear in the form of a single insertion in the columns of the local newspaper. Normally, the notice appears in the column containing law announcement; and I doubt very much if it is noticed. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) will agree that the vast majority —probably well over 95 per cent.—of the Section 13 notices issued have never been objected to, the reason being that nobody, or virtually nobody, ever sees or reads them.
  If we are to have a Section 13 notice procedure, it might have been a good idea in this Measure to have made it more sensible and intelligent, perhaps by ensuring that the headmasters and staff are brought into the job of consulting parents. To assume that to insist on local authorities publishing Section 13 notices is to give parents enormous democratic rights is an entirely false assumption. Local education authorities which want to avoid trouble—this implies to the vast majority of them—know how and when to go about issuing these notices to make sure that the vast majority of the notices are never objected to.
  I do not think this will make much difference one way or the other in satisfying people that parents' rights are being catered for. It will make it much more difficult for a local education authority which is fulfilling the national policy for education—that is, comprehensive education. It is the Minister's duty under the 1944 Act to lay down a national policy for education. It will make it more difficult for those authorities to operate because of the nuisance of issuing these notices. Sometimes, because of the way of issuing the notices, important plans may be held up for six months, but this will not affect authorities which are defying the national policy for education and do not intend to do anything about their secondary schools but to leave them as they are.
  No one expected this Bill to force authorities to comply with the national policy as laid down. It is important that we should note that this is the effect of the Bill. It makes it all the more urgent to legislate quickly to make clear that we
  258
  have a national policy for education and that authorities should follow it. The 1944 Act gave the Minister, now the Secretary of State, very strong and stringent powers over education. It says:
  " to secure the effective execution by local education authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area."
  Those are very stringent and wide-ranging powers to give any Minister in any field.
  In the days of the 1944 Act, it was assumed that it would be very easy to exercise those powers because the system of percentage grants operated and enabled previous Ministers very quickly to bring rebel local education authorities to heel. They could simply be threatened that they could not get any more for current expenditure on any project which the Minister did not like. It was very easy in those days to direct education from the centre. Ever since 1958, when the Conservatives gave away that central power of direction by bringing in the general grant for local education authorities, it has been difficult for the Minister or the Secretary of State to exercise his powers under the 1944 Act. That is another reason why we urgently need legislation to enable him to carry out powers over which he has not financial control but which were used before 1958. That is one more reason why I hope that we shall have a far more comprehensive Education Bill in the near future.
  A lot of pure hypocrisy is spoken about building standards and about not wanting comprehensive schools to be started in sub-standard buildings. The brutal truth is that we have a lot of sub-standard buildings in our education system as it stands. The argument we hear from hon. Members opposite tends to be that substandard buildings are all right for secondary modern schools which exist at the moment and have existed for 20 years in them. The moment we try to shift children about, often by producing a two-tier comprehensive system whereby every child has a few years' life in a modern building, we have a tremendous howl about inadequate premises and sub-standard buildings. Those premises have been there for 20 years and hon. Members opposite have made no complaint about them.
  Mr. Montgomery: The hon. Member has got it wrong. I was not complaining about this. My right hon. Friend and I were complaining about having two schools a distance apart and saying that that comprised a comprehensive school.
  Mr. Price: That was not the point I was arguing about. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth raised the problem about putting comprehensive schools in sub-standard buildings. No doubt we shall hear of this again. We have a stock of buildings for secondary schools. We can add to and improve that stock as fast as national resources allow. How we arrange the children in those buildings does not either increase or diminish the stock of good or bad buildings. It very often makes a far fairer and juster distribution of the experience which children have in one sort of building or another.
  5.36 p.m.
  Mr. John Pardoe: Disraeli once said:
  " I marvel at my moderation."
  I marvel at the moderation in which the Opposition have conducted themselves in this debate, bearing in mind that only a few weeks ago the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) was proclaiming that a vital issue of principle was at stake, an essential freedom was being trodden into the dust, and that it was a matter of greatest importance which had led to the winning of the West Walthamstow by-election. I thought it all nonsense then, and I do now.
  We have seen a complete metamorphosis in the Opposition, which has decided to support retrospective legislation which will allow many more such schemes as that of Enfield to go through and to legalise many which have gone through unchallenged so far. If the Enfield scheme was an attack on liberty, I ask the Opposition why they do not think this Bill is an attack on liberty. I can only suppose that the change has taken place because the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) has managed to get a little sanity into the proceedings.
  I support the Bill wholeheartedly. There are one or two reservations I make, but I support it basically because it will make our system of government more
  260
  efficient and will enable the Secretary of State to administer the educational system more efficiently. It will strengthen local democracy. I hope to see eventually an overhaul of the relationship of central and local government as a result of the reform of local government. I hope that will come about in the not too distant future. We may need a new Education Bill then to sort out the problems which arise, and it may be better to leave them until that time.
  I want to see a devolution of these powers which are essential to local democracy, but until that time this Bill is welcome. It is wrong to hold up good education schemes against the wishes of the majority merely because of pressure groups. I would be the last to say that pressure groups should not be allowed to make their point known, but they must not be allowed totally to frustrate the purposes of properly elected local democracy.
  The Bill goes on to make some further provisions for consultation of parents and teachers. This is of immense importance, as indeed the Plowden Report emphasised. I want to see much more participation in decisions, not only in education but in every other field, by as many people as possible. I hope that the Secretary of State will give some thought to possible new methods whereby consultation can be made meaningful.
  Unfortunately, far too often in my experience, consultation has meant a town meeting to which the local chief education officer together with the chairman of the education committee come down and deliver statements, and the public go away with no feeling of having debated the issue or of having participated in consultation. Some thought needs to be given to new methods by which the public can participate in such discussion.
  My reservations are primarily concerned with Clause 2. I do not hold for one moment that we should wait upon ideal conditions in buildings, before going over to non-selective systems. I believe, other things being equal, that education in a non-selective school always will be better than that in a selective school.
  There are many schemes which will improve the quality of education, even

  261
  though the buildings will still be substandard, but it is essential to ensure that the new school will not in any way be inferior in its buildings to the existing schools which it replaces.
  Hon. Members have referred to the lack of cash. This is one reason why we have to talk about sub-standard buildings and accept the fact that there are some. One other reason why there are sub-standard buildings and why there will remain sub-standard buildings for very much longer than is necessary is the decision to raise the school-leaving age in 1970. I believe that many schools after 1970 will be inadequate in their buildings because of this decision. Many schools which could be made adequate shortly after 1970 will remain inadequate for a further decade or so.
  Because of this decision, in my constituency two towns—Bude and Wade-bridge—which passionately want to go ever to non-selective education, will remain selective for the best part of 10 years, unless pressure which can be brought to bear upon the Government makes them change their mind.
  There is a two-party conspiracy here. We shall never get this system changed unless both the major parties are prepared jointly to change their minds. Education is caught in a party political trap. Because the Conservative Party made the decision, the Labour Government feel that they cannot go back on it because, if they did, they would be accused by the Conservative Opposition of having failed to keep Conservative promises. I believe that the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Handsworth know deep down that the act of raising the leaving age cannot be performed without seriously endangering educational standards.
  What about the primary schools? What about the sub-standard buildings? What about the kids in classes of 40 or more? Are not these more important than raising the leaving age? I believe that they are. I believe that the Government should recognise that. I believe that the Tory Opposition should also recognise that.
  The Secretary of State's predecessor said something to the effect that any back pedalling by the Government on this issue would cause widespread dismay in common rooms. I do not know which
  262
  commons rooms he has been in. In the common rooms which I have visited in the last few months it would not be widespread dismay. It would be widespread relief which would be felt as a result of a change in this decision. Therefore, I appeal to the Secretary of Slate and to the Conservative Party to be sensible about it.
  Mr. Christopher Price: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of a two-party conspiracy. I understand that the Liberal Party is against this now. How much concern does the Liberal Party feel for the 15-year-old school leavers, mainly, centred in the North and the North-East, who, if the leaving age is not raised, will be deprived of the education which they would otherwise receive?
  Mr. Pardoe: They will not be deprived of anything that can meaningfully be called education. Keeping children on for one year in schools which are themselves not adequate—that is what will happen—will not better them one little bit. There is a real danger that many of them will become "dead end kids", because they will be frustrated by the experience of an extra year in schools which are inferior. That is why I am against this.
  In any case, if we go on with the process towards comprehensive education, it very largely solves the problem. Seventy per cent, of all children in comprehensive schools are now staying on the extra year or more. Therefore, if we hasten through this process and spend money on reorganising secondary education on non-selective lines, we will to a very large extent cure the problem.
  I offer an alternative which is substantially cheaper. I hope that both the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Handsworth will consider this. I say that we should substitute the decision to raise the leaving age by 1970 by compulsory part-time further education up to the age of 18. I believe that we could do this for less money. We could do it with exit ting facilities to a very large extent. It would be within the terms of the Education Act, 1944, which made provision for it. I believe that it would be a better system altogether.
  Finally, the Secretary of State is being given increased powers by the Bill. By increasing his powers we also increase

  263
  his social responsibility. I am sure he realises that he will have even greater responsibility for ensuring that these increased powers are used well, for the betterment of education and for the benefit of children. I hope that, where it is necessary for him to use his new powers, he will use them to ensure excellent standards of education.
  5.47 p.m.
  Mr. Roland Moyle: I appreciate the necessity for the introduction of the Bill, but I do not wish to enter into the controversy about the maverick activities of the Enfield Parents Association and whether they really brought about the introduction of the Bill or otherwise. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has his story and I am prepared to believe him.
  One of the important things is that we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. One of the contributions which the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) made and with which I had some sympathy was his statement that the Bill is well nigh unintelligible to the layman. In matters of education I hold myself to be a layman, but I was fortified in deciding to press the point I have in mind by the general agreement accorded to the hon. Gentleman's remark by both sides of the House.
  I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there is nothing in the Bill which will prevent my constituents from exercising, if they wish, the same control over the maverick activities of those who now control the Inner London Education Authority, as they previously exercised. If my right hon. Friend cannot give me that assurance, I ask him at least to assure me that there is nothing in the Bill that will prevent him, if he so wishes, from exercising a firm control over the maverick activities of that body, as it has emerged since last May.
  I use that adjective to describe the Authority's activities advisedly. I believe that we can know people by the company they keep. I got to know Mr. Christopher Chataway as a very worthy opponent at the General Election. When Mr. Chataway sat on the Treasury Bench and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) used to
  264
  hold his hand, he made intelligent noises from time to time. I very much regret to say that he has fallen amongst bad company since. I very much regret to have to say that there has been a continual deterioration in political character ever since last May when he assumed his present office.
  If I may give an example of the sort of thing I have in mind, I have in my constituency Brockley County School, which is a good grammar school. If one accepts the philosophy which gives rise to grammar schools, one can have very little objection indeed to the existence of Brockley County School. But the time came for reorganisation of large areas of secondary education in London, and the proposal was made by the previous Inner London Education Authority, which existed until last May, to merge this grammar school into a comprehensive school.
  I was glad to hear the intervention by the hon. Member for Brierley Hill in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price). The hon. Gentleman said that there could be no objection to purpose-built comprehensive schools and that what he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were opposed to were botched-up comprehensive schools. I can assure them that, even if there were such a thing as a botched-up comprehensive scheme—and I am not entirely convinced of it—they could not possibly object to the comprehensive scheme which was to succeed Brockley County School. Near the existing Brockley County School there was a vacant site, and there was to be a purpose-built comprehensive school on that site for the pupils of Brockley County School and some other schools in the area.
  There were people misled by right hon. and hon. Members opposite before last May, by the thought that, if they voted for their friends so that they became the government of London, their grammar schools would be restored to them, as the phrase often goes. Then, following the election and the return of the Conservative Party to the government of the Inner London Education Authority, a brutal shock awaited many of their erstwhile supporters. The grammar school was not restored. Instead, we have a scheme for the truncation of the grammar school and the substitution therefor of a sixth form college.

  265
  I shall not prolong the debate unnecessarily by entering into the pros and cons of the philosophy of sixth form colleges. But it seems to me that to convert an existing good grammar school into a sixth form college cannot be done by any means other than those which will cause the upmost upheaval to the pupils actually in the school at a given time. Some pupils will be going through the school while the whole character of the school which they entered is changed around them. Either they will find forms falling away behind them, the number of pupils going through their normal education being sharply cut away and the school itself gradually becoming vacant until the time comes to convert it fully to a sixth form college, or, on the other hand, they will find themselves gradually swamped by a number of older boys or girls, as the case may be.
  It is for this reason that the voters of Lewisham are opposed to this scheme, the parents of Lewisham who are involved are opposed to it, and the community generally is opposed to it. I oppose it, too.
  The chairman of the Inner London Education Authority came to Lewisham Town Hall to hold a public meeting and consult parents and people who are interested. The parents have said, in effect, that they want none of this scheme for a sixth form college at Brockley County School. In passing, I can tell my right hon. Friend that the people at that meeting have not opted for the original Labour I.L.E.A. scheme for a comprehensive school on the site near Brockley County School.
  Everyone who went to that meeting came away with the firm conclusion that the Inner London Education Authority, having listened to the representations of all in Lewisham who are interested in this matter, intends to go straight ahead with the scheme, which it has put out, for the conversion of this excellent grammar school into a sixth form college, in contravention of the wishes of Conservatives in Lewisham who wanted the restoration of their grammar school, in contravention of the wishes of Labour supporters in Lewisham who want the comprehensive scheme to go ahead, and in contravention of the generally expressed view of a mixed body of the
  266
  public who, also, want the comprehensive scheme to go ahead.
  There is, therefore, general opposition to the scheme, and it is for this reason that I hope that we may look to my right hon. Friend, when the times comes, to restore the voice of sanity to the subject of Lewisham's secondary education.
  5.55 p.m.
  Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I hope that the House has not been as bored as I have been by that constituency speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle). I shall return to the subject matter of the Bill. It would have been refreshing if the hon. Gentleman had read the Bill beforehand. If he had, he would have realised that it does not touch the situation into which he went in such depth. However, lest it should, conceivably, be thought that his view of the changed Inner London Education Authority is a general one, I shall briefly give my own experience as a chairman of governors within the Inner London Education Authority area.
  Mrs. Renée Short: I am wondering why the hon. Gentleman should have complained about my hon. Friend's speech.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: The experience which I am about to give does not arise in my constituency. That is the difference. I have nothing whatever to gain constituency-wise.
  As chairman of governors of such a school, I was faced with a proposal from the former Inner London Education Authority which involved the reorganisation of the school together with two others in South London, each a mile away from the other. We were faced with proposals which would have resulted in a school in three parts, each one mile from the other—a triangle of buildings. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North does not think that such a botched-up scheme exists. It does.
  My charge against the party opposite is that, by this kind of botched-up scheme, the direct forerunner of this Bill, incidentally, it has done immeasurable harm to the very cause of comprehensive schooling in practice. This is the practical experience of people who have had to do these things on the ground. Lest

  267
  anyone should say that this is only a passing phase, I can tell the House further, basing myself strictly on practical experience, of what officials have very frankly said. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I would at least agree that, in terms of officials, the I.L.E.A. probably has the highest standard of any local education authority. The officials dealing very frankly with myself and others have assured me that such a botched-up scheme could last for no less than 20 years. I ask the hon. Gentleman to envisage the attitude of mind of parents, staff, administrators and governors faced with a project of that kind.
  When history comes to be written, it will be said that one of the biggest mistakes ever made in education was Circular 10/65—the insistence that, within a year, reorganisation schemes should be submitted to the Secretary of State, but with not an extra brass farthing to pay for them. I am sure that, when the time comes, this will be looked back on as one of the most unwise acts of educational statesmanship ever perpetrated by a Secretary of State.
  The situation we now have arises directly out of Enfield, though, as the Secretary of State reminded us with great frankness, it is not in one sense directly relevant to Enfield. It arises out of Enfield because, plainly, the Bill would not have been before us otherwise. We are, in a sense, wasting valuable Parliamentary time in dealing with what has been received by some hon. Members opposite with disappointment. We are spending useful Parliamentary time on a comparatively small and detailed Bill.
  The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has now left the Chamber. What a change there is in Liberal hon. Members since they got a kick up the backside from their own supporters! It is very refreshing to see them enlighten our debate. I am sorry to refer to the hon. Gentleman in his absence, but he had plainly not understood either that the Bill is the Little Tich that it is, or that it does not deal essentially with the Enfield problem. What it does is to strengthen the position of parents, and that is why it would be very surprising if there were opposition to it from our benches. When it first peeped its nose out of the stable I thought that it was
  268
  conceivably a horse with a kick in it, in that it might contain provisions, about which we have sometimes heard from hon. Members opposite, to make recalcitrant authorities take steps in comprehensive education by compulsion. But that is not so. There have been some plaintive cries for such a Bill, but we do not find it here. That is why there is a general welcome on this side of the House.
  I had better make it quite clear, since we all know how the electoral tide is running, that it will considerably strengthen the hand of a Conservative Secretary of State against a Socialist local authority which puts up a scheme that is unacceptable to him. It may have occurred to hon. Members opposite that that is another reason why, looking a year or two ahead, we shall be very happy to have it on the Statute Book.
  Having been a bit waspish with the Secretary of State, who does not look very worried about such waspishness as I have directed at him, I should like to pay him a very warm compliment. I suspect, knowing a little about the workings of these matters, that he may have had a bit of a struggle to persuade his legal advisers to allow us to have Schedule 3, that is, to have the various Sections of previous Acts set out with the Amendments in heavy type, so that we can see what they will say when the Bill becomes an Act. I have no idea whether he did have that struggle, but if so I warmly commend him on his initiative. In any case he is responsible. I hope that he will, as the long-standing student of government that we know him to be, pass the concept on to some of his right hon. colleagues. It would be particularly helpful, for example, in the Finance Bill— though I must not stray out of order. I want him to know that his doing this has not passed unnoticed. It is very helpful, particularly when we are dealing with a simple and human matter in education.
  But I part company with him on retrospection, and clearly I also part company in emphasis with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle). We may have chances of debating this in more detail if I am selected to serve on the Committee. I do not like retrospective legislation—period. I believe retrospective legislation is not offensive in principle.

  269
  I admittedly see a distinction in applying in a backward direction a law that is different from what everybody believed it to be at the time, as compared with stating the law as having been what everyone thought that it was. I do not generally care for backward looks by the House in legislation, and I cannot believe that it is necessary in this case. When one tries to consider what cases may be affected, surely one cannot see any case where it is now likely that an application for an injunction, for example, could be granted? I see the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) nodding. He has great experience of these matters. Perhaps on another occasion we shall have an opportunity of considering this, but he must put up a very good case to persuade me on retrospection. I do not believe that it is a good practice for the House, and, if we are to agree to it, it must be argued very powerfully. When my party were in Government, I did not care for retrospective legislation any the more because it came from us.
  I believe that, broadly speaking, the provisions of the Bill are wise. There are some details which we shall want to consider more fully, particularly because, if educational opinion runs as it seems to be running, we shall be examining a considerable number of new kinds of reorganisation as time goes on. I was very disappointed by the intensely conservative view of a sixth form college taken by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North. I have attended almost every education debate since 1959, and they often run across party lines. I must spend the necessary 6d. or 1s. to buy the hon. Gentleman a recent excellent pamphlet en the issue written by Mr. Simon Jenkins, one of the ablest educational commentators. It is published by the Conservative Political Centre, but I know that that will not put the hon. Gentleman off.
  If I am right—and I am attracted by the general concept—there will be a number of other such reorganisation schemes of a very fundamental nature which should be closely considered under the terms of the Bill. We should not allow ourselves to think merely in terms of comprehensive secondary education as we understand the phrase at present. If I am sure of anything, it is that local con-
  270
  ditions, backgrounds and traditions vary so much that it is very dangerous for either party in this dispute—I do not use the word "party" in a political sense —to seek to apply to every given circumstance a certain blanket solution. I have said before that it is a subject which above all others requires a certain degree of humility among Parliamentarians. We may not know all the answers. For that reason I welcome the powers which the Secretary of State—
  Mr. Moyle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to be unfair. If he reads my speech he will find that I said that I did not want to enter into a discussion of the philosophy of sixth-form colleges as against other philosophies, and for that reason I deliberately confined my remarks to a particular aspect of the sixth-form college scheme which had been put before us in Lewisham.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I hope that I have not been unfair, and I do not think that I have. The hon. Gentlemen's objection was that at any one time there must be passing through the school a generation who will be, he feels, adversely affected by the institution of a sixth-form college. That is so, but it is also true of any other reorganisation scheme covered by the Bill. For example, it would also have been true of the scheme which I have mentioned.
  Mr. Moyle: I am sorry that this is becoming a bit of a duologue, but I spoke of the specific case where an existing school was converted to a sixth-form college. I made no reference to any case where a sixth-form college might be specially built or provided in some other way.
  Mr. van Straubenzee: I must avoid the temptation of carrying this discussion too far or we may both bore both sides of the House, but if the Selection Committee does the work which we hope it will do we may have ample opportunities to discuss at great length the merits of the case, so long as we are both in order.
  Broadly, I approve of the powers proposed to be taken under the Bill. They are very different from what many people outside believe them to be, although they would never have come before the House but for the Secretary of

  271
  State's behaviour in the legal conflict. It was a most unhappy position for any Secretary of State to get himself into. But when he had got himself into it this was really the only thing he could do. I hope that we shall make it as easy for him as we reasonably can.
  6.10 p.m.
  Mrs. Renée Short: I cannot continue the bipartisan approach of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). I do not agree with anything he said about the Bill. He was good at choosing adjectives and was, indeed, waspish, but I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend is worried much about that.
  The Bill is overshadowed by considerations of the Enfield situation. Bearing in mind what I wish to say about conditions in another part of the country, I am surprised by the speech of the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) because, in the West Midlands, the education scene is reverberating with the misdeeds and suggestions being put forward by Walsall and Wolverhampton Borough Councils, which, unfortunately and alas, are now both Conservative controlled, and where established comprehensive schools are being undermined and destroyed by the Conservative education committees.
  In April, 1966, there was a local government reorganisation in the West Midlands. Before then, the Staffordshire County Council, also Conservative controlled but surprisingly extremely intelligent about comprehensive schools, had built comprehensive schools in the area and has set up others. With the reorganisation, some of these areas, and, therefore, some of the schools, came into Wolverhampton County Borough and some went into Walsall.
  Very soon after, the staffs of the existing comprehensive schools in the West Midlands met my right hon. Friend's predecessor and expressed their concern about what might happen if politically motivated men took control of the local authorities at the forthcoming local elections.
  Mr. Montgomery: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Short: Not at this stage.
  272
  They expressed concern lest these men launched an attack on the comprehensive schools. Those fears are now being realised because last spring's local elections led to Wolverhampton Borough Council becoming Conservative controlled and the education committee has passed a resolution which gives parents in the area of the Smestow and Regis comprehensive schools the option to send their children to one of the several selective grammar schools which still exist in Wolverhampton and which the Conservatives are unwilling to change into comprehensive schools.
  This has brought protests from the united teaching profession throughout the area—there is no argument about that. I have received deputations from teachers at the various schools and deputations sent by all the teachers. I have also received deputations of parents and have had a large number of letters. Meetings have been held in the comprehensive schools attended by between 400 and 500 parents and they passed resolutions condemning in effect the action of the local education authority.
  When I asked my right hon. Friend last week what action he intended to take, he said that there was nothing he could do, that he had to act within the law as it was and that this was a matter for the local education authority. I hope, therefore, that, in the case of established comprehensive schools, the Bill will give him power to prevent local education authorities from destroying established and purpose-built comprehensive schools.
  The Regis school was established 12 years ago. It was purpose-built and is internationally renowned. Visitors come from many other countries and from other parts of this country to see it. Its headmaster was knighted for services to education and no one in the area, I believe, supports the education committee in what it is proposing to do.
  The chairman of the education committee has said that parents do not need to opt to send their children to selective grammar schools in the area but even if only a small percentage of the children in the area, as a matter of self-defence because the parents are uncertain about the future of the schools, are sent to the selective grammar schools, it will mean doubt generally about the standing of the comprehensive schools, their status

  273
  and educational achievement. If any of the leaders of the school community—any of the pace-setters—are withdrawn from any comprehensive school, this is undermining comprehensive education and the ideal behind the whole system. Therefore, it is essential that the nature of these schools and the area they serve should remain as they are.
  There is also the question of the breach of faith to the parents who have sent their children to these comprehensive schools believing that they would get a good comprehensive education with all the advantages this brings and who are now finding that, in effect, the schools are likely to be changed unless the Secretary of State is empowered to intervene. These parents feel badly let down. Many of them were opponents of comprehensive schools but, since they have seen the advantages—educational, physical and menial—which have accrued to their children since then, they are now ardent supporters.
  The hon. Member for Brierley Hill spoke about the valiant fight of parents in the Enfield area to protect their schools. What about the valiant fight of parents in the area served by the Regis and Smestow schools? Does not he support them? I am amazed that he did not say a word about that.
  Mr. Montgomery: The hon. Lady is correct. This matter does also come within my constituency. If she were as diligent in her constituency as she is in mine the result would be seen at the next election, but if she wants to fight me in Brierley Hill, let her do so. I should welcome it. The Wolverhampton Borough Council, before the last local elections, was not controlled by apolitical people, but by a political party. Unfortunately, the Conservatives put in their election manifesto a pledge to allow selection or choice of schools—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be brief. He has already made a speech.
  Mrs. Short: I am not interested in representing Brierley Hill. The hon. Gentleman has nothing to fear from me. What he says about the election campaign of his supporters and party friends is so, but neither parents nor teachers who have the interests of education at heart
  274
  imagined that the Conservative majority would carry out these proposals in the way they have done—without one word of consultation either with parents or with teachers. This is why there is so much outcry, quite justifiably, against these proposals which will affect Regis and Smestow schools.
  The position was different when the local authority was Labour controlled, because it was in the process of producing a scheme to present to the Secretary of State. It produced a "White Paper" and consulted all interested organisations, which were invited to submit their ideas. This is in contrast with what the Conservatives have done since they came to office.
  This is the problem of established comprehensive schools, but now we have the problem of schools which were to become comprehensive under the council's proposals which are now likely to be prevented from becoming comprehensive unless my right hon. Friend insists that the original scheme goes through, and I am not certain whether the Bill gives him power to deal with this problem. In my constituency there are two schools which are due to become comprehensive. One is the Northicote School and the other consists of two schools built on the same site—none of this business about schools being two miles apart which the Opposition now find as their main objection to comprehensive schools —which were due to amalgamate to form one large 10-form entry comprehensive school.
  The Conservative education committee has implemented a decision to reduce the intake to these schools so that there is a creaming off and selection in what was a comprehensive catchment area. There are now about 25 children of grammar school ability going to grammar schools in the centre of Wolverhampton. This has changed the nature of the area and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is quite happy about Schedule 3(10), or whether something should be added about the territorial intake, or geographical area, or parental choice, to make sure that there are no loopholes in this legislation.
  At a meeting of the grammar—Technical school, which is one half of the two schools which were to be the ten-form entry school in my constituency.

  275
  the Conservative chairman of the education committee was summoned to a simmering meeting of the staff to defend the indefensible proposals of this committee. The House may be interested to hear how he regards comprehensive education. He said:
  " I have often tried to imagine the Comprehensive School like a big Department Store in which you can obtain all sorts of goods under one roof and which has a bargain basement of course, a fashion department on the top floor and it can cater for all tastes and pockets."
  He also said, at the meeting of the education committee where this decision was made:
  " The choice was whether to featherbed the comprehensives by allowing people to move away from them or whether to allow parents an element of choice."
  If that is not hypocritical humbug in the extreme, I do not know what is. He regards comprehensive education as a commercial proposition like setting up and organising a department store, and that is the nadir of criticism.
  This reference to freedom of choice is always brought in, but we know perfectly well that these proposals will bring back selection and set the clock back 20 years. We know that whether children go to grammar schools is not decided just as a matter of parental choice, but according to the choice of the authority, based on a selective examination.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reassure me about the suggestion that the Schedule should be amended to ensure that proposals based on territorial intake will in future be absolutely cast iron.
  6.24 p.m.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: We have had a short and brisk debate and as it draws to an end I am left wishing that the Government's education policy were as crisp, relevant and attractive as some of the speeches we have listened to today, instead of being as diffuse, muddled and obscure as the Bill.
  I want to refer particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) who emerged with such distinction from the ordeal of his maiden speech. The whole House appreciated his graceful reference to his pre-
  276
  decessor, Mr. Redhead, and the combination of modesty of manner with confidence and competence in the materials which he handled. We shall certainly all look forward to hearing him again in debates on this and other subjects.
  Obviously, the Opposition will not vote against a Bill which substantially is a memorial to the courage and persistence of the parents of Enfield; but one wishes that it were a more artistically satisfying memorial. One can spare a moment to be slightly sorry for the right hon. Gentleman who is only an ogre by inheritance, or perhaps one should say by continuance. His predecessor had the knock-about fun and left him with the bills, including this one. I would have had more sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman having to pick up his right hon. Friend's chestnuts if he had not, in an excess of repetitive folly, stuck his burnt finger back into the fire for three days, in almost the same place, and burned it again.
  The Bill has no direct connection with the second battle of Enfield, but indirectly it reflects it by its reference to articles of government in paragraph (2) of the Schedule! Personally, I see no objection in principle to a change in articles of government which is bound up with a change in the character of the school and reflects it being made in the same process as the change itself. That is merely replacing two operations by one. But I see some objection—I do not put it higher than that—to empowering the Secretary of State to make such variations as appear to him to be required, then providing, as is provided in lines 22 to 26 on page 6 of the Bill, that the exercise of this unfettered discretion shall be withdrawn from the right of the governors to make representations or objections. However, that is a matter at which we can look more carefully in Committee.
  Some anxiety has been expressed about the retrospective element in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), in particular, referred to the doubts and hesitations which he feels about this. One always feels doubtful about retrospection in legislation and to some extent I share the doubts which have been expressed today. However, in fairness to the right hon. Gentleman I should say that I regard

  277
  the retrospective element in the Bill rather as comparable to a Bill of indemnity covering past matters rather than as a retrospective provision in the sense of some which we have had in the past, like the famous Black and Lord cases. On the whole, my feeling is that any Government after the Enfield decision would have felt impelled to introduce a retrospective provision of approximately this character.
  I do not quarrel with Clause 1. The exclusions in lines 13–20 on page 1 are, in general, acceptable and reasonable, but the right hon. Gentleman must have been mistaken when he intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) to say that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 1(1) referred only to the retrospective aspect of the Bill.
  I think that I saw a telegram being sent from the Box shortly after that. He will realise, looking at Clause 1(5) that, though as it were, speaking now, their only effect is retrospective, after the summer term of 1968, they would be the current provisions. That being so my comment on that generally is that they are broadly reasonable in the light of the new words about "significant change in character" inserted in Section 13 of the principal Act by Clause l(2,a) and by the definition of those words set out in the new subsection 10 of the principle Act, printed at lines 28 to 34 on page 2.
  The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) delivered a somewhat passionate oration about the meaning of "character". He was rather implying, although he did not quite put it that way, that his right hon. Friend had sold the pass of Thermopylae, or some other historic pass, and sought to imply, so far as Mr. Speaker would allow him, some criticism of the recent decision in the Enfield case.
  The hon. Member has rather misunderstood that. As I understood the first Enfield case, there was nothing about the word "character" or its meaning, but it was to do with the duty of the authority to maintain and not cease to maintain a school. The word "character" and the comments about it which are to be found are all common law comments, namely that if one fundamentally changes the character of a
  278
  school then one has ceased to maintain a school.
  That is the sole relevance of the word "character". There is no question of an old statutory meaning from the 1944 Act being misinterpreted. With respect to the hon. Member, while I enjoyed his impassioned oration, as I enjoy all impassioned orations, from both sides of the House on all subjects, I thought that it did not have much to do with the Bill.
  Mr. Christopher Price: We ought not to get too tied up in what Mr. Justice Donaldson did or did not say, or what he did or did not do. One of the things he had to decide was whether the Enfield Council was ceasing to maintain one school and opening a new school. Among the reasons which might constitute ceasing to maintain one school and the opening of a new one was a substantial change in character, as laid down in the Act.
  Mr. Bell: I would agree with all of that except the words "as laid down in the Act". I am not going to be dogmatic on this because it is difficult to look through an Act while someone is speaking, but I am not sure that the words "change in character" appeared in the 1944 Act. Whether or not they do they have nothing to do with the Enfield decision.
  What we have to remember in relation to this Bill is that his right hon. Friend is putting in these words as a new addition to the grounds on which a Section 13 notice can be served. It is, if I may respectfully say so, a very good addition, which fairly neatly meets the point which recently arose, providing some kind of answer to it.
  As I understand the provisions of the Bill, the local education authority will have to submit proposals to the Minister under Section 13 of the 1944 Act if there is a proposal to make a single sex school a mixed school. That must be so. The parents will have their chance to object. The point which my right hon. Friend was making, and which rather got lost in the bad point about retrospection is that, by excluding change of sex from Clause 1 and putting it in only as part of the fundamental change of character, one leaves out the structural considerations, the need for specifications and plans. This is a matter deserving of

  279
  thought and I imagine that it will receive this in Committee.
  It is quite right that parents should have the opportunity, which the Secretary of State is proposing in the Bill, of lodging objections where there is a change in the sex composition of a school. Opinions vary a great deal about this. I think that it is usually a bad change from a single sex school to a mixed school, at least from the boys point of view, for public education, as distinct from the private education. This is because the main defect of the public sector is an inadequate element or monasticism. [Laughter.] I hoped that that would be provocative and I am not disappointed.
  Segregation gives a degree of intensity and we are in great danger of producing rounded pebbles, good mixers and uncomplicated people, to act as prospective Parliamentary candidates for the benches opposite. However, I recognise that this is only one personal point of view. The important thing is that parents should have the opportunity of reacting, as the Bill provides. The same is true of the principle of selection, which is the topic that has engaged most of the time and attention during the debate.
  My view may not be quite the same as some hon. Members opposite. I am not utterly devoted to the concept of selection at 11-plus. That has never seemed to me to be the point in the controversy, which is that opinions do vary about this and that every parent should, within the limits of what is geographically possible, be able to back his own fancy—
  Mr. R. C. Mitchell,: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain how, under the present selective system, a parent has a choice of sending his child to a grammar or secondary school? It surely depends upon examination. He may have a choice not to send his child to grammar school, but in no other way.
  Mr. Bell: When the hon. Gentleman rose I hesitated a moment before giving way, because I was going on to say, and perhaps this will deal with this point— and have the chance of sending his child to a selective school if he prefers that and
  280
  his child can get in, or to a non-selective school if he prefers that.
  Unhappily, the Bill does not provide for that vital parental system of choice, but it at least allows the parent to object if a selective school is in danger of being made non-selective.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Or vice versa.
  Mr. Bell: Or as the right hon. Gentleman says, or vice versa. He is anticipating political developments, which I thought it unkind to refer to at the moment.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: It is logical.
  Mr. Bell: How far the parents' objections will get them in practice will depend on the Secretary of State. He must consider their representations, but, having considered them, he may do what he likes. On page 6 of the Bill, lines 29 to 23, there is a provision on which I should comment. Again, in expressing some anxiety, I do not want to put it too high, but the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is provided that the question of what is a significant change is for him. In as much as he will decide in the end anyway, it may be thought that it hardly matters if he also decides whether he even has to consider it. But there is some ground for objection here.
  It is not a matter of fearing bad faith. No one would suspect the right hon. Gentleman of other than the most excellent good faith. It is a matter of judgment. I do not see why parents or other local government electors should have to be satisfied on that point with the right hon. Gentleman's judgment. Besides, he may not hold his position for ever. One knows that the Prime Minister likes to have a certain amount of what is called in the steel industry "circulating scrap" in his Government. It might come round for one of them to have a turn at being Secretary of State for Education, and then we should have to be satisfied with his judgment. This, again, is a matter which we must consider.
  The value of the right to object is the centre and crux of this controversy. Under the Bill, the check on change will be that the local education authority must propose and the Secretary of State must approve. Only if both are united against the parents can the parents be overborne; and the Minister is responsible to this House.

  281
  That works well enough if the dominant party at Westminster is not doctrinally committed to the methods of the famous Procrustes. If, for five years, there is a Government devoted to destroying all selective schools, since local control and Westminster majorities often coincide—a thought which is bringing us comfort at the present time—these procedures may, in practice, be quite nugatory.
  A Minister from whom has issued a circular like Circular 10/65 will overrule all objections from parents about selective schools. The circular, by implication, indicates that that would be so. What we need, therefore, is not only the additional procedure in the Bill, which is welcome enough in itself, but a national decision which would not be brushed aside by the swaying fortunes of politics each few years. Children are not the raw material for people who like to be called educationists. The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton—I always forget which division she represents, although I know that it is not South-West—
  Mrs. Renée Short: North-East.
  Mr. Bell: The hon. Lady was talking about pace setters, as though they were I he property of the educational theorists lather than people in their own right and whose parents might have views about them. As I say, these children are not the raw material for people who like to be called "educationists" and should not be moulded to execute any central decision about social purpose or the nature of the community, but should be variously educated in as many different systems as possible according to many different ideals and criteria.
  In the wide range of modern public affairs, there is no other sphere in which variety, disagreement and difference are so important as they are in education. It is unreal to expect a central Government to arrange such variety. It can be attained only in freedom, and here freedom must mean principally freedom for parents. What a pity, then, that the Secretary of State did not use this opportunity to give some specific meaning and more binding effect to Section 76 of the Education Act, 1944, the side note to which somewhat optimistically states that the children are to be educated according to the wishes of their parents. It
  282
  may not be too late. I imagine that a new Clause along those lines would be within the scope and Long Title of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman did that, he would make for himself a memorable and honourable place in British educational history.
  The tragedy of much of this is that right hon. and hon. Members opposite do not, I believe, greatly disagree in their hearts with the general concept of variety and of freedom which I have outlined. They are trapped inside the unfortunate name "comprehensive schools". What they mean is "non-selective", and even that only in a limited sense, because the educationally subnormal, even though not ineducable, do not go to comprehensive schools. However, the word "comprehensive" bedevils their thinking. If any exception is permitted, the remainder will not be comprehensive.
  "Comprehensive" has become a party talisman of hon. Members opposite. Yet a moment's thought should show them and the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, who developed this point in her speech, that a contention by one body of opinion claiming to bar all others on the ground that its particular preference can be attained only in abstract perfection by prohibiting all other preferences is hardly compatible with a free, varied and flexible society.
  Finally, we accept the Bill on Second Reading with gratitude to the parents of Enfield and acknowledge—it would be churlish not to acknowledge—the rôle, perhaps the rôle of Ganymede, which has been discharged by the Secretary of State. In Committee, we shall seek to improve it and clarify it, give it a little red blood and fighting spirit—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am only halfway through the sentence—so that it may be a more worthy, useful and effective protection in education for the much bruised freedom of the general public.
  6.49 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): I sympathise with those who found the Bill difficult to understand. However, it looks more complicated than it is. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the setting out of Schedule 3 has been a very great help.
  I should like, first, to congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West

  283
  (Mr. Silvester) on his maiden speech, which was very thoughtful. We on this side of the House, in particular, appreciated his reference to our late colleague, Mr. Edward Redhead.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that I would deal with several points. When I looked forward to the debate, I thought of the things which he might not cover in detail and with which I might deal, but I find that they have not figured at all in the debate, whereas others have. Therefore, I do not propose to deal with such things as special agreement schools, the points arising out of the London Government Act, 1963, the alteration about the procedure for changing articles of government of voluntary schools, which has been mentioned only in passing, nor the temporary additional accommodation for pupils in voluntary schools.
  I thought that the whole of my speech would be devoted to these matters, but they are things which I think we must leave now for the Committee, and I will try as far as I can to answer the points which have been raised by those who have spoken.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) raised the question of the co-educational school and wondered why the change to or from a co-educational school did not constitute the school's being discontinued and a new one being established. As the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has said, there is a difference here between what we have been legitimising in the past and what we are considering as the law for the future.
  There is a question whether any particular change in the character of a school is or is not so fundamental as to constitute the replacing of the school by a new school. The Bill treats the replacement of a boys' school by a girls' school or vice versa as such a fundamental change—that is, that one school is closed and a new one opened; but the conversion of a single-sex school into a coeducational school is treated as a change in the character of a school. This is partly because it is a question of degree, for if we were to allow 20 boys into a girls' school of 300 I do not think that
  284
  anybody would suggest that a new school would have been created. There is the question, where the line is to be drawn.
  However, Section 13 notices are required in either case. The only difference is that in the direct change from a boys' to a girls' school or a girls' to a boys' school new legal entities emerge. The basis of the distinction can also be put in this way: the direct change necessarily involves a complete changes of the pupils. The other change might involve not more than a 50 per cent, change. I think this is something we can discuss in Committee, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see the reason for this difference.
  Sir E. Boyle: Yes, but may I just explain the reason for my concern about that to the right hon. Gentleman— [Laughter.] I mean, the right hon. Lady, and I apologise to her and to the House. I apologise for having said this more than once, but the point is that no one doubts that parents will have opportunities of objecting in either case under Clause 1(2).
  The question at issue is whether or not the local authority has to submit plans and specifications. Surely, in the case of a change to or from a boys' school to a girls' school or a mixed school, or a girls' school to a mixed school, there may be need for, say, new craftrooms —new physical provision. It was for that reason that I rather doubted whether this change should be exempt from the local authority's having to put forward plans and specifications.
  Miss Bacon: Yes, I quite understand the point now, and it is one I am sure we can come back to in Committee.
  The right hon. Gentleman said—and this has been echoed by other hon. Gentlemen opposite—that we would not have had the Bill if the Enfield parents had not taken action. It has been suggested, too, in some quarters, particularly in the Press, that the Bill has led Enfield parents to not continue with action which they had started. But the position with regard to the action before this decision was taken was that, for all practical purposes, the parents' committee could hope to succeed only if it could show that the authority had not been acting in good faith.

  285
  This emerged clearly from a letter which appeared in the Enfield Gazette from the Press officer of the committee after the action against the Department, the relevant part of this letter being this:
  " In giving his verdict in July, Mr. Justice Goff said that we could get the courts to set the entire scheme aside as illegal if we can show that it was so unreasonable ' as to be evidence that (the Council) must have acted on a wrong principle or dishonestly'."
  I do not think that anybody will suggest that that had been so.
  I should like to say that my right hon. Friend received a letter on 8th December from Enfield Teachers' Association of the N.U.T., saying:
  " I am instructed to forward to you the following resolution which was passed by an overwhelming majority at the general meeting of the E.T.A. on Wednesday, 15th November, at Rowantree School:
  We request the Local Education Authority to implement comprehensive education throughout Enfield at the very earliest opportunity."
  As I have said, I do not think anybody would suggest that what has happened in the past has happened in any way deliberately to flout the law. It has been the practice for a long time for Section 13 notices not to be held as being necessary in certain conditions. A great deal has been quoted from Sir William Alexander's article in Education, which, if I may say so, was a very admirable precis of the Bill now before us, but nobody has mentioned what he said about a draft note which was sent out in 1954.
  It is quite true that previous to 1954 there had grown up a practice of issuing or not issuing Section 13 notices, but in 1954 when neither my right hon. Friend nor any other right hon. Lady or right hon. Gentleman on this side of the House was Minister of Education a circular was sent out which, under the heading: "The need for Section 13 notices: Note for Chief Education Officers "said, about changes affecting a single school:
  " Notices are not normally required when it is proposed to make not more than one of the following changes in the organisation of a single school:—(i) the alteration of the internal organisation of a secondary school from one type to another, e.g. from grammar to modern; or (ii) an alteration only in the sex composition of a school, e.g. the conversion of a mixed primary school into a single sex primary school or a boys' secondary school into a girls' secondary school; or (iii) the conversion of a primary school into a secondary school or vice versa."
  286
  Therefore, I would submit that Enfield and all the other local authorities which have been acting have been acting in conformity with the circular which was sent out. I will readily admit that the circular which was sent out was sent out having regard to the practice up to that time.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked what is meant by "significant". In this respect, we would regard the following examples as being significant. We can come back to this in Committee, but we would regard a change from single sex to co-education, or vice versa, a change from selective to comprehensive intake, a change from secondary school to sixth form college, and major changes, of age range within a school, for example, from 11 to 18 or 13 to 18 in a secondary school, or from 5 to 7 or 5 to 11 in a primary school.
  In the case of all middle schools—the 8 to 12 or 9 to 13 age ranges—under the Bill, proposals would require notices, as they do already under the 1944 Act. Amendments to the standards for school premises regulations for middle schools are under consideration, taking into account the views of the interested organisations. I think that that shows the kind of matters which we would regard as significant in carrying out this legislation.
  The right hon. Gentleman also raised a point about the building regulations. He agreed that the phrase "shortage of materials and labour" was perhaps too old-fashioned for today, and he suggested words which might be used instead of those which appear in the Bill at the moment. I assure him that we will look at these words in Committee and, if necessary, change them to conform with his suggestion.
  Then he expressed concern about comprehensive plans in existing buildings which might be two miles apart, and he went on to say that, because my right hon. Friend would be able to dispense with building regulations under this Bill, somehow or another it would lead to that kind of situation. However, on reflection, I think that he will see that my right hon. Friend's powers under the Bill with regard to the building regulations have nothing to do with buildings two miles apart. Indeed, I think that the fact that

  287
  they are two miles apart is a slight exaggeration.
  But whether buildings are apart or not is a matter which is inherent in the acceptance of a plan under Circular 10/65. It is not the state of the buildings: they might be perfectly good buildings which would be suitable under the building regulations. As I say, it is not really a matter for this Bill, but it is one which we have to take into consideration when deciding whether to accept schemes for comprehensive reorganisation.
  I was interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) and in what he said about Enfield.
  I come now to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester). Here I want to say a word of praise for the Borough of Stoke-on-Trent, which has a very good record in education. We all remember with great pleasure the speeches on education made by my hon. Friend's predecessor, Mrs. Harriet Slater.
  My hon. Friend drew attention to the way in which changes in the character of schools affect primary schools, and he talked about the Plowden proposal for having the age of 12 instead of 11. He said that the main burden would fall on the primary schools.
  Since my hon. Friend has raised the point about the effect of secondary reorganisation on primary schools, I want to refer to what I believe is one of the greatest beneficial effects of ending the 11-plus examination. It is the effect which this has had on the primary schools, because they are now freed from the competition which has always gone on in them and the pressures understandably created by parents for their children to get through the 11-plus.
  I have been in my new job for only a short time and have visited just a few primary schools, but I have been most impressed by what I have found in terms of the creative and experimental work which is being done, particularly the outstanding work in the teaching of French and the new mathematics. Although my hon. Friend sounded a note of caution about this, I am sure he will agree that there are some very beneficial effects on
  288
  primary schools arising out of secondary reorganisation.
  The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) spoke about the rights of parents, and I will return to that topic in a few moments. He also criticised the Government for what he called reorganisation without the money for it. However, he and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) will realise that this Government have provided a good deal of money for the raising of the school-leaving age, and most local authorities have used that money to prepare for secondary reorganisation and comprehensive schools.
  Mr. Pardoe: Would the right hon. Lady deny that the present plans for raising the school-leaving age are at least two years behind schedule?
  Miss Bacon: Certainly I would deny that. The present Government have done more towards raising the school-leaving age than our predecessors did. We have recognised that a great deal more building will be needed, so much so that we have, over three years, set aside more than £100 million for school building which will be necessary as a result of raising the school leaving age.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) wanted a new Education Act which goes much wider than the present one, and he asked for an assurance that the Bill will not postpone a major Bill. I do not want to commit myself about the possibility of a major Bill, but certainly, if we were thinking in terms of a major Bill, this Measure would not postpone it in any way. I agree with what he said about the three types of school. Originally, it was to be in the 1944 Education Act, but, in the end, was not put in.
  I want now to deal briefly with the speech of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. He will realise that there has been quite a substantial amount allocated to raising the school-leaving age in his own area. Cornwall's share of the first two allocations is £215,000 in each year, which I suggest is very good from the point of view of the area.
  I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) said about the position in the I.L.E.A. As yet, we have not had the new proposals from the

  289
  Inner London Education Authority. When we have them, they will be considered.
  The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and other hon. Members mentioned a whole scheme for the reorganisation of secondary schools. I want to emphasise what the right hon. Member for Handsworth realises and appreciates perhaps better than anyone else on his side of the House. Comprehensive education is not a political matter as between the Labour Party and the Tory Party. Taking county councils in England and Wales—unfortunately, we have only one Labour county council—25 have had schemes covering the whole or greater parts of their areas implemented, and 21 others have had parts of their areas accepted or implemented.
  That shows that there is a great split in the party opposite about comprehensive education. While some people pay lip service to the opposition to comprehensive education, many Tory local authorities in the country are going ahead with it. I do not say that that is so of all Tory local authorities, of course. Some are very much opposed to it, again as the right hon. Gentleman realises.
  Mr. William Molloy: My right hon. Friend is making great play with the fact that the Conservative Party is being recalcitrant about schemes for comprehensive education. However, is she aware that Ealing Borough Council has experienced more opposition from her Ministry than from anyone else and has suffered the great humiliation of seeing her Ministry's rejection of its scheme appear in the Daily Telegraph before being officially informed?
  Miss Bacon: I cannot comment on that. As my hon. Friend realises, the revised scheme from Ealing is being considered by my Department and it would be wrong to make any pronouncement about it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) raised the question of the comprehensive school in Wolverhampton and that in the future parents would be allowed to choose, if they wished, grammar schools in other areas for their children. She asked whether this Bill gives power to my right hon. Friend to deal with this situation. I am doubtful about
  290
  that. It may be that in some similar case, where such a position substantially altered the character of the school, this Bill could be brought into operation, but I would not like to say that in this instance that would be so. We shall have to watch this very carefully.
  I regret, as much as my hon. Friend does, the action of Wolverhampton. I agree with her, from what I have read in the local papers of the meetings which have taken place, that most people in this area are against the council having made this alteration. I can only hope that, because there is such opposition to what is being done, very few of the parents will opt to take their children from the comprehensive school and ask for them to be admitted to grammar schools in other areas.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that even if a small percentage opt to go to the selective grammar schools this would change the character of the comprehensive school and would undermine its comprehensiveness? Would she not then feel that her right hon. Friend could intervene?
  Miss Bacon: We shall have to look at this very carefully. If it changed the character of the school substantially, according to the Bill that would be so; but whether the few children—I hope it would be very few—who might opt to go to the selective grammar schools would change the character of the school is a question That I do not feel I can answer at the present time.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Is the right hon. Lady implying, from the disapproval in her words, that she thinks it wrong that parents should have the degree of choice of sending their child to a selective school if they so wish? Is she advocating total coercion for one type, and one type only, of school?
  Miss Bacon: The hon. and learned Gentleman need not have got up and asked me that, because I was coming to his speech, which largely dealt with this matter. He said that every parent should be able to back his own fancy, to be selective, if he prefers that, if his child can get in. I agree with the intervention of my hon. Friend in this respect. What choice has there been for the ordinary parent? If a child has not

  291
  passed the 11-plus or has not been selected in some other way and the parent has gone to the education authority and said, "I would like my child to go to a grammar school", has that child gone to a grammar school? Of course not.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he hoped that my right hon. Friend would have brought forward a Bill giving parents the right of choice for the education of their children. I believe—and I know that most of my hon. Friends believe—that the proper way to give parents and children the choice of education is for the children to be in comprehensive schools where there is a wide choice of every conceivable kind.
  We seem to have strayed from the original Bill. If I have strayed, it is because, as I said at the beginning, I came prepared to speak about the Bill, but I have found more interesting things have been raised during the debate.
  The Bill, in short, proposes three main things: first, to validate beyond doubt the existence of some hundreds of schools whose establishment since 1945 has not complied with the requirements of the law, as the Court of Appeal has now interpreted it; secondly, to define and extend the grounds on which local inhabitants have a right to register objections to substantial changes in the function or the size of a school; and, thirdly, to clarify the circumstances in which school buildings are required to conform to the prescribed standards governing new schools.
  I believe that these changes, taken together, will provide appropriate opportunity for local public opinion to express itself about proposed school changes while assisting the local education authorities in carrying out their work.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

EDUCATION [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to education it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under the Education Acts 1944 to 1967 which may result from provisions of the following descriptions:—

(a) provisions under which the powers to make grants under the Education Act 1967 section 1, and to make loans under the Education Act 1944 section 105, on the making, to school premises of an aided or special agreement school, of alterations amounting to the establishment of a new school are replaced by powers to make maintenance contributions under the Education Act 1944 section 102, and to make loans under section 105, on an enlargement of such premises that has a substantial effect on the size of the school;

(b) provisions extending the powers conferred on the Secretary of State under or by virtue of section 7 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948 in relation to sites or buildings not conforming to the prescribed standards for school premises.— [Mr. Gordon Walker.]

PROCEDURE
Mr. Speaker: I have previously announced the selections that I have made of Amendments to the Motions that are now to be discussed by the House.

Sittings of the House
7.14 p.m.
Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): I beg to move,
That, during the remainder of the present Session,
(1) a motion may be made after ten of the clock by a Minister of the Crown, That the proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended, and the question thereon shall be decided without amendment or debate; and if the question be agreed to in the House, a motion may immediately thereafter be made, That this House do now adjourn, and, at the conclusion of the debate on that motion and in no case later than half an hour after the motion has been made, the motion shall lapse and Mr. Speaker shall suspend the sitting till ten of the clock on the following morning, or, if it be after midnight, till ten of the clock in the morning of the same day;
(2) if the question on a motion made likewise in a Committee of the Whole House,

293
That the proceedings of the Committee be suspended, be so decided in the affirmative, the Chairman shall leave the chair and make a report to that effect, whereupon Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the question, That the proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended, and the House shall proceed thereon in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Order, and, if the question be agreed to, a motion for the adjournment of the House may be made and the sitting shall afterwards be suspended as aforesaid; but, if that question be negatived, the House shall immediately again resolve itself into the Committee;
(3) on the resumption of the sitting the House shall forthwith resume the suspended proceedings and may afterwards proceed with the remaining business of the sitting which has been suspended: Provided that

(a) on a Motion being made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House do now adjourn, Mr. Speaker shall put the question thereon forthwith; or

(b) on the conclusion of the business Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without putting any question; or

(c) if the business has not been concluded before two of the clock Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings at that hour, or, if the House be in committee, the chairman shall leave the chair and report progress and ask leave to sit again, and Mr. Speaker shall thereafter adjourn the House without putting any question.

This Motion is about the suspension of a sitting after 10 p.m. It is true that in the changes that we made in our procedure in our previous debate we have, as a by-product, substantially reduced the possibilities of unwanted late-night sittings. However, we are now specifically putting forward plans for replacing the morning sitting experiment with changes designed to achieve the same aim by different means.
In moving the Motion, I will not go into any great details, because I think that the House found it convenient on the last occasion to have an almost formal opening, and for me then to listen to the debate and reply to it, rather than repeat what the House already knows very well, which is how the draft proposed Standing Order is to work.
One great difference from the regular morning sittings which we had last Session is that Divisions can take place. We are merely having a suspended late sitting. The sitting will continue from 10 a.m. next day as though it was part of the previous day's work. It simply means that the previous day's work is extended, with the interruption of the night. It will be a genuine substitution
294
for a late sitting. In that respect, it differs from the experiment which we carried out last Session.
I conclude with those few words, with the understanding that, if necessary, I will ask the leave of the House to reply to the debate.
7.20 p.m.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I do not think much of this proposal. I shall vote against it, and advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to do the same. It is an attempt to save face after the ridiculous experiment which, at the time, the right hon. Gentleman called a reform. I am referring to the experiment of the Monday and Wednesday morning sittings.
I have carefully read again the right hon. Gentleman's speech of 14th November, which I rather expected him to repeat today. It is perhaps as well that I read it carefullly beforehand, because he has not said very much today. He said:
"… I could not repeat the ordeal to which whole-time Government back benchers and House officials were subjected last July."
Government back benchers were not conspicuous by their attendance during those morning sittings. The sittings were a grave inconvenience to you, Mr. Speaker, to the Clerks of the House, to officials, to the Press, to the police, and to everyone concerned with the affairs of this House, but not particularly to whole-time Government back benchers.
In his speech, the right hon. Gentleman considered three possibilities with which he said he was faced. He said:
"The first was to accept the rejection of the morning sitting experiment and simply revert to previous practice leaving the whole-time Member as badly off as before and the House conducted for the convenience of the part-time Member."
Who is the part-time Member?
Dr. Reginald Bennett: Ministers.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: They are the main ones.
A solid block of 100 of them are the part-time Members. It is right that they should be part-time Members, because they have to try to run their Departments, and one reason why we spoke against the morning sittings experiment was that we thought it would make it difficult for Ministers to exercise

295
any control over their Departments if they had to hang about here during the morning. They must not only control their Departments, but hold inter-Ministerial meetings, and so on in the morning. However, the right hon. Gentleman rejected that possibility and he was right to do so but his reason was singularly unconvincing.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
"The second possibility was to follow the course pressed on me by a number of my hon. Friends of rolling back the whole business of the House so as to conform with normal office hours."
The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "rolling back" in a sort of Alice in Wonderland way, because he meant the contrary. He meant rolling forward, because he meant rolling forward Question Time to ten o'clock or half-past ten in the morning, and following that with the debate of the day. I think that that is rolling forward, not rolling back. He went on to say:
" But the more I reflected on it the more it seemed to contain one central defect for anyone who cares about debates on the Floor of the House."
Mr. Crossman: I meant rolling back. I meant that instead of starting at 2.30 we should start five hours earlier, at 10.30. That is backwards. A watch is wound backwards from 2.30 to 10.30.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: That is a splendid semantic argument. I started it, but I think that if one begins earlier, one rolls a thing forwards, not backwards. In the light of the things done by the Government I understand the right hon. Gentleman taking a contrary view, and I shall, therefore, not pursue the point any further.
The right hon. Gentleman continued:
" If we roll all the business back so as to have Question Time from 10.30 to 11.30 and the big debate running from 11.30 to 6, with exempted business starting after the 6.30 Adjournment, then it follows that Standing Committees cannot meet in the morning—that is during Question Time and the two main speeches. In that case one must run them simultaneously with the main debate on the Floor of the House in the afternoon. One can do that to one or two Committees, with a great deal of protest on Thursday afternoons, but I just cannot envisage 10 or 12 Standing Committees suddenly suspending business so that Members can vote in a Division on the Floor. One cannot roll back
296
the business in that way. It is a reductio ad absurdum."
I hope, therefore, that we have now finally disposed of that suggestion of rolling back or rolling forward the business of the day so as to start our normal day's work at 10.30. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has disposed of that. I know that some of his hon. Friends want it, but he said that it was reductio ad absurdum, and with that part of his speech I agree.
Sir Douglas Glover: What my right hon. and learned Friend has quoted from the right hon. Gentleman's speech of 14th November is a complete argument against the Finance Bill being considered upstairs when the House is here and a debate is going on.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. We tried to point this out during the debate on this subject.
Having disposed of the business of rolling backwards or rolling forward forever, we come to the right hon. Gentleman's third alternative, that it was part of a combined operation. First, the Committee stage of the Finance Bill goes upstairs. That will mean four all-night sittings on the Floor of the House for the Recommittal and Report stages. He dealt next with the debates on affirmative Orders; he followed that by talking about Counts; both of these we debate later this evening; and then we come to this Motion, the fourth part of the combined operation.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there were to be ad hoc sittings of this kind, but they were not to be frequent, and added:
" Indeed the test of the Standing Order will not be the frequency with which it is employed but its efficacy as a deterrent, as a means of reducing the number of occasions when hardworking whole-time Members are kept hanging around the Palace of Westminster by a handful of Members, some of them amateurs, inspired by that unique combination of postprandial high spirits and moral indignaton which, late at night, can keep a debate going long after the topic is exhausted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 254–6.]
This was a magnificent purple passage in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but it did not lead to the conclusion which he drew, because instead of this being a deterrent, it will be an encouragement. It will be a temptation to which

297
I fear I may yield from time to time. If a Minister whom one dislikes comes along and talks away, one will enter into the debate whether the topic is exhausted or not, and force the Minister to use the deterrent. What will be the use of it if he will not use it? He will have to resume the debate and be here at 10 a.m., with perhaps 100 of his colleagues if he wants a Closure, or if he wants to win a Division.
Mr. Stanley Orme: At least it will be a pleasure to see some of those knight-errants back here at 10 o'clock in the morning, those whom we normally never see here at that hour.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman was ever on the Floor of the House to see the knight-errants. The beauty of this is that the same knight-errant need not come back the next morning. He will get the Standing Order invoked. He will prolong the debate until an infuriated Chief Whip has to invoke it. The following morning, two or three other hon. Members will come along and continue the battle. This is a ridiculous suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward. The Monday and Wednesday morning sittings experiment was ridiculous. We said so, and we were proved right, and this proposal is as ridiculous.
Let us just stop to think of the inconvenience which will be caused when, without notice, at midnight the Leader of the House, or the Chief Whip, decides to put the Standing Order into force. What about you, Mr. Speaker? What about the Clerks and the police? What about arrangements which have been made to view the Palace the following morning? There cannot possibly be a more inconvenient way of doing a thing than, quite suddenly after midnight, to have a statement saying that the House will meet at 10 o'clock the next day. In the interests of the House, and of the right hon. Gentleman himself, I beg him not to proceed with this Motion, because he will bitterly regret it if he does.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Woodburn: I am very glad to say that when this matter came up before the Select Committee on Procedure it was discussed much more rationally than has been the case with the
298
right hon. and learned Member for the Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) tonight. He has reverted to the post of Leader of the party group opposing the Motion and had, I suppose, to find reasons for opposing it.
In the Select Committee, all those who discussed this question were quite reason able and saw this as a possible solution to a problem which no one has yet solved. The House and the country think it is ridiculous that we should sit here all night wasting time, very often because someone has taken it into his head to keep the House up all night. I have had a lot of experience of this— perhaps more than the right hon. And learned Gentleman, because he was not bound to be here sometimes. I have known someone who is not here today coming in at the tail end of a day and keeping us here with several Prayers—
Dr. Bennett: Geoffrey Bing.
Mr. Woodburn: Yes, he was one, but there was one who is still a Member of the House who made quite a name for himself.
One hon. Member opposite said that the Opposition would harry the Government of the day to death, and many people were harried to their graves by that performance. If anyone thinks that that is a dignified way for the House to behave, it is not the public. They think it is stupid that two or three Members should be able to keep 100 sitting here all night just for some fun and games.
The question in the Select Committee was how to avoid that. I tried to find several solutions and, on the Select Committee, of which the right hon. And learned Gentleman was a Member, this suggestion was considered a possibility—
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think this suggestion was considered at all. What was considered was an automatic stop at 12 o'clock every night.
Mr. Woodburn: The automatic stop was certainly suggested. The Government have not adopted such a drastic method but have left it flexible, because it was thought there might be difficulties. The automatic stop raised the problem of depriving the Opposition of the right

299
to put pressure on the Government, which everyone thought they had a right to do.
It struck me that if the opposititon to any Government were keeping the House up all night we might deal with that by providing that all the time spent after midnight should be counted up and deducted from the Supply Days. That would have been a deterrent to the Opposition, officially at least, using up time and keeping people here all night on frivolous business. If they wanted to use their time during the night, they would have been perfectly free to do so, but they would not then be able to use it during the day.
However, one of my own colleagues suggested that this would not work, because Government Members might deliberately keep the House going for hours after midnight so as to frustrate the Opposition's right to Supply Days, and I had to admit that this was a possibility. Therefore, I withdrew that idea because it would have been wrong. It would not have punished the Opposition so much as put a weapon in the hands of Government supporters to deny the Opposition some of their Supply Day time.

I think that the Government have reached a happy solution. I am surprised at the heat opposite, because the Chief Whips on both sides thought that this was a possibility and the Committee gave it some blessing. I do not know why the right hon. and learned Member for the Wirral has accepted the responsibility of opposing it tonight, I am surprised that he has got so heated, because he has put forward no sensible alternative to getting rid of the stupidity of the House allowing one or two Members—even mischievous Members—to keep the House sitting all night for no other purpose than to have a little fun and games.
When serious business is involved, obviously the Government should avoid this method, but where it is only fun and games people should be allowed to go home and get some sleep and conduct their business properly. I am not a part-time Member and I object to being kept here by some frivolous Member who has not been here all day but has perhaps been earning a great deal of money in the courts and comes here at the end of his working day for some fun and games. No one will tolerate this, and this step
300
by the Government towards obviating it is a great contribution.
7.35 p.m.
Mr. R. H. Turton: I take a different view of this Motion from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), because I cannot distinguish it from what was in the Select Committee called the "Woodburn formula", which would have been automatic. This seems very similar. What surprises me is that when the Leader of the House appoints a Select Committee he pays so little attention to its decisions.
Whether this arrangement were automatic or at the instance of the Leader of the House is immaterial. It still has advantages and disadvantages. The first Report of the Select Committee for Session 1966–1967, paragraph 6, said:
" Your Committee have considered a proposal of attractive simplicity designed, to abolish all-night sittings by providing for an automatic suspension of the House at midnight, the unfinished business to be resumed the following morning. It is clear, however, that such a procedure would put great power into the hands of an Opposition … and would lead to greater rather than less uncertainty in the legislative programme."
This was our considered view.
" Indeed, in times of acute political controversy, such a practice could be used to deny the Government of the day effective control over the House."
We therefore looked at this.
The suggestion, although I was attracted by many of its features because I have a great dislike of all-night sittings, had to be rejected because it was impracticable as a Parliamentary solution. The Select Committee studied this matter for a long time, yet the Leader of the House completely rejected our advice and wishes now to adopt this solution.
I would be inclined to say, "Let him adopt it." I am certain that if he does he will give great advantages to the Opposition. The great difficulty, of course, is that this encourages the Opposition to see that on the morning after very little progress is made. There are only four hours in the morning, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., for discussion. The Motion provides that the sitting would be automatically adjourned at 2 o'clock, whereas the old Standing Order provided that if the discussion went up to 2.30 the next day's sitting was wiped out.

301
It is an advantage in the interests of the Government that this will be able to go on for only four hours, but my experience of the House tells me that this will be a great weakness and that the Government will tend to get through less business during the four hours of the morning than they would have achieved in the eight hours of the night.
If the Leader of the House persists in this, he will be dislocating his Government's programme even more than some of his other measures which have been proved to have failed—
Mr. Eric Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering the case of Committee stages being taken on the Floor of the House? In that event, of course, the Government could introduce a timetable and it would not be possible for the Opposition of the day to continue the discussion fractiously between ten o'clock and two o'clock, thus upsetting business.
Mr. Turton: That is a reasonable point, and I am sure that the Leader of the House will take the hint from the Liberal Party. However, it would mean having a Guillotine Motion and presumably—unless we were to alter another Standing Order—prescribing the hours of the morning to be used, the time for Divisions and the Leader of the House moving a Motion for the use of that Standing Order. The complexities involved in that are, I suggest, too great for even the Leader of the House to adopt.
We must look at this whole matter again. I see the attraction of trying to do away with all-night sittings. If we can devise some way of arranging for voluntary timetables, if necessary by means of a deterrent, then that would be to the advantage of all hon. Members. However, as drafted, this proposal, attractive though it is, must be rejected, as it was unanimously rejected by the Select Committee.
Mr. Woodburn: While there may be something in the right hon. Gentleman's argument, would not he agree that not having this proposal would not guarantee that the Government would get their business? The House and the Select Committee decided that the Opposition must have some rights to obstruct Government
302
business. That right remains. The obstruction would not disappear if this proposal were rejected. It would still be there. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of that?
Mr. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten what he recommended. He rejected this particular solution on the ground that it would put more power in the hands of the Opposition than they would have under the original Standing Order. In other words, they would be more encouraged to dislocate business than under the present Standing Order.
The name of Mr. Geoffrey Bing has been mentioned. I am certain that if we were—as we very shortly will be— the Government again and hon. Gentlemen opposite were on the Opposition benches, Mr. Bing, if he were here, would find no difficulty at all in talking for four hours every morning to dislocate Government business. He was able to do that when we were in power. Indeed, the Leader of the House would, no doubt, be able to do precisely the same. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is proposing this change with a view to the time when he will be in opposition. One must have in mind the unanimous view of the Select Committee. That view was that this proposal should not be adopted by a responsible Government, because it would place such great power in the hands of the Opposition.
7.43 p.m.
Mr. F. Blackburn: At least, we are making progress. That must be so when the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) says that we must have some means of getting rid of all-night sittings. However, it seems that hon. Gentlemen opposite are opposed to every suggestion made by the Government to alter the procedure of the House. I hope that, before we reach the end of debating these proposals, we will come across one suggestion with which they agree.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. Is he aware that we allowed the Leader of the House to have 10 similar Motions the last time we discussed this matter and that we did not oppose them?
Mr. Blackburn: They were on minor matters. When we come to discuss

303
fundamental matters of change in the procedure of the House, the Opposition are against them. As I said in a speech on this subject last week, most people agree that some reform of our procedure is needed, but when we get to specific suggestions hon. Gentlemen opposite start opposing them.
I am no great enthusiast for morning sittings. I appreciate the difficulties that they place on you, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Ways and Means, the staff of the House, the Cabinet, other Ministers and a great many hon. Members involved in Standing Committees. However, there are times when an occasional morning sitting is preferable to an all-night sitting. As one who is usually here during late sittings, I take a dim view of a remark made in the debate last week when an hon. Gentleman opposite said, "You cannot take it". Is that really a sensible way of approaching our affairs in the House?
I think that most hon. Gentlemen opposite are directors of firms. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am not complaining about that. I am making a statement. I would be very surprised if they thought it sensible to discuss the affairs of the firms of which they are directors in the middle of the night. Yet it seems that they think it quite reasonable that we should discuss the affairs of the country in the middle of the night.
In the debate on procedure last week, one of the worst features of what happens in Finance Bill debates occurred. At 10 o'clock about half a dozen of the second eleven on the benches opposite arrived. Perhaps I should not call them that. If they consider that to be a derogatory remark, perhaps I should say that about half a dozen of the reserves arrived. We had not seen them during the earlier part of the day, yet they all proceeded to make speeches.
That is the sort of thing that happens. It is all very well to say that the Opposition are there to oppose, but there are two ways of opposing. One can oppose by obstruction—of which the Irish hon. Members were past-masters and for whom we had to alter the rules of the House—or one can oppose by the strength of debate. Opposition merely by obstruction gets us nowhere.
304
As I pointed out in the debate last week, when the former Leader of the House was boasting, after the 1965 Finance Bill, that hon. Gentlemen opposite had disrupted the business of the Government, all that he and his hon. Friends achieved was to make us sit for eight extra days at Whitsuntide and into August. A Government—any Government—will get their business, and if it means them keeping the House sitting longer that will be done. I therefore believe that there is a great deal of sense in trying to avoid these senseless all-night sittings.
In a memorandum which I submitted in 1964, I made a similar suggestion to the one we are discussing. I am, therefore, in favour of this proposal. There is no sense in continuing through the night a discussion of important matters of business. Indeed, I would send debates under Standing Order No. 9 to morning sittings and not allow such debates to disrupt the programme which has already been arranged. If there is agreement to have a debate under Standing Order No. 9, it should take place the following morning. I have been in agreement with the Leader of the House in most of these matters, but I must disagree with him about Standing Order No. 9 debates.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Surely it would be unjust to the Scottish Grand Committee to have these debates in the morning?
Mr. Blackburn: The Scottish Grand Committee does not meet every morning. I find that Scottish hon. Members are very adept at adapting themselves to whatever circumstances arise in the mornings. I am sure that they would manage to do something in these circumstances.
I did not look kindly at being kept for an extra three hours the other day because of the Standing Order No. 9 debate which took place. I do not look kindly on Members who make speeches early in the day and then disappear, leaving others to carry on the debate during the night. I therefore do not agree with my right hon. Friend about the last Standing Order No. 9 debate being a great success. I suggest that it was a flop, probably because my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was so much below his usual form. Possibly he was so

305
amazed at getting a debate under the Standing Order No. 9 procedure that he had not recovered by the following day.
That is another matter which could very well be dealt with in morning sittings. These would happen only occasionally. Under my suggestion the debate under Standing Order No. 9 last week would have taken place on Tuesday morning and the continuation of the debate on what was supposed to be the Coal Industry Bill, but was actually on the White Paper, would have taken place cm the Wednesday morning. I am sure that it would have been for the convenience of hon. Members and we would have discussed important matters at a more sensible time.
I hope that hon. Members will accept this suggestion because by doing so we would improve the way in which the business of the House is conducted and to some extent we would improve our image in the country. Whatever hon. Members opposite may think about the value of all-night sittings, we get no kudos from the country because we conduct our business at such odd hours.
7.52 p.m.
Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I thought both the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) were a little naive as to the causes of the all-night sittings which they so much deplore. It is perfectly true that on occasion an hon. Member who knows a little about procedure and takes advantage of his opportunities can incommode the Government of the day. I have vivid recollections of the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury in that rôle. He took advantage of it with great skill, but in the normal course, it is simply the desire of the Government to get through too much controversial business in too short a time. If we look at what happened last summer we see that the main cause was simply that the Government were trying to push too much business through. It is an extraordinary doctrine that if the Patronage Secretary or the Leader of the House sees fit to put down certain business for the day it is a sign of terrible filibustering if that business is not completed by 10 p.m.
It is the job of the Leader of the House —one on which the present Leader has
306
fallen down recently—to judge of the amount of business which the House will take. If the Government overload the programme they will get an all-night sitting. That is the natural reaction of an Opposition to a Government trying to drive the House too hard. The idea that whatever goes down on the Order Paper in the wisdom of the Government must be law by 10 p.m. is a very unpleasantly authoritarian idea which I very much resent.
The Leader of the House was very skilful in his speech when he said nothing at all about the demise of his morning sittings experiment of last Session. They were a most almighty flop and caused an enormous amount of inconvenience, particularly to those who serve us. They must have cost a great amount of public money. They got through very little business, but in many ways they brought the House into contempt. The Leader of the House cannot say that we did not warn him that this would happen. He produced this ludicrous ill thought-out procedure which failed. He was warned that it would fail, but instead of learning from that he has come forward with an even worse proposal which we warn him will also fail. He is not present at the moment to be warned. He would be a wiser man if occasionally he stayed to listen to speeches.
This new proposal is even worse than the old one. It was suggested at first that we should not take important and really major business in the mornings. The right hon. Gentleman had the decency on the previous occasion not to put down controversial business for morning sittings. They were second-class sittings taking third-class business. Under the new proposal morning sittings may well involve major business. We did have a little notice of the business for the previous morning sittings. It was known a week before what would be the business on those mornings. Subject to the confusion which Government business has been in during the last year or two, we had an idea of what the business would be. Now it is contemplated that late at night—perhaps after midnight, because the proposed Standing Order contemplates this being done after midnight—suddenly the Leader of the House, whom I am glad to see back in his place, or the Minister in charge of the Bill, in

307
a fit of petulance will say, "All right, you will come back at 10 a.m. tomorrow morning to continue the business ".
Has the right hon. Gentleman thought out what would happen if that action were taken? First, there is Mr. Speaker and his deputies, all of whom work hard in the morning and have detailed and important meetings which would have to be scratched at a few hours' notice—work essential to the proper working of this House. Ministers would be dragged from their offices. It may be argued that that would be a good thing as it might keep them out of mischief, but it would be very inconvenient and an inefficient way of running government.
What about hon. Members on Standing Committees who are interested in the business debated the night before? Are they not to attend a Standing Committee but to attend the adjourned sitting of the House? What about hon. Members who have perfectly respectable and important engagements of one sort or another on the following morning? Are they to cancel those engagements after midnight? What about parties of constituents brought here to be shown over the building by arrangements of some months' standing? Are those arrangements to be cancelled all because a Minister got into a temper at 1 o'clock in the morning? This is not the way to conduct the business of the House.
What about the staff of the House? Under the present roster system some of those who are on duty at night are not those who are on duty for the first shift next day. That is the only humane way to run these things. What is to happen when at 1 a.m. we are told the House will meet again at 10? Are they to come and get into their uniforms by that time?
Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirk-dale)Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirk-dale) rose
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member feels that he speaks with authority on this matter, certainly I shall give way. [Hon. Members: "Oh"] I want, first, to put the question so that if the hon. Member speaks with authority he may answer it. Even he cannot answer a question until it is put. Those who would normally be coming here at 2.30 are to
308
be told in the middle of the night that they have to be here at 9 a.m. or 9.30 a.m. for a sitting at 10 a.m.
Mr. Dunn: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman thinks I tried to jump the question. I was not intending to be discourteous. Is he aware that some of the staff on occasion have been on continuous duty for more than 24 hours and once for 31 hours?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am aware of that. It was almost wholly the responsibility of the Lord President of the Council, despite the warnings we gave him. The hon. Member has made an extremely good point, but he must realise that this is a powerful argument against having morning sittings, which brought this about last Session. The only difference in this proposal, as the hon. Member will appreciate, is that on the other occasions those so unfortunately placed were apt to have some notice of what would happen, whereas in this case they will have very little notice at all. Many of these people will be in their homes, which may be in the outer London area. Someone will have to communicate with them in the middle of the night and tell them that they have to be on parade early in the morning.
The hon. Member who concerns himself with the staff will realise, I hope, the additional hardship which would be involved. It is not for the hon. Gentleman, nor for me, but for the Leader of the House to explain how this is to be handled, and how it is to be handled without causing unnecessary hardship. This is one of the many reasons why this proposal is extraordinarily inefficient.
We know that we cannot function as a House without those who help us here. If the HANSARD reporters are not there— they, too, are rostered on various timetables—and if the messengers are not there, the House cannot function. What I think the Leader of the House will do, if the proposal goes through, is to produce a shambles and perhaps even the humiliating situation in which Mr. Speaker and the House assemble, but are unable to sit for lack of the physical means of doing so—a situation which would undoubtedly be very damaging to the reputation of the House.

309
This seems to me to be a completely cock-eyed proposal. In the passage of the speech the Leader of the House made on 14th November, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) quoted, the right hon. Gentleman said that this was intended to be a deterrent, that he really did not intend to do it but wanted to arm himself and his colleagues with a threat which would enable them to get business through much quicker at night than they otherwise would. The right hon. Gentleman and I have been in the House for the same length of time, I think. I should have thought that he had learned by now that the one way not to handle the House of Commons is to threaten it. The House does not react well to deterrents or to threats.
Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne): Has not the right hon. Gentleman admitted that morning sittings were a failure because of the deliberate obstruction of the Opposition in debating for lengthy periods matters which in previous years had gone through more or less on the nod? He speaks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House threatening the House. Is not the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Opposition now threatening to frustrate this procedure before it has even been implemented? Would he not concede that whilst we are asking the country to modernise the Opposition are quite happy to let the House stay in the 19th century?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have rarely heard so many misconceptions expressed in such a comparatively limited intervention. First, I said nothing of the sort which the hon. Gentleman attributes to me about morning sittings. I said that they had been a fiasco, that they were singularly badly attended, as they were particularly by hon. Members opposite, and that they had caused the greatest of hardship to Mr. Speaker, to hon. Members and to the staff of the House. I did not say anything about those proceedings having been obstructed. If the hon. Gentleman studies HANSARD tomorrow, he will see that this is so and that he owes me an apology.
Secondly, I am reacting to a threat. The Leader of the House used the word "deterrent". I am only telling him that, as a matter of experience in the House,
310
which some of us have had, deterrents are not a very wise or rewarding thing to use against the House, because the House, regardless of party, has a very strong and instinctive reaction to this kind of threat.
If the Leader of the House does not worry about that, which he probably does not, he may like to reflect further on the nature of deterrents. To deter, they must be credible. By the time we have analysed this proposal properly and fully, as I hope we shall, by the time the Leader of the House has addressed his mind to the practical question of what will happen when at 1 o'clock in the morning a Minister decides to invoke this procedure—
Mr. Blackburn: Why one o'clock?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Because that is just the kind of time at which a Minister may well decide to do so.
Mr. Blackburn: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be much more sensible to do it at 10 p.m. each night?
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In that case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain why the Standing Order makes specific provision for this being done after midnight. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that this should not be done after midnight, I wonder why he did not table an Amendment to take out that provision.
Mr. Blackburn: I am willing to accept the Motion as it is. I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He keeps mentioning one o'clock. It seems to me that from his own argument it would be more sensible to do it earlier.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is a foolish thing to do at any stage. If the hon. Gentleman prefers, I will say two o'clock. What the hon. Gentleman must address his mind to is that these proposals enable a Minister to do it at any stage, and they make specific provision for this being done after midnight. In other words, the Leader of the House is so clearly contemplating the possibility of doing it after midnight that he has had the forethought to provide in the Standing Order for precisely that contingency.
It is a matter of degree, certainly. I give this to the hon. Gentleman: the later it is done, obviously the worse it

311
is and the more foolish it is. The hon. Gentleman would find that very great difficulties would arise even if it were done at 10 p.m., as he suggests, when so many of the staff off duty have gone home, and, indeed, when hon. Members have concluded their arrangements for the next day. These difficulties will be nearly as severe at 10 p.m. as they will be at 1 a.m. The hon. Gentleman must realise that the one o'clock contingency is contemplated and very likely to arise, because no Minister will want to do this if he can avoid it. He would much rather get his business the same night. Therefore, it will probably be at a fairly late stage that it will begin to dawn on him that he may not be going to get his business for some time and he may therefore decide to invoke this procedure.
It would indeed be a very faint-hearted Minister who at 10 p.m. decided to invoke this procedure. Any hon. Gentleman with some experience of all-night sittings knows that the House goes in curious tides and moods. Sometimes a Clause takes a very long time and then, that Clause having been debated and voted on, the next stages go through quickly. Any experienced Minister knows that. It would be an extraordinarily rash Minister who decided to adopt this procedure at 10 p.m. But if he did, practically all the considerations I have mentioned would still arise. There would still be very great inconvenience, not only to hon. Members and to the Government, but to those who serve us and to the public at large. This would be aggravated in degree as the night proceeded.
I therefore hope that the Leader of the House will decide not to do this. If he does decide to do this, I shall wait with interest to see whether, in the light of the factors which I hope he now understands, in practice any of his right hon. Friends indulge in the folly of invoking it.
8.7 p.m.
Sir Douglas Glover: I find the Leader of the House fascinating, because, although he has been in the House for 22 years, he has probably spent a shorter amount of time in the Chamber, except when he was making one of his illustrious speeches when the Labour Party was in opposition, than
312
almost any other Member of the House, even those returned in 1966.
Half the trouble about the right hon. Gentleman's so-called reforms is that he does not understand how this place works. I personally have a good deal of sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. The trouble is that he cannot translate it into a sensible mode of procedure.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has devoted a good deal of time to explaining the effect this procedure would have on the staff. May I say to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who has now left the Chamber but who might possibly read this in HANSARD, that the idea that all opposition at all times comes from the Opposition benches is a complete non sequitur. In the last Parliament we had an all-night sitting on a Bill connected with judges' remuneration. With the exception of the speech of the hon. Member for Ormskirk, every speech was made from the Government benches. Are hon. Members opposite to be deprived of such opportunities for protest?
Only last week we had a debate on the coal industry, which went on until 7 o'clock in the morning. I admit that, because of the operation of Standing Order No. 9, there had been a three-hour debate earlier in the day, but, even without that three-hour debate, the debate on the coal industry would have continued until 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning. Most of the speeches were made not from this side of the House, but from the Government benches, by hon. Members who wanted to say something on behalf of their constituents and of the the industry with which they were connected. It was an issue about which they felt deeply and they wanted to put their points to the House.
Let us get away once and for all from the idea that, when we are thinking of altering procedure, we are thinking only of the Opposition doing the opposing. Lots of other hon. Members want to oppose from time to time; it is not always the official Opposition.
Mr. Crossman: I know something about that, from personal experience.
Sir D. Glover: With respect, I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows a

313
good deal more about opposition than he does about leading the House.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and said something about our insisting on staying in the 19th century. I hold the strange view that our predecessors were not all fools and that of lot of our procedure has developed because, after trial and error, they found that it worked.
When I first came to the House, if the Government of the day wanted to continue a debate after 10 o'clock at night, they had to move the suspension of the rule at 3.30 in the afternoon, which meant that they probably had to have a three-line Whip and vote on the suspension. It was ray party which altered that, and now we do it at 10 p.m.
I believe that our forebears were wise when they provided for suspension of the rule at half-past three in the afternoon. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to alter our procedure, he might well look back at the reason why they did it. If the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman is now trying to bring in is to have a cat in hell's chance of working, what will happen? At half-past three in the after-noon, the Leader of the House or the Minister of charge of the Bill will have to move that the House will at 12 o'clock that night adjourn till 10 o'clock the following morning.
Mr. Blackburn: Both the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames have a misunderstanding about the reference to 12 o'clock. The Motion begins,
" a motion may be made after ten of the clock "—
and the reference to midnight comes only because one has then to think in terms of the same day and not the following morning.
Sir D. Glover: I have got that point. I am referring to 12 o'clock in my argument only because I do not believe that Ministers will call the House back at 10 o'clock the next morning if important business is under way at 10 o'clock at night. They will say that it would be far better to have a couple of hours more that night.
314
I am trying to be practical here and suggesting how the matter could be formalised. I suggest that, before the sitting starts at the beginning of the day, there would have to be a Motion that, if the business was not completed by midnight, the House would automatically adjourn and meet again at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
Although I am not in favour of reducing the powers of the Opposition, that would at least be a logical Motion to put before the House. In those circumstances, it would mean that, at half-past three, the staff would know that the House was likely to meet at 10 o'clock in the morning. Arrangements could be made, and the staffing problems of the House would fall into line. It would be a logical arrangement which would enable various matters to be dealt with.
There is another aspect of the question about which the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to have thought. If under the proposed arrangement now before us, a Minister gets angry, tired, bored, or fed up at midnight or one o'clock—or 10 o'clock, if the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) wants it—and suddenly decides off the cuff to adjourn the House and bring it back automatically at 10 o'clock the next morning, what does his Chief Whip do about getting a quorum the following morning?
This is an important point, and I should like the Patronage Secretary to listen to it. Does he send round to the 100 or 120 Members he has in the House at midnight and say, "You boys must be here tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock", or does he try to get the 240 Members who are not in the House back at 10 o'clock in the morning? He will not do the latter, I am sure, because he cannot get hold of them. So the Members who have been here the night before will be whipped to be here at 10 o'clock the following morning. This will apply to both sides.
On the other hand, if the right hon. Gentleman accepted my suggestion for formalising this arrangement by an announcement at half-past three, the Whips on both sides could send out a Whip saying that it was probable that people would have to be here at 10 o'clock the next morning. That would

315
apply to all Members, part-timers, full-timers, Ministers—the whole shooting match. It would avoid the argument which, I am sure, would otherwise develop on the Government side, with Members feeling angry and frustrated because 120 Members are "carrying the can" and taking the heat and burden of the day while their lawyer colleagues and the rest are all going off and not being touched by these decisions at all.
I shall not pursue that point further. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has produced an unworkable Standing Order. I accept that the thinking behind what he wants to do has some logic in it, but the right hon. Gentleman does not understand how the House works. It might be a good idea if we started a class in Parliamentary procedure for the Leader of the House. If we did, we might get very much better working of the House.
Any hon. Member worth his salt ought to use the rules of order to the best advantage when opposing the Government of the day. This does not necessarily mean that he wants to be here all night or that he will want to do this or that. But, as one of the duties of the Opposition is to make it difficult for the Government to get their business, it is right and proper that the Opposition should use every advantage of our procedure.
I believe that the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's new proposal will be that, far from getting more business, the Government will get less. At 12 or 1 o'clock at night, I, or the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), if he is thinking of intervening in a debate, is under a certain amount of pressure even from his own colleagues. They say, "For heaven's sake, let us pack up and go home". But there will not be that pressure at 10 o'clock in the morning. They will be encouraged by the Opposition Whips to come in and make speeches. There will be a totally different attitude of mind. This is why I say that, if the present proposal is accepted, the Government will get through less business, not more. There will be an atmosphere of more frustration. It is an unworkable scheme, but it could be made workable if the right hon. Gentleman would heed some of the
316
suggestions which I made at the beginning of my speech about how he could make it work.
8.23 p.m.
Dr. Reginald Bennett: As one who spent a few mornings assisting the House to the best of his poor ability in the sittings so thoughtfully provided by the party opposite last Session, I have seen the demise of morning sittings without shedding a tear. Moreover, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, must have suffered long hours to very little advantage in the House at those sittings. We shall all be glad to see the end of them.
The new arrangement proposed by the Leader of the House is, if anything, more dotty than what went before. It is to be interpreted as a veiled threat of a kind quite different from what many of my hon. Friends have yet suggested. Clearly, a lot of highly controversial legislation is to be put before us, and the Government will not allow enough time for it. They are making arrangements in advance. I do not know whether their frightful Budget of next year is already pre-guillotined and will not be discussed in the House. But, apart from that, there is, plainly, a lot of very controversial legislation ahead, not least, perhaps, that magnificent project for the expenditure of taxpayer's money, set forth in the Minister of Transport's latest little volume. All this will be highly objectionable.
Mr. Robert Cooke: What does my hon. Friend mean by "magnificent" in that context?
Dr. Bennett: I mean "grandiose". It is part of the grandiosity from which the Government still suffer.
The obvious threat to hon. Members on both sides is that there will be a great deal of controversial legislation for which the Government do not propose to allow adequate time. We all know that there never need be all-night sittings if a Government allow enough time for the discussion of the business they provide. The Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary will have no need to call upon the kind of Standing Order proposed if they provide the time the House needs to discuss legislation, and allow more time for controversial legislation. Here

317
is a clear threat that we shall have inadequate time for controversial legislation, and this artifice is a way of preventing the Opposition having their right of full discussion.
I sympathise with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn). Everything he said tonight shows that he is a worthy member of a party in Government who do not wish to have discussion on anything they want to do. He wants to cut it short at 10 o'clock every night.
Mr. Blackburn: The hon. Gentleman could not have listened to my speech. I wonder whether he remains very often at the all-night ordeals.
Dr. Bennett: I hope that some of the hon. Gentleman's Ministerial colleagues will have touching memories of my attention to them at some of the all-night sittings. I shall do my best to add to those memories. The hon. Gentleman was no doubt taking a well-earned rest at the time.
The hon. Gentleman has shown what I regard as one of the most fatuous characteristics of the Motion. If, as he wants, the House rises at 10 p.m. and decides to meet at 10 a.m. the next day, the maximum to which the sitting could extend would be 2 o'clock that afternoon. That is the equivalent of sitting through until 2 o'clock in the morning, which is not generally regarded as very late. I remember that when the Conservatives took over from the Attlee Government rising at 3 a.m. was considered rather early, it was rather a blessing to be able to go home at 3 a.m. when we were debating the Estimates. Rising at 2 o'clock is not at all unreasonable, but that is equivalent to all that will be allowed if we sit from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m. the day after the business has stopped punctually at 10 p.m., as the hon. Gentleman seems to wish.
Mr. Woodburn: Part of the debate is taking place on a misunderstanding. The Motion says:
"…after ten of the clock…".
It does not say that we shall adjourn at 10 o'clock. It might be midnight.
Dr. Bennett: While the right hon. Gentleman was out of the Chamber there
318
was a great deal of pressure from the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. When my right hon. and hon. Friends said that the Motion to suspend the sitting might be moved at midnight or 1 a.m. he said that he wished it to be moved at 10 o'clock and no later. If that happened, there would be provided at the most a morning sitting equivalent to sitting from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. The maximum time allowable will be cut down to what we now know as a 2 o'clock morning, which is not regarded as very late on a controversial matter.
Opposition is unwelcome to the Leader of the House. It is always unwelcome to the Government, but he shows that a little more rudely than has been shown in previous Parliaments. We have here the open intention to shorten the Opposition's opportunities to discuss legislation, as is usual while the right hon. Gentleman is Leader of the House.
One of the things that made the last Session's morning sittings profoundly ridiculous was that there was no provision for a quorum. It was usually only hon. Members on this side of the House who wished to discuss, probably adversely, the business before the House. The benches opposite were almost empty all morning, and nothing could be done about it. Are we to understand, as there is nothing to the contrary in the Motion, that a quorum will be required at this new type of morning sitting? Apparently, Divisions will be possible and, therefore, there will be a need to count heads from time to time. Is there no need for the House to be given the courtesy of a quorum? Will it be done away with yet again? That may well be in the right hon. Gentleman's mind.
It is coupled with the point, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) touched on lightly, of whether the normal process of having Counts, which are normal to the activity of the House to ensure fuller attendance, will be permitted. We shall later consider a Motion dealing with them. But they concern us now because I imagine that if there are no counts—and some of the later Motions suggest that after 10 p.m. there can be none—the Government will use their absence to prevent any need to have a quorum in the morning sittings, which will reduce them to something like the

319
fatuity of their predecessors in the last Session.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman realises the love which will be felt for him and his Government in the constituencies, from which busloads of visitors come to see the House, often by arrangements made months in advance. They cannot possibly be put off and they will arrive, hoping to be shown around, only to be turned away because the House is sitting.
Mr. David Webster: Under the Transport Bill there will not be any more coaches to bring them here.
Dr. Bennett: I suppose that it will be only people from the London constituencies who will visit the House after the Bill goes on the Statute Book.
One way or another, the Government will do a great deal of harm to the good people from all constituencies who from time to time wish to visit the Houses of Parliament. They will have no warning, but will be turned away with the utmost discourtesy, for it is a discourtesy to turn them away without warning, no matter how tactful the servants of the House may be. I strongly resent this. It is a minor but very bad feature of this idiotic Motion that that should be allowed to take place. Therefore, my right hon. and hon. Friends should vote the Motion down if they can.
8.28 p.m.
Mr. Crossman: Perhaps I may now reply to the points raised, and explain as fully as I can, or reveal the secrets of, what is in my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary's mind as well as mine on how this Standing Order would work. First, I shall take the point about visitors put by the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett). If we suspend a sitting in the middle of the night and resume next morning, or continue and have an all-night sitting, from time to time visitors will be incommoded either way. It will make no difference whether there is an interval or not. I take it that the hon. Gentleman would not wish us to suspend an all-night sitting rather than have visitors incommoded.
All of us welcome visitors, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that
320
we cannot turn this place into a museum. We need it for the purposes of Parliament and the House must undertake those purposes. It is important for him to realise that all-night sittings which overrun into the morning have the same effect on visiting as interrupted sittings resumed in the morning would have.
Dr. Bennett: But all-night sittings— with rare exceptions of which I have memory—have in the vast preponderance of cases ended between 5 a.m. and 8 a.m. Very few run after 11 a.m.
Mr. Woodburn: Is not the hon. Gentleman mistaken in his assumption, in any case, in that if an all-night sitting is suspended for resumption in the morning visitors will be able to get into the Strangers Gallery?
Mr. Crossman: We already have arrangements whereby visitors are not able to come into the Chamber on Friday mornings. There is an alternative route for them when the House is sitting, although admittedly it is not as good and may disappoint them. The hon. Gentleman admitted that his was a secondary argument, and it must remain so because Parliamentary business must prevail.
I have listened with great pleasure to the speeches opposite. I have never been showered with such kindly solicitude or such contemptuous, condescending, compassion as on this proposal. It is said that this proposal would be of enormous advantage to the Opposition. Therefore it bewilders me to hear their arguments, because I thought that they were such a strenuous Opposition. One would think that by this proposal the Opposition would be positively benefited, yet they say that this is the most idiotic, stupid, insane and silly proposal, and they will revel in it. Very well, let them revel.
We have had great jokes about the proposal. We have been told about the fun Opposition Members will have, and how they will run rings round us. We shall see. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) is always contemptuous about what he regards as my little experience of the House. I have had this from him several times. Let him have his pleasure. Apparently I am a simple man led by cleverer people. Let us see what happens when the great brains opposite try to defeat us.

321
No one has mentioned that last Session's morning sittings did not in fact dislocate Government business. That was not their weakness. They gave the Government a great deal of business very cheaply indeed. Therefore, the picture of myself as an innocent whose morning sittings were destroying Government business is not borne out by an analysis of the history of the last months of last Session. Indeed, we were getting through Government business so easily that I was somewhat anxious, and thought that we should have to wind up morning sittings because of that.
Dr. Bennett: Cheaply in what sense?
Mr. Crossman: Cheaply in terms of the time spent on Bills. I gave a list giving information of the amount of time we spent. There has also been talk about the number of people who attended the morning sittings. I made some statistical observations concerning the Members who attended morning sittings and those liable to be in the Chamber between midnight and 2 a.m. if the same business had been done then. I found that there was no marked difference.
What was the point of morning sittings.? It was that, since the House was inadequately attended for inconvenient secondary business in the night, we should have that business at a more convenient time. No one thought that the number of hon. Members attending would be much different whether we had the business at a morning sitting or between 1 a.m. and 4 a.m. That was not the test.
There were two tests. The first was on the dislocation of Government business, and that did not happen. On the contrary, the Government were getting their business remarkably easily. My worry was that it was not achieving the objective of cutting down late nights, which was the second test. We were still laving late nights. But the Government were getting their business and there was no dislocation there.
I would point out to those who have talked about the dislocated programme of an ignoramus that we got more legislation through in the last Session than had ever been done before in one Session. Perhaps too much. But we are being laughed at by the professionals opposite. I would only say to them that
322
if we get through as much business this Session as in last Session I shall be glad to be called an ignoramus. I am told that I know nothing about the job of Government, but my job is to "take" what I am called provided we succeed, and in terms of success and failure I am prepared to stand by the record of Government business during the last months of last Session when there were morning sittings.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) have had their jokes and have thought the Motion funny. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Ormskirk with great attention, because I think that he has an interest in what might be called the psychological warfare of Parliamentary procedure. He sees it in terms which I, too, used to study. I thought that in the course of his speech I recognised the half-digested beginning of thinking out this problem and, if he goes as far as we did, he may come to the same conclusions.
But I will not tell him in advance what our strategy and tactics are to be. Why should I? I will leave him to his innocent enjoyment of the future, looking forward to how hon. Members opposite will defeat the poor innocents on this side and use this Motion to stop our business. Let them try! All I am saying now is that it is possible that at we have thought out in advance some of the thoughts which he mentioned to us, but we are not prepared to reveal our conclusions. Why should we tell him?
Sir Edward Brown: Will the Leader of the House give us some sincere direction as Leader of the House and not make a mockery of this procedure? We are debating what he wants to put across to the House; he is not being sincere in what he is now saying.
Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking for a certain amount of sincere, direct, open speech from my side of the House. I have been listening to a torrent of contemptuous abuse. I have been delighted to receive it, but it is only fair to reply in kind. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed those speeches and has just come into the Chamber; he has missed an interesting debate. I do not intend, and in defending

323
this Motion I do not have to, to reveal in advance the tactics which we shall use in seeking to deter these late night sittings.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that the House did not like deterrents and resented and reacted badly against Ministers who use language of that kind. I think that he is right and that it is better to use them without talking too much about them. Let me give an example. When in office the Tory Party did not apply any deterrents. It believed in "dropping the atom bomb" and not merely threatening with it. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite had 15 Guillotines: so far we have had three. We have used the deterrent more successfully than they used the actual bomb. They dropped the bomb at regular intervals and made themselves very unpopular.
We have saved ourselves from dropping it because the Patronage Secretary knows the art of suggesting the use of the Guillotine at a point when its use is then made unnecessary. I congratulate him on the art with which he got the Steel Bill through with a Guillotine. A lesser man like me, simpler and cruder and more ingenuous, might have been driven exacerbated to losing his temper in a moment and clapping on the Guillotine, as the right hon. Member suggested, but the Patronage Secretary sits there silent until he puts a word into my mouth, or into the mouth of the Minister, knowing just how to get the Steel Bill through without a Guillotine.
I do not want to mention a word like "deterrent" because we now have the voluntary timetable. I do not like to say that there is anything behind the voluntary timetable, because there is, but I am not allowed to say so. All I shall say is that it works very well, and I am not prepared to think that it will not work in this case, even if I am laughed at for its existence.
What are we to do? We are here taking the power to suspend a sitting whenever it is thought appropriate, and the reason we are taking it is simply and solely in order to deter or prevent not the all-night sitting, because, as I have said, we do not want to prevent the all-night sitting, but the late-night sitting, the sitting which ends at 2 or 3 or 4 o'clock
324
and which is the result of the conditions which I have described. I am told that this Motion will have no effect or exacerbate them; we shall see.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen need not worry too much about the staff of the House of Commons. We have consulted the staff and there are no technical difficulties whatever. Some will be on rota and some will carry through, and what happens now on an all-night sitting can happen on an interrupted sitting. If there can be staff for an all-night sitting there can be staff for an interrupted sitting for a few hours in the morning.
I am confident, from what I have learned, that the staff would definitely prefer the risks—yes, there are risks and gambles in what we are now doing from their point of view—to the prospect of the alternative which they suffered last summer. I think that they are right to prefer it, because they do not take quite the same view of the way we may conduct business as the hon. Member for Ormskirk. They take the view that we may succeed in what we are up to. He is confident, of course, with his wisdom, with his cleverness, with his supreme understanding of procedure, that he will defeat the Government.
Right, we will just wait and see when the test comes, when the Report stages come and the times when these things might be necessary. We will see whether it actually happens. We are not concerned with stopping all-night sittings. All-night sittings, especially what I call the private Members all-night sitting, is a right which private Members will always enforce, and should be allowed to do so.
This is why I said on the question of sending the Finance Bill upstairs, that I would certainly fight for the right of a private Member to continue to have his say on the Finance Bill, even if it meant sitting up all night on Report. I am certain that there will be at least one all-night sitting on Report, if I know the spirit which private Members show in making the kind of speeches that they do on that occasion. That is why we have left that provision; that is why I got that recognised in the Consolidated Fund Bill.
We are not dealing with this, but with something quite different. We are dealing with die situation where one has a

325
certain amount of business which could be got through perfectly sensibly and competently in a couple of hours, but people protract it for four or five hours, or more, to the great inconvenience of all the rest of us. I am told that this little Motion will greatly assist all those who want to sabotage the Budget and that I should be grateful to those who oppose it. We do not agree, and we will be able to test who is right and who is wrong when we have passed this Motion and the months have passed and we come to the time when such happenings are likely.
Mr. Turton: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Select Committee on Procedure, on which his own side are in a majority, were quite wrong in coming to this conclusion?
Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because it was on my notes to reply to him on that point about the automatic stop at 12 o'clock midnight. May I reveal a secret to him. Our intentions in applying this Motion are very different from an automatic stop. The whole art of this Motion is that the stop is not automatic. It is the automatic stop at 12 which gives all the power to the Opposition. It is the lack of automaticity, or shall we say the holding of discretion on this side, which gives the initiative, or might do, to this side.
It is no good arguing any more, because the great thing is to test who is right and who is wrong. I am willing to have a little wager behind Mr. Speaker's Chair with the hon. Member for Ormskirk, if he is prepared to, that by the end of this Session he will be able to make this same speech, but from the other side of his face.
Dr. Bennett: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the point about Quorums and Counts?
Mr. Crossman: It is strictly out of order, because a following Motion deals with Counts. If the next but one were carried there would be no Counts but there will be Divisions, and if there are Divisions that is a perfectly good substitute for a Count in testing whether the House is there.
8.44 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: I had hoped to catch your eye before the right
326
hon. Gentleman rose, Mr. Speaker, but there are one or two points of his argument which seem so extraordinary that I must deal with them. It seems to have been assumed by those who support this Motion, including the right hon. Gentleman, that it is necessary to have morning sittings in order to stop all-night sittings.
There are many of use who are in favour of some formula to prevent unnecessary all-night sittings, but it does not necessarily follow that one has to threaten a morning sitting in order to get rid of an all-night sitting. It is accepted that morning sittings have been a failure, an almightly flop, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said.
The Leader of the House on 14th November said as much. He said:
" It will not surprise the House when I now announce that we have decided not to renew that particular Sessional Order—"
that is, the Order for morning sittings. Later, he said that.
"… morning sittings, in the form in which we tried them, failed to do their job".— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th Nov. 1967; Vol 754, c. 244–57.]
He comes before the House today in praise of them and says how cheaply the Government got their business. This is not the way to treat the House. The House is a debating Chamber. It is not some place in which the Government steamroller through their business without any of their back bench Members present.
After saying that it was a failure, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
" Finally, we propose a new Standing Order which will permit a morning sitting as a direct substitute for a late sitting on the night before."
So it is now suggested that we should have morning sittings, not announced in advance as they were before, but at a moment's notice, not non-controversial, as they had been, but controversial, with Divisions and, apparently, with Counts.
I must refer to a passage in the speech of the Leader of the House on 14th November, in which he said that this procedure would not be used very frequently; it was to be used only as a deterrent. He continued with what I think was a slur on the House and on hon. Members. He said that it would be
"… a means of reducing the number of occasions when hard working whole-time

327
Members are kept hanging around the Palace of Westminster by a handful of Members, some of them amateurs, inspired by that unique combination of post-prandial high spirits and moral indigation which, late at night, can keep a debate going long after the topic is exhausted."
That was a smear on the House. Here is the Leader of the House coming as a sort of bullying headmaster and saying, "Come to my study in the morning". The reference to amateur Members shows what is in his mind. He hopes, by this sort of threat, to prevent those who have interests outside the House from attending to them during the morning.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the constituencies send their Members to Parliament to represent them in Parliament and not to pursue part-time jobs outside the House? Although the House may be tolerant of this practice, would he not agree that it is quite wrong for such hon. Members to come into the House late at night, having been absent all day, to keep full-time Members sitting at their pleasure?
Mr. Page: I find that I can serve the House better if I bring to it up-to-date knowledge of a practical profession than by sitting in the Tea Room all morning.
The Motion is relevant only to exempted business, because other business will stop at 10 o'clock anyway. Exempted business is business which the House thinks so important that it should discuss it and continue to discuss it after 10 o'clock. Therefore, having decided that it is important business, either by suspending the rule at 10 o'clock or by Standing Orders, the business is to be suspended at the whim of a Minister.
What the Leader of the House professed to wish to stop in all-night sittings was expressed when he said:
"What we should seek to prevent is not the deliberate, determined, all-night sitting as a method of opposition, but the haphazard late-night sitting dragging on to the early hours."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 255–6.]
There is no distinction in the Motion between a "deliberate, determined, all-night sitting" and a "haphazard" sitting. A debate is none the worse for being haphazard. Hon. Members may wish to make constituency speeches which they do not have an opportunity to make in other debates, and there is no harm in their making them at a late hour. It is not always evident in debate where the chink in one's opponent's armour is until the debate has proceeded for some time. It may be haphazard in prodding and thrusting to see where are the weak points of one's opponent. One goes on thrusting, perhaps in a haphazard way, until the thrust sinks in. I would not have thought a debate any the worse for being haphazard.
Perhaps I ought to have read out a previous sentence in the right hon. Gentleman's speech on 14th November, when he said:
"I think that there come times—maybe they will come this Session—when a Government Measure arouses such profound opposition that the all-night sitting becomes a perfectly legitimate weapon of opposition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 256.]
Not there come times. The time has come when all the Measures of this Government arouse such profound opposition that we do not wish to be deprived of this perfectly legitimate weapon for opposing those Measures.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 126.

Division No. 18.]

AYES

[8.50 p.m.

Albu, Austen

Bessell, Peter

Buchan, Norman

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Bidwell, Sydney

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Alldritt, Walter

Binns, John

Cant, R. B.

Anderson, Donald

Bishop, E. S.

Carmichael, Neil

Archer, Peter

Blackburn, F.

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Armstrong, Ernest

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Coe, Denis

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Boardman, H.

Coleman, Donald

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Booth, Albert

Concannon, J. D.

Bagler, Gordon A. T.

Boston, Terence

Contan, Bernard

Barnes, Michael

Boyden, James

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Barnett, Joel

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Baxter, William

Brooks, Edwin

Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

Beaney, Alan

Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

Daiyell, Tam

Bence, Cyril

Brown, R. W. (Shoredltch & F'bury)

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Davidson James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

Irvine, Sir Arthur

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

Paget, R. T.

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)

Palmer, Arthur

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Johnson, Carol (Lewlsham, S.)

Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Pardoe, John

Dell, Edmund

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Park, Trevor

Dempsey, James

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Dewar, Donald

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Judd, Frank

Pavitt, Laurence

Dobson, Ray

Kelley, Richard

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Doig, Peter

Kenyon, Clifford

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Dunn, James A.

Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

Pentland, Norman

Dunnett, Jack

Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

Leadbitter, Ted

Price, William (Rugby)

Eadie, Alex

Ledger, Ron

Probert, Arthur

Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Randall, Harry

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Lee, John (Reading)

Rankin, John

Ellis, John

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Rees, Merlyn

Ensor, David

Lomas, Kenneth

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Loughlin, Charles

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

Lubbock, Eric

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

Fernyhough, E.

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Pinch, Harold

McCann, John

Rose, Paul

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

Macdonald, A. H.

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

McGuire, Michael

Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Ryan, John

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

Forrester, John

Mackintosh, John P.

Sheldon, Robert

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Maclennan, Robert

Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N 'c' tie-u-Tyne)

Galpern, Sir Myer

MacMilian, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Gardner, Tony

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Garrett, W. E.

McNamara, J. Kevin

Slater, Joseph

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

MacPhereon, Malcolm

Small, William

Gregory, Arnold

Mahon, Peter (Preston, 8.)

Spriggs, Leslie

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mapp, Charles

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Mantling, William

Marks, Kenneth

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Hannan, William

Mason, Roy

Swain, Thomas

Harper, Joseph

Maxwell, Robert

Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Mendelson, J. J.

Tinn, James

Haseldine, Norman

Mikardo, Ian

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Hattersley, Roy

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Hazell, Bert

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Watkins, David (Consett)

Heffer, Eric S.

Molloy, William

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Henig, Stanley

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Weitzman, David

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Wellbeloved, James

Hilton, W. S.

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

White, Mrs. Eirene

Hooley, Frank

Moyle, Roland

Whitlock, William

Hooson, Emlyn

Murray, Albert

Wilkins, W. A.

Horner, John

Neal, Harold

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Newens, Stan

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Norwood, Christopher

Winniok, David

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Oakes, Gordon

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Ogden, Eric

Winterbottom, R. E.

Howie, W.

O'Malley, Brian

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Hoy, James

Oram, Albert E.

Yates, Victor

Huckfield, Leslie

Orbach, Maurice

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Orme, Stanley

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Oswald, Thomas

Mr. Eric G. Varley and Mr. Neil McBride.

Hunter, Adam

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

NOES

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Burden, F. A.

Elliott.R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)

Aator, John

Campbell, Gordon

Emery, Peter

Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

Carlisle, Mark

Errington, Sir Erie

Awdry, Daniel

Chichester-Clark, R.

Eyre, Reginald

Baker, W. H. K.

Clegg, Walter

Farr, John

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Cooke, Robert

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Got, & Fhm)

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Fortescue, Tim

Bitten, John

Cordle, John

Gibson-Watt, David

Biggs-Davison, John

Costain, A. P.

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Black, Sir Cyril

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Glover, Sir Douglas

Blaker, Peter

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

Glyn, Sir Richard

Boardman, Thomas (Leicester, S.W.)

Crouch, David

Goodhew, Victor

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Cower, Raymond

Bromley - Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

Dance, James

Grant, Anthony

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Doughty, Charles

Gresham Cooke, R.

Buchanan-Smith, Allck(Angus, NAM)

Drayson, G. B.

Grieve, Percy

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Bullus, Sir Erie

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

Gurden, Harold

330

331

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

MacArthur, Ian

Silvester, Frederick

Harris, Reader (Heston)

McMaster, Stanley

Smith, John

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Maddan, Martin

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera

Mawby, Ray

Summers, Sir Spencer

Hastings, Stephen

Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Temple, John M.

Heseltine, Michael

More, Jasper

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Hiley, Joseph

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Tilney, John

Holland, Philip

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Hordern, Peter

Murton, Oscar

Vickers, Dame Joan

Hornby, Richard

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

Hunt, John

Neave, Airey

Walters, Dennis

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Nott, John

Weatherill, Bernard

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Webster, David

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Kaberry, Sir Donald

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Woodnutt, Mark

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Prior, J. M. L.

Worsley, Marcus

Lane, David

Pym, Francis

Wright, Esmond

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Quennell, Miss J. M.

Wylie, N. R.

Lloyd, lan (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Younger, Hn. George

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Royle, Anthony

Loveys, W. H.

Sharples, Richard

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

Mr. Timothy Kitson and Mr. Hector Monro.

Resolved,
That, during the remainder of the present Session.
(1) a motion may be made after ten of the clock by a Minister of the Crown, That the proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended, and the question thereon shall be decided without amendment or debate; and if the question be agreed to in the House, a motion may immediately thereafter be made, That this House do now adjourn, and, at the conclusion of the debate on that motion and in no case later than half an hour after the motion has been made, the motion shall lapse and Mr. Speaker shall suspend the sitting till ten of the clock on the following morning, or, if it be after midnight, till ten of the clock in the morning of the same day;
(2) if the question on a motion, made likewise in a Committee of the whole House, That the proceedings of the Committee be suspended, be so decided in the affirmative, the Chairman shall leave the chair and make a report to that effect, whereupon Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the question, That the proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended. and the House shall proceed thereon in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Order, and, if the question be agreed to, a motion for the adjournment of the House may be made and the sitting shall afterwards be suspended as aforesaid; but, if that question be negatived, the House shall immediately again resolve itself into the Committee;
(3) on the resumption of the sitting the House shall forthwith resume the suspended proceedings and may afterwards proceed with the remaining business of the sitting which has been suspended: Provided that

(a) on a Motion being made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House do now adjourn, Mr. Speaker shall put the question thereon forthwith; or

(b) on the conclusion of the business Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without putting any question; or

332

(c) if the business has not been concluded before two of the clock Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings at that hour, or, if the House be in committee, the chairman shall leave the chair and report progress and ask leave to sit again, and Mr. Speaker shall thereafter adjourn the House without putting any question.

Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business)
9.3 p.m.
The First Secretary of State (Mr. Michael Stewart): I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business) be amended as follows: —
Line 17, leave out from 'provides' to end of line 22 and insert ' but Mr. Speaker shall put any questions necessary to dispose of such proceedings not later than half-past eleven of the clock or one and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings, whichever is the later:
Provided that, if Mr. Speaker shall be of opinion that, because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion, the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall, instead of putting the question as aforesaid, interrupt the business, and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting (other than a Friday);
(c) proceedings in pursuance of any Standing Order of this House which provides that proceedings though opposed may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business;'.
The effect of this alteration, if the House agrees to make it, is that the House would in future be able to handle Orders subject to the affirmative procedure in the way that we can now handle Orders subject to the negative procedure; that is to say, that the debate would normally last an hour and a half unless Mr. Speaker judged that at the end of that

333
time there had not been adequate debate, in which case further facilities and time would have to be provided.
The House knows that the number of Statutory Instruments of all kinds has been increasing steadily over a great many years under Governments of all complexions.
While I am on this point, might I correct something that I said in our last debate about Orders. On 6th December I said that it was possible by Order in the House and not even by Statute to raise the rates of National Insurance contributions. I was in error about that, except for the contributions of certain special groups of contributors, such as mariners. I am sorry for having misled the House on that occasion.
This growth of Orders, without which it would be impossible to provide for the government of the modern State, has created the problem of how to deal with them in a way that does not waste time, but gives the House the proper control. As far back as 1954 the House decided, concerning Orders subject to the negative procedure, that the Prayer should last, as the Standing Orders now provide, for an hour and a half, subject to the discretion of Mr. Speaker to rule that the topic has not had a proper opportunity for debate.
Mr, Blackburn: Was it not 1951 and not 1954?
Mr. Stewart: I trust I shall not mislead the House again. My hon. Friend is a great authority, but my information —and I believe it to be correct—is that this was a Sessional Order made in 1954.
Mr. Graham Page: In fact it was 1953.
Mr. Stewart: I do not know whether I ought to pause for a moment to see if there are any further suggestions.
Mr. Woodborn: There was such an Order anyway.
Mr. Stewart: If my hon. Friend is right, that strengthens the point that it is even longer than I had supposed since we decided to deal with Orders subject to the negative procedure in this way.
Since the House first debated the present proposal, it will be seen that the Motion has been expanded to give this discretion to Mr. Speaker. This is the
334
way that it will be bound to work. The Government of the day, whatever party they might be, will not want to land themselves in the position of trying to get an affirmative Order through in an hour and a half, to be told by Mr. Speaker at the end of that time that this had not given sufficient opportunity to discuss so important a subject and that they must, therefore, provide further time.
The Government would consider in advance, "Is this an affirmative Order of such importance that it would not be sensible to try to get it through in an hour and a half?" and would then provide for more time if they decided that it would not be sensible, because the proposed new Order does not prescribe that all Motions dealing with affirmative Orders must go through in an hour and a half.
It would be open to the Government, perhaps after consultation through the usual channels, to decide that for this or that affirmative Order more time should be allowed, and if they mistook the temper of the House, or, in Mr. Speaker's judgment, mistook the importance of the Order, they would find that they could not get it through in an hour and a half. In effect, therefore, this Motion means that if an affirmative Order is of such a nature that in Mr. Speaker's judgment it can be adequately debated in an hour and a half, that will be the time limit for the debate.
There remain, of course, certain other very important Orders which the House discusses, for example the general grant for local authorities, or Orders continuing the Armed Forces Acts, and these will continue to have a full day's debate.
I think I have explained the nature of the Motion. I think it will be simplest if I say no more at this stage, but, like my hon. Friend, listen to the debate and hope to have the opportunity, if necessary, to reply at the end of it.
9.7 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: As the right hon. Gentleman has explained, the purpose of this Motion, as I see it, is to place the same restraint on a debate in which the Government are required to ask the House by affirmative Resolution to approve an Order as is put at present, by Standing Order 100, on a debate in

335
which the Opposition, or indeed any backbench Member, asks the House by negative Resolution to nullify an Order.
Briefly, it is that such debates shall end at 11.30, or, a slight variation under this Motion as compared with Standing Order 100, that the debate may run for an hour and a half. The difference is that in the one case Parliament has, by the parent Statute, required the Government to bring the Order, or draft Order, before the House. In the other case the parent Statute has given the Government power to create law, subject only to somebody in the House praying that the Order be annulled.
It may be astonishing to some right hon. and hon. Members who have not had cause to look into this matter in detail to know the different kinds of Statutory Instruments which there can be, and the different types of procedure for dealing with them in the House, if they come before the House at all. There are many which do not even require to be laid before the House. There are many for which, although they are required to be laid, there is no Parliamentary procedure for annulment, and all that can be done is to put down an early day Motion. But we are not concerned with those under this Motion. We are concerned with comparing those which can be annulled by a negative Resolution with those which require an affirmative Resolution.
Even in those two classes, there are many different kinds. Among those which require an affirmative Resolution, some are brought in in draft and cannot be made operative unless an affirmative Resolution is passed by each House or, in some cases, by the Commons only; some are made but will not operate unless an affirmative Resolution of approval is passed in each House; and some are made and are in operation and will continue in operation for only a number of days unless kept alive by an affirmative Resolution of each House.
These are the various types which require an affirmative Resolution, and, in considering them, the Select Committee, in its first Report, in August, 1966, said, in paragraph 15(iii):
" unopposed Affirmative Resolutions do not normally take long. Those proceedings should
336
not be limited in time pending further consideration of delegated legislation by Your Committee, since the affirmative resolution procedure is deliberately provided for Orders more important than those subject only to the negative procedure."
That is the distinction, as recognised by the Committee—that the affirmative Resolution is required for Orders which are of more importance.
This was clearly shown in the Report of the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation as long ago as 1953, when the type of Order which conventionally requires an affirmative Resolution was set out in evidence by the late Sir Alan Ellis and accepted by the Committee. He divided them into three different classes, placing in the first the powers which, when exercised, will substantially affect the provisions of an Act of Parliament, whether by altering its language or increasing or limiting its extent or duration or otherwise.
His second class was composed of powers to impose financial charges, such as Purchase Tax Orders and other such Orders, and his third class consisted of skeleton powers, where the parent Act fixes the purpose and leaves the whole substance of the law to be dealt with by subordinate legislation. He quoted the Development Council Order under the Development Act of 1947. Recently, we have seen a number of very important Orders requiring affirmative Resolution, such as those on Rhodesia and those under the Prices and Incomes Act.
Incidentally, there is still the power to make Orders under the Emergency Powers Act, the sort which must be approved within seven days and last for only a month. I trust that it is not suggested that those would ever be dealt with on the one and a half hour procedure after ten o'clock—
Mr. M. Stewart Mr. M. Stewart indicated dissent.
Mr. Page: What has happened in the past is that, through the usual channels, important Orders of this sort have been given a full day or half day of debate.
I wonder, however—this is where we feel a little suspicious—whether they would have been given that time by this Government if this Motion had already been accepted, that is to say, if they could have been put on at night after ten o'clock with a probability that the

337
debate would last for only an hour and a half. Under the present procedure and convention with regard to affirmative Resolutions, there have been very few occasions when the House has been inconvenienced by affirmative Resolutions going on after 11.30 p.m. There might have been, had the draft Orders been brought on at 10, but because there has been the risk of the debate going on late at night, the Government have found time for them at other times of the day. I suspect that this Standing Order may be used for putting on at night debates which should be given a full day's or half a day's debate and which, up to now, have been debated during the daytime. Otherwise I cannot see the purpose of this new Standing Order, because there has not been any mischief from the fact that affirmative Resolutions can run until after 11.30 at night.
For 14 years—from either December 1953 or January 1954—this Standing Order No. 100 has been a basis of argument when Bills have proposed to delegate legislation to a Minister. Time and again, when this Clause has appeared in Bills giving power to Ministers to use Statutory Instruments to create law we have argued from both sides in Committee upstairs and on Report on the Floor of the House that this ought not to be delegated legislation but should go into the Bill; that we should know for what we are legislating. The answer has been that if a matter requires an affirmative Resolution the Minister must bring it before the House and it must be debated.
That form of compromise has been accepted by critics of a Bill on many occasions. The argument of flexibility for the Minister and the argument of urgency to get a Bill on the Statute Book without writing long schedules into it have been smoothed over by the hon. Members being told, "If there is the affirmative Resolution procedure here you will know what the law will be." I am sure that on many occasions, if it had been known at the time that the affirmative Resolution could be restricted in time, that compromise could not have been brought about. There would have been greater insistence that the matter should be in the Bill.
The power—to extend the time and adjourn for a further period of debate— which is given to you, Mr. Speaker, if
338
the Motion is accepted and if we adopt this new Standing Order is, I submit, no real safeguard. I say that because this has only very exceptionally been used in respect of the negative procedure. It is in the Order relating to the negative procedure, but in fact, you, Mr. Speaker, or your Deputy, have not found on many occasions that, even though hon. Members are rising to their feet, you were justified in saying that the debate should continue or be adjourned until another day.
The second reason why it is not a real safeguard is because material points in debate may not emerge in an important debate lasting for one and a half hours. When thinking of a debate lasting for one and a half hours, one must accept that there might be four 15-minute speeches from the Front Benches, followed by a couple of Privy Councillors. After that there would not be much chance for a backbencher to get in and make his points. It may be that Mr. Speaker, having heard four speeches from the Front Benches and two Privy Councillors, will think that there has been enough of that debate and that the subject has been fully discussed without the need to hear the real points which might come forward from the backbenches.
The third reason why it is no real safeguard is because the steam goes out of a debate when it is adjourned. This would please a Government if they are embarrassed by a debate on an important matter. They might be pleased to have it adjourned until the atmosphere had cooled off the next morning, but this is bad for debate and does not make for a good discussion.
The fourth reason why I say it is no safeguard is the inconvenience caused to hon. Members in rearranging business after a debate is adjourned. In this case, it would not be adjourned to die following morning but to a later date. It is a great inconvenience to hon. Members when a debate is broken in that way. For these reasons, first, because there has been no inconvenience up to the present in allowing an affirmative Resolution debate to run for more than one and a half hours, and, secondly, that that it might be used to the prejudice particularly of back bench Members in future, I hope that the House will reject

339
the Motion and will leave the rules as they stand.
9.20 p.m.
Mr. Blackburn: Everyone must recognise that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is an expert on the question of Orders, but I do not think that he has made a very convincing case for the rejection of this Motion. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the First Secretary need worry particularly about debates on many Orders which could not be completed, even on affirmative Orders, in an hour and a half.
You, Mr. Speaker, will agree that if you did not have to spend so much time trying to get hon. Members to debate Orders instead of the Bills on which they are based, many of these debates would be completed much more quickly than they are at present. I suggested that the date was 1951 or early in 1952 because I remembered that it was one of the early actions taken by the Conservative Government in 1951, when Mr. Harry Crookshank was Leader of the House.
I think that memories went back to what had happened in the last days of the Labour Government, when there had been this harrying process. He persuaded the Labour Opposition that it would be a good idea to try this experiment. I believe that he thought he was getting away with quite a lot when the Labour Opposition agreed to it for negative Orders. That can have been the only explanation why only for negative Orders, rather than for all Orders, a proposal for a one-and-a-half hours' debate was put forward.
I hope that the House will accept this Motion. I am sure that on very important Orders, such as those on Rhodesia and prices and incomes, the Government will do as they did last Session and provide time during the day for the main debate. There are certain Orders which would necessarily require more than an hour and a half to debate. I feel sure that the Government, in consultation with the Opposition, would recognise their importance and be prepared to find additional time to debate them.
I am wholeheartedly in support of the Motion, although it is not exactly what I should like. I should like to send all
340
these Orders to Committee, so that we could get through out business in reasonable time. I cannot see why we should have one set of rules for negative Orders and another for affirmative Orders, even though affirmative Orders, by Statute, have to be brought before the House. Therefore, I hope the House will accept the suggested addition of these Orders.
9.24 p.m.
Sir Lionel Heald: I shall be brief in supporting the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)—which has not been selected—because it would be an impertinence for me to try to add anything to the speech made by my hon. Friend. He is probably the greatest living expert on this subject, but I think that I should underline matters of principle which are involved.
We are dealing with delegated legislation. Any further restriction on discussion of delegated legislation is something we all ought to resist. Anyone who is not in the Government, but who sits on either side of the House should resist it strongly. When one hears my hon. Friend say, "There it is, now we must accept it" we know that there are some delegated legislation Orders which can go through the House without any discussion at all. Not many years ago hon. Members on both sides of the House would have protested against that. I suppose that in modern days with our magnificent white-hot systems of government we have to have that, otherwise we would never get through the work.
If we are to have it, we must have an opportunity of discussing it. The first consideration, therefore, is: is there a justification for further curtailing the opportunities of the House to discuss these things? I have always had the highest respect for the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn). I have sat with him on the Select Committee on Procedure. I was horrified to hear him, of all Members, say that an Order altering the law and the rights of the subject ought not to be discussed on the Floor of the House, but should be sent to a Standing Committee.
Mr. Blackburn: I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that a Standing Committee would be formed by Members of Parliament.
Sir L. Heald: It is not a question of who it is formed by. It is a question of what the form of it is and what the effect of it is. I would require to be satisfied on any occasion of the justification for any further curtailment of the opportunities of Members of the House to discuss in the House and as a House of Commons, not as a Committee, increased powers, perhaps to levy taxation. We are not told what is to be done until the Order is laid. These are what they call skeleton powers. "Skeleton" is the right word.
The second point is the difference between an affirmative Resolution and a negative Resolution. In effect—I use the words carefully—this proposal has an assimilating effect. It is blurring the difference between them. This matter was discussed in 1953. I have a personal reason for remembering it. I was quite clear at that time that there was a very big difference between the two things and that there was intended to be. This is the beginning of a new approach. There is to be no difference. It is a gradual shading down. The House should be very careful before it agrees to something which increases the tendency towards dictatorial powers in the Government. I therefore support my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby.
9.23 p.m.
Mr. Woodburn: There is undue apprehension about the Motion. I was a member of the Committee on Delegated Legislation which made the recommendation in regard to negative procedure Orders. There is one distinction which has not been made today. One reason why it was passed was that it was not only designed to place a restriction on the length of time for which a Prayer could be discussed. Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown used to allow about two hours for a Prayer. Six Prayers might have been tabled, in which case matters dragged on continually, one Prayer after the other.
By the time our Committee discussed the matter the Government of the day had discovered another way of putting a stop to this, by the simple expedient of moving the Adjournment of the House, an expedient which no genius had thought about during the period in which these debates lasted through the night. In spite of that, our Committee thought that it was desirable to make this recommen-
342
dation, and the then Conservative Government adopted it. There has never been the slightest complaint about it. It stopped half a dozen Prayers from going down and allowed one Prayer to be decided on one night.
There is no question of half a dozen affirmative Orders going down. If the Government want to bring an affirmative Order before the House, they do it in such a way as to get it carried reasonably. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who expressed many misapprehensions, may be interested to know that the Select Committee has on several occasions discussed the question of how far the liberty of the Opposition would be restricted. On every occasion we came to the conclusion that, if the Government were unreasonable on any subject such as this, the Opposition had unlimited means for making them pay for it. There is, therefore, no question of dictatorship. If the Government try to put down an affirmative Order and rush it through, they might, perhaps, rush that one through the House, but the Opposition will have plenty of powers in reserve to make sure that they pay a heavy price for so doing. The difficulty as regards suppression of the liberty of the Opposition is, therefore, imaginary. We ought not to exaggerate these things.
Mr. Graham Page: As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that we should have to let an affirmative Order go through under the l½-hours arrangement, the law would be made and it would be all over. But then, he says, we could be spiteful on another occasion just to pay the Government back. That is an extraordinary view.
Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is what he is objecting to, that we should remove power from the Opposition to obstruct the Government's business. But that is the weapon which the Opposition have to compel the Government to be reasonable. I am pointing out that the Select Committee discussed this matter and came to the conclusion that there were plenty of reasons for the Government's being reasonable. Otherwise, as he says, the Opposition could be spiteful. That is the way the House of Commons works and has worked. It is the reason for many all-night sittings, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The Opposition's argument here

343
is putting up Aunt Sallies only to knock them down.
Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: When we discussed this, we did not proceed on the basis that there would be an easy Guillotine machinery for every Bill. Because we thought that our powers could be used against particular Bills, we thought that no harm would done. But this will not be so now.
Mr. Woodbum: We are discussing affirmative Orders. The Chair is empowered to see that the Government are reasonable. If they are not reasonable, Mr. Speaker has ample powers to allow an extra debate. It is a reflection on the Chair to suggest that Mr. Speaker would not protect minorities in this case. I am certain that both Mr. Speaker now and past Speakers, have always made it their responsibility to protect minorities. Any Speaker would ensure that the Government did not ride roughshod over the Opposition. Therefore, the Government must be reasonable.
The hon. Gentleman said that he could not imagine any mischief arising from what he wants. That is probably right, but one has to bear in mind that affirmative Orders come before the House on superannuation matters, for example. An Order on superannuation for teachers, the police or whoever it may be, has to be agreed by all the parties and it is all fixed according to a pattern. When the Order comes before the House, the House cannot alter it; it must either accept or reject it.
Obviously, there ought to be plenty of time to discuss the principle of such an Order in the shorter time proposed. If not, the Speaker has power to extend the time. But my experience of bringing such an Order before the House is that any number of Members want to make constituency speeches about it. My experience in bringing measures forward on education is that the Government must be very careful because, once something like that comes before the House, one is there almost for the duration. Much the same thing happens on fishing; a large number of Members want to make speeches not on the Order but on fishing. They make the Order a peg on which to hang their observations. This is a misuse of an affirmative Order. In such a case, if the House is being kept going
344
by what appears to be irrelevant discussion, it is quite right, in my view, to have this limitation of time. In the old days, when an Order was being discussed Mr. Speaker kept hon. Members tightly to it and did not allow them to wander all over the place. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating.
We are told that the Motion is a suppression of liberty. But there are only 365 days in the year and only a certain number of days when the House sits. It can sit for only 24 hours in one day. Somehow or other the Government must fit their Parliamentary business into the time available. The House is becoming busier and busier in dealing with important matters. Many important matters are not discussed here. Delegates from the House go to the Council of Europe and other places, and nobody ever knows what they are doing. [Laughter.] No reports come before the House, and there is no discussion.
There are Select Committees, such as the Select Committee of Public Accounts, and there is the Estimates Committee, but sometimes we have little discussion about the important work they do. Yet we waste time forming a debating society on something that should be dealt with in an hour and a half. From the common-sense point of view, and not from the point of view of obstructing business, we should be reasonable. I am satisfied, as I am sure hon. Members opposite are satisfied, that' the Government will act reasonably in this matter. If we are debating an important affirmative Order I am sure that they will give it the whole day and, if necessary, provide extra time. In addition, we always have the guarantee of Mr. Speaker's presence to safeguard the liberties and opportunity of the Opposition.
9.37 p.m.
Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The operative words of the proposal are:
"… Mr. Speaker shall put any questions necessary to dispose of such proceedings not later than half-past eleven of the clock or one and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings …"
I understand that "those proceedings" refers to the following words in Standing Order No. 2:
"… proceedings in pursuance of any Act of Parliament …"

345
Where there is a series of Orders, as is almost invariable in these matters, will the Standing Order apply to each one of the series or to them all? I see the Leader of the House nodding, and I take it that that means it will apply separately, so that each can be debated for 1½ hours. If so, the Opposition and the usual channels will be put in something of a difficulty.
Where the Opposition think that it would be unfortunate if the debate came to an end within 1½ hours, or that their constituents might think it unfortunate if they agreed to this, they would not be willing lo adopt the common practice of discussing the Orders together and agreeing to subsequent Orders being taken consequentially. I doubt whether it would be possible to have a Division on subsequent Orders, and that seems to me a very unfortunate state of affairs.
The difficulty may well arise in the very common case where two Orders are in virtually identical terms, and one deals with England and one with Scotland. I am rather surprised that the Scottish Nationalist Member is not present to draw attention to that. It is a real problem. It could be merely a difficulty in practice if the wording is corrected, but as it stands there will be difficulty in working the matter out, and I do not believe that the Government have thought about it. That is another reason for resisting the proposal.
9.39 p.m.
Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: We are not discussing the general question of Parliamentary control over delegated legislation, but whether or not there is justification for the control over an affirmative Order being any different from that over a negative Order. It seems to me that those arguing that it should be different have to establish two things quite clearly. The first is that there is a sufficiently clear distinction in sub-stance in method and working between affirmative and negative Orders to justify any difference in treatment. Secondly, they have to establish that an affirmative Order is of such a character that it needs a greater measure of Parliamentary control which cannot be achieved in the one and a half hours allocated generally to a negative Order.
We all listened to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) outlining the
346
nature generally of affirmative Orders. I am sure he will agree that, apart from convention, there is no statutory or constitutional authority providing any inherent difference between a negative and an affirmative Order, although, as I have said, there is clearly a convention on the subject. But I am sure he will also agree that whether or not an Order is subject to the negative or affirmative procedure is a matter for the Statute in question which introduces these Orders and that, to that extent, it is the decision of the sponsoring Minister whether or not he provides in his Bill that Orders shall be negative or affirmative.
I accept that the House will decide in the ultimate whether that is so or not, but, in practice, I would have thought that, if a Bill contained provisions for negative or affirmative procedure, that would be accepted generally by the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his vast experience, will accept that there is a considerable amount of inconsistency between the types of form used.
I wonder whether I should be in order in referring to the book "Law and Orders", by Sir Carleton Allen, an authority on this subject. It is the 1965 edition. It says:
" In the choice of the form of control (or the choice between control and no control-) when an enabling statute is being drafted there is no consistent principle ….
The variations between affirmative and negative procedure have caused much bewilderment. So experienced a Parliamentarian as the former Leader of the House, the late Lord Crookshank, has said that it is a ' complete fluke' whether the one or the other method is adopted. The late Sir Herbert Williams, who in 1953 claimed to have read every Statutory Instrument during the previous ten years"—
I admire his ability to do so—
" gave it as his opinion that there is ' no inherent principle at all'."
So it is a matter of fluke and no inherent principle whether or not an Order is a negative or an affirmative one.
Sir Carleton also writes:
"The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has several times called attention to the unsystematic use of the affirmative and negative procedures and has pointed out that the two may even be found, for no apparent reason, cheek by jowl in the same Instrument.

347
With that degree of inconsistency, can it seriously be argued that any hardship will be occasioned by the two forms of Order being subject to the same time limit?
The second question is whether there is any practical effect of the limitation of discussion on the lines suggested. Presumably, it is said that more Parliamentary attention is devoted to affirmative Orders because of their particular importance. That may be so of certain affirmative instruments, but as has been pointed out, you, Mr. Speaker, will decide whether or not an Order has had sufficient discussion. There is thus protection for any hon. Member who wishes to discuss it not to be cut out because of the limitation of time.
But I wonder whether it is true that affirmative Orders attract the same amount of attention as suggested? Sir Carleton Allen writes:
" Affirmative resolutions frequently come on in the evening, and often late at night, and unless they raise contentious issues—which most of them do not—they do not command great attention."
From my limited experience of the House I would say that that is the situation. The question is, therefore, whether any hardship would be caused and whether there would be any danger of steamrollering if an hour and a half were devoted to the normal affirmative Order. As I have said, there would be adequate protection to enable the debate to be continued if it were important. But why is it more important and why is more time needed for an affirmative than for a negative procedure Order? I would have thought that the arguments for or against an Order could be fully canvassed within an hour and a half.
I am a very new Member of the House and perhaps still have the naïvety which comes with newness, but I cannot see that an argument becomes any more cogent for being repeated, which is an experience often to be found in debates on these Orders. It is said that there may be constituency problems to be raised and that the pressure of argument against an affirmative procedure Order may lead the Government to change their minds. In those circumstances, when all the arguments have been canvassed as they could succinctly be in an
348
hour and a half, if hon. Members wanted to join in they could simply say, "I support the objections to the Order and subscribe to all the arguments against it", and no more. [Laughter.] That laughter shows my naïvety, but the adoption of such a suggestion would be no bad thing on occasion.
9.46 p.m.
Mr. M. Stewart: By leave of the House, the suggestion at the end of the suggestion of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson) was most interesting and would be most salutary if adopted, and I do not see the smallest chance of hon. Members adopting it.
I confirm the assurance already signalled to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), that if under this procedure the House were to debate a series of affirmative procedure Orders, the debate could last for one and a half hours on each. He advanced that as an argument against the proposed change, but I am sure that if the answer to his question had been the other way round he would have regarded that as an even greater objection. Clearly, it would be entirely arbitrary and improper for the Government to put down half a dozen affirmative procedure Orders on the same night and be allowed to get the whole lot through in an hour and a half.
We can rule out that idea altogether. If the Government put down half a dozen Orders to be debated on one night so closely related that it was the sensible thing to do, then the first would be debated in one and a half hours or less and, if the subject matter were that closely related, it would be clear that hon. Members would not then wish to spend one and a half hours on each successive Order and that business would go through with reasonable expedition.
It might be asked what would happen if the Government were not sensible, or if the Opposition were unreasonable. That happens from time to time and then time is wasted and tempers are frayed and there are unnecessary all-night sittings. I know of no arrangement of the Standing Orders which will prevent that from happening on some occasions. The business of the Standing Orders is to see that such occasions are minimized

349
Let us consider how this procedure would work in practice. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) gave us a picture of four speeches by Front Benchers. He knows very well that when negative procedure Orders are debated under the one and a half hour's rule we do not have two Front Benchers from each side and that by common practice Front Benchers try to moderate their speeches, knowing that back benchers particularly like to get in on debates of this kind. It is reasonable to assume that what happens on those occasions will happen with debates on affirmative procedure Orders under the new procedure.
There was then the suspicion that this procedure would be used for Orders which ought to be given a whole day, that the Government might try that on, either as a deliberate try-on or through an error of judgment. They would not try it on more than once, because as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has pointed out, there is government in opposition by revenge, and this remark has a good deal of soundness in it. We all know that it is perfectly true, if Governments actually try it on, and it is apparent that they have tried it on, they may be able to get away with it on that one occasion but they are made to regret it afterwards.
This is not something that ought to happen often, but the fact that it can happen is a powerful check on unreasonable action by Governments. I do not believe that in practice one would have Governments doing this as a deliberate "try-on". It is conceivable that they could by error of judgment try to get in an hour and a half something which really ought, if they had judged it better, to have had a whole day. It is exactly on that occasion that Mr. Speaker's discretion will make it clear to the Government that they have made an error of judgment. In this connection I assure the: hon. Gentleman and the House that there will be no question of the kind of Orders required when a State of Emergency is proclaimed being put through under this procedure. It would be recognised that they required a full debate.
The other question asked was: is this really necessary? My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire answered this very powerfully when he pointed out the nature of some of the
350
affirmative Orders which have been made affirmative Orders because they affect the interests of parties and organised groups outside the House to whom the Government have given some kind of pledge.
Basically, what is wanted is a reasonable-sized debate on the basic principles of the Order. Very often this could be done quite sensibly and adequately in an hour and a half, but, in the absence of a rule this, might quite easily drag on for twice or thrice that length because many of us, I am afraid, are not prepared to adopt the suggestion made of saying "I thoroughly agree with the hon. Member who has expressed the argument better than I could "and then sitting down. I am afraid that hon. Members very rarely behave like that.
Speaking from my own experience of the House, it is true—and I have been as guilty as any of this—that we occasionally waste time, partly for the pure pleasure of annoying the Government or annoying hon. Members opposite, whichever side we may be on, partly because of the feeling that, although the subject has been fully discussed, the vital points have not yet been expressed with that complete clarity that only oneself can add to the argument.
This is sometimes what prolongs debates. It does not really add to the protection of liberty in the country to have this kind of thing. It is an unnecessary consumption of time which, as has been pointed out, the House needs for discussion of a large number of important and interesting subjects for which we do not at present find time.
I wish to refer to the degree of discretion given to you, Mr. Speaker, by this Order. Has it occurred to hon. Members opposite that we give to Mr. Speaker the discretion to decide whenever the Closure should be moved? If it were not for this discretion an unscrupulous Government could push their business through at lightening speed, moving the Closure quarter of an hour after the debate began. We have recognised that the safeguard of Mr. Speaker's judgment when there has been adequate debate is of permanent value in preventing an abuse of the Closure by Governments. Mr. Speaker's discretion is a tried and trusted instrument that it is proper to

351
use on this occasion, and I commend this proposal to the House.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: To start this new idea going, I thoroughly approve of all
the arguments used on this side of the House and suggest that we now vote.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 133.

Division No. 19.]

AYES

[9.54 p.m.

Albu, Austen

Gardner, Tony

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Garrett, W. E.

Moyle, Roland

Alldritt, Walter

Gregory, Arnold

Murray, Albert

Anderson, Donald

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Neal, Harold

Archer, Peter

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Newens, Stan

Armstrong, Ernest

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Norwood, Christopher

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Hamling, William

Oakes, Gordon

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Hannan, William

Ogden, Erie

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Harper, Joseph

O'Malley, Brian

Barnes, Michael

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Oram, Albert E.

Barnett, Joel

Haseldine, Norman

Orbach, Maurice

Baxter, William

Hazell, Bert

Orme, Stanley

Beaney, Alan

Heffer, Eric S.

Oswald, Thomas

Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

Henig, Stanley

Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

Bence, Cyril

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

Bidwell, Sydney

Hilton, W. S.

Paget, R. T.

Binns, John

Hooley, Frank

Palmer, Arthur

Bishop, E. S.

Horner, John

Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

Blackburn, F.

Houghton, Rt. Hn, Douglas

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Boardman, H.

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Pavitt, Laurence

Booth, Albert

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

Boston, Terence

Howie, W.

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Boyden, James

Hoy, James

Pentland, Norman

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Huckfield, Leslie

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Brooks, Edwin

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Price, William (Rugby)

Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)

Hunter, Adam

Probert, Arthur

Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

Randall, Harry

Buchan, Norman

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Rankin, John

Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'bum)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Rees, Merlyn

Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Rhodes, Geoffrey

Cant, R. B.

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Carmichael, Neil

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Robertson, John (Paisley)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Judd, Frank

Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

Coe, Denis

Kelley, Richard

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

Coleman, Donald

Kenyon, Clifford

Rose, Paul

Concannon, J. D.

Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

Ross, Rt. Hn. William

Coplan, Bernard

Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Ryan, John

Crossman, Rt. Hn. Rlchard

Leadbitter, Ted

Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

Cuflen, Mrs. Alice

Ledger, Ron

Sheldon, Robert

Dalyell, Tam

Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N V tie-u-Tyne)

Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

Lee, John (Reading)

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

Lomas, Kenneth

Slater, Joseph

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Loughlin, Charles

Small, William

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

Spriggs, Leslie

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Dell, Edmund

McBride, Neil

Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

Dempsey, James

McCann, John

Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

Dewar, Donald

Macdonald, A. H.

Swain, Thomas

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

McGuire, Michael

Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

Dobson, Ray

Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

Tinn, James

Doig, Peter

Mackintosh, John P.

Urwin, T. W.

Dunn, James A.

Maclennan, Robert

Varley, Eric G.

Dunnett, Jack

MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

McNamara, J. Kevin

Watkins, David (Consett)

Eadie, Alex

MacPherson, Malcolm

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Weitzman, David

Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Wellbeloved, James

Ellis, John

Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)

White, Mrs. Eirene

Ensor, David

Mapp, Charles

Whitlock, William

Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)

Marks, Kenneth

Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

Fernyhough, E.

Mason, Roy

Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

Finch, Harold

Mendelson, J. J.

Winnick, David

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mikardo, Ian

Winterbottom, R. E.

Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Foot. Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

Yates, Victor

Forrester, John

Molloy, William

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Galpern, Sir Myer

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Mr. Ioan L. Evans and Mr. Alan Fitch.

NOES

Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

Glyn, Sir Richard

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Actor, John

Goodhew, Victor

Neave, Airey

Attins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

Gower, Raymond

Nott, John

Awdry, Daniel

Grant, Anthony

Osborn, John (Hallam)

Baker, W. H. K.

Gresham Cooke, R.

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

Grieve, Percy

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Bessell, Peter

Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Biffen, John

Gurden, Harold

Pardoe, John

Biggs-Davison, John

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Pink, R. Bonner

Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Black, Sir Cyril

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

Prior, J. M. L.

Bilker, Peter

Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

Pym, Francis

Boardman, Tom

Heseltine, Michael

Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Hiley, Joseph

Royle, Anthony

Bromley-Davenport,Lt. -Col- SirWalter

Holland, Philip

Sharpies, Richard

Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

Hooson, Emlyn

Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M)

Hordern, Peter

Silvester, Frederick

Bullus, Sir Eric

Hornby, Richard

Smith, John

Burden, F. A.

Hunt, John

Stainton, Keith

Campbell, Cordon

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

Carlisle, Mark

Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

Chicheeter-Clark, R.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Summers, Sir Spencer

Clegg, Walter

Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Cooke, Robert

Jopling, Michael

Temple, John M.

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Ka berry, Sir Donald

Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

Cordle, John

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Tilney, John

Costain, A. P.

Kitson, Timothy

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

Lancaster, Cot. C. G.

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

Lane, David

Vickers, Dame Joan

Crouch, David

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

Cunningham, Sir Knox

Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

Walters, Dennis

Dance, James

Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

Webster, David

Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

Loveys, W. H.

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

Doughty, Charles

Lubbock, Eric

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Drayson, G. B.

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Mac Arthur, Ian

Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

McMaster, Stanley

Woodnutt, Mark

Emery, Peter

Maddan, Martin

Worsley, Marcus

Errington, Sir Eric

Mawby, Ray

Wright, Esmond

Eyre, Reginald

Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

Wylie, N. R.

Farr, John

Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

Younger, Hn. George

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Monro, Hector

Fortescue, Tim

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Gibson-Watt, David

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Jasper More.

Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

Glover, Sir Douglas

Murton, Oscar

Resolved,
That Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business) be amended as follows: —
Line 17, leave out from 'provides' to end of line 22 and insert ' but Mr. Speaker shall put any questions necessary to dispose of such proceedings not later than half-past eleven of the clock or one and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings, whichever is the later:
Provided that, if Mr. Speaker shall be of opinion that, because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion, the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall, instead of putting the question as aforesaid, interrupt the business, and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting (other than a Friday);
(c) proceedings in pursuance of any Standing Order of this House which provides that proceedings though opposed may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business;'.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motions relating to Standing Order No. 30 (Counting), Standing Order No. 56 (Lords Amendments) and Notices of Motions (Private Members) may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed. —[Mr. Crossman.]

PROCEDURE

  Standing Order No. 30 (Counting)
  10.5 p.m.
  Mr. Crossman: I beg to move,
  that Standing Order No. 30 (Counting) be amended as follows: —
  Line 4, after "clock", insert "or after ten of the clock".
  Line 6, after "clock", insert "or after ten of the clock ".
  I am sure that I shall have the active support of the Opposition in what is really a very reasonable proposal. Even in a postprandial mood, I hope that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) will begin to see reason.
  We are asking for a Standing Order saying that there shall be no Count after 10 o'clock. This is no great departure from precedent, because we have already laid down that there should be no Counts between 7.30 and 8.30 p.m. and on Fridays between 1.15 and 2.15. Although we have laid down these negatives about ordinary days of the week, we have not laid down when Counts should take place, and I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) will improve on the situation by moving an Amendment which I would wholeheartedly advocate to the House, part of it being designed to bring us into order, and part of it to remind us of misfortunes which should not occur again in the lives of a Leader of the House and a Patronage Secretary. However, that is ancient history.
  Let me remind the House of how limited in recent years the effect of the Count has been. I have had some statistics prepared, and they show that, from 1955 to 1959, the House was counted out on 11 occasions, 10 of which occurred on private Members' Fridays. In other words, on 10 out of 11 occasions, the Count, as it often is, was directed not against the Government of the day, but against a private Member. It is the private Member who suffers, whether the Count is called on a private Members' Friday or on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
  To take a more recent period, during the last five years we have had no successful Counts before 10 p.m. other than on Fridays. There have been only four
  356
  after 10 p.m., of which two have been on Government business.
  I am not a radical reformer, and I am not suggesting that the House should dispense with Counts entirely. I suggest merely, as a modest advance in our reform, that we should dispense with them after 10 p.m. We shall keep Divisions, and a Division is a very effective Count. I suggest that we should count ourselves by dividing and not by surreptitious practice.
  Mr. Speaker: I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) would move his Amendment.
  Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move, at the end add:
  " Line 14, at end add:
  (3) The House shall not be counted during the proceedings on any Consolidated Fund Bill or Appropriation Bill, or during proceedings in the course of which Mr. Speaker is directed to put forthwith any question.
  (4) If at any time after four of the clock on the House being counted it shall appear that 40 Members are not present, the business under consideration shall stand over until the next sitting of the House, and the House shall stand adjourned."
  I hope that my modest Amendment will not meet with much opposition, though I may be being unduly optimistic.
  I would remind right hon. and hon. Members opposite, as I did last week, that there is a possibility that at some time in the far distant future they may once again form the Government, and my Amendment would be of great help to the Government of the day, whoever they might be. Both Opposition and Government agree that, in the case of the Consolidated Fund Bill and the Appropriation Bill, no Opposition would want to prevent a Government from gaining their objectives. In any case, since they are generally taken formally, any Count occurring during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill is merely robbing private Members of their time.
  I do not think that it is likely that there will ever be a Count again on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I notice that the hon. Member who perpetrated the atrocity last Session is present, and he is probably sorry now for what he did. It is not likely to occur again, but, just to make doubly sure, I have included

  357
  a provision to that effect in my Amendment.
  It looks rather queer, because it says:
  " Line 3, at end add—"
  " Line 14, at end add—"
  The first refers to my right hon. Friend's Motion, and the second refers to Standing Order No. 30.
  Paragraph (4) attempts to make clear what happens when there is a count. The only provision about what happens to the business is at present in Standing Order No. 30, which says:
  "The House shall not be counted on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays between half-past seven and half-past eight of the clock, but if on a division taken on any business between half-past seven and half-past eight of the clock it appears that forty Members are not present, the business shall stand over until the next sitting of the House…"
  I believe from that that, whenever there is a Count, it is intended not that the business should be lost, but that the business should stand over until the next sitting. There was a little confusion last Session about that. I think, Mr. Speaker, you will agree that was why you gave advice and not a ruling on what took place then.
  Subsection 4 attempts to make clear that, though the House would be adjourned if 40 Members were not present, as in Standing Order No. 30 where a Division takes place between 7.30 and 8.30, so, on every other occasion, the business is not lost, but stands over until the next sitting of the House.
  10.13 p.m.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It seems curious that neither the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House nor the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), in moving to reduce the circumstances in which Counts could be called, bothered to indicate the purpose that lies behind the provision for having a Count. The purpose is to make sure that there is a quorum. The purpose of a quorum—it may be that this is elementary—is to make sure that the business of this House is not transacted without, at any rate, a modest number of Members being present. Rules about a quorum are not peculiar to this House. Local authorities and other bodies have rules that they cannot proceed to take a decision or even discuss a matter unless there is a quorum present.
  358
  The right hon. Gentleman's proposal could involve a curious paradox. I understand that he does not propose to affect the provisions about a quorum in Select or Standing Committees. Yet his proposal involves this House proceeding with business though there are present fewer Members than would enable one of its own Select or Standing Committees to proceed. This is an indication that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, for all the agreeable light-heartedness with which it was presented, raises a serious question: Should the House of Commons proceed with public business when there are fewer than 40 Members present or available?
  Our quorum, for a House of 630 Members, is not a very high one, fortunately. If there is so little interest in a particular item of business that fewer than 40 Members will be either within two minutes call or in the Chamber, it is very doubtful whether the House should proceed at all with that business.
  Mr. Blackburn: In the case of the Consolidated Fund Bill, surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it is only towards the end of the proceedings that there is likely to be less than a quorum, and, therefore, in the case of this Bill, and also the Appropriation Bills, the conditions may be different from those on other occasions?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. I would like, first, to deal with the main proposition before the House.
  If there is sufficient force in the point of view which I have put, that we, like other bodies, should not proceed with our business before 10 p.m. in the absence of even quite a small proportion of our Members, why does that force lapse after 10 o'clock? There is often no change in the seriousness of the business being considered. We are at the moment, at 10.15, dealing with proposals which I believe are of the greatest gravity for the future effectiveness and strength of the House of Commons.
  We could be taking the Finance Bill after 10 p.m. This is a Measure of the greatest importance. If, by leaving the present rule, rightly in my view, in operation before 10 o'clock, the right hon. Gentleman thereby accepts the principle

  359
  that it is wrong, as well as indecorous, for the House to proceed on the basis that fewer than 40 Members should be here, why in heaven's name does all this change after 10 p.m.? I think that the right hon. Gentleman owes the House an answer to this. If one accepts, as I do, the desirability of at least a modest quorum in the House at one hour, why not later?
  The right hon. Gentleman said that under Standing Order 30 there is an exception to the quorum rule between 7.30 and 8.30 on the first four days of the week, and between 1.15 and 2.15 on Fridays. This is based purely on practical convenience. These are, on the whole, the times when hon. Members take such modest refreshment as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) now permits, at the prices which he in his profound wisdom lays down. It would be foolish to bring them running here at the double, with their soup half-absorbed, during those hours. The right hon. Gentleman tried to give some weight to it, but this exception does not tend to support the general proposition for the removal after 10 p.m. of the quorum provisions.
  This proposal is made worse by a provision which the House accepted earlier, the one under which sittings which go on after 10 o'clock at night can continue at 10 o'clock in the morning, for, as I understand it, the exemption from Counts, and therefore from the quorum, will apply to morning sittings. What justification is there for continuing the business of the United Kingdom with fewer than 40 Members present at midday, but not at 3 p.m. or 4 p.m.? Will the right hon. Gentleman say why?
  Mr. Crossman: The sitting in the morning will be a continuation of a suspended sitting of the evening before. We would have the same rules for one as for the other. That is all.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It will almost certainly be a continuation of Government business begun at 3.30, and subject to the quorum. This is why it arises. Therefore, taking his own point, it will be identical business, performed in this case in the middle of the morning, in-
  360
  stead of the middle of the afternoon, but subject to quite different rules.
  This kind of idea reflects rather curiously the right hon. Gentleman's great emphasis on full-time Members, whoever they may be. Apparently they do not need to be full-time in the morning, and not after 10 o'clock at night. The only time the full-time Member comes into his own is between 2.30 and 10. This is the right hon. Gentleman's curious proposition.
  The right hon. Gentleman, finally, made the curious argument that the Count had been of limited effect in recent years because, except on Fridays, the House had not very often been counted out. Surely this is very naive. The fact of the possibility of a Count causes the Patronage Secretary to keep his troops here and all that the right hon. Gentleman's proposition proves is that successive Patronage Secretaries have been efficient. This is certainly so of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw). The Government Patronage Secretary is still, perhaps, sub judice.
  The proposition of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, by extending the scope of this proposal, makes it worse. After all, whatever may be the conventions about the raising of individual subjects on either the Consolidated Fund Bills or the Appropriations Bills, what the House is doing at the time is voting the issue out of the Consolidated Fund or appropriating immense sums of public money. I have seen—or would have seen, had I not been out of order in seeing—people in the Gallery noticing with some surprise the voting of these vast sums without any apparent notice being taken.
  It is a serious moment in Parliamentary history when we vote these thousands of millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money, and the hon. Member's suggestion in his Amendment is that this might be done with perhaps half a dozen Members present, because a Division is not likely, and, therefore, we lack of the safeguard which the Lord President of the Council mentioned—that a Division discloses the nakedness of the land and brings the proceedings to a close when there are not 40 Members present. This means that these immensely important

  361
  Measures could be taken through without 40 of 630 Members being present. I can think of nothing more damaging to the standing of the House.
  That also applies to the Lord President of the Council's main proposition. There are 630 of us. Is it really what the right hon. Gentleman wants to go out from this House that public business should in future be transacted with fewer than 40 Members out of 630 on the premises, and this from the right hon. Gentleman who has sometimes twitted us with being less zealous than we should be in our Parliamentary duties? I hope that the House will reject both the proposal and the Amendment.
  10.23 p.m.
  Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is under some misapprehension about how the House of Commons works. The Government are the Queen's Government and the business of the House of Commons and of every hon. Member is to try to keep control of the Government. On certain occasions, the right hon. Member must have the opportunity to state his grievances against the Government. On these occasions, such as the Consolidated Fund Bill, it does not matter if he is the only Member on the bench; he still has a right to state his grievance to the Government.
  The right hon. Gentleman must know that, in some Adjournment debates, with only one Opposition or Government Member stating his case to the Government, that Member may state as powerful a case without a single other Member being present. The case which he puts may change all the affairs of his constituency and sometimes go far beyond it. Even one hon. Member has the right to state his case to the Government.
  I have a terrible memory of a Count. During the war, officers were permitted to return from the trenches and the front lice to the House during Army debates to state their case. During these debates the House sat all night and Members, sometimes covered with mud, sat on these benches waiting to make their speeches. One night an hon. Member who I can only describe as malevolent— he did not take part in the war and did not agree with it—made a speech
  362
  lasting for 40 minutes. Then, having taken up that amount of time, about a quarter of an hour after resuming his seat he called a Count, which meant that men who had travelled hundreds of miles to be here to make speeches were unable to do so and had to go home. A. P. Herbert, who used to be an hon. Member, actually used physical violence against that man, but it would be improper for me to repeat even a few of the words uttered by A. P. Herbert to him in the Lobby on that occasion.
  Hon Gentlemen opposite seem amused at this story. It was a terrible occurrence. Men who had been risking their lives came here from the trenches to state their grievances. I refer to men who had been giving great service to their country. They were counted out as a result of the efforts of a man who was doing no service for his country. It was a disgrace. While that was an exceptional case, it shows what can happen. When discussing the Consolidated Fund Bill it is possible for an hon. Member who wants to go home to count the House out and deprive other hon. Members of their elementary right of stating their grievances before the Government.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right, but he will recall that, as the Government must get the Consolidated Fund Bill, in such a situation they would have to put the Bill down for debate on another night and secure a quorum, whereupon an opportunity would be provided for any hon. Member to raise his constituency or other grievances. In other words, the Consolidated Fund Bill would not be lost. If it were, the Government would also be lost.
  Mr. Woodburn: Until recent years no hon. Member called a Count on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Hon. Members were allowed to continue debating their various grievances until all had delivered their speeches. Only in recent years has the House been subjected to this breach of convention when discussing the Consolidated Fund Bill.
  I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not oppose this proposal because, if they do, they will be depriving hon. Members of their elementary right to state their case before the Government

  363
  at any hour, without the fear of the House being counted out.
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hooley.
  Hon. Members: Oh.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. My attention was distracted. I called in the wrong order. The matter will be put right shortly. Mr. Hooley.
  10.24 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House knows that I strongly support him in his attempt to reform our procedure. However, I suggest that this proposition is an error. I am bound to agree in substance with the arguments of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I agree with him that it is wrong in principle that the House should not have a quorum.
  A body of this kind should have a quorum, however small. Be it 40 hon. Members or a lesser number, it would be wrong for us to transact the business of the nation without there being in our rules of procedure some provision for a quorum of hon. Members to be available. I understand that, if we approve this proposal, a quorum will not be necessary.
  I do not consider it to be of any value to quote what has happened in the past or to conclude that past events are a guide for what could happen in the future. If this change is made, a different situation will be created and I fear that it may be exploited by a group of hon. Members for their own purposes. A group of 15 or 20 hon. Members could continue the proceedings of the House virtually indefinitely simply on the ground that there was no provision for counting them out.
  We have a system for closuring a debate, but, in essence, the Count is different because, if a minimum number of hon. Members is not present, it is possible to put an end to the proceedings. By definition, at that time one has lost his opportunity to move the Closure which, I understand, requires 100 hon. Members to be present and vote. I am open to correction on that, but I think I am right. More experienced hon. Members than I appear to agree.
  364
  It is wrong in principle for the House not to have a quorum. The Leader of the House will find that he has left our procedures open to abuse if we have no minimum number as a quorum in our rules of procedure.
  10.30 p.m.
  Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I support the case put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). The Leader of the House, who has been in this House for many years, dealt with this matter in a nonchalent manner. He knows that if there is a meeting of an organisation such as I.C.I., or a small parish council, there has to be a quorum.
  A fortnight ago the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) was seeming to advocate an increase in pay for services rendered in the House, but it seems that the Leader of the House is trying to get hon. Members to leave for home at 10 o'clock on the dot. I can understand that with all his troubles he wishes to appease his hon. Friends. I recall that four years ago the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury spoke in a debate on the White Fish Industry Bill for more than two hours, although I do not think he had even read the Bill. It was a brilliant performance, but now that hon. Members opposite are in power they look differently on these things. It may be sooner than the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) thinks when the Tories will be the Government again.
  The Leader of the House cannot get away with this after a few words. He is riding roughshod over the feelings of the House. I notice that half the time he is asleep on the Front Bench. He cannot keep awake for five minutes at a time, yet he tries to tell his followers that they can go home at 10 o'clock. Is it too much to ask that out of 630 hon. Members 40 should be present to conduct the business of the United Kingdom? I do not think so. I hope that my hon. Friends will vote against this proposal.
  10.33 p.m.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Some times when I have spare time, and am not here in the middle of the night, I read biographies of people who have been on the Government Front

  365
  Bench. Usually, they say that they reached their ambition and counted themselves fortunate to become Leader of the House or Minister of Defence, but some became Prime Minister and a short time afterwards everyone considered them a failure.
  I am an ordinary humble back bencher. When, last year, I called a Count in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, it was not part of a plot to affect the rights of back benchers. My idea was simply to embarrass the Government. In trying to understand why the right hon. Gentleman should bother at all about this matter, I thought at first that it might be due to pique. I understand that he might feel pique at that moment, and that he was very cross when it happened, but I am sure he would not propose this Amendment to Standing Orders after this period of time out of pique.
  There must be some other reason. I think it is that he believes that it would be an advantage to the Government not to have to keep their back benchers here after 10 o'clock at night. Any Government should be able to keep a quorum. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) argued that the quorum might be reduced, but he did not say that it should be done away with altogether. Plainly, 40 is a small quorum out of 630 Members.
  In my view, even on the Consolidated Fund Bill, which is a Government Measure although it involves private Members so largely, and on the Appropriation Bill, 40 would be a reasonable number for any Government to keep in the precincts or in the Chamber. With the number of Ministers they now have, vastly greater than we had, the Government could provide 40 Members. Certainly, they could do it with Ministers and P.P.S.s. Moreover, there are always two or three on this side present even in the middle of the night or at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning.
  I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman should assume that his proposal would be generally acceptable. We believe that democracy should work here on the basis of at least a sufficient number of Members taking an interest in the proceedings of the House, at whatever time it may be. If it is right that we should sometimes sit through the
  366
  night, it is right also that at least 40 Members should be here. The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Motion.
  10.36 p.m.
  Mr. Ray Mawby: The Leader of the House suggests that, because we have a continuation of what was the Speaker's "chop", a period for dinner between 7.30 and 8.30, the House ought now to accept that a Count should not be called after 10 o'clock. But he omitted to add the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made, that the House could now be adjourned till 10 o'clock the following morning and the barring of a Count would carry on not only after 10 o'clock at night, but from 10 o'clock in the morning, too.
  In Standing Committees, we accept that the rule requiring a quorum must prevail. If the number of Members present falls below the quorum, automatically the Chairman suspends the sitting. Yet the right hon. Gentleman now proposes that, even if the quorum in this Chamber or the whole of the precincts falls below only 40 out of 630 Members, no one shall have an opportunity to draw that circumstance to the attention of the Chair.
  Whether it be after 10 o'clock at night or, if the business has been adjourned, after 10 o'clock in the morning, there ought to be opportunity for any hon. Member to draw to the attention of the Chair that there are fewer than 40 Members present. If we do not accept that, we should seriously consider changing the Standing Order for Standing Committees. The percentage of Members required to be present in Standing Committee is much higher than the 40 required to be present in the Chamber.
  I am attracted by the Amendment. Discussions on the Consolidated Fund Bill give hon. Members an opportunity to raise matters that may concern their constituency and no other, and, therefore, I would support the Amendment if it were taken on its own.
  But I am completely against the Motion. When the House is making decisions in its solemn majesty—[Laughter.] This is an important matter. It has been said that the only thing the House

  367
  cannot do is to change a man into a woman. It has tremendous power. If we are sitting in our solemn majesty it is not asking too much that at least 40 of us should be in the precincts to ensure that we make decisions correctly.
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Bessell: We have listened tonight to a number of right hon. and hon. Members with very wide experience of the House. They have a great deal more knowledge of its procedure than I, and as a relatively new Member I have hesitated to speak.
  The argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), and those who supported him, must be taken seriously. I was surprised, as he was, that the Leader of the House could introduce a proposal of this sort with such nochalance, apparently not regarding it as a matter of serious importance. Yet the Leader of the House has repeatedly expressed his wish to see the House become a more effective legislative body. He has said and written that he wants to see Members taking a much fuller part not merely in debate, but in the control of the nation's affairs.
  What is suggested tonight is that we can continue the business of the House after 10 o'clock at night if there are as few as two hon. Members present, one speaking for the Opposition and one of the Government. While that is happening and all the other 628 hon. Members are at home in their beds, all the servants of the House and the police are required to be on duty, and presumably the restaurant facilities must be available for those two hon. Members. We shall present a spectacle to the public which would be regarded as shameful. We have all too often been criticised for the small numbers of hon. Members who are present in the House during important debates.
  Now we are being asked to say that it is no longer important if, for example, when we are discussing the Report stage of the Finance Bill, there should be fewer than 40 Members present. That could happen. If no hon. Member is allowed to call a Count after 10 p.m. it would be possible to prolong a debate on a Clause or Amendment to the Finance
  368
  Bill indefinitely and it would surely be wrong to have a situation in which the nation's business was conducted by fewer than 40 Members.
  Like the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), I have great sympathy with the Amendment because there is a case for preventing a Count taking place on the Consolidated Fund Bill's Second Reading, when there is an opportunity to raise constituency matters which does not normally come easily.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is a point which the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) did not fully understand. If the Consolidated Fund Bill is counted out the Government are bound, in order to get the money, to restore it and, therefore, to give the hon. Members the same opportunities they would have had, if there had not been a Count, to argue their case. A Count on the Consolidated Fund Bill may embarrass the Government, but does not diminish the rights of private Members.
  Mr. Bessell: I accept the point and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames.
  The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) made a moving speech in which he quoted an experience from, I presume, the Second World War, although as he referred to the trenches I wondered whether he was referring to the First World War. But surely that experience did not reflect so much on the hon. Member who called the Count, but on the fact there were fewer than 40 Members present. The hon. Members who travelled a long distance under difficult conditions to give their speeches were denied that right because of the absence of a quorum.
  A quorum is, in all matters of business conduct, recognised as of vital importance. No major company will conduct business at board level without a quorum. It would be prevented from doing so by company law. Yet we are asked to say that we are prepared to conduct our business with fewer than 40 Members present in the Chamber, with fewer than 40 Members being present even in the precincts of the House. This proposal should be opposed. The Leader of the House has made a grave error of judgment in introducing it and I hope that we shall firmly reject it.
  10.43 p.m.
  Mr. Crossman: Perhaps, by leave of the House, I may speak again on this matter, because apparently a number of hon. Members feel that we would be harming the legislative effectiveness of the House if we were to limit Counts in this way. If I thought that, I would not propose it.
  However, I would say to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), who painted such a terrible picture of what would happen if I had my way, that we get a situation every night in which only two Members are here in the Chamber while the officials of the House are still on duty. It is an extremely important part of our proceedings which could be ended any night by someone calling a Count. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's description of how ridiculous it is for just two Members— a Minister and a private Member—to be here. There are times when the House is full, in a sense, in that an hon. Member is putting a constituency case and the Minister is waiting to reply to it, everyone else having gone home to bed. Those two being there does not seem to me to be a caricature of Parliamentary practice. That half an hour is a valuable half an hour. We have to remember that the operation of the Count has enabled hon. Members to deny to individual hon. Members at any time anywhere near that half an hour.
  Mr. Bessell Mr. Bessell rose
  Mr. Crossman: I am trying to reply to the hon. Gentleman, and he might listen. He made a lengthy attack and said that we were utterly wrong. At lease he should listen to my reply.
  I now come to the second suggestion, which was that I had proposed that we should abolish the quorum of the House. That is not true. The House makes its effective legislative act in decision, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) said, and when we decide, we vote. The method of decision is the vote or Division. I have made it perfectly clear that throughout the period when we propose not to have Counts there can be Divisions. At any point we can test whether there is a quorum by the effective way of finding whether there are sufficient to vote, because if there are not sufficient
  370
  hon. Members to vote the business would fall, and this could occur throughout the period when we suggest that we might dispense with the Count.
  The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is always a reasonable man about the things which suit him, and he said that it was obviously practical not to have a Count during lunch time on Fridays and in the evenings during the dinner hour. But if it is practical not to have a Count then, why should there be anything sacred and not practical about having a Count at other times, provided that we retain the basic right, which is the right of the House to come to a decision? Each time we come to a decision, we need a quorum. It seems to be a self-evident fact that we must require a quorum in order to come to a decision.
  The other issue is whether we should permit an individual to insist on a quorum at all times when there is not a decision of the House, when there is discussion, possibly discussion of some small, limited issue between a back bencher and a Minister. Is it proper that that discussion should be ended simply because there are not 40 Members present? When the House is deciding something, then we should insist on the quorum. Either side would be able to force a Division at any time throughout the night and a Division would prove the number of hon. Members present.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman is referring to the House making a decision, but does not the House sometimes make a decision without a Division, accepting a proposal without putting it to the vote? The right hon. Gentleman might say that such a proposal would be uncontroversial or there would be a Division, but the point is whether the House should come to a decision on something which it regards as uncontroversial when fewer than 40 Members are present.
  Mr. Crossman: It is not for me to tell the House whether to come to a decision. I am saying only that the Motion does not change the right of a Division and a Division is a test of a quorum. Four hon. Members have said that the Motion would remove the quorum. They were wrong, because the quorum is required for a Division, and as the Division could

  371
  still be held we have not removed the quorum.
  Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman revert to his argument about the practicability of a Count during the dinner hour? Surely the point here is not so much whether it is practical as that a Count is not necessary because everybody knows perfectly well that 40 Members are present, where they are and what they are doing.
  Mr. Crossman: The argument used by the hon. Gentleman is an argument that I do not like to use. We have Patronage Secretaries who are efficient people and who maintain a number of people here. What I seriously say is that if one looks at the history of the rare use of the Count, it has worked far more against the individual Member.
  Mr. F. A. Burden: It is the threat of the Count that matters.
  Mr. Crossman: That does not matter to the Patronage Secretary or the other side.
  If hon. Gentlemen would consider the times the Count is used, it is used by the back bencher, usually in a moment of impulsive anger, or whatever phrase was used by the right hon. Gentleman. The question is whether we should not, for our own convenience, limit that, and retain the quorum for the ultimate test of the House, which is that of making decisions. I would have thought that this was a practical thing, and I was a bit shocked at the language used about the Consolidated Fund Bill.
  It is all very well saying that it is a Government Measure, but it is basically a private Members' day, and surely it is a little hypocritical to say that the counting out of a Private Member in the middle of his piece will not harm the Private Member, because he can come back the next day and there may be more time: this does harm the Private Member, and does not harm anyone else.
  I still think that we are right to say that this is a very reasonable Measure, and I do not think that it will harm the gravity or majesty of the House, least of all our power to take decisions, which remains completely unaffected.
  Mr. Lubbock Mr. Lubbock rose
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. Had the right hon. Gentleman given way or had he concluded?
  Mr. Crossman: Concluded.
  Mr. Lubbock: I was not intending to intervene in this debate, but the reply which the Leader of the House has just given is profoundly unsatisfactory, particularly that part of his reply relating to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), which is of a disingenuousness that I have never heard, even from him.
  To say to my hon. Friend that Counts are not normally held during the Adjournment debates, when there are only two people in the House, and to suggest that this invalidated the whole of his argument is quite monstrous, because that was not what my hon. Friend was talking about. He would not give way to my hon. Friend. What my hon. Friend was talking about was Government Business. We are not talking about the half hour Adjournment debates.
  I argue with the right hon. Gentleman that it is highly undesirable to have Counts during Adjournment debates, because that is private Members' time. I will also grant that there is something to be said for the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), because even if one can return to this another day, as the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has pointed out, it may not be convenient for hon. Gentlemen who have subjects to raise later on the Order Paper but who are prevented from doing so by the Count being called.
  There is a lot to be said for this. If the Leader of the House had proposed that there should be no Counts on these two occasions, that would not have removed the existing right of the back bencher to call a Count during Government business. I have been in here while there has been important business being transacted involving hundreds of millions of pounds, particularly on the Air Estimates, in which I take part nearly every year. Then we are voting perhaps £500 million on each of these debates, and yet one sees only half a dozen hon. Members in the Chamber. Under those circumstances it is right that the back bencher

  373
  should draw attention to the absence of a quorum to make sure that others come in to play their part in these important matters. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but if they had paid more attention to the Service Estimates in the past, perhaps we would not be squandering hundreds of millions of pounds on defence, which this country can ill-afford. Therefore I do suggest that it is the right of the back bencher to be able to call attention, during the Services Estimates, to the absence of a quorum, and 40 Mem-tiers is a very reasonable number.
  I am fully justified in saying this, because it is a power which I have used sparingly myself, although it has frequently occurred to me during those debates that perhaps the lack of 40 Members should be drawn to the attention of the public outside. Many of my visitors who have come to this House to watch the proceedings say, "Is it not extraordinary that you have 630 Members in your assembly, and yet when you are voting £500 million worth of our money you can only muster 12 Members in the Chamber? "Believe me, this is a matter which gives me a great amount of anxiety when I try to explain it to my constituents. I do not see why, by this Motion the Leader of the House has brought before us, my power to draw to the attention of the public outside this House a lack of Members when voting many millions of pounds should be removed in this way.
  I do beg the Leader of the House to think once again about this. He seemed to be giving way partially, by accepting the argument my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin was putting towards the conclusion of the debate. It is not too late for him to say he will think again. If he wants to be as fair as a Leader of the House should be, he ought to take the sense, not only of views which have been expressed from these benches, but also of the interesting and powerful speech which one of his hon. Members
  made, and withdraw the Motion, and allow counts to proceed as they have done hitherto.
  11.1 p.m.
  Dr. David Kerr: I am seduced—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—hon. Members should not draw a conclusion too rapidly —only by the prospect of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) sitting there clutching himself with anxiety in deciding whether or not to call a Count. I want to make, but only briefly, a comment on his speech, because it subscribes to the well-known fallacy about our practice here in this House, and it would be a pity if this went by default. The idea which he was so busily and assiduously promoting, that Members of Parliament must be on the benches throughout every important debate, run so counter—
  Mr. Lubbock: I did not say that.
  Dr. Kerr: Hon. Members opposite, who are so busy promoting this idea, are remarkable only by the fact that they do not in practice subscribe to it. In fact I am not sure that the quality of debate in this House would necessarily be raised if the Chamber were crowded throughout the day in the kind of way which has been implied by the hon. Member for Orpington when he makes his plea about defence debates. The whole truth about our procedure is that it relies upon quite other practices in which we are involved outside the Chamber, in deliberations which are as important and should be as influential as those which take place in the Chamber.
  I support everything which my right hon. Friend has said, and I trust the House will give him its full support.
  Question put, That the Amendment be made: —
  The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 117.

  Division No. 20.]

  AYES

  [11.3 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Baxter, William

  Boardman, H.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Beaney, Alan

  Booth, Albert

  Alldritt, Walter

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Boyden, James

  Anderson, Donald

  Bence, Cyril

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Ancher, Peter

  Bessell, Peter

  Brooks, Edwin

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Binns, John

  Brown, Bob(N 'c'tle-unon-Tyne, W.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Barnes, Michael

  Blackburn, F.

  Buchan, Norman

  Barnett, Joel

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Cant, R. B.

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Orme, Stanley

  Carmichael, Neil

  Howie, W.

  Oswald, Thomas

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hoy, James

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Coe, Denis

  HuckfieM, Leslie

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Paget, R. T.

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hunter, Adam

  Pardoe, John

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Park, Trevor

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Davidson, James(Aberdeenehire, W.)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Judd, Frank

  Pemland, Norman

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Kelley, Richard

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Probert, Arthur

  Dell, Edmund

  Kerr, Dr. David (W 'worth, Central)

  Randall, Harry

  Dempsey, James

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Dewar, Donald

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Ledger, Ron

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dickens, James

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Dobson, Ray

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Doig, Peter

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rose, Paul

  Dunn, James A.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Dunnett, Jack

  Loughlin, Charles

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Ryan, John

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

  Eadle, Alex

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McBride, Neil

  Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tie-u-Tyne)

  Ellis, John

  McCann, John

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Ensor, David

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  McGuire, Michael

  Slater, Joseph

  Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Small, William

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Finch, Harold

  Maclennan, Robert

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Swain, Thomas

  Forrester, John

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Tinn, James

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfieid,E.)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Mapp, Charles

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Marks, Kenneth

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Weilzman, David

  Hamling, William

  Mitchell. R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Hannan, William

  Molloy, William

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Whillock, William

  Haseldine, Norman

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Hazell, Bert

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Moyle, Roland

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Henig, Stanley

  Murray, Albert

  Winnick, David

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Neat, Harold

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Hilton, W. S.

  Newens, Stan

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Hooley, Frank

  Oakes, Gordon

  Yates, Victor

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Ogden, Eric

  Horner, John

  O'Malley, Brian

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, C.)

  Oram, Albert E.

  Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Cordle, John

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Astor, John

  Costain, A. P.

  Goodhew, Victor

  Awdry, Daniel

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

  Gower, Raymond

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Crouch, David

  Grant, Anthony

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Biffen, John

  Dance, James

  Grieve, Percy

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Gurden, Harold

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Doughty, Charles

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Blaker, Peter

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hastings, Stephen

  Boardman, Tom

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Bromley-Davenport,Lt. -Col. Sir Walter

  Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tte-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Emery, Peter

  Holland, Philip

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M)

  Farr, John

  Hordern, Peter

  Burden, F. A.

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Hornby, Richard

  Carlisle, Mark

  Fortescue, Tim

  Hunt, John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Ciegg, Walter

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Cooke, Robert

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  376

  377

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Jopling, Michael

  Murton, Oscar

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Temple, John M.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Neave, Airey

  Tilney, John

  Kitson, Timothy

  Nott, John

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Loveys, W H.

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Walters, Dennis

  MacArthur, Ian

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Webster, David

  McMaster, Stanley

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Maddan, Martin

  Pym, Francis

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Mawby, Ray

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Royle, Anthony

  Worsley, Marcus

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Sharpies, Richard

  Wylie, N. R.

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Monro, Hector

  Silvester, Finderick

  More, Jasper

  Smith, John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Stainton, Keith

  Mr. Reginald Eyre and Mr. Humphrey Atkins.

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  Main Question, as amended,:—
  The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 125.

  Division No. 21.]

  AYES

  [11.12 p.m.

  Albu, Austen

  Eadie, Alex

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  McGuire, Michael

  Alldritt, Walter

  Ellis, John

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Anderson, Donald

  Ensor, David

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Archer, Peter

  Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Finch, Harold

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Barnes, Michael

  Forrester, John

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Barnett, Joel

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Baxter, William

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfieid,E.)

  Beaney, Alan

  Garrett, W. E.

  Mapp, Charles

  Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Benco, Cyril

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Binns, John

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  B shop, E. S.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)

  Blackburn, F.

  Hamling, William

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Hannan, William

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Harper, Joseph

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Booth, Albert

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Moyle, Roland

  Boyden, James

  Haseldine, Norman

  Murray, Albert

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hazell, Bert

  Neal, Harold

  Brooks, Edwin

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Newens, Stan

  Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)

  Henig, Stanley

  Oakes, Gordon

  Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Ogden, Eric

  Brown, R. W, (Shoreditch & F'bury)

  Hilton, W. S.

  O'Malley, Brian

  Buchan, Norman

  Horner, John

  Oram, Albert E.

  Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Orme, Stanley

  Cant, R. B.

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Carmichael, Neil

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)

  Carter-Jones Lewis

  Howie, W.

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hoy, James

  Paget, R. T.

  Coe, Denis

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Palmer, Arthur

  Coleman, Donald

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Park, Trevor

  Concannon, J. D.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Hunter, Adam

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Penlland, Norman

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Judd, Frank

  Probert, Arthur

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Randall, Harry

  Davies, S.O. (Merthyr)

  Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter & Chatham)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Dell, Edmund

  Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Dempsey, James

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Dewar, Donald

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Robertson, John (Paisley)

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Ledger, Ron

  Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Dickens, James

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Rose, Paul

  Dobson, Ray

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Doig, Peter

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Dunn, James A.

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Ryan, John

  Dunnett, Jack

  Loughlin, Charles

  Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tie-u-Tyne)

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Varley, Eric G.

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Slater, Joseph

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Small, William

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Winnick, David

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Yates, Victor

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Weitzman, David

  Swain, Thomas

  Wellbeloved, James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. Neil McBride.

  Tinn, James

  Whittock, William

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Astor, John

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Murton, Oscar

  Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)

  Glyn, Sir Richard

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Awdry, Daniel

  Goodhew, Victor

  Neave, Airey

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Cower, Raymond

  Nott, John

  Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

  Grant, Anthony

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Bessell, Peter

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Bitten, John

  Grieve, Percy

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Gurden, Harold

  Pardoe, John

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Blaker, Peter

  Hastings, Stephen

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Boardman, Tom

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Pym, Francis

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Heseltine, Michael

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter

  Hiley, Joseph

  Royle, Anthony

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Holland, Philip

  Sharpies, Richard

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&M)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)

  Burden, F. A.

  Hordern, Peter

  Silvester, Frederick

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hornby, Richard

  Smith, John

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Hunt, John

  Stainton, Keith

  Clegg, Walter

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Cooke, Robert

  Irv ne, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

  Cordle, John

  Jernings, J. C. (Burton)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Costain, A. P.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver

  Jopling, Michael

  Temple, John M.

  Crouch, David

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Tilney, John

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Dance, James

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)

  Lane, David

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)

  Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

  Walters, Dennis

  Doughty, Charles

  Loveys, W. H.

  Webster, David

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lubbock, Eric

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  MacArthur, Ian

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)

  Maddan, Martin

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Emery, Peter

  Mawby, Ray

  Worsley, Marcus

  Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wylie, N. R.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.

  Younger, Hn. George

  Farr, John

  Mitts, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  More, Jasper

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Fortescue, Tim

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Mr. Timothy Kitson and Mr. Hector Monro.

  Gibson-Watt, David

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Resolved,
  That Standing Order No. 30 (Counting) be amended as follows: —
  Line 4, after ' clock'. insert ' or after ten of the clock '.
  Line 6, after ' clock', insert ' or after ten of the clock'.
  ' Line 14, at end add—
  (3) The House shall not be counted during the proceedings on any Consolidated Fund Bill or Appropriation Bill, or during proceedings in the course of which Mr. Speaker is directed to put forthwith any question.
  (4) If at any time after four of the clock on the House being counted it shall appear that 40 Members are not present, the business under consideration shall stand over until the next sitting of the House, and the House shall stand adjourned.'

  Standing Order No. 56 (Lords Amendments)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14th November],
  That Standing Order No. 56 (Lords amendments) be amended as follows: —
  Line 4, at end add—
  (2) When the Order of the Day for the consideration of Lords Amendments to a public bill has been read, the House shall proceed to consider the same without question put, unless the Member in charge thereof desires to defer their consideration:
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. M. Stewart: We have discussed this earlier.
  11.21 p.m.
  Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: As the right hon. Gentleman said, we have discussed this, and I doubt, therefore, whether there is much reason, in the Government's present mood, in discussing it further tonight. It is an infinitely less important change than those which the House has already considered, and does very little damage to our procedure compared with the immense damage which the Lord President has perpetrated earlier this evening. Nevertheless, it is unnecessary.
  We were given no evidence previously, and the First Secretary has given none tonight, that the provision under which, before we take Lords' Amendments, we take a Motion that they be now considered, has ever done any harm or been abused. The right hon. Gentleman has never argued that. It is simply being removed as part of the streamlining of our procedure for streamlining's sake, in which the Government seem to be engaged.
  Although it has done no harm, it has been useful to an Opposition at least twice in my recollection, on the Land Commission Bill and the Leasehold Reform Bill. In both cases, the House was asked to consider highly complicated Lords Amendments at very short notice without any opportunity to make up our minds about their significance and importance or to discuss them with well-informed outside opinion. This is a way —a small one, I agree, compared with the previous one—in which the Government can treat an Opposition badly and therefore it is, on balance, a pity to take it away.
  I know that it has been argued—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) argued it on the previous occasion—that if we are pressed to take Lords Amendments too quickly, we can seek to move the Adjournment, but this depends on the Chair's willingness to accept such a Motion, whereas, under the present Standing Orders, we have the right, if we wish, to debate the Question of whether or not we then debate the Lords Amendments.
  I do not wish to take up much time on what is relatively infinitely less important a proposal, and, in view of what has been done tonight, there would be
  382
  no point in taking this relatively small matter to the Lobbies. But I do not propose to let it go without protest and without saying that this, in a small matter —as earlier in big matters—is an indication of the Government's determination to bend our procedure to a state in which, more and more, we become merely the means of registering the decrees of Government.
  11.26 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in his protest against the Motion. It is again preventing the Opposition and back benchers opposite from protesting at business being rushed. It is not just fanciful that this may happen. It happened only a few weeks ago, on the Leasehold Reform Bill, when their Lordships finished dealing with the Bill in another place at five o'clock in the evening, whereupon we had to debate the Lords Amendments on the following day, quite insufficient time having been provided for us. But because we were allowed to debate that matter, protest was made on the Motion that the Lords Amendments be now considered. It was a proper protest at that time and it is wrong that we should not be given that power. We are merely endeavouring to put a curb on being rushed into legislation without having the opportunity of consulting people outside as well as inside the House. I therefore add my protest to that of my right hon. Friend.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That Standing Order No. 56 (Lords amendments) be amended as follows:
  Line 4, at end add—
  (2) When the Order of the Day for the consideration of Lords Amendments to a public bill has been read, the House shall proceed to consider the same without question put, unless the Member in charge thereof desires to defer their consideration.

  Notices of Motions (Private Members)
  Mr. Crossman: I beg to move,
  That, during the present Session, notice of a subject to be raised on any motion for which a ballot is held in pursuance of paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of government business) shall, notwithstanding the practice of the House, be given at the Table or in the Table Office not less than nine days

  383
  before the day on which the notice of motion is to have precedence:
  Provided that no such notice shall be given on a day on which the House does not sit.
  This is the last of the Motions we wish to put tonight, and I hope that, in moving this one, we will not be accused of dictatorial conduct, since this is a unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure and, I suggest, is a slight improvement on the way in which we conduct our Ballot for Private Members' Motions.
  The proposal is to allow hon. Members to make their Motions more topical; to draft them nearer the event instead of having to state them the moment that successful hon. Members are called. For this purpose, hon. Members should be given a number of days to choose their subjects, and while this may take an element of drama and surprise away from the Ballot, it should improve the quality of debate.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That, during the present Session, notice of a subject to be raised on any motion for which a ballot is held in pursuance of paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of government business) shall, notwithstanding the practice of the House, be given at the Table or in the Table Office not less than nine days before the day on which the notice of motion is to have precedence:
  Provided that no such notice shall be given on a day on which the House does not sit.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (SHROPSHIRE)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Harper.]
11.29 p.m.
Mr. Jasper More: I am grateful for this opportunity of raising again the serious problem of the foot-and-mouth outbreak in Shropshire. As I was fortunate enough in last week's debate to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, I will be brief tonight and merely refer to a few matters that concern the southern part of the county.
In the debate last week I asked the Minister—
Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): Where is he?
Mr. More: —if we could have some clear guidance. I shall send the right hon. Gentleman a letter which I have received from the clerk of my county council pointing out that, in some respects, clear guidance has not been received from the Minister.
I am also concerned about the question of publicity. In a letter which the Minister sent to me he refers to statements which have been put out on the radio, but one must be critical of the fact that we have had nothing in the Press. The only advertisement I have seen in the Press is one referring to the national emergency, but, on studying it, one sees that it was inserted not by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in this country but by the Irish Ministry. Clear instructions should have been given, particularly in local papers, and each week the farmers and public generally should have been informed about what should be done.
Everybody is particularly concerned that there should be a proper organisation if we are ever faced with this emergency again. People want to see somebody firmly in control so that everything in advance is known about what action should be taken. They want to know who is responsible and all the other factors so that, if we are again faced with this emergency, everybody concerned can go into action knowing from the first what they should do.
As I have already said, I do not want to take up a lot of time myself as I was fortunate enough to be called last week, so I hope that with these few words, which the Minister will be able to read in HANSARD tomorrow, he will let me have an answer in writing.
11.31 p.m.
Mr. John Biffen: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) for his generosity and kindness in limiting his remarks in so brief a fashion. I will detain the House only shortly, but there are a number of points which are clearly of considerable concern to anyone representing the Oswestry division because Shropshire is a stricken county.
I calculate, on the most modest assessment, that the compensation that has been paid by the Government in respect of stock slaughtered in the division alone must be at least £2 million to £3 million.

385
There are four points which I wish to make. The first concerns the question of how best one can limit the spread of this disastrous epidemic. Under this heading, I should like to ask the Minister if he could give some guidance as to what should be the convention governing football matches. The whole question of public gatherings, both in infected areas and counties and in adjacent counties, affecting those who may travel from the infected counties, is one on which we would be grateful for the most clear and unambiguous guidance.
The particular point which I want to put to the Minister is whether he is satisfied with the present situation whereby football teams are not only travelling within the infected counties but are travelling from infected areas to play in non-infected areas, and taking crowds with them. This has caused a great deal of disquiet and it has been the subject of numbers of representations which I have had. I would be very grateful if the Minister could comment on that.
There are three points I wish to make which are concerned with alleviating the very considerable distress now characterising the areas affected by the disease. The first point concerns the rise in valuations of stock slaughtered as the epidemic has proceeded, and I think I can do no better than to quote from a letter I received in my postbag this morning from a constituent, Mr. Sockett, of Waen Farm, Maesbury, near Oswestry:
" Since my farm was cleaned of foot-and-mouth I have been working cleaning up other farms that have had foot-and-mouth.
I am finding that farmers on farms that I am working on are getting £20–£30 per cow more than I received when I had my outbreak on November 12th.
Although our valuation was fair at the time, I do not understand the rise in the valuation especially as those who had foot-and-mouth first will be longest out of production."
It seems to me that there must be very general anxiety in the agricultural community that there shall be full and fair equity for the early victims of this epidemic, and I think the point raised by my constituent is one on which guidance —and the most generous interpretation— will be expected of the Minister, because it is not just a question of referring to the indicated preferences of the Gowers Report.
386
This outbreak is of a severity and consequence totally out of scale with anything this country has suffered before. Therefore I feel we must look at these things with different interpretations. In relation to the payment of grants, will the Minister indicate his preparedness to have certain grants paid at least in part before inspections have been completed to verify that the conditions for these grants have been carried out? As he will appreciate, in many cases Ministry officials cannot visit these farms to verify that the conditions have been met, but these are farmers going through very considerable economic distress, and some payment in advance—and as it were on trust—would be very much appreciated.
My final point concerns what can be done to enable farmers to continue in employment farm workers who very often are in situations where they will not be able to practise their full range of farming activities for many months to come. In these circumstances, there must be real pressure for them to limit their costs to the minimum. This presents a genuine and inescapable threat to the jobs of many farmworkers in Shropshire and in infected areas outside the County of Shropshire.
I feel—and this, again, will be a characteristic of adjacent counties—that alternative employment prospects are not particularly rosy. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will consider making what representations he can to his colleagues in the Cabinet to see that the Selective Employment Tax mechanism can be used in such a way as to encourage farmers to retain labour which they might otherwise feel obliged to dispense with over the coming few months.
I promised that I would limit my remarks. I have touched briefly upon four points, but they are all points of major significance, not only for Shropshire, but for all areas which are affected by the epidemic. In Shropshire and on the Welsh border there is a tendency to feel that London seems far away and that, perhaps, there is an element of remoteness about the whole approach to the problem. I know that this may be an unfair interpretation of the way in which the Ministry has moved in this matter, but I assure the Minister that there is paramount need for sympathetic consideration of the points which I have raised if the

387
Welsh border areas are to be made to feel that they have the sympathy, the attention and, above all, the zealous concern of the authorities at Westminster.
11.37 p.m.
Sir John Langford-Holt: I undertake to speak for only a couple of minutes, but I would like to make two points. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) has spoken about football matches. I wonder whether the Minister will address himself also to the question of schools, because they are getting near the end of term. Would he not consider that children passing from one village to another, from one part of the county to another, are also a threat to the spread of this disease?
This outbreak is unique in its severity, extent and duration. We have not seen its like in this country before. My hon. Friend mentioned compensation for replacement value. I implore the Minister to consider this point urgently. The important feature which we must bear in mind—the extent to which agriculture will suffer in the long term—depends upon the industry's ability to recover from this attack.
What the Minister must do, and as a matter of urgency, is to take any possible action to see that the industry is put on its feet again. One of the ways in which he can do this is to make sure that the compensation which is given, both to the type of person mentioned by my hon. Friend and to all farmers who have been afflicted, will enable them to recover from the attack at the earliest possible moment.
11.38 p.m.
Mr. Timothy Kitson: The one point which I would like to raise with the Minister, and about which I have been in touch with his Ministry today, is the length of the gaming season. I wonder whether it would be possible to extend it for a fortnight. There is a problem here. There has been a good deal of confusion over shooting. The statement which was issued tonight has clarified the position, and I am sure that everybody is grateful for it because people will know the position.
The Minister will appreciate that far too many pheasants running about in
388
the spring will be an embarrassment to many farmers, who want to see them done away with before sowing time. The game season was extended during the war. Many people would be grateful if the Minister could give guidance about whether it will be possible to shoot pheasants, and pheasants only, in the first fortnight of February.
11.40 p.m.
Mr. John M. Temple: There is one point I should like the Minister to clear up in regard to precautions which should be taken by livestock owners during this epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease. It is in regard to disinfectants. Manufacturers of disinfectants are not able to test them in conditions of virus. Although they may be all effective against all other kinds of bacteria, they are not always effective against foot-and-mouth virus and that can be tested only in the Ministry's laboratories.
Another point concerns their efficacy in frost conditions. There is no doubt that frost deteriorates disinfectants and separates the phenols from the emulsifiers in tar-based disinfectants. I understand that the Minister has said that salt should be put on the disinfectant pads, but I gather that salt destroys the effect of tar-based disinfectants and makes them relatively ineffective.
We should have clear guidance from the Ministry about the effectiveness of these "approved" disinfectants under all conditions.
I appeal to the Minister to issue a brochure or pamphlet telling farmers their rights and duties on infected premises. This is a matter I have suggested to the Minister before. I hope that he will get out such a pamphlet in the near future.
11.42 p.m.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. I thought it would be wrong for me to intervene immediately after the main speaker because the hon. Members for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt), for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) and for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), apart from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), who initiated the debate, have

389
quite rightly a very important interest in this matter. I thought it right to hear their points of view.
If I do not cover in the time at my disposal every specific point which has been made, it is not to be taken that I am being discourteous but it is because I have taken a careful note of the matters which have been raised. The hon. Member for Ludlow spoke about no clear guidance having been given. We have done everything possible in this direction. As the hon. Member knows, I have even taken the liberty and privilege of making a Ministerial broadcast on radio and television. I have tried to impress on the farming community and the general public the sort of conduct that should be applicable in this case. I have spelled out in detail specific guidance to the farming community.
Mr. More Mr. More rose —
Mr. Peart: I have little time—
Mr. More: The right hon. Gentleman did not hear my speech.
Mr. Peart: I came in immediately and I was given the points made by the hon. Member. I hope that there is no conflict between us. We are both anxious to see an end to this outbreak and the winning of the battle. I shall do all I can to give guidance and I have taken note of what has been said. If we can improve publicity, even at this stage, I shall do so. We try to give all the useful publicity that we can.
I gather that the hon. Member mentioned organisation if foot and mouth disease should occur again. I have said that I will set up an independent investigation. The Gowers Committee reported a long time ago. Even if there had not been the present outbreak, it would have been necessary to have another investigation, for, after all, science changes.
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Ludlow, Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), Shrewsbury and the City of Chester—who was with me recently in the area concerned— for the way in which they have acted and for their moderate and responsible attitude. I mean this sincerely. There is still a grave situation in the County of Shropshire, which includes the constituencies of most of those who have spoken.
390
I welcome this opportunity to say a few words about it.
I assure the House that I am no easy optimist in this matter. One has to be realistic. The plain fact for all to see is that we have here an exceptionally savage strain of the virus, with an attacking power and a power of mobility beyond anything experienced in this country before. This does not mean that it cannot be beaten. We have to battle on resolutely until the epidemic has been stamped out. There will be matters of detail which we shall have to examine. I am glad that the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks raised the question of pheasant shooting. I shall carefully consider his observations. I know that he has been in touch with my Department, but it is a matter affecting not only the Ministry of Agriculture but other Departments as well, including the Home Office. I shall treat his suggestion sympathetically. I think that he has a point, but I say no more about it at this stage. I shall probably wish to have a further word with him about it.
We have, as I say, to battle on resolutely until the epidemic has been stamped out. My own public career has been associated very closely with the interests of British agriculture, and the industry's sufferings in the West Midlands weigh heavily on me as they do on all hon. Members, especially those who have spoken tonight and all others who represent agricultural constituencies.
Now, the question of control of animal movements. In the debate on 4th December, the hon. Member for Ludlow said that the disease had only just appeared in his constituency and that, because it had appeared in sheep at least 20 miles from any other case, it must have been due to lack of control of movements. The hon. Gentleman is right to be perturbed at the appearance of the disease in sheep in this area—it is a grave development—but I must say, without wishing in any way to be offensive, that he has no evidence to support what he has said about the cause. He was right to raise the matter, but I emphasise that he has no evidence for what he said about the cause itself.
I have been asked about markets, and I know that the hon. Member for Oswestry is concerned about them in his own area. When I was in Worcester

391
yesterday, many farmers put questions to me on the same matter. I have been asked about the future role of the fat-stock market in our present campaign. Licensed fatstock markets in infected areas have the advantage of ensuring full veterinary supervision, inspection of animals and disinfection of vehicles. This does not mean that farmers should go to the markets themselves. Nor does it mean that we shall not license individual animals direct to the slaughterhouse, subject to all proper precautions. But we cannot have dealers going from farm to farm collecting animals. I stress that, and I hope that I have the support of all hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Oswestry has raised with me a particular point about lack of access to an abattoir at Market Drayton. I regret that I cannot allow fatstock to pass from the main infected area in Shropshire to the infected area further east. I am sure that hon. Members would rightly criticise me if I did.
Now, the control of movement of people and the whole question of football matches and shooting. There has been much discussion about the prevention of gatherings of people. Football matches are not a disease risk in themselves. In or near infected areas they should not be held on farmland or adjacent land or where access is over farmland. That is my advice to the organisers. My advice to people on farms or in contact with farms is not to go to football matches or other large gatherings. I shall use my powers to prohibit access to farmland should that prove necessary.
Shooting parties also have been drawn to my attention. I was glad to see the recent Press notice by the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union. I have decided that, in order to reduce the risk of spreading the disease, I should use my powers under the recent Order, if necessary, to prevent the holding of shooting parties in the infected areas or in any county adjoining the infected areas. In the remaining counties of England and Wales any person coming from an infected area or the counties adjoining an infected area should not be admitted to land on which a shoot is taking place.
All these measures amount to a considerable restriction on the public. But
392
I am sure that that is right in this situation. I fully appreciate that the restrictions will be irksome for some, particularly over Christmas, but they are necessary.
The hon. Member for Oswestry laid stress on the future, and I know that this very much concerns the farming community. Many hon. Members have mentioned it to me. They have asked me about help with rehabilitation and the problems of farmers in the meantime. We must win this battle. We must make a success of our slaughter policy. We must also think in terms of the future, but the main effort must be put into winning the battle in the areas where we still have the disease.
I have already announced a new ploughing grant for farmers who have lost livestock, and it is welcomed by the industry. I am glad to see the national response, of which I found evidence yesterday in Worcester.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: People in the ancillary industries, as well as in agriculture, are concerned about their overdrafts. They are unable to get the income that normally comes in at this time of year to reduce them.
Mr. Peart: The hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken to me on this point. I believe that he is thinking, for example, of those who are connected with haulage and deal with the cattle industry. If he writes to me, I shall give the matter sympathetic consideration, but the question of consequential loss is not easy. However, I think that the new ploughing grant can help the farmer who has been affected in certain circumstances. I have also promised that there shall be interim payments on improvement schemes. I have said that livestock subsidies shall not be lost for lack of inspection by my officers. Tax problems are being thrashed out in consultation with the National Farmers' Union.
The problems of farm workers have been raised, and these are important. Hon. Members may have seen the press release yesterday by the National Union of Agricultural Workers about my meeting with Lord Collison. The ploughing grant will help in providing some work for farm workers and some income to

393
pay their wages. Some farm workers are employed by my Department on infected farms. There is always much work to be caught up with on farms, and:his is an opportunity, though a tragic one, to do many jobs that have had to wait. I am sure that no farmer who can avoid it will lose a worker at present.
I am well aware of the problem of increases in livestock values since compensation was assessed in the early days of the epidemic. It has been mentioned to me by farmers, and the hon. Member for Oswestry raised it tonight. The matter has not been overlooked, and there will be discussions on it shortly with the National Farmers' Union. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. This is not begging the question. Sometimes I am chided about giving assurances, but I mean this sincerely. We will have talks with the unions on this, and I am aware of the problem.
394
The hon. Member for Ludlow has raised questions of the scale of research and of future animal health safeguards for meat imports, and he has written to me about this. These are matters for the independent committee, which I have undertaken to set up when the epidemic is over. This is right for the reasons which have been mentioned. I shall see that the Committee conducts a thoroughgoing review. That is important for the industry.
I know that time is now up. I am grateful to hon. Members for being so constructive. I say this to them. I know that they feel strongly about this epidemic. I do, too—I must, as Minister responsible for agriculture. We must win this battle. Let us hope that we shall.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.

MINISTRY OF POWER
  Natural Gas (Prospecting)
  Natural Gas (Prospecting)
  Fuel Economy Model
  Fuel Economy Model
  Coal Industry Bill (Gas Costs)
  Coal Industry Bill (Gas Costs)
  Fuel Oil (Consumption)
  Fuel Oil (Consumption)
  Tin Mill and Galvanising Plant (Lanarkshire)
  Tin Mill and Galvanising Plant (Lanarkshire)
  Electricity and Gas Industries(Connection Charges)
  Electricity and Gas Industries(Connection Charges)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Steel Prices)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Steel Prices)
  Phoenix Works, Rutherglen (Closure)
  Phoenix Works, Rutherglen (Closure)
  Fuel Policy White Paper
  Fuel Policy White Paper
COAL
  Opencast Mining (Northumberland)
  Opencast Mining (Northumberland)
  Phurnacite
  Phurnacite
  District Heating Schemes
  District Heating Schemes
  Northern Gas Board (Service Charges)
  Northern Gas Board (Service Charges)
  Smokeless Fuel Plant, Coventry (Capital Cost)
  Smokeless Fuel Plant, Coventry (Capital Cost)
  Mosley Common Colliery (Redundancy Benefit)
  Mosley Common Colliery (Redundancy Benefit)
  Pit Closures (Deferments)
  Pit Closures (Deferments)
ELECTRICITY
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Plant Capacity)
  Central Electricity Generating Board (Plant Capacity)
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Nuclear Power Stations
  Electricity Industry
  Electricity Industry
TECHNOLOGY
  International Labour Productivity (Comparisons)
  International Labour Productivity (Comparisons)
  Concorde Aircraft
  Concorde Aircraft
  Industrial Expansion Bill
  Industrial Expansion Bill
  Advanced Technology (European Co-operation)
  Advanced Technology (European Co-operation)
  Short Brothers and Harland (Grant)
  Short Brothers and Harland (Grant)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Research)
  Atomic Energy Authority (Research)
  Hydrofoils
  Hydrofoils
  Camlab Company (Prices)
  Camlab Company (Prices)
  Military Equipment (Overseas Sales)
  Military Equipment (Overseas Sales)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Government Departments
  Government Departments
  Devaluation (Exporters)
  Devaluation (Exporters)
  Tourist Industry
  Tourist Industry
  Foreign Exchange
  Foreign Exchange
  Letters of Intent
  Letters of Intent
  Exchange Equalisation Account
  Exchange Equalisation Account
  International Monetary Fund (Drawing Rights)
  International Monetary Fund (Drawing Rights)
  Customs Duty and Purchase Tax
  Customs Duty and Purchase Tax
  Fiscal Policies (Scotland)
  Fiscal Policies (Scotland)
  Budget Date
  Budget Date
  Export-Import Bank (Credit Agreements)
  Export-Import Bank (Credit Agreements)
  Taxation and Government Expenditure
  Taxation and Government Expenditure
  Stamp Duty (Shipping Industry)
  Stamp Duty (Shipping Industry)
  Export Rebate
  Export Rebate
  Land Commission
  Land Commission
  Alcohol and Tobacco (Expenditure)
  Alcohol and Tobacco (Expenditure)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Building Regulations 1965
  Building Regulations 1965
  Barnes (Conservation Area)
  Barnes (Conservation Area)
  Footpaths, Bridleways and Tracks (Survey)
  Footpaths, Bridleways and Tracks (Survey)
  Lea Valley Regional Park
  Lea Valley Regional Park
  Foreshores (Access)
  Foreshores (Access)
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (Recommendations)
  National Board for Prices and Incomes (Recommendations)
  Land Commission
  Land Commission
  Derelict Land (Durham)
  Derelict Land (Durham)
  Historic Buildings
  Historic Buildings
HOUSING
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Council House Rents (National Board for Prices and Incomes)
  Council House Rents (National Board for Prices and Incomes)
  Rent Assessment Committees
  Rent Assessment Committees
  Council Houses, Lowestoft (Completions)
  Council Houses, Lowestoft (Completions)
  Compulsory Purchase Order (Hull)
  Compulsory Purchase Order (Hull)
  Fair Rent Applications (Gateshead)
  Fair Rent Applications (Gateshead)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Act, 1966
  Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Act, 1966
  Manufactured Goods (Price Increases)
  Manufactured Goods (Price Increases)
  ANGLO-ITALIAN RELATIONS
  ANGLO-ITALIAN RELATIONS
  VICUNA SKINS (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT)
  VICUNA SKINS (INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT)
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE UNIVERSITY ENTRANTS)
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE UNIVERSITY ENTRANTS)
  NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
  NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY
  SCHOOL MEDICAL SERVICE(MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  SCHOOL MEDICAL SERVICE(MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  PIT CLOSURES
  PIT CLOSURES
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SALARY REDUCTIONS)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (SALARY REDUCTIONS)
  TELEVISION PROGRAMME (MR. PETER JAY)
  TELEVISION PROGRAMME (MR. PETER JAY)
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS
  COMPULSORY PURCHASE (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  COMPULSORY PURCHASE (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  SUEZ CANAL
  SUEZ CANAL
  MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (ABOLITION OF OFFICES)
  MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (ABOLITION OF OFFICES)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Tenant Fanners (Tenure)
  Tenant Fanners (Tenure)
  Animal Feedingstuffs (Price Increases)
  Animal Feedingstuffs (Price Increases)
  Bread Prices
  Bread Prices
  Wheat (Deficiency Payment)
  Wheat (Deficiency Payment)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  St. Vincent Island
  St. Vincent Island
  Sierra Leone
  Sierra Leone
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Anglo-American Offset Agreement
  Anglo-American Offset Agreement
HOSPITALS
  Textiles
  Textiles
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Shipbuilding Industry Training Board
  Shipbuilding Industry Training Board
  Road Haulage Industry
  Road Haulage Industry
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Books (Expert Commission)
  Books (Expert Commission)
  American Citizens (Extradition)
  American Citizens (Extradition)
  Parole Board
  Parole Board
  Seebohm Committee (Report)
  Seebohm Committee (Report)
  Poisons Board (Quinine)
  Poisons Board (Quinine)
  Roadside Breath Tests (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
  Roadside Breath Tests (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
  Speed Limit Prosecutions (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
  Speed Limit Prosecutions (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS
  Baguley Hall, Manchester
  Baguley Hall, Manchester
  Land Commission (Premises)
  Land Commission (Premises)
SCOTLAND
  Police Officers (Public Complaints)
  Police Officers (Public Complaints)
  Foreign Fishing Vessels (Arrests)
  Foreign Fishing Vessels (Arrests)
  Cattle (Tuberculin Tests)
  Cattle (Tuberculin Tests)
  Power Stations (Capital Cost)
  Power Stations (Capital Cost)
  Sheep Freight Charge (Western Isles)
  Sheep Freight Charge (Western Isles)
  Sport and Physical Recreation (Capital Grants)
  Sport and Physical Recreation (Capital Grants)
  Housing (Isle of Lewis and Ross-shire)
  Housing (Isle of Lewis and Ross-shire)
  Population (Highlands and Islands)
  Population (Highlands and Islands)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Supplementary Benefits (Lewis and Harris)
  Supplementary Benefits (Lewis and Harris)
AVIATION
  British United Airways (Alderney Service)
  British United Airways (Alderney Service)
  International Air Tariffs
  International Air Tariffs
BOARD OF TRADE
  Argentine Meat (Import Ban)
  Argentine Meat (Import Ban)
  Board of Trade Factories, Wales
  Board of Trade Factories, Wales
  Scottish Coalfield (Factories)
  Scottish Coalfield (Factories)
TRANSPORT
  Freight Integration Council
  Freight Integration Council
  Road and Rail Freight (Scotland)
  Road and Rail Freight (Scotland)
  Goods Vehicle Licences (Scotland)
  Goods Vehicle Licences (Scotland)
  Cattle Floats(North-East Scotland)
  Cattle Floats(North-East Scotland)
ROADS
  Maintenance (Cost)
  Maintenance (Cost)
  Road Lighting (Expenditure)
  Road Lighting (Expenditure)
  Construction (Cost)
  Construction (Cost)
  Parking (Cost)
  Parking (Cost)
  School Warning Signs (Lowestoft)
  School Warning Signs (Lowestoft)

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

THE LORD BISHOP OF BLACKBURN
Charles Robert, Lord Bishop of Blackburn—Was (in the usual manner) introduced between the Lord Bishop of London and the Lord Bishop of Bristol.

TANZANIA: COMPENSATION FOR BRITISH CONCERNS
2.41 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make a statement regarding the compensation to be paid by the Government of Tanzania to the various British-owned concerns that were nationalised by that Government in February of this year.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, the Tanzanian Government have reached agreement on compensation with four of the British-owned concerns. Negotiations with the remainder, including the three banks, are still in progress.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I am obliged for that Answer, but can Her Majesty's Government give an assurance that, before accepting a settlement, they will satisfy themselves that such compensation as is paid, is paid in some medium that is freely negotiable outside Tanzania?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it has been the wish of the companies concerned to undertake the negotiations with the Tanzanian Government themselves, and since those companies were nationalised, or partly taken over, no representa-
1004
tions have so far been made to Her Majesty's Government. However, as my noble friend Lord Beswick said earlier this year, Her Majesty's Government are always willing, should they be approached, to assist the companies.

SOLICITORS' DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS
2.43 p.m.
LORD FOLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the number of cases in 1967 to date which have been submitted to the Disciplinary Committee in accordance with the Solicitors' (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 1957; in how many of these cases solicitors were found to be guilty, and the number of cases submitted to the Committee which have arisen out of complaints of alleged unprofessional conduct or professional misconduct other than charges of embezzlement or failure to comply with the Solicitors' Accounts Rules 1945–59.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I am informed that during the current year to date 46 applications from all sources against solicitors have been submitted to the Disciplinary Committee constituted under the Solicitors Act 1957. Of these 46 cases 21 were not concerned with defalcation or breaches of the Solicitors' Accounts Rules. I understand that decisions have so far been given in 25 cases, and that in 17 the complaints were found to be justified.
LORD FOLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. I do not wish to put a supplementary question.
LORD FOLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to the statement by Sir Thomas Lund that the Law Society receive approximately ten thousand complaints each

1005
year concerning the conduct of solicitors; and whether they will state the number of cases in 1967 to date where the Law Society themselves have instituted proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee in accordance with the Solicitors' (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules 1957, the number of instances in such circumstances where solicitors have been acquitted; and the number of such cases pending.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the statement to which I believe the noble Lord refers mentions the receipt by the Law Society of roughly 200 complaints a week but adds that the vast majority are from people who appear to be mentally unbalanced or from clients seeking information about legal procedure or practice. I am informed that during the current year to date the Law Society have made 37 applications against solicitors to the Disciplinary Committee; that in no case in which the findings and order have been pronounced has a solicitor been exonerated, and that the results of the remaining 19 applications are not yet known.

SOUTH AFRICA: UNITED KINGDOM ARMS EMBARGO
2.46 p.m.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: 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 it is their intention to maintain the embargoes which they have imposed against exports to the Union of South Africa.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, it is our intention to continue to consider all South African requests for equipment in the framework of the policy which we have been implementing since November, 1964.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, in view of that Answer, which seems to indicate that the door is now ajar for the resumption of certain exports hitherto banned under the embargo, I would ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the estimated
1006
immediate cost of the arms embargo is in the region of £150 million sterling and that the long-term loss is incalculable, in terms both of money and of good will? In reconsidering this matter will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind the enormous effect which these hundreds of millions of pounds will have upon our ability or otherwise to bring our balance of payments out of the red?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I should not like the noble Lord to think that the door is now in any different position from that in which it has been since 1964. But in answer to his question I can say that of course we bear in mind the factors he has mentioned. It is the policy of the Government to implement an arms embargo against South Africa in line with a series of United Nations resolutions. Of course, that must lead to a certain loss of trade, and this the Government are prepared to sustain.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that our embargo, which was imposed at the end of 1964, has not had the slightest effect on the domestic policies of South Africa? And since we try to encourage the export of arms to other countries, such as China and Russia, which do not recognise human rights, what is the sense of maintaining such an embargo towards a country like South Africa, which could be of advantage to us in times of emergency?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I am not aware that there is any demonstrated proof of the effect which United Nations resolutions in regard to arms to South Africa has had on the policies, present or future, of that country. Furthermore, I think it right to point out that it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to encourage the supply of arms about the world, but is merely to take part in the normal export of military equipment that takes place between certain States. As I have said, this is the subject of three quite clear United Nations resolutions, and the policy of Her Majesty's Government is in line with those.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, in view of the fact that the noble Lord's answer to my supplementary question seems to contradict what

1007
he said in the original Answer, perhaps he would clear the matter up. I gathered from his original Answer that the Government were reconsidering the question of the embargo on arms exports to South Africa. His answer to my supplementary question would seem to make it quite clear that they are not. Perhaps he can clear up this point for me.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I shall be delighted to clear it up. There was no suggestion in my Answer to the noble Lord's original Question that anything is being reconsidered. Since 1964 we have considered all South Africa's requests for equipment, in line with the policy we adopted then, and we shall continue to do so. There is no change of policy.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, may we take it from that answer that there is a complete embargo on the supply of arms equipment of any sort to South Africa?
LORD CHALFONT: No, my Lords. I must beg the noble Lord not to oversimplify what is not a simple matter. The fact is that we operate an arms embargo against South Africa in accordance with, and in consequence of, the spirit and letter of a number of United Nations resolutions. This means that every request for equipment coming from South Africa is considered in the light of that policy. The noble Lord will know that there are certain other items of equipment which were the subject of agreement before the embargo was introduced and which we have supplied since 1964, and we shall continue to act in that way.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, the noble Lord said in answer to the Question that the Government are "continuing to consider," whereas at a later stage he said that they would reconsider. What is the difference between "continuing to consider" and to "reconsider"?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I will do my best to clear up this matter. It has been the policy of Her Majesty's Government since 1964 to consider every request for arms equipment for South Africa in accordance with the policy adopted in 1964. We shall continue to do so. Therefore we are not reconsidering that policy.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, would the noble Lord be able to clarify this matter? Since his reply stated that there has been no change in policy since 1964, and in view of the critical state of our national economy, does it not appear that it is now opportune to change from the plea, frequently stated, that moral principles are of more importance than employment to the population of this country? Further, would he not agree that the closing of the Suez Canal has changed the position a good deal? Should not South Africa, which is now permitting the passage of all ships to the West and to the East, be permitted to get from this country the arms which would enable her to carry out the mission which we are now imposing on her?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I fear I find myself in some confusion as a result of the noble Lord's question. The simple answer is that the Government do not consider that it is time to reconsider this policy, although we take into account the trade factors which the noble Lord has mentioned. So far as the Suez Canal is concerned, although this is, strictly speaking, outside the scope of this Question, I agree that the closing of the Canal has reinforced and underlined for us the importance of the Simonstown base facilities in South Africa which we continue to enjoy under an agreement with the South African Government. I fail to see how that has any effect on our policy of observing the United Nations call for an arms embargo on South Africa.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, does the noble Lord remember that before 1964 we prohibited the export of such weapons to South Africa as were likely to be used for the suppression of domestic riots, on the principle that we would not supply anything which could be used to suppress civil disturbances which might be caused by the apartheid policy? But does he not agree that our present wider ban on a much wider range of exports, which could not possibly be used for this purpose, is quite irrelevant?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I cannot agree that there is any irrelevance. I am aware of the attempt that has been made to distinguish between arms and ammunition that can be used for the

1009
suppression of civil disturbances and those that cannot. I confess I find the distinction very difficult to make. Perhaps I could show to the noble Earl's satisfaction that there is no irrelevancy simply by quoting a few words from the Security Council resolution of June 18, 1964, in which the Security Council reaffirms its call upon all States
"To cease forthwith the sale and shipment to South Africa of arms and ammunition of all types, military vehicles and equipment and materials for the manufacture and maintenance of arms and ammunition in South Africa."
I cannot see that our policy is at odds with that resolution.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brockway has several times attempted to speak. No one from this side has spoken. I do not wish to interrupt the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, but I think it would be fair to let my noble friend make his point.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I was about to ask a point arising out of Lord Chalfont's last reply: whether the resolution he referred to is being implemented by France and other European countries.
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, it is for foreign countries themselves to decide their attitude to United Nations' resolutions. We have decided upon ours.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the United Nations' resolution was not adopted because of the system of apartheid in South Africa, to which all the civilised nations of the world are opposed and to which one thought all the Parties in this country were opposed; and whether it is not the fact that South Africa itself is engaged in a heavy rearmament programme and that it is desirable that our Government should refrain from participating in that, in view of the very dangerous situation which there is in South Africa?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I can only say, in answer to my noble friend's question, that I think everyone, on all sides of this House, is aware of the reasons that lay behind the United Nations' resolutions of 1963 and 1964. I should expect that most noble Lords
1010
would be in sympathy with the spirit behind those resolutions and therefore with the Government's action in following policies that observe them. So far as the future policies of the South African Government are concerned, I think I can best answer my noble friend's question by saying that we intend to pursue the policy we are pursuing now.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I, with the indulgence of the House, thank the noble Lord for his admission of a partial and limited change in circumstances, if I correctly understood him?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Lord that that is not a question in the ordinary sense.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, did I understand the noble Earl the Leader of the House say that that was not a question? I was on the point of proceeding to a question.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I think to ask leave to thank a Government spokesman is not a question in the ordinary sense.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I appreciate the words of the noble Earl? I think it is unusual to ask the indulgence of the House to comment on the correction of a Minister; at least that is my experience. Without presuming to go against the Rules, may I say that the noble Lord, if I understood him correctly, said that it was for each member of the United Nations to make a choice. But surely other members of the United Nations are providing South Africa with some arms. Does he not now agree that it would be for the better if a change were made from moral principle to factual employment?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I really feel I must impose upon your Lordships for one moment simply to put the record absolutely straight. I do not accept the implication of the noble Lord's question, because I have not indicated any change of policy. I must make that quite clear to your Lordships.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a real question? Does he take into account in this matter the help which South Africa is giving to the illegal régime in Rhodesia?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think that is outside the scope of the original Question. I would say that we take all relevant factors into consideration.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, we shall have an opportunity of reading Hansard to-morrow, but I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he realises that the answers he has given to-day will certainly lead to considerable confusion as to what is the Government's policy in regard to the export of arms to South Africa. We obviously cannot pursue it at the present time, but it will have to be pursued at a later date.

RHODESIA
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 o'clock my noble friend Lord Shepherd will be making a Statement on Rhodesia.

RENT BILL [H.L.]
2.59 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Bill consolidating all or some of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920, the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act 1923, the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1933, the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1935, the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1938, the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act 1939, the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946, the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948, the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act 1949, the Crown Lessees (Protection of Sub-Tenants) Act 1952, the Housing Repairs and Rents Act 1954, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, the Rent Act 1957, the Housing Act 1957, the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act 1958, the House Purchase and Housing Act 1959, the New Towns Act 1959, the Landlord and Tenant (Furniture and Fittings) Act 1959, the Housing Act 1961, the London Government Act 1963, the Housing Act 1964, the Rent Act 1965, the Agriculture Act
1012
1967, and the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
My Lords, everything which increases the lawyer's time inevitably costs the client money, and this Bill, consolidating all the Rent Acts for 47 years, should be a boon and blessing to men. If your Lordships give it a Second Reading it will go in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

CONSULAR RELATIONS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a: an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
House in Committee: Clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

BRITISH STANDARD TIME BILL [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Your Lordships will recall that we had a most interesting, instructive, stimulating, and at times abstruse debate on Second Reading, and we fully explored the Title of the new permanent Summer Time. A change of this kind is, of course, bound to provoke many different opinions. But as I said in our earlier proceedings, the Government took particular care to obtain the views of all major sections of the community. We believe, and we have no reason to doubt, that the provisions in the Bill are generally acceptable. I freely admit that there will be certain disadvantages, and that some sections of the community may during the winter months find our new British Standard

1013
Time less welcome than others. We are sorry about that. But it is impossible to please everyone, and if we look at the community as a whole, as we must, I have no doubt that the change will be generally advantageous.
I should have been content to leave it at that, but it is within your Lordships' recollection that towards the end of the Committee stage three questions were addressed to me by noble Lords to which I undertook to give a reply at a later stage, and I should be most grateful for just a few moments of your Lordships' time to fulfil that obligation. First, I would reaffirm that under the Bill Greenwich Mean Time remains, as it began, the basic system of computation for astronomers, geographers and navigators.
In reply to the first question, I am glad to be able to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, that there is nothing in this Bill in any way to prevent the B.B.C. from continuing to use Greenwich Mean Time in their foreign service programmes. They will indeed be able to say in future, as they do now:
"This is 1800 hours Greenwich Mean Time in the B.B.C. World Service."
We can be proud of the pioneering work of British scientists and mathematicians in this field, but we should not allow ourselves to be so unscientific as to pretend that Greenwich' Mean Time is still the best system for the everyday purposes of a nation which is no longer primarily rural or seafaring. Surely, however, we may allow ourselves this amount of sentiment, that the name "British" should appear in the name of the new system that is being introduced; even though—and here I am answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale—we understand that no other country in Western Europe uses its own name in the official description of the time on its clocks. This preference may be, as he said, "quaintly nationalistic" of us, but perhaps in a field to which Britain has contributed so greatly some small measure of national pride may be excused.
It only remains for me to fulfil my promise to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Cuirass, to say something about the possible effects of the change on the electricity supply industry and its consumers. As your Lordships will know,
1014
there are two main daily peaks in the demand for electricity: the first in the early morning, around 8 a.m. in England and Wales, and the second in the late afternoon, between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m. At present, the afternoon peak demand is the higher of the two, and its load is therefore the main factor determining the amount of plant and equipment the Electricity Boards need to have.
It is difficult to assess precisely what effect the change to British Standard Time will have on the relative size of the two peaks; much will depend on whether there are any changes in living habits and the time of starting and stop-ping work. But the Ministry of Power and the electricity supply authorities have looked into this question most carefully, and have concluded that the afternoon peak may be a little lower and the morning peak a little higher than at present. The net effect will probably be that the morning peak will become the higher of the two—namely, the present position will be reversed—but only a little higher than the afternoon peak would have been had we stayed on Greenwich Mean Time. The industry's costs and the average price paid by electricity consumers should not therefore be affected significantly.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, expressed concern about the effect of the change of British Standard Time on electricity tariffs for off-peak supplies. As your Lordships will know, off-peak electricity tariffs are available for use with storage appliances which take in heat only during the off-peak periods, especially the night, and then give it off gradually. The tariffs vary in some respects from one Area Board to another, and all Boards offer a choice of tariffs. Indeed, I think the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, read out his tariff during the Committee stage. As a rule, however, the electricity supply is switched on in the winter at between 7 p.m. and 11 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time, and switched off at 7 o'clock or 7.30 in the morning. Some off-peak tariffs also give a boost during the day, usually in the afternoon.
The Electricity Boards have not yet decided precisely how they will reflect the changing time in their tariffs. This will depend on the effect on the timing of the morning peak. The Boards will, in any case, consult the electricity consultative committees, who protect the interests of

1015
consumers, before making any significant changes. It is almost certain, however, that the change to British Standard Time will result in the morning peak falling rather earlier than at present relative to sunrise, and the Boards will therefore wish to restrict the use of off-peak tariffs for up to an hour earlier—that is 7 or 7.30 a.m. British Standard Time. But storage heaters give off the greatest amount of heat at the time that storage ceases in the morning, and thereafter continue to lose heat gradually throughout the day. Thus people dependent on these appliances for warmth will not be adversely affected by getting up earlier (going by the sun). Users of electricity for non-storage purposes—for example, farmers and horticulturists, about whom the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, inquired—who use electricity for lighting and power, are supplied under the Electricity Board's normal unrestricted tariffs, and will continue to receive their supplies as at present.
My Lords, in conclusion may I say that we have had a period of over 50 years of Summer Time of varying periods, and I am glad to think that this Bill will introduce complete stability, not only throughout the whole of each year but year by year. I am most grateful to noble Lords on both sides of the House who have made their contribution to the debates. We did not expect unanimity, and we can respect—while disagreeing with—the views of those who do not agree with us. We have tried to approach this subject objectively and to explain fairly to the House the reasons that have swayed us in our decision. We recognise, and have appreciated, an equal fairness on the other side. I hope that at least all will agree that justice has been done to this small but important Bill, which I trust we shall now send forward to another place. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Stonham.)
3.13 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I have said all I want to say upon this Bill. I know that your Lordships have a good deal of legislative business ahead this afternoon, so I will content myself with thanking the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the assurance
1016
which he gave me in Committee, and which I am sure he has mentally repeated to-day, that at the end of the first winter's experience of this new time the Government will enter into consultations to find out what has been the experience of the public, and particularly of interested bodies. The noble Lord, with his usual courtesy, has taken the trouble to answer a number of specific questions put to him in Committee, and I should like to express my thanks to him.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I will not take up very much time, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for the way in which he has answered most of the worries about off-peak tariffs. I accept that it will be impossible to gauge how the morning and evening peaks will go until we have some experience of how the new time will affect the way of life of the people, especially people in the North of Scotland, about whom I am principally concerned.
I am afraid I am still unhappy about his approach to off-peak tariffs. It is all very well to say that the supply authorities can supply or cannot supply. The fact is that consumers have purchased storage type heating equipment whose greatest efficiency is when the power is switched off, and it then falls away until the power comes on again. It is for that reason that I pointed out that the time when the power is switched off is' going to be one hour more before dawn than it used to be. For that reason, it means that this thermal storage apparatus will be less efficient than was the case when the contracts were entered into between the consumer and the supply authorities. It is correct to say that there is a choice of tariffs, but none of the choices may be acceptable in terms of the machines purchased by the consumer. I will not say more, since this matter has been well discussed, and what we have been saying here will give something for the other place to bite upon: but the fact is that a good deal remains to be considered in relation to the position of the off-peak consumer in the light of the change of time.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for answering the specific question I put to him on the last occasion, and perhaps ask him one more question that arises out of a letter that a correspondent has written to me?

1017
I am told that at present, during the winter, we supply power to France during their morning peak hour, and France supplies power to us during our morning peak hour. What happens when they occur at the same time?
3.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I should like to make one point which I do not think has been fully brought out. I will be brief. I refer to the question of the heavy rush-hour traffic in the morning between 8 and 9 o'clock, which is the first hour after sunrise and will become the last hour before sunrise. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has told us more than once, and again yesterday in answer to a Starred Question by me, that, though there will be an increased risk in the early mornings, this will be counter-balanced
"because we cannot ignore the effect at the other end of the day when the period of higher traffic flow will be advanced from the dark into the daylight."—[0EpicIAL REPORT, 11/12/67, col. 854.]
I have viewed this argument with some suspicion from the beginning, but I have taken police advice before asserting that I believe the noble Lord is wrong. How is the higher traffic flow to be advanced into the daylight unless it now runs in the hour which immediately follows lighting-up time? It does not do this, because lighting-up time is at 4.30 p.m., and the main traffic hour—the rush hour—is from 5.30 to 6.30, with a preliminary build-up period of half-an-hour, say, from 5 to 5.30. Under the Bill the winter lighting-up time in the midde of winter will be at about 5.30. That is the beginning of the rush hour, and the whole of the evening rush hour will therefore still take place after nightfall. In other words, the heavy traffic in the evening will still run in the dark as it does now.
Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that the volume of traffic is greater, I am told, in the evening than in the morning, being augmented by a good many other motorists—returning shoppers, for example—who are not involved in the morning rush to work. That is what I am advised by the Chief Con-table of West Sussex, who also reports that the traffic accident rate is higher in the evening than in the morning. The high accident rate of the evening rush hour will therefore be maintained, while
1018
the high accident rate of the morning rush hour will be moved into the dark. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, himself has said, there will be more accidents in the morning. I think that the net result will be more traffic accidents, and not fewer.
The Minister also said yesterday [col. 854]:
"It appears that, taking morning and evening together, there will be more travel in daylight and less in the dark than at present under Greenwich Mean Time …"
It requires a minimum of reflection to see that, since the heavy, dark traffic is increased at one end of the day and not decreased at the other, while the number of daylight hours remains the same, the reverse must be the case, and more traffic will in fact run in the dark and not in the light. I refer only to that part of England on which the effect of the Bill will be felt most lightly. Others more closely concerned have spoken most eloquently on the effect in the northern and western counties, over whose mornings the Celtic twilight will be drawn like widow's weeds, and I leave that to them. For myself, I wish to put forward no more awkwardness towards this Bill, which I wish well, and with, I am sure, the rest of the noble Lords I will go forward in the words of the poet, Browning:
"Into a darkness quieted by hope."
My Lords, I wish you a Happy New Year—in 1969.
3.21 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if, by leave, I may very briefly answer the three points which have been raised, I should like to deal first with that put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. He said that the time when the power is switched off is going to be one hour more before dawn than it used to be—that is quite true—and that it will therefore be less efficient in terms of effusion of stored heat. The second part of his allegation I do not accept, for the reason that most people will be getting up one hour more before dawn than they do now. It is no good the noble Lord shaking his head. If a man has to get to work at 8 o'clock, he gets to work at 8 o'clock by the clock and not by the sun. Therefore, if the time is advanced by one hour, accepting what the noble Lord said first

1019
of all, the man will be getting up one hour more before the dawn in winter, and in order to meet that—because the morning peak demand will have shifted in relation to the sun, and therefore the time of storage will also have shifted—he will still be getting his heat at the right time.
One of the delights of the present Bill is that I have had the pleasure of a letter from Sir Alan Herbert which I think anyone would store among his literary treasures, so all has not been lost. So also with regard to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who as usual put a very skilful question. The noble Lord said that at present during the winter we supply power to France during their morning peak, and that they supply power to us during our morning peak. He asked: What happens when both peaks are at the same time? Of course, my earlier answer covered this point. I have assured your Lordships that, in our view, our preparations for the supply will be adequate next winter to take the rather higher peak demand in the morning, and that therefore we shall no longer need, as it were, to take in the washing of France and to have them taking in ours.
The final point was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, who received my arguments about traffic accidents with some suspicion because he thought they were not true. I naturally reject that allegation. The noble Earl said that the main traffic hour is from 5.30 p.m. to 6.30 p.m., and in his view it just was not true to say that there would be more daylight travel than there is at present under Greenwich Mean Time in winter. The noble Earl cannot go in the face of facts. It is quite true that we expect rather more accidents during the morning peak hours than there are at present. But, equally, we expect that that will be more than compensated for by the fewer accidents during the early evening peak hours.
With all respect to the views of the Chief Constable of West Sussex—and I pay great respect to him, because I know the Chief Constable—he would not suggest, and I would not accept, that experience there is typical of the whole country. I would ask the noble Earl to place confidence in the suggestion which was made by his noble friend Lord Brooke of Cum-nor, which I accept. We are going to
1020
try this out. We shall have continuous records and research into it based on our experience, and if the Government's prognostications are not borne out by the facts we shall just have to think again.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, following the noble Lord's answer to my noble friend Lord Conesford, if we are to do without the help of France, may I ask whether France has been consulted and is able to do without our help?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is a question the second part of which I cannot answer without notice. But I can assure the noble Baroness that in a great many fields we are going to do without the help of France.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

FAMILY ALLOWANCES AND NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
House in Committee: Clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
3.28 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In considering the Bill, it is essential to discuss the White Paper Fuel Policy, which is its foundation. It has been said that the White Paper has been withdrawn. That is not so. It stands as a statement of the Government's fuel policy in the round. My right honourable friend the Minister of Power is re-examining some of the figures in the light of devaluation, but the pattern of demand for the different fuels is not likely to be more than marginally affected.
The Bill rests on two indisputable facts. First, in Britain, as in every other industrialised country in Western Europe, coal is losing ground to other forms of fuel. Secondly, the men in the coal industry, which has so long been a mainstay of our economy, are entitled to fair treatment. In very compressed form, the

1021
Bill reflects the changes which are occurring in the fuel industries—the technological changes in the coal industry which reduce its need for men, and the changing balance between the fuels. The story is told in terms of the price which the community must pay to minimise the economic and social consequences of these changes. The extent of the change is indicated by the White Paper estimate of the percentage of total fuel consumption which will be supplied by the four main fuels.
May I take them one by one? This year, on an estimate based on the first nine months of the year, coal will supply 55 per cent. of our fuel requirements. In 1975 that will fall to 34 per cent. of our total, enlarged requirement. This year oil is supplying 40 per cent. of our total needs; in 1975 it will supply 41·5 per cent. This year nuclear energy and hydro-electricity are supplying 4 per cent.; in 1975 that will increase to 10 per cent. of our total needs. This year natural gas is supplying 1 per cent.; in 1975, it is expected, it will be supplying 14·5 per cent. These figures indicate a continuing decline in demand for coal and virtual stabilisation of oil's proportion, with the newer fuels, nuclear power and natural gas, taking up growing proportions and in 1975 supplying together perhaps as much as a quarter of all our energy requirements.
No one anxious for our future prosperity would regret the advent of North Sea gas and the development of nuclear power. They are under our own control, and have only a modest element of foreign exchange costs. Moreover, on present evidence they will make possible the reduction in the overall cost of energy which is essential if we are to compete successfully in world markets. If we spurned the North Sea bounty, or neglected to develop the miracles wrought by nuclear scientists, we should be abdicating our position as a leading industrial nation and abandoning hope of maintaining, let alone advancing, the living standards of our people.
High fuel costs in Britain, even though they might cut fuel imports, would mean a net loss to our balance of payments if we lost markets for our manufactures overseas because we could not compete with competitors who have access to cheaper fuels. Oil imports cost this country a lot in foreign exchange.
1022
In 1965 the net cost to our balance of payments, after taking credit for the value of oil exports, was about £300 million. The difference between this figure and the cost of oil shown in the trade accounts is accounted for by the use of British tankers, inward investment of foreign companies and the costs and revenue from British companies arising or accruing to the United Kingdom. In addition, of course, overseas oil business brings further benefits to our balance of payments. Nevertheless, we have to find a substantial sum in foreign exchange to pay for our oil, although with the growth of refining capacity, the reduced rate of expansion in oil use and the changing proportion of the various oil products, the net import of fuel oil, which is now falling, should in the foreseeable future turn into a net export.
It is true that until now the main challenge to coal has come from oil, and, despite the protection of an oil tax of 2·2 pence per gallon, the use of oil has grown from 15 per cent. of our total fuel requirements in 1957 to the 37½ per cent. which it reached last year—a 2½ times increase in ten years. It is now running, at about 40 per cent., but with the introduction of North Sea gas and the advent of economic nuclear power the fast expansion of oil will be sharply checked. As I have said, on the White Paper trends the present 40 per cent. will rise to only about 411 per cent. over the next eight years. The fact that only 40 per cent. of our energy sector is supplied by oil compares very favourably with the state of affairs in most industrialised countries. In Italy, oil supplies are 61½ per cent. of total requirements, and, in Japan, 60 per cent.
The total of oil imports is sometimes quoted as if it were all competitive with indigenous fuels. But for many other purposes there is no alternative to oil. In fact, over 40 per cent. of current oil demand arises from non-fuel uses of oil. In ten years the number of cars on the road has increased from 4 million to 12 million. Oil is also extensively used in the production of synthetic fibres, rubbers, detergents, paint, fertilisers and weed killers, and many other manufactured and exportable products. Of course, energy supplies must be reasonably secure, and undoubtedly international problems could be a threat. There is,

1023
however, a growing surplus of oil and a steadily increasing diversification of world sources.
My Lords, I thought it necessary to set out briefly the position of alternatives to coal, our only fuel with no foreign exchange content, because they are both the explanation and the cause of the present and future position of coal. It is a fact which must be faced; a fact which could not have been avoided and cannot be changed. Consumers have expressed a choice, and it is not realistic to expect manufacturers to rip out oil-burning installations and substitute coal-fired ones. The White Paper tackles and attempts to answer the question: with coal, where do we go from here? It looks at the likely pattern of demand up to 1975, and I must firmly declare that no one knows what the position will be in 1980—and it would be less than honest for anyone to pretend that he does know.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, will my noble friend give way for a moment? If, under the econometric system—that is the present trends of fuel consumption—it can be taken up to 1975, why can it not be taken up to 1980?
LORD STONHAM: Because anyone who has read the White Paper—and I know that my noble friend has read the White Paper very carefully—must be aware that there are a great many assumptions on which the present estimates are based. Anyone who has any knowledge of the assumptions and forecasts which have been made in the past knows how foolish it is—indeed, it is quite wrong—to go so far forward and make assumptions on the basis of wholly unsound evidence, if such evidence exists. Over the last twenty years there have been many expert estimates of our future coal requirements, all of them carefully thought out and well-meaning, and all of them over-optimistic. In 1952 Lord Ridley's Committee forecast a forward requirement at the end of the 'fifties of 240 million tons of coal a year. In the event, they were some 40 million tons out—nearly 17 per cent.
My Lords, it will be within your Lordships' knowledge that a Statement has to be made, and many of your Lordships who are very interested in that Statement have other pressing and important engage-
1024
ments which you have to attend. I therefore hope it will accord with your Lordships' wishes if at this stage I postpone the remainder of my speech and ask leave to resume after the Statement has been made and discussed.

RHODESIA: MR. IAN SMITH'S PROPOSALS
3.40 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. I will now repeat a Statement about Rhodesia that has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary. I will use his own words:
"On 14th November I gave the House a report on my visit to Rhodesia. As I said then, Mr. Smith and I agreed in Salisbury that we should consult with our colleagues and reflect on our positions. This Her Majesty's Government have now done. I promised to make a full statement as soon as we had considered all the implications and I am grateful to the House of the indulgence which it has shown in not pressing for detail. I feel that the time has now come when the House should know the full position, especially since there has been a widely observed contradiction between my statement that the talks revealed new and fundamental divergence and Mr. Smith's public assertion that there is no great difference between us. I think that the facts should now be known so that the House can judge for itself.
"During our ten hours of talks in Salisbury Mr. Smith proposed a number of changes in the draft Constitution worked out on board H.M.S. 'Tiger' Since the details are lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I should like to try to summarise their more important features.
"Put simply the most important effect of Mr. Smith's changes would be to remove the safeguards provided by the 'Tiger' arrangements against what the Second Principle called retrogressive amendment of the Constitution. The main change he proposed was that all the African members of the Senate should be Chiefs. This would mean that African elected representatives would no longer have it in their power

1025
to block amendments which would weaken the protection given to Africans against discriminatory legislation or place obstacles in the way of progress to majority rule. In other words there would not be enough of them to make up a 'blocking quarter'.
"I fully recognise the important place of Chiefs in African society. But in good conscience I could no more accept the Chiefs now as the proper guardians of African political rights than the right honourable gentleman opposite could accept the Chiefly Indaba as representatives of African opinion as a whole in October, 1964. Moreover it must be recognised that the Chiefs are dependent on the Rhodesian authorities for their pay and allowances, and in the last analysis for their appointment or dismissal.
"Because of its implications for the procedure for constitutional amendment, this proposal for a change in the composition of the Senate is a fundamental one. In addition to this Mr. Smith went on to press for the removal of a further safeguard proposed in the 'Tiger' discussions. This was the safeguard providing that amendments to the Specially Entrenched provisions should be more subject to appeal to a Constitutional Commission consisting of the Rhodesian Chief Justice and other judges, with the further right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Mr. Smith wished to drop this safeguard.
"As the House will realise, the changes I have mentioned so far run directly counter to both the First and Second of our Principles—that there should be guarantees both of unimpeded progress to majority rule and against retrogressive amendment of the Constitution.
"Mr. Smith further proposed the abolition of the system of cross-voting embodied in the 1961 Constitution and a reduction as compared with the 'Tiger' arrangements, in the number of B Roll African seats. These proposals would derogate from the Third Principle, which calls for immediate improvement in the political status of the African population, and would also substantially delay progress towards majority rule.
1026
"Mr. Smith made certain other suggestions about the Constitution. As these were put to me they do not necessarily involve fundamental departures from the Six Principles and I indicated that we should be very ready to consider them if a general settlement were in prospect.
"To sum up, it is the considered view of Her Majesty's Government that the main changes I have described are fundamentally incompatible with the essential Principles agreed by both sides of the House. They could not therefore form the basis for discussion of a possible settlement which could honourably be commended to Parliament. This is what I gave Mr. Smith in Salisbury as my own immediate reaction. I have now confirmed it to him as the considered view of Her Majesty's Government and have expressed the hope that he will reconsider the position which he took up during our talks. Failing this the House will understand that we have no alternative but to pursue the policy of sanctions in conjunction with the United Nations. Meanwhile, we stand by our pledges to the Commonwealth, including, of course, our declaration on NIBMAR.
"I refuse to despair of the régime's recognising the dead end into which they are leading Rhodesia Four our part we are certainly not going to slam any doors. Her Majesty's Government remain ready to discuss any proposals for a settlement in Rhodesia that are consistent with principles to which both sides of the House are committed."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Following are the details of Mr. Smith's proposals for changes in the draft Constitution worked out in H.M.S. "Tiger":
The proposals put to the Commonwealth Secretary by Mr. Ian Smith at their talks in Salisbury on November 9, 1967, for the amendment of the constitutional proposals in Part I of the "Tiger" Working Document (Cmnd. 3171, pages 87 and 88) were as follows:
Composition of the Legislature
2. Paragraph 2 of the Working Document provided for a Legislature consisting of two Houses, composed as follows:
Legislative Assembly
33 "A" Roll Seats
17 "B" Roll Scats
17 Reserved European Seats.
Senate
12 Europeans (elected by Europeans on the "A" Roll)
8 Africans (elected by Africans on the "A" and "B" Rolls voting together)
6 Chiefs (elected by the Chiefs' Council).
3. Paragraph 8 of the Working Document provided that the Specially Entrenched provisions of the proposed Constitution should require a vote of at least three-quarters of the total membership of both Houses voting together. The total membership of both Houses together would be 93, three-quarters of which would be 70 (to the nearest whole number), so that a proposed amendment would fail to be carried if 24 members refused to support it. The 17 "B" Roll seats in the Legislative Assembly could be assumed to be filled by Africans or persons acceptable to Africans as their representatives, and together with these members the 8 elected African members of the Senate would supply a total of 25 elected representatives of Africans, i.e., one more than the minimum "blocking quarter" of the total membership of both Houses together required to prevent amendments of Specially Entrenched provisions.
4. On November 9 Mr. Smith pressed for all the African members of the Senate to be Chiefs (elected by the Chiefs' Council). At the same time he said that he would wish the numbers of members in the various categories in the two Houses to be altered as follows:
Legislative Assembly

35 "A" Roll Seats (instead of 33)

15 "B" Roll Seats (instead of 17)

15 Reserved European Seats (instead of 17)

Senate

12 Europeans (no change)

0 Elected Africans (instead of 8)

12 Chiefs (instead of 6).

The total membership of both Houses together would then be 89. The number required for the passage of an amendment to a Specially Entrenched provision would be 67, and the number required for the "blocking quarter" would be 23. Against this number, the Africans' elected representatives would be able to count on supplying only the 15 elected to the "B" Roll seats in the Legislative Assembly, unless and until Africans were elected to "A" Roll seats. Eight "A" Roll seats would have to be won before the "blocking quarter" could be made up of the Africans' elected representatives.
5. It should also be noted that, under the changes proposed by Mr. Smith, the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly which could be counted on as returning the Africans' elected representatives from the start would be reduced from 17 to 15, while the number of seats likely to be held by Europeans, at least to begin with, would remain unchanged at 50.
Constitutional Appeals
6. Paragraph 8 of the "Tiger" Working Document provided that, in addition to the
1028
three-quarters majority of the total membership of both Houses together required for the passage of an amendment to a Specially Entrenched provision, there should also be a system of appeal against such an amendment. Such an appeal would lie in the first instance to a Constitutional Commission in Rhodesia, consisting of the Chief Justice and other judges: with further appeal as of right to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
7. Mr. Smith said on November 9 that this system of appeals was objectionable in principle and should be dropped.
8. Quite apart from his objections in principle, he had the following objections of detail to the proposed machinery for the appeals and to the formulation of the permitted grounds of appeal:

(a) the Working Document provided that amendments subject to appeal should not come into force until the time for appeal had expired or the appeal had been finally disposed of. He objected to the delay which this would cause to the commencement even of legislation eventually held to be unobjectionable. In offering to consider whether it would be possible to meet Mr. Smith on this point, the Commonwealth Secretary reminded him that the "Tiger" discussions had envisaged arrangements for the rapid disposal of these cases and for summary rejection of frivolous or vexatious appeals;

(b) the Working Document provided that an appeal might be brought on the ground that the amendment in question "discriminates unjustly or has the effect of discriminating unjustly between the races …". Mr. Smith objected to the phrase "or has the effect of …" on the ground that it greatly widened the scope of the provision and was in fact contrary to what had been agreed in the "Tiger". The Commonwealth Secretary said that he was advised that the account of the relevant discussion on page 81 of Cmnd. 3171 was accurate: he commented that this appeared to be a drafting point which could be left to be settled by the constitutional draftsmen;

(c) the other permitted ground of appeal was that the amendment in question "contravenes any of the provisions of the Declaration of Rights contained in the Constitution". Mr. Smith objected that this would have the effect of making it impossible to amend the Declaration of Rights. The Commonwealth Secretary replied that the reference was clearly intended to be not to each and every amendment affecting the Declaration of Rights, but only to those held by the Courts to derogate from its fundamental principles.

Cross-Voting
9. The 1961 Constitution provides for the country to be divided into 50 "constituencies" (to have as nearly as possible the same numbers of "A" Roll voters) and 15 "electoral districts".(to have as nearly as possible the same numbers of "B" Roll voters). All the voters in a constituency or an electoral district, whichever Roll they are on, can vote in

1029
elections in that constituency or electoral district; but in a constituency in which there are more than one-quarter as many votes cast by voters on the "B" Roll as by voters on the "A" Roll, the number of "B" Roll votes received by each candidate is to be reduced proportionately so that the total number of "B" Roll votes received is equal to one-quarter of the "A" Roll votes received: and vice versa in the electoral districts.
10. This system is known as cross-voting, and serves to give "B" Roll voters an influence in the election of members from the (primarily "A" Roll) constituencies, and likewise "A" Roll voters an influence in the election of candidates from the (primarily "B" Roll) electoral districts.
11. The "Tiger" Working Document provided for this system of cross-voting to continue. Mr. Smith proposed on 9 November that it should be abandoned, so that "B" Roll electors would vote only for the "B" Roll seats, for which "A" Roll electors would not vote.
12. In addition to pressing for the abolition of cross-voting (see paragraph 11 above) Mr. Smith pointed out that it was presumably a slip for paragraph 3 of the "Tiger" Working Document to say that cross-voting would be applied to "all seats", since some seats were expressly described as to be elected by voters of a specified community and on a specified Roll: thus, the 12 European seats in the Senate were to be elected by Europeans on the "A" Roll. It was agreed that the clear intention was that cross-voting should be applied only to the "A" Roll and "B" Roll seats in the Legislative Assembly.
Delimitation Commission
13. Paragraph 4 of the "Tiger" Working Document provided that alterations in the composition of both Houses and in the number of seats should be effected by the Special Entrenchment procedure; it also provided for the incorporation in the Delimitation Commission's terms of reference of an agreed formula regarding the Commission's "over-riding objective" in dividing the constituencies. Mr. Smith argued on 9 November that it was not right—and had not in fact been agreed in the "Tiger"—that both the "agreed formula" and Section 37 of the Constitution should be made Specially Entrenched provisions. It was agreed that this question would require further legal study if sufficient progress were made on other points to justify it.
3.45 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for repeating that Statement, and grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for breaking off, as it were, in mid-stream. This is a very long, serious and detailed Statement, and the House has not of course yet seen—none of us has seen—the annex to be attached to the OFFICIAL REPORT which goes in detail into Mr. Smith's proposals for alter-
1030
ations to the "Tiger" draft Constitution. Therefore I do not think it wise at this moment to comment on the Statement or on the merits or otherwise of the Government position. But I would ask two questions purely for information.
First, are the Government expecting, having communicated with Mr. Smith, that he is going to answer them? And if he does, are they going to propose some other form of conference, or are they just going to leave the situation as it now is? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord what exactly is meant by his words "to pursue the policy of sanctions in conjunction with the United Nations"? Does that mean a continuation of the existing sanctions; or does it mean an intensification?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I, too, should like to express our gratitude to both noble Lords, the one for making the Statement and the other for his courtesy in breaking off his speech. I am sorry that I cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in all he said. I agree that this is an important Statement; but surely it calls for immediate reaction. I would say that Mr. Smith must be living in Cloud Cuckoo-land if rte thinks that those who believe in democracy could really leave the protection of the Africans in the hands of the African Chiefs paid, nominated, appointed and dismissed by the illegal régime. Quite frankly, I should think this country completely unworthy if we did not insist on safeguards for the Africans in Rodesia. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, one particular question? Under the Smith proposals—I have not quite understood them—how many elected Africans would there be in the Senate? As I understand it, if Mr. Smith's proposals were adopted, it would put the blocking quarter completely on one side.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is right in saying that this is a very serious Statement. I share the view of my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary that, even though we realise there is more dividing us now than there was some months ago, we should not slam the door. But I must be frank I think that unless Mr. Smith and his colleagues clearly come back to the position most of us understood them to be in at the end of the "Tiger" talks

1031
—that they accepted the Principles of the Constitution—I can myself see little hope of being able to open discussions, at least on a formal basis. Clearly, if Mr. Smith, through the Governor, wishes to convey to Her Majesty's Government any message, we shall, of course, be only too ready to accept it.
With regard to sanctions, the obligations that we have to the United Nations and to the Commonwealth require us, with others, to maintain the present sanctions. As to intensification, it is not for me to anticipate; but clearly this is a matter that the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee would wish to consider.
To the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I would explain the effect of Mr. Smith's proposals, and others, that the Senate should now consist of African Chiefs, in this way. Under the "Tiger" Agreement it was agreed (in fact I think Mr. Smith himself suggested it) that there should be 8 elected Africans and 6 Chiefs, and that the Europeans should have 12 seats in the Senate. Under the "Tiger" Constitution there were to be 17 elected African representatives from the "B" Roll and 17 European reserved seats, with 33 on the "A" Roll, which is predominantly European. Mr. Smith's suggestion to us is that there should be no elected Africans in the Senate; that the entire Senate should consist of 12 Chiefs and 12 Europeans. He further suggests that the elected membership of the Legislature, instead of being 17, should be reduced to 15, and that the European reserved seats again should be reduced from 17 to 15; but that the number on the "A" roll, which also is predominantly European, should be increased from 33 to 35.
This clearly means, my Lords, that under the "Tiger" proposals (which, as I understand it, and I think as the House believes, Mr. Smith accepted in principle) there would have been a blocking vote of 25 African Members of Parliament, both in the Legislature and in the Senate. Under Mr. Smith's present proposals there would be only 15 elected Africans. Clearly, therefore, the blocking mechanism, which all of us for many years and through successive Governments have felt to be necessary to ensure progressive African advance, would have completely disappeared. This is one of the reasons
1032
why Mr. Smith must move back to the "Tiger" position before there can be useful talks.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, may I ask whether an early opportunity will be given for a debate in this House on which we may raise the broader issues? May I ask, in the meantime, while endorsing all that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, whether this Statement does not prove that the Smith administration is opposed to any changes which are likely to bring about majority rule in Southern Rhodesia? Finally, my Lords, may I ask how soon the Sanctions Committee are going to make recommendations regarding the intensification of sanctions; because unless Lourenço Marques is closed, and the nations which have voted for the U.N. resolution carry it out, sanctions are not likely to be effective for a considerable time.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with regard to a debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, well knows, there are the usual means of discussion through the usual channels. If there were a feeling for art urgent debate then, of course, this could be arranged. But perhaps I may put this suggestion. This is an important Statement, and the Government, as the Statement indicates, have not slammed the door. I still have hope, and therefore my whole instinct is that it would be better—if your Lordships' House were to think the same way—if the matter could perhaps be left until after Christmas.
With regard to sanctions, clearly they have not brought the régime down. Nevertheless, they have had a very significant effect upon the economy of Rhodesia. The economic growth of that country has now stopped, and this is a very serious matter. As the noble Lord is aware, there are many in Rhodesia who are gravely perturbed and disturbed about the economic future of Rhodesia with sanctions in force.
I do not follow the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in the strictures that he made on the Smith régime. I may have very strong feelings which may not be very different from those of the noble Lord, but clearly this is not the occasion when I should deliver them.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that I am afraid there are many people in this country who are living in Cloud Cuckoo-land over Rhodesia? Is he also aware that the present Commonwealth Secretary is a very sensible man; and if it is the case that the door is not slammed, as we all hope, may we be allowed also to hope that the Commonwealth Secretary will be permitted a free hand in the use of common sense?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, we have had many Commonwealth Secretaries since Rhodesia became a problem (I well remember the debates when the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, was a member of a previous Government) and all the Commonwealth Secretaries felt, regarding the position of all the emerging countries, that whatever was done and whatever Constitution was imposed, it should be done with the free will and acceptance of the people of the land concerned. My Lords, all the Commonwealth Secretaries have used great flexibility and understanding. I thank the noble Earl for his remarks about my right honourable friend the present Commonwealth Secretary. He feels as passionately about the principles involved here as any previous Commonwealth Secretary.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, there are many others in this House besides myself who, over the long years, have heard crises discussed. Admittedly, this is a relatively small crisis, compared with others that we have heard about. I am sure that we all take encouragement from the reiterated assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the door is left open, though in earlier words he feared that no settlement was in prospect. Would it not be natural that thought should be given to the belief of many (and this must apply throughout the country) that if a settlement now is not reasonably sure in prospect, further negotiations would be essential? Emphasis was put by the noble Lord on the other side of making the concessions, and we must be forgiven if many think of the situation as negotiable, hoping that negotiation, with good will on both sides, may bring some result. But the noble Lord, in answering my noble Leader, was not able to give any indication of what would happen if negotiations did
1034
not give any results. May I therefore now ask him this question? In that kind of stalemate, will the Government not give any heed to the words attributed in the Press recently to Sir Roy Welensky, a very experienced statesman on Africa, who said bluntly two things—
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether I might say—probably the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, will understand—that we were in the middle of a speech by my noble friend Lord Stonham, and if it were possible to allow him to continue his speech, I am sure it would be to the convenience of your Lordships' House.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, with due respect to the noble Lord, I was coming to the question I was asking: first, that the Government is firmly seated, and secondly, that sanctions will not succeed. The noble Lord suggested that we should wait until after Recess, which is towards the end of January, before having a debate. All I am asking the noble Lord is whether any encouragement can be given as to further negotiations.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask a slightly different question. Do Her Majesty's Government think that by continuing to pursue a policy vis-à-vis Rhodesia which, in the noble Lord's own words, is really leading to a dead end, and also by continuing to assume their present policies with regard to exports to South Africa, both of which are costing hundreds of millions of pounds in balance of payments at a time when the Government are exhorting everybody to make sacrifices to export, they will be able to avoid the second devaluation which is already being talked about at home and abroad?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord is entitled to his view. He will well understand that we do not share it in the slightest. One characteristic I like about the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, is his extraordinary persistence. I will look carefully at what he has said. I hope that the House will share with me the view that while this is an important matter, we have broken into my noble friend's speech and we should leave this subject to-clay. No doubt if your Lordships wish to have a debate—though I caution that it would be better after

1035
Christmas—we could so arrange it through the usual channels.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether, if this had been a black régime in default instead of white, it would have had such commiseration from the Opposition Benches?
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, if sanctions are to continue, would the Government consider looking into the cases of those, particularly ex-Servicemen who have resources, homes and families in this country, to whom the sanctions now apply? These have gone on for some time now and the effect on these men is most onerous and in many cases quite Gilbertian in its application. I can give the noble Lord an instance or two affecting ex-Servicemen, if he would care to have them.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
4.3 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I interrupted my speech, by leave of the House, to allow the House to discuss a matter of great importance, and I hope your Lordships will agree that we should now resume the debate on another matter of great importance to the people of this country and of particular importance to the miners of this country. I was saying that over the last twenty years there have been many expert estimates of our future coal requirements, all of them carefully thought out and well-meaning and all of them obviously wrong. The Ridley Committee forecast the forward requirement of coal to be 240 million tons of coal at the end of the 1950s. They were 40 million tons out. In 1952 that self-acknowledged expert, Sir Gerald Nabarro, wrote a book, in which he said:
"If present methods continue we shall need by 1960 an aggregate of 284 million tons."
The actual coal output in 1960 was 194 million tons. Present methods did not continue. With fuel they seldom do.
In fact, before this Government came to power no attempt was made to establish in the round and correlate the trends in fuel use. In the White Paper, taking into account all that is at present known
1036
and can be reasonably foreseen, my right honourable friend has made forecasts of our total future fuel requirements in 1970 and 1975 and the proportions of the total likely to be supplied by oil, coal, nuclear energy and natural gas. These assessments are not fixed and immutable. They are not targets, but an indication of trends. They will be continuously reviewed as circumstances change—as they undoubtedly will. On this point, paragraph 6 of the White Paper sets out the position fairly, clearly and honestly. The precise level of coal demand in the 1970s will depend on the degree to which productivity of the coal mining industry can be further improved and costs brought down. We shall all be delighted if the industry can improve on the White Paper estimates.
Meanwhile, in order to control the probable run-down in the period up to March, 1971, we are providing in this Bill for the cost of a further deliberate distortion of market trends and the social consequences of inevitable pit closures and redundancies. I mentioned distortion of market trends in favour of the coal industry. This has been going on for some time with a virtual prohibition of coal imports, the oil tax and special preference for coal at power stations which is adding to the costs of the electricity industry. Despite these measures, it was estimated that demand for coal would fall from the current rate of 166 million tons to 149 million tons in 1970. But this year production has been running at about 10 million tons higher than demand, and stocks have been rising steadily. To bring production into balance with a demand of 149 million tons in 1970 would have entailed an unacceptably high rate of manpower rundown. The Government have accepted the advice of the National Coal Board that an annual rate of rundown of 35,000 men a year would be manageable for the industry. On this basis, coal production in 1970 might be as much as 155 million tons. This would be some 6 million tons above the estimated demand and add further to our stocks if no further assistance were given.
To ensure, therefore, the consumption of an additional 6 million tons or so of coal, if that should prove necessary, Clause 6 of the Bill authorises the payment, up to a maximum of £45 million, of the additional costs which may be incurred by the Electricity Boards and the

1037
Gas Boards in using extra coal for the generation of electricity or the production of gas. It may be argued that in so distorting for social reasons the expected demand, we are adding to the competitive difficulties of British industry. That is why this additional burden is to be borne by the taxpayer, who in so doing will be paying part of the debt we all owe to the men who work in one of our greatest industries. This is not only a Bill about money and fuel. It is about people. Only ten years ago we were employing 703,000 miners; last month only 387,000. That is an average contraction of more than 30,000 a year. It has been as high as 51,000 in a single year.
The industry's needs are falling not only because of the closure of worn-out and uneconomic pits but because, with growing efficiency through mechanisation and the concentration of output on the more economic collieries, fewer miners can produce the same output. This is graphically illustrated by the fact that whereas in the last ten years manpower has declined by nearly 45 per cent., output has fallen less than 20 per cent. Indeed, if coal production remained at its present level from now until 1970 we should still need 100,000 fewer miners to produce it than we had in 1966. I ask my noble friends to realise this and to ask their miner colleagues to realise that it is not a matter of politics. It is not a failure; it is an immutable fact of economic life in 1967.
Fortunately, this substantial decline in manpower does not mean anything like a comparable number of redundancies. Every year about 20,000 miners reach retirement age, or are invalided, and a large number change their jobs. By comparison with this figure of 35,000 the total number of actual redundancies over the last four years has varied between a low of 2,463 and a top figure of 3,943. These, nevertheless, are serious figures and we have done our utmost to lessen the human impact of these changes by creating as many new jobs as possible in the areas affected. Over the next few years, as I have already explained, the reduction in manpower is expected to average 35,000 men a year. This is only a little higher than the average for the last ten years and, as in the past, a major part of this run-down will be accounted for by normal net wastage, after allowing for some continuing recruitment. We shall make specially increased efforts to
1038
provide new jobs for those who will need them.
My right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade is taking new steps to bring work to the areas which will be most affected by pit closures. The miners, who know more about this than anyone, recognise that if productivity rises it means fewer men. If it does not rise it means higher coal prices and less coal sold which also means fewer men. There is no way out of this difficulty, but it is the aim of Government policy and the object of this Bill to give the industry a breathing space to realise its potential for further increasing its efficiency so as to make coal more competitive with other fuels.
The industry will need to press ahead with mechanisation and concentration of output on the more efficient pits. Where pits have to be closed we are introducing a new system of discussing closures in advance with the regional economic planning council chairmen, and some deferments may be agreed in order to deal with acute local employment problems. Sixteen pit closures have been deferred this winter, and Clause 5 of the Bill will enable the Government to reimburse the Board for the losses it incurs. Unfortunately, it will be difficult for some of the older miners who become redundant to obtain new jobs. To meet this situation Clause 3 of the Bill empowers my right honourable friend to make a scheme for mineworkers of 55 and over, who become redundant through pit closures between July 17 last and March 28, 1971. Subject to a minimum service in the industry, they will have their income supplemented to up to about 90 per cent. of their previous take home pay for a period of three years after they cease work in the pits, or until the age of 65 if that comes sooner. Miners who benefit under the scheme will also receive, under Clause 4, their mineworkers' pension at the end of the three year period without waiting until they reach the age of 65.
The Exchequer will bear the whole cost of this scheme and the early payment of pensions, estimated at £35 million. This does not solve the whole problem, but I think it will be agreed that it goes a substantial way towards it. It is fair to point out that during the last 10 years of contraction, when more than 30,000 miners left the industry each year, they

1039
went out with their normal notice and nothing more. When we consider this Bill we must bear that in mind. Of course we shall do our best to help them to find other jobs, because that is preferable to a pension. But if they cannot find other jobs, they will not suffer poverty.
For the closure programme as a whole the Government already provide grants under Section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1965 towards the cost of various benefits to assist employees of the coal industry affected by pit closures. Clause 2 of this Bill increases the Exchequer contribution. The total Exchequer cost of what I would call the social measures in the Bill, plus the cost of burning additional coal in electricity and gas stations, is estimated to amount to £133 million. Of this, £17 million would otherwise fall to be paid under other State benefit schemes, and about £25 million represents existing commitments under Section 3 of the Coal Industry Act 1965.
I turn now to the other financing provision in the Bill in Clause 1 which raises the existing limit under Section 1 of the Coal Industry Act 1965 on borrowings by the Board from £750 million to £900 million, or by Order to £950 million. This £200 million increase in the Board's borrowing powers arises from two main causes. The first is that in 1965 it was thought that undistributed coal stocks, then about 20 million tons, would be run down to 10 million tons by the end of 1970, and thus release about £50 million of working capital. Unfortunately, the stockpiles have gone the other way; they have increased to about 28 million tons and, despite the measures we are taking to increase coal consumption, we must make provision for a possible further increase in stocks. Thus, over the five-year period, instead of reducing capital tied up in stocks by some £50 million, the amount so tied up may increase by £60 million before demand and production are brought into balance. This represents a swing of £110 million in expected borrowings to finance coal stocks.
The other main cause for increased borrowing is that two years ago it was assumed that the Board would be able to set aside £10 million a year towards
1040
meeting the difference between depreciation of assets at historic and replacement costs. Here again the expected trend has been reversed, and more external finance than expected will be required to maintain colliery investment at the level necessary to secure the increased efficiency, which is the key to the competitive position of a smaller though still large coal industry, on which the country will still be dependent in the 1970s and thereafter.
My Lords, there is a sharp cleavage of opinion between those who advocate policies which would in effect mean piling up coal stocks regardless, and those who argue that we should speed up pit closures to avoid adding to the already over-large stocks. To the advocates of the "keep digging" policy, I would say that it makes even less sense to risk men's lives in digging more coal than we can sell, than to employ them digging holes in the ground and then filling them up again. To those who say stop digging, regardless of what happens to the miners, I say that such a policy is quite unacceptable to Her Majesty's Government.
What we propose to do deserves, and I think will receive, the support of the whole House, and of the great majority of people in the country. The measures we propose are not charity, not even benevolence; they are to assist men who, through not fault of their own, are no longer required in a great industry to which they have devoted their lives. This Bill is not the death knell of the coal industry. Many coal-fired power stations exist or are under construction, and there will be a big demand for coal for many years to come. I am sure that with the help and the good will the industry deserves, coal will enter the 'seventies in good shape to play an important part in the country's future. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Stonham.)
4.19 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his very lucid and interesting description of the purpose of this Bill? Despite the interruption, as my noble friend said in mid-stream, but as I should prefer to say, in mid-sea, his lucidity was not lost and his theme carried on as convincingly as before. I would say straight away that, although

1041
I have some comments and some criticisms to make, I support the general purpose of the Bill, which is, as the noble Lord has told us, to raise the borrowing powers of the coal industry from £750 million to £950 million, which sum is expected to last until 1971.
Noble Lords will often have had borrowing-powers Bills coming before them for the nationalised industries, and usually they are a routine affair and do not arouse a great deal of interest. This Bill is the exception. Indeed, reading the debates in another place, I saw that not only did it arouse great interest but that at the time it raised perhaps more heat than light. And, as we all know, behind this Bill lies an intensely difficult national problem which goes to the very heart of our nation's economic crisis. This is the problem of reducing the size of industries which are shrinking because of changing needs and circumstances, and providing for the smooth transfer of the manpower to good jobs elsewhere. And, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, told us, deep human problems are here involved. In the main, of course, this process has been the fate of all, or almost all, our great 19th century industries with which we led the world. I suppose it would be true to say that these postwar years our greatest fault as a nation has been our slowness in making these adaptations, because the skilled and vigorous manpower which has been locked up in these great 19th century industries has been, and still is, desperately wanted in the new and developing industries.
I welcome the noble Lord's statement that the White Paper, Fuel Policy, still continues to be the policy of Her Majesty's Government. From the debates in another place it was not entirely clear whether that was so or not, and his statement this afternoon that it is substantially still the policy of Her Majesty's Government, with perhaps some marginal adjustments, will be helpful to all of us. The aim of this policy is fully stated in the White Paper, and was stated again by the noble Lord. It is a cheap-fuel policy; and this must be right for the whole of industry, and indeed for all consumers. It is true to say that fuel costs in this country at the present time tend to be above those of our competitors.
1042
This is a most serious handicap to all our export industries.
I have a figure showing the cost of delivered heat at the power station for the United States of America of 2·16d. per therm, compared with a figure in this country of 4·28d. per therm—in other words, nearly double. This is a disparity which we simply cannot afford to carry. It really is essential to reduce the unit cost of fuel, and the implication here is that with the new fuels of nuclear power, which is being so successfully developed in this country, and North Sea gas we have the prospect of cheapening fuel costs, so enabling us to tackle processes that we have not been able to tackle in the past. I have in mind particularly heavy fuel-consuming processes, such as the making of aluminium, with the advantage that would bring of reducing oar imports and probably helping our export position as well.
Therefore I warmly support the Government's policy, although I recognise, as the noble Lord has explained to us, that this inevitably implies the acceptance of the continued run-down of coal production in our pits, and especially in our uneconomic pits. I sympathise with the very strong feelings of mining communities against this policy. This Bill provides a sum of about £130 million to enable Her Majesty's Government to smooth this inevitably miserable process of running down manpower in the pits over the next four years. I agree in principle, and I believe the whole nation does, with making a sum of public money available for this purpose. I think the whole nation feels, with the noble Lord, a sense of appreciation of the great services which the miners have given to the community in this dangerous and unpleasant industry, and would wish to do well by them in this difficult period of transition through which they are now going.
This is a national problem, and the noble Lord, and indeed the Government, are asking the nation to agree to this substantial contribution from our national resources in order to smooth this inevitably difficult path. I believe it is right that this should be done, and that we should make our comments on it. I feel sure that noble Lords who have a distinguished past in the mining industry will not take it amiss if I, as someone

1043
outside the industry, make one or two comments on it. It is in this spirit that I should like to put a few points to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham.
I listened carefully to his explanation about the 1965 Coal Industry Act and the 1965 White Paper, and I must say that I thought he was on rather shaky ground when he claimed that the present Government were the first to produce comprehensive fuel policies and White Papers—implying that past Conservative Governments were deficient in this respect. Of course, past Conservative Governments made their predictions and indicated them from time to time, and as the noble Lord rightly said, they nearly all turned out to be wrong. But, of course, so did the 1965 White Paper; and the fact that one puts these predictions in a White Paper does not make them more right. I accept that the noble Lord and his honourable friends have done all that man can do in making this prediction, but the fact is that the fuel industry is the fastest changing industry in the country to-day, and it is impossible to predict ahead for more than a few years without being wrong. Even so, it is essential to look ahead and to make some plans, and if we recognise that the chances of being right here are about 50–50 we shall probably not be far out.
In fact, Conservative Governments gave substantial protection to the industry by the highly controversial 2d. a gallon fuel oil duty, and indeed by prohibiting imports. In the main, this was felt to be the right course, and I supported it. The economy rested substantially on coal, and it was felt that this was the right thing to do. Perhaps we did not change our policies fast enough, but looking at the 1965 Act, which predicted that the £200 million then provided would last until 1971, I think the noble Lord would agree that we can all be wrong on this. However, I congratulate him on this White Paper. I think it sets the matter out clearly and makes the best prediction that can be made. I think he is wise to say that 1975 is as far ahead as anyone dare look in such a fast-moving situation. But in view of the 1965 prediction that £200 million would be enough to carry the industry for six years, and the fact that this prediction turned out to be so completely wrong and inadequate, I
1044
would ask whether the noble Lord can say anything further which might convince your Lordships that this prediction now, in 1967, that a further £200 million will be sufficient to carry us through until 1971, is accurate.
I turn to my second point, the methods proposed to help the coal industry in slowing down the rate of reduction of coal production. As the noble Lord indicated, the possible run-down of 45.000 men per annum was something which, in the judgment of the National Coal Board, was quite unacceptable, and they advised that 35,000 was the most that would be reasonably manageable. I would accept that, and that we must have the Board's advice as to what is the largest number that can be handled reasonably, either by retirement or by moving men into other suitable jobs. As the noble Lord said, this leaves us with the position that there is going to be extra production for which there is no immediate economic consumption. And that brings me to the point of extra stocks.
The noble Lord told us that the stocks now are about 28 million tons at the collieries, which is a pretty large amount, plus something like the normal 19 million tons of distributed stocks. That makes a total of 47 million tons of stocked coal. The proposition is that this total shall be added to by a further 5 million or 6 million tons over the coming four years. I do not doubt that this has been thought about very carefully, but it seems highly undesirable. I imagine that there is a considerable element of deterioration of coal that is stocked. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us what is the rate of deterioration; how much of this stocked coal is likely to be lost by deterioration over the years?
This brings me to my third point. Is there no other way of disposing of this surplus? Is it not possible to find further markets in the export world? The noble Lord did not deal with the possibility of exports. But we have had devaluation since the publication of this White Paper. The noble Lord and his right honourable friends in Government have stressed, and I think rightly stressed, that the great advantage of devaluation to this country, among its many disadvantages, is that it gives us an edge in the export market. I understand that the pre-devaluation

1045
price of coal at the pithead averaged about 100s. 7d. per ton. After devaluation presumably this is about 88s. per ton for the export market.
The White Paper informs us that at the present time our exports are only some 3 million tons per annum to Europe, which must of course be our best prospect as a market. But we know that this year the United States is exporting some 21 million tons to Europe, and that the average cost of American coal landed at Western European ports is about 99s. a ton. This seems to give us a quite considerable price advantage if we make full use of the effect of devaluation; it seems to give an advantage of something like 10s. a ton. Is it not possible to expand our export market to Europe? There can be no difficulty in guaranteeing long-term supplies. We have before us the prospect of contraction. Is it not possible to do something more to try to win some of these markets? I know they are difficult markets, but nevertheless they are there. Is it not possible to try to win some of these from the Americans or someone else? Will the noble Lord please say something about this when he replies to the debate? Nothing could be more helpful both to colliers and the national economy than further sales in this way.
The fourth point I wanted to put to the noble Lord he has dealt with in his speech: that is, the arrangements under Clause 6 for meeting the uneconomic cost of the coal taken by the Electricity and Gas Boards in order to help the situation. I think it is right that the taxpayer should pay this extra cost of £45 million, rather than that the consumer should pay it by higher electricity or gas charges.
The last point I would make is this. Looking at our present economic background nationally, is this £200 million provided in the Bill being used in the most productive way possible? It is a large sum of money to ask the taxpayers of this country to pay in addition to all the other things they have to pay. We are all of us now extremely aware of the limitations on our resources. We have been driven into devaluation because we have been spending more than we have been earning; because we have exceeded our resources. It must be in the front of all our minds that our resources are
1046
not unlimited and that what we devote to this purpose we cannot devote to some other purpose. Indeed, a statement has been made by one of the senior Ministers that hard and harsh cuts are coming in all spending. Bearing in mind the need to use our limited resources in the best way possible, is the noble Lord really satisfied that this money could not be used more productively? Such a large part of it seems to be going to be used unproductively. The noble Lord said that the President of the Board of Trade was taking new action to try to stimulate new industries in the areas where collieries being closed down. Could not something more be done in this respect?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, as I have understood his speech so far, with a great deal of which I agree, he approves the £133 million. The point he is now on is that of the additional borrowing powers of another £200 million, a large part of which is for payment for stocks and the other part for the difference between the historic and replacement costs. Is that the money he is suggesting could be better spent?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Yes, my Lords, it is indeed—part of the £130 million which is being used for the extra stocks. I queried whether it was not possible to use some of this money for promoting extra export drive. This would be better than further stock-piling of stocks that are too big already.
Now I come to my last point, dealing particularly with the provision made for pensions at 55. The men in the mining world, Heaven knows! are among the toughest and most virile men you can find anywhere, and I am sure that they would rather have another job than be given a pension earlier. Is it not possible to use these sums of money more productively than here indicated, for instance on retraining schemes, encouraging fresh industries, in order to get more of this money into productive purposes, which would be far better for the miners displaced and far better for the national economy? I hone I have made my point clear. I would conclude by saying that in general I support the Bill. I sympathise with the difficult task which the noble Lord discharged, if I may say

1047
so, extremely well, and I wish him well in getting this Bill on to the Statute Book.
4.40 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, two years ago when the 1965 White Paper on Fuel Policy was published, on the eve of the debate which took place on that policy, the Daily Telegraph had a very interesting article. There is a paragraph I should like to read to your Lordships, because I think it is as apposite to-day as it was two years ago:
The coal industry has at various times been short of men, money, coal and customers. But it is never short of difficulties or documentation, which tend to flourish together in sinister alliance."
May I make this submission to your Lordships as far as the coal industry is concerned: that for generations it was the cockpit of struggle—a struggle for wages, a struggle for hours, a struggle for better conditions, a struggle for better compensation payments. But it is a different kind of cockpit to-day. It is now the cockpit of argument and of differing ideas as to the place that coal should take in regard to the energy supplies of the nation.
We have listened to two most interesting speeches. The detailed exposition of my noble friend of the Bill was most enlightening. I was also pleased to hear the noble Lord opposite say that he agrees with the financial commitments into which the Government are entering consequent upon the implications in the White Paper. He also made some reference to the question of our export trade. For a long time that has been in grave difficulty. We are not the only country in the world that is having coal troubles. We are not the only country which has large stocks of coal. When demand by other countries for this commodity is low because of their own stock position it is not an easy matter to do a lot so far as exports are concerned.
May I make just one other comment respecting an observation which was made by my noble friend? It is interesting, and indicates the co-operation that has existed between the men in the pits and the National Coal Board towards employing the most up-to-date technical and mechanical means, with a view to increasing productivity and also to decreasing the price of coal. I think the figures that my noble friend gave in this field are most
1048
interesting. He said, quite rightly, that during the last ten years—it does not matter what the period is—manpower had declined by 45 per cent. and output had declined by only 20 per cent. I would summarise that by saying that nobody can accuse the mining community in this period of technical change of acting as Luddites.
The Bill which is before your Lordships' House to-day I support, for two special reasons. First, it deals, though not entirely and not as much as one would like, but in some measure, with the consequences contemplated in the recent White Paper on Fuel Policy—I refer to the 1967 edition and not that of 1965. Secondly, it increases the borrowing powers of the National Coal Board, enabling them to push along with reorganisation of the industry. Over the past years, in fact ever since 1967, for the National Coal Board and for the men in the mines this has been a colossal test. But in terms of productivity it is now beginning to pay off. We can see the results of the huge investment of capital made during the past twenty years, but particularly during the past decade. I have here a report that in the last five years alone—one could go back over the last 19 years, and the same principle applies—there has been an increase in productivity in the coal mining industry; and the mining industry to-day has one of the best productivity records in Britain. That is due to two factors; namely, the amount of capital that has been infused into the industry and the co-operation that has been given by the miners themselves.
My noble friend Lord Blyton will have more to say than I about the recent White Paper on Fuel Policy, but I understand that it is now the subject of further consideration consequent upon devaluation having taken place. As my noble friend indicated in his most interesting speech, devaluation is sure to affect the price of imported primary fuels, such as oil and uranium. If that is so, and I think it is undeniable, that will adversely affect our balance of payments. I could not quite follow my noble friend when he was speaking on the importation of oil. I am informed from a most reliable source that between now and 1975 the importation of oil will increase by 41 per cent. I mention that figure only to indicate that that will

1049
mean an additional 41 per cent. so far as our balance of payments is concerned, outside the effects of any devaluation.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend will allow me to interrupt him, because I should not like there to be any misunderstanding. Of course there will be an increase in the consumption of oil, because our total fuel requirements will increase as the White Paper forecasts. The point that I was making, and must adhere to, is that according to present trends and the information at present available and forecasts which can be made of the consumption in 1975, out of the total fuel consumption in that year oil will account for 41·5 per cent., which is only marginally more than the share of oil in the present total fuel consumption.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: Well, my Lords, there may be some dispute about the figures between my noble friend and myself; but if there is an increase in oil importation, the size of that increase will affect the balance of payments. That is the point I am trying to make. The only difference between my noble friend and me appears to be not one of principle but one of degree. From many quarters and for a number of years now, although there has been information respecting the effect that the importation of oil has upon our balance of payments, I and many others have found that there has always been a reluctance to state what the net effect is. If to-day, when he comes to reply, my noble friend could say whether it is £200 million or £400 million, after taking into account the residue of refined oil, the export of petrochemicals and so on and so forth, I and many others would be much obliged to him. I wonder whether he could say what is the net effect of the importation of oil upon our balance of payments: because at this time particularly it is really a serious matter.
We have heard a good deal in the past, and still hear to-day, about the competitiveness of coal, and this was implicit in the speech of my noble friend this afternoon. We also hear quite a lot about the protection which is given to coal by the tax on oil and by the embargo on imported coal. I would say that the protective tax is only a fractional compensation for the tremendous expenditure overseas in protecting oil interests in many parts of
1050
the world. In the sphere of fuel policy outlined in the White Paper and in the assumptions which are made in regard to the use of coal, one of our four primary fuels providing energy requirements up to 1975, there has been a considerable change. Once coal was king. Now it is less than king. It is not going to be in the next few years even a two-fuel economy; it is going to be four.
I should like to make two observations on this matter. In many quarters, and certainly in the miners' union and among miners generally, there are some doubts about the wisdom of the implications in the White Paper. I would not put it any higher than that at this stage, but certainly the implications in the White Paper are a disappointment both to the National Coal Board and to the National Union of Mineworkers. That is quite understandable, since the prospect of the loss of employment by those who will be affected without their having a firm guarantee of alternative employment—and this applies particularly to the older men—is a source of worry and anxiety. I think all of us, on both sides of the House, feel that position acutely. I would also mention the dissipation of invested capital in the industry, authorised by successive Governments in the post-war period, all aimed at coal meeting the energy demands of the nation. The contemplated further contraction of the industry is a serious matter to all those who are engaged in it. Having made those strictures in regard to the policy outlined in the White Paper, I hasten to say that this is recognised in the Bill. Whatever reservations one might have about the policy in the White Paper, I can give my full support to the Bill which is before your Lordships' House to-day.
I turn briefly to the question of fuel requirements as distinct from energy needs. They are two different matters. The position at the moment is that the energy needs of our country are about 300 million tons of coal equivalent. That is expected in the next few years to rise to 340 or 350 million tons. That brings me to the question of estimates, with which my noble friend dealt in such an interesting fashion. Frankly, I have a good deal of suspicion so far as the exports are concerned who provide the estimates. In the mid-'fifties it was estimated

1051
that 250 million tons of coal would be needed to meet the energy demands by 1965. The main point here is that the National Coal Board were asked, no doubt requested, to plan on this estimate and to invest accordingly.
What was the position in 1965? I know my noble friend gave the figures, but it would not be a bad thing to reinforce what he said. The position in 1965 is a totally different picture from what was estimated by the experts in the mid-'fifties. Only 184 million tons, 56 million tons less than the estimate, was the total of deep-mined coal. The estimate now is 155 million in 1970, and 120 million in 1975. But almost before the ink is dry on the recent White Paper, one understands that in the coal industry by the end of 1968, on the experience of the trends of the last two years, coal consumption will be down to the 1970 estimate of 155 million tons, unless steps are taken to prevent further erosion of the coal industry by the use of oil, which is an important fuel but which affects our balance of payments, as I hope I have shown your Lordships. This is a very big subject and affects many people. It is not altogether a question of statistics and of figures given by the experts. It is a great human problem affecting the lives of good, decent, honourable men and women in the mining communities.
I should like now to say a word or two on Clause 6 of the Bill, which makes provision for increased "coal-burn" by the Generating Boards in England, Wales and Scotland and the Area Gas Boards—but it is limited in amount to £45 million, and in time to 1971. Would my noble friend answer three or four questions which I should like to put to him on this matter? The first is, how will this proposal work between the Generating Boards and the Area Gas Boards? Second, what is the additional amount of tonnage involved in this provision—is it 6 million, or 3 million? What is the proportion of the total as between the Generating Boards and the Area Gas Boards? And, lastly, could my noble friend indicate to your Lordships why it is limited only to 1971?
Clauses 2 and 3 deal specifically with the social consequences of contemplated contraction and possible redundancy
1052
arising therefrom. I agree with the noble Lord opposite that the eminently desirable things should be, first, retraining; and, secondly, alternative employment. As one who has been a member of the miners' union for many years, and as one who has been connected with this industry for a long time, may I say that the miners' union and the individual miners themselves feel very strongly indeed on those two points.
Look at the position, my Lords. For ten, twenty, thirty, forty and, in some cases, more years men have given their whole working lives to provide the energy needs of the nation, and at great cost—the cost of life and the cost of limb. It is the case—and I think this is very creditable—that through their public spirit many men have consented over the past decade to transfer from contracting to expanding areas of the coalfield. To many it has been a painful process. It has meant picking up their roots. But it has not only meant that: it has been costly, too. There has been the cost of transfer. A great amount of social capital has been involved, and this fact should not be overlooked.
I mention this, my Lords, only to make the point that, prior to 1965 the whole cost was borne exclusively by the National Coal Board. While the proposal in this Bill is much more generous than the scheme under the 1965 Act, it still remains the case that the National Coal Board will have to bear one-third of the cost up to £45 million for the redeployment and transfer of men, where their consent is obtained, from contracting to expanding areas. May I ask my noble friend this question? If up to 1971 the sum of £45 million is exceeded for the purpose described in Section 3 of the 1965 Act, what will then be the position? I think this is important, and I hope that my noble friend will give some answer to it.
Clause 3 of the Bill certainly merits the attention of your Lordships: in fact, it merits the attention of the whole country. The principle laid down in Clause 3 is quite good, but I fear that the arbitrary line of 55 years of age will, in its application, give rise to a lot of dissatisfaction. I shall endeavour to give reasons why this is so. First, there are those disabled by accident or disease.

1053
In the coalfields of Britain those cases are not isolated; they are many. For many years the incidence of accidents and disease was higher in the mining industry than in any other industry of the country. Over the whole coalfield there must be thousands of these men, and the percentage related to the number employed in the industry must be exceedingly high. I would also point out that many will be severely disabled.
I should be remiss if I did not take this opportunity of paying a tribute to the National Coal Board. They have been very good employers in fitting these unfortunate people into jobs. However, while under this clause the over-55s will have three years of benefit, the under-55s will immediately have not only no job but little prospect, as disabled people, of obtaining other employment. That will be for two reasons: first, they have disabilities; and, secondly, employers to whom they might apply for jobs have become a little more selective to-day than they were formerly. I put the point to my noble friend that those disabled by accident or disease, particularly the pneumoconiotics, of any age, who are made redundant by pit closures should at least benefit by the proposals laid down in the Bill for the over-55s. I was very anxious to make that point, and to state the case for the disabled of any age who may be affected by pit closures, because I think it important and necessary that it should be done.
May I now put a few questions to my noble friend? How are the calculations to be made in arriving at 90 per cent.? First, can it be made clear that disablement benefits, special hardship allowance and benefit from the mineworkers' supplementary scheme will not be taken into account? Perhaps my noble friend will give us some information about that.
I think that Clause 7, to which I now come, is unnecessary. I hope that Clause 7 will be deleted before the final stages of this Bill are reached. I ask: Why increase the numbers of full-time members of the National Coal Board, when on the basis of the White Paper estimates there are going to be fewer collieries, lower manpower and reduced tonnages? I really do not know the reasons for this proposal. I would put forward one reason, which I consider valid, why this clause should be deleted, and that is that
1054
the psychological impact on the people in the industry and outside will be very unfavourable indeed. I cannot see the sense or reason in it. In fact, apart from Clause 7 the Bill deals only with contraction. This clause is the only part of expansion in the Bill and, with the conditions prevailing in the industry, I do not see the sense or reason in it. I trust and hope that my noble friend will advise his right honourable friend the Minister to have another think about this, and delete this clause before the final stages are reached.
I know that I have gone on for a long time, and I hope that I may be forgiven. Finally, I want to say one or two words about the financial burden which the National Coal Board have been, and still are, carrying. It really is terrific. In the 19 years of nationalisation, payments in the form of interest to the Minister of Power have been almost £538 million. Although there has been an operating profit during that period, in collieries alone, of £372½ million and although, including opencast operations and ancillaries coming under the National Coal Board, the total operating profit in the last 19 years has been £492½ million, these operating surpluses have been turned into a deficit of £115 million. And perhaps I may remind your Lordships that £74 million of that £115 million is for the losses incurred on imported coal, which should not have been the responsibility of the National Coal Board. Two years ago the first recognition was given to the heavy financial burdens of the National Coal Board, and steps were taken to bring relief by a writing down of capital; and it is the case that in the last two years the interest payments by the Board have been considerably eased.
My Lords, the miners' union have been, and still are, concerned. They have given much thought to the fuel question, over the past few years particularly; and I want to say this about them: they are responsible people, and, as I have intimated, they have co-operated in the technical reorganisation of the industry. But they are concerned about the accelerated pace of the intrusion of non-indigenous supplies of fuel. They are concerned about the risk to the economy, and certainly of the social consequences, arising

1055
from too rapid a decline in coal's contribution to the energy of the nation, as envisaged in the White Paper.
5.12 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I listened to my noble friend Lord Stonham putting the Government case, and I think he did it wonderfully well, although in the course of my speech I shall fundamentally disagree with him on many issues. I also listened to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, speak on fuel and power matters. This must be the first time that he has tackled this problem. I remember the noble Lord speaking in the House of Commons, particularly on agriculture and transport, but never on fuel and power, and I compliment him on entering this controversial field for the first time since I have known him, which is now twenty years.
The argument advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, was that we must have a cheap fuel policy. That reminds me of the 1926 strike. All the arguments then were that we must have cheap fuel for our industry, and that we must get our prices down in order to get into the export field. It brought us down to 6s. 6½d. a day; and while I know that in the old days a cheap fuel policy meant a reduction in wages, a cheap fuel policy to-day means the annihilation of the mining industry. Therefore, I am not at all impressed by this cheap fuel policy.
I listened to the Minister, my noble friend Lord Stonham, and heard him say that you could not project into 1980 and estimate the position of coal or anything else; and much less can you project into 1980 in the case of nuclear power. If this White Paper is based upon an econometric system (which is the economist's jargon for trying to project trends of fuel consumption into the future), and if by this formula you can project and say that the coal industry will produce 120 million tons in 1975, what is wrong with using the same formula to say that the coal industry will produce only 80 million tons in 1980? And why cannot you project this system into the 1990s? I am not going to say it will be right, but if the formula in the White Paper is right and you can project to 1975, then surely on the same basis you can project it to 1980. The noble Lord,
1056
Lord Nugent of Guildford, talked about exports to the Continent. My Lords, American coal would not get to the Continent at all, with the coal they have lying in the ground, if it were not that the Americans have long-term agreements. If those long-term agreements could be ended to-morrow, no British coal would get in, because there is any amount of coal lying on the ground in Germany and France.
If this Bill implied an acceptance of the White Paper, I would oppose it, but to the extent that it seeks to soften the social and economic effect of the industry's inevitable contraction, it has my support. It is not my intention to go over the past forecasts of this industry, except to say that every one that has been produced, both by ourselves and by the Conservatives—by every Government over the last 12 years—has been wrong. But I must say this to the Minister—and I have lived in this industry all my life. There is bitterness and disillusionment among the mining community, and I am confident that no mother or father will consider mining as a career for their sons. In the light of this savage contraction, a boy of 15 going into the pits to-day can be thrown on the scrapheap when he is 23 years of age. Who would want a boy to take up a job in which there was no future security?
Among other things, the Bill sets out the Government's proposals for dealing with the manpower rundown in the mining industry which flow from the White Paper Fuel Policy. The first question is this: Does the rundown have to be as big and as rapid as the White Paper leads us to believe? I would have been very critical of the White Paper if it had not been withdrawn so that it could be revised to take into account the effects of devaluation. Since it is being reconsidered, I shall concentrate what I have to say on the factors that the Government must take into account in the review of the White Paper. The most important facts—and these should dominate all the Government thinking—are, first, that coal is the only fuel that will not cost more as a result of devaluation; and, secondly, to quote the White Paper, coal is
"the only fuel that contains no foreign exchange element in its costs".
These twin facts are the basis on which the Government should build an entirely

1057
new fuel policy, with a much bigger share for coal.
May I try to show the House the effect of devaluation on other primary fuels, like nuclear power, North Sea gas and oil? The White Paper shows that the estimated difference in cost per unit of electricity sent out from Dungeness "B", the first of the advanced gas-cooled reactor nuclear stations, and Cottam, a coal-fired station in Nottinghamshire is only one-hundredth of a penny per unit. Table F on page 78 of the White Paper gives 0·52d. per unit for Dungeness, and 0·53d. for Cottam. Devaluation means that the imported uranium which is needed to fuel the nuclear stations will cost more. Indeed, the increase in uranium prices alone may wipe out this theoretical price advantage in favour of Dungeness "B". And the Government should bear in mind that Cottam is already built and will soon be operating whereas Dungeness will not produce any electricity for at least another three years. Much can happen in that time to push up the estimated cost of Dungeness "B" which has already escalated by 11 per cent.
However, nuclear station costs are all suspect. As the Comptroller and Auditor-General points out in the Atomic Energy Authority's Annual Report (pages 120–123) the Authority has been unable to recover from electricity undertakings the past costs of research and development work which they have done for the nuclear stations. Many millions of pounds of royalties have been waived; and this means that public money provided for the Atomic Energy Authority by the Exchequer is being used to subsidise nuclear power against coal in the electricity market—with a resulting loss of their jobs by many thousands of miners.
My Lords, I urge the Government to accept the demand by the Coal Industry Consultative Council for an independent inquiry into the technical and financial aspects of nuclear power costs. Until this is done the mining industry will never accept that it is losing this market for fair commercial reasons. Again, the Report of a Select Committee of the House of Commons on Science and Technology has also said that there should be an independent inquiry into all these matters. Why do not the Government
1058
act as these important bodies request? Nuclear costs are suspect, and the whole matter should be cleared up by being thoroughly investigated.
Before leaving the field of nuclear energy, may I say a word or two on the question of whether the proposed station at Seaton Carew, in my home county of Durham, should be nuclear or coal-fired? Up to the moment, no nuclear station has been built in the coalfields. To build a nuclear station at Seaton Carew, on the coalfield of Durham, a seriously contracting area, would be a scandal. In the past when mines have closed we have been able to get our men fixed up at collieries in Durham—which means commuting 12 to 14 miles a day; but this source is now drying up. Then the receiving areas of the prosperous coalfields—as a result of the White Paper—to protect their own people will close this avenue to places like Durham, Scotland and Wales; so that our problem now is more difficult than ever.
In July of this year, the Prime Minister met the Durham miners' officials over the question of whether Seaton Carew should be a coal-fired or a nuclear station. He promised that the costs of each would be considered and that a decision would be given in due course. The Minister is still considering whether it should be, coal or nuclear. Yet we have Sir Ronald Edwards in The Times Business News yesterday stating that if we do not have a nuclear station at Hartlepool there will be no need to have a station there at all and that he will probably bring in power from Yorkshire. Here is clear prejudice against coal, irrespective of the costs of coal as compared with nuclear energy, in a statement made at a time when we are awaiting the results of an investigation by the Prime Minister and the Minister. I say to the noble Lord the Minister on the Front Bench that this is just not good enough.
Adjacent to the Seaton Carew site are some of the most highly developed collieries along the coastal belt of County Durham. It the siting of this station were to be shifted a few miles, coal could be brought in by conveyor to provide energy more cheaply than by nuclear power. But even on the site selected the forecast of the Coal Board, of 3¼d. a therm, compares favourably with the computations about the cost of nuclear power. If this station is coal-fired it will keep 10,000

1059
of our men in employment in the future for many years. Manpower in Durham has gone down in six years by 26,000 men and will go down at the rate of 7,000 a year until 1972 or 1973. It is against this background—and with all the sincerity that I can put into what I am saying—that I state that, because coal is competitive with nuclear power, it would be nothing short of disgraceful if this station were given to nuclear power. And it will most certainly kill the attitude of the Durham miners towards the Labour Party.
My Lords, I move now to the subject of North Sea gas. I understand that before devaluation the Gas Council and the oil companies were on the verge of agreeing on a price for North Sea gas. However, many of the companies engaged in the North Sea are foreign companies and I am informed that when devaluation was announced they said that negotiations would have to start all over again; and they are now demanding a higher sterling price to compensate them for devaluation. Clearly, the price of natural gas is going up. But there is another aspect of North Sea gas that worries me. The Minister has committed himself to saying that gas will be brought into use very quickly and in great quantities. But gas is going up in price and it will have to carry a still bigger increase because of the oil price rises. I do not believe for one minute that we shall see the demand for natural gas growing as rapidly as the Minister expects. My fear is that he will be left with vast quantities of gas on his hands—especially in the summer when the demand is low. Can we not get from the Government an undertaking that they will not seek to solve this problem by using the surplus gas under power station boilers? To do this would be to deal another body blow at the coal industry.
My Lords, what of oil? It was extraordinary that the White Paper, as originally written, should have proposed an increase in fuel oil usage of about one-third between now and 1975—and this is an important fuel—and at the same time forecast a one-third decrease in the use of indigenous coal, which imposes no burden on our balance of payments. That made no sense at all even before devaluation, and must surely be looked at very closely in this review of the White
1060
Paper. Will the Government tell us what the extra cost to the balance of payments would have been with the proposed increase in the use of oil? Will they further tell us by how much devaluation will push up that cost if the original estimates of oil consumption are not revised? The Prime Minister has said that the fantastically high prices we have to pay for oil as a result of the Arab-Israeli war are one of the reasons why we had to devalue. Surely, with the memory of Suez little more than ten years away, the Government will seek to get away from too great a dependence on oil imports, especially as the producing countries are pressing for higher crude oil prices and are likely to continue on those lines as their living standards rise.
My Lords, there is another big factor which the Government must have in mind when revising their fuel policy. Coal is an industry in which most of the capital has been spent. The job is nearing completion and the nation is getting a return in the form of rapidly rising productivity. During November, the overall output per man-shift was over two tons, a figure undreamed of a few years ago. Coal is outstripping the rest of British industry in this respect. The capital expenditure picture is very different in the case of gas and electricity. The White Paper says that the gas industry will require £300 million a year for the next five years to spend on the conversion to North Sea gas. The electricity industry is proposing to spend £170 million more on the remainder of the second programme of nuclear power stations than would be needed if conventional stations of the same capacity were to be built.
Here I indicate to the Government what I would do to revise the fuel policy, help the balance of payments problem and save capital. I would slow down the nuclear power building programme. One justification for our building nuclear stations used to be that this would help our chances of selling abroad. But no other country has yet bought an advanced gas-cooled reactor of this type, and I believe that no other country ever will. Secondly, I would reduce our dependence on oil. That would save foreign exchange and make our supplies more secure. As a start, I would put all the present dual-fired electricity stations on to coal. This would

1061
provide an extra market for 1½ million tons of coal a year and safeguard the jobs of 3,750 miners. Finally, I would slow down the conversion to North Sea gas and rule out the possibility of using gas in power stations.
All these measures, my Lords, would reduce the run-down in mining jobs and save the Government money which is to be provided under the Bill for social costs; and it would greatly reduce unemployment in our mining villages. The Bill is generous in the approach to these problems and I support it, especially if the problems are reduced in the way I have suggested. If they are not, we shall certainly be unable to create new jobs as rapidly as the old jobs will disappear in the mining areas, despite all that the Board of Trade is trying to do. So far, we have had very little success in providing new jobs for adult males in the development areas. Therefore, I leave these suggestions with the Government.
Clause 3 of the Bill provides for special payment to miners who are over 55 years of age. This is the only clause about which I shall speak. For the first three years the benefits are reasonable, and far more helpful than ever before; but after that time the man who is still redundant comes down with a bump to his State benefit and £1 from the miners' pension scheme. Further, some of these people will get no unemployment benefit after three years, as it will have been exhausted. So if a man has a wife who is working and whose wage is above the national assistance scale, he will not get any national assistance and will be dependent on his wife for his keep. Such men will be put into a very undignified position. I support the clause simply because it will reduce hardship. But what of the social philosophy in which a man who could reasonably expect another ten years of work is told, "We are going to pay you to stay at home. You are no further use to us." It is far better to avoid making people redundant—
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend to say that we are not saying anything of the kind, about people being of no further use to us. It is true we are saying, "We have no further job for you in the pit where you are employed, but we will do our utmost
1062
to find you another and suitable job elsewhere."
LORD BLYTON: That is, my Lords, if you can get a man to leave his job after he has been working in the pits for so long. You cannot train a man at that stage. Therefore the prospects in the labour market for a man of 58 are pretty hopeless. And it is not only the older men who will be affected by the rundown; there will be far fewer jobs in the mining areas for youngsters who leave school. In many mining villages youngsters will have two alternatives to face when they leave school: they may either leave home to find work, or start their working life at the labour exchange. Both those alternatives are socially undesirable. It is socially wrong to have immature youngsters leaving home at a tender age, and it is wrong to tell them that the labour exchange is the place for them.
My Lords, I want to see the White Paper radically re-written to remove the problems which the Bill seeks to remedy. If this is done, it will save some of the money that will be provided for the Minister of Power through this Bill. The effect of what is taking place is not only felt in the sphere of economics and finance as far as mining is concerned; it has a big effect on our people. My people in the mining areas have always regarded Labour as their hope for the future. Over all my years the mining communities have been a bastion of support for the Labour movement on which they pin their hopes for the future. What has taken place in this last few weeks has shaken their faith. It has destroyed the faith and hopes that from our movement would come a different future. It is destroying their faith in nationalisation, because as a result of the White Paper policies are being pursued that are narrowing the area of nationalisation in fuel production, while private enterprise is expanding. Miners never thought that nationalisation would be the vehicle by which the experiences vie have had in recent years could ever come, and there are sore hearts in the industry.
My Lords, I have put the situation as I see it, understanding the feelings of the men, and I ask even now for the White Paper to be re-written. The Secretary of the Miners' Union, speaking at Edinburgh on Saturday, said—and I think

1063
that the Government should take note of it—that unless action was taken to stabilise the market for coal, the present Government would be the one which closed the greatest number of pits in the shortest time, which pioneered the principle of permanent unemployment for miners at 55 years of age, and removed the economic base for hundreds of mining communities without first providing an alternative. That reveals the miners' terrible bitterness to the White Paper. In conclusion, I urge the Government to listen to the voice of the National Union of Mineworkers, who speak for the whole of the mining industry. The Miners' Union are very angry, and this does not augur well for the future. I ask for a reappraisal of the policy of the White Paper.
5.40 p.m.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, I never miss an opportunity to take part in a debate which has to do with the miners and coal-mining. I live in a mining community and have no desire to live elsewhere. As a class of workers their good qualities are predominant. They are noted for their native wit, their great courage and their superior intelligence. Every experienced public speaker and preacher will readily agree, I am sure, that he derives greater pleasure from addressing an audience of miners than any other audience or congregation in the country. The nature of the miner's work has much to do with this. Every minute of the day he has to be on the alert. Every sound he hears may be a warning to him of danger. And, subconsciously, the miner listens in that way, even to addresses which are given to him, and does not miss a sound: he is all eyes and ears. I love these people, and I am anxious that everything should be done to alleviate their present despair when they find themselves becoming redundant and unwanted in the various coalfields.
I can never be persuaded to be critical of the present Government. Indeed, I regard Harold Wilson as the most enlightened Prime Minister of the 20th century. I see cynical smiles on faces opposite. Let us have a look at the Prime Ministers they have provided—and I am frightened when I hear the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition say so often
1064
from that Dispatch Box, "When we come back into power …". God forbid! Let us have a look at what they provided. Stanley Baldwin, recognised as the laziest Prime Minister who ever occupied No. 10 Downing Street; Neville Chamberlain, so naïve that in 1940 the late Lloyd George said that he was "a figure fit for a stained glass window"; Anthony Eden, the hero of Suez; Harold Macmillan, the author and the promoter of premium bonds; Sir Alec Douglas-Home, declared redundant by his own supporters. That is what the Party of noble Lords opposite have provided. And we hear them declaring, time and again, what they will do "when they come back into power."
It will be seen from what I have said that the present Prime Minister will not have much competition in earning the epithet that I have given him. But while I am not prepared to criticise the Government I do feel disposed to be critical of the set-up of the nationalised industries, particularly in relation to coal-mining and transport. I wish that I could prevail upon the Minister of Power and the Minister of Transport to read once again In Place of Fear, by the late Nye Bevan. He clearly indicates in that book the weaknesses of the present set-up of these industries, and also suggests the remedies.
I am particularly interested in the North Wales coalfield, and would base my criticism on my knowledge of the situation there. The North Wales coalfield, which as recently as forty years ago had 27 collieries, now finds itself with only four remaining. Hafod Colliery, with 35 million tons of coal still available, is to be closed in two months' time. I hope that the Coal Board will have another look at this colliery and not make its decision irrevocable. I say that for two reasons. The production in that colliery last week was 40½ cwt. per man per shift. Furthermore, people who are qualified to express an opinion believe that the coal produced there could, within a short period of time, be sold in the shape of gas at 3d. per therm and within the next three months at less than 4d. per therm. These facts alone, I believe, should reprieve that colliery from the sentence of death passed upon it.
I believe that the North Wales coalfield could have done better, and could be better; but you cannot run a colliery

1065
and a coalface from the head office of an Area Board. The management of the National Coal Board is a bureaucracy, where form-filling and "bandwaggonism" and "keeping noses clean" are tops. I am sure of that. Let me give a classical example. Only a month ago the manager of a colliery in North Wales would not allow poppy-sellers to sell poppies on the premises because he had not had permission from the area office in Manchester. Well, I ask you! The once proud, resourceful and decisive colliery manager, with the lives of hundreds of men as his responsibility, has now to refer to the Board for a decision as to whether the local British Legion branch can sell poppies at the colliery pay office. This is an example with a vengeance, it is true, of running a colliery from the head office.
Communications between the colliery and the area office are so formal, as I find it, that it is appropriate to the age of the minuet and curling pin and bears no resemblance to the hurly-burly of the 20th century. This formality breeds an attitude of remoteness, which, in the North Wales coalfield, is intensified by the fact that the high management of the industry is in the hands of people who are alien in their traditions and customs to North Wales. There is no connection between North Wales and Manchester. We live in different worlds; we have a different way of living; we have different traditions and different customs. Yet every colliery in North Wales is directed by this office at Manchester, about 80 miles away.
I have said that Hafod is to be closed, and a cloud hangs over the entire coalfield. I can only hope that the cloud will be blown away by the exertions of the miners and the inspiration of managers. But for this inspiration of managers, the management of the industry in North Wales must realise that battles are won in the hearts of men and not in the watches of the time and motion engineers, that men can be led more easily than they can be driven; that instructions are no substitute for personal warmth; and, finally and most importantly, that coal is won in collieries and not in offices.
My criticism has been of the set-up of the industry, not of the Government, because the attitude of the Government is
1066
reflected in the Bill which we are considering this afternoon. I want to congratulate the Minister in particular on Clause 3 of the Bill. This clause provides, as has already been pointed out by my colleagues, that mineworkers of 55 years of age and over who are made redundant as a result of the closure of pits will have their incomes supplemented to give them something like 90 per cent. of the previous take-home pay for three years, or until the age of 65, if sooner. For the miners, I contend that it was worth having a Labour Government if only to secure that. I wonder what our fathers would have said in the coal mining areas had it been suggested even 3C years ago that the day would arrive in Britain when the miner at 55, if he was declared redundant, would still be able to enjoy nine-tenths of his previous wages. At the age of 55 an ex-miner would find it difficult to secure alternative employment, and would have formerly found himself simply thrown on the scrap-heap and on the dole. He will now be a contented person, with 90 per cent. of his wages guaranteed to him for the next three years.
I can only hope that the Minister will exert his influence to persuade the appropriate department to provide State pensions for the miners at 60. I know that Mr. Richard Marsh has been criticised over this. The Minister of Power has nothing to do with State pensions, but probably he can exert his influence on his colleagues in the right department. Many classes of workers are pensioned at 60, and if any workers are worthy of this consideration there can be none more worthy than the colliers, who have risked life and limb for forty years to provide this country with its means of energy.
In conclusion, I would say that the paradoxical situation, so far as the coal industry is concerned, was well summed-up in an article in the New Statesman recently. It said:
"In theory the closing of a coal mine ought to be an occasion of rejoicing. Future generations will look back in amazement and repulsion at this grim, unpleasant and dangerous way of earning a living and of providing fuel. That people should plead for its preservation is a sad commentary on 20th century life. But the true reproach, alike to the present Government and to society at its present stage of development, is that the alternative offered to the miner whose product we no longer need is too often simply unemployment."

1067
My plea, therefore, is: do not close a single pit, whatever it may cost, until alternative employment has been found for the redundant miners. The collier is too good a fellow to be thrown on the scrap-heap.
5.56 p.m.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: My Lords, the first point I should like to make concerns Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill. The provisions of these clauses are illustrative of what must be done in circumstances where elderly men and women are made redundant by changes such as are now occurring within the coal industry, and which are likely to occur elsewhere, changes which are consequences of the impact of technological progress on the structure of industry and on the nature of individual employment. But, as several speakers have said, the provisions of these two clauses cover only a part of what needs to be done. As several have said, these changes affect not only elderly people, but younger people, both men and women, who must be retrained for alternative employment. I understand well enough that this is not a matter to be included in this Bill, but I want to endorse what others have said, that this is a matter of the greatest possible importance.
The need is referred to in the White Paper Fuel Policy, and I feel obliged to say that what is said in it does not leave me very satisfied. It says:
"In order to ensure that there is a sufficient supply of skilled labour available for incoming industry in the development areas the number and capacity of Government training centres has been greatly expanded."
I should like to know what the actual number and capacity of the existing and planned training centres amount to, because my impression is that they do not justify the words "greatly expanded" in relation to the magnitude and nature of the problems that are emerging. In particular, I should like something to be said about the words "skilled labour". and what these words are intended to connote in relation to the coal industry, in the light of another sentence in the White Paper, which if I may I will quote. It says:
"The National Coal Board's objective is to develop means of production which are not only highly mechanised, but operate largely by remote control, so that much of the labour
1068
will eventually consist of highly skilled technicians."
This sentence touches on the rapidly growing importance of the technician, who must be distinguished from the craftsman and the operative as needing to possess a much wider and deeper understanding of the technicalities of the job for which he is responsible. I hope that we may be told in due course whether the Coal Board has yet quantified its forward looking need for technicians of different kinds appropriate to the operation of the automated collieries which it is said in the White Paper are to be the normal method of coal production in the 'seventies. I should like to know what steps they are taking to ensure the availability of these technicians.
I ask this because I have had occasion recently to study the development of technician courses, and I took particular care to study the position in relation to the mining industry. I found the position surprising and disturbing. If I may quote, the entries for Higher National Diplomas and Higher National Certificates taken together, in mining and mine surveying, fell from 587 in 1960 to 208 in 1966, and the corresponding awards fell from 398 to 148. At the ordinary levels of the National Diploma and National Certificate the entries fell from 1,548 to 888, and the passes from 901 to 482. For the City and Guilds Advanced Technicians Certificate for Colliery Mechanics and Electricians, and for coal mining, the number of candidates over 1962 to 1966 rose only marginally from 979 to 1,022.
By my understanding these figures, even in the 1960 context, are really very small, and I find it remarkable that they have been decreasing at this rate. It may be that the information for which I have been searching lies in a different sector of further education. It may be that the prospective technicians are not following courses related to mining, and I should be obliged if we could be informed whether this is so. If it is not so, I find it extremely difficult to understand how the proposed transformation of the collieries within the next decade is to be achieved.
My second point has perhaps already been covered. It is to express satisfaction with the insertion of Clause 6 in the Bill. As your Lordships will know, the obligation which has been placed on

1069
the electricity supply industry to give priority to the use of coal; to carry in its costs of generation the increasing costs of coal, and pass those on to consumers through the Area Boards, was a major responsible factor for the considerable increase in the price of electricity which was recently announced. This obligation to coal has meant that the Central Electricity Generating Board and the consumers of electricity have been providing a considerable subsidy for the coal industry.
I do not question the desirability of this in the basic sense, and therefore I accept without question the need for a continuing obligation by the Central Electricity Generating Board, the Area Boards and, therefore, electricity consumers to help the coal industry through its present difficulties, and I think this applies equally to the Gas Board. But I welcome very greatly the proposal within the Bill that since the changes within the coal industry are arising in large measure for wider economic and social reasons, it is right that this burden should not wholly be carried by electricity supply and gas supply, but by the general public. Therefore I strongly endorse the inclusion of Clause 6 in the Bill. Finally, may I say that I was interested in the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, because I wished to ask a number of similar questions. Perhaps I need not now ask them, as I hope they will be answered when the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, replies to the debate.
6.5 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM: My Lords, I greatly regret that unavoidable duties elsewhere prevented me from being present for the earlier stages of the debate, and to make amends I can only wait for Hansard. I should like to say at the outset how much we in the North-East, like many living in other coal mining areas, appreciate the Government's intentions and concern that lie behind the provisions of this Bill; the supplementary income and then the pension for redundant miners over 55; the financial assistance over the social cost of pit closures; even the provision for Electricity and Gas Boards to use more coal. Further, I am not unmindful of what has been done already for the coal industry, whether by way of import restrictions, tax on oil or otherwise.
1070
It is therefore with no lack of appreciation that I now urge that these monetary provisions in the Bill are not in themselves enough. Money is certainly necessary, but it is not by itself enough. What is also wanted is work, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, have said, and there is no time to lose. To the younger man who is redundant—and in Durham the net redundancy over the next three years is likely to be about 7,000 coal miners per annum—we have a duty, as a society which has benefited from these men's work and service in the past, to see that they are offered work which will give them a genuine possibility of personal fulfilment and which makes possible the wellbeing of themselves and their families.
May I say that it is not enough for us to wait until pit closures occur before plans are drawn up and decisions made; otherwise there is a disastrous gap of unemployment. Yet such is the lack of evidence of a major work policy for the North-East being vigorously planned and implemented that the miners are beginning to think—and they have said to me—that alternative work will not be provided for them too soon, because the Government fear that if it were it would empty the pits of men. That view may be utterly mistaken and utterly unfounded. It is certainly ironic. But I mention it here as evidence of the way in which confidence and trust is sagging (and has sagged) in the North-East. As the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, would agree, uncertainty about the possible nuclear station at Seaton Carew does not help, but that is another point. Leaving that aside, we need something to restore this trust and confidence, some clear unmistakable evidence of a good faith, and I suggest it might be done in terms of something that looks beyond monetary provision for redundancy, however necessary that may be, to the certain provision of new jobs.
New diversified industries are wanted and not, if I may say so, industries that depend largely on female labour, as some of the new industries in the North-East do. Further, they should be integrated industries and not branch factories out on a limb which, in a small colliery village, everyone thinks will be the first to close when the clouds approach. Where better than the North-East, which pioneered so

1071
much of our earlier technological society, born from coal mining and engineering—where better would be suited to industries and work based on modem technology? And it might well benefit, as the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, has just argued, from forward-looking concerns in the mining industry itself. This is the kind of forward-looking vision suited to its possibilities that the North-East needs. If I may put it like this, all our Peterlees look for this kind of transformation.
Here I may insert a word about Silksworth, where reaction has been so much misunderstood. I spoke recently to officials of the miners' lodge there, who had joined with the Labour Party in a memorial service to the late Lord Attlee. I found them, these members of the miners' lodge, eminently realistic and reasonable. My Lords, they are not obstinate Luddites refusing to face facts; they are not refusing to acknowledge the necessity of the major economic and industrial turmoils through which we are passing. They were not at all concerned to have the coal industry artificially protected for ever. They were not in the least averse to going to different work. They had no nostalgia for mining. But they were concerned, as I am now, that new industries of the right kind should be steered to the North-East, so that they could have the satisfaction of genuine work and be able to meet the responsibilities of their homes and their families in the communities which mining had created.
Here, like the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, and others, may I put in a special word for the older man, for whom admittedly pension and other provision is made in the Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, said, it is well that we realise the almost revolutionary character of this kind of provision. But here especially—and I repeat, I am not unappreciative of the help which the Bill gives—money is not enough. At the age of 58, men's lives will so often seem, when that pension comes, to be at an end. This is no luxury of an early retirement. As a boy I saw enough of men like these, and walked with some of them, from the mining and engineering industries, whose spirits were utterly broken, whose lives were shattered, and
1072
who trudged "down and out", from one works gate to another, yearning to be offered even a brush with which to sweep up; and they were never given it.
I know there is a great difference on a broad and lone-term view between unemployment that arises from economic depression and unemployment that arises from rapidly changing patterns of industrial life. But the man at 58, out of a job, even with financial provision such as this Bill gives, needs more than that general consolation, and also some- thing more than money can buy, in order that he and his family may have a life, rather than a bare existence. If we have broken his spirit, money will be only a charity which is a travesty of the name and an insult to the man's personality. Of course, and I hope obviously, the Churches will do all they can, along with all men of good will, to help restore a sense of purpose and hope for men like these. But my point is that the responsibility of the State cannot finish with this Bill, and perhaps I discerned in Lord Stonham's remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, that this point had, at least in part, been taken.
While, then, I welcome this Bill and its provisions, I repeat, money is not enough, especially in the North-East which has for so long been an underprivileged area, often a forgotten area, or, what is even more likely at 250 miles distance, an unknown area. We need plans for work conceived with vision and executed with energy. The men of the North-East and elsewhere must surely have the work they need and deserve, and for which they have a legitimate desire. I welcome the Bill before your Lordships' House, but more than this Bill is surely wanted to meet the problems of the men in the mining industry to-day.
6.14 p.m.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, may I offer my congratulations to the right reverend Prelate upon saying so many things which touch our hearts.
Noble Lords on this side of the House have dealt very thoroughly with several points I wanted to develop, especially the doubt cast by my noble friend Lord Blyton on this premature obsession with nuclear energy. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, touched upon the

1073
main subject of my speech which I feel now free to develop, which is the problem of the redundant mining technologists. The National Coal Board, especially during the last ten years, have gathered together a first-class team of scientists and technologists for research and development, and the results of their studies are now becoming evident. I am very concerned about keeping this team intact for use in a much wider sphere, as well as to finish the job they are doing. I will develop this point later.
Every industry depends for its success on the quality of its technical management. Each year the N.C.B. offer 100 university scholarships, 50 for students already in the industry and 50 from outside. This year they have had a very poor response indeed, which confirms the opinion given by the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley. Let us take the case of the young man of 18, with the necessary "A" levels, who to-day wishes to become a coalmining engineer. It may take him three years to graduate. He has to spend two years in a colliery doing practical work. During that time, he can study for his Home Office certificate. He cannot hold one until he has done two years' practical work underground. A brilliant "First" at the university does not entitle him to manage a colliery: he has first to pass the Home Office examination. At the same time, if he studies hard enough he can sit his Institute of Mining Engineers' examination, which he also has to pass before he becomes a chartered mining engineer. Even provided that he is possessed of all the aptitudes, and is keen and industrious, he has to work intensely for five years, by which time he is 23. Then, again, he has to wait another two years before he is at the minimum age of 25 when, by law, he is old enough to assume responsibility as a manager. In actual practice, this is the age when he joins the end of the queue—seven years after he starts his first university term. It is a long, hard training. Only those of us who have been through it know what it means. And to-day the prospects of promotion are not encouraging.
My Lords, there are some 420 collieries still working. I do not know how many redundant mining engineers there are already, but if the last Government figures are right we can expect to mine all
1074
the coal we shall need by 1975 from about half the collieries now at work. This means redundancy or retirement for some 400 mining engineers, and at least an equivalent number of mining technologists. This is not a rosy prospect for a young man of 18 wishing to become a mining engineer. He may, of course, find work abroad; but this means that someone else will benefit from the training paid for by the N.C.B. So we have a problem of redundant mining technologists, as well as of skilled technicians; and, believe me, my Lords, today's miners are very highly skilled technicians. Anyone who has been in a mechanised coalpit will have realised that after a few minutes.
All this may seem outside the scope of a Government Bill to raise the limit of borrowing by the N.C.B. I agree wholeheartedly with the Bill, but I am much concerned about the future of the National Coal Board itself. Back in 1946, over twenty years ago, I was a member of a Mineral Development Committee set up by my right honourable friend the Member for Easington under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Westwood. We worked for some two and a half years. One of the other members was the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft. I wish he were here tonight. The evidence proved that no real attempt had ever been made to assess the total mineral wealth of this country or the sea beds. We made recommendations, but any plans which might have come to fruition were scrapped because there was a change of Government in 1951.
A move has been made recently in the creation of the Institute of Geological Services, which I understand is to be sited at Nottingham and will work in close co-operation with the appropriate departments at that university. But that is not enough. It might take years to get into full swing, and we need the most comprehensive assessment of our natural resources now to save every penny on imports.
I suggest that the National Coal Board should be renamed the National Mineral Resources Board. Its scientists and technologists already welded into an effective team, can be used and expanded. We might even bring hope into the hearts of those mining engineers now awaiting

1075
the axe, and to the young mining students who are already too far committed to change their courses. The scope of the National Mineral Resources Board which I have suggested will extend to all the extractive industries—that is, to all mineral ores and the quarrying of all stone; to everything under plough depth. The training of the future mining engineers should include coal, ore bodies and quarrying. The Institute of Mining Engineers and the Institute of Mining and Metallurgy should be amalgamated into one, and their examinations should embrace a much wider curriculum. Out of 14 subjects there are only two which the metallurgist mining engineer takes and which make him slightly different from the coalmining engineer. There is but a short gap between them, and there is not such a big step towards becoming a civil engineer.
The need for evaluating our mineral resources has never been more urgent. We have the tools, the technologists and the technicians. All we need is to realise the opportunities which have to be uncovered and to organise the teams we already have. I hope we shall not make the same mistake as the Australians, when they allowed that wonderful consortium of Snowy Mountain engineers to disperse, with the monumental mineral resources discoveries just around the corner. The N.C.B. has built up resources of management accustomed to making decisions and spending money economically. It has trained geologists, geophysicists, diamond drillers, operational research men and computer staff. All these can be allied to the new Institute of Geological Science, Warren Springs Laboratory, and even the Atomic Energy Board, to have a real look at all our mineral resources. This sort of work is beyond private enterprise. There are too many restrictions.
I should like to remind your Lordships that Ireland, in the few short years since she started to encourage the development of her mineral resources, has doubled the value of that which we are producing from our mineral ore bodies, just by providing tax incentives such as we should have made and as are being made in every other mining country. Our administrators seem incapable of realising what this means. We are told that we are as well off by the various grants
1076
operating in Development Areas, all of which could be rescinded by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to-morrow. I hope to have the opportunity of raising this matter once more in your Lordships' House and, if possible, before the Chancellor has completed his Budget proposals.
I know I have exceeded my usual average of ten minutes, but this is a most important subject concerned with the future of mining engineers. So far as I know, I am the only chartered mining engineer in your Lordships' House. I do not know how many there are in the other place; in fact, I do not know of one, offhand. The miners are well-represented, but this is not so in regard to mining engineers and technologists. I have been concerned with several branches of mining, starting with coal, and I know from experience that it requires little extra training for a coal mining engineer to branch out into other forms of mining and quarrying and other spheres.
The future of the profession is one that requires urgent attention. Our energy capital lies in our fossil fuels: coal, oil, and natural gas. But so far—I want to emphasise "so far"—there have been little, if any, commercial quantities of radioactive minerals. So we must be concerned with the conservation and the economic utilisation of our present energy capital. Even the apparently staggering supplies of natural gas which appear to exist under the sea will become a wasting asset, and with any leap in the standard of living it may not last us long enough to bring nuclear energy into full capacity to take its place.
I now come to what I hope is the most important part of my speech. In suggesting wider powers for the N.C.B. to develop all other minerals, I may have given the impression that I have almost written off any future development so far as coal is concerned. I should like to correct now any such impression. In a fascinating book called Electricity without Dynamos and sub-titled The Corning Revolution in Power Generation, the distinguished physicist, Dr. John W. Gardner, describes how plants absorb solar energy to build up complex molecules from simple ones; and he shows how coal, which is the product of such processes, will behave like other giant complex molecules in releasing its energy.

1077
When these complex coal molecules are broken down again into simple molecules or atoms, the stored energy is released in the form of heat; but the release of this chemical energy could possibly he diverted directly into electrical energy, instead of heat only, and thus coal might be exploited as the material for making fuel cells.
I should like to draw attention to this remarkable development of fuel cells now, at a stage when the concept of producing electricity direct from chemical energy without dynamos is no longer a pipe dream. It has arrived, and the next decade will see fuel cells being exported to areas of the world where fossil fuels are non-existent, and the ingredients of the fuel cells can be developed from coal. Geological circumstances have blessed Britain with a complete range of coal types, many of which will lend themselves to the new material requirements of a power-hungry world. We are on the threshold of a new look, which could be as dramatic as the one which took place when we first showed the world how coal could be used to smelt iron. Mining engineers and technologists must be nurtured carefully until these developments emerge. The miner of the future will be a most highly respected technician, not the drab, almost downtrodden, creature that I remember.
Before I sit down I will touch on one of the many developments in the pipeline. Scientists in this country are hopeful of liquefying coal. They think that the bacteria and fungi which converted the undergrowth of the carboniferous jungles into coal can be stimulated to carry this process further and so liquefy the coal. Searches are in hand to find bacteria or fungi to perform this biological operation, which I understand consists of discovering an organism which will consume the free carbon in the coal at an enormous rate and to do it continuously and thus liquify coal. It is not as impossible as it may sound. The use of bacteria for the removal and recovery of phenols from coke-oven effluents is done in this way already. It started from a small laboratory experiment only about five years ago. To-day this method has developed into an industrial process which supplies the greater part of needs for phenols in this country.
1078
The immediate object is to conserve and encourage the continuation of the work of the research establishments and technologists of the National Coal Board. These dedicated men, up to now, have been working themselves out of a job. They are in the same boat as the miner. They, together with the new Institute of Geological Sciences, could expand their laboratory work to a commercial scale. Why not select mines of marginal commercial value and use them mainly for research purposes? Certain coals contain new biochemicals of great medicinal interest, but no way has yet been found to extract them on a large scale. The utilisation of whole coal faces as fuel cells for the direct conversion of chemical energy into electricity could be explored and developed. The mass production of trace metals is within the range of possibilities if working faces of coal were freely available for scientists.
The outlook is far from bleak for the mineral resources technologist and the high-grade technical operative of the future, provided that we do not allow ourselves to be bamboozled by the negative pattern of thinking in our administrative departments. In conclusion, I would say that no word in this speech has been inspired by the National Coal Board. I have never been near any of their laboratories. It is based upon my own experience and reflects a consensus of opinion among my scientific colleagues.
6.33 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it is more than 22 years since I listened in this Chamber to my first debate on coal. I have enjoyed listening to many coal debates since then, and the one thing that has always delighted me in all those debates has been the music—the music of miners' voices. We have had it to-day from my noble friends from Durham, from the Midlands and from Wales; and I was particularly pleased to note that the words have been as sweet as the music, because almost every noble Lord who has spoken about the Bill has welcomed it.
My noble friend Lord Blyton was the exception. He said that under certain conditions this Bill means the annihilation of the mining industry. My Lords, I reject that completely. I regard it as both harmful and manifest nonsense. The mining industry has a future unless, as my right honourable friend has said, it

1079
frightens itself to death. My noble friend Lord Blyton said that there is bitterness and disillusionment in the mining industry, and he was confident that no mothers or fathers would want a son of 15 to go into it because, if he did, he would only be thrown on the scrapheap at 23. That again is utterly wrong.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, asked me about training centres and about places. He apparently is not aware that this year a total of 6,126 boys were indentured under the mining apprenticeship scheme—virtually the same number as in the previous year—for a 3½-year apprenticeship: a very wide training course, finishing up with six months' full-time training at the coal face. Again, in the same year 3,900 men, including officials, engineers, craftsmen and face workers, attended mechanisation courses. And 1,451 men attended courses leading to the deputy's certificate. These are not insignificant figures, and they all refer to courses provided by the National Coal Board. These are not signs of annihilation of the mining industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley (who I regret is not able to be here to hear my reply), asked about training centre places. Three years ago there were only 3,900 places in Government training centres. To-day there are 7,800. It is not bad in three years to double the figure. It would certainly be nice if some noble Lord had got up and referred to this fact and said, "What d first-class job is being done—about twice or three times as good as any Government have ever done before!"
My noble friend Lord Blyton said that the Secretary of the Mineworkers' Federation, Mr. Will Paynter, is reported as saying that if we went on in this way we should go down in history as the Party—the Labour Party—which pioneered the permanent unemployment for miners at 55. Will Paynter should be ashamed of himself. It would be far more true to say that the Labour Party will go down to history as the Party—the first Party—which refused to allow the economic movements in industry, and particularly in the coal industry, to destroy the miners: the first to refuse to allow them to be thrown on the scrap-heap. That is true.
1080
I have a number of ex-miner friends, close friends, friends for many years, some of them who have worked with my noble friend Lord Blyton at the coal face. From 1926 to 1929 they did not have jobs. They were good men, young men, and they started walking: and they went on walking until they got to the West Country. They had to go there before they could get a job. That is why I knew them, and still know them. One of them reads every word we say in this House. It was a very different picture in those days from the picture which is outlined in this Bill. We are told that because we seek to augment an elderly miner's income, if he cannot get a job, by up to 90 per cent. of what he was earning at the pits we are pioneering permanent unemployment of miners at 55. I think it not only untrue talk, but disgraceful talk. Despite what has been said, this industry still has a future. We still want young people to go into it. It is true that it will be a totally different industry, a smaller industry, a more highly technical industry—it will be virtually and completely mechanised—but it will still be a substantial industry with a future.
I was very interested and moved by the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Durham who quite rightly said that money is not enough, that what is wanted is work and that there is no time to lose. We agree with that, and so far as lies in our power we are not losing any time. The right reverend Prelate suggested that miners in Durham thought that the Government were not providing facilities by way of factories, and so on, because if they did it would empty the pit. It is not necessary to provide facilities of that kind until they are needed. The point is that when they are needed they should be there. That was the point I made in my speech when I moved the Second Reading: that these special consultations are going on with the economic chairmen in the various regions so that if a pit is going to be closed and the facilities are not ready the closure can be re-phased. That is the whole object of that exercise. The right reverend Prelate mentioned that over the next few years there is likely to be a run-down in the Durham pits of some 7,000 men per annum. That is right, but fortunately

1081
there will not be that number of redundancies; it will be more like 2,000 redundancies per annum. It is quite a problem, and an important problem, and work must be found for those men, but the size of the problem job-wise is not 7,000 per annum.
My noble friend Lord Blyton questioned the figures for the cost of production of power at new stations, and the relative cost of the same production by nuclear energy. He questioned the figures in Table F. The estimates in Appendix 3 of the White Paper include all relevant costs, including the supply and reprocessing of nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. They also include a royalty which will cover amply all forward avoidable costs in further development work for the second nuclear power programme. In the comparison between costs of future nuclear and conventional generation there are hound to be uncertainties—we recognise that—because we are concerned with stations which will perhaps not come into production until 1973 or later, but we have made a careful assessment by trying to get the right balance between optimism and caution. It is surely inherent in the thinking of my noble friend that it would be utterly impossible for my right honourable friend, or for me, representing the Government, to stand up at the Box to advocate a policy which meant a run-down of the coal industry, unless it was absolutely inevitable and unavoidable.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, will my noble friend not agree that the nuclear costs are definitely suspect, and that the Select Committee of all Parties in the House of Commons have asked in their Report for an urgent debate in Committee to investigate nuclear costs?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of that. These matters are being considered. But, as my noble friend knows better than anyone, one cannot change these things in mid-air. We have almost completed the first nuclear programme and have embarked on the second, both of which were fully debated in this House. But the ground rules which we used to calculate the return on nuclear plant are cautious, and its higher capital costs are much more than offset by lower running costs.
I want to come to the point about Seaton Carew which was raised by my
1082
noble friend and which the right reverend Prelate also mentioned. The Government have taken no decision on this or any other station, unless the decision has already been announced, and the criteria for the decision will be those set out in paragraph 98 of the White Paper. I refer in particular to the last sentence of paragraph 98, but I shall not bother to read it out. But I would say this, in view of what my noble friend said about the Chairman of the electricity organisation. The job of that organisation is to make an economic assessment of the method of generating which will give the lowest system supply cost. The Government's job, however—and this is the assurance which I give my noble friend—is to take into account also the wider economic considerations, a very important one of which is the 10,000 jobs, where they are wanted. I say this to indicate that these matters are very much in our minds.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, am I to take my noble friend to mean that, in order for there to be a coal station the Government should declare that there will be a coal station, and that Sir Ronald Edwards's statement that unless it is a nuclear one they will not build a power station, is wrong?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, when I am trying to deal with him perfectly honestly, my noble friend should try not to put what I regard as catch questions to me. What I am saying, and what I say again, is that it is the job of Sir Ronald Edwards and his organisation to give their view of the kind of fuel necessary to produce their product at the lowest cost. It is the job of the Government, once they have that advice, to take into consideration all other factors which have a bearing on what fuel should be used; and I say again that no decision has yet been taken about this particular station.
I should like to try, as quickly as I can, to answer some of the many questions which have been put to me. One was from my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield, who objected to Clause 7 of the Bill because of its unfavourable psychological impact on the people in the mining industry. It is a proposal to increase the maximum membership of e Coal Board at a time when the industry is being run down. The intention behind this clause was to meet the

1083
situation arising from the reorganisation of the Board earlier this year, and to satisfy the need for co-ordination at regional level within the Board's organisation, and externally with other bodies operating at a regional level.
The Board have, in the Government's view, rightly shortened their internal lines of communication by eliminating their divisional tier and concentrating coalfield production into 17 areas with direct responsibility to the Board. These are natural groupings of collieries to provide areas of convenient size for efficient management, but this does not produce a regional entity for Scotland, Wales and parts of England where regional coordination is necessary—and it is fast developing in other fields. The primary role of the additional members was to give the Board the means and capacity to deal with regional problems, without losing the advantage of the more direct management structure now in operation. This was the reason behind the Government's thinking in including this clause in the Bill. But as your Lordships will be aware, my right honourable friend the Minister of Power undertook in the course of the Committee stage in another place to reconsider the matter. As a result of that, and considering also the views expressed this afternoon, the Government decided to put forward an Amendment for consideration during the Committee stage seeking the agreement of your Lordships to delete Clause 7 from the Bill.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield also asked me about extra coal tonnage under Clause 6, and about the share between electricity and gas. It is estimated that if necessary an extra 6 million tons will be burned or consumed by the electricity and gas boards, and that is the reason for the £45 million compensation. One cannot be exact about the division between gas and electricity, but it would appear that about 1 million tons will be consumed by the gas industry, and the remaining 5 million tons by the electricity industry.
My noble friend also asked me why we did not extend this beyond 1971, and also said that the time under Clause 2
1084
should be extended beyond 1971. The intention of this Bill, and particularly of Clauses 1 and 2, is to give the coal industry a breathing space so that it may realise its potential for further raising its efficiency and reducing its costs. Because of the exceptionally rapid changes which the next few years will bring, the Government decided that in the period up to 1970–71 the industry needed the further help provided by the Bill, and I think there is general agreement about that. But it would be wrong to assume that this additional coal burn will be required for a longer period than that. The point is that if we had not had this provision regarding the 6 million tons, the run-down of 35,000 a year would have meant that we should have had this extra 6 million tons still in stock.
This is the justification for one of the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, put to me; namely, is this the best way of spending this money? In our view it is, because it means we shall not have this 6 million tons in stock. The noble Lord approves the social clauses, which will not put more miners out of work in any given year, and therefore he should also approve the economic means of properly and usefully disposing of the coal which those extra men will produce.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for one minute? I was concerned at the very large part of this expenditure being spent on relatively negative purposes. I was asking whether it was not possible to use a larger part of these large sums of money for the promotion of new industry in the areas in order to provide new jobs. This was really my thought: that a good deal of this expenditure—I quite understand the purpose, and sympathise with it—seemed to be going on rather negative purposes.
LORD STONHAM: Negative, if it is negative at all, only in the sense that it is keeping at work men who otherwise would not be at work, or for whom other jobs would have to be found. That £45 million will be keeping several thousands of miners at work. I do not regard that as a negative purpose. Nor, I am sure, does the noble Lord.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear.

1085
I quite understand what the noble Lord is getting at, and I want to help him with the orderly run-down, which I recognise is difficult enough anyhow. But I should have preferred these large sums of public money to be spent on some positive, creative purpose, in order to save the more steep run-down of the industry, rather than the approach of producing unwanted coal and paying a subsidy in order to get it used. I hope that I make my point clear.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in fact I am quite sure the noble Lord and I are in agreement on this.
Large sums of money are needed under this Bill for the purposes I have explained, but, in addition, large sums of money are needed—and, indeed, are being spent—for Government training centres and for the provision of new jobs by means of new factories, by means of extra grants under S.E.T. in development areas, by means of 45 per cent. investment and property grants and by means of substantial rents rebates for firms coming into the area. These are all substantial sums of money which are to be spent in other ways, but under this Bill we need this money for these purposes.
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield also asked me how oil import costs will be put up by devaluation. I cannot give him, or my noble friend Lord Blyton, who also asked the same question, any exact answer on that point. My right honourable friend answered a Question on it in another place to-day, but he indicated that he had not yet completed his examination of the effects on oil prices of devaluation, and therefore the answer to that question must wait a little longer. But I would say that in our view the effect of devaluation on price relativities is likely to be well within the range examined in the Fuel Policy review, and I would emphasise that devaluation will not cause any major or important change in our basic assumptions, in the guidelines. That is why I said—and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, repeated it and, indeed, welcomed the fact—that the White Paper policy stands. To some extent some of the figures may be altered marginally, but we do not think considerably.
1086
My noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield also questioned my figure about the 41·5 per cent., and he used the figure of 55 per cent. It is true that, despite the protection given by the oil tax and discrimination against oil at power stations, oil has gained ground very fast over the past ten years, and has increased two-and-a-half times in proportion, mainly at the expense of coal; but with a four-fuel economy, a very sharp check has been given to this rate of growth, and in our view the 40 per cent. share now will be only 41½ per cent. in eight years' time.
My noble friend also asked me about the net cost of oil imports. Of course, there is the figure given in the White Paper of £300 million as the net cost of fuel imports. There is no secret about that. But what we also say (and there is a graph in the While Paper which my noble friend might like to look at) is that, with the growth of home refinement and the changing proportions of use of the various oil products, we expect to have a net surplus of fuel oil for export. After all, the crude oil comes in and there are all the various processes of refinery. In fact, we had hoped that this net export would have occurred much sooner; it has been slower coming than We had hoped. But this is what we are very confidently expecting for the future. My noble friends will not forget that 40 per cent. of our total use of oil is for purposes for which oil has no substitute.
My Lords, my noble friend also referred to how the scheme will work, and what the chaps will get—that is, the miners who retire at 55 and are paid up to 90 per cent. of their previous earnings before—
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: Made redundant at 55—not retired.
LORD STONHAM: I was not trying to misquote my noble friend. I mean the men who will become redundant and who will come under this scheme. The position will be that unemployment benefit, including earnings-related supplement and sickness benefit, will be offset against the supplement under the scheme. In other words, they will get that first and then it will be supplemented up to 90 per cent. of earnings. If one takes a typical case of a married man without

1087
children, where his supplemented income is to be on a level of, say, £11 6s. a week, the make-up will be like this. In weeks 3 to 26, he would get £7 6s. unemployment benefit, £2 earnings-related supplement and £2 scheme supplement—£11 6s. in all. In weeks 27 to 52 he would still get the same unemployment benefit, but he would get no earnings-related supplement, so he would get a £4 scheme supplement—making the same total of £11 6s.
After that—that is, after the first 52 weeks—for three years there would be no unemployment benefit and no earnings-related supplement, but there would be a scheme supplement, therefore, for the whole of the £11 6s. But the hardship allowances, due to accident and disablement benefit, which are State benefits, figure among certain benefits which would be offset against supplements; that is, they would be regarded as part of the beneficiary's income, but only to the extent that they are awarded or increased in amount because of redundancy. Generally speaking, redundancy will not affect the amount of those two benefits, so that in effect the men will continue to get both those benefits free of the scheme, in addition to the benefits under the scheme. I hope that I have cleared up that point.
About the scheme, however, I would say that it is intended that it should apply to men and women in the coal industry at coal mines. That does not mean opencast work, which is a different thing. But it will apply not only to miners going below, but to those in ancillary jobs—coal-washing and things like that—and therefore will include women.
LORD BLYTON: Will it include the clerks?
LORD STONHAM: No; it is not intended to include the clerks.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: In a word, it means the producers and manipulators of coal. That is what it means.
LORD STONHAM: I do not know whether you can call a man who is engaged in coal-washing a manipulator of coal. I suppose you can. It means miners and men and women employed at coal mines in jobs ancillary to production, in getting and marketing coal, but not the
1088
clerks. I apologise for leaving the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, until last. He asked why, if the 1965 prediction about the N.C.B.'s borrowing requirements were so far out, I am so confident that these are going to be all right. That is a fair question. I gave the main reasons for the increase in my opening speech; the increase in stocks and the need for more external finances than was realised in 1965, for the reason that our expectations were not realised. But we have come closer I think this time. Our reasons are given in paragraphs 128 to 131 of the White Paper. This is the best estimate that we can make. They are not fixed or immutable, any more than are the forecasts of supply and demand of the various fuels. Is it the right way to spend the money? I have dealt with this over the £200 million.
Now may I turn to the prospects for increased coal exports to Europe following devaluation. It is true that devaluation will make British coal exports cheaper, and therefore more competitive overseas. American coal exports to Western Europe—I think my noble friend Lord Blyton mentioned this—comprise substantial quantities of coking coal; whereas our coal exports are mainly for electricity generation. The average prices are not entirely comparable. There was mention of a 10s. per ton advantage in our favour; but, as I say, the prices are not comparable. The other trouble is that the U.S.A. exports are protected to some extent by existing long-term contracts. The National Coal Board hope to increase coal exports within the next three years by 2 million to 3 million tons a year.
On the question of the deterioration of coal in stock—there are 28 million tons in stock and it is being added to—I can say that it tends to suffer degradation in size; but as most of the stock will in any case comprise small coal which can be used in most modern, coal-fired power stations it does not in itself present any serious problem. The stocks themselves present a serious problem: but the selling would not if we could get a market. On this point, I think it is wholly right to say that the National Coal Board has tried very hard. My noble friend Lord Arwyn, with his great experience as a mining engineer, I think would agree that of course there are

1089
mining engineers in the Coal Board and that they do their utmost to employ their expertise. They are most dedicated men who really want to succeed. Their lives are devoted to coal.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The whole of my speech was directed towards the saving of these people; that they should not emigrate and go abroad. We want them here.
LORD STONHAM: I agree with that. We heard yesterday of the 50 doctors in America who want to come back. Perhaps they have come to agree with me. I think this country is the best in the world; I do not need to go to another country to find that out. This has been a very helpful and constructive debate, and I have tried to reply to all the questions. But I will read the debate again, and in particular I shall read carefully the speech of my noble friend Lord Arwyn because it was a highly technical one and I may have missed some of the points. I shall also read other speeches that have been made.
I should like your Lordships to be left with this thought. We believe that in this White Paper and in this Bill we are doing the best for our country. In this Bill, and within the framework of circumstances which have been enforced upon us, we are doing our best for the miners who have done so much for us. If it should prove that things work out better than our estimates, that the coal industry can be larger in 1975 than we think, it will delight us all. That is a consummation we hope to see.
On the particular aspect of good will, the right reverend Prelate said that it would have a wonderful effect in showing good will if we could bring in industries like that, to convince people that we are doing something really important, really worth while. This is of major importance. Of course, my right honourable friend the Minister will read every word of this debate. I am sure that he, too, regards this as a most important matter. I know that he and the Government will do all they can not only to show these gestures of good will—and they are not merely gestures—but to show that by constructive action we mean to make the best use of the manpower available to us.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, may I express my appreciation for the new thinking of my noble friend and his right honourable friend the Minister of Power in the suggestion that an Amendment will be brought forward at a later stage for the deletion of Clause 7?
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION BILL [H.L.]
7.5 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Government and conduct of colleges of education and other institutions providing further education]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved to add to the clause:
"(4) A local education authority may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, make an arrangement for the constitution of a single governing body for any two or more such institutions maintained by them as are mentioned in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section; and the governing body constituted in pursuance of any such arrangement shall consist of such number of persons, appointed in such manner, as the local authority may determine."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the question of grouping the governing bodies of certain establishments for further education which I mentioned in the debate at the Committee stage of the Bill on December 5. It confers powers on a local education authority, with the approval of the Secretary of State, to group together under a single governing body two or more establishments of further education maintained by it. A governing body constituted for this purpose is to consist of such number of persons, appointed in such manner, as the authority may determine. The approval of the Secretary of State is required to every grouping arrangement, and I wish to make it clear that it is his intention to use his power of approval only where the establishments concerned are of a purely local nature

1091
performing similar functions for different parts of the authority's area.
The initiative will rest with the authority, and the authority will have to satisfy him that in the particular circumstances the balance of educational advantage lies with grouping. In other cases my right honourable friend will expect, in accordance with the general intention of the Bill, that every institution will have a separate governing body which is fully identified with it and specially constituted to meet its own needs. There will be no question of using the power in the case of polytechnics or other major colleges. As your Lordships will have seen, the Amendment does not extend to colleges of education. Every college of education will have its own separate governing body. It is intended to cover only the limited class of case that I have mentioned in the further education field. A later Amendment deals with the question of grouping special schools. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, as the noble Baroness stated, she warned us of this Amendment at the Committee stage. I congratulate her on the speed with which she has produced it. It provides what I think is a sensible arrangement: that where purely local colleges are concerned they may be grouped under one governing body; and the fact that they are purely local colleges will be assured by the necessity for the approval by the Secretary of State. The noble Baroness also assured me at the last stage of the Bill that it did not in any way affect the position of colleges of education or polytechnics, and therefore I am happy to support the Amendment.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness covers almost the same ground as Amendment No. 2 in my name. Both these Amendments are concerned with the constitution of governing bodies of institutions of further education. The difference between the Amendment
1092
moved by the noble Baroness and the Amendment which I shall move in a few moments is that my Amendment goes further. The Amendment moved by the noble Baroness makes it possible to group institutions for further education under a single board of governors. The Amendment is restricted to institutions which give full-time instruction. My Amendment would make it possible for the Minister to group institutions which give part-time instruction under a single board of governors.
There are certain aspects of this matter which are a little more than merely administrative matters. I take the example of the Inner London Education Authority, which has a very large number of institutions that are giving full-time instruction, and therefore they can be grouped together conveniently under a single body of governors. I think that local education authorities would like to go a little further and make provision to group institutions which give only part-time instruction. The importance of that is that while, as I say, in London the institutions for further education are all now giving full-time instruction, they may not always be so doing. It may be that some institutions will decide to alter their curriculum and offer part-time as well as full-time courses. If that happened, the institutions would have no statutory body of governors at all, for there is no power to appoint a body of governors for an institution which gives only part-time instruction.
The effect of that would be that there would be no body to which the local education authority could delegate functions, and the authorities are anxious in suitable cases to delegate certain administrative functions to the bodies of governors of individual schools. I think we all agree that in suitable cases that would be a very desirable arrangement. It would add to the importance and the responsibilities of the bodies of governors. But under the Amendment moved by the noble Baroness that would not be possible, and I had hoped that the noble Baroness would have extended the scope to make it possible to group not only institutions which give full-time instruction but also institutions which give part-time instruction.
7.15 p.m.
LORD JACKSON OF BURNLEY: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has to some extent dealt with the question I wanted to ask, but perhaps I may be allowed to ask it nevertheless. The question is, what is the purpose of the Amendment? Is it to cover matters of local convenience administratively, or is there a deper and longer term educational objective? I have in mind that a few years ago I was privileged to be a member of a Committee under the chairmanship of Sir John Lockwood which advised the Government of Northern Ireland on the future development of its higher and further education. This was of the nature of a small Robbins Committee.
One of the recommendations we made, which I feel was perhaps the most important, was that there should be created what we called an Ulster College, which was to be a composite of a number of colleges within the further education field, covering part-time as well as full-time education. The colleges concerned were the colleges of technology, of art, of music, of domestic science and of physical education. The intention was, long-term, to bring these institutions together on a single site and to create a community or corporate body within the field of further education on a multi-college basis corresponding to the multi-faculty campus of a university. This Ulster College, the concept of which has been accepted by the Northern Ireland Government, which has acquired a site of about 120 acres for the purpose, is to be governed by a single governing body embracing the whole of these constituent colleges. So my question is: Is something of this kind in the mind of the Government in making this Amendment?
Since I was unable to attend the Second Reading debate, may I say how much I welcome the Bill and how much I welcome the fact that this—as I am sure will be the case—will help to put further education and the colleges of education in the shop window of our educational effort and achievement. As a university professor I am, of course, in no doubt about the importance of our universities: but I happen to believe that though the country could not run very effectively without university graduates, it could not run at all were it
1094
not for the efforts of a much larger number of men and women educated in different ways and for different purposes; and these are the kind contributed from our colleges of education and further education. I believe that there falls upon the colleges of further education a growing responsibility to penetrate educationally into the careers of individuals; in other words, I think their task of in-career post-experience education is going to be an enormous one, and therefore they deserve all the public recognition which they may be given.
May I say that I think it of the greatest importance to the running of these colleges that there should be identified with them in a responsible way representatives of other types of educational institutions, bit perhaps most important of all of industry and commerce. My experience leads me to feel that industry and commerce have not yet progressed anything like far enough in defining what it is they want of the educational system, and defining their responsibility to help in ensuring that this is done. I therefore think it important not merely that senior representatives of industry should be members of governing bodies, attending periodic meetings of these bodies and also being members of committees, but, what is perhaps an even more important responsibility, that they should harness the interests and efforts of their industrial and commercial colleagues quite widely in support of the work of these colleges. I believe that in this way they can help to relax a handicap which I believe we impose upon ourselves of too often treating our schools, colleges, universities, industry and commerce as if in some way they were separate and distinct, and not intimately interwoven components of continuing educational provision. Therefore, I greatly welcome the Bill and I hope that it will achieve the objectives which I have mentioned.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, for his generous welcome to the Bill. I know that he would have liked to be able to do this on Second Reading, and I am delighted to hear from him. I completely endorse what he has said. I like particularly his phrase that this will put colleges of advanced technology and

1095
further education "in the shop window". I should have liked to be able to follow this up and say that this Amendment covers the point he makes, the creation of a corporate body like the multi-faculty university, but, as my noble friend probably realised from my words, the Amendment is narrowed. It is intended, where there is a number of local colleges of a similar character, to enable them to group together under a widely representative governing body. He would appreciate that there is a difference here. So far as the scope of the governing body is concerned, the Government are at one with the noble Lord. Your Lordships may remember that on Second Reading I said that the constitution of the governing body should include exactly the kind of representative interests the noble Lord has mentioned, and my right honourable friend would fully endorse his recommendations.
Replying to the skilful and persuasive speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, suggesting that my Amendment would make the moving of his one unnecessary, I would repeat the words that I used on Second Reading:
"The Bill is expressly limited to institutions providing full-time education. It thus excludes evening institutes and small establishments without any full-time courses, of which there are a considerable number and for which it is thought inappropriate to impose a statutory requirement that they shall be conducted in accordance with instruments and articles of government."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 23/11/67, col. 1172.]
And perhaps this will help with the noble Lords point about what would happen if an institution were to change from full-time to part-time education:
"There is nothing in the Bill to prevent local education authorities from making or continuing their own governmental arrangements for such establishments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23/11/67, col. 1172.]
Perhaps I can reply a little more fully when the noble Lord moves his Amendment, though I am afraid that I can hold out no hope that I shall be able to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.23 p.m.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved to add to the clause:
"( ) The Secretary of State may at any time after consultation with the local education
1096
authority by order direct that the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply to such other establishments or institutions for further education as he may determine."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the two later Amendments standing on the Marshalled List in my name have been put down to meet certain administrative difficulties which local education authorities have experienced in administering the principal Act, which is of course the Education Act 1944. I move this Amendment in rather depressing circumstances, because the noble Baroness has already told me that she is not going to accept it. The Amendment deals with circumstances in which a body of governors may be appointed. The Bill is limited in its operations to those institutions for further education which offer courses in full-time instruction. I was hoping to persuade the noble Baroness to agree to enlarge that field a little by including also institutions which give part-time instruction.
I am not quite clear what the noble Baroness's objections to doing that are likely to be. I thought she said that it will be open to local education authorities to form their own bodies of governors. That will not get over the fundamental difficulty that there will be statutory authority for the formation of such boards. Unless there is statutory authority for the formation of bodies of governors it will not be possible for local education authorities to do what they want to do and delegate to the governors some of the functions in connection with the management of the school. I should have thought it was a good thing that a body of managers, or indeed a group of managers of primary schools, should be delegated some responsibility for certain of the administrative arrangements for running the schools. That will not be possible unless this subsection is amended on the lines I suggest. I hope that on second and wiser thoughts the noble Baroness will agree with what I propose. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Ilford.)
LORD HEYCOCK: My Lords, may I say that I was disappointed that I was not present at the Second Reading of this Bill, and I am grateful to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their kind

1097
references to me. On reflection, I should like to comment on this Bill. I served on the Weaver Committee, but, to put it clearly, I was by way of being "the odd man out", for though I sat on the Weaver Committee I felt I could not sign the Report because I could not agree on the question of academic freedom as between the colleges of advanced technology and the local education authorities. But I have since reflected on the Bill, and I am now perfectly clear that on that occasion I was mistaken. I would have said so on Second Reading had I been able to do so.
In my own education authority we have proceeded to set up a management body along the lines which the noble Lord, Lord Jackson of Burnley, has indicated. If I may, I would say to him that I hope that the universities will take much more interest in linking with the colleges of advanced technology under this Bill than they have done previously. In many cases the colleges have been completely out on a limb, and I hope that this new conception in this field will yield that greater link between the colleges and the B.A. degree which will link them more closely with universities and help them to work together in that spirit which should be basic in the structure of our educational system.
I wanted to make that short statement. I commend the Bill and as chairman of a large education committee I shall do everything I can to see that it is implemented, in the college of education stage and in the college of further education where we shall have all the interests necessary to make the college a real college for the community.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Heycock for what I think is his maiden contribution, which I am sure all noble Lords were delighted to hear. His reputation in the field of education in South Wales is well known. There is no question that Her Majesty's Government endorse fully the words of my noble friend. The link between the universities and the colleges of education is something that needs to be strengthened, and I am sure that all noble Lords will hope, with me, that this Bill will help to bring about this strengthening.
1098
To the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, I would say that I should have liked to be able to reply in a different way, but I must say that my right honourable friend does not think it desirable to provide in the way that the noble Lord's Amendment would for a potentially very wide extension of the class of institutions to which the Secretary of State could make the Bill apply, and believes that it is best left to the local education authorities to decide what arrangements they wish to make for governing such institutions and what delegated powers they wish to entrust to them.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, will probably say that they need direction, but I would ask him to appreciate that this is a Bill on very narrow lines, and this perhaps is not the best way of dealing with the problem with which he has presented us this evening. I hope, therefore, that he will accept my assurance that I will discuss this matter further, and be willing to withdraw the Amendment at this stage.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Haycock, on his maiden speech, and say that I hope to hear from him again on an occasion that gives greater play to his oratory. He has a great name in the part of the world from which I come for all that he has done for education. As I say. I hope we shall hear from him at greater length on another occasion.
I hope also that the noble Baroness will carefully consider what my noble friend Lord Ilford has said. He certainly put his point in a most persuasive fashion. If from an administrative point of view there are advantages to be gained from grouping colleges of further education, which may not be full-time establishments, I hope she will consider whether it would not be an advantage to have it in the Bill.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I, too, should like to join in offering my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Haycock, on his maiden speech. I am sure that as his local education committee proceed with the organisation of further education in the place from which he comes, and begin to set up the bodies of governors, they will feel themselves very much handicapped by the fact that they cannot include institutions which

1099
give only part-time and not full-time instruction. I must confess that I am disappointed that the noble Baroness was not able to go a short step further than she has gone, but in the light of the assurance she has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ILFORD LORD ILFORD moved to add to the clause:
"( ) For the purposes of this section the maintenance by a local education authority of an establishment or institution of further education shall be deemed to include defraying all the expenses of maintaining the establishment or institution."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with a much simpler and more straightforward matter. There is not in the principal Act any definition of the meaning of "maintained" in regard to institutions of further education. That has proved in the administration of the principal Act to be a difficult defect. There are many institutions which derive their funds from a number of different sources. Some receive part of their funds from the local education authority; some have endowments and other forms of income. The schools which are not entirely dependent on the local education authority are inclined to claim that they are maintained schools. The local authorities would welcome a definition which would enable them to give with some authority a decision in those cases where that claim is made by a school which does not derive all its funds from the local education authority. They think that that definition should be restricted to an institution where all the funds of the institution, and not only part of them, are derived from the local education authority. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Ilford.)
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has explained the purpose of his Amendment; namely, that it is intended to bring about that where an institution which is not, within the meaning of the Education Act 1944, maintained by a local education authority has the whole of its running expenses met by a grant from the authority, it should be treated for the purposes of this Bill as though it were
1100
so maintained and so brought within its scope. The main effect of that would be to deprive the institution of the most important attribute, its voluntary status, requiring its instrument of government to be made by order of the local education authority, and its articles of government also to be made by the local education authority, subject to the Secretary of State's approval. My right honourable friend does not think it is desirable to make a major change in the status of certain colleges by means of this Bill. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will consider this point, and perhaps withdraw the Amendment.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, the purpose of the Amendment, of course, is to restrict the definition of "maintained" to those institutions which derive all their funds from the local education authority.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: That, in fact, is the group already covered by the Bill. As I understand it, the noble Lord wishes to extend it to those which receive grant aid and are not fully maintained.
LORD ILFORD: No. The difficulty is that schools which do not derive all their funds from the local education authority claim to be maintained schools. What we should like is to have that definition precluded. Perhaps the noble Baroness will look at this point again.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance to the noble Lord.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, in my view, the Amendment is not very clear. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, is now driving at, but I do not think it really says that in the Amendment. I wonder whether we could perhaps get together later and draft a better Amendment.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I think it is the fact that, as the Amendment stands, it would have an effect which the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, would not want in connection with these establishments for which he is so concerned.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness will consult with her advisers again. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Government and conduct of special schools]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, this Amendment is simple and straightforward. It confers power on a local education authority to group together under a single governing body two or more special schools maintained by it. A governing body constituted for this purpose is to consist of such number of persons, appointed in such manner as the authority may determine. The approval of the Secretary of State is not required to the grouping together of special schools. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
("(3A) A local education authority may make an arrangement for the constitution of a single governing body for any two or more special schools maintained by them; and the governing body constituted in pursuance of any such arrangement shall consist of such number of persons, appointed in such manner, as the local authority may determine.")—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD ILFORD: Here again the noble Baroness and I are so close to one another that it seems a pity that we cannot join hands. This Amendment deals with special schools, and makes it possible for the local education authority to group two or more special schools under a body of managers. Here again the local education authorities would like to go a little further—they would like to be able to group special schools with primary schools, which could be conveniently carried out. Of course they have to be in convenient situations. It would have the great advantage that the treatment of special children is changing, and the local education authorities are anxious, so far as they can, to get rid of segregation between special children and the normal children who attend the primary schools. If they were able to group the special school with the primary school to which normal children go, I think it would help the special children to get rid of that sense of segregation which they feel when they are attending a special school. At least the local education authorities are experimenting in this direction and they would be glad of the opportunity to see whether the grouping of the special schools with the normal primary schools under the same body of managers might
1102
help to remove that sense of segregation which special children feel to-day.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.41 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I think I have already explained the purpose of this Amendment, which is not very obvious when one reads it, because it is based upon a reference to two sections of the principal Act. This Amendment proposes to leave out the reference to Section 21 of the principal Act and to substitute for it a reference to Section 20 of that Act. Section 20 provides power for the local education authority to group the managers of primary schools, and if the Amendment were adopted and Section 20 substituted for Section 21, it would make it possible for the local education authorities to group special schools with the normal primary schools, which is what they want to do. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("21 of the Education Act 1944") and insert ("20 of the Education Act 1944 (grouping of schools under one management), of section 21 of").—(Lord Ilford.)
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, has said we are so close that he would like us to move a little closer, and I am disappointed to have to say that I cannot accept this invitation, even in relation to this Amendment, with which we have sympathy. As the noble Lord pointed out, the Government Amendment was designed to confer power on a local education authority to group together under a single governing body two or more special schools maintained by it, whereas the noble Lord's Amendment is designed to extend the arrangement so that special schools can also be grouped with county primary or secondary schools.
It is the hope of the Secretary of State that the local education authorities will try to find, as governors of special schools, persons who have a particular knowledge of, and concern for, the needs of handicapped children which could not normally be expected of the governors of ordinary schools. He thinks this is less likely to be achieved if the governors concerned are required to extend their interests over a wider range of schools. Perhaps I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, that

1103
in my experience quite often the people who are in fact governors of the one type of school are also the governors of the special school, but I am sure he will appreciate the point made in this connection by my right honourable friend.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, at this stage I have no alternative but to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Supplemental]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, this Amendment does three things. In the first place, it enables a local education authority which has made an arrangement grouping together two or more establishments of further education or special schools to bring that arrangement to an end at any time. When this is done it will be necessary to establish under either Clause 1 or Clause 2 a governing body for each establishment or special school which was included in the group. Next, the Amendment provides that while a grouping arrangement is in force, and there is a governing body appointed under it, there shall be no separate governing body for each of the establishments or special schools concerned. Thirdly, the Amendment secures that for legal purposes a governing body constituted in accordance with a grouping arrangement shall be the governing body of each of the establishments or special schools included in the group and that a member of such a governing body shall be a governor of each of those establishments or schools. This is significant in particular in relation to the statutory provisions specified in subsection (2) of Clause 3. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) Every arrangement made under subsection (4) of section 1 or subsection (3A) of section 2 of this Act may be terminated at any time by the local education authority by which it was made; and while such an arrangement is in force with respect to any establish-ments—

(a) the foregoing provisions of this Act as to the constitution of the body of governors shall not apply to those establishments; and

1104

(b) for the purposes of any enactment the governing body constituted in accordance with the arrangement shall be deemed to be the body of governors of each of those establishments, and references to a governor in any enactment shall, in relation to each of those establishments, be construed accordingly.")—(Baroness Phillips.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Commencement]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I will move this and the following Amendment together. The Amendments are consequential on those already made and are necessary so as to make the subsection applicable to grouping arrangements as well as to instruments of government and articles of government made under the provisions of the Bill. Subsection (2) of Clause 4 will enable a local education authority to make an instrument of government, articles of government and, as now to be amended, a grouping arrangement before they become subject to a definite duty to do so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 7, after ("establishment") insert ("and any arrangement under this Act for the constitution of a single governing body for two or more establishments").—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 10, after ("instrument") insert ("or arrangement").—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eight o'clock.