Lords Sitting of 12 August 1966

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield

PROPOSED AFRICAN TRANSPORT INSTITUTE
11.7 a.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the present position regarding the proposal of the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa to establish an African Transport Institute at university level; what action they propose taking to ensure that the host country is a member of the Commonwealth in Africa; and whether they consider there is a need for such an Institute directed towards a concept of co-ordination of effort in the field of transport.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, the Secretariat of the Economic Commission for Africa has been seeking the views of interested Governments, including Her Majesty's Government, at official level, on the desirability of establishing such an Institute. Her Majesty's Government recognise the value of transport studies in Africa, but think that the proposal for a separate institute must be weighed against the possibility of expanding existing facilities in universities and technical colleges. The decison whether such an institute should be established, and if so where, will be for the Commission as a whole.
LORD MERR1VALE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that reply, but in view of the need for developing and improving the transport system of individual African countries and groups of countries, and realising the shortage of technically qualified and managerial personnel, would not the
1922
noble Lord agree that these aims could best be achieved by a centralised institution of higher education catering for middle and higher cadres whose concept would be directed to the co-ordination of transport teaching taking in the various forms of transport?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we recognise the importance of transport in any developing country or continent. There are, as I have said, arguments both for an institute and for the expansion of existing facilities in institutes of higher education in Africa. We feel that transport studies need the collaboration of a number of separate academic disciplines; for example, engineering and economics. These are likely to be available in the existing universities and colleges, and we rather think that they should be expanded.

LICENSING OF AIRLINE CO-PILOTS
11.11 a.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, would it be in order for me to ask the Questions standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, as the noble Lord is not here, so that the Answers may appear in the OFFICIAL REPORT rather sooner than they will if we do not deal with the Question to-day?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I think the answer must be that the decision lies with the House. I should hope that it would be in order, unless the House thinks otherwise.
LORD HAWKE: Then, my Lords, may I beg leave of the House to ask the first Question which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on the Order Paper?
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their intention to require co-pilots of aircraft above 12,500 lb. and less than 45,000 lb. all-up weight to hold airline transport pilots' licences, as opposed to commercial pilots' licences called for under existing regulations.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES): My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord stepped in and has given me the opportunity to answer, as I have done a lot of work on this Question. Furthermore, I must declare a kind of remote interest, because I am a member of a flying club which could be affected by the Question which follows this one.
In answer to the first Question, the Civil Aviation Department of the Board of Trade has recently requested the views of airline operators and others on the question of raising the qualifications of co-pilots of large public transport aircraft. The significance of the proposed changes is, first, that for any public transport aircraft above 5,000 lb. all-up weight the co-pilot must have the same aircraft type rating on his licence in respect of the type of aircraft concerned as the captain. Secondly, for public transport aircraft over 45,000 lb. all-up weight the co-pilot must possess a senior commercial pilot's licence or an airline transport pilot's licence. The comments of the bodies consulted will naturally be taken into account before any changes are made in the statutory requirements.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I thank the noble Lord very much for burning the midnight oil; although, as he is fully aware, the Answer is far beyond my head.
LORD WILLIAMSON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that to-day is a very important day for him, in so far as it is his birthday, and also his wedding anniversary, and that we should all like to offer to himself and to his good lady our very good wishes and hearty congratulations?
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, may I, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, offer equally cordial greetings to a Minister who is very much a friend of this House?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I receive those greetings in the spirit in which they were given, which was very nice indeed, and I hope that they are a precursor to a speedy conclusion of our Business.

CIVIL AVIATION FLYING TESTS
11.13 a.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government:—

(1) whether they will instruct the Civil Aviation Flying Unit examiners to adopt a more flexible attitude when asked to carry out flying tests after 5.00 p.m. or at week-ends, and thus help to relieve the acute shortage of qualified pilots, and

(2) whether they will authorise chief flying instructors of approved flying schools to carry out general flying tests for the issue of commercial pilots' licences, thus relieving the pressure on the Civil Aviation Flying Unit examiners.]

LORD RHODES: The answer to the first part of the Question is, No, my Lords. The attitude of the flight examiners is not inflexible, and in fact they do frequently work after 5 p.m. The Unit itself suffers from the shortage of pilots. The staff are being used to the best advantage on the many tasks they have to perform. The waiting time for flight tests has been reduced from about three weeks to about seven to ten days in average conditions. Changes have been made in the test booking arrangements in order to make them more flexible, and further changes which will provide for provisional bookings will improve the situation still further. These should enable the candidate to arrange his test well in advance and as soon as possible after completing his training.
The answer to the second part of the Question is also, No, my Lords. Although tests for the renewal of licences and ratings have already been delegated to authorised examiners, it is essential that the initial test for professional pilots' licences should be conducted by the Board's flight examiners in order to ensure adherence to uniform standards; and I think everybody would agree with that. The Civil Aviation Department is,

1925
however, considering whether it is possible to ease the present problem by combining the general flying test with the flying test for the instrument rating. This method is about to be tried out and, if satisfactory, will be made general.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for his reply. It seems that these pilots get their tests rather more quickly than we motor drivers do.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BILL
11.15 a.m.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith. It may be for the convenience of the House if I move this Motion formally, so that the main discussion may take place on the Motion, That this House doth not insist on the Amendment, which I propose to move in respect of each of the Amendments.
Moved, That the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendments be considered forthwith.—(Lord Rhodes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[The references are to Bill (69) as first printed for the House of Lords. The Commons Reason is printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENTS
(No. 1.)
Clause 1. page 1, line 17, at end insert—
"(c) for carrying on the business of a hotel or a restaurant."
(No. 2.)
Clause 1, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
"(f) the extraction of timber and works ancillary thereto."
The Commons disagreed to these Amendments for the following Reason:
Because they involve a charge on public funds, and the Commons do not offer any further Reason, trusting the above Reason will be sufficient.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, your Lordships will have seen that the House of Commons Reason for disagreeing to
1926
this Amendment was one of Commons Privilege. I am sure that noble Lords will accept this Reason, but I should like this morning to make a few very brief points of substance against the Amendment, and I hope that after my explanation noble Lords will not insist on the Amendment.
We had a fairly lengthy debate on this matter at the Committee stage, and I do not wish to go over what has been so often reiterated both here and in another place; otherwise, I should come under the Commons odium of tedious repetition. The Government cannot accept this Amendment, because it breaches the whole principle of discrimination in favour of manufacturing industry. It would be invidious to single out one service from all the others. The modification of the original Amendment at the Report stage in the House of Lords by deleting the reference to "licensed premises or other like establishment" has scarcely any narrowing effect, since the Board of Trade are advised that the words "hotel or restaurant" have so wide a meaning that most boarding-houses, transport cafés and pubs, as well as tourist hotels and restaurants, would be covered.
The Government, however, are sympathetic to the hotel industry and are trying to help in other ways. In common with other service industries it will get the new high rate of initial allowances. The development areas now include large tourist areas, and hotels there will qualify for 25 per cent. building grants. In addition, the Government have recently announced development loans for major capital expenditure on constructional work or fixed equipment, when that will play a significant part in attracting visitors from overseas to the hotels concerned. That is my brief statement on the position as it is. I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment No. 1 to which the Commons have disagreed.—(Lord Rhodes.)
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, we on this side of your Lordships' House are deeply disappointed that the Government have been unable to see

1927
their way to accept our Amendment. It is, of course, possible to argue, as the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, has done, that our Amendment was cast in such wide terms that transport cafes, boarding-houses, et al, were all included. But if the Government had had any will to accept the spirit of our Amendment, they could have devised a definition of their own choosing which would have excluded the (shall we say?) obvious absurdities of the transport cafes and the smaller-boarding houses, but made sure that the hotel industry as a whole would have benefited properly.
As I say, we are very disappointed. I do not think it worth while to rehearse the arguments yet again—they are well known to your Lordships—but I should like to place on record the deep disappointment of noble Lords on this side of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendment No. 2, to which the Commons have disagreed. I will not again go over the Commons' Reason for disagreeing to this Amendment, but will go straight to the few brief remarks that I wish to make. Cutting down timber is essentially the harvesting of a crop and does not fall within the scope of the Bill, which is concerned with manufacturing, construction and mining. The needs of forestry should be considered as a whole, in the same way as those of agriculture and fisheries, and on this basis the Government do not consider that in the present economic circumstances this industry falls within the category of those requiring the highest priority for further special Government assistance. Forestry already receives some financial assistance; the position is regularly reviewed, and I can promise noble Lords opposite that the situation will be carefully watched. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on the said Amendment No. 2 to which the Commons have disagreed.
—(Lord Rhodes.)
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, here again, we on this side of the House are very disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to accept our
1928
Amendment, or the spirit of it. We thought that it was a good case. It was argued well, both in your Lordships' House and in another place. I will not go over the arguments again, but I will use this opportunity to say something to the Government. There is one thing for them to learn, and it is that they ought occasionally to accept an Opposition Amendment. It can do more to sweeten the Opposition than almost anything else, as we found during our thirteen years of office. We worked for two long Committee days in this House on this Bill—a pretty poor Bill, at that—in a sincere effort to improve it. After those two days' work here, the Government have not seen fit to accept even one of our Amendments. We are deeply disappointed. We hope that they have learnt their lesson, and that next Session some of our Amendments will be accepted.
LORD RHODES: I take the noble Lord's point. I only wish the noble Lord could realise and know the struggle that I had in trying to persuade other people.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONTROL OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT (DESIGNATION OF AREAS) ORDER 1966
11.24 a.m.
LORD RHODES: I am busy this morning, my Lords. I beg to move that the Control of Office Development (Designation of Areas) Order 1966, copies of which were laid before this House on July 20, be approved. I do not intend to make a long speech, but I must explain what is in the Order.
This Order, which came into operation on July 21, extends the control of office development beyond the Metropolitan Region and the Birmingham conurbation, so that it now covers the whole of the East Midland, West Midland, South-East and East Anglia economic planning regions. The Order is not retrospective. Office developments for which planning applications had been made before July 21 do not require an office development permit, though some of them may be affected by the impending reduction to £50,000 of the limit above which building control will apply. The effect of the Order is

1929
that applications for planning permission made on or after July 21 for office developments in excess of the exemption limit of 3,000 square feet have to be accompanied by an office development permit to be effective.
I need hardly remind the House that the extension of the office control was one of the measures announced by the Prime Minister in another place on July 20. These measures were designed to reduce the general pressure of demand on the economy, and to restrain less essential work in both the public and private sectors. In the private sector, it was announced that when the Building Control Bill had received the Royal Assent the Minister of Public Building and Works would make an Order reducing the cost limit above which a project is subject to control from £100,000 to £50,000. It was then said that this measure would be supplemented by a tighter control on office building. This tighter control is introduced by the present Order.
The extension of the geographical area subject to the office control means that more projects will be subject to control than if the extended building control alone had been relied upon. Office projects costing £50,000 (and thus subject to building control) are usually above 10,000 square feet in size, while those covered by the Control of Offices Order can be as small as 3,001 square feet. Office buildings which receive an office development permit will be exempt from the building control, so that there will be no duplication of control, except where an office development permit is granted for a mixed development. In a mixed development, only those buildings which contain more than 3,000 square feet of office space will be exempt from the building control.
Now, my Lords, the reason for the Order. The Order extends the office control to areas surrounding the congested areas of the Metropolitan Region and the Birmingham conurbation, which have already been controlled for a year or more. Up to now, it has been possible to develop offices just outside the Metropolitan Region or the Birmingham conurbation if an office development permit within them has been refused. By this considerable widening of the area in which a permit is required, we are intensi-
1930
fying the relative priority accorded to the development areas. Moreover, it also allows us to ensure that those office developments which must take place within the controlled area do not occur in places which are already congested, or where labour resources are already strained. The area to which the office control now applies is virtually the same as the area in which the control of industrial development is most comprehensive. In this area, industrial development certificates are required for smaller industrial development than elsewhere. It is logical, at a time like this, to control office development throughout the same area.
By operating these controls—I should like to emphasise that they are not bans—we can, over a wide range of industrial and commercial activity, ensure that regard is paid to the various priorities which are established in the national interest. The distribution of employment, the expansion of exports, the encouragement of productivity and economy in the use of resources are all relevant in operating the control of office location, just as they are in operating the control of industrial location. The measure is designed to improve the balance of our economy as a whole, and I hope that the Order is acceptable to the House.
My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Control of Office Development (Designation of Areas) Order 1966, be approved.—(Lord Rhodes.)
11.30 a.m.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, the noble Lord has introduced this Order with his customary lucidity, and we are naturally grateful for the clear explanation he has given of the way this Order is intended to work and the reasoning which lies behind it. I could not help but reflect on these matters during the last few minutes and remind myself of how the Socialist so-called thinkers of the post-war period have always had a pathological hatred for three things: cinemas, petrol stations and offices. Their writings and speeches are studded with exuberant attacks on Odeon luxury cinemas where hospitals should be built, and on luxurious petrol stations where houses for the people should be built, and, of course,

1931
we have always known that they just hate the sight of offices. So we know how much they enjoy passing through a control measure of this sort—which is not even a ban, as the noble Lord has pointed out, but a control—so that everybody must come cap in hand with "Please may I have my little office?". And everybody can pontificate about it and graciously give permission or not and keep busy handing out or refusing permits.
This is the Socialist system as applied in Britain, and it is as well that we should be aware of this creeping Socialism which is coming about. To-day we are dealing with only a relatively small Order, but it is one more example in the ever-lengthening list of Socialist measures which are being applied to this country. The fascinating thing about it is that while the Socialists hate offices, they love the paper work that goes on in offices, and are always creating more and more paper work, so that, not altogether surprisingly, they are in the position of restricting offices but increasing office work. And something will have to give. The Government, being true to themselves, are naturally all the time increasing the number of civil servants. The number is now something like 11,000 above that when we left office.
A NOBLE LORD: It is 15,000 up.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: It is now 15,000—it goes up very quickly. We are told that it is because they are all doing necessary work. They are doing work made necessary by a Socialist Government. It has been estimated that one civil servant normally creates office work for five other people in municipal offices or business offices or professional offices of one sort or another. So, if I can get my sum correct, 14,000 civil servants have automatically created some 70,000 extra jobs, all of which have to be performed in offices.
I have mentioned one or two of these. There are those concerning office development permits themselves, industrial development certificates, the working out of investment grants; there is the enormous amount of office work generated over the country in connection with the selective employment tax, collecting it and then the even more complicated arrangements to be worked out for
1932
getting refunds, to make sure that one firm is not getting too much and another too little. A vast army of people will be involved. There is no escaping this additional office work in arranging for refunds and then checking firms' returns to see that they have not cheated, and so on.
There is no point in saying that a lot of this work can be transferred to the development areas, for it cannot, because the firms in the South must do their office work near their own headquarters. If this control is to mean anything, it may well mean that many people will not be able to have the office space they require. But we know also that there is a first-class and massive deflation on the way. That means that there will be some restriction of activity. The interesting thing we are going to observe in the coming months is: which is going to win the race? Will the increase in the paper work be greater than the extent of the Government deflation? We may find that nobody wants to build new offices because the deflation is so great. On the other hand, the inflation of Government-inspired paper work may create a great demand for office space in the very areas that are now to be controlled by this Order.
I thought that your Lordships would not object to my making these observations on the general principles which lie behind this Order. I would not suggest that we divide the House in protest this morning, but I should at any rate like to register a protest on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House in regard to this further example of bureaucratic Socialism.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, it would be inconsistent for me not to vote for this Order, because I was one of the Members who took a leading part in voting against my own side on the question of development of offices in London where there was not sufficient transport. But I believe that this is closing the stable door long after the horse has bolted, because the damage has been done; the offices have gone up; the local authorities have all built their new palaces, and so on. In my view, it will not be long before we have a complete collapse of the housing programme and the Government will be praying for

1933
people to put up offices to employ the builders, to give them something else to do.
My noble friend detailed one or two objects of detestation by the Socialists. I should like to turn for a second to the other side, and mention a sacred cow, that is, hospitals. In my own county, in the City of Brighton, every consultant and doctor in the place, and most people who have studied the scheme, have taken very strong objection to the proposal by the Regional Hospital Board to spend vast sums of money on the redevelopment of existing hospitals, preferring to put in its place a much less costly scheme—and one which, they claim, is much better—next to the new university. Debates have been held on this but the Ministry of Health seem absolutely deaf and blind to all protestations. I merely instance this as the opposite of the office policy.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, noble Lords on this side of the House are accustomed to having three objects of detestation: one, offices; two, cinemas; and the third, petrol stations. May I add that many of us have also a peculiar detestation of betting offices, casinos and bingo clubs? Therefore our detestation of cinemas is peculiarly directed to cinemas which have been turned into bingo clubs. We regard this, I think I may say, as a heritage of a Conservative Government with which we believe the Government in power will, in due course, deal.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, may we have a statement of Government policy that they are going to close down all the bingo halls?
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, following the remarks of the noble Baroness, could the Minister tell us whether betting offices are included in the definition of office development under this Order? Secondly, following my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale, may I say that I, as someone living in one of the more distant parts of England, am only too glad when I see any effort made to distribute industry and other services—including offices, important Government offices like the office of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance—all over the country, instead of
1934
having the whole lot concentrated in or near London. There is sense in that. But what noble Lords must remember is that offices, in order to work efficiently, depend on the Post Office and the postal services; and in this country, unfortunately, the postal services are getting steadily worse.
As any noble Lord who lives in the North of England knows, it is now quite impossible to rely on a daily service between the North of England and London; it is impossible to rely on delivery the following morning of even a letter (I am not speaking of parcels) posted the previous evening. Because of this state of affairs, a great deal of the effort which is now spent in trying to move offices out of London will be completely outweighed by the fact that the people manning these offices have to use messengers in motor cars to carry their mail, because they cannot rely on the Post Office. I would urge the Government to pay particular regard to the efficiency of the postal services, because it goes hand in hand with what they are now trying to further. If they do not maintain an efficient postal service all they are doing now will be disadvantageous and not an advantage to the country.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I shall not attempt to follow the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, in what he said about cinemas; but, if I may, I would take up with him one of the objects which he said that Socialists detest, cinemas. The noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, has been a distinguished President of the Board of Trade and I am sure he will remember that one of his distinguished predecessors, the present Prime Minister, helped to put the cinema industry on its feet again after the war by setting up the Eady levy, the National Film Finance Corporation and so on. As a result, and with American co-operation, this country has become, some twenty years later, one of the most important centres of film production in the world.
LORD BOWDEN: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether this Order which he has announced covers the building of offices for universities? I am about to embark on the construction of a block which might reasonably be designated as

1935
a block of offices for the dons. Will it, or will it not, come under the Order which my noble friend has announced to the House?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I listened with delight to the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, and I am sure that he now feels better. I felt better for having listened to him. Up to that point I was getting ready for a rest. I can assure the noble Lord that I have no hatred in my bosom at all, and I do not know that I ever have had. I have on occasions been controversial, but not to the extent to which the noble Lord went. Nor am I going to follow him and make categorical accusations of what the Tories did or anything like that. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that if we had not had the controls we should just not have had any open stable door—the stable walls would have been down. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I would say that I do not claim to know anything about the Post Office, except how much it costs for stamps, and so I cannot answer the point he raised. The noble Lord mentioned betting offices; they are in, but they are generally below 3,000 square feet.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure me that he is not going to decant all the London betting offices into the North of England?—because London can keep them for itself.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I do not think this problem would have been anything like the size it is had it not been for the extension allowed by the Government before ours.
I am obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, for rallying to my assistance, and to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi,
1936
for dragging in the question of cinemas during the few brief minutes before we sit down to await the Royal Commission. I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, is not here to add his voice to the general appeal. The answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bowden, is, Yes, universities are in. With those few brief observations and answers, I hope that noble Lords will permit this Order to proceed on its way.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WHITLEY BAY PIER BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ROYAL COMMISSION
12 noon.
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:
Prices and Incomes,
Industrial Development,
Pier and Harbour Orders (Blackpool Pier and Great Yarmouth New Britannia Pier) Confirmation,
Whitley Bay Pier.
House adjourned, for the Summer Recess, at nine minutes past twelve o'clock