Sitting of 25 April 1967

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD (No. 2) BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.
  BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS (No. 2) BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  Mr. Brian Batsford discharged from the Committee of Selection; Mr. Francis Pym added.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOUSING

    Local Authority Tenants (Racial Discrimination)
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what consideration he has given to the Political and Economic Planning report on racial discrimination, a copy of which has been sent to him; and if, while legislation is being considered, he will send a circular to local authorities advising them to end any discriminatory practices in the allocation of housing and to use housing need as the sole criterion.
    The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood): The report is being studied as part of the Government's general review of the Race Relations Act. Decisions on the need for legislation or further advice will be taken when the review has been completed. The Government have made it
    1298
    clear that they expect local authorities to ensure that their policies for allocating tenancies do not discriminate against immigrants.
    Sir G. Sinclair: While welcoming that reply, may I ask the Minister to recognise that this discrimination in local authority housing amounts to the public treatment of Commonwealth immigrants as second-class citizens, and will he take all steps possible to put an end to this?
    Mr. Greenwood: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said. I hope he will accept that I detest racial discrimination as much as he does, and if there is solid evidence of racial discrimination on the part of local authorities we shall certainly take it into account in our general review of the need for legislation.
    Mr. Russell Kerr: Has my right hon, Friend's attention been drawn to the remarks, reported in this morning's Press, by Sir William Carron on the subject of racial discrimination against immigrants, and will he publicly dissociate himself and the Government from those remarks?
    Mr. Greenwood: I think that that goes rather wide of the Question, but I have said how much I personally deplore any sort of racial discrimination.

    City Centres (Redevelopment and Conversion Schemes)
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in view of the special treatment accorded to development areas and the Government's acceptance of the Plowden principle of educational priority areas, what proposals he has for establishing similar principles for dealing with housing in the twilight areas of the main city centres by way of redevelopment or conversion schemes.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): The Government have already given priority to areas with specially heavy slum clearance and overcrowding problems in their housing programme, and special attention will be given to twilight areas in the review of legislation relating to older houses, and their environment.
    Sir G. Sinclair: I welcome that reply, but may I ask the Minister to let the House know at an early date what extra funds he is seeking to give effect to the promise he has now made?
    Mr. Mellish: A review is taking place. We are having consultations, not only with local authorities, but with all those interested in this problem, and as the hon. Gentleman probably knows a special study has just been completed by the sub-committee of our Housing Committee. I hope that later in the year my right hon. Friend will be in a position to say clearly what he intends to do.
    Mr. Graham Page: In his original reply the hon. Gentleman mentioned the review of legislation. When is it likely that the chicken will come out of this egg?
    Mr. Mellish: I hope in the not too distant future, and I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that before the chicken comes out of the egg he will be involved in the hatching ceremony.

    Local Authority Houses (Rent Changes)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will now introduce legislation to avoid local authorities unnecessarily alarming council house tenants by having to serve a notice to quit on them when the councils require to alter their rents.
    Mr. Mellish: My right hon. Friend must first consider the advice of the Law Commission, which has been looking into this matter. He expects to receive its report in the course of next month.
    Mr. Allaun: Is my hon. Friend aware that for the last six or seven years I have been fobbed off by successive Housing Ministers with promises of future legislation? Will he act where others have failed to act?
    Mr. Mellish: We are acting in the sense that we have asked the Law Commission to look into this matter in general. We are expecting its report next month. Its terms of reference were to consider whether a notice to quit is an essential prerequisite to a change of rent. and whether legislation is desirable to rectify the position. I hope that within the next month we can do something about it.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is there any possibility of issuing with the notice to quit an explanatory leaflet, which would go a long way to satisfying the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun)?
    Mr. Mellish: I understand that some local authorities have found a way of avoiding the service of a notice to quit in some circumstances, but the legal validity of this is not without doubt. It is because of this that we have had to seek the Law Commission's advice.

    Optional Mortgage Scheme
    Mr. Winnickasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what plans are being made to publicise the optional mortage scheme so that existing owner-occupiers can decide whether or not they wish to take advantage of this scheme.
    Mr. Greenwood: The main basis of the publicity will be an explanatory pamphlet which will be available, when the time comes, from all the lending agencies concerned and from citizens' advice bureaux.
    We shall supplement this with an extensive advertising campaign in the national Press and, it is hoped, some publicity on television and radio.
    Mr. Winnick: Since, apparently, owner-occupiers must make up their minds by the end of the year, will not more publicity be required than is envisaged by the Ministry? Will my right hon. Friend consider making a television appearance in order to give publicity to the scheme?
    Mr. Greenwood: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his suggestion, which I hope will be noted in other places. The proposal is that 5 million pamphlets shall be made available in July for people who have to make their choice about the end of September. I think that our immediate proposal is adequate. We shall consider the position further if it turns out that it does not have the response we hope for.
    Mr. Graham Page: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the report of a large building society, which has had to put all this on a computer, that it is impossible to explain it in pamphlet form? Is the right hon. Gentleman doing anything to

    1301
    see that it is put on a computer, as a public service for those who will have to decide whether or not to choose the option mortgage?
    Mr. Greenwood: No, Sir. This showed how wrong the hon. Member was to press us to introduce the scheme more rapidly than we propose to do.

    Rent Rebate Schemes
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many local authorities now operate schemes in respect of rents which concentrate subsidies on those who need them; how many local authorities operate no such schemes; and what steps he is taking to secure that effective schemes for this purpose are operated by all local authorities.
    Mr. Greenwood: I would refer the right hon. Member to the details of rent rebate schemes contained in Housing Statistics 1965–66 published by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants. I am consulting the local authority associations on the need to issue fresh guidance to local authorities on rent rebate schemes.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that it is now two years since his predecessor's White Paper urged action upon local authorities to this end? In view of the large sums of public money, by way of subsidy which the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for channelling, is it not necessary for him to press local authorities hard, even though the number of them requiring such pressure has been conspicuously reduced as a result of the events of the last few days?
    Mr. Greenwood: We have had a working party at officer level considering this question. Its report is now available, and I hope to discuss it with the elected representatives of the local authority associations in the near future. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, we shall shortly be having a debate on the matter in the House, when the Housing Subsidies Bill comes back from another place.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that rent rebate schemes are fundamentally undesirable things, and are only temporary stop-gaps until we can put into force reasonable
    1302
    minimum wage legislation and bring pensions up to their proper level?
    Mr. Greenwood: I cannot accept that. There are rent rebate schemes and rent rebate schemes. Some of those operated by local authorities are little more than travesties of rent rebate schemes. There is no reason why properly thought out and properly prepared rent rebate schemes should not be a great act of social justice.

    Local Authority Houses (Rents)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if, in furtherance of the Government's prices and incomes policy, he proposes to invite local authorities to inform him of increases in council house rentals.
    Mr. Greenwood: Parliament has given local authorities responsibility for fixing the rents of their houses and I have no power to intervene. Comprehensive information is published, however, annually by the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants.
    Mr. Biffen: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that under the White Paper which is to govern the next stage of the Government's prices and incomes policy there are no compulsory powers enabling the Government to intervene concerning the prices of manufactured goods? None the less, the Government wish for notification. Why do not they place council house rents in the same category?
    Mr. Greenwood: The point is that local authorities have to balance their housing revenue accounts under the Statutes passed by this House. I have every reason to believe that we can rely on them not to raise rents unless they are convinced that it is essential.
    Mr. Lubbock: Has not there been inequity in this matter during the period of freeze and restraint, as between the tenants of local authorities and tenants of private landlords, in that local authorities have been free to raise their rents whereas private landlords have had to maintain their rents at the existing levels, whether controlled or regulated? The tenants of their properties have had an advantage as compared with council house tenants.
    Mr. Greenwood: The hon. Gentleman is overlooking the fact that the great majority of local authorities keep their rents steady.
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what incentive he provides local authorities with to avoid steep rent increases; what has been the response to his appeal to defer rent increases; what other action he intends to take to assist local authorities to balance their housing revenue accounts; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Greenwood: Local authorities generally have given support to the standstill and severe restraint since 20th July, 1966, within the limits imposed by their statutory duties. It is the purpose of the bigger subsidies provided for in the Housing Subsidies Bill to give greater assistance to local authorities towards meeting housing costs.
    Mr. Spriggs: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he not aware that one of the biggest single factors in the cost of housing our people, especially for the local housing authorities, is the high interest rates charged for money borrowed to build and maintain those houses? When will he and his colleagues do something about these interest rates to help the people now?
    Mr. Greenwood: I appreciate what my hon. Friend has said and the concern he feels, but the Housing Subsidies Bill which is now before Parliament will have exactly the effect he wants. That is, it will give local authorities the opportunity of borrowing money at a fixed 4 per cent.

    Building Societies (Mortgage Rates)
    Mr. William Priceasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what discussions he has had with the building societies on the level of mortgage rates, following the recent reductions in the Bank Rate.
    Mr. Greenwood: I have continuing discussions with the builders and the building societies. The general view of the Building Societies Association is that in order to support a rising programme of housebuilding, the societies will have to retain their present investment and lending rates for the time being.
    Mr. Price: Would my right hon. Friend kindly urge the building societies to "pull their fingers out"? Is it not becoming obvious that they pay far more attention to the Bank Rate when it goes up than they do when it comes down? If, as we are led to think, all that goes up must come down, why should this not apply to mortgage rates?
    Mr. Greenwood: My hon. Friend will appreciate that my concern is that funds should be available for building private houses, particularly in anticipation of the operation of the option mortgage scheme next year. So far as pulling their fingers out is concerned, my hon. Friend will be glad to learn that, in March, the receipts of the building societies were £153 million, and their new commitments £139 million, which is approximately double the amount in December, 1966.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that this is a problem afflicting owner-occupiers? As mortgage interest may be chargeable against Income Tax assessment, is not the proper recourse to increase the Income Tax allowances for mortgage interest? Would not that solve the problem?
    Mr. Greenwood: The best thing would be for the hon. Gentleman to read the Housing Subsidies Bill and the proposal for option mortgages.

    House Prices
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action he has taken to reduce the cost of houses.
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what further powers he will now seek to control the cost of building houses.
    Mr. Mellish: The most effective way to reduce the price of houses is by increasing the supply, and the Government are giving this higher priority than for many years past. My right hon. Friend is taking a number of steps to make sure that houses built by local authorities give good value for money. He is today issuing a circular setting out cost yardsticks based on Parker-Morris standards. My right hon. Friend is introducing a single mandatory floor-to-floor height and he is encouraging better contractual procedures

    1305
    and greater standardisation of components.
    Mr. Allason: Does the hon. Gentleman remember the promises of his party in 1964 about reducing the cost of houses? Is he not aware that the costs of houses are steadily rising and that there has been a forecast that there will be a rise of a further 10 per cent. this year?
    Mr. Mellish: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is now asking for. Does he want the Government to introduce legislation to control the price of housing? If so, he had better get up and say so.
    Mr. Spriggs: Has my hon. Friend considered writing off at least a proportion of the heavy financial debts of local authorities to the Ministry?
    Mr. Mellish: That is another question. The whole problem of housing revenue accounts—although it is not related to this Question is under investigation by my right hon. Friend.

    National House Builders' Registration Council
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what proportion of houses completed in 1965 and 1966, respectively, was built by members of the National House Builders' Registration Council; and what proportion of all building firms is currently registered as members of that body.
    Mr. Mellish: I am afraid that the information is not available in the form requested. About 70 per cent. of all private sector housing is at present being built by registered builders.
    Mr. Brooks: I congratulate my hon. Friend on what is evidently excellent progress in the last two years, but may I ask whether he has closed his mind to the possibility of imposing 100 per cent. compulsory registration by the end of the year?
    Mr. Mellish: We have consulted the N.H.B.R.C. on the matter and my right hon. Friend and the council are satisfied that, by the voluntary means now being followed, we can achieve 100 per cent. registration without any compulsion from this House. At the moment, 90 per cent. of the larger firms and 5,500 of the smaller firms are already registered, and
    1306
    a further 300 have come forward to apply for registration. Judging by the way things are going now, we believe that the way we are doing it is the right way.

    Local Authority Houses (Sale)
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will encourage local authorities to build houses for sale.
    Mr. Greenwood: Building for sale is primarily the job of the private builders and I consider that, at the present time, local authorities should undertake such building only where the demand is not being adequately met by private builders and where it will not prejudice their primary duty of meeting the urgent need for rented housing.
    Mr. Brooks: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that, while many hon. Members on this side of the House deplore the sale of council houses for party political profit, there might nevertheless be an advantage to local authorities in seeking to cater for a rather wider range of housing need among the community?
    Mr. Greenwood: I would not want to divert the energy of local authorities away from the building of houses for rent, which I believe to be their prime function. However, I am prepared to make exceptions; in the case, for example, of town centre redevelopment schemes, catering for new industries or to make a proper social balance in certain areas.
    Mr. Sandys: Pending the building of a great many more houses for sale at moderate prices, would the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not seek to discourage the Greater London Council from selling council houses to its tenants?
    Mr. Greenwood: That is, of course, quite a different question, but the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware of the extremely helpful circular which I issued to local authorities shortly before the county council elections.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some of the capacity of the direct building departments of many of our large local authorities could be used for building houses for sale, and why not?
    Mr. Greenwood: I think that I have answered the question fully. We are prepared to make exceptions, and if my hon. Friend has any cases in mind I hope that he will let me have the details.

    Rent Act, 1965 (Prosecutions)
    Mr. Barnesasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many prosecutions there have been to the latest available date, under the Rent Act, 1965, against landlords who try to get tenants to leave by means of violence, threats or other interference.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): Up to the end of 1966 there was 335 prosecutions for offences under Part III of the Rent Act, 1965–203 for harassment and 132 for unlawful eviction. One person was imprisoned and 192 fines were imposed.
    Mr. Barnes: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, in areas where landlords and tenants often tend to live in the same house, this is a considerable problem? Would it be possible for the police to take more positive action when complaints are made instead of merely referring the matter to the local authority?
    Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend is reviewing the working of the Act in this context, but, as far as we know, the police are co-operating adequately with local authorities.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Hertfordshire (Derelict Cars)
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what action has so far been taken by the Hertfordshire County Council to implement his Department's circular No. 8/65 about derelict cars.
    Mr. MacColl: The circular mainly concerned action by district councils and other refuse-collecting authorities. It asked county councils to co-ordinate action by district councils. I understand that Hertfordshire, after discussion with its district councils, concluded that adequate arrangements for co-ordination had already been made.
    Mr. Longden: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that is a rather disappointing reply, and that very soon there will be about 1 million derelict cars a year to be disposed of? Will he bring to the attention of these authorities the various processes which are available for disposing very quickly of cars, and which will actually pay for the privilege of doing so?
    Mr. MacColl: Hertfordshire district authorities are working together, and are, I believe, negotiating to tender with the firm which works for the Greater London Council in this respect.
    Mr. John Hall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is an extremely serious problem in areas of natural beauty, for example the Chiltern Hills and the Buckinghamshire woods? Recently in the woods near High Wycombe about 60 cars had to be taken away, and the same sort of number is accumulating in the very same place. Will the hon. Gentleman therefore impress on the councils concerned the urgency of this matter?
    Mr. MacColl: The Civic Amenities Bill which is now in another place will impose an obligation on local authorities to deal with this kind of refuse.

    Refuse Collection (Working Party's Report)
    Mr. Longdenasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what results have been achieved as a result of the report of the working party on refuse collection.
    Mr. MacColl: The working party, to whom my right hon. Friend is most grateful, has prepared a very valuable report, which he will be publishing shortly.
    Mr. Longden: Does not the Minister consider that it does not seem to have very much effect in respect of the streets, which are littered as if a paper-chase had gone through them?
    Mr. McColl: This is an extremely good report. I commend it to the hon. Gentleman and hope that he will study it.

    Building Design (Disabled People)
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will issue a circular to

    1309
    all housing and planning authorities drawing their attention to the need to make certain in the design of buildings that account is taken of the needs of disabled people by the adoption of wide doors, low steps, handrails and the provision of lifts to the lowest level.
    Mr. Mellish: The Department issued to local authorities in 1964 and 1965 circulars containing recommendations on most of these matters. I am sending copies to the hon. Member. My right hon. Friend does not think that a further circular is called for, but will gladly consider any suggestions the hon. Gentleman may wish to make.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that these circulars are having the desired effect?
    Mr. Mellish: Yes, Sir. The information we have is that, by and large, the plans coming to our Department through local authorities are following the recommendations which have been promoted. We do not see all the plans, however, and if the hon. Member has any particular example in mind we shall be glad to look into it.
    Mr. Graham Page: Is the Minister aware that it is all very well for him to ask my hon. Friend for suggestions? Has not he some suggestions for furthering this? Does not he think that this is a very important matter, and that somehow local authorities should be forced to comply with these recommendations?
    Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member must have misunderstood my reply. We have no reason to be dissatisfied with what is going on. Circulars have been sent out by this Government and by previous Governments. We believe that local authorities are complying with what we have asked them. I made the obvious point that if the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt) knew of any isolated case we should be glad to look into it.

    Land Sales (Levy)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what steps he proposes to take to avoid sellers of land passing on the 40 per cent. levy by adding it to the selling price.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Frederick Willey): My right hon. Friend does not think that any action is needed at present. Purchasers have the remedy in their own hands by refusing to pay increased prices, but I have asked the Land Commission to keep a close watch on the situation and he ready to use its powers of compulsory purchase if necessary.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that I am grateful for his last few words? Some of us fear that there will be widespread evasion and the defeat of the intention of the Act. Would not the best safeguard be to have far more compulsory purchases by the Commission than is at present expected, since this would mean that the Commission would fix the price?
    Mr. Willey: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Commission's powers will be used if necessary.
    Mr. Allason: In the Minister's close watch has there been any sign of houses becoming any cheaper as a result of the Land Commission Bill?
    Mr. Willey: I have been concerned with land prices, and there has been no sign that they have increased.
    Mr. William Price: Can my right hon. Friend tell us of any single tax in the history of this country that has not found its way to the man in the street? Does not he agree that the Land Commission will make nonsense of the Government's pledge to keep down prices, and that the only answer is public ownership of all development land?
    Mr. Willey: The landowner has always endeavoured to obtain the highest price from the developer, and he will continue to do so. The Land Commission will see that land is brought forward where required.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that this practice is an inevitable comcomitant of the taxing of betterment values? Would it not be better to abolish the Land Commission and let land find its natural value?
    Mr. Willey: It is obvious that the hon. Member has not studied the problem. The House is committed to a levy, tax or charge. The Land Commission has

    1311
    been established to ensure that land will be in supply adequate to meet the needs of development.

    Multi-Occupied Dwellings
    Mr. Winnickasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he will circularise local authorities to encourage them to purchase multi-occupied dwellings in overcrowded areas such as Notting Hill.
    Mr. Molloyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what plans he has to assist those local authorities that have problems of multi-occupation.
    Mr. Mellish: Problems of multi-occupation are among those being studied in the general review of legislation on the older housing stock but most local authorities find that the present powers, if resolutely used, can do a great deal. My right hon. Friend is ready to consider proposals to purchase in the light of particular circumstances.
    Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that many people feel that the local council in the Notting Hill area has seriously fallen down on the job? Would he consider investigating the record of this borough council to try to improve its shocking housing record?
    Mr. Mellish: These old houses in Notting Hill are, I believe, in the hands of companies which are in liquidation, and some serious problems have arisen. I am advised that necessary repairs are still being carried out. Of course, the decision to acquire older properties is for the local authorities themselves, which can then promote them to us for endorsement. It is not for me, at this Box, to tell a local authority what to do.
    Mr. Molloy: Would my hon. Friend consider granting to those local authorities which have this special problem—Ealing Borough Council, for example—similar powers to those conferred on the Birmingham Corporation to help them control this problem of multiple occupation, which could be a very dangerous menace?
    Mr. Mellish: The Birmingham scheme is an experiment. We are watching it closely and shall certainly wish later to consider giving these powers to local
    1312
    authorities generally. This is all part of our review. In fact, even within the existing powers today, a local authority which has the will can quickly find a way.
    Mr. Allason: Are not housing associations a better way of dealing with this problem than piecemeal acquisition by local authorities?
    Mr. Mellish: The hon. Gentleman will know that we have done a great deal for housing associations, particularly by way of financial encouragement in our Housing Subsidies Bill. They can make an important contribution to this problem, but I would generally agree with my hon. Friend that this is primarily the responsibility of local authorities.

    Unoccupied Property (Rating)
    Mr. William Priceasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government, how many local authorities have begun the rating of empty property.
    Mr. MacColl: Fifty-five rating authorities have resolved that the provisions for rating unoccupied property shall apply to their areas starting this year, and so far one rating authority has resolved to start next year. With permission I shall circulate a list of the authorities in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Price: Would not my hon. Friend agree that that is a very disappointing figure? What steps is he taking to improve the situation?
    Mr. MacColl: It depends how high my hon. Friend's expectations were. The figure of 55 is about what I thought we would get. This will be a valuable experiment to see how effective the provisions are. I have no doubt that other local authorities will take advantage of it later.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the London Borough of Bromley has decided not to rate vacant properties, thus wasting thousands of pounds for the taxpayers of that borough and leading to properties remaining vacant in an area of short supply? Would the Government not have done better to accept the Rating (Unoccupied Hereditaments) Bill of 1965, which made it mandatory for local authorities to rate vacant property?
    Mr. MacColl: I am always surprised that the Liberal Party should be preemptory in these matters. It is better, when there is a good deal of difference of opinion, to allow an adoptive Clause to see how it works.
    Following is the information:
    Rating authorities in England and Wales who have resolved that the provisions in the General Rate Ac,, 1967, with respect to the rating of unoccupied property shall apply to their areas
    County Boroughs
    Bournemouth; Coventry; Eastbourne; Exeter.
    London Boroughs
    Hounslow; Newham; Waltham Forest.
    Non-County Boroughs and Urban Districts
    Alsager; Ashby de la Zouche; Barry; Beaumaris; Cannock; Chepstow; Clay Cross; Coalville; Crawley; Eccles; Hadleigh; Hales-worth; Halstead; Heanor; Hitchin; Hornsea; Horsham; Keighley; Letchworth; Loughborough; Maidstone*; Melksham; Melton Mowbray; Neath; Newcastle under Lyme; Petersfield; Portland; Potters Bar; Ramsgate; Royston; Shoreham by Sea; Stevenage; Tamworih; Taunton; Todmorden; Tonbridge; Tring; Tunbridge Wells; Watford; Wellington; Wisbech.
    Rural Districts
    Ashby de la Zouche; South Cambridge; South Kesteven; Wantage; Warminster and Westbury; Warmley; Watford; West Dean.
    * In Maidstone the provisions apply from 1st April, 1968; in all other cases they apply from 1st April, 1967.

    Wash Barrage Scheme (Feasibility Study)
    Mr. Pymasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) why he rejected the recommendation of the Water Resources Board that a feasibility study of the Wash barrage scheme should be undertaken at an early date;
    (2) what representations he has received against the forthcoming loss of agricultural land to reservoirs within the area covered by the Great Ouse River Authority; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Eldon Griffithsasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government what recent representations he has received about his refusal to allow the feasibility study of the Wash barrage scheme to go ahead; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend has received a letter from the President of the National Farmers' Union and telegrams from two branches. In his replies
    1314
    he has agreed to receive a deputation shortly.
    In his view, we should not at present be justified in spending a large sum on studying the barrage proposal. On present information the barrage would appear much more expensive than other means of obtaining the necessary water.
    Mr. Pym: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that, unless this feasibility study is begun now, it may turn out to be too late? For how long will the Government continue with their "couldn't care less "attitude to the prospective loss of thousands of acres of good agricultural land?
    Mr. MacColl: The Government have a responsibility to keep down public expenditure, and it is surprising how often the Opposition ask for more expenditure. There is at present no justification for this additional expenditure of £1½ million.

    Local Authority Employees (Closed Shop Policies)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will issue a circular to local authorities giving guidance on the practice of imposing a closed shop on their employees, with special reference to candidates training in approved offices preparatory to taking Town and Country Planning in the final examination of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
    Mr. Mellish: No, Sir. Local authorities are best left to form their own judgement on such matters. Moreover, the operation of closed shop policies comes within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations.
    Mr. Iremonger: Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to stand idly by? Will he not give some indication of his opinion that any closed shop is an intolerable invasion of personal liberty, and peculiarly odious in the case of students?
    An Hon. Member: And lawyers.
    Mr. Mellish: I am not aware of any special problem with regard to students. If the hon. Member has one in mind, we should like to know about it. We think that this is a matter best left to local authorities. One point I would make, and

    1315
    which has often been made before in the House, is that it is ironic that those who will not belong to unions for one reason or another are the first to take any increases in wages or salaries achieved by the efforts of the unions.

    Dawley New Town
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether he has made a decision yet on the extension of the Dawley New Town area to include Wellington and Oakengates.
    Mr. Greenwood: No decision has yet been taken on whether to extend Dawley New Town to take in Wellington and Oakengates.
    Mr. Fowler: is my right hon. Friend aware of the urgency of taking this decision both because of the effects of the planning freeze in the area and because of the desirability of moving as many people and firms as possible out of Birmingham in as short a time as possible?
    Mr. Greenwood: Yes, I realise the importance of this, but it is an extremely complicated problem. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear in mind that the four-year development programme of Dawley has three years still to run, so we have a little time to make the right decision.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that this and other overspill schemes in the West Midlands area are of great interest to Birmingham Members and their constituents, and that tens of thousands of people in Birmingham are still waiting for a house?
    Mr. Greenwood: I am well aware of that, and my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary recently visited Birmingham to discuss these matters with them.

    Land (Estate Duty and Land Commission Levy)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government whether it is intended that there shall be relief where there are charges of both Estate Duty and land commission levy on the development value of the same land in all cases where the double charge can be traced.
    Mr. Willey: An appropriate allowance for levy purposes will be made under the provisions of Schedule 7 to the Land Commission Act for interests in land in respect of which liability for Estate Duty has arisen within the previous six years but where levy is charged on land which was owned by a company in which the deceased had shares and not by the deceased himself, the Schedule is obviously inapplicable.
    Mr. Allason: But is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with this position by which, because land is owned through a family company, double taxation is charged? Has he considered the case which I submitted to him, in which Estate Duty has been charged at 50 per cent., and a further 40 per cent.—making a total of 90 per cent.—will be charged on the value of that land?
    Mr. Wiley: I am aware of the case which the hon. Gentleman mentions, where the land has not changed hands at all. I am also aware that, in that case, the possibility of the question of a charity arises.

    Town Centre Redevelopment Schemes
    Mr. Milneasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government (1) what consultations take place with local authorities prior to the commencement of a scheme for town centre redevelopment; and what percentage of local authorities avail themselves of the opportunity for consultation;
    (2) if he will introduce legislation to compel local authorities to consult all parties concerned when contemplating town centre redevelopment schemes.
    Mr. Willey: All local authorities have been urged in Planning Bulletins 1 and 3 issued by the Department, to consult local opinion fully on town centre redevelopment schemes. I believe most authorities do so and my right hon. Friend does not think that further legislation is required.
    Mr. Milne: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that many local authorities have gone into schemes which are either beyond their financial needs or their financial ability and that many of these schemes

    1317
    are turning into white elephants, detrimental not only to the shopping public but to shop workers as well? Will he examine this position?
    Mr. Willey: I am not so aware, but if my hon. Friend brings cases to my notice, I will certainly look at them.

    London Boroughs (Immigrant Settlements)
    Mr. Bidwellasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he is aware of the problem of the London Boroughs, and in particular the Borough of Ealing, in dealing with concentration of immigrant settlements; and if he will give further assistance to such local authorities.
    Mr. MacColl: I am well aware of this problem, on which my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary received a deputation from the local Members and council on 26th January. In the general review of legislation to which he referred in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick), the special problems arising from concentrations of immigrant settlements will be borne in mind.
    Mr. Bidwell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Would he undertake to look carefully and sympathetically at any early representations which the London Borough of Ealing may make to him about this problem, particularly as it affects the Southall part of this London borough?
    Mr. MacColl: Yes, Sir, although I am bound to remind my hon. Friend that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has had very long and detailed discussions with the Ealing Council about this matter.
    Sir C. Osborne: In view of the appalling conditions under which many of the immigrants are having to live in certain areas, is it not criminal madness to allow further immigrants to come into this country until this problem has been solved?
    Mr. MacColl: Fortunately this is not a matter for my right hon. Friend, in that I do not have to think of an answer which would be polite enough to get through the House.
    Mr. Molloy: May I inform my hon. Friend that he can rest assured that we
    1318
    have tabled this Question in an effort to help solve what is a difficult problem and that we are not in any way affected by the detestable racialism of which we have just heard? [Interruption.] Would he agree that, in so far as the London Borough of Ealing has faced this problem, it has made splendid efforts—
    Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Is it not a fact that the words used by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), "contemptible racialism"—
    Mr. Molloy: I said "detestable".
    Sir G. Nabarro: —"detestable racialism" impute dishonourable motives to my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne) and that they should, therefore, be withdrawn?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must leave the Chair to decide what is in order. Mr. Molloy.
    Mr. Molloy: Would my hon. Friend agree that all the officers and members of the staff of the Ealing Borough Council have done as much as possible to try to get these people, who are members of our British Commonwealth, to be assimilated with the people of these islands—which, I think, is a fine and proper thing to do? Would he further—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There are many Questions on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Molloy: Would my hon. Friend seek to—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must get on.
    Sir C. Osborne: On a point of order. Have I no means of protecting my good name—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—against such unworthy and ignorant slurs, and since I was asking for protection for the immigrants who are already in this country, is there no means by which that dastardly kind of reflection can be stopped?
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is making a political defence to what I think was a political attack. Mr. Tilney, next Question.

    Dee Estuary (Report)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when the report on the Dee Estuary will be made available to the public.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Gentlemen will not waste Question time by continually raising points of order.
    Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, is it not out of order to put on the Order Paper an ambiguous Question of this kind, which does not indicate to which River Dee reference is being made?
    Mr. Willey: The consulting engineers' preliminary report on the feasibility of a Dee crossing is expected to be published by mid-July.
    Mr. Tilney: Since there is great interest in this imaginative scheme, not only among those who live in the local authority areas immediately contiguous to the shore of the English-Welsh Dee but among those who live further afield, especially on Merseyside, would the Minister make certain that other local authorities are taken into consultation when the report is published?
    Mr. Wiley: I will bear the hon. Gentleman's remarks in mind. I appreciate his interest in this project, but what we are mainly concerned with is consultation with the planning authorities, the economic planning councils, the study group and those who are immediately affected.

    Circular 50/66
    Mr. Marquandasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government when he expects to reach a decision on the applications for loan sanction which have been made to him according to the procedure laid down in his Department's Circular 50/66.
    Mr. Willey: My right hon. Friend hopes to decide on an initial programme of schemes soon. He cannot at this stage indicate the total size of the programme or its regional distribution.
    Mr. Marquand: Can my hon. Friend give some idea of the criterion that will be employed to decide between the decisions which are made by different local authorities, and, in particular, will he give an assurance that the social needs of old industrial towns like Sutton-in-Ashfield in my constituency will be given
    1320
    full weight when the decisions are finally reached?
    Mr. Willey: I assure my hon. Friend that the criteria he has mentioned will certainly be given due weight.

    Statutory Undertakings (Gasholders)
    Mr. Neaveasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government if he will introduce legislation requiring statutory undertakings, such as the Southern Gas Board, to obtain planning consent before erecting gasholders or other buildings on land owned by them.
    Mr. Greenwood: Statutory undertakers are already required to obtain planning permission before erecting gasholders or other high plant or buildings, except where authority has already been given by Parliament in a private Act or Order or the responsible Minister has directed that planning permission has been deemed to be given.
    Mr. Neave: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the present position in regard to the Abingdon Gas Order, 1935, gives a wholly unfair discrimination in favour of public undertakings compared with private citizens who require planning permission? In view of the large number of gasholders which it is intended to erect in the country, will the right hon. Gentleman amend the law very urgently?
    Mr. Greenwood: As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I have confirmed an Article 4 direction, for which the local planning authority had asked, but as this may become the subject of a public appeal, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me if I do not comment on this case.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: As this is not a unique occurrence and as other cases of gas holders being sought to be erected under these powers are likely to arise, would the right hon. Gentleman say that, in the event of any other local planning authority asking for an Article 4 direction to the same effect, he will also accede to those requests?
    Mr. Greenwood: I had better not commit myself in advance. This state of affairs has obtained for a number of years and it has generally speaking worked well

    1321
    Since the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys) was Minister of Housing and Local Government, there has been a great deal of consultation between the statutory undertakers and the local planning authorities, but I realise that there are doubts as to whether the present method of resolving conflicts is the right one; and we are studying the position at the moment.

    EUROPEAN TECHNOLOGICAL COLLABORATION
    Dr. David Owenasked the Prime Minister whether, irrespective of joining the European Economic Community, he will start taking the necessary steps to reduce the fiscal and legal obstacles to European technological collaboration.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. George Brown): For reasons which, I am sure, the House will understand and respect, I have been asked to reply.
    The Government have for some time been concerned to reduce all possible obstacles to technological collaboration. But if my hon. Friend has any particular points in mind, perhaps he would let my right hon. Friend know of them.
    Dr. Owen: Would my right hon. Friend consider taking a firm decision to introduce a value added tax before 1970 and thus comply with the remaining other six countries in the E.E.C.?
    Mr. Brown: This is a subject which, of course, we have under consideration.
    Lord Balniel: If the Foreign Secretary has this under consideration, why did he introduce the ridiculous Selective Employment Tax and not the value added tax which the Community will have harmonised upon by January, 1970?
    Mr. Brown: The only thing I ever find ridiculous about the noble Lord is the remarks he makes.

    CIVIL SERVICE (PERSONNEL AND STAFF FUNCTIONS)
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Prime Minister if he will centralise the personnel and staff functions in the Civil Service so that this work might be tackled more effectively and in keeping with modern personnel management practice.
    Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
    The general management of the Civil Service is already centralised. Each Minister is responsible for the staffing of his own Department, however, and practical efficiency also requires some personnel work to be done within each Department. It would be premature to consider any changes in this field before the Fulton Committee reports.
    Mr. Moonman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in industry effective use of personnel skills usually arises when a specialist executive is placed on the board? Would not he consider the establishment of a separate Department concerning itself with personnel skills and having a separate Minister answerable here?
    Mr. Brown: Having myself served for a very long period of years in one capacity or another in a large number of Departments, I believe that what my hon. Friend is suggesting is the wrong analogy. In fact, I think that these personnel matters are better handled in each Department, remembering that each one is itself a very large organisation.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most of industry is now trying to reduce its office staff and workers generally in order to try to help the economy? Would not he agree that the Government should follow suit and reduce the number of civil servants throughout the country?
    Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, but it should be remembered that the number of staff any organisation employs—whether it is a private or public enterprise—must, of course, be related to policies—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—and since we are always being pressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite to do more in various spheres, it must be accepted that we require more people to carry out these tasks. I believe that at the end of the day we shall be judged—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—not so much by the number of people we employ but by the results of our policies; and by the time of the next General Election we will be perfectly willing to be so judged.
    Mr. Barnett: Would not the country have saved many millions of £s if we had had more civil servants in the Ministry of Civil Aviation?

    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
    Mr. Marquandasked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange for the publication of a White Paper assessing the implications which membership of the European Economic Community would have for British policy in the fields of public ownership and economic planning.
    Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
    I have, as yet, nothing to add to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend to a supplementary question by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on 20th April.—[Vol. 745, c. 802.]
    Mr. Marquand: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we want to create a Socialist Europe, as I am sure he does—[Interruption.]—in which public ownership and economic planning play a major rôle, it is very important that our E.F.T.A. partners join with us? Can he say what consultations he is having with E.F.T.A. with this aim in view?
    Mr. Brown: The Opposition are behaving as though we were already at 9.30 in the evening—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we will get on to the answer about Europe. Mr. Brown.
    Mr. Brown: We have proposed to our colleagues on the E.F.T.A. Ministerial Council that a meeting should take place in London on Friday, 28th April, so that we can continue the process of consultation with them. The meeting will be a normal Ministerial Council meeting, and will therefore be under the chairmanship of our friend, Mr. Gunnar Lange, the Swedish Minister of Commerce, who is the Chairman of the Council. This meeting will give us an opportunity to consult them fully.
    Mr. Maudling: Arising out of the question asked by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand), does the Foreign Secretary recall that on 7th June, 1962, the Prime Minister said that the whole conception of the Treaty of Rome was anti-planning? What has changed since then?
    Mr. Brown: The answer is the way in which the Common Market itself has developed.
    Mr. Urwinasked the Prime Minister on what principles any application for British entry into the European Economic Community will be based.
    Mr. Moyleasked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of the Government deciding that Great Britain should apply to join the European Common Market, he will stipulate the conditions upon the fulfilment of which the Government would recommend accession to the Common Market.
    Mr. Leadbitterasked the Prime Minister on what principles and conditions he would now consider it appropriate to base an application to join the Common Market.
    Mr. Pavittasked the Prime Minister what stipulations he will now make before deciding to make a formal application to join the European Common Market.
    Mr. Ormeasked the Prime Minister if he will state the conditions on which Her Majesty's Government would now consider making an application to join the Common Market.
    Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
    I would refer my hon. Friends to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 23rd March to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris).—[Vol. 743, c. 333.]
    Mr. Urwin: I thank my right hon. Friend for his Answer, but is he aware that it is the opinion of many people in the country that the Government are embarking on a somewhat enigmatic course in relation to integration into Europe? Is he further aware that such a course does not by any means command the complete and universal approbation of people in the country or in the House—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect other hon. Members. That is enough, I think.
    Mr. Urwin: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker—I have not finished my supplementary question.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I was delicately conveying to the hon. Gentleman that he had asked enough. Mr. Brown—to answer.
    Mr. Brown: I do not agree with the remark about an enigmatic course. The point is that the Government, as my hon. Friend well knows, are now deciding the terms, the basis, on which we might make an application for membership, and considering whether some other course might be preferable. As soon as we have an announcement to make, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will make it to the House.
    Mr. Moyle: But in the event of there being any British application to join the Common Market would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would be better for him to negotiate the democratic control of the institutions of the Common Market before we agree to enter, and as part of any price which this country may agree to pay for entering the European Economic Community?
    Mr. Brown: I will certainly take into account what my hon. Friend has said, hut, speaking for myself, I doubt whether that is the right way to approach the matter.
    Sir C. Osborne: Have we a 50–50 chance of getting in?
    Mr. Brown: I have taken many a bet on worse terms than that.
    Mr. Pavitt: In these various conditions that my right hon. Friend has given to the House from time to time, will he bear in mind the need to preserve the right of the National Health Service to be financed to an extent of more than 4 per cent. of the gross national product?
    Mr. Brown: I have no reason for thinking that either the terms of the Treaty of Rome or anything I have learned on our tour round Europe would interfere with that position.
    Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There is one rather obscure point in the Prime Minister's Answer, to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. Is it proposed that there should be a statement and then a debate, or are we to have a statement, a White Paper and then a debate?
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend said that we were considering the issue of the
    1326
    fullest possible information to the House and whether we could do it best in a White Paper. We are considering that, and we will, in fact, consult what we believe to be the wishes of the House. The intention in this matter will be to give the House all the information we can, and to give it an opportunity for a full debate and a decision on the matter.
    Mr. Orme: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether the conditions about an independent foreign policy, public ownership and protection of the Commonwealth are still being considered by the Government? What conditions have changed since 1962 now to make it possible for the Government to make such an application?
    Mr. Brown: Obviously, consideration of the problems of our Commonwealth partners must be one of the things uppermost in our minds in any negotiations which we may undertake. I find it hard to deduce that members of the Six have in fact found it difficult to carry out an independent foreign policy. I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that members of the Six have quite a large amount of their economy under public ownership.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: A moment or two ago, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), the right hon. Gentleman stated, or implied, that the actual operation of the Community in some respects differed from the provisions of the Treaty of Rome. If he means that, will he be good enough to see that the difference is put in any White Paper which is published, so that the House can bring an informed judgment to bear upon these matters?
    Mr. Brown: I neither implied that, nor meant that. What I said—and I will stand on it and put it in any kind of paper the right hon. and learned Gentleman likes—was that the way in which the Community had developed in practice was a good deal different from the way in which some of the federalist advocates some years ago prophesied that it would develop.
    Mr. Bellenger: In view of the numerous Questions on this subject which are appearing on the Order Paper, may I ask whether the statement of my right

    1327
    hon. Friend the Prime Minister which was made upstairs will be made available to the whole House very shortly?
    Mr. Brown: The whole House has before it the very excellent statement which I made upstairs. In view of the tremendous welcome with which it has been received, I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will consider doing the same thing.
    Mr. Sandys: Is it not a fact that the Gallup polls show that there is a wider measure of agreement on this question than on almost any other big controversial issue of the day?
    Mr. Brown: How far one takes the polsters into account is a matter of judgment. On the whole, I take them into account when they are on my side and disregard when they are not. This is a matter for us in the House to argue out as well as we can on its merits. My own views are obviously well known. The Government collectively will make their views known to the House fairly soon now, and it will then be for the House to argue it out, and I do not think that we should be deflected too much by what polsters or other people may think.
    Mr. John Lee: As one certain outcome of our joining the E.E.C. would be an increase in the cost of living, does not my right hon. Friend agree that this will make the task of the enforcement of the incomes policy that much more difficult than it is at the moment?
    Mr. Brown: There are bound to be pluses and minuses if we decide to go in. I ask my hon. Friend to take into account against the minuses the undeniable pluses, so that we make a balanced decision.
    Mr. Jennings: May we take it from a previous answer of the right hon. Gentleman that before a decision to apply for entry is made there will definitely be a vote in the House? If so, will it be a free vote?
    Mr. Brown: It is not for me to say whether there will be a vote. I cannot answer for hon. Members opposite. I do not know how free their votes are. What I can seriously assure the House is that, when the Government have decided, they will come and tell the House and the sub-
    1328
    sequent action in the House will be for the House to decide.
    Mr. Dickens: Following that reply, may we now take it that there will then be a comprehensive White Paper setting out the fullest political and economic considerations in this matter, prior to a debate in the House and prior to an application for entry?
    Mr. Brown: We are considering what kind of information we might provide for the House and in what form, and I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are the Government now prepared, if necessary, to give a special relationship with the Europeans priority over a special relationship with the Americans?
    Mr. Brown: May I make it quite plain to begin with that of course we are Europeans and have been for a very long time. The issue is not whether we are to join Europe. We have been there since the beginning of history. In the consideration of this question many other relationships have to be and are being taken into account.

    DISARMAMENT (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Prime Minister if he will now appoint a Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Disarmament to enable Questions to be answered in this House.
    Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
    I already answer Questions on disarmament in this House, Sir, and see no need to ask my right hon. Friend for further assistance.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the intense interest of many hon. Members in universal disarmament; and that the absorption into both foreign affairs and defence does not always satisfy us? Is he aware that we would like to see the excellent initiative of appointing a separate Minister for Disarmament and for the United Nations followed up by more interest in the House in the subject?
    Mr. Brown: I am very much in favour of more interest being taken in the House in the matter. My noble Friend is willing to make himself available to any forum in the House for wider discussion of his work, and I will myself be very willing to answer any questions hon. and right hon. Gentlemen wish to put to me on the subject.
    Mr. A. Royle: But in view of the promise made during the 1964 General Election that the Government would take the initiative in disarmament, and the failure of Lord Chalfont to take any initiative whatsoever, will the Foreign Secretary now tell the House what plans Her Majesty's Government have to take the initiative in this important field?
    Mr. Brown: The whole premise of that question was contained in the second part of that supplementary question and was completely false, so I do not have to answer the first part.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Prime Minister whether the speech of the Lord President of the Council at Haringey on 13th March about the treatment of council tenants represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  Mr. George Brown: I have been asked to reply.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the speech my right hon. Friend actually made, rather than the one he was misreported as having made, the answer is "Yes, Sir".
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that Answer cover the correction hastily issued after the Foreign Secretary's right hon. Friend's speech, in which he urged that council tenants should be given the opportunity to buy their houses on mortgage? If that is so, will the Government now withdraw the stop on the issue of local authority mortgages which now affects certain boroughs, and so enable people to buy houses on mortgage, even if, unhappily, it has to be at 7 per cent. rather than at 3 per cent.?
  Mr. Brown: No correction was hastily issued. I have the advantage of having letters from people who were actually in
  1330
  the audience at the meeting, expressing their disgust at the reports made of what my right hon. Friend said. As to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, there is no difficulty at the moment—quite the contrary, in fact—in people getting mortgages to buy houses.
  Mr. Maxwell: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it would have been better for the Government to have taken steps not to require local councils to increase their rents, having regard to the freeze on wages; and that the rent increases for council house tenants are unfair?
  Mr. Brown: That seems to me to be a totally different question from that which I am answering at the moment.
  Mr. Maudling: As the Labour Party's statement used the words
  "…as a result of the Government's 100 per cent. mortgage policy…"
  can the right hon. Gentleman say when that policy will be brought into effect?
  Mr. Brown: We shall bring it into effect, like all our other good things, as soon as possible.

NEW ROYAL MINT (LOCATION)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Sir KNOX CUNNINGHAM: TO ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will give consideration to a site for the new Mint in Ulster before reaching a final decision upon where it is to be set up.
Mr. LUARD: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now make a statement on the future location of the Royal Mint.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, I will now answer Questions Nos. 133 and 135 together.
It is 12 years since the rebuilding of the Mint was announced. Since then output has trebled mainly for export, and capacity for minting the decimal coinage is now also required. The existing site cannot be developed economically for these purposes, and in accordance with

1331
the Government's dispersal policy a number of new sites have been examined in the development areas.
In the light of this examination the Government have decided that a new Royal Mint should be built at Llantrisant, in South Wales. Its first task will be to produce the new decimal coinage and a work force of about 400 to 500 will be recruited mainly from the surrounding areas. These workers will continue to be needed when the Royal Mint itself moves to Llantrisant, which will be by 1973 at the latest.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Is the Chancellor aware that the unemployment rate in Northern Ireland has risen to 9 per cent., due to his economic policies? Since he is not to site the Mint there, what other action is he to take to reduce this quite unacceptable level of unemployment?
Mr. Callaghan: Although many sites were examined, it would not have been regarded as economic to transfer coinage to and fro across the Irish Channel. The general policy was debated yesterday. There are many Government measures—and this is a further one—which are having and will have a considerable impact on the development areas.
Mr. Luard: I regret that the Chancellor has not thought the royal City of Oxford a suitable site for the Royal Mint. However, is he aware that there will be general satisfaction that he has decided to site this important institution in an area of high unemployment, a development area, such as South Wales? I hope that this is the forerunner of many other decisions to site more Government institutions outside London.
Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. It is the Government's policy wherever possible to disperse Government work in this way. This decision has been taken at a time when we are pressing this policy on private employers and it would obviously not have been right for the Government to be exempt from the same pressures.
Mr. Lubbock: I approve the Government's decision to transfer the Royal Mint to another area. However, is not this the second public Department to be moved to South Wales in recent months? In
1332
taking the decision, did not the right hon. Gentleman consider siting the new Royal Mint plant in Scotland, instead of South Wales? What capital expenditure is expected, particularly on decimal currency, and how does the proposed opening date of 1973 fit the introduction of decimal currency in February, 1971?
Mr. Callaghan: The new Mint will be coping with decimal currency and I hope that that will be brought into operation by the end of 1968. The decimal currency will mount up there, and the functions of the Royal Mint will then be transferred after decimalisation by 1972, or, by the latest, 1973.
Many sites were looked at, but the Cabinet took this decision, on balance, on all the factors involved. To enumerate some—because it is important that these matters should be taken into account—they included accessibility to the existing Mint, the need to transfer coinage easily to the main centres of population, the views of the management, the reactions of the staff, the reports of the consultants, the suitability of the site. All these were factors which the Government as a whole took into account in reaching their decision.
Mr. Arthur Pearson: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his statement will gladden the hearts of the people in an area where, through rapid economic change, the deepest unemployment shadows lie and that their gratitude goes to those who, by their judgment and influence, have made possible this new siting of the Royal Mint? Will my right hon. Friend—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Much as I respect the hon. Gentleman, questions must be brief.
Mr. Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be brief.
Will my right hon. Friend say what measures are being taken to train the new personnel required? Will the Royal Air Force Station at St. Athan, where there are excellent facilities for this purpose, be used?
Mr. Callaghan: It is proposed to acquire training facilities. This morning I asked the workpeople at the Royal Mint—I think that the House would not object to my seeing the staff there this

1333
morning before I informed the House—for their full co-operation in the matter of training.
I must tell the House—I told the shop stewards and trade union officials and the staff side that I would say this—that the staff do not wish to move. The staff feel that their lives are being torn up by the roots. I think that this is a factor which must be taken into account, and I undertook to tell the House this.
I have tried to explain the basis of what I think is inter-party policy on the matter of dispersal. I have asked for the full co-operation of the staff in making the transfer a success. I fully believe that when the staff have reflected on the matter they will offer full cooperation in making training a success.
Mr. Iain Macleod: Could the Chancellor help the House with one point about staffing? He said that 400 to 500 people would be recruited locally. Quite apart from that, how many will move to the new area?
Mr. Callaghan: Initially, I should think that about 50 volunteers will be required out of the existing Royal Mint strength of 1,300. By 1973, about 20 percent. of the present staff of the Mint will have retired and, therefore, it will be possible to make up the new total at Llantrisant out of the 400 to 500 recruits who will be coming in.
Mr. W. Baxter: Is not this decision of the Government's a disgraceful one? If it is not a breach of the Act of Union, it is a breach of expectations, at the time of the Act of Union, that the Mint would remain in Scotland? As the town of Stirling is the source of the word "sterling" and as the original doorway of the Mint still exists in Stirling, I see no reason why this decision should have been made in the manner in which it has been made. The Mint should be in Scotland. There is no dubiety about that.
Mr. Callaghan: I would not wish to be a party to undoing the Act of Union. I have too great a respect for my Scottish colleagues for that. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not focus on this as the only example of decentralisation and dispersal or of taking new work to Scotland. I was delighted to read in the Scottish Press this morning of plans that
1334
one very great firm has for expansion on the East coast of Scotland. There will be many more.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the Chancellor realise that this decision, following upon the location of the Motor Vehicle Registration Office in Cardiff, of the Steel Corporation in London, of the Computer Centre in Manchester, and of the Forestry Commission in Basingstoke, is making many of us on this side wonder whether there is a Secretary of State for Scotland in the Cabinet at all?
Mr. Callaghan: I do not carry the figure in my head, but I believe I am right in saying that over the last five years about £115 million has been made available to Scotland in relation to the provision of new jobs. This is going on at a very fast rate. The case for Scotland is very well put by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, continuously and regularly. I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not have any difficulty in facing the hon. Gentleman over it.
Mr. James Griffiths: In reply to an earlier supplementary, my right hon. Friend mentioned the concern of the staff about the transfer. Will he bear in mind that 20 years ago it fell to me, a Welshman, to establish the central office of the Ministry of National Insurance on Tyneside. At that time there was concern amongst the staff about moving from London to Tyneside. Since then many have told me that they are very glad they went. Will my right hon. Friend assure the staff of the Royal Mint that they will have a very warm-hearted welcome when they come to Wales?
Mr. Callaghan: I will certainly convey that sentiment to the staff, although I have already been able to do so from my personal knowledge. What my right hon. Friend said about the Ministry of National Insurance—I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is listening to this—demonstrates that these decisions must be made on the overall merits of the case and on the balance of the argument as it arises.
Dame Irene Ward: What has happened to the North-East Coast? No one has mentioned it. Can we have a Secretary

1335
of State for the North-East Coast to put our point of view?
Mr. Callaghan: Alas, there are 630 Members but only one Mint.
Mr. Urwin: Although I am sure that my colleagues representing the Northern Region will join me in congratulating Wales on having secured this plum, I must draw attention to the claims of the Northern Region in such matters as this. With unemployment figures similar to those obtaining in Wales and Scotland, we feel that we have been very considerably left out in the decentralisation of Government Departments. I hope that my right hon. Friend will bear very strongly and seriously in mind the claims of the Northern Region when any future decentralisation takes place.
Mr. Callaghan: Yes. While thanking my hon. Friend for the generous way in which he put what he said, I must assure him that a great many sites were considered. No area was excluded. More than 20 sites were separately considered. The decision was clearly a difficult one, because a good case can be made out for a great many areas. It was the Cabinet's job to take a decision on what it regarded as being the balance in this case. When there are future dispersals—I trust that there will be in due course—the merits of those cases will have to be looked at, also.
Mr. Tapsell: If I may put aside constituency considerations for a moment in what is essentially a national question, may I ask the Chancellor whether he will bear in mind that some of us, on reflection, may feel that a great national institution such as the Royal Mint really ought to remain in the capital city—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Even if the Cabinet refuses to accept that point of view, will the right hon. Gentleman at least ensure that what may be described as the showcase element of the Royal Mint remains in London?
Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that there is universal agreement, from what I can make out, with the proposition that the hon. Gentleman has advanced. I do not think that it is essential that the manufacture of coins should be carried out in London. There are, after all, two other capital cities, namely, Cardiff and Edin-
1336
burgh. Both of them, I have no doubt, would feel that they had claims to this institution.
As to its being a showcase, the Royal Mint gets a good many visitors and it will be delighted to receive them still. However, the staff are there to do a job of work. That is the main purpose. I have already had discussions with the Deputy Master. I want to see a Mint erected which is something of which we can all be proud. I hope that it will be of good architectural design. I do not think that it should be regarded as just another factory. I think that we ought to erect a building which the House will approve of, even if not unanimously.
Mr. Wilkins: If the House is now entering upon a Dutch auction in bidding for the siting of a new Royal Mint, may I ask the Chancellor whether he has considered the claims of South-West England, and particularly North Devon?
Mr. Callaghan: I can only repeat what I have said. We were guided by the advice of consultants, who had a free hand in looking at any site they wished to consider within a wide region. They came up with certain proposals, and out of those proposals the Cabinet had to make an invidious choice.
Sir G. Nabarro: The Government have selected South Wales, where unemployment is 4·1 per cent., compared with Scotland, where is is 3·9 per cent. or the North-East, where it is 3·9 per cent., but is not the real reason their knowledge that the run-down in the coal-mining industry will be far greater in South Wales than in any other mining area of Britain?
Mr. Callaghan: I have already indicated the considerations which led the Cabinet to take the decision they did. Clearly, the original proposal to send the Mint to a development area was related to employment prospects, but it would be wrong to assume that the decision was taken wholly on the question of the future of the coal industry.
Mr. Woodburn: As a Member for both the Stirling and Dollar areas, may I assure my right hon. Friend that we shall be satisfied that the money should be made in Wales if, when it is produced, more of it is directed to the development areas?
Mr. Callaghan: I shall bear that in mind.
Sir J. Langford-Holt: Where will the Master of the Mint take up his duties?
Mr. Callaghan: The present Master took up his duties two and a half years ago, and he is due for trial on 4th May to see whether the coinage is still pure and perfect. I am awaiting the verdict with some anxiety.
Mr. Spriggs: Will my right hon. Friend inform the Government of Northern Ireland that no further assistance will be given to them until they stop all forms of discrimination and—
Mr. Speaker: Order. These are Questions about the Mint.
Sir C. Osborne: What will happen to the new Mint when Wales gets its independence?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that many hon. Members wish to ask questions about the Mint, but I must protect the business of the House.
Sir Knox Cunningham: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter again at an early date.
Mr. Orme: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? Why was the question from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) ruled out of order, as one of the original Questions had been asked by the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, South (Sir Knox Cunningham)?
Mr. Speaker: The fact that the original Question was asked by an hon. Member from Northern Ireland does not mean that all the political affairs of Northern Ireland can be discussed on a Question about the Mint. That is how it seems to me, anyhow.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Mr. Speaker: The House will find an additional Notice Paper relating to the Bill setting out a new Amendment handed in yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). It is Amendment No. 74. I have selected this Amendment to be debated with the right hon. Gentleman's earlier Amendment No. 36.

  WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL

    New Clause No. 1.—(DISPOSAL OF ASSETS DUE TO BE TRANSFERRED.)
    Where, on or after 1st January 1967, the authority has disposed of any property which would, but for that disposal, have been transferred to the board on the second appointed day, and the liabilities which are so transferred have not been reduced by an amount equal to the full market value of that property as at the date of its disposal, then, unless either the board or the Secretary of State determine otherwise, that authority shall indemnify the board accordingly; and in this section any reference to the disposal of property includes, in the case of a local water authority being a local authority, a reference to the transfer of property from the local authority in their capacity as a local water authority to themselves in any other capacity.—[Dr. Dickson Mahon.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    3.55 p.m.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This new Clause arises from an undertaking which I gave in Committee, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan). Both hon. Members had tabled separate Amendments designed to restrict a local water authority from disposing of any of its assets or renouncing any of its rights, and I was deeply obliged to them for the discussion which we then had.
    I accepted that we should have to do something like this at a later stage of the Bill, and I pointed out that any change which we made, such as the one provided for in the new Clause, would be futile if it did not have retrospective effect. A similar retrospective provision is common in

    1339
    the regrouping arrangements in England. There was no dispute in Committee either about the wisdom of such a Clause or about the need for retrospection. Accordingly, I commend it to the House.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: I thank the hon. Gentleman for remedying what we regarded as a deficiency. I think that what he has said meets the situation to which we drew attention.
    Mr. Ian MacArthur: We are much obliged to the Minister of State for putting down this new Clause. There might be an argument about whether 1st January, 1967, is the appropriate date, but I think that that would be a rather trivial argument to raise. We accept that this is one of those rare occasions when an element of apparent retrospection is justifiable, yet this is not, in effect, retrospection.
    The Government's intentions are well known. The Bill was published—I forget the exact date—on or about 10th January. The local authorities knew well in advance of consideration of its principle in Committee what the Government's intentions were. They knew, also, that the Opposition supported the Bill's general terms and the Government's intent, which followed the intent of the Conservative Government when in office.
    I was agreeably surprised by the hon. Gentleman's tribute to the Opposition. I remember that he congratulated us in Committee on spotting what might otherwise be a weakness in the Bill, but I rember also that he said that we had, perhaps, stumbled on this weakness. I told him then, and I repeat now, that it was not a matter of stumbling on weaknesses. My hon. and right hon. Friends and I study these matters with the greatest possible care—
    Mr. Archie Manuel: Oh.
    Mr. MacArthur: —and we saw long in advance that there was here a possible weakness which should be remedied. Even if it does not satisfy the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, I am sure that it satisfies the Minister to know that we attend to our duties seriously.
    1340
    It was a serious point which we raised in Committee, and the Minister of State undertook to consider it favourably. I know that I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends in thanking him for putting down the new Clause, which we are glad to support.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 2.—(TRANSFER OF OFFICERS AND SERVANTS.)
    (1) Where all the functions of the authority have been transferred to one board, that board shall take over and employ, as from the second appointed day, any person, who immediately before that day was employed by the authority solely in connection with those functions, where that person is willing to enter the employment of the board on terms and conditions which, so far as practicable, are not less favourable than those on which he was employed by the authority immediately before that day.
    (2) Where the functions of the authority have been transferred to more than one board, any person employed by the authority solely in connection with the functions transferred to one of those boards immediately before the second appointed day shall be taken over and employed by that board where that person is willing to enter the employment of that board on such terms and conditions as aforesaid.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Speaker: It is suggested that with this new Clause we discuss Amendment No. 26, in Clause 19, page 11, to leave out from the beginning of line 44 to the end of line 7 on page 12.
    Dr. Mabon: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for bringing in the reference to Amendment No. 26, which is consequential on the new Clause.
    In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Archie Manuel), who also studies these matters with avidity and spots deficiencies here and there with the same determination as others—
    Mr. MacArthur: Not so well as we do.
    Dr. Mahon: This matter has been impressed upon us by relatively few people compared with the previous one, which was impressed upon us by, among others, the British Waterworks Association. But let us not go over that.

    1341
    My hon. Friend pursued me in Committee on the subject of Clause 19 and the Amendments which he sought to insert with reference to making it mandatory on all authorities to offer continuing employment to employees engaged in the water service at the date of transfer, that is, making it mandatory that they should be offered jobs. I explained the difficulties which I envisaged —I think that I gave four categories which I could think of right away as presenting difficulty—but, under pressure from my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), I accepted that, if I had a difficult choice here, I would commend to the Secretary of State the view that it should, on balance, be mandatory rather than permissive.
    4.0 p.m.
    The Clause deals with a restricted number of people. We estimate that about 3,800 are involved and that the Clause will cover about 75 per cent. of that number. In other words, following consultations with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I have been able to get as near as is possible to what was sought, considering all the difficulties concerning part-time employees.
    If Clause 19 were completely mandatory, its effect would be that the people concerned need be given a job only so long as was necessary to work out the period of notice to which they were entitled. Since the boards will be in existence well before the second appointed day, they could, if so minded, give advance notice to those whom they did not wish to employ, in which case those employees would qualify for compensation under the Bill as drafted. The best arrangement, which I am suggesting to the House, seemed to be to make the Clause mandatory in relation to whole-time employees whose duties are wholly transferred to one board, even though the functions of the local water authority have been divided between more than one board.
    For the remainder, by virtue of paragraph 21 of Schedule 4, the boards will be able to take over anyone employed partly on water duties. From informal soundings we have made through the Department, we are confident that there should be jobs for all professional staff,
    1342
    including operational maintenance staff who want to transfer. I assure the House that we feel from the assessment we have made that, if anything, we are short of key personnel, and will need everyone available who wants to take up work in this way.
    For those who cannot or will not transfer, because they share their part-time water duties with another job and prefer to stay in it rather than be part-time in this capacity, any loss of employment or diminution or loss of emoluments will be subject to the compensation provisions of Clause 22.
    We state in subsection (1) of the new Clause that the take-over of an employee shall be on
    "…terms and conditions which, so far as practicable, are not less favourable…"
    than those on which he was previously employed. That limitation is needed to cover the case of the water engineer who is the chief professional officer of a water authority, but who, after the transfer, finds himself as the deputy in the new regional board. I thought that I should say that in case hon. Members read into those words something sinister which is not there.
    This is the best I have been able to do and I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) are content that we have tried as far as we can to meet their case. The House would want to see us doing this kind of action if we can, and I hope that the whole House can endorse it.
    Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: Can the Minister confirm that snaking the requirement on the new board mandatory by the new Clause will in no way affect compensation which employees of existing water authorities might obtain under the Redundancy Payments Act? I take it that if individual employees decide that they do not want to carry on in employment with the new water authorities, the fact that the obligation is made mandatory by the new Clause on the new regional boards would not in any way affect the rights of employees who wish to terminate their employment under that Act. I should like that assurance, and I am sure that the Minister can give it.
    The second point that worried me slightly was that the Minister indicated

    1343
    that as far as the Government could see the existing employees should be taken over by the new regional boards and seemed to infer that there would be a need for additional recruitment. I always find it slightly alarming to hear that reorganisation involves an increase in the number of officials required. Is the Minister really saying that, and can he give any indication of how extensive that new employment might be?
    Mr. Manuel: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State on trying to meet the point I made in Committee, aided very strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig). I wish just to ask him about subsection (2) of the new Clause, which states:
    "Where the functions of the authority have been transferred to more than one board, any person employed by the authority solely in connection with the functions transferred to one of those boards immediately before the second appointed day shall be taken over and employed by that board where that person is willing to enter the employment of that board on such terms and conditions as aforesaid."
    Does that cover the employee who, for three-quarters of his time was previously employed solely on water functions by a water board and for one-quarter of the time by a local authority on another duty? If, as my hon. Friend suggested, there will be a shortage of workers, it would appear that all those part-time workers would be offered employment, and if that is so he should say so.
    I hope that the Minister can give an answer so that those people who wrote to me and who will be watching our proceedings here very carefully, because of their interest in the staff in Ayrshire and elsewhere, will feel that we have got the point which we tried to get in Committee.
    Mr. Peter Doig: I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister of State has met the point we made and protected the interests of the employees concerned. However, I am a little puzzled by the attitude of the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne), who appears to be saying that he wants someone who is merely to transfer from one employer to another, but continuing the same job, to get a redundancy payment if he does not want to take that transfer.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: No.
    Mr. Doig: That was the way the hon. Gentleman framed his question. He appears to want any person who will be entitled to carry on with the same job at the same remuneration and with the same prospects to get a redundancy payment. If he is arguing that, it is wrong to do so, and I should not think that the Redundancy Payments Act can be stretched to that extent. If it can, it is time its provisions were changed.
    Mr. MacArthur: We had a very good debate in Committee about this matter of principle. My hon. Friends and I very much supported the view put forward by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), and I am very glad that the major principle then advanced has been accepted in the new Clause.
    I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) has some disagreements with my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) from time to time. During consideration of this Bill and of others, the hon. Member for Dundee, West has somehow managed to get the wrong end of the stick. I say that with the greatest respect and greatest tribute to his knowledge of these matters. This is yet another occasion when he has not quite succeeded in following my hon. Friend's argument.
    However, I am sure that the hon. Member will agree with me that this is as reasonable a proposal as one could expect to meet the very real problems that will confront the full-time professional employee, who might be faced with redundancy unless he had some certainty of employment with the new body, which, after all, simply takes over the functions of the body that employs him at present.
    Mr. Doig: Will the hon. Member kindly explain what he thinks his hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said if he did not say what I thought he said, because the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) appears to know what his hon. Friend said?
    Mr. MacArthur: I am always glad to say what my hon. Friend says because he speaks with such lucidity, but I find it a little difficult to understand what the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) is arguing.

    1345
    However that may be, I urge my hon. Friends to accept the new Clause which, I think, fulfils the purpose which was advanced by the hon. Member for Central Ay-shire and other hon. Members in Committee.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: By leave of the House, I think that I had better reply to some of the points which have been made. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig), I did not understand what the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said if, as he kept protesting, he did not say what my hon. Friend thought he said. I thought the hon. Member for South Angus was making a case for compensation in circumstances where the officer concerned had been offered a job. If the officer has been offered a job and has refused, clearly there can be no grounds for compensation. Redundancy payments follow only as a consequence of an inevitable redundancy where by definition no job has been offered.
    If we have got this wrong perhaps the hon. Member will correct me. If he is asking for an assurance that we shall operate the compensation provisions adequately, I can give him that assurance. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) thought that we might be defective under the 1960 provisions, but we have seen to that and the payment is only operative where a man has not been offered a job. If the hon. Member for South Angus wishes to make his position clear, I will give way.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The case I tried to make—I apologise if I did not make it clearly—was that of an employee who is offered what the new board regards as comparable employment, but what he does not regard as comparable employment and he is not prepared to accept as comparable employment and, therefore, he goes out. All I am concerned about is whether by putting a mandatory obligation on the new board we might be enabling it to escape obligations by an offer of a rather bogus comparable employment which it would not be able to escape if the obligation were not mandatory.
    Dr. Mabon: We are coming to another Clause which makes clear that if there are disputes the Secretary of State can appoint an arbiter. This is governed by Clauses
    1346
    17, 18 and 19 and new Clauses 1 and 2. I do not envisage this situation arising, but if it did the employee would, naturally, appeal through his trade union or professional association on the ground that he was being unreasonably offered a bogus job rather than one which he could accept. That is an entirely different case from the one which my hon. Friend and I assumed that the hon. Member for South Angus was raising earlier.
    We accept that with the shortage of professional talent in Scotland and the need for water engineers those anxious to continue in the water service should find no difficulty in doing so. I noticed that the hon. Member referred to officials while my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire used the word "workers" rather than employees or officials who might appear to be drones. I used the phrase quite deliberately when I said that there ought to be jobs for all professional staff, including operational maintenance staff. I chose those words deliberately because these are the people we are talking about. One of the reasons for regional organisation is to make use of regional talent.
    4.15 p.m.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire rightly raised a point about a part-time worker doing three-quarters of his time in the water service. We are concerned about including these workers in water authorities which generally are water boards which will disappear under the Act. I hope that they would be covered in the remainder of the provisions if we agreed to Amendment No. 26. I am glad that the House appears to want to endorse this new Clause.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 3.—(DETERMINATION OF DISPUTES.)
    Any dispute arising from the operation of the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall be determined by the Secretary of State or by an arbiter appointed by him.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    This Clause replaces subsection (5) of Clause 18 which, as previously drafted,

    1347
    is in the opinion of the Secretary of State too narrow. It provides only for the settlement of disputes arising out of the disposition of assets and liabilities. The new Clause provides for the settlement of disputes under the foregoing provisions of the Bill, which would mean the provisions in Clauses 17, 18 and 19 and new Clauses 1 and 2. I think that the new Clause speaks for itself and I commend it to the House.
    Mr. MacArthur: I do not think we need debate this matter at length, although I have a certain doubt about the propriety of the Secretary of State intervening as the decision-maker in the event of a dispute of this kind. On balance, it might be better to leave it to arbiters. The Minister of State will know that I am particularly sensitive about arbitration matters at present. We shall be returning to arbitration problems on another Bill later today. However, my doubts do not have much validity as we have allowed the previous provision to go through in Committee.
    In view of that, it is reasonable for this Clause to proceed. I have a lingering suspicion about the rôle of the Secretary of State in these matters, but I think that the Clause should be added to the Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

    New Clause No. 4.—(PROTECTION OF WATER MAINS.)
    As from the second appointed day, no building shall be erected over any water main belonging to a water development board or a regional water board, and no cellar, or subway, or any other structure shall be made so as to interfere with any such water main, unless with the consent of that board.—[Mr. MacArthur.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. MacArthur: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    On this new Clause I have no doubt at all. It is desirable that a Clause in these terms should be added to the Bill. We had some debate in Committee about a similar new Clause which I proposed. As the Minister will have observed, I have made certain changes since then, partly to make the Clause more accep-
    1348
    table to you, Mr. Speaker, and also to remove a doubt I had about the wording. I am not yet convinced that the wording which is before the House is entirely right. The principle, however, is quite clear. I know from what he said earlier that the Minister is aware of the principle we have in mind.
    This matter raises a curious yet an important point. Local water authorities at present have power of access to and to maintain water mains in their possession. An authority does not have a clear statutory right, I stress the word "clear", to prevent the erection of any building above the water main in its possession, or to prevent the interference with the water main which works of other kinds might represent, subways, the laying of pipes and cables, and the like—all of which would clearly interfere with the safeguarding of the water main.
    This point was very much in mind when the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, was drafted. That Act lays down, in Section 114, the following provisions:
    "Unless with consent of the local authority, no building shall be erected over any sewer belonging to the local authority, and no vault, arch, or cellar, or subway, or other structure shall be made, and no pipes of any kind shall be laid so as interfere with any such sewer."
    The reason for this Section was quite clear. The drafters wished to make it abundantly plain to any outside body that it must not interfere with sewers. I do not suggest for a moment that anyone would deliberately go out of his way to interfere with a sewer, but it is quite clear that during the course of building, or making a subway, or something of the kind, someone might, quite inadvertently, interfere with the course of a sewer. It is quite possible that someone making a subway, or constructing an arch, or laying a pipe or cable, might, inadvertently, interfere with a water main belonging to a water authority.
    In Committee we on this side said that the law must be clear and precise. Surely it is right that a Measure of this kind should put the rights and duties of the citizen beyond any argument. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) and several of his hon. Friends opposite argued that there was already adequate power within the existing statutes for water authorities not only to have access to the mains for the purpose of maintenance and the like,

    1349
    but, because they had that access, to prohibit, or at least to undo, the result of building over the water main by any other party.
    It was pointed out there had been a case in the English courts involving a Mr. Thane who had been so ill-advised as to build a house over a water main. Because he had made it impossible for the water authority concerned to have access to the water main, the matter was taken to the courts and resulted in a decision that Mr. Thane had to pull down his house in order to allow the water authority to have access to the water main.
    Mr. William Baxter: This is an interesting case. What was the purpose of the water authority's wanting to get to the water main under the man's house?
    Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman may well ask that question. I do not know. All that I do know is that if a water authority lays a main it is surely right that it should have the right of access to it for maintenance purposes and the like.
    The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that under present statutes there is the power for a water authority to have constant access to the mains in its possession. All that I am claiming is that it is right that in future the law should make it absolutely clear, and citizens in the course of their normal lives should be warned, that they must be careful in what they do, so that they will not build a house over a water main without the consent of the appropriate board, or that they shall not interfere with the water mains in any way.
    Mr. W. Baxter: The hon. Gentleman has spoken about a man building his house, inadvertently. He did not seem to know that there was a water main there. He builds a house over a water main, and the water authority does not require to get at a main unless there is a burst. Of course, having built over the water main, whatever damage done to get at the burst would be his responsibility. I cannot see why, if this should happen, any authority should compel a man to take his house down or to interfere with the individual.
    Mr. MacArthur: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he and I are
    1350
    at one on this point. All that I and my hon. Friends wish to do is to avoid the problem. We do not want to see a situation arising in which through a weakness in the law, a citizen, the hon. Gentleman, for example, may build a house over a water main and may then find that he has contravened the law, quite inadvertently. I say "indavertently", because as it at present stands the law provides for free access to the water mains by the authority owning and controlling the mains.
    As the Bill stands, there is no provision for the prohibition of a building of this kind. I would not like to think that the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have the greatest regard and affection, might find himself in the position of the unfortunate Mr. Thane, and, having built a house, being made to pull it down, brick by brick in order to give access to the water main. The risk of this would be lessened if the law on this point were precise. It is our duty to pass precise laws, showing the citizen where his interests and duties lie.
    We were told, in the most moving terms, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Springburn, that all this was quite unnecessary, because, he suggested, although he did not say, a man would be advised by his lawyer. He would not be fool-hardy as to build a house over a water main, because his legal adviser would know that in an ancient statute provision was made for an authority to have perpetual access to the main beneath the site of the house. However we have heard of the case of Mr. Thane.
    Mr. A. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman has been telling a very interesting story. Could he now explain the point of it, so that we will know what he is wanting to do to the Bill?
    Mr. MacArthur: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman has missed the point, perhaps he was not with us at the very early stages of our discussions in Committee. I will gladly repeat the point, several times if he wishes.
    It is that the argument advanced during previous stages of the Bill was that an amendment of this kind was unnecessary, because there were powers existing to deal with the situation. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will

    1351
    interrupt me if my argument is not clear. The argument was that water authorities already possess powers, giving them access to the mains in their charge. Is the right hon. Gentleman still with me?
    Mr. Woodburn Mr. Woodburn indicated assent.
    Mr. MacArthur: It followed because of the canon of construction that a citizen should not be told, but should be aware that he could not build an archway or anything of the kind over a water main because of the right of access provided for in existing statutes I am not satisfied—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is still with me—that citizens of Scotland should be required to conduct their affairs because of a canon of construction. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's constitutents or mine would know what a canon of construction was. I doubt whether they would recognise one if they met one in the street.
    Therefore, it is right that we should proceed, as the learned gentlemen who drew up the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, proceeded, and introduce into the Bill a provision making it clear that no one should build over or interfere with a water main without the consent of the board operating it. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition.
    Mr. George Willis: What is a canon of construction?
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. MacArthur: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am not a lawyer, but as I understand it, the power of the canon of construction in this case is this. By existing Statute, water authorities have power perpetually to have access to water mains in their charge for maintenance purposes, and so on. It follows that there is a canon of construction which means that a citizen would be ill-advised to build over the water main because by so doing he would deny the power of the water authority to have access to it. In other words, by his action he would make it particularly difficult for the statute to be carried into effect.
    This was the experience of the unfortunate Mr. Thane. The water authority appealed against him. The case was heard before a learned court and Mr.
    1352
    Thane had to pull his house down to allow the water authority to have access to the water main.
    It would be as well if the Bill were to include a provision like the one we suggest. It would not change existing law. It would merely underline the responsibility of private citizens in matters of this kind.
    Citizens, guided by their solicitors and advisers, know that they need to consult local authorities on building matters. I do not believe that they will know as sharply that it is necessary for them to consult the local water authority. Yet if they do not consult the water authority they may find that they have built a house over a water main which needs attention, but which cannot be attended to because of the presence of the house. If we are to be guided by the findings of the English courts, they may have to pull their houses down so as to provide that access.
    It is desirable from every point of view that the law should be precise and clear so that private citizens and their legal advisers know exactly where they stand. If it was right for this provision to be introduced into the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, I see no reason why it is not right for the same provision to be introduced into the Bill.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Would the hon. Gentleman spend some time in rebutting the arguments which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) used on the question, not of this being unnecessary, but of it being unwise?
    Mr. MacArthur: I am glad to extend the argument for as long as the hon. Gentleman wishes. He has asked me to elaborate on two points: first, is this proposal unnecessary; and, secondly, is it unwise? I do not believe that it is unwise for the simple reason that the law in this matter, as in other matters, should be clear and precise. I believe that the Bill would be clear and precise if the new Clause were included in it or if later a provision similar to it were introduced.
    Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asks whether the new Clause is necessary. In the strict and narrowest legal sense, it is unnecessary for the Clause to be included simply because of the canon of construction to which I have referred. It is

    1353
    unnecessary because there is already power in existing legislation for water authorities to have access to water mains in order to carry out maintenance work.
    All that I am saying is that it is not right for Parliament to expect the private citizen to have psychic observance of matters of this kind or to know that in an ancient Statute there is a requirement on them not to build over a water main. It is better for the Bill to make it clear to private citizens and their solicitors that when building houses they should have regard to the responsibilities of water authorities in the area. That is all that we ask. The new Clause is reasonable, necessary and wise and is ultimately for the protection of the private individual whom we seek to look after.
    I do not think that it is fair or reasonable for right hon. and hon. Members opposite to declare, as they declared earlier, that a provision of this kind is unnecessary because the law already provides this protection. We have seen what happened in England. Mr. Thane and, I believe, another gentlemen had to pull down their houses. The hon. Member for Springburn may think it reasonable that private citizens should have to pull down their houses because they have contravened an Act of which they had no knowledge. I do not share that view. It is far better to enact legislation which makes it less likely that Mr. Thane and others like him will build their houses over water mains in the first place. That surely makes sense.
    Secondly, I am not sure that it is a good idea for Scottish legislation to depend on rulings of the English courts. We are very proud in Scotland of our distinct judicial system. We are very proud of our structure of laws protected by the 1707 Act. I do not think that it is reasonable for hon. Members to suggest that the Scottish law should be governed in its interpretation by decisions of the English courts. I would much rather have the matter established once and for all in the Bill.
    I hope that the Minister will accept the new Clause. If he is not able to accept its wording, I hope that he will accept the principle of it and give an undertaking that during the final stage of the Bill he will introduce a new Clause meeting the point which we have abundantly exposed.
    Mr. W. Baxter: I do not know why the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) should get so upset and hot under the collar. It seems reasonable that no one would want to build a house over a sewer or water main. In fact, I think that people are prohibited from doing so by the building byelaws and the planning control exercised by local authorities.
    Water mains may be 12, 14 or 18 ins. in diameter, but take a main 1 in. or 2 ins. in diameter which has been in place for some time but which is not marked on the plan of the town or village. Suppose that, inadvertently, the local authority or a private individual builds a house over it. The power will now be vested in the water authority to tell them to take it down, notwithstanding the fact that the main has not caused any trouble whatsoever. If a water authority were given the power which the hon. Gentleman suggests in his Clause, it could compel the individual or local authority to take down that house.
    Mr. MacArthur: I appreciate that the lion. Gentleman was not on the Committee and, therefore, would not have been present on the two mornings which we devoted to this Amendment previously—
    Mr. Willis: On that occasion, the speech of the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) was even longer.
    Mr. MacArthur: I did not quite hear that interjection from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), but we moved the Amendment in the most modest and shortest way possible. It is a matter of fundamental principle.
    The point is not that the water authority should have power to compel someone to pull down a house. I am trying to prevent such a situation arising and ensure that if anyone wished to build a house over a water main, he should first obtain the consent of the water authority and so prevent the unfortunate situation which the hon. Member for Springburn described earlier.
    Mr. W. Baxter: It will add to the difficulties of a person building a house if he has to go to yet another authority. That is not a good way of trying to

    1355
    streamline procedures. Anyone seeking to build a house at present has a very torturous task before him. He has to obtain planning consent, and take account or roads, building byelaws, and so forth. Now the hon. Gentleman seeks to add further to the difficulties of a developer by requiring him to go to the water authority to make sure that everything is all right from its standpoint.
    I have never known of a case, but in certain circumstances it might be desirable to build a house over a water main or sewer. In such a case, a number of safeguards would be written into the agreement with the local authority which would be very helpful in the event of it being necessary to carry out any repair to a burst pipe which occurred under the building. It would be wrong of this Committee to inflict another problem on a developer by putting this Clause into the Bill.
    A water authority has a duty to perform, and it would be wrong to ask it to interfere in general questions of development. The hon. Gentleman is making a mountain out of a molehill, the molehill in this case being Mr. Thane, who built his house over a water main and who, for some unknown reason, was ordered to pull it down. I cannot understand why he was asked to do it.
    If there had been a burst in the water main, his house might have been flooded and he would have had no claim for compensation. The floorboards might have had to be torn up by the water authority for the purpose of repairing the water main, and in such a case I could understand it if he was held partly responsible, but I cannot understand why he should be compelled to pull down his house.
    Surely this is all wrong. It is seldom that a water main bursts and it would be a million-to-one chance that it would burst under a house which inadvertently or otherwise, had been built over a 1 in. or 2 in. main. Our duty is not to add to the difficulties of building houses. We should try to make our legislation as simple as possible.
    There are factors which militate against even a water authority being able to tell precisely where a water main is. I had an occasion recently in my own
    1356
    business. A trench was being dug in a position which was said to be some feet from a water main. However, the men digging the trench struck the main. It is obvious that, when the line of the main was being put on the plan, it was put in some feet in the wrong direction. If, in that case, a house had been built over it, who would have been held responsible for the mistake?
    I counsel the Minister to pay no heed to the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Gentleman. We have sufficient safeguards at present, and, in my opinion, it would be foolish to add further to the difficulties of anyone who seeks to build a house. In the case of a local authority, which is different from the water authority, it may be that it is seeking to redevelop the centre of its village or town, and it may be necessary from time to time to build houses or blocks of flats over water mains. I think that it would be a bad thing to agree to this new Clause.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Richard Buchanan: Reference has been made to the cases which I mentioned in Committee. However, they took place in 1940, before the building regulations were in being as they are today. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter) has said, these matters would have been known, and precautions would have been taken at the time to ensure that the houses were not necessarily pulled down. However, they were built without notification to the planning authority and the water authority and were obviously causing damage to water mains. As a result, the court held that they should come down.
    The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has changed his ground somewhat. In Committee, we debated the rights of water undertakings to protect their mains. I think that the House must accept that, when a statutory water undertaking lays water mains, whether on private or public land, it must be allowed access to them in order to maintain, operate and repair them. That being the case, the law consistently has supported water undertakings and given them the right to operate, maintain and repair their mains for the last 150 years. The courts have always protected

    1357
    them, not only in England but in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. The Amendment is unnecessary now that the hon. Gentleman is taking up the cudgels on behalf of the citizen who may build a house over a water main.
    Under the ordinary rules of interpretation, if this Clause is put into the Bill, it throws doubt on the situation everywhere else and on the position relating to existing mains. If matters are proven by law in certain cases, the courts will say that, elsewhere, Parliament meant them to be permitted. By this Clause every situation, past present and future, will be taken to be covered, and there will be grave doubt about circumstances other than those indicated in the hon. Gentleman's Clause.
    The Clause does not cover every possible situation, however, and the cure could be worse than the disease. What should be protected here is not the main itself, but access to it. Access can be impeded not merely by buildings over a main, but by buildings which have been erected in such a way that they are too close to a main. Furthermore, it is not only buildings which can affect such access, because there may be dumps of earth, rubbish, or even old cars; and there are plenty of those lying round.
    I think that I have said enough to show that although the Amendment has been put forward in the interests of the water undertakers, it may redound to their disadvantage. Speaking after consulting the experts in the water industry, I do not believe that the Clause in its present form will give them any more protection than they have under the existing law, and I ask my hon. Friend to reject it.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I would like to draw the attention of the House to what the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) said in Committee, when he was kind enough to withdraw a not dissimilar clause, following an assurance which I gave about further possible developments. He said:
    "However, the Minister told us that he saw the strength of our argument and that he recognised that there are two sides to the question. He was good enough to say that it is his intention, I think he said next week, to discuss the principle of the new Clause with the Association of County Councils and with other bodies outside. I am glad to know that he is taking the Amendment so seriously, and, in view of the assurance that he has given
    1358
    that the principle will be considered carefully in the light of informed opinion, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 16th March, 1967, c. 466.]
    A meeting was held and it was attended by the Association of County Councils, who are primarily concerned about this, the British Waterworks Association, and the Scottish Office. The British Waterworks Association represents a large number of bodies in Scotland as well as in England and Wales, and, I believe, in Northern Ireland, too. It therefore sees the position in a British context, and I think I tried to make that clear in some of my earlier remarks in Committee when I said that the Government must look at these matters not merely in a Scottish context, but in a British one.
    The Association of County Councils is the only one of three rating local authority associations to ask us about this. The other two are content. They are the Convention of Royal Burghs, and the Association of Counties of Cities, so it cannot be presumed that the whole of Scotland is up in arms about this. This is an argument—and I admit that there is sense in it—between, on the one hand, the Association of County Councils, and, on the other, the British Waterworks Association. I tried to explain the view that, on balance, the Government felt that an Amendment such as was proposed in Committee was a mistake. First, we agreed with the opposers of the Clause that it was unnecessary, but we went further and said that in its present form it would be unwise, because the hon. Gentleman's main object—and he said it several times this afternoon—is to clarify a doubt about the law.
    There is no other claim here except that of the unfortunate man whose house was pulled down. The hon. Gentleman says that he does not want this sort of thing to happen again, and that, therefore, we must clarify the law. What I do not think he has recognised—and I invited him to consider this—is what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) brought out at the end of his speech, namely, that if we were to incorporate this provision into the Bill we would cast more doubt on the law than there is at the moment.
    The Scottish Office was perfectly fair in listening to the arguments put forward

    1359
    by both sides at the meeting. It is certain that if we were to change the law it would require a great deal of thought on our part. It would require much lengthier proposals than this. It would have to include every possibility, some of which were touched on by my hon. Friend, and even then we could not be sure that we had dealt with everything. Furthermore, in the event of doing that, I think that we would have to make it a British statute.
    The English are not in this argument for the moment. They are content with the way in which the law operates in England and Wales. We have not received any representations from English local authorities asking us to make this change in a Scottish Bill so that the case will be strengthened to change the position in England and Wales.
    I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) is not here, because he was very helpful on this matter, even when he supported his hon. Friend, and I would like to draw attention to some of the things he said. He said, first, that
    "if a public authority is given statutory powers"—
    he was referring to the powers with regard to sewers provided in the 1897 Public Health Act—
    "there are implied consequential powers to enable it to see that it can carry out its statutory duties."
    Mr. MacArthur: This is the canon of construction?
    Dr. Mabon: Yes, in the context, not of the Public Health Act, but of the Water Act, 1946, which means that it has power to inspect, repair, maintain, alter, renew or remove the main. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Springburn made this point.
    The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say:
    "Undoubtedly, if a building would prejudice the capacity or ability of the authority to exercise its statutory powers an interdict would be granted in Scotland, as in England, and if it were erected without consent there would be power for the local authority by court order to have it removed."
    A little later the hon. and learned Gentleman said:
    "I would not be disposed to press the new Clause because in a strict legal sense it is not
    1360
    necessary…".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 16th March, 1967; cc. 455–457.]
    Therefore, the only argument in favour of making the change is to remove doubt. It is not that it is necessary to do so, but that it is desirable. Nobody has argued a necessitous case. What is being argued is a desirable one, but the cure, as my hon. Friend said, might be worse than the disease. The proposal is to remove a doubt, but the cure might give rise to a considerable number of additional doubts, certainly if the form of the Clause were accepted.
    I never criticise new Clauses or Amendments on grounds of drafting, because I consider this to be an unfair criticism of the Opposition or of private Members. But this is not a question of drafting. It is a question of having an exhaustive list of possibilities which would be incorporated as a positive and clear provision. This has defied the Scottish Office, and the British Waterworks Association, otherwise such a provision would have been devised. It has defied the Association of County Councils, and it has defied the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire, too, because, he has now had two chances and has not come up with what could be described as a provision which would cover every possibility. I reinforce the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. W. Baxter), that it is undesirable to cast more doubt on this matter when, in the present situation, all is well.
    The hon. Gentleman asks us to think of Mr. Thane. He represents the classic case which has given rise to the rulings which allow water developers to proceed with sterilising development. In other words, they are able to say, "Look at this terrible case in England. Please do not, therefore, interfere with the water mains".
    Mr. MacArthur: They are rulings by English courts.
    Dr. Mahon: But, with respect, these rulings are observed in Scotland.
    Perhaps I might quote the former Solicitor-General for Scotland, who was the sponsor of this proposition. He said that an interdict would be granted in the courts of Scotland if this provision was infringed in this way. In other words, the existence of the very thing which

    1361
    is causing the hon. Gentleman concern is the reason why we are able to prevent such cases occurring in England and Wales, and on the contention of his colleague, in Scotland, too. The advice available to the Government is of the same quality, namely, that if such an interdict were sought in the Scottish courts it would be granted.
    I emphasise what my hon. Friend said in concluding his argument. First, this provision is unnecessary. The hon. Gentleman has not demonstrated why it is necessary. He has not given us one example of why it is necessary, nor has the Association of County Councils.
    Secondly, the Government have argued with their opponents that it would be unwise to accept the Clause because more doubts would be caused by seeking to amend the law in this manner than would be removed by doing so.
    Lastly, unless we are willing to draw up a concise and exhaustive provision which can be operated in this Bill and, we assume, operated in England at the earliest opportunity, we shall not have a satisfactory situation, because it demands a British solution. No one has prescribed that, and my advice, now that we have discussed this matter with the Association of County Councils, the British Waterworks Associations and the Scottish Office, is that we should not agree to the new Clause.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. MacArthur: It is apparent from the hon. Member's argument that the Association of County Councils supports the principle of the Clause. Is that right?
    Dr. Mabon: I am led to believe that the Association, by coming to the meeting, wanted a change. Whether it supports the proposition contained in the Clause I do not know; perhaps the hon. Gentleman can tell us.
    Mr. MacArthur: My understanding is that the Association supports the principle. This does not surprise me. The hon. Member has argued that the Clause is strictly unnecessary. I am obliged to him for what he has said today and at previous stages, namely, that he does not expect us to be able to produce on every occasion precisely the required wording. I applaud his approach to this
    1362
    matter. He is good enough to recognise that certain difficulties are involved and that new Clauses and Amendments are often put down simply to present to the House or the Committee the principle involved. In this case that principle is clear.
    The hon. Member says that the Clause is unnecessary because the law is satisfactory as it stands. I am sorry that I have not yet been able to convince him or his hon. Friends that the law is not satisfactory, and that some provision is necessary to clarify it. It is all very well for him to say that we must look at the question in a British context and take account of what the English courts have ruled in English circumstances. I remind him that we are trying to pass a Scottish Bill, designed to deal with Scottish water administration in a purely Scottish context, and we are concerned with the protection of the rights of Scottish citizens. It is not reasonable to argue that the Scottish citizen and his legal advisers should have regard to the decisions of English courts in these matters.
    Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that many decisions taken in Scottish courts impinge on English law. The two systems interact. For example, in the case of obscene publications, governed by an Act which applied only to England and Wales, the ruling of an English court in respect of a certain publication was endorsed by the present Lord Grant, who was then Lord Advocate. He said that no further proceedings need to be taken in Scottish courts. In practice it may be undesirable, but that is what happens.
    Mr. MacArthur: I am aware of that. I believe that the case to which the hon. Member has referred sprang from a question that I put down.
    Dr. Mabon: As a matter of fact, it was my Question.
    Mr. MacArthur: It was the hon. Member or myself—it depends on which work of literary merit we are referring to. I believe that I referred to the first one. He may have followed with another. At least we take the same view on that question.
    I maintain, however, that it is not reasonable that Scottish citizens should be bound in their actions by decisions

    1363
    of the English courts. I cannot believe that we should pass a Bill dealing with a new Scottish organisation, quite different from anything in England, which does not clearly define the rights and duties of the citizen.
    I realise that the Minister is not quibbling about the wording of the Clause. It may be that the wording is not quite right, but the principle is clear. It is not sufficient to say—as the Minister and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) are saying —that it does not matter whether or not we incorporate the Clause. Citizens in Scotland may be governed by the canon of construction, but people building houses in Scotland do not think of these things. The Minister, his advisers and the courts see these matters in a completely different light. The man in the street does not have regard to the finer points of English law in these matters. Why should he?
    Mr. Donald Dewar: If the hon. Member wants Scottish courts to disregard all English precedents he is seeking to rewrite the whole practice of the Scottish Court of Session and Scottish other courts.
    Mr. MacArthur: I am not suggesting that they should disregard all the findings but that the Scottish law with which we are now dealing should be clear and precise. I see no reason why it should not be.
    The Minister paid a compliment to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie), who has apologised for his inability to be with us today. I support what the Minis-
    ter says about my hon. and learned Friend. I must point out that in another part of the speech of my hon. and learned Friend from which the Minister has quoted, he said:
    "It is a well-recognised canon of construction that if a public authority is giving statutory powers there are implied consequential powers to enable it to see that it can carry out its statutory duties…it seems to me that there are arguments for some such clearly stated provision in this legislation."
    The provision to which he was there referring was the Clause in its original version, as put forward in Committee.
    My hon. and learned Friend continued:
    "One hears again and again how undesirable it is that public legislation should not be clear, how desirable it is that it should be readily understood by the public If some such provision is not made, the public will have to rely on a canon of construction of which it may not be aware."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 16th March. 1967; c. 455–7.]
    Because the public may well not be aware of this canon of construction I appeal to the House to accept the new Clause, which makes the position absolutely clear, just as our predecessors agreed that in the 1897 Public Health Act a similar proposition should be agreed to. It was right then, and I believe that it is right now.
    I do not insist on the precise wording, but I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to press the Clause to a Division, because the principle involved is of fundamental importance.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 199.

    Division No. 316.]

    AYES

    [5.08 p.m.

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

    Campbell, Gordon

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Astor, John

    Carlisle, Mark

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Awdry, Daniel

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Goodhart, Philip

    Baker, W. H. K.

    Clegg, Walter

    Goodhew, Victor

    Balniel, Lord

    Corfield, F. V.

    Gower, Raymond

    Batsford, Brian

    Costain, A. P.

    Grant, Anthony

    Bell, Ronald

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

    Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Blaker, Peter

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Gurden, Harold

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Doughty, Charles

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Braine, Bernard

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter

    Eden, Sir John

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

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

    Eyre, Reginald

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Foster, Sir John

    Hawkins, Paul

    Burden, F. A.

    Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Hiley, Joseph

    Maginnis, John E.

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Scott, Nicholas

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Maude, Angus

    Sharpies, Richard

    Holland, Philip

    Mawby, Ray

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

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Sinclair, Sir George

    Hordern, Peter

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

    Smith, John

    Hunt, John

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Stodart, Anthony

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

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

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    More, Jasper

    Tapsell, Peter

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Jopling, Michael

    Murton, Oscar

    Temple, John M.

    Joseph, Rt Hn. Sir Keith

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Kimball, Marcus

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    Walters, Dennis

    Kitson, Timothy

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Webster, David

    Langford-Holt, Sir John

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Percival, Ian

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Loveys, W. H.

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Lubbock, Erie

    Prior, J. M. L.

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Pym, Francis

    Worsley, Marcus

    MacArthur, Ian

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Younger, Hn. George

    Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Monro.

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Faulds, Andrew

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Alldritt, Walter

    Finch, Harold

    McBride, Neil

    Allen, Scholefield

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    MacColl, James

    Anderson, Donald

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Floud, Bernard

    McGuire, Michael

    Ashley, Jack

    Foley, Maurice

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Ford, Ben

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    Forrester, John

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Fowler, Gerry

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

    Barnett, Joel

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Baxter, William

    Garrett, W. E.

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

    Beaney, Alan

    Ginsburg, David

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Bence, Cyril

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Manuel, Archie

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    Mapp, Charles

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Gregory, Arnold

    Marquand, David

    Binns, John

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Mason, Roy

    Bishop, E. S.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Mellish, Robert

    Blackburn, F.

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Booth, Albert

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Boston, Terence

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Millan, Bruce

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

    Hannan, William

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Harper, Joseph

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Bray, Dr. Jeremy

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Molloy, William

    Brooks, Edwin

    Haseldine, Norman

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

    Hilton, W. S.

    Moyle, Roland

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

    Hooley, Frank

    Murray, Albert

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

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Neal, Harold

    Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Norwood, Christopher

    Cant, R. B.

    Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Carmichael, Neil

    Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    O'Malley, Brian

    Coe, Denis

    Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

    Orme, Stanley

    Coleman, Donald

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Concannon, J. D.

    Hynd, John

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Conlan, Bernard

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

    Palmer, Arthur

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

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

    Park, Trevor

    Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Pentland, Norman

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    Kelley, Richard

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

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

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Dewar, Donald

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

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Dickens, James

    Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

    Rankin, John

    Doig, Peter

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Driberg, Tom

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Eadie, Alex

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Robinson, Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)

    Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Lomas, Kenneth

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

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Loughlin, Charles

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Ensor, David

    Luard, Evan

    Rose, Paul

    1366

    1367

    Ross, Rt. Hn. William

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

    Thornton, Ernest

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Tinn, James

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    Sheldon, Robert

    Tomney, Frank

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

    Urwin, T. W.

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

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

    Varley, Eric G.

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Varley)

    Winnick, David

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Walden, Brian (All Saints)

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A

    Slater, Joseph

    Wallace, George

    Woof, Robert

    Small, William

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Stonehouse, John

    Wellbeloved, James

    Mr. Charles R. Morris and

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Whitaker, Ben

    Mr. Grey.

    Symonds, J. B.

    Whitlock, William

    New Clause No. 5.—(DUTY OF REGIONAL WATER BOARDS AND WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARDS TO CONSULT RIVER PURIFICATION AUTHORITIES.)
    Where any River Purification Authority is likely to be affected by the exercise of any of their functions under this Act, Regional Water Boards and Water Development Boards shall consult any such Authority, and in the exercise of their functions under the Act they shall have regard to any representations made to them by any such authority.—[Mr. Monro.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Hector Monro: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
    We discussed the principle of the new Clause in an Amendment to Clause 6, in Committee. The Minister of State is underestimating its importance. On reflection, I do not think that the Minister went as far as we thought he was going in the subsequent Amendment which he put down.
    The Clause relates to the duty of river purification authorities to husband the resources of their area under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act, 1951. It is, therefore, vital that these authorities should know as early as possible what abstraction or impounding of water is going on in their districts. Their calculations of effluent depend on the water available. All industries which pollute rivers are vitally concerned—for example, sewerage works, farms and any concern which discharges into a river.
    The tiniest reduction in flow because the water board has impounded or abstracted will make nonsense of calculations and it is, therefore, vital that the purification authorities should be consulted as early as possible. Of course, it will save a regional water board time in surveying and planning if it knows the view of the purification authority as early as possible. The authority may say that the board may not have water from a
    1368
    certain river because it will increase the strength of effluent and make nonsense of the authority's previous calculations.
    I need to go into no further detail on this principle, as it has been argued in Committee. Statutory consultation is vital and there is no question of asking for representation on the water board. In reply to the debate in Committee, the Minister offered, and moved, an Amendment to Schedule 5, but I do not think, on reflection, that it went far enough, as it insisted only on the regional water board giving notice of its intention to proceed with works. This means after a decision has been made, and would, therefore, be too late. Time will have been wasted by the board and complications may be caused with the purification authorities.
    The Minister accepted that it was right to consult, but said that Clause 6 was too early. But it is never too early to begin consultation on an important issue like this. It would save the time of the engineers because, if the water resource is not in the end available because of the objection of the purification authority, all the time which the board has spent will have been wasted. Also, with the information which the purification authorities already have, there is the possibility of duplication of effort.
    5.15 p.m.
    The Minister went on to say that a board is bound to consult the purification authority if it is prudent. I agree, but if it is so essential, why not put it into the Bill now? The Minister promised again, in column 216, to look at this and, because of his sympathy with our argument, we withdrew the Amendment at that time. The Minister amended Schedule 5, which altered the 1946 Act and which not only included the extra definition of river authority but required the water board to consult the river purification authority. But this is too late. Consultations are necessary sooner.

    1369
    Not only do I and my colleagues think that this is important; so do the purification authorities concerned. I have had representations from the Solway and the Tweed River Purification Authorities, both of which are held in the highest esteem in water circles. I have read the letters from the hon. Gentleman's Department to the Solway Authority, in which the point about early consultation seems to have been missed. It is before a decision should be made that consultations are desirable. Both the authorities I have mentioned feel strongly about this and I have no reason to think that the Clyde River Purification Authority feels otherwise.
    The new Clause is simple and concise and does what is wanted. It may save time and duplication of effort. We know that water engineers will be in extremely short supply and the less unnecessary work they have to do the better. I hope the Minister of State will accept the Clause, because it is logical and is what everyone in Scotland wants.
    Mr. David Steel: I do not believe in repeating arguments which have already been put adequately. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has put the case very well for the new Clause. However, since the Committee proceedings, I have had discussions with the Chief Officer of the Tweed River Purification Authority, at its headquarters. I was interested to see the valuable work which the authority does, which goes far beyond the general narrow idea of purification. They have a great deal of experience and basic information about the water resources of a region at their command. After that meeting, I have had representations from the Clerk to the Tweed Authority.
    I would urge the Minister of State to accept the new Clause. It is not good enough to leave it open to the new authorities to consult the river purification authorities if they see fit. In this and so many other matters consultation and its effectiveness will depend on the personal relations which exist between the purification authorities' officers and those of the water boards. At present, in the River Tweed area these relationships are extremely good. It might, therefore, be argued that no statutory provision is required. However, in other parts of Scotland the position is not so good and we
    1370
    do not know what the position will be when these boards come into force. It is, therefore, reasonable to say that in any changes that are envisaged for the development of water resources, the purification authorities, which have the expertise, should be consulted at the earliest possible point.
    This is a minor point, but one of important principle but I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the Clause.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith: I support this eminently reasonable Clause and hope that it will be accepted. Hon. Members should remember that when discussing a Bill of this nature we should not lose sight of its basic purpose, which is to look after one of our basic natural resources. In other words, this is largely a question of water conservation.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) referred to the 1951 Act. Section 17(1) of that Measure describes fully the functions of river purification authorities and shows that these functions extend beyond the question of pollution, for it states:
    "It shall be the duty of the authorities specified in the next following subsection … to promote the cleanliness of the rivers and other inland waters and the tidal waters in their areas, to conserve so far as practicable the water resources of their areas and to exercise for those purposes the functions conferred on them by this Act."
    This demonstrates the tremendously wide responsibilities that are already shouldered by river purification authorities. I hope, therefore, that it will be obligatory for the new boards to consult with these authorities at the earliest possible stage.
    I do not intend to repeat in detail the arguments that have already been adduced. Anybody who has had experience, as I have, of the working of river purification authorities appreciates the tremendous local knowledge that these authorities possess. This knowledge has been built up since these bodies were established. They have officers working in particular localities who know about the water resources of their areas. They carry out work in river gauging, the measurement of rainfall, and so on, and, therefore, have a tremendous amount of information at their fingertips. This information will be of great importance

    1371
    when the new boards consider new methods of guaranteeing the supply of water.
    This extends more widely to the question of the abstraction of water high up in a river and the way in which this affects the quality of the water lower down. If the existing authorities are not consulted—remembering that one cannot be certain that they will be under the Bill as drafted—there will be the risk that the work that has been done by these authorities will be nullified by the work of the new bodies. This would be a great shame, remembering that at the end of the day we are all working toward the same aim.
    I said that I would not repeat the arguments that have been adduced, but I must give one example to show what happens. About 50 per cent. of the river water in the Lothians area comes from underground sources. When considering the resources of water in the area one must, therefore, consider the water before it actually reaches the river.
    The authority at present operating in the area is responsible for the cleanliness of the water and, in carrying out this responsibility, depends on getting its water not from a reservoir but from underground sources. I give this example to demonstrate that the responsibilities of river authorities extend beyond the rivers themselves.
    It is vital that these consultations should take place at the earliest possible stage. I am sure that in many cases this will happen, even without the Clause, but we would be leaving it to chance. There will be cases when it will not happen and when all the good work that has been done will be lost. That is why I urge the Minister to accept the Clause, because, by doing so, he will ensure that what we all want to happen is not left to chance.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Oliver Twist has always been a favourite character of mine. He had a good case and a fair request. When considering what happened in Committee, I suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite are not now asking for a loaf—when in Committee we gave half a loaf—but are asking for one and a half loaves. In any case, there seems to be some confusion about exactly what happened in Committee and what is being asked for now.
    1372
    In Committee, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) made a good case. On that occasion I could not go the whole way and accept his case in its entirety. I appreciate that what he said came from the Solway River Purification Authority and I admit at once that I have a natural affection for these authorities. It was my privilege to be the Minister who took the 1965 Act through its Committee stage. I recall with some pleasure the important work done by my predecessor who represented Greenock and what he did when Secretary of State during the passage of the initial Act. I accept all that and I assure hon. Members that I have taken a keen interest in the work of these authorities. Only last night I was with the Chairman of the Scottish River Purification Advisory Committee.
    It is not true to say that there is a general outcry from river purification authorities and that they are demanding much more than we have done in the Bill. The Lower Clyde has been mentioned, but the Lower Clyde Board has never written asking us to enact the provision contained in the Clause, no doubt because this and other authorities understand the change we made in Committee and what it means.
    I do not dissent from the proposition that a regional water board which fails to consult is not doing its duty properly. That failure will be exposed whenever the time comes to go through the statutory obligations which are consequent on the Amendment which we have made to Schedule 1 of the 1946 Act. In Committee, the hon. Member for Dumfries referred to water being "suddenly abstracted" from a river by a regional water board. I responded by saying that water could not be suddenly abstracted in that way because a regional water board would require an Order under Section 21 of the 1964 Act. We made an Amendment in Committee to ensure that any interested river purification authority would be consulted and that the Secretary of State would, if the objection had not been withdrawn, cause an inquiry to be held. At that stage it would be obvious to the Secretary of State that the board, if it had not consulted the purification authority, had not properly carried out its duty.
    It should be remembered that the board may have consulted the purification authority but that that authority had

    1373
    not got its way. Consultation does not mean that one must do what the persons concerned are seeking to consult one about. That would be unfair and ridiculous. After all, the regional board may say, "We have consulted them and have new issued them with a statutory notice, and that is why they are objecting". We will make it clear when the Bill is passed, when we send out a circular to all authorities, exactly what the position is about consultation and the position, will be made clear not merely to river purification authorities but, as I said in Committee, to all other bodies.
    Obviously, the purification authorities are the outstanding bodies to be consulted and would probably be the first to he consulted when a regional board had a proposal. However, the other bodies to which I was referring on that occasion cannot be dismissed. Although perhaps not as important as river purification authorities, they must be considered. I can think of the Nature Conservancy. A good case might be made out why that body should be added to the new Clause. There are the district fishery boards, and a good case could no doubt be made out why they should be included. There are various angling associations. Should not they be included?
    We made concessions in Committee and, considering the variety of interested authorities, I suggest that, when exercising their functions, the regional boards will consult these bodies, including the purification authorities. To accept the Clause would mean that a regional board would in all circumstances have to
    "… consult any such Authority"—
    meaning, in the Clause, any river purification authority—
    "…in the exercise of their functions under the Act…"
    I am arguing that there is a case in equity for including not just river purification authorities but, say, the Nature Conservancy, the district fishery boards and even the electricity boards.
    The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) made out a good case in Committee for considering the electricity boards in this context. I said in reply to his argument on that occasion that the new water boards would be failing in their duty if they did not consult, not from a statutory point of view but as good business men. If they did not have
    1374
    early discussions with, say, the South of Scotland Electricity Board in the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman outlined, they would not be acting as good business men.
    I was not prepared at that time to write in a statutory requirement, because "at the earliest stage" could mean the point when the matter came on the agenda at one of the board's meetings. Perhaps there could be an even earlier stage. It might be argued that there should be consultation even before the matter had appeared on the agenda.
    There are statutory authorities other than electricity boards. In addition to angling associations, there are navigation authorities. In the Clyde, for example, there is not just a Clyde River Authority, but a Clyde Port Authority, which is an equally important organisation. There are certain reservations in the Bill about their statutory rights. It might even be argued that the Landowners' Federation should be the first to he consulted. What about the Association for the Preservation of Rural Scotland? There are all sorts of amenity societies.
    I am saying that it is quite unfair to incorporate a Clause of this kind when it is so wide and when it specifies one particular agency, considering all the other agencies with interests in these matters.
    Mr. David Steel: The Minister is making very heavy weather here. He is not suggesting, is he, that the extent of the river purification boards' information and direct involvement in water resources matters is in any way analogous to that of the Association for Preservation of Rural Scotland and the angling societies? The interest is quite different.
    Dr. Mabon: I agree, but I do not know whether those authorities and private bodies would agree. We all have to respect the rights of minorities. Anglers most certainly have rights in the matter which we cannot dismiss, but there is no statutory authority in regard to them. With respect, it is not I who is making heavy weather. I think that the very heavy weather is made by two river purification authorities, which never really thought that the argument would be carried as far—or, at least, one of them did, but the other did not. My right hon. Friend is not bombarded with letters

    1375
    saying, "There will be a terrible mess if we do not put in this provision."
    I conceded the hon. Member a point in the Committee. I could not give him the whole case, but I gave him part of it. Ministers must consult. Our impression was that if we amended Schedule 5, as I think it was, so as to alter the position in the 1946 Act we would be providing a statutory right for river purification authorities to get this information, and to be consulted. Not one word has been said in support of river purification authorities with which I disagree. I believe that the case that has been put up is quite right and proper. They should be consulted as soon as possible, and perhaps some of the other associations that have been referred to could be considered as well in the appropriate context. The hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) would, I am sure, agree with what I said about electricity boards.
    We cannot seek to incorporate a reference to one body, leave out the rest, and imagine that the rights of the rest are by inference unaffected. It might be argued that because Parliament deliberately left out those references there was no obligation, even on the score of good business, for the boards so to refer. I do not lay great stress on that, but if we are to have a new Clause referring to the rights of one public body, why should it not refer to other public bodies? Why should it not refer to individual private bodies?
    I give the House the assurance that when the Bill is on the Statute Book the Secretary of State will ensure that a circular is sent to all the kinds of bodies I have mentioned including, naturally, the river purification authorities, and that we will make sure that the Secretary of State's Advisory Committee is aware of this, and is aware, also, of the opportunity to remind the Secretary of State, not that the regional boards are in breach of Statute—because they would not be—but are in breach of good practice, and to give him illustrations of the kind of thing that might happen in the Solway, the Tweed, or elsewhere.
    I think that I have made a fair offer. It is not quite the full loaf that the hon. Member for Dumfries sought in Committee. He has already got half of it—
    1376
    can he not settle for three-quarters rather than seek a loaf and a half?
    Mr. MacArthur: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) will not settle for this offer of an alleged half-loaf. I call the Minister's attention to the wording of Clause 6. The hon. Gentleman earlier suggested that by its wording this new Clause might require consultation at the earliest of stages. He certainly used the words that consultation would be required "at the earliest of stages". But there is no requirement in the Bill as it stands for any consultation at any time—neither at the earliest nor at the latest of stages.
    All that Clause 6 lays down is that in matters of common interest regional water boards and water development boards shall consult together and collaborate. We have had a lot of debate about the word "collaborate" and I shall not go over it again. But the present wording of the Clause relates simply to regional water boards and water development boards. There is no mention of bodies outside. The Minister must agree, and it is clear from what he has said that he does agree, that river purification authorities have a particularly important place in water supply and development matters. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) made the point just now that they are in a special position in such matters.
    The Minister may well consider, and I would not dispute it, that there are other bodies which should, on occasion, also be consulted because they have concern for water, amenities, and the like. In that case, let the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking now that in the Bill's next stage in another place he will introduce an Amendment to cover the point made by my hon. Friend and the general point he himself is advancing. It is not sufficient for him to rest on Clause 6 as it stands, because it does not provide—
    Mr. Willis: Which Clause?
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. MacArthur: Clause 6. I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the Bill.
    As I was saying, it is not sufficient for the Minister to rest on Clause 6 as it stands, because it does not provide for that wider consultation that we believe is necessary—
    Mr. Willis: I asked which Clause the hon. Gentleman was referring to, because we now happen to be discussing new Clause No. 5.
    Mr. MacArthur: If the hon. Gentleman has been paying attention to the debate he will know that Clause 6 is the Clause to which we are primarily referring. There is no provision in Clause 6 for previous consultation with river purification authorities but only for consultation between regional water boards and water development boards. If the hon. Gentleman studies Clause 6, I hope that he will now accept that there is need for an extension of the consultation requirement.
    My hon. Friend has advanced the argument most clearly. The Minister makes obeisance to what my hon. Friend says, and tells him, "Do not worry—we can send out a circular to cover the point". I do not think that Ministerial circulars are sufficient. Such matters should be precise. The Bill would be substantially improved if it were more precise in some respects, and this is one respect in which precision should be introduced into the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman cannot accept the new Clause as it stands, I hope that he will at least give an undertaking to meet this point and the wider point he himself advanced at a later stage in another place.
    Mr. Manuel: I hope my hon. Friend will not be moved from his present position. It is bad for the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) and his hon. Friends to take up the hard position they have adopted. In my opinion it would cause a certain resentment to write into the Bill a provision with respect to river purification authorities but to omit from reference authorities doing valuable work on water provision and water cleanliness. I would be very opposed to such a provision being inserted, although I recognise its supreme importance.
    During my adult life I have allied myself with the work done by purification authorities, but I realise equally the immense stature and capability of, and the trust reposed in, for instance, the Hydro-Electric Board. I realise the intense interest that the Board has in connection with the extraction of water in many of the areas it administers. I quite understand the hon. Member for Dum-
    1378
    fries seeking to put forward the representations he has had from his area, but he must recognise that in legislation of this kind we are looking at Scotland as a whole, and not at a particular area, so that it will apply equitably throughout Scotland.
    It will be admitted that not all river purification boards are as strong as they are in Ayrshire and Dumfries-shire. Some are no more than an adjunct of the county council. There will, therefore, be some resentment if these provisions are made as hard and as fast as the hon. Member for Dumfries suggests. Hon. Members would be well advised to think of Scotland as a whole and of the importance of all the authorities which may be interested, and not to pinpoint one which they may consider to be the most important and which may be the most important.
    We have to recognise that the Hydro-Electric Board and other authorities mentioned by my hon. Friend the Minister of State will consider their range of duties to be equally important. By adopting the hon. Member's suggestion, we would at any rate tend to set them against what we are trying to do. On the other hand, my hon. Friend's proposition puts the onus on the regional water board to notify all concerned.
    Mr. Monro: After the decision.
    Mr. Manuel: Not after the decision. My hon. Friend explained this very carefully and I accept his honesty of purpose and integrity, as would hon Members opposite if they had known him as long as I have.
    Mr. Monro: If the Minister of State thinks that he has given me half a loaf, I am glad that I do not come frequently to his table for crumbs. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) and the Minister are making extraordinary heavy weather of what ought to be a very simple situation. What my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel), who has given us his very knowledgeable views on the Tweed Board are arguing is that before water boards reach any decision they should get in touch with river purification boards. That does not seem to be too much to ask, particularly when hon. Members

    1379
    on both sides of the House have spoken of the great warmth of feeling and cooperation in this respect. We are not asking much, but this is vitally important.
    The Minister of State said that I had no right to include the views of the Clyde River Purification Board. If he had read "The Water Service in Scotland", he would have seen that in its evidence, reported on page 74, the Clyde River Purification Board said:
    "The Board welcome the linking of public supply undertakings into larger units and suggest that a procedure should be laid down to secure that the Board are fully consulted at an early stage about all new abstractions."
    That is exactly what I am arguing.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: On the contrary, the hon. Gentleman is asking for consultation at all stages to be a statutory requirement. There is a big difference between a statutory requirment and a procedure. A procedure can be consequential upon a statutory requirement, or upon certain administrative understandings in which the Secretary of State is the principal officer concerned.
    Mr. Monro: We are considering what will be a new Act and we want to be
    absolutely clear and seen to be clear. It is quite wrong to legislate by circular. I would have thought that such a suggestion was not worthy of the Minister. It should be firmly laid down in the Bill that a regional water board should notify the river purification board at the earliest moment.
    The Minister overplayed his hand when he started talking about fishing rights and the Nature Conservancy. While all those are important, in a way they are covered by the blanket work of a river purification board. Their purpose is to see that the river is kept in the cleanest possible state for fish and other wild life. That is one of the aims of the purification authorities—to provide fresh clear water in our rivers for the benefit of fish and bird life—and they will, naturally, take a very close interest in those branches of field sports and pursuits.
    The Minister has failed to meet me in any way since the Committee stage and I therefore have no hesitation in dividing the House.
    Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
    The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 199.

    Division No. 317.]

    AYES

    [5.55 p.m.

    Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

    Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

    Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

    Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

    Kaberry, Sir Donald

    Astor, John

    Errington, Eir Eric

    Kimball, Marcus

    Awdry, Daniel

    Eyre, Reginald

    King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

    Baker, W. H. K.

    Foster, Sir John

    Kitson, Timothy

    Balniel, Lord

    Gibson-Watt, David

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Batsford, Brian

    Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

    Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

    Bell, Ronald

    Goodhart, Philip

    Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

    Goodhew, Victor

    Loveys, W. H.

    Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

    Gower, Raymond

    Lubbock, Eric

    Blaker, Peter

    Grant-Ferris, R.

    McAdden, Sir Stephen

    Bossom, Sir Clive

    Gresham Cooke, R.

    MacArthur, Ian

    Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

    Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

    Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

    Braine, Bernard

    Gurden, Harold

    Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Maginnis, John E.

    Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

    Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

    Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

    Bruce-Gardyne, J.

    Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)

    Maude, Angus

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

    Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

    Mawby, Ray

    Buck, Antony (Colchester)

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

    Bullus, Sir Eric

    Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

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

    Burden, F. A.

    Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

    Mills, Peter (Torrington)

    Campbell, Gordon

    Hawkins, Paul

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Carlisle, Mark

    Higgins, Terence L.

    Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

    Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

    Hiley, Joseph

    More, Jasper

    Clegg, Walter

    Hill, J. E. B.

    Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

    Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Corfield, F. V.

    Holland, Philip

    Murton, Oscar

    Costain, A. P.

    Hooson, Emlyn

    Nabarro, Sir Gerald

    Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hordern, Peter

    Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

    Cunningham, Sir Knox

    Hunt, John

    Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

    Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

    Hutchison, Michael Clark

    Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

    d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Page, John (Harrow, W.)

    Doughty, Charles

    Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

    Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Percival, Ian

    Eden, Sir John

    Jopling, Michael

    Pike, Miss Mervyn

    Prior, J. M. L.

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

    Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

    Pym, Francis

    Tapsell, Peter

    Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

    Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

    Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

    Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

    Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

    Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

    Temple, John M.

    Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

    Russell, Sir Ronald

    Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

    Worsley, Marcus

    Scott, Nicholas

    Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

    Younger, Hn. George

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

    Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

    Smith, John

    Walters, Dennis

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Steel, David (Roxburgh)

    Ward, Dame Irene

    Mr. Grant and Mr. Monro.

    Stodart, Anthony

    Webster, David

    NOES

    Abse, Leo

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

    Norwood, Christopher

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

    Oakes, Gordon

    Alldritt, Walter

    Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

    O'Malley, Brian

    Allen, Scholefield

    Gregory, Arnold

    Orme, Stanley

    Anderson, Donald

    Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

    Oswald, Thomas

    Armstrong, Ernest

    Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

    Owen, Will (Morpeth)

    Ashley, Jack

    Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

    Palmer, Arthur

    Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

    Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

    Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

    Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

    Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

    Park, Trevor

    Bagier, Gordon A. T.

    Hannan, William

    Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    Barnett, Joel

    Harper, Joseph

    Pavitt, Laurence

    Beaney, Alan

    Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

    Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

    Bence, Cyril

    Hart, Mrs. Judith

    Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

    Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

    Haseldine, Norman

    Pentland, Norman

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Hilton, W. S.

    Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

    Binns, John

    Hooley, Frank

    Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

    Bishop, E. S.

    Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

    Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

    Blackburn, F.

    Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

    Price, William (Rugby)

    Booth, Albert

    Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

    Rankin, John

    Boston, Terence

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Reynolds, G. W.

    Bowden, Rt. Hn. Herbert

    Hynd, John

    Rhodes, Geoffrey

    Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

    Irvine, T. J. (Edge Hill)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Bray, Dr, Jeremy

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

    Robinson, Rt. Hn. Kenneth (St. P'c'as)

    Brooks, Edwin

    Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

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

    Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

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

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

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

    Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

    Rose, Paul

    Buchanan Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)

    Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

    Ross. Rt. Hn. William

    Butler, Mis. Joyce (Wood Green)

    Jones, Dan (Burnley)

    Rowland. Christopher (Meriden)

    Cant, R. B.

    Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

    Rowlands. E. (Cardiff, N.)

    Carmichael, Neil

    Kenyon, Clifford

    Sheldon, Robert

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

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

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

    Coe, Denis

    Kerr Dr. David (W'worth, Central)

    Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

    Coleman, Donald

    Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Concannon, J. D.

    Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Lestor, Miss Joan

    Slater, Joseph

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

    Small, William

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Spriggs, Leslie

    Cronin, John

    Lomas, Kenneth

    Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

    Crossman, Rt, Hn. Richard

    Loughlin, Charles

    Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

    Cullen, Mrs. Alice

    Luard, Evan

    Symonds, J. B.

    Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

    Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

    Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Thornton, Ernest

    Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

    McBride, Neil

    Tinn, James

    Davies, Ifor (Gower)

    MacColl, James

    Tomney, Frank

    Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

    MacDermot, Niall

    Urwin, T. W.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    McGuire, Michael

    Varley, Eric G.

    Dewar, Donald

    McKay, Mrs. Margaret

    Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

    Dickens, James

    Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

    Wallace, George

    Doig, Peter

    Mackintosh, John P.

    Watkins, David (Consett)

    Driberg, Tom

    MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

    Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

    Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

    MacPherson, Malcolm

    Wellbeloved, James

    Eadie, Alex

    Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)

    Whitaker, Ben

    Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Whitlock, William

    Edwards, William (Merioneth)

    Manuel, Archie

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Ensor, David

    Mapp, Charles

    Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

    Faulds, Andrew

    Marquand, David

    Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

    Finch, Harold

    Mason, Roy

    Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

    Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

    Mendelson, J. J.

    Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

    Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

    Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

    Millan, Bruce

    Winnick, David

    Floud, Bernard

    Miller, Dr. M. S.

    Winterbottom, R. E.

    Foley, Maurice

    Milne, Edward (Blyth)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

    Ford, Bert

    Molloy, William

    Woof, Robert

    Forrester, John

    Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

    Fowler, Gerry

    Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Galpern, Sir Myer

    Moyle, Roland

    Mr. Harold Walker and

    Garrett, W. E.

    Murray, Albert

    Mr. Grey.

    Ginsburg, David

    Neal, Harold

    Clause 3.—(CENTRAL SCOTLAND WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD.)
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 36, to leave out 'hereafter'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment I suggest that we discuss Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'hereafter in this Act' and insert 'hereinafter'.
    Dr. Mabon: This is a purely drafting Amendment. In Committee I gave an undertaking to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) that I would table an Amendment to remove any words which I thought were redundant from the phrase
    "hereafter in this Act referred to as 'the Central Board'".
    The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested the omission of the words "in this Act" and later said that he was prepared to settle for the deletion of "hereafter … referred to as". I presume that this is the intention of Amendment No. 1.
    The Government have taken advice on this. We have come to the conclusion that we should retain the words
    "in this Act referred to as"
    to provide a short title for references in the Bill to the Central Scotland Water Development Board. In other words, without knowing what the Opposition wanted to table—and I understand why they have tabled their Amendment—I thought that the best way of honouring my undertaking was to table Amendment No. 2. I think that it does what the hon. and learned Gentleman wants, even though it does not take out quite so many words as he would have wished.
    Mr. MacArthur: We had an interesting and entertaining debate on this point in Committee. Before rising to speak I looked up the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in Committee. I believe that "hereinafter" was a good brainwave proposal which arose during the course of the debate. Our ideas are better than the Secretary of State's. I still think that "hereinafter" is a better economy of words. However, the Minister of State has recognised that there is a case for tidying up the phrase. His tidying up is less economical than ours, but since he has
    1384
    recognised the need for economy I would not wish to press the point any further.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 7.—(CONSTITUTION OF REGIONAL WATER BOARDS.)
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 30, to leave out "total" and to insert "rateable".
    I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss with this Amendment, Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is the wish of the House.
    Mr. Ross: These three Amendments meet an undertaking which the Minister gave in Committee, and are a modification of an Opposition Amendment which was slightly defective.
    The Amendments clarify what is already intended by the subsection—that in determining the number of members of a regional water board which each local authority is to appoint, the Secretary of State is to have regard to rateable valuation as well as to the population of each local authority district in the region. The principle here is to relate membership to two main criteria: the way in which the board's expenditure will fall to be met by the constituent authority and the population which each authority will comprise.
    The Clause as drafted, however, refers to "total valuation". The Minister accepted the Opposition's criticism that this might tend to be confusing in the absence of any definition of that expression in the Bill. The intention is that, as recommended by the Scottish Water Advisory Committee, the measure should be "rateable valuation", which is defined in Section 43(1) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956, as:
    "in relation to any area, means the total of the rateable values of the lands and heritages in that area".
    Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are consequential.
    Mr. MacArthur: I was a little depressed to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the Amendment we moved in Committee was slightly defective. Apparently, in his view it was wholly defective. I still believe that it was a very

    1385
    good Amendment. However, the Secretary of State has been generous enough to concede the principle of that Amendment. We are obliged to him for meeting our point. The slight modification he has made to our proposal is acceptable, and I hope that the House will approve it.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: No. 5, in line 32, after 'subsection', insert
    '(a)'.
    No. 6, in line 34, at end insert:
    '; and
    (b) the expression "rateable valuation" has the meaning assigned to it by section 43(1) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956'.—[Mr. Ross.]

    Clause 8.—(CONSTITUTION OF WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARDS.)
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 5, to leave out lines 6 to 8.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 7, in line 6, to leave out 'A water development board' and to insert:
    'The Central Board shall consist of such number of members being not less than seven and not more than fourteen, as the Secretary of State may by order specify, and any other water development board established under this Act',
    and Amendment No. 9, line 13, to leave out from the second 'be' to the end of line 14 and to insert:
    'two or such greater number as the Secretary of State may by order specify in relation to any constituent board where he is satisfied that the greater number is necessary in view of special circumstances relating to that board or their region'.
    Dr. Mabon: In discussing Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 together, it seems that we have reached a rather interesting situation, almost doing a minuet of argument. In Committee, the Opposition's intention was to have a water development board of a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 20 members. It was part of my argument, since we were to have discussions with the regions and take their advice, that we might even be able to provide for equity of representation. The regions are different in population, in rateable value and in their uptake of water from the Loch Turret scheme, which exists, and the Loch Lomond scheme which will be developed shortly.
    1386
    Since there are these differences between the regions on those three scores, we thought that it might be desirable to have equity of representation, and I even hinted that we might be able to get seven members from the seven regions. I thought it unwise, therefore, to make the Amendment which the Opposition suggested at that time.
    Influenced, no doubt, by the force of my argument on that occasion, the Opposition have taken me at my word and put down Amendment No. 7 providing for
    "not less than seven and not more than 14"
    members. I should explain that, in the interval, we have had discussions with several of the regional boards. The Government accept that it is asking too much to expect the regions, particularly those which draw a large amount of water and have large populations, to have fewer than two members. Our Amendment No. 9, therefore, proposes that there should be
    "two or such greater number as the Secretary of State may by order specify in relation to any constituent board".
    We have proposed two because of the general view in the meetings which we have had with the proposed regional bodies, and we have taken account also of a representation made to us that there may be a case for a region having more than two members. I do not expect this to be four. I expect it to be three. There is a specific ground for this suggestion, and we are still discussing the question with the regional bodies concerned.
    There is an argument that we should give one extra on grounds of population. This was put to me on Friday at the meeting with the British Waterworks Association, when, in answer to some questions which I put, it was said that there might be a case for extending the number to, say, four for the lower Clyde region, three for the South-East region, and two for the others. Somebody came up with the argument that there should be one member for those regions which do not take water.
    There are other permutations based on the three criteria of rateable value, uptake of water and population. But the Government are satisfied that, at the present stage of our deliberations, it would be wise to speak of two members for the regions or such greater number as

    1387
    might be specified, on the understanding—we do not put it in the Statute—that we do not expect to appoint more than three for any one region, and we may not even wish to do that.
    This is the Government's intention, but, as I say, it is very much open to debate. I explained this on Friday, saying that the Secretary of State is anxious to get the proper consensus of opinion. My feeling about the Amendment now, however, is that we should let it stand as it is in the present state of our deliberations. I may be wrong, and the Government are very much open to argument on it. The Opposition have been very fair in their approach. They will now see that we have come round to their view as a consequence of our deliberations. I only ask them to accept our present intention and support the Amendment.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. MacArthur: I am in some difficulty here because the Minister of State has been jumping about like a cricket. He has said so much that it is difficult to know whether to agree or disagree. On balance, I am inclined to agree, and I say that because the hon. Gentleman has now accepted the main point of our argument in Committee, which was that it would not be reasonable to leave the composition of the central board in the air, as would happen if the Bill remained as it stood. We are precise in the Bill about the composition of the regional boards. It seems right, therefore, to be reasonably precise about the composition of the Central Board.
    In Committee, we proposed that the Central Board should consist of a minimum of 10 and a maximum of 20 members. This view was opposed by the hon. Gentleman at the time, though he undertook to look at the matter again. This he has done, coming forward with an Amendment now which honours his undertaking. In fact, he has come very much towards the Amendment which we proposed in Committee. What a lot of time and trouble he would have saved had he accepted that Amendment in the first place.
    We listened to the hon. Gentleman's argument with respect when we discussed the matter in Committee—we always listen to him with respect, though not
    1388
    always with agreement—and, as he pointed out just now, our Amendment shows that we had a lot of sympathy with what he then said. We consider, as he did then, that it is right for the Central Board to have a small rather than a large membership. Equally, we strongly believe that the Central Board not only should have representation from the regional boards within the Central Board's area but should have special regard to those regional boards which cover vast areas of the country and some of the remoter glens with particular problems to which special expression should be given on the Central Board. The hon. Gentleman smiles at what I say. He probably remembers that my own home is in one of the remote glens, and I have a particular interest in the remoter areas, as he has, too.
    I do not insist on our Amendment No. 7. I think that the Government Amendment meets the point fairly well. I am a little worried that it may go even further than we ourselves originally proposed. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has taken the point. He interprets it fairly reasonably in his Amendment No. 9, and I hope that in the operation of the Clause as amended, the remoter areas will have proper and reasonable representation on the Central Board.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: No. 9, in page 5, line 13, leave out from second 'be' to end of line 14 and insert:
    'two or such greater number as the Secretary of State may by order specify in relation to any constituent board where he is satisfied that the greater number is necessary in view of special circumstances relating to that board or their region'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

    Clause 9.—(ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT.)
    Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 10, in page 5, line 34, after 'provisions' to insert, 'of that section and'.
    This Amendment applies certain provisions of Section 8 of the Local Government (Development and Finance) (Scotland) Act, 1964, to capital funds and renewal and repair funds established by a board under Clause 9. As drafted, Clause 9 provides for regional water boards and water development boards the necessary machinery for the general management of their funds and accounts, to

    1389
    a large extent by applying provisions of the Local Government (Scotland) Acts.
    Subsection (3) as drafted extends to the boards the like powers conferred on local authorities by the 1964 Act to establish capital and renewal and repair funds. But Section 8 of that Act also provides that moneys in such funds must be invested in statutory securities until they are required, and their provision should apply to capital and renewal and repair funds established by a board under the Bill. That was not done in the original draft and is now done by the Amendment.
    Statutory securities as defined by Section 8(7) of the 1964 Act are:

    "(a) any security in which trustees are for the time being authorised by law to invest trust moneys,

    (b) any mortgage, bond, debenture, debenture stock, stock, annuity or other security created by a local authority, and

    (c) any feu-duty or ground-annual, but does not include any security transferable by delivery."

    I think that the Amendment is sensible and reasonable.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10.—(ESTIMATES AND REQUISITIONS.)
    Mr. MacArthur: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 37, to leave out 'may be determined by the board' and insert:
    'they and the board agree and failing agreement as the Secretary of State may determine,'.
    This is a small but important point which I did not raise in Committee. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for giving relatively short notice of it, but I am sure that he will by now have taken its point.
    Clause 10 provides for the requisition arrangements by the regional water boards and water development boards. Under subsection (3), the boards have power to
    "… cause a requisition in respect of the financial year … to be sent to their contributing authorities requiring each of them to pay such sum as may be apportioned to each …"
    The subsection adds that these requisitions shall be paid
    "at such intervals and by such instalments as may be determined by the board, …"
    As it stands, that is not particularly unreasonable, but it raises one problem which many local authorities might well
    1390
    face. Under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, local authorities are not allowed to demand payment of rates before 1st November in any year, and although it is possible to collect a proportion of rate revenue before 1st November by instalment schemes which they are allowed to introduce, I understand that very few local authorities succeed in doing that.
    Therefore, if under Clause 10 the regional boards demanded payment of their requisition by, say, three instalments, payable in June, September and December for example, the local authorities would require to borrow in order to pay the requisition in advance of the receipt of rate moneys. The interest charges which would result would be a burden on the rating account rather than on the water account. It appears that there is no good reason why payment of requisitions to water boards should not be governed by the provisions of the 1947 Act, which apply to all other requisitions.
    What I have done, therefore, is to "lift" the relevant part of Section 214(4) of the 1947 Act, and the Amendment simply proposes that it should be introduced into the Bill. The result would be that the intervals and instalments of the requisitions would be determined not by the board alone but by the board and the local authority. In the event of any dispute the Secretary of State would determine what the interval and instalments should be. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is a reasonable proposition.
    Mr. Manuel: Many local authorities—indeed, almost all—receive rate payments from local authority houses by collections on a weekly or fortnightly basis with the rent. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind.
    Mr. MacArthur: I agree, but while local authorities generally have power to collect rates by instalment, they are not always able to introduce such schemes. I understand that if they were required to pay moneys over to the regional boards before 1st November they might have to borrow money, and that would be an added burden to the ratepayers.
    Mr. Ross: As the hon. Gentleman says, the effect of the Amendment would be that the arrangement for paying over

    1391
    the sums requisitioned would be on a basis agreed by each authority and the board, and, failing agreement, on a basis determined by the Secretary of State. If for some reason or other there were disagreement the Secretary of State would accept the responsibility of making a determination.
    I agree that the basis provided for in the Amendment is the normal arrangement applying to requisitions by joint committees and joint boards under the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947. But there are other Acts and other Orders, such as the West Lothian Water Board Order, 1958, which have incorporated a provision that the intervals and instalments for payment of requisitions will be determined by the board.
    However, on reflection, I think that that is probably a bit too rigid. It may well be that a disagreement will arise—not terribly important, but one which the bodies concerned think the Secretary of State should determine—and I am prepared to accept that there should be scope for settling the arrangements by such a decision and reference, and on that basis I think that we should accept the Amendment.
    Mr. MacArthur: I am astonished and very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. When he started referring to other Acts and Measures I thought that he was about to explain why, because of all sorts of precedents, it should not be accepted. I am most grateful, and I am sure that the Amendment will be an easement for many local authorities in Scotland.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 11.—(CALCULATION OF AMOUNT TO BE REQUISITIONED BY REGIONAL WATER BOARDS.)
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 7, line 26, after '(2)', to insert:
    'Subject to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section,'.
    The Amendment is consequential on an Amendment which we made to subsection (4) of the Clause in Committee. Subsection (2) requires that a third of the total amount to be requisitioned by a regional water board must be apportioned among the contributing authorities of the Board in the same proportion as the rate
    1392
    product of the relevant part of each of their districts bears to the aggregate of the rate product of the relevant parts of the districts of all the authorities in the region. We debated that in Committee.
    Subsection (3) provides that the remainder of the total amount to be requisitioned by the Board is to be apportioned among its contributing authorities in the same proportion as the domestic water rate product of the relevant part of each of their districts bears to the aggregate of the rate products of the relevant parts of the districts of all the authorities in the region.
    As originally drafted, subsection (4) qualified subsection (3) by providing that the normal method of apportioning the remaining two-thirds of the total amount to be requisitioned under that subsection was not to be applied in the case of any board where the Secretary of State specified by Order that a modified or different method of calculation was to be adopted for such period as was mentioned in the Order in relation to that board. The Amendment which we agreed in Committee, and now incorporated in subsection (4), enables the Secretary of State to modify the requisitioning arrangements in subsection (2) as well as in subsection (3). Accordingly, we must introduce the qualifying introductory words provided for in the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    6.30 p.m.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 8, line 11, to leave out from the first 'the' to the end of the line and to insert:
    'following provisions of this section'.
    If the House is agreeable, we might discuss with this Amendment the Government Amendments Nos. 4, 19 and 74 as they all bear on the same point.
    Mr. Speaker: If the Opposition has no objection, so be it.
    Dr. Mabon: These Amendments remedy a deficiency in Clause 11 as drafted. It contains no provision to estimate the rate products which are to apply in requisitions by regional water boards on their contributing authorities to be calculated on the basis of rate products for the financial year immediately

    1393
    preceding the year in respect of which the requisition is made.
    Since the Committee stage the County Councils Association has represented to us that a requisition is respect of a year in which a revaluation takes place should be made on the basis of the current year's valuation instead of on the basis of the preceding year. This is the arrangement for all other requisitions as a consequence of Section 12(2) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1966. It has the effect of enabling the Secretary of State to estimate for any year for any area both the product of the rate for which a third of the requisition is to be calculated and the product of a 1d. in the £ on which the balance is to be calculated.
    Amendment No. 14, which applies the provisions of Section 9(1) and (2) of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1963, is needed to ensure that there will be no doubt about the interpretation of the expression
    "product of a domestic rate of one penny in the pound"
    used in subsection (3) of the Clause, read with Section 12 of the Act of 1966. Its effect will be that the Secretary of State will make rules, as he already does for the product of a rate of a 1d. in the £ and the standard rate product, by Statutory Instrument after consulting with local authority associations, and will then apply these rules in consultation with the local authorities for the purpose of determining the various rate products to be used by the regional water boards in making their requisitions. These rules, which will be Statutory Instruments, are, of course, subject to annulment by the House of Commons.
    Amendments Nos. 13 and 74 are consequential on the principal Amendments Nos. 14 and 19.
    Mr. J. Grimond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are two Amendments numbered 74 on the Notice Paper. So that there may be no confusion, may I put on record that we are now discussing Amendment No. 74 in page 7508, and not Amendment No. 74 in page 7516 a: in page 22, line 24 [Schedule 1], at end insert:
    1394

    Orkney and Zetland Water Board.

    Limits of Supply of:—

    Kirkwall Town Council

    Orkney County Council

    Stromness County Council

    Lerwick Town Council

    Zetland County Council.

    Mr. Speaker: The responsibility for the double numbering is not that of the Government or the Opposition.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: No. 14, in line 19, at end insert:
    (4) In relation to the reference in the foregoing subsection to the product of a domestic water rate of one penny in the pound for the relevant financial year levied for the relevant part of a district, section 9(1) of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963 shall apply, as it applies to the references in Part I of that Act to the product of the rate of one penny in the pound, with the substitution for the words 'that area' of the words 'that part'; and for the purposes of the said section 9(1), as so applied subsection (2) of that section shall also apply.
    No. 74, in line 24, leave out:
    'the two last foregoing subsections' and insert 'subsections (2) and (3) of this section'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]
    Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 8, line 26, at the end to insert:
    ', in either event, may so specify'.
    This is a purely drafting Amendment to clarify the scope of the transitional arrangements which can be made by the Secretary of State under Clause 11(4). Of the aggregate amount to be requisitioned by a board, one-third is to be requisitioned in proportion to the actual or standard 1d. rate product, whichever is the higher, of the various local authority districts or parts of districts in the board's area of supply. The remaining two-thirds is to be requisitioned in proportion to the domestic water rate products of those districts.
    Subsection (4) qualifies the normal requisitioning arrangements under subsections (2) and (3) and enables the Secretary of State to specify a modified or different method of calculation for such period as is mentioned in the Order. The phrase relating to the financial years has no closely related verb and the Amendment will improve the construction of the Clause, which is somewhat lengthy, and will serve to clarify what can be done by the Secretary of State.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 8, line 27, after 'years', to insert:
    'up to a maximum of twelve years'.
    This is a humble Amendment. I am not quite sure that it is in the right place, but it raises a point with which my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) and I are concerned. That is the period for transition. We were prompted to put down this Amendment because of the great concern of Midlothian about this matter. In spite of very lengthy discussions in Committee and, I believe, in meetings which my hon. Friend the Minister of State has had with the Midlothian local authority, that authority still has great fears about how this provision will be operated.
    In Committee, the period for transition was accepted as about five years. This arose out of the Second Report of the Water Advisory Committee, but in its Final Report that Committee discarded all the business about 5 or 10 years and came down definitely in favour of a period up to 12 years. It seems that—inadvertently, of course—my hon. Friend was rather misleading about this in Committee. The Advisory Committee, having considered previous recommendations about a five year period and possibly one up to 10 years and very exceptionally up to 12 years, said, at the end of paragraph 158 of the Report:
    "We therefore recommend that the period should vary in length for eligible authorities according to the circumstances of each case with the maximum of 12 years which should in no case be exceeded."
    This period should be written into the Bill. I have heard the argument that the maximum period would become the minimum period, but I do not think that would be so in the context of this subsection because it deals with changes made by the Secretary of State.
    I am pleased to move this Amendment because I have a nostalgic loyalty to the Water Advisory Committee. It carries me back to my maiden speech in the House. In fact, the Committee exists because of that maiden speech and because, encouraged by my hon. Friends at that time, I ventured to put down an Amendment and the Minister of that time accepted it. He did so because he thought that my industry should be encouraged and also because, he said, the Amend-
    1396
    ment did not mean a thing. Therefore, and as a sort of tribute to the Committee, I should like to see this period written into the Bill.
    Apart altogether from that, I think that the fears of Midlothian County Council are justified. It has had some experience of transitional periods in joining with Edinburgh and it has gone through all the recent discussions over the Loch Lomond Order and all the fears which that aroused. As a result, the council is canny and wants to see something put into the Bill to indicate the kind of period over which a transitional order could extend.
    Mr. George Younger: I would like to assure the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that he is not alone in feeling that this would be an admirable Amendment to include in the Bill, and that the concern which he has expressed about the possible repercussions on this point is not confined only to Midlothian. It is felt by many other hon. Members in other parts of Scotland. I have two points in support of this argument. The first is that we must not disregard the fact that the Water Advisory Committee clearly considered this to be of such great importance that it was worth while returning to it in its Fourth Report. It is not stretching a point to say that it almost reconsidered the matter afresh in that Report. If we believe in taking the advice when we can, of the experts whom we establish to advise us, this is a case when we should do so.
    The second point has to do with that raised by the hon. Gentleman the Minister of State, in Committee, when replying to a similar Amendment. He said that one of the objections to accepting such an Amendment would be that it was quite possible that 12 years might not be a sufficient length of time in some cases. I can see that this is an argument which could be used, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider very carefully whether that is a justifiable view. Do we really feel that matters are sufficiently predictable, that we can see things sufficiently far ahead to say that it will be necessary to go as far as 15 years into the future on this matter, which was the figure quoted in Committee?
    The Water Advisory Committee has considered this as a maximum which

    1397
    should not be exceeded in any case. If it thinks that, there is very little likelihood of any local authority or water authority being hardly done by by finding that it could not have the period raised from 12 to 15 years. Twelve years is an entirely reasonable maximum. Is it the case that if we say 12 years in the Bill it will be regarded as the minimum period? I cannot accept that anyone taking a clear view of this matter could regard 12 years as a minimum if it is written into the Bill as a maximum. That is stretching things a long way.
    If we do write in the figure of 12 as recommended, it will be regarded as a maximum, quite rightly. All authorities in their negotiations, having a maximum figure of 12 years in mind, might perhaps find it easier to assess their correct place on the scale of number of years that they would be justified in claiming and negotiating. The only arguments against accepting this Amendment is if the hon. Gentleman really believes that 12 years will not be enough for some authorities. I should very much doubt it and I hope that he will be able to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) wish to address the House?
    Mr. Alex Eadie: No, Mr. Speaker.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: The debate that we had in Committee was of this nature, arguing that there should be a precise number of years and a precise maxima. Some Members insisted that we ought to talk about norms and provide guide lines. I explained in columns 301, 305, and 337 of HANSARD the kind of guide lines that the Government thought ought to be observed in the discussions among the regional water boards. It is a curious argument, this contention about the maximum of 12 years.
    In certain cases it would not be enough. Certainly, in the case of Ayrshire, when there was an Order affecting that county, which proved to be abortive, the period of time—I am speaking off the cuff—was 20 years. It was certainly more than 12 in the case of Midlothian, not only on the original Order but on the revision of the original Order. This is a very important point. The initial union with Edinburgh involved a transitional period of 20 years,
    1398
    which would not be allowed by the Amendment. The revised Order was for 15 years, which, again, would be disallowed by the Amendment.
    We have the benefit, unfortunately the House does not, of having been to the meetings and obtaining assessments of how the discussions are going with the main groupings of authorities in the 13 regions. Seven of them have been attended by a senior Departmental officer, who has reported directly to the Secretary of State and myself. The existence of this provision, without any definition either of minima or maxima, has helped, not hindered the negotiations, and it is better to leave it to the local authorities to resolve this. We know of no authority which has expressed concern, certainly not Midlothian, at the discussions going on in the South-East. I met some of the representatives of the South-East on Friday.
    6.45 p.m.
    If there is some feeling on the part of Midlothian that transitional financial provisions for the South-East ought to be less than 12 years, or ought to be more than 12 years, it is fair and proper that Midlothian should say that at the meeting of the South-East, and if it disagrees with the rest of the authorities over this it can raise the matter directly with the Secretary of State.
    Mr. Eadie: My hon. Friend cannot make a statement like that. He drew the attention of the House to columns 301 and 305. If he looks at the places quoted he will see that I raised this issue. If he looks at column 306 he will see that I told him:
    "I am already getting them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 2nd March, 1967; c. 306.]
    This was a reference to letters from high rated authorities complaining about the time that they would have to wait to get their rates ironed out.
    I drew my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that I was being circulated by the Midlothian County Council on the very point that he had made. He cannot tell the House that Midlothian has raised no protestations, when I voiced those very protestations on behalf of Midlothian.
    Dr. Mabon: There is a misunderstanding here. I am not talking about the arguments in support of this Amendment. I am talking about the discussions

    1399
    going on involving Edinburgh and Midlothian. The Scottish Office, under both Governments, has had a long dialogue with Edinburgh and Midlothian over their participation in the Loch Lomond Water Order. Because of the argument over that, and the transitional financial arrangements flowing from it, and the uncertainty surrounding the financial arrangements, there has been misunderstanding and ill-feeling.
    I do not mean ill-feeling personally, but since then matters have changed. Members on the Committee were the first to witness a change in the climate of opinion, largely as a result of the efforts of the Government and hon. Members. We have had several meetings in the Palace of Westminster to discuss these matters in full. What I am saying to the Committee, on behalf of the Secretary of State, is that these discussions are going well and that we know of no reason why we should import into this Clause any specific minima or maxima.
    On the contrary, there is every reason to say that we should leave it alone. If Midlothian feels that there has to be, for Midlothian's sake, a proviso in the transitional financial arrangements affecting Midlothian ensuring a maximum of 12 years, there is no reason why Midlothian cannot put that point of view to the South-East Regional Group. If it failed to convince the group, it can ask the Secretary of State to bear its representations in mind in the specific context of the provisions for the South-East Region. We hope that there will be, and in every normal case there should be, provision for a review to be made of the transitional arrangements at the end of say, three or five years. Therefore, even an Order, once made, can still be reviewed so that if a minority interest feels aggrieved, and even if it has been rebuffed by the Secretary of State, it will still be able to ask for the matter to be raised again.
    If I were not sure of how the discussions were going, I should not report so confidently to the House. It would be a mistake to amend the Clause. We should leave it as it is. If there is a case to be made on behalf of Ayrshire or Ayr Burgh and Midlothian, I have no doubt that, with their usual courage and tenacity, they will bring it to the attention of the
    1400
    Secretary of State at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Willis: I am glad that my hon. Friend is likely to consider the possibility of reviewing the transitional arrangements. However, I am not altogether convinced by his arguments. Whether or not the discussions concerning the South-East are going satisfactorily does not affect the merits of the Amendment. We tabled the Amendment because Midlothian asked us to do so, but that does not alter its merits.
    I should have thought that the Amendment was sufficiently good to stand on its own feet. It concerns one of the main recommendations of the Advisory Committee, which examined the matter twice. It changed its mind because of the change in local government financial arrangements. It considered it again as a result of the Acts which were passed and the different local government financial arrangements which had been made.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon Dr. Dickson Mabon indicated dissent.
    Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend shakes his head. He should read paragraph 158—
    Dr. Mabon: I am sorry that my hon. Friend was not a member of the Committee, but if he looks at the Committee proceedings he will see that I dealt at length—some would complain that I took too long about it—with the question of why there was this departure from the major recommendation of the Advisory Committee. I did not think it fair to go over all the argument again.
    Mr. Willis: I have read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings. There was a fairly long debate on this point. I did not get a lot of satisfaction from it.
    I understand the reasoning behind what my hon. Friend says. I understand that we should not perhaps tie local authorities to the period of 12 years. I realise that local authorities might require a longer period than 12 years. However, I thought that the fact that the Amendment was based on the Advisory Committee's recommendation would be a sufficient argument for it. However, I can see that my hon. Friend is determined not to give way on the Amendment. I do not know why. I should have thought that it was a reasonable Amendment.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Push it.
    Mr. Willis: I do not need to be told by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) to push. I have done more pushing in the House than he has. I do not need any encouragement from him.
    I am sorry that my hon. Friend does not accept my arguments put forward on behalf of the Midlothian County Council. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 8, line 32, at the end to add:
    'an order made under this subsection shall be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament'.
    This is another attempt to ensure that there is a check on what is done under the Bill. Tremendous power is given to the Secretary of State in subsection (4). I have no objection to giving it to my right hon. Friend, but he will not be in office all the time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members opposite need not bother. My right hon. Friend will be followed by someone on this side of the House.
    Subsection (4) provides that
    (4) Where, in the case of any regional water board, the Secretary of State considers, having regard to all the circumstances, that it would be unreasonable or inequitable that the methods of calculating the sums to be requisitioned, as required by the two last foregoing subsections, should apply, he may by order modify the requirements of either or both of the said subsections or specify a different method of calculation, and the financial years during which the provisions of the said order are to operate, and in relation to that board in respect of those years the provisions of those subsections as so modified, or, where the said order specifies a different method of calculation, the provisions of that order, shall have effect for the purposes of this section.
    I should have thought it reasonable to suggest that the Secretary of State should place an Order of this kind before the House so that it can be debated. These Orders will affect every household in an area. Sometimes a very large area may be involved, affecting many thousands of homes. Public representatives should be able to express their views in public on the merits of the arguments concerning the transitional arrangements if the local
    1402
    authorities cannot agree. That seems to be a reasonable demand to make.
    Mr. Patrick Wolrige-Gordon: I support the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in the wavering charge which he makes on his Front Bench. The recommendation of the Advisory Committee which was discussed on the last Amendment was not the only recommendation which has not been accepted by the Government. There is concern among many local authorities about what will happen during the transitional arrangements with which the Clause is directly concerned. I support the Amendment, which proposes that the actions of the Secretary of State should be open to scrutiny and that he should give Parliament the chance to consider his proposals.
    Mr. Manuel: I am attracted by the Amendment. What must be apparent to everyone is the deplorable lack of opposition by the Conservative Party. This Amendment should have been their Amendment. We were told earlier how scrupulously the Opposition had read the evidence about this, that and the next thing. Here we have a glaring example of how they have missed the opportunity to insert something in the Bill which would control the activities of the Secretary of State. They are always trying to do that, without success.
    Mr. MacArthur: If the hon. Gentleman casts his mind back, he will recall that we spent two mornings in Committee debating Opposition Amendments which proposed that we should incorporate in the Bill the recommendation of the Advisory Committee on the rating point. I have always regretted that the Government saw fit to reject them.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Manuel: I recognise that, but it was not on subsection (4) of this Clause. The hon. Gentleman's explanation is a candid admission that the Opposition missed their opportunity in Committee.
    I am attracted to the Amendment. I have always argued for greater freedom for local authorities and joint water boards. Acceptance of it would not mean my right hon. Friend and the Minister of State giving up very much, but it would show that, having said so often that we want as much power as possible to be retained in the hands of local

    1403
    authorities and regional boards, we are now living up to what we said when we were in opposition. I hope that it will be given further consideration.
    Mr. Ross rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is another hon. Member wishing to intervene. Mr. Buchanan.
    Mr. Buchanan: If my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) had been sitting on the opposite benches, I should have been tempted to call this a mischievous Amendment—
    Mr. Willis: Surely my hon. Friend does not think that it is mischievous to allow the House of Commons to discuss something which affects hon. Members' constituents?
    Mr. Buchanan: That is a double-edged question. I said deliberately that it would be a mischievous Amendment if my hon. Friend had been in opposition. When he was in opposition, his forte was in opposing.
    When I first came to the House, I was astonished at the amount of work which we tried to get through. It is difficult to imagine having to debate every Order for an increase in charges promoted by a regional water board. If we did that, we should have to debate every increase in rents proposed by the Scottish Housing Association, and similar subjects. This is a stone which, when thrown into the pool, causes an every-widening ripple. Once we started to debate such Orders, we should not have time to get through the essential legislation which we have to consider. I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.
    Mr. Ross: I do not suggest that the Amendment is mischievous. After all my years of co-operation with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) on amendments and amending legislation, I should be the last to suggest that any amendment which he put forward could be described as mischievousֵ However, in this case, he is departing from the high standard which we evolved when he suggests that any order made under this Section shall be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament.
    1404
    Quite frankly, the Amendment is unnecessary. If Parliament approves the Bill as drafted, the normal requisitioning arrangements will be specified in subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 11. It is only under subsection (4) (now subsection (5)), where the Secretary of State considers
    "having regard to all the circumstances that it would be unreasonable or inequitable",
    that the specified methods of calculating requisitions should apply; that is, something drawn to his attention by circumstances in an area.
    Quite obviously, under Clause 28(4), an Order cannot be made without the Secretary of State first having consulted the authorities concerned, and, following our contacts with authorities, it is our hope and belief that the authorities in each region will be able to agree among themselves the details of any transitional financial arrangements which may be needed. My hon. Friend made it clear in Standing Committee and at meetings with authorities that the framing of such arrangements is, to a large extent, in the authorities' own hands, and the Secretary of State is not likely to dissent from any scheme which commends itself to all the local authorities in a region.
    That being so, and because any such Order must by its nature be providing for a purely temporary financial arrangement, it would seem inappropriate to make it subject to Parliamentary approval. After all, ultimately the Secretary of State is responsible to Parliament in relation to the exercise of powers delegated to him, and, in making any Order under this Clause, he will have regard to the interests of all the authorities concerned in a region within the requirements in the subsection as to what is "unreasonable or inequitable". We should be placing a far more stringent requirement on Clause 11 Orders than on any other type of Order provided for in the Bill, including Orders under Clause 5 in respect of changes in regions, which many people will construe as being much more important.
    I hope, on reflection, that my hon. Friend will be assured that not only can he trust the present Secretary of State, but those who may follow him, and I think that he should not press this one.
    Mr. Eadie: Since I am a signatory to the Amendment, I feel compelled to make a brief contribution to the debate. If my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) is to be attacked for being frivolous and mischievous, although my right hon. Friend referred to it in a most kind way, it should be pointed out that the Amendment was founded to some extent on the debate which we had in Committee, and I had hoped that my right hon. Friend would take that into consideration.
    During the course of that debate, my hon. Friend the Minister of State deemed it necessary to quote from HANSARD. In turn, I would refer my right hon. Friend to column 301, where I suggested difficulties which would arise in getting water committees to come to agreement. I talked about the logic of the situation, and said that it was a strange way for regional boards to get started and then have to sit down and argue about differential rates. My hon. Friend gave us some assurances in Committee, but I do not think that there is anything anti-democratic in an Amendment which suggests that Parliament should have some say on these matters.
    Therefore, I wished to be associated with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East in an Amendment which I thought was a reasonable one and was in no way mischievous. Even at this late stage, at what might be described as the fag-end of the debate, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider the reasoning and logic behind it.
    Mr. Ross: If I might just take up one point to which my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) referred, the question of tyranny or anti-democratic feeling does not arise. The question is whether we think that it is necessary. I have read the debate in Committee. I understand and appreciate that any change in transitional arrangements is important for an area and for the local authorities in it. However, it is there that any discussions must take place and where agreement must be reached. It is because we think that the Amendment is unnecessary that we oppose it. We do not oppose it because we consider it to be mischievous, malicious or undemocratic.
    Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) seems to have missed the point. We are not discussing the activities of local authorities. If we were, I should not want to interfere, having fought for their rights as long as I have. We are discussing the actions of the Secretary of State who considers, having regard to all the circumstances, that an arrangement would be unreasonable or inequitable, and acts upon it. There is only one way that can be checked, and it is not in a town council or joint water authority meeting. It is in the House of Commons. It is for us to check that. If I had been a Member of the Committee which considered the Bill, I would probably have tabled some more Amendments about this procedure. In fact, we might still have been in Committee.
    My right hon. Friend chided me for falling below form. I think that he, too, has fallen below form by trotting out the old excuse for every would-be bureaucrat, namely, that they always behave benevolently, that they weigh up the situation and act in the interests of both sides. This is the argument of every bureaucrat. It is an argument used by every official. Everyone in the House knows that we spend half our lives checking the actions of benevolent bureaucrats. We have just appointed an Ombudsman to do this. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend is tired, but he has certainly fallen below standard in trotting out this argument.
    It seemed a modest request to make that Members should be allowed to discuss something that the Secretary of State was doing, something which might affect every household in Members' constituencies. I have constituents in Edinburgh and Midlothian. They might all be affected by arrangements made by the Secretary of State. Surely it is not wrong to ask that if he decides to make a different Order—and this is what it says—I should be allowed to say something about it? My electors do not return me to hold my tongue. They return me to express their feelings and their views, and, if I think they are being unfairly treated, to say so. This is why I am returned to this place, and this is what I am endeavouring to do.

    1407
    However, once again, I can see that my right hon. Friend will not give way on this—
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Push hard.
    Mr. Willis: It would be a waste of time—[Interruption.] There would not have been a Scottish Advisory Committee if it had not been for me.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not allow himself to be tempted out of order by interruptions.
    Mr. Willis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I am so easily led out of order.
    I see that my right hon. Friend does not intend to give way on this Amendment, and, therefore, I do not wish to waste the time of the House by voting on it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Grimond: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 8, line 32, at the end to add:
    'in particular he shall have special regard:

    (a) to the effect of the new groupings into regional water boards upon the Rate Support Grant payable to the local authorities;

    (b) to the rate of grant payable under the Rural Water Supply and Sewerage Acts for new schemes'.

    The Amendment raises again a point which I raised in Committee. It arose from a memorandum, supported by very detailed calculations, put forward by the Burgh of Inverness with regard to the possible effects of the Bill on the rate support grant and on grants under the Rural Water Supply and Sewerage Acts. When the matter was discussed in Committee, the Minister of State said that he did not think that the Bill would have the effect upon Inverness-shire which was suggested, namely, that it would very much reduce these grants. He said, however, that if it turned out that such effects might result from the Bill, it was the Government's intention to correct that, and as I understood it he gave an undertaking that local authorities would not suffer any diminution either under the rate support grant, or under grants for new schemes under the Rural Water Supply and Sewerage Acts.
    1408
    7.15 p.m.
    The debate was split between two days, and on the second day the hon. Gentleman said that he had thought some more about the matter, and that possibly it merited further consideration. Since then I have supplied him with calculations sent to me by the Chamberlain of Inverness, and I imagine that he has studied these. I have moved the Amendment in the hope that the hon. Gentleman will both reaffirm the undertaking which he gave in Committee, and explain to the House a little more fully what will be the effect of the Bill when it becomes an Act upon the Rate Support Grant and upon the Rural Water Supply and Sewerage Acts.
    It may be that the result of the Bill when it becomes an Act will be that to give effect to the undertaking—that local authorities will not be any worse off—it will be necessary for the Government to amend other Acts, or he may be able to say that he is still of the opinion that the Bill will have none of the effects which are suggested on certain local authorities, principally Inverness.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am much obliged for the fact that we are able to debate this Amendment again, because in Committee I was pretty certain that the effect would not be what it was suspected it would be on the Rural Water Supply and Sewerage Acts, but I said I was not sure what effect it might have on the rate support grant. The right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to pass on this detailed analysis from the Burgh of Inverness. It is a good illustration, and I am grateful for the work which has been done in preparing it. We have since had time to go through these calculations and get quite clear the effect of the Bill on the rate support grant.
    The right hon. Gentleman said that the effect of the Bill would lie in the consideration whether or not to specify transitional financial arrangements in relation to any authority or group of authorities in a regional water board, the Secretary of State would be required not only to consider whether the normal basis of requisition would be, as the Bill has it, unreasonable or inequitable, but also to have regard to the two points he mentions as (a) and (b) in the Amendment.
    With regard to the rate support grant, the right hon. Gentleman quoted calculations which purported to show that the

    1409
    Inverness region that is to say the county and burgh, under Schedule 1, as a whole, would lose a substantial amount of rate support grant after regionalisation, and his concern was that this should not represent a transfer of the burden from the Exchequer to the ratepayers.
    I can give an assurance on behalf of my right hon. Friend, that, having this evidence before us, and being able to go into it in more detail, and with more time at our disposal than we had between Committee debates, this is not the case, because under the rate support grant formula expenditure on water supply does not affect the total amount of grant paid in Scotland. But in so far as there is a levelling out of water expenditure charged to the general rate, the effect will be that there will be some redistribution of the total rate support grant among the authorities.
    I hinted at this in Committee. I said that this might he a consequence, and the right hon. Gentleman was broadminded and fair enough to admit that there is nothing wrong in the principle of redistribution, since this is one of the main ideas of the rate support grant which is geared to resources, as indeed was the Exchequer equalisation grant before it. Where there is some transferance of expenditure on water from counties to burghs, there could be a reduction in the total amount of rate support grant paid within a region because, in general, burghs tend to attract rate support grant at a lower percentage rate than do counties.
    The Inverness example was discussed at the regional meeting of authorities on 30th March. This has brought to light the need for an adjustment in the arrangements made under the Water (Scotland) Act, 1949, governing the part of a local water authority's expenditure which it can charge to its general rate. When we reach Amendments Nos. 68 and 69 we shall no doubt be able to pursue this matter further. The Government Amendments to paragraphs 19 and 23 in Schedule 5 have the effect of enabling a local authority to charge more than the present statutory limit of one-third of its water expenditure to the general rate, and this will have the incidental effect of helping to maintain the level of rate support grant. The relative needs of individual local authorities for
    1410
    rate support grant have to find their own level under the grant formula.
    To summarise, I can now confirm that following discussions with local authorities it is clear that, regionalisation under the Bill would produce no saving to the Exchequer in relation to rate support grant, although there may have to be adjustments, influenced by later Amendments.
    As the right hon. Gentleman knows from our debates on the Local Government (Finance) Act, 1966, we have in session a working party on local government finance capable of influencing and restructuring the rate support grant in as much as it does not affect legislation—in this case the Water (Scotland) Act, 1949. We will keep under review the position vis-à-vis individual authorities. I am glad to say that the Bill does not reduce the Exchequer contribution for Scotland.
    It is not the Government's intention, either, to reduce Exchequer assistance under the Rural Water Supply Acts. The rate of grant being paid to a local water authority under the Acts is not the measure of transitional financial assistance that it should get from other authorities in the region under the new structure. The right hon. Gentleman may remember the three categories that I described as affecting the position of local authorities in respect of the work they were undertaking as a local authority—work that had been completed, work that was going on, and work that had been approved.
    Many small burghs have low water rates and may justifiably have a case for transitional financial arrangements, although at present they do not qualify for grant under the Rural Water Supply Acts because they do not come within the present definition of rural localities. The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) raised this point, and I suggested that we would look at the question again, administratively, to see if we could adjust the definition in the light of the new regionalisation proposal.
    The aim is to try to reach agreement in each region on a fair and equitable arrangement for every local authority—those with low rates and those with high rates—and it would be restrictive to write into the Bill all the considerations to

    1411
    which the Secretary of State should have regard.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that it is the Government's intention that the Rural Water Supply Acts will be used to enable grants to be made to small burghs which have not qualified in the past but which are facing substantial increases in water rates as a result of this legislation?
    Dr. Mabon: In the two-day debate in Committee I was extremely circumspect in what I said about this. I commend to the hon. Member what I then said. I do not dissent from the view of the hon. Member for Banff; it is the view of many people that a review was necessary, because the definition was too close and unfair to small burghs, especially in rural areas where, by the growth of new communities—usually overspill from the towns—there was no case for rural water supply money going, to those people; it should have gone to others in more scattered areas. I suggested that we were reviewing the situation. We have to try to be fair to all. We are considering whether the definition should be changed in cases of unfairness. The question will be taken effectively into consideration.
    I have assured the right hon. Gentleman that in general terms Exchequer assistance by way of rate support grant to Scotland will not fall, and that Exchequer assistance under the Rural Water Supplies Acts to Scotland generally will not fall, but the operation of the rate support grant may have effects which will influence the position. The Secretary of State does not dismiss these elements. He agrees that there are two more elements to be taken into consideration in framing the transitional arrangements to deal with the difference in rates as between low-rated and high-rated areas.
    We do not want to spell out all the needs and circumstances to be taken into account, because they do not apply to every region, and we could not work out a standard formula to suit every region. We have therefore left the matter in this comprehensive way, without specifying or adding emphasis to any specific points.
    I hope that with those two assurances, which I can now give more emphatically
    1412
    than I could in Committee, the right hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment. I thank him for putting it down, both in Committee and today.
    Mr. Grimond: I have always felt that one danger of the Bill is that we have practically no estimate of its financial effects. Judging by past experience, the cost of water in Scotland will rise considerably.
    I appreciate what the Minister has said, but even if the total amount of money supplied by the Exchequer does not fall local authorities are still greatly concerned to know what their individual share of that total will be. In Committee, on 7th March, talking about the rate support grant, the Minister said:
    "The right hon. Gentleman argues that, somehow or other, the position of Rate Support Grant vis-à-vis a local authority has some relation to its water burdens. However, there is no inverse or direct relationship."
    I say that there is. It does have an effect on the general rate. He went on to say:
    "But there is no intention that it should be so, and, if it were to prove so, the matter could be adjusted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 7th March, 1967; c. 351.]
    I am not absolutely certain how we should read this. I understand that the Minister has slightly altered his position today. In Committee he seemed to be saying that the grant coming to an authority—which is presumably a new authority—would not be affected, but that if it were the matter would be adjusted. He seems now to be saying that the total amount will not be affected but the amount payable to different authorities may be. It may be possible to raise the question again on a later Amendment. It is of great importance to individual authorities to know how they will be affected.
    7.30 p.m.
    I understand that we have had a categorical assurance that the grants payable under the Rural Water Supply and Sewerage Acts for existing schemes in the course of construction, or for new schemes in the course of construction, or for new schemes, will not be affected. I do not feel entirely happy about this. It is very unsatisfactory that we should leave Scottish local authorities in as much doubt as they are at present about their financial liabilities under the Acts. I am afraid that those liabilities may prove to be greater than some people expect.

    1413
    As there are to be further Amendments, and in the light of the Minister of State's explanation, which contains some more information for local authorities, and his assurance that at any rate the amount of money supplied by the Exchequer will not fall. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment made: No. 19, in page 8, line 32 at end add:
    (5) For the purpose of making any calculation required by this section, section 12 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 (apportionments, allocations etc. relating to local authorities) shall apply as that section applies to section 7(1) of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1963 with the modification that in subsections (1) and (2) after the words 'rate product' there shall be inserted the words 'and the product of a domestic water rate of one penny in the pound'—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

    Clause 13.—(APPORTIONMENT SCHEMES.)
    Mr. Willis: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 9, line 4, to leave out 'have regard to' and to insert 'be based mainly upon'.
    The Amendment is a humble effort to put a little meaning into a subsection which at present seems to mean nothing or everything. It arises from the serious concern of Midlothian County Council about this aspect of the Bill. Subsection (2) says:
    "Such a scheme as aforesaid shall provide for an apportionment between the constituent boards of a water development board of the aggregate amount to be requisitioned from those boards …"
    In my opinion, it could have ended there, for all the meaning the remaining four lines have.
    They simply mean that a scheme has to have regard to the general principle, which means that it can ignore it, accept it or anything else. One may say that one has had regard to it, but, in view of other circumstances, has decided that one cannot take account of it. My hon. Friend should tell us upon what considerations these apportionment schemes will be based. The Amendment suggests that they should mainly be based on the general principle that the amount to be requisitioned from each constituent board
    "… is to be proportionate to the quantities of water supplied and expected to be supplied to that board by the water development board."
    1414
    We could even have left out the word 'mainly' and simply required that it should be based upon the general principle.
    This is a good principle, which applies to most nationalised boards, that they should pay for what they consume. However, under these apportionment schemes, payment will be made not for the water consumed but on the basis of factors about which we are told nothing. My hon. Friend owes us some explanation of what these other considerations are likely to be. For instance, would one be the distance of a local authority from the source of supply? If so, Midlothian will be pretty well "clobbered" in connection with the Loch Lomond scheme.
    The principle is a good one, but, as the Clause is worded, need not be taken into account. I am very suspicious of the words "have regard to" and we ought to have some indication of what factors will be considered when framing these schemes and of why it is not possible to base them upon the amount of water to be supplied or expected to be supplied. That is a reasonable basis for such a scheme and I should like to know why it cannot be done.
    Mr. Eadie: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). We may seem to be rather parochial in forever mentioning Midlothian, but we are fortunate to be connected with the constituency. My right hon. Friend will probably tell us once again that this point was dealt with in Committee, but that discussion has failed finally to impress the representatives of Midlothian and people concerned about the county.
    When they contacted us about it, they were specific about what they did not like. They said that the phrase they did not like was "have regard to", and founded their argument very strongly. They said:
    "We do not think that this is too definite. We think that it is too indefinite and there should be no doubt that the apportionment scheme will follow the principle of uniform charges against constituent boards using water from the Loch Lomond scheme."
    They did not express only their own fears, but quoted the Final Report of the Scottish Water Advisory Committee.
    In discussing the Bill, we must consider the Committee's findings. Dealing

    1415
    with this aspect of the financial arrangements, the Committee said, in paragraph 145:
    "… the water from it should be sold on the basis of a uniform charge to all participating authorities and, second that a method of financing should be found during the early years of the scheme's operation, when only a fraction of its water would be required, so as to ensure that the charges for water necessary to meet the loan charges on the capital expenditure would not be unduly onerous."
    Paragraph 146 went on:
    "… an essential feature of the method of financing the scheme should be that each of the participating authorities should be able to obtain the water it needs from the scheme at the same unit cost and that it would be inequtable that any participating authority should have to pay more for the water simply through being farther away from the source."
    We tabled the Amendment, therefore, on a sound basis. It was vital because of the considerable disquiet in Midlothian. We believe that my right hon. Friend is a reasonable man and, therefore, because of the Committee's Report and because the Amendment would give the wording of the Bill solidity, we hope that he will carefully consider accepting it.
    Mr. Ross: What really matters is the aim of the Amendment and the effect on the Clause. If the Clause achieves that aim, this gets to the heart of the matter. I do not blame my hon. Friends for being parochial. After all, in matters like this, one must look after the interests of an area, although we all have in mind as well the interests of wider regions and Scotland itself—in whose interests the Bill was brought forward.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said that he might be suspicious and my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) referred to fears which have been expressed. The apportionment schemes will not be drawn up by the Secretary of State, but by the boards. My hon. Friends' authority will be a member of the board concerned. The boards require only the Secretary of State's approval. We could have left it at that, but we have given a useful and desirable general principle on which they can base their schemes.
    The words are:
    "… shall have regard to the general principle that the amount to be requisitioned from each constituent board is to be proportionate to the quantities of water supplied and expected to
    1416
    be supplied to that board by the water development board."
    When a Secretary of State approves a scheme which is put before him, he will consider whether that principle has been carried out. If not, he will want to know why and whether it is being fair or unfair to all concerned. We intend that a water development board, subject to that approval, should have a fair degree of freedom about the form of its apportionment scheme.
    The subsection contains the guiding principle to the method of allocation recommended by the Water Advisory Committee. If we put in the restrictive wording of the Amendment, a Secretary of State might have no option but to say "no" to a board with a scheme which had been agreed by everyone, but which departed from this principle in some way. Bearing in mind the guiding principle in the Clause and the duties which a Secretary of State would have to see that any departure from it, whether slight or major, had his attention, I think that my hon. Friends should be satisfied.
    Only where an agreed scheme departs from the principle would the Secretary of State not approve of it. It is inevitable that all apportionment schemes will have regard to the principles in subsection (2), because this would, in effect, mean that each board would pay for the water it got or expected to get. Therefore, there is likely to be little difference between the aim of the Amendment and the effect of the Clause. I appreciate my hon. Friend's fears, but I think that they are met by the wording of the Clause and the Secretary of State's responsibility in respect of approval to have regard to this general principle.
    Mr. Willis: My right hon. Friend has tried to lure us to accept arguments which are appealing, but they do not overcome our fears. It is precisely because we wanted the schemes tied to the quantity of water supplied or expected to be suplied that we tabled the Amendment.
    We did not want freedom to do all sorts of other things. I have asked a number of times for an indication to be given about what other matters might be included. What will be the "other considerations" in the framing of an apportionment scheme? Certainly, Midlothian County Council is worried about

    1417
    this and wants to know what considerations will be taken into account. My right hon. Friend has not given an indication of these considerations and I trust that he will, even now, give the matter further thought, because there are genuine fears about this matter.
    My right hon. Friend used the argument to which we are accustomed; that he is bound to act in the best interests of all the parties concerned. Although we do not wish to tie his hands, we do not see why we should not attempt to do so if he will not tell us how he will act in future. Had my right hon. Friend been frank, and given some examples, he might have allayed our fears, but instead he merely said that he would act in the best interests of all the parties concerned. I still believe that this part of the provision means virtually nothing and that almost anything could be included in an apportionment scheme.
    As I have explained, Midlothian County Council will be most dissatisfied any suspicious about this because it feels extremely strongly on this issue. I therefore cannot understand why my right hon. Friend has not been able to allay these suspicions. I can imagine what my right hon. Friend would have said only a few years ago on an issue such as this. I do not wish to start splitting hairs, except to say that this is one of the most wishy washy and meaningless pieces of draftsmanship I have ever come across. I do not want to get too emotional about it. It is obvious that my right hon. Friend does not intend to give way. Having explained the fears of Midlothian in this matter, I trust that between now and the time when the Bill reaches another place he will have second thoughts and will at least supply a few examples of what is meant by "other considerations" because that would at least let local authorities know what to expect.
    Having made the position clear, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 17.—(GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES.)
    Mr. Ross: I beg to move, Amendment No. 21, in page 10, line 3, to leave out 'two' and to insert 'four'.
    This Amendment is consequential on the two new Clauses, 1 and 2, about the
    1418
    disposal of assets and the transfer of officers. It means that with the introduction of the new Clauses the reference in subsection (1) to the "two next following sections" should be changed to the "four next following sections".
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 18.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO TRANSFER OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES.)
    Dr. Dickson Mahon: I beg to move, Amendment No. 23, in page 11, line 25, to leave out 'its' and to insert 'their'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Would it be convenient to discuss with this Amendment the following Amendments, Nos. 29, 30, 57, 58, 61, 65, 70, 71, 72 and 73.
    Dr. Mabon: That would indeed be satisfactory Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I deeply regret that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) is not in his place. In Committee we had an argument over the question of whether or not a "board" or an "authority" in the context of the Bill are collective nouns. I freely concede—and I wish the hon. Gentleman were here to hear me—that in ordinary conversation this is not so. However, it has been normal practice in leglislation for a considerable time to treat the use of the words "board" and "authority" as collective nouns and to use the plural number. The Amendment is designed to make this clear. The Government have taken the long-established option in considering whether to use the singular or plural, and we feel that we should be consistent in this matter.
    Mr. MacArthur: I was glad to see this string of Amendments on the Order Paper. Its presence warmed my heart, as it warmed the heart of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). The Minister will recall that we had quite an entertaining debate on this point in Committee. I am still not altogether happy that the various boards which we are setting up should be regarded in the plural. I remember that when I raised this matter in Committee the Minister twitted me with the fact that my hon. Friends and I had on occasion referred to the Government in the plural. I suggest that if the plurality was ever deserved, the present Government deserve

    1419
    it. While I am not altogether happy about the use of the word "their" throughout the Bill—because in various parts of the Measure this seems to be a clumsy use of the word—I am in favour of consistency and I therefore urge my hon. Friends to accept the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Ross: I beg to move, Amendment No. 24, in page 11, line 36, at the end to insert:
    (5) Where the authority being a local authority have on or after 1st January 1967 used or have had available for use property of the local authority that property shall for the purposes of section 17(2) of the Act be dealt with in accordance with arrangements made between the board and the local authority.
    This Amendment is in accordance with a pledge given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton) in Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister of State undertook to table a suitable Amendment at this stage dealing with the transfer of property where a local authority is also a local water authority and where the property is used jointly by various departments of the local authority. This happens in respect of water, roads, drainage and site servicing for housing.
    7.45 p.m.
    We know that a number of authorities have a single works and engineering department in which plant, machinery and vehicles are held and which collectively serve the various departments of the local authority. In some cases each department may pay a rent for the use of the property and in other cases the property may be owned jointly. The unscrambling of property which is shared may not be easy.
    The Amendment therefore provides that where on, or after, 1st January, 1967, a local water authority has used or has had available for use property of the local authority, that property is to be dealt with in accordance with arrangements made between the board and the local authority. We think that local authorities and the boards can be expected to adopt a reasonable and commonsense attitude in reaching a fair settlement and that they will be prepared mutually to accept what I admit is rough justice in this matter. Failing agreement, however, a dispute between the board and the local authority would fall inevitably to be deter-
    1420
    mined by the Secretary of State or by an arbiter appointed by him under new Clause No. 3.
    The operative date for the new subsection is taken as 1st January, 1967, to tie in with new Clause No. 1, dealing with the disposal of assets due to be transferred. New Clause No. 1 will not apply in relation to the joint use of property and it seems right, therefore, that the same date should operate in relation to this interest.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: No. 25, in line 37, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Ross.]

    Clause 19.—(TRANSFER OF OFFICERS AND SERVANTS.)
    Amendment made: No. 26, in page 11, leave out from beginning of line 44 to end of line 7 on page 12.—[Mr. Ross.]

    Clause 22.—(COMPENSATION OF OFFICERS AND SERVANTS.)
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move, Amendment No. 27, in page 13, line 21, after 'employment' to insert 'or loss'.
    This matter was drawn to the attention of the Government in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Buchanan) and I said on that occasion that there was no intention that the 1960 Act compensation provisions should in any way be reduced by the Bill. I promised to look into the matter, and that I have done. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the point to our attention.
    It is our clear view that the 1960 Act compensation provisions must be as they are and not in any way reduced. To put the point beyond doubt, the Amendment brings the Clause into line, as my hon. Friend suggested, with the principal Act. It is our hope that the transfer of functions will not result in redundancies or loss of earnings on a wide scale, or even on a marginal scale. However, the possibility cannot be ruled out and it is, therefore, perfectly proper that we should make sure that the compensation provisions are adequate and are not reduced in any way. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for making his suggestion and trust that the Amendment will meet with the approval of the House.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 25.—(AGREEMENTS NOT TO BE ENTERED INTO BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND APPOINTED DAYS BY THE LOCAL WATER AUTHORITY WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE REGIONAL WATER BOARD.)
    Mr. Ross: I beg to move, Amendment No. 28, in page 14, line 10, after 'board' to insert:
    'or, as the case may be, the water development board'.
    This Amendment fills a gap in that the Clause as drafted provides that once a board is established, and until it takes over from the local water authorities, its prior consent will be required before a local water authority in the region enters into certain new agreements or incurs a liability, other than one which is necessary for the day-to-day operations of the water undertaking. Similarly, wage increases are not to be granted without the board's approval, except where they are in accordance with existing commitments or are made at the instance of a wage-negotiating body.
    We think it right that local water authorities whose functions are being transferred to a water development board should be required to obtain the consent of that board where they propose to enter into agreements after the first appointed day. The Amendment provides for this.
    Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 28.—(REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.)
    Amendments made: No. 29, in page 15, line 29, leave out 'its' and insert 'their'.
    No. 30, in line 35, leave out 'its' and insert 'their'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

  Schedule 1.—(REGIONAL WATER BOARDS AND THEIR REGIONS, AND THE AREA OF THE CENTRAL SCOTLAND WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD.)
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 19, to leave out line 8.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): It will be convenient if, with Amendment No. 31, there are discussed together Amendment No. 32, in page 19 leave out lines 9 to 19; Amendment No.
  1422
  33, leave out line 21; Amendment No. 34, leave out line 27; Amendment No. 46, in page 21, line 47, at end insert 'Inverbervie Town Council'; Amendment No. 41, in line 50 leave out from 'Council' to end of line 9 in page 22; Amendment No. 50, in page 22, line 11, at end insert 'Laurencekirk Town Council', and Amendment No. 53, in page 22, line 23, at end insert 'Stonehaven Town Council'.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am agreeable to all those Amendments being taken together, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as they all concern the same point.
  We come from a relatively placid spell during which we have passed a number of Government Amendments, and I hope that the same may be true about these Amendments to the Schedule, though I think that we may be moving into a slightly different atmosphere. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all those of us who have Amendments of this type to Schedule 1 when I express our gratitude to Mr. Speaker for selecting them, because I think that they are—certainly my Amendments are—identical to those that were moved in the Committee. We then withdrew them in view of assurances from the Minister of State that the points we were making were still under consideration and were, indeed, subject to consultation with many local authorities, and with others outside the House.
  This fact merely serves to highlight the haste accompanying the introduction of such a complex Measure covering, as it does, so many different local interests which are very firmly held. The need for further debate and consultation is also stressed by the fact that in the provisions of the Bill there is no room for public inquiry, which means that if we are not successful here in our endeavours this evening—although we may hope that things may happen in another place—this is the last opportunity for discussing the make-up of different regional water boards in Scotland. That makes it all the more important that we should have this opportunity to discuss them further.
  The arguments I used on Second Reading and in Committee are known, certainly to the Minister of State, and I shall not repeat them, but I should like to deal with one or two salient points which, I believe, are important, and

  1423
  which I want to emphasise. The effect of my Amendments is to put the whole of the County of Kincardine into the North-East of Scotland Water Board. The Bill as it stands splits the county in half.
  Two other suggestions emerged in our earlier discussions. The first, put forward by the Minister of State, not only in Committee, but in discussions with local authorities, was that the whole of Kincardine might go into the North-East Board, taking that area of Angus served by the Loch Lee Water Board. I never found that suggestion particularly attractive—although the Minister of State may, in principle, have found it acceptable—because it would create in the County of Angus exactly the same anomalies, perhaps on a greater scale but of the same type, as those I am trying by these Amendments to avoid being created in Kincardine.
  To try to clear up one set of anomalies merely to run into another does not constitute either a sensible or a logical course of action. As will be seen in col. 476 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, I made this point in Committee. I do not think that this alternative is practical. It does not clear up any of the difficulties that are at present created, but merely transfers them to a different area. I therefore reject that suggestion.
  The second main suggestion was that the Loch Lee Water Board might be put under the authority of a water development board. This question has been discussed rather more generally but not exactly as to the form the board would take, so that it was never discussed in detail in Committee. This point of view has been put forward tentatively since the Committee stage in consultations between local authorities and the Department of the Minister of State.
  On the other hand, I understand that those consultations have not reached any definite conclusion at all so that it would seem that this alternative has so far not offered any sensible or practical solution. That fact may highlight the very short timetable we have had for working on the Bill. I am not aware, and having spoken on the telephone this afternoon to the Clerk of the Kincardine County Council I know that he is not clear, either, what stage the consultations have reached. I therefore reject the idea, but
  1424
  not in principle—there is a germ of good in it. However, with the very limited timetable we have to deal with this Bill we cannot consider this as a sensible or practical proposition.
  I appreciate the concern of the Minister of State over all these consultations and the opportunities there have been. I would also express my sorrow that I was not able, at very short notice, to attend the meeting in Aberdeen on 29th March. The notice given for that meeting was extremely short—less than a week—and it was not possible for me to attend. On the other hand, I know that the Kincardine County Council has had very full discussions with other authorities in the North-East, and that the Angus County Council at the meeting of 29th March, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) who attended, will confirm, put forward the county's position very clearly. That is a position in line with what I have tried to put forward before, and which I am again putting forward now.
  The interesting thing emerging from the consultations with the Kincardine County Council is that no objections have been raised by the other local authorities in the North-East Water Board—Aberdeen City, Aberdeen County, Banff, Moray and Nairn—to the bringing-in of the southern half of the county into the North-East area. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Wolrige-Gordon) says, most of them welcomed the idea.
  That is the attitude throughout the North-East. There has not been any objection from the County of Angus. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) will confirm that there has been no objection to the southern half of the County of Kincardine going into the North-East Regional Board. It is this wide measure of welcome from the other members of the North-East Board, and no objections from the East of Scotland Board that gives me heart in arguing in favour of these Amendments.
  The Minister of State stuck very closely in Committee to the principle of source-to-tap—a principle that is embodied in the Bill. It is a principle that it is right to adhere to as far as is possible and practicable. The one thing that has disappointed me is that he stuck far more

  1425
  closely to the principle in terms of source than in terms of tap. If he wants to stick to the principle he should stick to it all the way. As I demonstrated in Committee—and I will not now weary the House with the arguments I then used—the Schedule as it now stands, with the County of Kincardine being divided into two, constitutes a very clear breach of the principle at the tap end. If the Minister does not accept my Amendments he will still be left with a breach of his sacred principle—a principle that I respect.
  Whether the hon. Gentleman accepts my Amendment or maintains the position as it is in the Schedule, there is bound to be a breach of that principle. The Schedule is a breach at the tap and what I propose, as I have freely admitted, would be a breach of the principle at the source. I suggest that it is far better to breach this principle at the source rather than at the tap end when so much of the weight of local opinion supports the Amendment.
  In view of the limited time for consultation on this matter and as there can be no public inquiry and as there is to be a breach of the principle anyway and as my Amendment would represent local opinion, not only that of Kincardine County Council, but that of the neighbouring local authorities, I hope that the Minister, even at this stage, will find his way to accepting the Amendment.
  Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: I want briefly to support what my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has said. As a representative of Aberdeenshire, which is irrevocably in the North-East Region, whatever happens to the Schedule tonight, I want to re-emphasise that the whole of Kincardine is most welcome to join that region, and we look forward to that day with keen anticipation.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am very pleased that territorial ambition is still left in the North-East, but whether that will be fully realised by later Amendments remains to be seen.
  There is a part of the argument of the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) which I did not follow, although he laid great stress on it. He said that somehow there would be a breach of the principle of
  1426
  source to tap, if not at the source end, then at the tap end. I will give way if he wants to elaborate on that, but I did not follow that part of his argument.
  We are debating the first of a series of three groups of Amendments. I am certain that there would be many more if we gave way on the principle. I know that from my recent meetings with local authorities, when it has been murmured that if the Government gave way to so-and-so, others would insist that we should give way to someone else. In other words, this is not just a debate on a county for whom, I must confess, I have a natural affection, as it is nearly as small geographically as I am—all the more delightful for that—and which deserves consideration by Ministers on that account.
  In fact, I have gone out of my way from time to time to serve Kincardine and I am pleased that its representatives were not unduly perturbed when the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns and I fell out in Committee on one occasion. I can well understand their agony that for this purpose the county should be riven in two, and I see the logic of the argument.
  The hon. Gentleman said that there were two propositions to preserve the principle of source to tap, one of which we ought not to pursue, namely, the water development board proposition. This was that the Loch Lee scheme should have a water development board serving the North-East Region and the Eastern Region. That is not a proposition which I would rule out. If the Eastern Region combined with the North-East Region, it would be part of the same board. By the way, there is a misunderstanding about the attitude of the Angus County Council, some mistake between Angus and Kincardine, but no doubt it can be ironed out. However, I will come to that later.
  I will stick to the argument about the breach of the source-to-tap principle. It is not for the Government to propose that we should take the whole of the Loch Lee scheme from the North-East to the East and put that up as a proposition without having proper consultations. No one has ever suggested this, not even at the meetings held in both regions on 10th March and 29th March.
  If the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) reflects, he

  1427
  will agree that this position is not unparalleled by that in his own county of Perth, although there was no dispute between the Eastern region, Dundee and Angus that they should "lose" the Loch Turret scheme to the Central Scotland Water Development Board. In other words, Perth did not argue that it should retain its territorial integrity in order that the East of Scotland Region should run the Loch Turret scheme, most oil whose water is consumed outside the East of Scotland area. It said that it wanted its territorial integrity, but that the Loch Turret scheme should be run by the Central Scotland Board. This was a perfectly sound and sensible argument which the Government accepted.
  8.15 p.m.
  If that were the position in this case, I would agree that a water development board might have been a possibility and that the Loch Lee scheme might have been a possibility as a water development board. That is a matter which could still be discussed, although I feel that Angus would not like it. It is a matter entirely for the Angus County Council to discuss with Dundee which, of course, has a vital interest. It is suggested that in order to stick to the principle, if the North-East is willing to include North Kincardine and South Kincardine, it must take part of Angus which is serviced, as the South of Kincardine is, by the Loch Lee scheme.
  The County Clerk of Angus is under the misapprehension that we are simply arranging for administrative representation on the boards. In his letter about the position of the county if the Loch Lee Scheme were to be considered as part of the North-East Region, he says:
  "In view of the harmonious relations which have always existed between the Counties of Angus and Kincardine and, particularly in view of the fact that the Water Authorities in this area honestly wish to make a thorough success of the proposed new Eastern Regional Water Board, I think it can fairly be said that no exception would be taken to a proposal that for administrative purposes the representation of Kincardine County Council should be confined to the North-East Water Board. I personally find it rather difficult to understand what the great advantage would be in having a representation of two Members on a large Board as opposed to representation of one Member on each of two large Boards, but there may be some factors of which I am unaware. Angus County Council, however, cannot agree to any suggestion that if Kincardine are allowed to
  1428
  have their total representation on the North-East of Scotland Regional Board it must follow that any part of Angus should also be included in that area governed by that Board.
  As you will observe from the Loch Lee scheme distribution system in Angus, a copy of which I enclose at the request of the Convener, mains are laid over a greater part of the County of Angus and in many cases happen to be within only a few hundred yards of the mains laid by the existing Burghal Water Authorities".
  The County Clerk could not be friendlier. I understand that he wrote this letter in consultation with senior elected members of the council in an effort to meet Kincardine's problems.
  But they are problems which are consequential to other people. I have not consulted the City of Dundee, but the minutes of the meeting of 10th March in the City Chambers, Dundee, a meeting of all the members of the proposed Eastern Region with Kincardine County Council representatives present in the form of their Convener, Mr. Saunders, and the Deputy County Clerk, Mr. Wood, show that they said very little while in Conclusion it is recorded:
  "That the problem of Kincardineshire being under consideration by the Minister, no comment was offered".
  It was unfortunate, to put it at its least, that it was left like that, because the East of Scotland Region, like the North-East, ought to have said something to us and should have said whether it felt that it would settle on a water development board with Loch Lee. It would mean that Angus would be buying water from the Loch Lee scheme. It would have to make allocations between the two regions. It is a rather big proposal for a small problem, but it is a possibility and it should have been investigated.
  If we were to put the first proposition to Dundee and to Angus, I am certain that they would reject it, not only because it would impose on Angus the territorial agony of being divided, as is the case with Kincardine and other parts of Scotland, but also because it would place additional financial burdens on the other members—Perth and Dundee—in the East of Scotland combination. I am not saying that they should not accept these burdens, but they should have worked them out and decided whether they were for or against them.
  I have met Kincardine and the principal authorities in both regions, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is convinced that the original proposal

  1429
  is the only one he can accept in present circumstances as being fair. I agree that it is not fair to Kincardine, but many other proposals are not fair to other places. It is the fairest my right hon. Friend can get in the circumstances, and he cannot accept these Amendments. We have given much thought to this. There have been many meetings, quite apart from the three I have mentioned. There have been informal discussions. I do not see any way out of it. If we were to give way just for the sake of Kincardine on the source to tap argument, we would legitimately have to give way on a number of others elsewhere in Scotland. That would disrupt Schedule 1 beyond repair.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The Minister of State has been trying to knock down two propositions which my hon Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) did not advance. My hon. Friend suggested that the County of Kincardine should go into the North-East of Scotland Water Board. This was not an argument with which the Minister of State dealt. The Minister of State dealt with two other propositions—first, that the Loch Lee scheme should be taken out and put into a water development board, and, secondly, that the whole of the Loch Lee source to tap should be hived off and put into the North-East Region.
  The second proposal, as the Minister of State suggested, would be totally unacceptable to local authorities in the County of Angus; and there are substantial arguments against it. The objections to splitting Angus apart in this way, because of the nature of the existing systems of supply in the County of Angus, would be more substantial than the objections to splitting Kincardine apart as the Government propose; but this was not the case advanced by my hon. Friend. Nor did my hon. Friend suggest the less objectionable possible solution of hiving the Loch Lee scheme off into a separate development board. I would not be enthusiastic about that scheme, either, but it was not what my hon. Friend suggested.
  My hon. Friend said that the County of Kincardine should be moved into the North-East of Scotland Water Board. This is not a proposition to which the County of Angus or any of the local
  1430
  authorities in Angus would take exception. The Minister of State's answer to this was, by inference, that it would disrupt his rules and principles.
  Dr. Mabon: No.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: It was an argument which the Minister of State advanced only by inference. He did not answer my hon. Friend.
  Dr. Mabon: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is allowing me to comment on this. The letter from the Angus County Clerk says that there is no objection in Angus to Kincardine's sending its representatives to the North-East of Scotland Water Board and having none on the East of Scotland Water Board. However, that would be a quite intolerable position. As the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) argued in Committee and elsewhere, he regards the Loch Lee scheme as being the principal source of supply. It would, therefore, mean that the representatives of Kincardine on the North-East of Scotland Water Board would be there although their principal source of supply was being operated by another board. That would be nonsense.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I still do not think that the Minister of State has answered the perfectly reasonable case advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns. I have intervened only to emphasise that there is no objection whatever from the point of view of the County of Angus to the proposition of my hon. Friend. There would be objection to the propositions which the Minister of State was answering, but these were not the propositions made by my hon. Friend. I am only too happy to support the Amendments.
  Mr. Doig: I assure my hon. Friend the Minister of State that Dundee is emphatically against any alteration in the present set-up of the Board of which it is a part. This matter was carefully worked out by the Advisory Committee to ensure that each unit was viable. If we start taking off bits here, before long we shall be taking off other parts. The arguments advanced in Committee in relation to Stirling, for example, are just as valid as the arguments now advanced by the hon. Member for North Angus

  1431
  and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). The moment we start chopping and changing we shall reduce one unit until it is too small for the amount of water available, although another unit may be made too large. This particular part of Kincardine may well be fairly small. I do not know how much water it consumes.
  Dundee has carefully considered the way in which this has been drawn up. It is not the way that Dundee wanted it to be drawn up; but Dundee has considered the matter as it was proposed and has accepted it on that basis. If we start chopping and changing now and take bits off here and there, it is feasible that Dundee will no longer want to carry on on this basis.
  After all, Dundee stands to lose probably more than any other authority in the region, because it is by far the largest user and the largest supplier. It has a bigger stake than any other authority. Dundee Town Council is absolutely opposed to any cutting off of any part of this area. The council would welcome it if the area were increased. The Report of the Advisory Committee confirms that the amount of water available is much greater than that which will be used. Therefore, Dundee is looking for a bigger area, not a smaller one.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. MacArthur: This debate, and those which are to follow, illustrate the difficulty into which the Minister of State has got himself. Obviously, it was very tempting to my hon. Friends and myself to make a heyday of Schedule 1 from the moment when the Bill was introduced, but the hon. Gentleman, who has been generous in recognising the part which we have played, will be the first to accept that we have behaved most responsibly in this matter.
  I am bitterly disappointed, however, at the way in which the hon. Gentleman has handled these Amendments and the matters still to follow on Schedule 1. He will recall that, when we first started our proceedings in Committee, we objected to the haste with which the Bill had been brought before the Committee. We asked for time, but we were denied it. We said that we needed extra time to discuss with our local authorities the fundamental effect which the Bill would
  1432
  have on their water undertakings and their future. Later, we proposed that there should be a public inquiry procedure under Clause 1 so that points of the very kind put forward tonight could be exposed and debated in public and that any reasonable and responsible challenge to the groupings in Schedule 1 could be made and, I hope, carried through. This, also, was denied us.
  Later in Committee, we considered the same Amendment as that which my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has moved so ably, and others of my hon. Friends, the Members for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) and for Banff (Mr. Baker), as well as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) moved Amendments dealing with local points of grouping principle under Schedule 1. In every case, the Minister, who handled the question most courteously at the time, explained that we need not worry too much—this was the implication—all these matters were subject to negotiation and consultation, and he assured us that he would be having lots of consultations with all the bodies involved.
  We accepted that, as did the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—I think I can speak for him here—and withdrew the Amendments on that assurance. Now, we have the same Amendments before us. Mr. Speaker has been good enough to allow them to be selected because they were withdrawn, in the light of assurances given by the Minister of State, and we sought to reintroduce them. But we now learn, to our dismay, that the consultations have not got very far on this group of Amendments. Indeed, I wonder whether my hon. Friend had any indication at all from the Minister until tonight about the course of consultations so far.
  It is extraordinary to hear the Minister say that the county clerk of Angus, for whom we all have great respect, as he has, is under some apprehension. He can be under a misapprehension only if the process of consultation has not gone very far. If the County Clerk of Angus is under some misapprehension, it is not his fault; it is the Minister's fault for not carrying the negotiation and consultation far enough.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene to put this right. I am basing what I say about the county clerk's misapprehension on what the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns has said. The county clerk has got the idea from somewhere that it is only representation that we are talking about. I am taking the hon. Gentleman at his word when he says that there is no objection from Angus. Of course, there is no objection from Angus based on representation, but not based on territorial adjustment. In fact, I do not think that the county clerk is so wrong here. I think that the hon. Gentleman has either misunderstood the county clerk or conversations have gone wrong somewhere, though not with me. I am clear on both sides.
  Mr. MacArthur: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman so that he could clear the point up, and I am obliged to him for his intervention. He said that the county clerk was under some misapprehension, and I am glad that he has now made the point clear, because I would not wish to cause him difficulty in this matter.
  At another stage, the Minister of State said that these were matters which could still be discussed. This is not the stage at which these matters should still be discussed. They should have been determined long ago, or there should be provision for their open and public discussion in the future. There is no such provision. The hon. Gentleman asks us now to agree to Schedule 1 as it stands. The Bill was rushed into Committee. We had no chance properly to consult our local authorities.
  When my hon. Friends and the right hon. Gentleman raised these questions on Schedule 1 in Committee, we were told that there would be ample negotiation and consultation, yet now, on Report, the penultimate stage of the Bill in this House, we find that the consultations have been inadequate. The hon. Gentleman still tries to force us to accept the Schedule as it stands, without any provision for these fundamental matters to be exposed or heard publicly in the future. This is most unsatisfactory.
  I have heard my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns put his argument, and it seems to me to be a good one. I cannot say whether, in
  1434
  the ultimate, he is right or wrong, but it sounds to me like a jolly good argument. The fact that he has had no answer from the Minister is a reflection of the weakness of the hon. Gentleman's position.
  Mr. Manuel: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not overheating his mental processes too much. Would he not admit that those consultations have been successful in the main, and have saved a good deal of public money that would have been expended if this course had been followed, and which would have been unnecessary in the majority of cases? There will obviously be exceptions that will need to be hammered out, and we are in the democratic process of doing that tonight.
  Mr. MacArthur: We are doing that tonight with a large Government majority, although it has been substantially eroded in the Divisions and the trend is for us and not against us. The fact remains that the Minister, with his majority behind him, is stifling any change. I very well remember in the debate on the principle of the Bill the Minister referring to the Orkney and Shetland question, which will be raised shortly. He gave us hope that there might be some change, and when we came to the Committee stage we believed that a message of encouragement would be given. That message was that there would be consultation, and now we are waiting. Perhaps the Minister will have something to say about that later.
  My hon. Friend has advanced his case very clearly and well. If he wishes to divide the House I would say to him that on a matter of principle, because this is the last opportunity we have to debate these issues, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will go into the Lobby with him.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I wish to answer some points that have been raised in the debate, but, first, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) for his support in the matter, which not only concerns the practical effects on the county of Kincardine, but involves a matter of principle.
  I was very interested in what the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig) said, which I am sure will be noted in

  1435
  the County of Kincardine and also in Angus and Aberdeen, which have no objections to the proposals I put forward tonight. I did not like the slightly sinister, "big brother" attitude, which he expressed apparently on behalf of Dundee but I will give the hon. Member the benefit of the doubt. I am sure that the feelings of the citizens of Dundee in this matter are not fully reflected in what the hon. Gentleman said tonight. I hope that that is so.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) said, the Minister completely missed the point in his answer to the debate, because I said that I was not arguing for Kincardine taking half the County of Angus into the North-East area. I rejected that argument and said that I had also rejected it in Committee. I was arguing for the perfectly simple division at the county boundary between Kincardine and Angus, and asked that the County of Kincardine in its entirety should go into the area of the North-East of Scotland Water Board, with no appendage from Angus.
  So far as I know—I ask the Minister to deny this if he can—the County of Angus has no objection to that happening. Of course, it has objection to its own county being divided, but that was never suggested, and it was never put forward by the County of Kincardine in its discussions with the County of Angus. All that Kincardine asked for was the reaction of the County of Angus to Kincardine's keeping its entirety and entering the North-East board.
  I base my argument entirely on the source-to-tap principle, which I accept, and which has been the basis of so many of the Minister's arguments. I referred to that on 2nd February in the debate on the principle, reported at c. 82 of the OFFICIAL REPORT Of the Committee proceedings. The Minister said that this was something new that was introduced tonight. It was not. I referred to it again in Committee, as reported at c. 476 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Committee proceedings. The hon. Gentleman makes a mistake in thinking that there is only one end to the source-to-tap principle. There are two ends; the source is the beginning and the tap is the other end. I agree
  1436
  with the principle, but what about the end where the water ceases running and reaches the extremities of the possible limits? I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman did not understand what I meant in Committee, but this was argued at St. Andrew's House with the local authority representatives.
  Dr. Mabon: I do not understand this Calvinistic argument. This is a theological argument if there is one. My understanding of the source-to-tap principle is that the Loch Lee scheme supplies the residents of Kincardineshire, not all those in Kincardineshire, and a large number of residents in Angus. It is recorded in our minutes of my meeting with the Kincardine County Council on 24th February that
  "The constituent authorities"—
  that is, Angus and Kincardine—
  "each reserved their entitlements in advance with the result that when one of them required additional supplies urgently, difficulties arose notwithstanding that the needed quantity of water was available in the scheme. These difficulties would be removed on the introduction of the source-to-tap principle which could provide flexibility within each region."
  That was the engineering advice which we were given.
  I ask the hon. Member what he means by the tap end. The principle of the source-to-tap supply is a whole principle. If the hon. Member thinks that I have been abusive, that is because I do not understand what he means by the tap end of the source-to-tap principle.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is perfectly simple. The Minister has chosen a limit that is arbitrary for the taps. The proposed line dividing Kincardine is utterly artificial; the taps do not end here. Distribution is already taking place aross this line from south to north and in the future can take place from north to south when the Glen Dyl scheme comes into operation. My argument is no more arbitrary than the very intransigent and stubborn line which the hon. Gentleman has taken. If I am Calvinistic about the tap end, he is being extra Calvinistic about the source end. Because of the arbitrary attitude which the hon. Gentleman has adopted, I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to support me in dividing the House on this proposal.
  Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 113.

  Division No. 318.]

  AYES

  [8.44 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Neal, Harold

  Alldritt, Walter

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Allen, Scholefield

  Gregory, Arnold

  Norwood, Christopher

  Anderson, Donald

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Ashley, Jack

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Orme, Stanley

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Barnes, Michael

  Hannan, William

  Palmer, Arthur

  Baxter, William

  Harper, Joseph

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  Beaney, Alan

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Park, Trevor

  Bence, Cyril

  Haseldine, Norman

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Hilton, W. S.

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Hooley, Frank

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Binns, John

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Bishop, E. S.

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Pentland, Norman

  Blackburn, F.

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Booth, Albert

  Hoy, James

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Boston, Terence

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

  Price, William (Rugby)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Rankin, John

  Brooks, Edwin

  Hynd, John

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

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

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

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

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

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

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

  Cant, R. B.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rose, Paul

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Coe, Denis

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

  Coleman, Donald

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

  Ryan, John

  Concannon, J. D.

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Sheldon, Robert

  Conlan, Bernard

  Lawson, George

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

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

  Slater, Joseph

  Cronin, John

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Symonds, J. B.

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Luard, Evan

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Thornton, Ernest

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  MacColl, James

  Tinn, James

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Urwin, T. W.

  Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Varley, Eric G.

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Dewar, Donald

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wallace, George

  Dickens, James

  MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Doig, Peter

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Eadie, Alex

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Whitaker, Ben

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  Manuel, Archie

  Whitlock, William

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mapp, Charles

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Ensor, David

  Marquand, David

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mason, Roy

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Finch, Harold

  Millan, Bruce

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Winnick, David

  Ford, Ben

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Forrester, John

  Molloy, William

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Fowler, Gerry

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Moyle, Roland

  Mr. McBride and

  Garrett, W. E.

  Murray, Albert

  Mr. Harold Walker

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Burden, F. A.

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Campbell, Gordon

  Eyre, Reginald

  Astor, John

  Carlisle, Mark

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Clegg, Walter

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Balniel, Lord

  Corfield, F. V.

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Costain, A. P.

  Goodhart, Philip

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Gower, Raymond

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Dance, James

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Braine, Bernard

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt. Col. Sir Walter

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

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

  Gurden, Harold

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Drayson, G. B.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Bullus, Sir Eric

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

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Smith, John

  Hawkins, Paul

  Maginnis, John E.

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Heseltine, Michael

  Maude, Angus

  Stodart, Anthony

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

  Hiley, Joseph

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

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Holland, Philip

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Hordern, Peter

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Temple, John M.

  Hunt, John

  More, Jasper

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Murton, Oscar

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Walters, Dennis

  Jopling, Michael

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Kitson, Timothy

  Percival, Ian

  Worsley, Marcus

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Wright, Esmond

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Pym, Francis

  Younger, Hn. George

  Loveys, W. H.

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Lubbock, Eric

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  MacArthur, Ian

  Scott, Nicholas

  Mr. Grant and Mr. Monro

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

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

  Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 20, line 33, after 'Rutherglen' to insert 'Milngavie Town Council'.
  Mr. Manuel: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Ross: If my hon. Friend, who represents Milngavie, will restrain himself for a minute, I will explain the Amendment.
  It has been brought to our attention that, while the major part of the district of Milngavie Town Council is in the limits of supply of Glasgow Corporation, there is a relatively small part which was taken into the burgh under an extension of the boundaries for which Milngavie Town Council is the local water authority in terms of the Water (Scotland) Acts. The Amendment does not affect the boundaries of the proposed Lower Clyde Region. It ensures, however, that Milngavie Town Council's limited functions as a local water authority are formally transferred to the Lower Clyde Board under the Bill. I am sure that the Amendment will give as much joy to the hearts of patriotic locals in Milngavie as Celtic's achievement of getting into the European Cup Final tonight has done.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Mr. Grimond: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 21, line 20, to leave out 'Kirkwall Town Council'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that it will be convenient if Amendments No. 37—in line 21, leave out 'Lerwick Town Council'; No. 38, in line 22, leave out 'Orkney County Council'; No. 39, in line 23, leave out 'Stromness Town
  1440
  Council'; No. 40, in line 27, leave out 'Zetland County Council'; and Amendment No. 74, which is on a separate sheet of paper, in page 22, line 24, at end insert:

  Orkney and Zetland Water Board.

  Limits of Supply of:—

  Kirkwall Town Council

  Orkney County Council

  Stromness County Council

  Lerwick Town Council

  Zetland County Council.

  are discussed at the same time.
  Mr. Grimond: That certainly will be convenient to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I should like to say how grateful I am both to the Clerk's Department and to Mr. Speaker for allowing Amendment No. 74 to be discussed. I tabled it, but it went astray between the Table Office and the printers. There is a small misprint in it in that "Stromness County Council" should read "Stromness Town Council".
  It will come as a surprise to many hon. Members that I have tabled these Amendments, which were put down in Committee, because I and I think most Members of the Committee gathered the impression from the Minister of State that he would make an Amendment to the Schedule in respect of the Counties Orkney and Shetland. The Amendments are designed to remove the existing water boards in my constituency from Caithness and Sutherland. Amendment No. 74 is designed to constitute a new water hoard including Orkney and Shetland. We understood at one time that that would be acceptable to the Government.

  1441
  Not only am I surprised to have to move these Amendments, but rather sad. I take the view that on this sort of matter, which is not party contentious in any way, as representatives of the people we should be able to have a free discussion and that, at the end of it, the weight of argument and reason and the wishes of local people should prevail. In this case, they have not prevailed.
  I heard the Minister of State say about the last Amendment that once he began making exceptions to the Schedule, there would be no end to it, and, therefore, he could make none.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I did not say that.
  Mr. Grimond: I regard that as being the death of good government. The whole point of politicians is that they should be able to make exceptions, whether they are Ministers or Members of Parliament. We are sent here to amend what appear to be good paper schemes by representing the views of our constituents and also the facts of life and geography. I have found that the test of a Ministry is how far it is able to make exceptions. If it is able to make none, we might just as well leave government to civil servants or, better still, to a computer.
  It has been represented to me by the Minister that, in regard to some previous schemes of which we did not approve, he has not received any great complaint from our local authorities. This time, I am afraid that he is receiving a great many complaints. In my experience I have not known an occasion on which all the local authorities of Orkney and Shetland and all those serving on them have been so aggrieved by the conduct of the Government.
  I think that I am entitled to read to the House some of the telegrams which have been sent. The first is from Zetland County Council and Lerwick Town Council:
  "As we await today the arrival of Royal Commission on Local Government Shetland County Council and Lerwick Town Council note with astonishment the proposed terms of the Water Bill to be submitted to Parliament. This prejudging of issue involved is a cavalier disregard of the wishes and argued case of the people of these Islands. We must interpret this as an affront to the members of the Royal Commission as they make their journey to Shetland. This essential familiarisation has not
  1442
  been undertaken by the Government or the drafters of the Bill. The terms of the Bill display well the complete lack of knowledge and general public will react with implacable hostility to centralisation."
  I have received a telegram from Orkney as well. It says:
  "Confirm having sent following telegram to Doctor Dickson Mabon today: Orkney County Council are bitterly disappointed to learn that despite the impression given at the meeting on 31st March no amendment is proposed to the present form of Schedule 1 of the Water Bill. They wholeheartedly support the views expressed by Jo Grimond in his letter to you of 19th inst. and earnestly urge you to act thereon."
  Further, I have received a telegram from Stromness, saying:
  "Herewith copy of telegram sent to Dr. Dickson Mabon: Stromness Town Council deplore the outrageous folly of the proposal to set up a water authority comprising Caithness, Sutherland, Orkney and Shetland. This decision conflicts greatly with your attitude to the position of Orkney in your discussions with Mr. J. Grimond, M.P., and also at the meeting held in St. Andrew's House on 31st March. The decision to constitute a water board as proposed is obviously an exercise in paper planning with absolutely no regard to the peculiar problems of an island community such as ours or to the geography of the area. My Council strongly urges you even at this late hour to reconsider the matter and make the necessary amendments to the Water (Scotland) Bill."
  We have done all that we can to try to accommodate the Government. Not even the Minister of State will suggest that I have been unreasonable at any time during these proceedings.
  The local authorities were asked first of all to agree to an amalgamation within the counties. They agreed to that. Now they have agreed to an amalgamation between the counties. Throughout, these negotiations have not been about how the Bill can be amended to meet the needs of local people, but how it can be amended so that the Scottish Office can preserve the Bill as near as possible to its original form.
  I feel bound, once again, to go over some of the facts of the situation. Orkney and Shetland are two groups of islands, and that cannot be reiterated too often. That fact alone makes them an exception to the rest of Scotland, whether the Minister likes it or not. It justifies an exemption in their administration. They are surrounded by great stretches of sea. Is it realised in the Scottish Office that

  1443
  from the north of Shetland to Caithness is as far as from London to York? The Government apparently accept that Ross and Cromarty is too far from Caithness, yet one can motor to Caithness and back in a day. Would even the Scottish Office suggest having a water board covering an area from London to York, and across the sea? It is facts of this sort which justify an exception, yet they appear to have been ignored.
  9.0 p.m.
  It is agreed that Ross and Cromarty should have a separate board, though this area is actually contiguous with Caithness and Sutherland. It is possible to pipe water from one to the other, to drive up there and back in a car, or to go by train, but there are no steamer connections between Caithness and Shetland, and only yesterday the Local Government Commission was stuck in Orkney. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen opposite to laugh, but we are setting up an organisation in which many people will constantly be stuck in these places because of weather or because there are no seats available on aircraft, and to local people in my constituency this is not a laughing matter. On the principles laid down in the Report we should have separate authorities. It is said that the factors which should determine what authorities are set up are physical ones, but these have been ignored, and so have the wishes of the people of Orkney and Shetland.
  Where is the new headquarters of the water board going to be? We have no natural communications with Wick. There is no piping of water to Caithness, and, if the board is to be set up, the obvious centre is Kirkwall. There is at least a steamer connection between Shetland and Orkney, but there is none between Shetland and Caithness. It is possible occasionally to go from Shetland to Orkney, attend a meeting there, and get back in one day, but to attend a meeting in Caithness one has to be away for three days, and perhaps much longer if one cannot get a seat on a plane, which is extraordinarily common.
  Where we are on the map does not matter for all purposes. Surely the Scottish Office knows that our connections are with Aberdeen, and to some extent Inverness. We have our own
  1444
  county council, and in this we differ from the Western Isles. Not in history, nor in tradition, nor in language are we the same as the Highlands. We are not being joined to the people with similar problems. We have different traditions and different local authorities, but all this is being cast aside as of no importance. If this proposal is going to be steam-rollered through, at least Kirkwall and not Wick should be the headquarters of the board.
  It seems that in the minds of Ministers uniformity is all important, but look at what the Government are doing to Scotland. They are setting up innumerable ad hoc bodies with different boundaries. For hospital purposes we have to go to Aberdeen. For the Crofters Commission and the Highland Development Board we go to Inverness, and now we may have to go to Caithness. What is the purpose of this, especially in front of a Royal Commission which has to unscramble all this?
  I am indebted to an hon. Gentleman opposite for pointing out that it was a conclusive reason against putting Skye in the Western Isles constituency that its communications ran the other way. Communications between Skye and the Western Isles are a great deal easier than those between Caithness and Shetland.
  What is obvious on the facts of history and geography, and on local feelings, is that there is no case whatsoever for this amalgamation. However, in an effort to make less nonsense of the whole thing the local authorities agreed that there should be one board between Orkney and Shetland. There is some sense in this, because there are sea communications, and it is possible occasionally to attend a meeting in one county and get back to the other in much less time than it takes to get from either of them to Caithness. Further, we share the same problems. We are islands, and groups of islands, and it is this fact which creates our problems.
  I think that a very disturbing feature of this whole matter is that the Government have made no effort to justify their proposals in terms of what good they will do to ordinary people. The disadvantages are plain. Most of our water schemes are finished. We do not want a great advisory staff. It is certain that this will greatly increase the cost of our water supply. It

  1445
  is very curious that the Government suddenly, and rather late in the day, have put forward the view that the Northern fire services are satisfactory. I wonder whether they realise the position. They are trying to encourage economy in the country in general and have brought in S.E.T. to try to squeeze people out of the service industries.
  They say that the Northern fire services are satisfactory, but do they realise that, whereas the cost of the fire brigade before the new arrangements were made was about £200 a year in Shetland, in the first year of the new arrangements the cost rose to about £545—and I do not complain about that—and that today Shetland's contribution is £9,000 a year. This is one-sixth of the total cost. This example is being held up by the Government—in this year, when everybody is supposed to economise—as being an example that should be followed.
  I feel I have been misled about this matter. I got the impression throughout the previous proceedings that exceptions would be made and Amendments would be put down. I want to remind the Minister of some of the things that he said. In the Second Reading debate I was told that I would be very happy with what the Minister had to say. In Committee—admittedly among other things—he said:
  "It is right to say that the islands are exceptional … while I see the point about the position of the islands, it is not fire or police that we are dealing with but a service which is essential y a physical one."
  That is true.
  The Minister went on:
  "I should like the right hon. Gentleman to accept our good faith in this matter. Let us attend the meeting on 31st March and have this discussion, and let us see if we can consider Amendments affecting Shetland, Orkney and Caithness and Sutherland, which we shall have the opportunity to do on Report."
  Later he said:
  "We shall then be in a position to estimate what kind of amalgamation we can make in this part of Scotland, which is in a different situation from that elsewhere".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 16th March, 967; c. 489–91.]
  It became clear as time went on that entirely new objections were being put up. First, it was not pressed that we should form one water board in Orkney and Shetland. Later on it was. We did not think that it was a good idea, but we accepted it. It was never sug-
  1446
  gested at any point in Committee that one essential, if Orkney and Shetland were to be separated from Caithness and Sutherland, was that Ross and Cromarty should come in. Why it should be thought that a good reason for making a mistake about us was that the Minister had been unable to make a mistake about Ross and Cromarty I do not know. Why should we suffer because Ross and Cromarty—doubtless for good reasons—refused to go in with Caithness and Sutherland?
  It is clear that when the Minister spoke to us of a compromise he meant a compromise which would suit the Scottish Office and would enable it to keep the Schedule intact. It is clear that he was not talking about a compromise which would give a better water supply to our people, or a compromise which would meet their desires. He may have had that wish at the back of his mind, but more and more his argument has been that he cannot make any exception in the Schedule, and that it does not matter who has to suffer so long as he gets the Schedule through Parliament. He would like to do it with good will, but if he cannot get the good will he will do it somehow in any case.
  It is monstrous to expect Orkney and Shetland to help out Caithness and Sutherland and to contribute towards the cost of a large headquarters on the mainland. It is no good his telling us that there will be a travelling committee in the area. It will probably be extremely expensive, and there will be little purpose in it. There will not be a saving in the number of officials, with 100 miles to go across the sea—and Caithness has an extremely high water rate.
  This is making a farce of local democracy. It is simply throwing out of the window all the concessions offered by our local authorities. It will be possible, of course, at some future date, to alter the Bill, but unless the hon. Gentleman can show that he is willing to do this, I do not know how he can expect continual co-operation from local authorities which have fallen over backwards to meet arguments from the Scottish office which have very little bearing on what I regard as the important thing, serving the people whom the local authorities and I represent.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The speech of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) showed an extraordinary lack of perception about the problems in the North of Scotland and was unjust to the Minister of State's efforts to obtain an accommodation in an extremely difficult situation. I was astonished that he should say that the local authorities of Shetland and Orkney are satisfied with his Amendments. The widest publicity was given in the North of Scotland to the objection of the County of Zetland to the compromise proposal which was hammered out at a difficult meeting held by the Minister of State at St. Andrew's House on 31st March.
  The right hon. Gentleman's proposal is an absolute nonsense, in that it concedes that geography is not the most important question by proposing to link the Islands of Orkney and Shetland, which are separated by 90 miles of water, and taking exception to the linking of Orkney and the mainland, which are only 15 miles apart. Geography is, of course, important in the North of Scotland, but it is by no means the prime consideration. The argument has been repeatedly stated—the right hon. Gentleman appears to have failed to grasp the point of the Bill—that the benefit of skilled technical advice will be available to people in the entire area of the water board.
  I am astonished that a member of the Liberal Party should be so satisfied with the status quo, especially in the Highlands, where so much needs to be done, and that he is content with the water supply as it exists and does not envisage any industrial development which will require new water supplies or expanded water services. In my constituency, such hopes are held out. Anything which will make the provision of these water services more efficient and workable is welcome.
  The meeting in St. Andrew's House, which we all attended, illustrated the Minister of State's patient approach to the areas set out in the First Schedule. Each authority, in turn, was asked for its views and, at the end of the day, we appeared to have reached an acceptable compromise—with the exception of Caithness, which made its opposition clear immediately for very good reasons, which it gave in evidence to the Scottish
  1448
  Water Advisory Committee, and which formed the basis of the Committee's recommendations on which the Bill is based.
  It is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman has not even turned to the reasons given in that Report for so grouping these counties. After this meeting, at which it appeared that an acceptable compromise, with the exception of Caithness, had been worked out, it was then put to the local authorities concerned, and one by one they rejected it. If we are to accommodate local democracy in the way which the right hon. Gentleman suggests, I fail to see what more could have been done.
  Simply because the right hon. Gentleman has not had his way on the Bill is no indication that the normal processes of consultation have not been carried through. Each point he made has been argued time and again—on Second Reading, in Committee and at the meeting to which I have referred—and these arguments failed to persuade the local authorities concerned.
  9.15 p.m.
  The proposal that Orkney and Shetland should form a separate authority concedes that geography is not the key, but there are other points which are unacceptable about the proposal. One is that it is numerically far and away the smallest proposed board, with probably the smallest rateable value. I question whether it would form a viable financial unit. It is well known that one of the problems of the most northerly counties is attracting skilled technical advisers and local authority staff. The right hon. Gentleman knows this and it is disingenuous of him not to have mentioned it.
  But the position in Caithness is special. It has an advanced water set-up, in terms both of development and of the services of the skilled men available. No fewer than four people are specially engaged to look after the supplies of water. This is the clear nucleus for a water board for the whole northern area.
  The right hon. Gentleman tried to suggest that there was a peculiar and special reason, because they are islands, which made their problem somehow different from that of the rest of Scotland. But the Bill provides not only for the association of Skye with Inverness in one

  1449
  authority, but also for the association of Lewis with Ross and Cromarty and for the association of Bute with Ayrshire. These are all islands associated with the mainland. What is irrational about that?
  The right hon. Gentleman said that they do not have a separate county council. That may be so, but it is an entirely different question. It is related to the structure of local government and has nothing to do with insularity. It appears that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to have the best of half a dozen different arguments at the same time, and his remarks make absolute nonsense.
  Caithness has made it clear from the beginning that it has the nucleus of a water service which could form the foundation of a successful unit for the entire North of Scotland. Sutherland was prepared to accept the compromise proposal which was before the meeting in St. Andrew's House. However, the problems of Sutherland are somewhat different because if one is to apply the source-to-tap principle, which was the subject of so much debate on an earlier Amendment, then this area supplies part of Ross and Cromarty. It is regrettable that Sutherland could not go in with Ross and Cromarty. That simply stems from the fact that Ross and Cromarty is unwilling to be so associated. However, I would deplore any action by my right hon. Friend to force Ross and Cromarty into unwillingly going in for such a regional unit.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting rather wide of the Amendment.
  Mr. Maclennan: With respect, Mr. Speaker, this is a consequential point flowing from the fact that we are discussing the Northern regional board.
  Mr. David Steel rose—
  Mr. Maclennan: As I was saying—
  Mr. David Steel: Give way.
  Mr. MacLennan: I am addressing myself to the point made by Mr. Speaker. The effect of removing Orkney and Shetland from the Government's proposal would have a substantial effect.
  Mr. David Steel: Why does the hon. Gentleman think that it would be deplorable for his right hon. Friend to force
  1450
  Ross and Cromarty into a board, but that it would not be deplorable to force Orkney and Shetland in the same way?
  Mr. Maclennan: The proposal that Ross and Cromarty should be set up as a separate board was contained in the recommendations of the Scottish Water Advisory Committee. It makes absolute sense as it stands and it would be unnecessary, from the point of view of efficiency, size, geography or anything else to try to alter—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. This confirms Mr. Speaker in his belief. We are not at the moment discussing Ross and Cromarty.
  Mr. Maclennan: I appreciate your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I will conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend the Minister of State on his patience in listening to this argument being adduced by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland on so many occasions. The right hon. Gentleman has absolutely failed to confront the financial problems that would ensue for Orkney and Shetland if the Amendment were accepted.
  The Minister of State has done his best to accommodate the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has failed only because the local authorities concerned do not find the proposal which he is making tonight acceptable. In these circumstances, my hon. Friend has had no alternative but to fall back on the original scheme put forward by the Scottish Water Advisory Committee.
  Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: I regret the tone of the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). My right hon. Friend has represented Orkney and Shetland for many years and is only too well aware of the problems of the area. We are all sent here to represent our constituencies. The hon. Gentleman spoke as though my right hon. Friend had no business to put forward the views of his constituency, but I am glad to say that that has not been the view of the Minister of State.
  Mr. Maclennan: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to the views of the Orcadians or the Shetlanders, remembering that the views of those two counties

  1451
  on this matter appear to be quite different?
  Mr. Mackenzie: My right hon. Friend has put forward the views of the people of Orkney and Shetland. He has every right to do this and I stress that the Minister of State has taken an entirely different view from the hon. Gentleman and has tried to arrive at a reasonable solution in dealing with this matter. These problems are difficult to solve. We are considering an unwieldy area and must, if we are to get anywhere, consider these difficulties in a calm and deliberate way, leaving personalities aside.
  I suggest that a mistake has been made from the outset. I am not saying that the present grouping is as it should be. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland seemed to indicate that there are no problems peculiar to the islands. Perhaps he has never lived on an island. I spent the first 15 years of my life on an island, and I know that islands still have peculiar problems today notwithstanding the progress we have made in communications.
  There is still time to look again at this grouping. Ross and Cromarty is very happy about the present situation. Sutherland is very anxious to come in with Ross and Cromarty. I personally would be quite happy to see that happen, as we have the amalgamation of the police forces and various other things coming along. In my opinion, the best grouping would be Ross and Cromarty and Sutherland. Caithness and Orkney, and Shetland, 100 miles across the sea, should have its own water board. I am quite convinced that that would be a better arrangement than is now proposed.
  I support my right hon. Friend, and I implore the Minister of State to look again at this matter before the Bill reaches the Statute Book.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I support the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Membr for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). Having heard him make his case in the Grand Committee on the Second Reading of the Bill, I am amazed that the Government are still trying to push through the Schedule entirely unchanged in this respect. The Minister of State
  1452
  himself intervened in that Second Reading debate to say that the right hon. Gentleman was making a good case, but has so far taken no notice of that case in anything he has done.
  The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has told us how patient the Minister of State has been and other hon. Members have said how accommodating he is, but the trouble is that there are no results from his being patient and accommodating and, though he may listen, there has been no change in the Schedule—
  Mr. Manuel rose—
  Mr. Campbell: No, not now—I shall be very brief. I will give way in a moment.
  The Government do not seem to be able to adapt their schemes to the geography of the North of Scotland, and particularly to these two groups of islands. Whether they are wedded to having 13 regional boards—a mystical number—I do not know, but in this case it seems that there could be no harm to the Government's proposals as a whole if the number were increased to 15. There is no particular merit in sticking to the 13 regional boards proposed.
  Mr. Manuel: The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, believe that I know something of the Highland problems. The point I cannot get over is this. The Minister of State called this meeting at St. Andrew's House, all these delegates arrived, there was a long discussion, and a compromise agreement was reached. It was then ratted on. Does the hon. Gentleman think that that sort of thing can be repeated time and again? How often should the Minister of State do that, and could he have any faith that the delegates would not later disagree what they had agreed at previous meetings?
  Mr. Campbell: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is concerned with Highland problems but, as I learned of it, the compromise agreement in this case was the bringing in of Ross and Cromarty. There is no reason why the Government should have stuck to 13 regional boards, and on any change being decided they must bring in yet another large area to join with Caithness and Sutherland. What has been called a compromise was

  1453
  a completely new proposal involving the bringing in of yet another of the regional boards which would otherwise have been separate.
  My point is that these islands create a special problem. The Government seem to be quite unaware of these problems of geography, communications, travelling and representation which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has lucidly explained. That is why I do not accept the mention of this as a compromise. The Government should have been prepared to allow an extra board or two boards in the North of Scotland and not tried to stick to the same number. I hope that it is still not too late for the Governmen1 to change their minds.
  9.30 p.m.
  Mr. David Steel: I speak on this matter without any profound local knowledge, but, as a Member of Parliament for another part of Scotland, I am concerned with the principle which is here involved and which should give all hon. Members cause for grave anxiety. Here is a case when the elected Member of Parliament for a particular constituency and the local authorities within that constituency are unanimously agreed on one point of view.
  Dr. Mabon Dr. Mabon indicated dissent.
  Mr. Steel: They have agreed on a compromise. They have agreed to come together in one board, even though they did not want that at the outset.
  When I was in Orkney in January, as the guest of the local Member of Parliament, I was buttonholed by local authority representatives and newspaper editors and others about the Bill before it had got to Committee and when it was not causing any great controversy in my constituency. I was asked what I as a Member of Parliament unconnected with Orkney and Shetland would do about it. I can assure the Government that there was very strong feeling at that stage before the matter had been even fully discussed.
  I have had cause to complain to Scottish Ministers before about the increasing tendency of the Government to ignore the obvious interest of a Member of Parliament in Government decisions which affect his constituency and the part
  1454
  which Members of Parliament, regardless of party, must play in being answerable to their constituents for what happens in the House. Here we have a most blatant case of a kind which has never happened in my constituency, but we should be gravely concerned about letting this go through in case it happens to us. Which of us is to be next?
  I suppose that most hon. Members have had the letter signed by the Vice-Convenor of Zetland and the Senior Baillie of Lerwick Town Council in which they point out that to attend a daytime board meeting in Wick from Shetland involves an absence of two nights and three days. Quite apart from the administrative costs, they ask:
  "where are the members prepared to serve in these circumstances?"
  This is a valid point. They go on to say that they have offered to combine to form one water board and they dispute the need for and dread the cost of any larger combination.
  They end the letter—and this is the point which concerns me—by saying:
  "We protest at the manner in which the administration in the name of Parliament rides rough-shod over minority populations, ignoring their requirements and arguments. This appears to be an example of bureaucracy usurping the dignity and duty of Parliament and we appeal to you to oppose this measure thus obtruded and forced upon you."
  I am prepared to give any amount of appreciation to the Minister of State for the fact that he has had meetings to meet these points, but at the end of the day something is being done against the clearly expressed wishes of the local authorities and Member of Parliament for the area.
  I draw the Minister's attention to the conclusion of the first leader in the Scotsman this morning, which followed our debate yesterday on the way in which the Government's regional policies were being pursued. The leader said:
  "It is a profound mistake to think regional regeneration is a technical planning operation for experts, with the advice of some nominated amateurs. It is a political task, most likely to be efficiently performed by enlisting the enthusiasm and creative enterprise of those who feel greater urgency about improving the country or region in which they live than do distant politicians and officials".
  I accept that there can be cases and have been cases in the past and will be

  1455
  cases in future when one Member of Parliament may be grinding his constituency axe, or when a group of local authorities may be grinding their axes against the national interest, but when a Member of Parliament and the local authorities are joined together to make strong representations to the Government about how Government policy should be applied, when there is a conflict of interest, there is a very great burden on the Government to show that it is most strongly and clearly in the national interest not to accept the advice of the local people. A very clear burden of proof rests upon them, not a marginal, but a substantial balance of argument. If hon. Members from other constituencies let this go through, we do not know what will happen to us next.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to reply to the debate thus far. The last two speeches, coming from intelligent Members who take a very active part in Parliament, have shown a terrible ignorance of what has gone on. I am sure that they would not have said what they have said if they knew all the facts as I hope to disclose them now. I do not hold anything that they have said against them, because I know that they spoke without full knowledge of what has gone before.
  The idea that I met the local authorities concerned, that they wanted the solution, and that the Government wickedly denied them it, is a piece of nonsense. When we held the meeting on 31st March in St. Andrew's House the representatives of five county councils and of the burghs attended. Not all the burghs from the different counties were individually represented. There were representatives from the counties of Shetland, Orkney, Caithness, Sutherland and Ross and Cromarty. The Members of Parliament were invited. I made a specific point that the Members of Parliament would attend this meeting. We discussed in this case, not just one item which was Schedule 1 to the Bill, but other matters. The meeting began for me at 10 o'clock in the morning. I did not finish with the county of Shetland until twenty minutes to seven that night.
  On the Bill we took from 10 o'clock in the morning to twenty past one. Later
  1456
  on we discussed some consequences of it. I do not say this merely to boast. I say it to show the immense attempt which was being made, I thought by everybody at the meeting, to get a compromise. I realised that we should not get a unanimous compromise. We did not.
  What did I promise the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)? I said this in Standing Committee:
  "When we had the meeting in St. Andrew's House to discuss this matter"—
  I should say that, following the publication of the Report of the Water Advisory Committee in October, in December we had the meeting I am now referring to with the local authorities—
  "there was one representative from Kirkwall who made this point to us."
  That is the right hon. Gentleman's case.
  "I invited the authorities to send us any representations which they had to make."
  I asked them to do this quickly. One of the few authorities which took this matter up was Dundee. This was on the issue which affected the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) and others in the east of Scotland. I said to the authorities that if any were dissatisfied with my proposal they should write to me and a meeting would be arranged. Thereafter, the right hon. Gentleman made his point in debates. I was always sympathetic. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted some of the things I said.
  I said to the right hon. Gentleman later:
  "That is my difficulty. If I accept Amendments to the Schedule without having consulted properly all the authorities involved in the consequences of the Amendments. I am not being fair to them, any more than I should be by an outright refusal to listen to anyone's case other than what is proposed in Schedule 1."
  On previous Amendments we have debated the consequences on several counties, not just on the one county. In this case we are debating not just five counties but the burghal authorities in the five counties. I give the right hon. Member credit for this. In Committee he was able to assure us that the authorities in Orkney and Shetland would each unite into one region. This is remarkable. Let me read an extract from the Final Report of the Scottish Water Advisory

  1457
  Committee. The Report says this in paragraph 81, speaking about Orkney and Shetland:
  "We can see no need for two separate local water authorities in Zetland where the total population is under 18,000, or for three authorities in Orkney for a combined population under 19,000. Apart from this, in Orkney the County Council shares a source at Kirbister with the Town Council of Kirkwall but there is no co-operation between them and they have separate pumping installations on the Loch. Further, the County Council's piping passes close to the burgh boundary of Stromness and integration of these two systems would prevent no difficulty"
  In other words, according to this Report, dated October 1966, there were difficulties in getting union in Orkney and difficulties in getting union in Shetland.
  I give this credit to the right hon. Gentleman, that, as a consequence of our discussions and, no doubt, his own effective influence on his local people, he was able to convince them that they should take the first step, to unite the islands—Orkney within Orkney and Shetland within Shetland. I paid due regard to this in my final comments on 16th March.
  Referring to the meeting arranged for 31st March, I went on to say:
  "I have taken the liberty of asking the hon. Members for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) and for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) to join the right hon. Gentleman and myself, and I have asked the respective water authorities to send their representatives to that meeting. If I am to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request that it should be Orkney united and Shetland united, I ought to agree to it if I am so convinced at that meeting and confident that some arrangement can be made for Ross and Cromarty and for Caithness and Sutherland.— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 16th March 1967; c. 489–90.]
  We entered the meeting, therefore, with Caithness in favour of Schedule 1, with Sutherland in favour of joining Ross and Cromarty, with Ross and Cromarty in favour of Schedule 1, and with Orkney and Shetland in favour only of joining together, not together as Orkney and Shetland but only as Orkney and as Shetland. At the end of the meeting, the representatives there concerned, subject to ratification by their own county and burgh authorities, agreed on a compromise. Four counties and most of the burghal authorities agreed on this compromise, and I assented to it although I said that it was the second best arrangement. The Government's view was that
  1458
  this was not the best way, that it was second best, but we would accept it for the sake of harmony.
  The one dissentient was Caithness, which was extremely angry that I had offered the compromise with the other authorities. The compromise was that Shetland and Orkney would combine, and that Caithness, Sutherland and Ross and Cromarty would merge.
  I have here a list of all the letters I received. What happened? First, Shetland repudiated the whole agreement. I do not blame the Shetland deputation. I have no doubt that every member of it did his best to convince his respective authority that it should accept the compromise. But they failed, as, no doubt, we would have failed as individuals trying our best in the same position. I blame no one at the meeting, and I am sure that they all went home and did their best to convince their fellows of the sense of it. But the fact is that Shetland repudiated the whole agreement.
  The matter goes further than that. There has been a reference to the letter of 24th April from the vice-convenor of Zetland. I draw attention to this passage in it:
  "The Shetland Isles, or the County of Zetland, lie well over 100 miles by sea off the Scottish mainland, and the plan to include them with any part of Scotland for water supply purposes is ridiculous."
  Thus, even if I were to accept Amendment No. 74, the right hon. Gentleman's own Amendment, I should not be agreeing with the County of Zetland.
  The suggestion of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie) was that Orkney should join with Caithness, Shetland being left alone, and Sutherland should join with Ross and Cromarty. But Ross and Cromarty wrote to me to say otherwise. I know that Captain Matheson, who led the Ross and Cromarty deputation—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree—did his very best to convince his compeers of the sense of the compromise, but, nevertheless, Ross and Cromarty wrote to me to say that they could not agree to fuse even with Sutherland, never mind Caithness. This was confirmed by the burghs of Ross and Cromarty.
  I am not arguing their case, because the Water Advisory Committee put up a good case for union of the burghs within

  1459
  Ross and Cromarty and the county council. The Government do not dissent from that. We think that it is a sensible and sound proposition, considering the possible future need for greater water supplies in that county. But even the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion tonight has been repudiated by his own county. I do not blame it, but that is the position with which a Minister is faced. It would seem that one cannot please all the people, or even the majority of the people, in this situation. The only counties that are satisfied are Ross and Cromarty and Caithness. Orkney and Shetland are feeling very aggrieved that they are to be combined with each other, never mind with Caithness and Sutherland.
  9.45 p.m.
  I do not want to go over the arguments in Committee time and time again. I concede that we could have made various compromises, but they must be viable so that the water service staff available in the area are used to the best advantage. Zetland is a good authority which still has many water schemes to do. It relies on consultants in Edinburgh. Orkney and Sutherland employ consultants in Glasgow, Caithness employs one in London, and the small burghs also employ consultants. Taking only water schemes which qualified for rural grant since the end of the war, one finds that about £250,000 has been paid out in consultants' fees. Inverness-shire, which spent about half the amount of the Northern authorities on water, has, because of its strong local engineering organisation, been able to design schemes itself without help from consultants.
  One effect of combining the northern authorities would be to reduce their dependence on consulting engineers, since there would no doubt be a regional engineering unit based on the headquarters, whether in Wick or Kirkwall is entirely a matter for the local authorities themselves. There are savings that can be made. I was misrepresented in one way when somebody said that I did not seem to give a damn for the amount of money it would cost. That is not true. I have never pretended to the Committee or to any Members that the Bill would save money, that it would reduce water expenditure. I said that we had to use the present water expenditure to get better
  1460
  value for money, particularly in the proper use of professional staff. I am backed up in that by the Institute of Water Engineers and the British Waterworks Association and other organisations that do not have local government connections and vested interests.
  The burden does not fall on the Government to show why we have not changed our minds. We tried to do so; my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told me that if I could get a compromise agreement acceptable to the majority of authorities we would change the Schedule, because we would not be breaching the kind of principles about which we talked earlier or about which we shall talk later. That was the one hope that I had, and I made an offer which was denied me by every authority present. The only authority remaining consistent to its view was Caithness, which opposed a compromise and supported Schedule 1. That was why my hon. Friend made the speech he did tonight.
  I shall not refer to everything that the right hon. Gentleman said tonight. He has a difficult task, representing as he does such diverse counties. But we cannot escape the fact that there is an unfortunate antagonism in that part of the world, apparently centred on Caithness. I do not know why, and I wish that it would die and that the proposed unions would function well. I think that the fire service worked well, based on Inverness, and fire and water are not all that different when it comes to administration.
  I do not accept the analysis of the figures given by the right hon. Gentleman. If there is any complaint about the northern fire service let us investigate it, but the right hon. Gentleman's party is supposed to believe in elected regional government, and it seems extraordinary to me that the Liberal Party is not prepared to support the Government in the regional efforts they are making. They have agreed with everything we have done in the Bill except where Schedule 1 has impinged on Orkney and Shetland. It is a pity that we should have constituency interests obscuring a reasonable attempt to get a settlement. I did my best, and I deeply regret that the compromise did not come off. I worked hard to get it, as did the right hon.

  1461
  Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), even though he did not like the ultimate compromise that was achieved. So did Ross and Cromarty. We all did our best, but we have been denied a chance of doing this. In these circumstances we can do nothing but return to the schedule recommended by the Scottish Water Advisory Committee.
  Mr. MacArthur: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to turn his mind to a point of some importance which was raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) when he referred to some earlier declarations by the Minister of State? The hon. Gentleman will recall that on Second Reading he said in an intervention during the right hon. Gentleman's speech:
  "I think that I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that he will be very happy with what I have to say."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 31st January, 1967; c. 27.]
  As the Minister will appreciate, this led me to believe that two days later in his winding-up speech he would have some good news for the right hon. Gentleman. I think he misled the right hon. Gentleman in the same way. What he said that time had a very marked influence on my speech, but all he could say on the later occasion was:
  "I will look into … the position of Orkney and Shetland."—OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee, 2nd February, 1967; c. 102.]
  The hon. Gentleman will understand that he has Drought much of this trouble on to his own head by appearing first to give encouragement to the right hon. Gentleman and two days later changing what he said.
  Dr. Mahon: The hon. Member must not misrepresent me. I worked hard on this matter. I had to contact every water authority in the area. When a Member objects and asks for consultations that does not mean that the Minister can accede right away to what may be requested even though the authority has a good case. The Minister must consult others. We got the representatives of five counties to assent, and assent from the able it burghs, at the meeting where three Members of Parliament were present It was not easy to arrange that, but,
  1462
  having arranged it, I thought that we could arrive at a compromise.
  That meeting did succeed, but the trouble was that the respective parties repudiated their representatives. Shetland has repudiated the idea of joining with Orkney. We must look at this problem of what would happen if there were a union of Orkney and Shetland. It would have to be with Sutherland and Caithness and Ross and Cromarty. Sutherland cannot survive on its own, but would have to accept union with Caithness and Ross and Cromarty. I worked hard to get that compromise.
  Mr. Grimond: I do not want to go over the arguments again, but I must clear the record on one or two points. Let me make it quite clear that Shetland is now quite willing to have a joint authority with Orkney. That is a change, but it is because they understand that it is what the Scottish Office wants. It is not their first choice, but they are willing to accept it as second choice.
  Let me also make clear that on Second Reading I put forward the proposition of a water board for Orkney and a water board for Shetland. The Minister indicated that that might be acceptable. Never since then has he said that the only thing acceptable to him was a joint water board. He appears to be saying that we ought to have agreed to a joint water board, but he did not say that earlier. He indicated to me quite clearly that if we would agree to combine the existing water authorities in Orkney in one water board and in Shetland in another subject to consultations and so on that seemed a sensible solution to him. Will he deny that? Will he make clear whether that is a true account or not?
  Dr. Mabon: May I make this clear to the right hon. Gentleman. Up to the time of the meeting in Committee, when the right hon. Gentleman withdrew his Amendments to Schedule I, the understanding was that Orkney and Shetland would be reunited. On 12th April the Zetland County Council wrote to the Secretary of the Scottish Development Department thus:
  "I am to advise the Department that the County Council at a special meeting held last Saturday after discussion unanimously agreed to oppose the amalgamation of this County with any other County for water purposes and to fight for a Water Board for Zetland only …"

  1463
  Then we have this letter which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) read out, which I thought we had all seen—it was sent to me as a Member of Parliament—signed by the Vice-convener of Zetland, Mr. R. A. Johnson, and the Senior Baillie of Lerwick Town Council, Mr. Eric Gray. It says:
  "The Shetland Isles … lie just over 100 miles by sea from the Scottish mainland and the plan to include them with any part of Scotland …".
  That was 24th April—yesterday. Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say now Shetland reverses this decision and is in favour of a union between Orkney and Shetland?
  Mr. Grimond: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is to understand exactly that. They do not like it but they understand that it would be more acceptable to the Scottish Office. It is clear that its letter refers to the mainland of Scotland. Let me explain how this arose. If the Minister of State had said earlier that in his view we ought to have a joint water board, and if he had given us time for consultation about this, we might have put forward this proposal. Look at what he said in Committee. At column 490 he said:
  "If I am to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request that it should be Orkney united and Shetland united, I ought to agree to it if I am so convinced at that meeting and confident that some arrangement can be made for Ross and Cromarty and for Caithness and Sutherland."—[OFFICIALREPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 16th March, 1967; c. 490.]
  Right up to the end of the Committee stage he did not say to me or my local authorities that they must amalgamate among themselves. I return to the timing of this Bill. It takes a long time to discuss these things. It may be my fault, and if it is I did what I imagined was the wish of the Minister of State. I pressed my local authorities to amalgamate. This seemed to make sense I thought.
  Dr. Mabon Dr. Mabon indicated assent.

  Division No. 319.]

  AYES

  [10.4 p.m.

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Binns, John

  Alldritt, Walter

  Barnes, Michael

  Bishop, E. S.

  Allen, Scholefield

  Baxter, William

  Blackburn, F.

  Anderson, Donald

  Beaney, Alan

  Booth, Albert

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bence, Cyril

  Boston, Terence

  Ashley, Jack

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Mr. Grimond: I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman nods his head. That is what he wanted. I thought that it made sense and it did make sense. Suddenly at the meeting in Edinburgh he produces this alternative scheme for a joint authority. The authorities were somewhat puzzled. There are strong arguments against amalgamation of Orkney and Shetland. If he had said earlier on that this was what the Scottish Office wanted, and had produced good arguments for it, the authorities might have come round to it earlier, as they have now.
  I come back to the way in which this Bill has been handled. Throughout the negotiations that I have had, and the hon. Gentleman cannot deny this, we were working in the assumption of a separate board for Orkney and a separate board for Shetland. It is quite apparent that had Ross and Cromarty agreed to go in with Caithness and Sutherland, everything would have been fixed. What sort of argument is this, that a bad scheme would be forced on Orkney and Shetland through no fault of their own but because Ross and Cromarty will not go in with Caithness and Sutherland?
  I cannot do otherwise than to ask the House to divide on this Amendment, since I have had no indication from the Government that they are either aware of the difficulties of the local authorities or that they intend to stand by what were the clear implications, the clearest implications that I have ever had from any Minister of the Government, and introduce Amendments on the points referred to.
  Question put, That the words "Kirkwall Town Council" stand part of the Bill.
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not in order for hon. Members to read newspapers in the Chamber, unless it is for the purpose of making a speech in a debate.

  Brooks, Edwin

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Park, Trevor

  Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

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

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Pavitt, Laurence

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

  Hoy, James

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Cant, R. B.

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Peart, Rt. Hn, Fred

  Carmichael, Neil

  Hynd, John

  Pentland, Norman

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

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

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Coe, Denis

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Coleman, Donald

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

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Concannon, J. D.

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Rankin, John

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Craddock, George(Bradford, S.)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

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

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

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Lawson, George

  Rose, Paul

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

  Davies, Ifor (Cower)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Davies, Robert (Cambridge)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Ryan, John

  Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Sheldon, Robert

  Dewar, Donald

  Luard, Evan

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

  Dickens, James

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Doig, Peter

  McBride, Neil

  Slater, Joseph

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  MacColl, James

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Eadie, Alex

  MacDermot, Niall

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.J

  Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)

  McGuire, Michael

  Symonds, J. B.

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  McKay, Mrs, Margaret

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Ensor, David

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Thornton, Ernest

  Faulds, Andrew

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tinn, James

  Fernyhough, E.

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Urwin, T. W.

  Finch, Harold

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Varley, Eric C.

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Manuel, Archie

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Ford, Ben

  Mapp, Charles

  Wallace, George

  Forrester, John

  Marquand, David

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Fowler, Gerry

  Mason, Roy

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Millan, Bruce

  Wellbeloved, James

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Whitaker, Ben

  Garrett, W. E.

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Whitlock, William

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Molloy, William

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Cray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Moyle, Roland

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Murray, Albert

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Neil, Harold

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Wilson, William (Coventry. S.)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Winnick, David

  Hannan, William

  Oakes, Gordon

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Harper, Joseph

  O'Malley, Brian

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Orme, Stanley

  Haseldine, Norman

  Oswald, Thomas

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hilton, W. S.

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Mr. Armstrong and

  Hooley, Frank

  Palmer, Arthur

  Mr. Charles R. Morris.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

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

  Jopling, Michael

  Astor, John

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Kimball, Marcus

  Balniel, Lord

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Blaker, Peter

  Goodhart, Philip

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Goodhew, Victor

  Loveys, W. H.

  Braine, Bernard

  Gower, Raymond

  MacArthur, Ian

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Grant, Anthony

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Maginnis, John E.

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

  Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  Maude, Angus

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Gurden, Harold

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Burden, F. A.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

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

  Campbell, Gordon

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Clegg, Walter

  Hawkins. Paul

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Heseltine, Michael

  Monro, Hector

  Corfield, F, V.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  More, Jasper

  Costain, A. P.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Murton, Oscar

  Dance, James

  Holland, Philip

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Hordern, Peter

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Hunt, John

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  1466

  1467

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Stodart, Anthony

  Walters, Dennis

  percival, Ian

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

  Whitdaw, Rt. Hn. WMttam

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Pym, Francis

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Temple, John M.

  Wright, Esmond

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Younger, Hn. George

  Scott, Nicholas

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

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

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Smith, John

  Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

  Mr. Lubbock and Mr. David Steel.

  It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,

  That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. McBride.]

  WATER (SCOTLAND) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

  Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 41, in page 21, line 29, to leave out 'Aberchirder Town Council'.
  Mr. Speaker: I suggest to the House that, with Amendment No. 41, we take Amendments No. 42, in line 32, leave out 'Abelour Town Council'; No. 43, leave out lines 35 to 41; No. 44, leave out lines 43 and 44; No. 45, in line 46, leave out 'Grantown-on-Spey Town Council'; No. 47, in line 49, leave out 'Keith Town Council'; No. 49, in page 22, leave out lines 11 to 17; No. 51, leave out lines 20 and 21; No. 52, in line 23, leave out 'Rothes Town Council'; and No. 55, in page 23, line 33, at end insert:
  14. The Banff, Moray and Nairn Water Board limits of supply of:

  Aberchirder Town Council

  Aberlour Town Council

  Banff County Council

  Banff Town Council

  Buckie Town Council

  Buckie and Portknockie Joint Water Committee

  Cullen Town Council

  Dufftown Town Council

  Findochty Town Council

  Forres Town Council

  Grantown-on-Spey Town Council

  Keith Town Council

  Laich of Moray Water Board

  Lower Deveron Water Board

  Macduff Town Council

  Moray County Council

  Nairn County Council

  Nairn Joint Water Board

  Nairn Town Council

  Portknockie Town Council

  Portsoy Town Council

  Rothes Town Council.

  Mr. Baker: May I say, at the outset, how grateful my hon. Friends and I are to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling these Amendments, in view of the fact that they are the same as those tabled during the Committee stage.
  It is a significant fact that this is the third of a series of Amendments, all of which are tabled by hon. Members representing constituencies in the North and North-East of Scotland. The Minister of State said frequently during the Committee stage. and indeed at other meetings, that he envisaged 13 regional water boards for Scotland. I think it only fair to say that over the months of long discussion, correspondence, and several meetings, there was a good deal of amity expressed, not only by the Minister of State, but by officials of the Scottish
  1470
  Office. It seems to me that at this stage the Government have finally closed their minds to any Amendment to Schedule 1. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) said, this is almost the end of the road, and unless the Government are prepared to think again at this stage there is very little hope for the Amendment.
  I would like to refer to what has gone before. First, we had the moves by the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, to get joint consultations and voluntary amalgamations. These, admittedly, failed. Next, we had the Report of the Scottish Water Advisory Committee, and as a result of that and the consultations which took place there was a voluntary coming together of the local water authorities in the three counties of Banff, Moray and Nairn.
  The Committee stage of the Bill was interspersed with various meetings between Members of Parliament, the hon. Gentleman, and officials, and these culminated in a meeting on 24th February in Edinburgh when the Minister of State met representatives from Banff, Moray and Nairn, Aberdeenshire and North Angus. At that meeting, and at subsequent meetings, and indeed throughout the Committee stage, I gained the impression that the Government's mind was not closed to amalgamation. As a result of all these consultations, the 17 local water authorities in Banff, Moray and Nairn came together and voluntarily agreed to amalgamate among themselves. This in itself was a complete change of mind, and the hon. Gentleman, to give him his due, acknowledged this, and even after the meeting on 24th February said that he was willing to listen.
  The final stage, other than this Report stage, was a meeting held in Aberdeen on 29th March and presided over by one of the officials of the Scottish Development Department. Before that meeting I made the suggestion that two working parties should be set up, one to look after the interests of Aberdeen and North Kincardine, and the other to look after the interests of Banff, Moray and Nairn, and I thought that that point had been taken, but when it came to discussions during the meeting, and indeed in the findings of the meeting, we found that one working party was to be set up. To my mind,

  1471
  this meant that the advice given by the Scottish Development Department and the Minister of State was that there could be no going back on Schedule 1.
  After saying that the choice for the North-East of Scotland lay between two regions, Banff, Moray and Nairn, and Aberdeen and part of North Kincardine, or integration of the whole area into one board, the Scottish Water Advisory Committee, in its final Report, went on to say, in paragraph 93, that
  "these three Counties"—
  that is, Banff, Moray and Nairn—
  "with a population of about 105,000, compact in configuration, and independent of outside sources for their supplies, would constitute a suitable regional water area."
  It rejects this and says that Aberdeenshire could contribute supplies to this area—that is, Moray and Nairn—if the need arose. It goes on to say:
  "We gather from the evidence that this view is based on the proposals of the County Council of Aberdeen for the use of the supplies proposed to be drawn from the Cabrach scheme."
  The hon. Member knows that the Cabrach scheme has dropped out. Therefore, the main reason for this larger area, as advanced by the Advisory Committee, has also fallen.
  Time and time again the Minister of State has said that Aberdeenshire is short of water. Nobody quarrels with that—least of all Banffshire and Moray and Nairn. The Minister knows as well as I do that the problem of the supply of extra water needed for Aberdeenshire has been virtually solved by amicable agreement between the Banff County Council and the River Deveron Fishery Board. The result is that Aberdeenshire is now to get 5 million gallons of water a day from the River Deveron at Turriff. Although part of the case for retaining Schedule 1 and the case based on the Cabrach scheme have fallen, the Government remain obdurate.
  The underlying fact is that all 17 local water authorities in Banff, Moray and Nairn are agreed on amalgamation and, as the Minister of State knows, a draft water order is in preparation and already exists in skeleton form. Surely this shows the earnest of the intent of these 17 local water authorities. It is far better to take
  1472
  a willing bride to the altar than to perpetrate a shot-gun marriage—which is what the Government will do if they stick to Schedule 1 in its present form.
  I remind the House and the Minister that the decision to amalgamate was taken by freely-elected representatives of the people in the area. If the Government insist on retaining Schedule 1 in its present form they will be going against local opinion and, to use an angling simile, they will be swallowing the bait, hook, line and sinker. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), who is not here at the moment, will agree that the sinker part of the simile could well be left out in the case of Scotland. The Government have made up their minds and they will not budge.
  I do not wish to rehearse the arguments we had in Committee and at the various meetings to which I have referred, but the Minister will remember that in Committee the Opposition moved Amendments which would have made it possible for public inquiries to be held where amalgamations were opposed. The Government misguidedly rejected those Amendments, and are now forcing their view on North-East Scotland in the teeth of local public opposition and against all the best advice that my hon. Friends and I have given them.
  This amounts to bull-dozing legislation through the House, and is not in the best interests of the people concerned. Is it any wonder that the Government are faced with a revulsion of feeling throughout the country when they insist on this kind of legislative procedure?
  Mr. Dewar: I listened with sympathy to the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker), although his arguments were familiar, which is not surprising as we have been subjected to an enthusiastic course of propaganda enthusiastically sustained throughout the debate on principle and at the meeting on 29th March in Aberdeen. I know the sincerity with which he and his local authority maintain their point of view, but I am left with the impression that it is mistaken, for all that.
  Some arguments have been used in this and in past debates many times. First, it has been suggested with heat that there is a special natural boundary running throughout the proposed North-East Region which would take Banff, Moray

  1473
  and Nairn out of the region. The hon. Member said that although it was difficult to see it on the map, it could be seen on the ground, running from Tomintoul down through Cabrach to the coast. He likened it to the spur of the Grampians which was the excuse for halving Kincardine, but, unfortunately, his colleagues have been arguing that this similar spur was no barrier at all in Kincardine and ought to be ignored. The same argument could have been applied to this situation.
  I think that the hon. Member would agree that, if this is to be the boundary of the new region, its only effect will be to half Banff County. This would not be popular or Acceptable to his local authority—
  Mr. Baker: The hon. Member is talking absolute rubbish. If he would refer to my speech in Standing Committee, he would see that the line I drew did not divide the County of Banff in two, but ran almost the entire length of the county boundary.
  Mr. Dewar: I cannot accept that. We should have to have a map to prove it, as I do not suppose that many hon. Members know the minutae of the geography of Banff. I have checked this in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and my impression is that the hon. Member's proposal would divide the county as I have described, although perhaps not down the middle—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect, I think that the present proposal is to include or to cut out Banff entirely. We cannot talk about dividing it on this Amendment.
  Mr. Dewar: I am delighted to forgo the pleasure, Mr. Speaker, but what you say underlines the irrelevancy of one of the main arguments for this proposition, one on which the case was heavily based.
  The proposers of the Amendment have gained a great deal of comfort from the Advisory Committee's Final Report, and indeed it says that for the 105,000 people in the proposed new region who would be excluded from the present Schedule 1 arrangement would make this an unworkable unit. I would accept it as a possible and reasonable unit.
  The Report went on to put tremendous emphasis—unfortunately, in view of
  1474
  recent events—on the Cabrach scheme. This was to be the example of the possible interdependence between Banff and Moray and Nairn and the rest of the North East region. It is now dead, and with its demise has gone it is alleged any possible link between the two areas. But that scheme has been replaced with the scheme at Deveron taking water at Turriff and the Banff scheme, taking water from the lower reaches.
  This should give some basis for common interest and provide some link, which is the justification for the total region. After all, the Deveron boundary zig-zags eratically along the county boundary between Banff and the rest of the proposed region. It would be unfortunate if, because we have amicably reached a conclusion which is satisfactory to both sides at the moment—given the present requirements and output of the schemes—there was at no time overall planning and consultation. There will have to be such processes and it would surely be better and more efficient if they took place in the framework of the proposed region.
  Two arguments bulked largely at the meeting in Aberdeen and lie behind the Amendment. The first was put with brutal frankness in Committee by the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell), who said that there was a real danger that Banff and Moray and Nairn would be swamped by Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. That would be a tragedy but it is an argument against any regionalisation or co-operation.
  If the hon. Member believes that we cannot trust representatives from Aberdeen or the county to look dispassionately at the region's problems and to consider important arguments on behalf of Banff, Moray and Nairn, he is closing the door to any co-operation, whether in fire or police services or any other field to which the Government might turn their attention.
  The second argument put energetically by the hon. Member for Banff and his local authority colleagues was that they had a lower water rate—and indeed, the lowest in his area is 1s. 8d. in 1966–67. The Aberdeenshire water rate, they said, had tended to increase and now stood at 2s. 8d., so that there would be an increase in their water rates which would

  1475
  be aggravated because they would have to bear a considerable burden from possible future complicated engineering schemes in the county.
  I appreciate that, but it is not an argument to which the Minister of State can afford to listen. It is a thrawn situation when local prejudice is reinforced by special financial interests and I hope that my hon. Friend will stand firm. If it is said that it will be a bad bargain for Banff and Moray and Nairn, then that argument applies to Aberdeen City, part of which I represent. When hon. Members say that 1s. 8d. is the rate in Moray and Nairn, they should not forget that the water rate in Aberdeen is down to 7d. or something in that region.
  If we are asked to go in, because of advantages in regionalisation, with our low water rate and accept—as Aberdeen City would have to do—considerable financial disadvantages, it is unreasonable to expect us to be sympathetic to pleas for exemption because of added financial burden under the new arrangements. We in Aberdeen City accept that there will be very great efficiencies and big economies to be made, as well as advantages in connection with overall planning, but that, to get these advantages, we must be prepared to accept considerable burdens being placed on the city's finances. However, we also accept that others should be prepared to make similar sacrifices.
  10.30 p.m.
  If the Minister of State gives way tonight, and allows Moray and Nairn and Banff to leave the proposed North-East Region, I offer the warning that Aberdeen City will almost certainly reconsider its position and will almost certainly apply for permission to leave the proposed region. If that happened we would be left not with what is proposed in the Amendment, a truncated North-East Region, but no North-East Region at all. I regret to have to make this sound rather like blackmail and to put the Minister of State in an uncomfortable position, but we must be realistic about the matter.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Even by way of threat, the hon. Gentleman cannot talk about an Amendment which is not on the Notice Paper.
  Mr. Dewar: I am sorry for getting out of order, Mr. Speaker, but I thought it important to draw the attention of the House to one almost certain consequence of the Government accepting the Amendment.
  I listened with a great deal of sympathy to the remarks of the hon. Member for Banff. I also listened to the representations made by his local authorities. I accept implicity their sincerity and the fact that they honestly and sincerely want to be excluded and to go their own way. This must be an important fact to which the Minister of State will have to give his attention. Ultimately, however, it cannot be the only factor. It is because we have paid lip service to the principle that is involved and that, over the years, we have been making such cheeseparing progress. Now, if my hon. Friend gives way to only local interests, we will end up with no regionalisation in any part of Scotland.
  It was put strongly that a St. Andrew's House point of view was being foisted on the local authorities in Moray and Nairn and Banff. I do not believe that that is true. There is another point of view, and that is represented by the concept of the North-East Region. We must have overall planning and some kind of machinery which will use the potentialities and resources of the region. I know that the North-East Consultative Group regards water as a vital raw material for industrial expansion. Indeed, the chairman of the group has on several occasions stressed the terrible mistake that would be made if Moray and Nairn and Banff were excluded from the proposed region. I sincerely hope that the Minister and the House will also take the view that such a move would indeed be a mistake.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) for all that he has done in trying to get agreement on what I know is a difficult problem in the area of Moray and Nairn and Banff. A remarkable fact is that we had this discussion earlier and that it has resulted in a proposal which I have in a letter before me—the voluntary union of the 17 authorities in the Moray and Nairn and Banff areas. This is an example of the concentration of mind that has existed and the willingness on the part of those concerned to combine. As Mr. Armstrong,

  1477
  the County Clerk of Banff said to me in a letter, "This proves their anxiety to form into one regional board".
  I am indebted to those who attended the meeting at which the problems of Aberdeen County were discussed. I have in mind the immediate problems to which the hon. Member for Banff referred. I am also grateful that we were able to get agreement, at that meeting, with Banff County and that the way was made clear for Aberdeenshire to promote a new Order to substitute the Order which the County was refused by the Parliamentary Commissioners for extra water to be taken from the Deveron at Cabrach. It is now proceeding to do this at Turriff. I do not know whether the Order has been laid, but I am indebted to all concerned for making the way clear.
  I expressed my view on this issue in Committee on 21st March last, when I began by saying that I was pleased that all these matters had been taken into consideration. I did not express a view about either of the regions, although I said:
  "I believe, irrespective of whether this becomes a full region or not, that the appropriate counties"—
  that is, Moray and Nairn and Banff—
  "within the region would always want to have this kind of discussion from time to time. If the North-East Consultative Group is to function, it has to do so in the knowledge that the constituent local authorities will be able to take action, not only about water, but about any other matter relative to industrial expansion in that area."
  We all recognise that, for example, Peterhead has to go its own way in expanding its water supplies as a result of losing Cabrach. We do not know what will happen in that North-Eastern part of the North-East, although we want to see proper water supplies being maintained. As I said in Committee:
  "It would seem to me that, considering the needs of the City of Aberdeen, the County of Aberdeenshire, and all the rest of the North-East, one ought to take into account the engineering strategy to be employed on the Rivers Don, Dee, Deveron, Spey, Findhorn and Ugie rather than a strategy as confined to two rivers."
  I went on:
  "I put it to the Banff County Council deputation that if, by chance, Aberdeen did tap the Deveron, it might be that Banff would have to take water from the Spey, which would be comparatively expensive due to the distance.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 21st March, 1967: col. 501–2.]
  1478
  At the meeting which, unfortunately, I could not attend—I could not attend them all—held in Aberdeen on 29th March, Colonel McKessack, who has been extremely progressive and broadminded in his approach to these matters—although he has always stuck to the idea that there should be a region of Moray and Nairn and Banff, made the point that, in his view, the fundamental approach to the problem had been wrong.
  "A water survey in the North-East would have saved much of the argument being used at present and it was not too late to start such a survey, with facts and figures to put before the water authority before an irrevocable decision was made."
  That summarises the stage we had then reached at the meeting. There would be at least two regions. The argument whether there should be one region remained to be fought out, but we had arrived then—and a big movement was in progress—at a union of Moray, Nairn and Banff and a union of Aberdeen and Aberdeen City at least, together with an agreed strategy on the water Order governing the Deveron and an undertaking that in future this study would be proceeding.
  I thought, and I hinted at it here, that the key lay with the City of Aberdeen. I did not influence the discussion at all. I was not present, but I have here the minutes of all the arguments used. Contrary to what has been said by the hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker), I did not instruct the Scottish Development Department officer to take the line he suggested. I will read the minute in relation to this point. It states:
  "Thereafter, Mr. Dingwall-Smith enquired whether it was the feeling of the meeting that nothing should be done until the Government had decided on the region, sat thereafter the authorities would form a working party."
  He went on to explain:
  "The meeting agreed to such an arrangement, and that the Department should ask the Town Clerk of Aberdeen to make arrangements for calling a meeting of the working party once the boundary question had been decided."
  Let hon. Members note that—"once the boundary question had been decided."
  What the meeting decided was that it would not conduct two financial exercises, one of them based on two regions and one based on one region, but only one, but would be done when the boundary

  1479
  question had been agreed. That was the outcome of the meeting.
  I must stress that what has been said by my hon. Friend on behalf of the City of Aberdeen is said much more cogently, with respect to him, than what is said in the minutes by the officials, but he has emphasised the big point, which is that the City of Aberdeen in the short term would gain by uniting only with the county. The City of Aberdeen in the short term would lose money if it united with the county and with the counties of Moray, Nairn and Banff.
  The City of Aberdeen chose—and not only chose, but asked—to work with the region and, therefore, at short-term higher cost. It is not an ideal gesture by my hon. Friend to say that the city will not go into a region so truncated, because we then come back to the argument that the rivers of the North-East have to be taken into account in the expansion that should take place there, not only for housing, which is urgent, but for industry, which is equally urgent.
  I did not intervene in this argument at all. The Secretary of State did not intervene at all. We waited to see the outcome of the discussions, because when authorities make a case and their case involves decisions which impinge on other authorities, it is wrong for the Secretary of State not to take account of the authorities which are affected by that decision. The one authority we had not consulted was the City of Aberdeen, the one authority that had made it clear that it wanted to unite with the County of Aberdeen.
  The Secretary of State and I kept completely open minds. The deputation that came to see us would agree that we did not turn down flat any question of a union of Moray, Nairn and Banff. Mr. Armstrong, in his letter to me, said that they went forward to do this on my advice as a consequence of the meeting in St. Andrew's House. In other words, I did not close the gate at all but left it open for the discussions with the authorities.
  What has become very clear is the position of the City of Aberdeen. I talked to one or two of my hon. Friend's constituents, and to one or two constituents of the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) on Friday, and there
  1480
  is not the same ill-feeling or the same intensity of feeling about this matter that there was at the earlier discussions. Having listened to the representations from Banff, Moray and Nairn, I am confident that if we proceed with the Schedule as it is, with great reluctance, but nevertheless with an anxiety to cooperate, we shall see the North-East Region getting on very well in the considerable work which it has to do. I am sorry that the meeting on 29th March came down so emphatically against two regions, but it gave the Government no option.
  My own view, which I have often stated, is that we should have not 13 regions but fewer than that and in time we may see a fusion of some of these regions, which may make the situation a little easier for Moray. Nairn and Banff to accept. If Moray and Nairn and Banff are having to make a sacrifice in combining with Aberdeen, the City of Aberdeen is making a greater sacrifice. But all these are matters for the short term and in the long term it is right for all the areas to stick to what the Schedule proposes.
  Mr. G. Campbell: I am extremely sorry that after all this consideration and meetings the Government are still not prepared to change the Schedule for the North-East, because this is the largest of the amalgamations which is being proposed, no fewer than 36 water authorities and covering a very large area geographically.
  From the moment that this proposal was first put forward, my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) and I have represented the views of our local water authorities, which are that there should be two amalgamations, Banff, Moray and Nairn being one and the City and County of Aberdeen being another, including, if the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) had been accepted, the whole of Kincardine, making another large amalgamation.
  The Minister has said that if Aberdeen City were to be in an amalgamation of the kind which I propose, it would be less expensive for it. I am not sure that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) agrees with that. The City of Aberdeen is now the only dissentient from the proposal which I am putting

  1481
  forward and that is on financial grounds which, according to the Minister, are mistaken financial grounds. None of the other authorities has any objection to the proposals which we are making and, as has been said, the three counties are all agreed on this amalgamation. There are 1'7 authorities which are willing amalgamators and the Government are simply rejecting this situation. The consultations and meetings have come to nothing. It seems to have been only token consultation.
  The worst aspect of this is that the Government are not now prepared to make a single change in the Schedule. Not a comma or a word of the original Schedule put forward by the Water Advisory Committee have the Government changed. On Second Reading I asked for an assurance that the Government would be prepared to allow changes, but the steamroller has been in action.
  My hon. Friend pointed out that since the Water Advisory Committee reported there have been changes in the situation. That Committee certainly was not expected to say the last word on the subject. The major scheme of the Cabrach has disappeared and another scheme has been agreed for the maximum amount of water which can be abstracted from the river Deveron. The Government are rejecting a willing amalgamation in which there would have been a spirit of co-operation and good will.
  What is disconcerting is that the Minister of State personally gives the impression of being reasonable—he has all the way through—and of being ready to consider some of these proposals, but in he event no change has been allowed.
  The steamroller has been there from the beginning. This precise pattern of Schedule 1 is to be forced on local authorities against their good advice and against their will.
  What is dismaying about this is that it is being done by Scottish Ministers within Scotland on a subject entirely involving organisation within their own Scottish jurisdiction. It is not a Whitehall decision. It is not a matter in which the Treasury is bringing pressure to bear—there is no reason why it should. This is an example of the over-centralisation of decisions in St. Andrew's House, in Edinburgh. Let those who advocate some form of self-government for Scotland ponder on this. If the same lot of Ministers were in office in a self-governing Scotland, presumably they would be behaving in exactly the same way to regions distant from Edinburgh. There is no protection for the regions in that proposal.
  10.45 p.m.
  This is a matter which is entirely within the power of consultation of the Secretary of State and within his decision in Scotland. The attitude being displayed by the Secretary of State shows that the Government are not concerned about the special problems of the regions distant from Edinburgh, that they are not concerned with the views of the local authorities in those regions, and that they are not prepared to modify proposals drawn up by the central Government. I hope that my hon. Friends will divide on this issue.
  Question put, That the words "Aberchirder Town Council" stand part of the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 166. Noes 101.

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Gregory) Arnold

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)

  Rose, Paul

  Crey, Charles (Durham)

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Manuel, Archie

  Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

  Hannan, William

  Mapp, Charies

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Haseldine, Norman

  Marquand, David

  Ryan, John

  Hilton, W. S.

  Mason, Roy

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

  Hooley, Frank

  Millan, Bruce

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Molloy, William

  Stonehouse, John

  Hoy, James

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Tinn, James

  Hynd, John

  Moyle, Roland

  Urwin, T. W.

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

  Murray, Albert

  Varley, Eric G.

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Neal, Harold

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

  Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Wallace, George

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Oakes, Gordon

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Kenyon, Clifford

  O'Malley, Brian

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

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

  Orme, Stanley

  Wellbeloved, James

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Whitaker, Ben

  Lawson, George

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Whitlock, William

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Park, Trevor

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Wlliams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Luard, Evan

  Pentland, Norman

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Winnick, David

  McBride, Neil

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  MacColl, James

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  MacDermot, Niall

  Rankin, John

  McGuire, Michael

  Reynolds, G. W.

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Mr Walter Harrison and

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Mr Joseph Harper.

  MacMillan, Maicolm (Western Isles)

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

  NOES

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Murton, Oscar

  Allaaon, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Astor, John

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Hawkins, Paul

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Heseltine, Michael

  Page, John (Harrow, W.)

  Blaker, Peter

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hiley, Joseph

  Percival, Ian

  Braine, Bernard

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Holland, Philip

  Pym, Francis

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Hordern, Peter

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hunt, John

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

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

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Burden, F. A.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Campbell, Gordon

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

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

  Carlisle, Mark

  Jopling, Michael

  Smith, John

  Clegg, Walter

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

  Kimball, Marcus

  Stodart, Anthony

  Corfield, F. V.

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

  Costain, A. P.

  Kitson, Timothy

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Dance, James

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Loveys, W. H.

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

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

  Lubbock, Eric

  Temple, John M.

  Drayson, G. B.

  MacArthur, Ian

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Walters, Dennis

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Maginnls, John E.

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Maude, Angus

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Goodhew, Victor

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

  Worsley, Marcus

  Gower, Raymond

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Wright, Esmond

  Grant, Anthony

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Younger, Hn. George

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Monro, Hector

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Crimond, Rt. Hn. J.

  More, Jasper

  Mr R. W. Elliott and

  Gurden. Harold

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Mr Reginald Eyre.

  Schedule 2.—(ADAPTATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND ENACTMENTS IN CONSEQUENCE OF TRANSFER OF FUNCTIONS.)
  Amendments made: No. 57, in page 24, line 25, leave out 'its' and insert 'their'.
  No. 58, in page 24, line 27, leave out 'its' and insert their'.—[Dr. Dickson Mahon.]
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 59, in page 26, line 28, at the end to insert:
  16. For the purposes of Part II of Schedule 2 to the said Act of 1966, any transfer, in whole or in part, under the Water (Scotland) Acts 1946 to 1967, of the undertaking of a local water authority, or of a regional water board or of a water development board to such a board shall be deemed to be an amalgamation of water undertakings.
  The Amendment is required solely for purposes of Part II of Schedule 2 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1966. I hinted in Committee that we would have to make the Amendment.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 4.—(PROVISIONS AS TO RF GIONAL WATER BOARDS AND WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARDS.)
  Amendments made: No. 61, in page 27. line 26, leave out 'comes' and insert 'come'
  No. 62, in page 28, line 18, to leave out 'Appointment' and to insert 'Appointments'.
  No. 63 in page 28, line 43, leave out 'schedule' and insert 'Act'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]
  Dr. Dickson Mahon: I beg to move Amendment No. 64, in page 29, to leave out line 3 and insert 'the members of the board'.
  This is a drafting Amendment, making clear the position about the election of the chairman.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendment made: No. 65, in page 30, line 39, leave out 'comes' and insert 'come'.—[Dr. Dickson Mahon.]
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 30, line 44, after or', to insert:
  'except with the approval of the Secretary of State'.
  1486
  The Amendment implements an undertaking I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bothwell (Mr. James Hamilton), and I am happy to be able to move it.
  Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 5.—(AMENDMENT OF THE WATER (SCOTLAND) ACTS 1946 AND 1949.)
  Mr. MacArthur: I beg to move Amendment No. 67, in page 32, line 34, at the end to insert:
  4. In section 26(2), after the words 'any such land' there shall be inserted the words or a notice relating thereto'.
  5. In section 26(3), after the word 'street', there shall be inserted the words 'and on any land'.
  In Section 26 of the Water (Scotland) Act, 1946, there is provision for the erection and maintenance of notices and markers on water mains in streets and on buildings. In saying that, I am simplifying the section, but the Minister will appreciate the point I have in mind. There is no power in that section for the fixing of markers or notices on water mains running across open land, and I understand that that has led to some difficulty in rural areas where there are long lengths of water main between streets on which markers can be made under the terms of the 1946 Act.
  The difficulty has become slightly greater recently because of the natural tendency for the scope of farming to increase and for fields to be run together. In some cases the position of an air valve, for example, is substantially removed from the place at which a notice can be erected. In Perthshire, for instance, there is one place where the notice is removed no less than 410 yards from the air valve to which it refers.
  The Amendment's purpose, therefore, is to extend the terms of Section 26 of the 1946 Act to embrace the possibility of placing notices and markers on open land as well as in streets and on buildings. One part of the Amendment relates to the protection of the farmer or land owner concerned, in that the existing powers of compensation for notices on houses or in streets would be extended also to the placing of notices on land.
  11.0 p.m.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I should dearly like to accept the Amendment, coming, as we are, near to the end of these proceedings, but, unfortunately, I cannot.

  1487
  The difficulty is that the Amendment would give an absolute right. We have consulted the various interests concerned. I realise that some county councils would like this provision, but others would not.
  I am told on engineering advice that a board would have maps of the line of its mains. As a notice could be affixed to a fence or building at the point at which a main entered private land, there should not be difficulty in following the line by measurement. Farmers tell us that many markers are often lost or destroyed by farming activities, including cattle consuming them in some way or other, and I am advised that the proposal contained in the Amendment is not the best way of proceeding.
  I take the point that in certain circumstances the proposal might be a good one and that we should achieve the purpose by agreement with owners of land. We would certainly try to do this. In other words, I accept the purpose which the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has in mind, but I cannot agree that we should give an absolute right.
  I hope that the hon. Member will accept that we should not write this absolute right into the Bill and that he will accept our assurance that, where practicable, we will do what he has in mind but that we must take into account the views of farmers and others concerning private grounds.
  Mr. MacArthur: I am obliged to the Minister of State for recognising the point of difficulty underlying the Amendment. Equally, I realise that other difficulties might arise by introducing an absolute power of this kind. In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said and the understanding way in which he has treated our proposal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in page 34, line 47, at the end to insert:
  ';and for the words from "not exceeding" to "determine," there shall be substituted the words "as may be determined under section 8(1) of this Act."'.
  1488
  I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we can conveniently take at the same time Amendment 69.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, if the House agrees.
  Dr. Mabon: The purpose of the two Amendments is to adjust the arrangements under the Water (Scotland) Act, 1949, governing the power of local authorities concerning water expenditure which they can charge to their general rate. I will not go into all the possibilities that were discussed in Committee.
  The Amendments explain our intentions. I gave an indication in Committee that we would try to make Amendments of this nature. The Amendments to paragraphs 19 and 23 of the Schedule provide for the later consequential changes if the House agrees to these two Amendments. I commend them to the House.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made: Amendment No. 69, in page 35, to leave out lines 18 to 28 and to insert:
  (1) In any year a local authority may defray, out of the county or, as the case may be, the burgh rate, such part, as they think fit, of the expenditure incurred by them in meeting any requisition under Part II of the Water (Scotland) Act 1967 or in performing any of their functions under any enactment in relation to water supply in their district, to an amount which, unless the Secretary of State otherwise approves, shall not exceed the amount requisitioned from them in respect of that year under subsection (2) of section 11 of that Act, or under that subsection as modified by virtue of subsection (4) of that section.
  No 70, in line 44, leave out 'its' and insert 'their'
  No. 71, in line 46, leave out 'its' and insert 'their'.
  No. 72, in line 48, leave out 'is' and insert 'are'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

  Title
  Amendment made: No. 73, in line 7, leave out 'its' and insert 'their'.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]
  Bill read the Third time and passed.

  REMUNERATION OF TEACHERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Not emended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

  Clause 3.—(PROVISION FOR ARBITRATION.)
  11.4 p.m.
  Mr. Ian MacArthurI beg to move, in page 3, line 38. after 'Labour', to insert:
  'or the Lord President of the Court of Session, as may be determined by the committee,'.
  The Amendment raises a matter of major principle. The Minister will remember that we moved a similar Amendment in Committee and that on Second Reading we gave notice of our intention to move an Amendment on these lines and explained why we felt that the Government's proposal regarding the arbitration machinery to be introduced in Clause 3 was completely unacceptable to us.
  It may be helpful to remind the House of the purpose of the Bill. It is, broadly, to bring up to date and to improve the machinery for discussing and recommending the scale of teachers' salaries in Scotland. The Bill naturally provides a form of machinery to be observed in the event of any dispute and the proposal which the Government make in Clause 3 is that in the event of any dispute the Minister of Labour would be required to appoint arbiters to determine it. If there were no existing machinery of arbitration in Scotland it would be reasonable for the Government to propose that the Minister of Labour should be responsible for the appointment of arbiters. As the Secretary of State reminded us, the Minister of Labour is responsible for the appointment of arbiters in many other circumstances in which disputes might arise.
  The fact, however, is that there is already machinery for arbitration in Scotland, a system which is purely Scottish in character and which has the complete confidence of employers and teachers who in the past have been involved in arbitration matters. There is complete confidence in the present system by which the Lord President of the Court of Session, in the event of a dispute appoints arbiters. The Lord President of the Court of Session is the
  1490
  head of the Scottish judiciary. He may be compared with the Lord Chief Justice in England and has some of the functions of the Master of the Rolls. He is always a man of the utmost eminence in law and public life in Scotland.
  For many years when a dispute has arisen the Lord President of the Court of Session has appointed arbiters. Invariably the findings of those arbiters, which have varied in their nature, have been accepted by the negotiating committee and invariably the teachers have had complete confidence in the arbiters appointed by the Lord President of the Court of Session. If there were no existing system of arbitration it would be reasonable for the Government to make the proposal in the Bill, but an excellent system already exists and has the complete confidence of all concerned in arbitration. I stress the word "confidence", because our whole argument rests upon it. If arbitration is to work the system must have the confidence of those for whom the arbitration is set in motion.
  There is no doubt at all that teachers in Scotland have the utmost confidence in the present system. Why in those circumstances do the Government propose to change it? I have asked this question before and ask it tonight because we have not yet had a reply, or at least not one which makes sense. Why scrap a system which has the confidence of the teachers, a system which is peculiarly Scottish and which is liked and respected by the Scottish people for whom the system of arbitration works?
  I must warn the Under-Secretary that if he does not give a satisfactory reply to this matter tonight, teachers in Scotland will suspect the motives of the Government. I have gone over this argument before and I do not want to go over the details again.
  The teachers in Scotland are asking why it is that the Secretary of State wishes to get rid of a system in which they have such complete confidence. They are particularly asking why it is that the Secretary of State, in the event of a dispute, would call in his Ministerial colleague, the Minister of Labour, to appoint arbiters to determine a dispute in which the Secretary of State would be involved. I urge the Minister to give thought to

  1491
  this and to recognise that the only way in which he can keep the confidence of the teaching profession is by changing the proposal in Clause 3.
  Originally in Committee we proposed simply that the Minister of Labour should be removed from Clause 3 and the Lord President of the Court of Session should be introduced, in order to maintain the status quo. For procedural reasons which the Minister will understand we have amended this proposal somewhat, and in the Amendment before us we propose that there should be an element of choice in the matter, and that the arbiters should be appointed either by the Minister of Labour or by the Lord President of the Court of Session, and that the negotiating committee should decide which of these authorities should be appointed arbiters.
  Equally, the Minister will understand that our preference is for the Lord President of the Court of Session. The Minister has already told us why he believes that the Minister of Labour would be a fair and impartial person to appoint fair and impartial arbiters. On this side of the House we do not quarrel with that at all. What he says would make a great deal of sense if there were no existing arbitration system. If he were stepping in to fill a void this would be a good way of doing it.
  But the void does not exist, because a system of arbitration is in existence. If the Minister is to try to force this Clause through he must persuade the House that the change in the system is desirable. Why does the Minister propose to dispose of the services of the Lord President of the Court of Session? Does he suggest that the Lord President is unable to appoint arbiters fairly? Does he say that the head of the Scottish judiciary does not have the capacity to choose impartially? Is he maintaining that the Lord President is partial in these matters? What is wrong with the present system? He has not told us. Why should the Lord President be removed completely from the process in which he has played such a dignified and impartial part in the past?
  I have come to the conclusion that in drafting this Bill, which in other respects is so excellent, the Minister overlooked, or forgot, or ignored the fact that a system
  1492
  of arbitration already existed. I say that because I notice that the terms of Clause 3 are almost precisely the same as the terms of the equivalent clause in the English Bill of 1965. I have already pointed out to the Minister, and I point out to the House, that subsection 1 is, word for word, the same as in the English Bill. Subsections 2 and 3 are virtually the same as in the English Bill.
  The only change is the introduction of the Scots word "arbiters" in place of the English word "arbitrators". Why is this so? I believe that this lends support to the suspicion that we have on this side of the House that the Minister ignored an excellent system already existing, and lifted from the English Act the arbitration provision, which may make sense in England, but makes no sense at all in Scotland. Now he is obstinately sticking to the drafting which, over and over again, we have shown to be completely wrong and unacceptable in Scotland.
  11.15 p.m.
  I said earlier that, in other respects, the Bill is an excellent one. I urge the hon. Gentleman to review his position again, even at this late stage. If he insists on steamrollering the very proper objection of teachers in Scotland and right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House, not forgetting the views of many of his right hon. and hon. Friends on his own side, he is likely to lose the confidence on which the very success of this Bill depends.
  I cannot emphasise enough that, in Scotland, we are approaching with frightening speed a crisis in education. The year 1970–1, when the school leaving age is to be raised, approaches us very quickly. If we are to meet the enormous challenge of that year, it is critical that the confidence of the teaching profession should be held. If the Minister clings to his obstinate view, that confidence may be weakened, and I put it no higher than that. If confidence is weakened, the whole panoply of the educational scene will be endangered.
  I ask the hon. Gentleman, even now, to tell the House not how good the Minister of Labour is, because that is not the argument, but why it is that the Lord President of the Court of Session is not capable or equipped, in the view of the Government, to appoint arbiters, as he

  1493
  has done for years past. What is wrong with the present system, and why does the hon. Gentleman wish to change it? Why is it that this Whitehall-dominated Government again propose to scrap a purely Scottish system, working in a purely Scottish context for Scottish education?
  The Under-Secretary has given us no answer yet. I fear that he will not give us an answer tonight. If he does not, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will press this important matter of principle to a Division.
  Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I wish to support the very forceful case made by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur). Time and again in Committee, the Under-Secretary tried to explain how good the Ministry of Labour system was. That was something we never questioned; yet his winding-up speech was devoted to that subject. Therefore, I ask him tonight to devote himself to the questions which have been posed, and not to go back over questions which we on this side of the House have ourselves already answered.
  We want to know what is wrong with the present system. Only if he can answer that will he go any way to convince us. If he had, for example, used the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes on Scottish Teachers' Salaries, which was published last May and which talked of a uniform system, we might have thought that there was a logical reason. But he was frightened to quote that Government paper, and we all know why.
  The hon. Gentleman has called nothing in aid to support his case for altering the present system. There seems to be no logical reason for it, except the desire to be uniform and take his orders from Whitehall.
  Sir Myer Galpern: I intervene briefly to renew the request which I and some of my hon. Friends made to the Under-Secretary during the discussion on the principle of the Bill.
  The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) has challenged my hon. Friend the Under-Secre-
  1494
  tary to say whether or not he has fears that the Lord President of the Court of Session is somehow incompetent to appoint arbiters. However, I think that my hon. Friend has already given his answer. In the course of our proceedings in Committee, he said:
  "The fact still remains that this is a field in which he has no experience and in which, in the strict sense of the term, he has no particular competence."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. Scottish Grand Committee, 11th April, 1967, c. 37.]
  I think that that criticism is wholly unjustified, but that was my hon. Friend's answer. I have many years' experience in dealing with teachers, and I find that this has aroused more anger and resentment among them than one would reasonably expect. They have read my hon. Friend's statement, and it has been thrown at me because, unfortunately, I was not selected to be a member of the Committee even though I put forward this criticism when we discussed the principle of the Bill. They resent this slander on the competence of the Lord President of the Court of Session. They fear, and I think with every reason, that there is something sinister behind the change. I do not agree with them, but this is the impression they get from my hon. Friend's remarks about the competence of the Lord President of the Court of Session.
  The system which we are asking the Government to retain has been in operation since 1945. Since then there have been four arbitrations, and they have not all gone in favour of the teachers. It is therefore not the case that if we retain the existing machinery the teachers will necessarily benefit from it. They have not always done so, but they are nevertheless rightly dubious about, and critical of, my hon. Friend's failure to give a cogent and relevant reason for effecting this change.
  I have never before come across such stubbornness on the part of a Minister in the face of the almost unanimous criticism voiced when the principle of the Bill was discussed. Despite the sincerely held views expressed by Members on both sides of the House that there should be no alteration in the machinery for arbitrations, my hon. Friend seems determined to go ahead with his proposal. I appeal to him, even at this late hour, to give some consideration to the

  1495
  teachers who are doing their best under the most difficult circumstances. Their confidence has been severely shaken, and I ask him not to give it another jolt so that they feel that the teaching profession is going to be shot at by the Scottish Office on every possible occasion. Unless the Minister accedes to our request this evening, the feeling will be created in the minds of teachers that the teaching profession is not worth the candle.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Millan): We argued this matter at some considerable length in Committee, and in fact the arguments which all three hon. Members have used this evening are really very much more relevant to the two Amendments which were not selected than to the one which was. The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) did not explain what the effect of the Amendment would be, but I shall, I hope, remedy that deficiency a little later.
  Perhaps I might deal with some of the more general arguments which I agree are certainly more important than perhaps the strict terms of the Amendment. As I have said, this matter was discussed exhaustively in Committee, but I am perfectly happy to rehearse some of the arguments that I used there.
  All three hon. Members have in one way or another said that they are not arguing against the Ministry of Labour system as such. In fact, the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire rather gave the impression that that had never been a matter of argument at all, and it was simply a question whether the teachers had confidence in the present system of arbitration. That is a wholly inaccurate account of the objections to the system proposed by the Government as they were originally outlined by the Educational Institute of Scotland.
  Originally there was a suggestion that the Ministry of Labour had no experience in the kind of field with which it would be dealing here. There was also a suggestion that since the Minister of Labour was a colleague of the Secretary of State for Scotland he might act with bias, or be thought to act with bias, in the appointment of arbiters, and that in some sort of way the arbiters appointed would be partial to the Secretary of State
  1496
  and not discharge their duties with complete impartiality.
  A further suggestion was made that the Ministry of Labour procedure was inappropriate because this was a case in which the Government would be meeting a large part of the bill for any increase in teachers' salaries, and that this, again, cast some doubt on the partiality or impartiality of the arbiters appointed.
  None of these arguments stood up to scrutiny. I dealt with them in the Second Reading debate and in Committee. It is interesting to note that none of them is now being used. They were the original arguments which the E.I.S. —the only teachers' body to object to the new procedure—put up. They are not the arguments which the hon. Member used tonight, and we should have that on the record as a matter of strict accuracy.
  Mr. MacArthur: I did not advance those arguments tonight, but I could have done so. I do not believe that the teaching profession in Scotland will have confidence in the system proposed by the hon. Member. One reason is that the system of arbitration which he proposes would not be seen to be impartial. I would gladly rehearse tonight the arguments previously raised, but I am now asking the hon. Gentleman to tell us why he regards the Lord President of the Court of Session as incapable of running a fair arbitration system, especially one in which the teachers already have confidence.
  Mr. Millan: That intervention did not add anything to what the hon. Member originally said. It does not answer my point that the ground on which this proposal is being objected to has been changed considerably during the course of our discussions.
  Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Member is quibbling.
  Mr. Millan: I am not quibbling. The hon. Member neither mentioned the original arguments this evening nor accepted the original argument that the involvement of the Ministry of Labour somehow casts considerable doubts on the impartiality of the procedure. The basic argument put up by the hon. Member this evening was based on the question, "Why make any change in the

  1497
  existing system?" If we were to accept that argument we would not have any Bill. We are making considerable changes in the method by which negotiations to settle teachers' salaries are conducted. It is very difficult to understand why this part of the machinery—which is by no means the most important part—should hang over from the previous situation without any kind of examination as to its relevance, especially in the situation which will arise when the new machinery is in operation.
  The new system involves a complete change of circumstances. For example, there will be participation of the Secretary of State in the negotiating machinery. The Secretary of State will be committed to the agreements reached in the negotiating machinery; he will be committed, except in exceptional circumstances, to the decisions of the arbiters, when they are dealing with an entirely different set of circumstances from those which exist at present.
  I have been asked why I think that the Lord President of the Court of Session is not the appropriate person to appoint arbiters under the new system. The hon. Gentleman gave part of the answer when he said that, if there were no system of arbitration, if we were introducing something new, he would have no objection to our system.
  11.30 p.m.
  I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) should be disturbed about this. In the strict sense of the term, the Lord President has no competence in appointing arbiters for salary negotiations. I should be distressed if that remark, which I used in Committee, were taken out of context, but that is what my hon. Friend has done. If he had read the rest of the paragraph he would have seen that I was not suggesting that the Lord President did not exercise his present function with the highest distinction and judgment. I then made the remark which my hon. Friend quoted out of context.
  I said further that, in the strict sense of the term competence, the function of appointing arbiters was not something which he was called upon to have to fulfil his high office, and that therefore he was in a different position from
  1498
  arbiters appointed under the auspices of the Minister of Labour. In the light of that complete quotation, any suggestion that I was questioning the ability or judgment of the Lord President is completely unfair. I am surprised that my hon. Friend should have quoted that sentence without taking account of the rest—
  Sir M. Galpern: In the rest of that quotation, my hon. Friend said:
  "… and in that respect he is in a different position from arbiters appointed under the auspices of the Minister of Labour."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Grand Committee; 11th April, 1967, c. 37.]
  The innuendo is that the arbiters he would appoint are different from those appointed by the Minister of Labour.
  Mr. Millan: Of course they are. My hon. Friend ought to know the kind of arbiters likely to be appointed by the Minister of Labour and those who have been appointed by the Lord President. I have never pretended that they are likely to be the same people. I made this explanation in Committee, but it bears repetition since my hon. Friend and others apparently have not read what I said.
  The Lord President appoints three people completely independently—any-one he likes. The Minister of Labour would appoint an independent chairman after consultation with both sides of the negotiating committee. There would be no question of his acting completely independently or in an arbitrary sense. The other two members would be selected one from a panel considered suitable by the teachers and the other from a panel considered suitable by the management.
  It is difficult to see why that kind of procedure should arouse any suspicion that the Minister of Labour would make appointments with partiality. This kind of system, which is common elsewhere, would result in a panel of arbiters competent in the field and acceptable to both sides of the negotiating committee. If we were proposing a violation of justice and fair play, I would expect the members of the new panel to object violently to our proposals. But that is not true even of the other two teachers' organisations, not to mention the local authority representatives on the negotiating committee. I therefore do not accept that

  1499
  the kind of arrangements which we are proposing here will not have the confidence of the new negotiating committee. It is true that the E.I.S. has had these objections, but I do not believe that they are shared in any way by the other members of the negotiating committee, and certainly not held to the same extent as they seem to be held by the E.I.S.
  The Amendment is defective for a number of reasons. It is important that the arbitration arrangements, whatever they may be, should be settled before the committee begins working. It would clearly be undesirable that we should wait to settle the arbitration arrangements until a situation had arisen in which one side or the other of the committee wished to go to arbitration. That would obviously be a very undesirable situation because we might then find that the committee was unable to agree on the kind of arbitration that it wanted and we should be in a position of deadlock.
  It is therefore necessary to settle the question of the arbitration arrangements now, or at least at an early stage in the functioning of the committee, and that it is provided for by the Secretary of State having power to make the arrangements after consultation under subsection (2) with the prospective or actual members of the panel. These consultations have already taken place on an informal basis and they will be put on a formal basis when the Bill becomes an Act. Whatever the results of these formal consultations, the arrangements which are to be reached about arbitration have to be certain for the reasons which I have outlined at the start of the committee and they cannot be left until later.
  If the Amendment were effective—and I do not believe that, strictly, it would be effective—in doing what I understand the sponsors would like it to do, it would introduce an element of uncertainty into the arrangements. At the point at which arbitration was to be used, one would not be certain what the exact form of the arbitration would be. That would be wholly undesirable and completely unworkable because a situation might then arise in which there was no agreement about the form of arbitration. We have to make up our minds about this now.
  1500
  This matter has been dealt with at great length on Second Reading and in Committee, and tonight I have again gone over the arguments. I listened carefully to everything that was said, but no attempt was made to meet the case that I put, particularly in Committee, and none of the arguments that I developed there has been answered effectively. Indeed, no attempt has been made to answer them. I therefore must ask the House to reject the Amendment and to stick to the proposals which the Government have made in the Bill.
  Mr. MacArthur: The failure has been completely on the Minister's side because he has given not one effective word of reply to the Amendment. He spoke of the uncertainty which would arise if the Amendment were accepted. While what he said is correct, he will accept it from me that this precise form of wording had to be adopted for procedural reasons of which he is well aware.
  If he wished to have certainty, all that was necessary for him to do was to say that at the next stage of the Bill in another place the Lord President of the Court of Session would be introduced in place of the Minister of Labour in Clause 3 as the person who appoints arbiters. The point which he well knows we are making would have been met, and this would have represented a great advance and would have held out much brighter prospects of the Bill working successfully in the future.
  The hon. Gentleman has not convinced me, nor I believe my hon. Friends, of the reason why he wishes to dispose of the Lord President of the Court of Session. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Sir M. Galpern) supporting us yet again on this point. He quoted some of the words used by the Minister at an earlier stage. On that occasion the Minister said that the Lord President had no particular competence in this matter, and he repeated that statement tonight. In fact, the Lord President has supreme competence in these matters. The Minister is, therefore, saying that the head of the Scottish judiciary is not capable of appointing arbiters who will do a proper and fair job. Is that the sort of insult the hon. Gentleman is offering the Scottish courts?
  Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman knows hat I did not say that. He also knows that these are the only salary negotiations in which the Lord President of the Court of Session has any kind of responsibility at all. The Lord President has no experience of this. He does not do this in any other sphere and if the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends feel so strongly about the competence and efficiency or the Lord President in these matters, it is strange that when they were in office for 13 years they did no extend his field of activity.
  Mr. MacArthur: The Minister has again shown that he does not understand the argument. This is not a question of extending the role of the Lord President of the Court of Session into other spheres of arbitration. We are not suggesting that. We are merely suggesting that the Lord President, who for 22 years has acted as the authority who appoints arbiters in disputes of this kind, should continue to perform that rôle.

  Division No. 321.]

  AYES

  [11.43 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Grimond, Rt. Hn, J.

  Nicholls, Sir Harmar

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Gurden, Harold

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Astor, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Hail-Davis, A. G. F.

  Percival, Ian

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Harrison, Cot. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Blaker, Peter

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pym, Francis

  Bossom, sir Clive

  Heseltine, Michael

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Braine, Bernard

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Russell, Sir Ronald

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

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Scott, Nicholas

  Burden, F. A.

  Holland, Philip

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

  Campbell, Gordon

  Hordern, Peter

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Hunt, John

  Stodart, Anthony

  Clegg, Walter

  Jenkin, Patrlck (Woodford)

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

  Corfield, F. V.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Costain, A, P.

  Jopling, Michael

  Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow,Cathcart)

  Dance, James

  Kimball, Marcus

  Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Temple, John M.

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Kitson, Timothy

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

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

  Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Drayson, G. B.

  Loveys, W. H.

  Walters, Dennis

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Mac Arthur, Ian

  Ward, Dame Irene

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

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross&Crom'ty)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hon. William

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maginnis, John E.

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Cilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Maude, Angus

  Worsley, Marcus

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R, J.

  Wright, Esmond

  Goodhart, Philip

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

  Younger, Hn. George

  Goodhew, Victor

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Gower, Raymond

  Mitcampbell, Norman

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Grant, Anthony

  More, Jasper

  Mr David Mitchell and

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Mr Hector Monro.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Murton, Oscar

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Barnes, Michael

  Booth, Albert

  Alldritt, Walter

  Baxter, William

  Boston, Terence

  Allen, Schoiefield

  Bence, Cyril

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Anderson, Donald

  Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Brooks, Edwin

  Ashley, Jack

  Binns, John

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

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Bishop, E. S.

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

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Blackburn, F.

  Cant, R. B.

  If the Minister continues in his obstinate insistence that the Lord President has no competence in this matter, he must be reminded of what he said about the conduct of arbitration proceedings in the past, when he said that the highest standard of discretion and judgment had been shown by the Lord President. That being the hon. Gentleman's view, I fail to understand why the Government propose to remove the Lord President from the role which he has carried out so well, and with the confidence of the teaching profession, during the past years.
  I warn the Minister yet again that, by rejecting the Amendment, he is taking action which will undermine the confidence of the teaching profession not only in the Bill but in the good faith of the Government towards the teaching profession in Scotland.
  Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—
  The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes, 148.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hoy, James

  Park, Trevor

  Coe, Denis

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Coleman, Donald

  Hynd, John

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Concannon, J. D.

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

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

  Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Johnson, Carol (Lewieham, S.)

  Reynolds, G. W.

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Davidson, Arthur (Aeorlngton)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Daviea, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Kenyon, Clifford

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

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

  Rose, Paul

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lawson, George

  Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)

  Daviea, Robert (Cambridge)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Dewar, Donald

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Ryan, John

  Dickens, James

  Lomas, Kenneth

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

  Doig, Peter

  Loughlin, Charles

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyncth (Exeter)

  Luard, Evan

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.)

  Eadie, Alex

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Thomas George (Cardiff, W.)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  MacColl, James

  Tinn, James

  Ensor, David

  MacDermot, Niall

  Urwin, T. W.

  Faulds, Andrew

  McGuire, Michael

  Varley, Eric G.

  Fernyhough, E.

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Finch, Harold

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

  MacMillan, Malcolm (western Isles)

  Wallace, George

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Ford, Ben

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Forrester, John

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Fowter, Gerry

  Manuel, Archie

  Whitaker, Ben

  Freeson, Reginald

  Marquand, David

  Whitlock, William

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Mason, Roy

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Milfan, Bruce

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Miller, Or. M. S.

  Williams, Mrs. snirley (Hitchin)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Morgan, Eryetan (Cardiganshire)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Murray, Albert

  Winnick, David

  Harper, Joseph

  Neal, Harold

  Winterbottom, R. E.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Norwood, Christopher

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Haseldine, Norman

  Oakes, Gordon

  Hilton, W. S.

  O'Malley, Brian

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hooley, Frank

  Orme, Stanley

  Mr Charles R. Morris and

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Oswald, Thomas

  Mr Neil McBride

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The Question is, That the Bill be now read the Third time. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye"; to the contrary "No"—
  11.50 p.m.
  Mr. MacArthur: On a point of order. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) rose in the hope of catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Taylor.
  Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order. Had not the voices in fact been collected?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The voices had not been collected.
  Mr. Taylor: It comes ill from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) to make such an intervention when I have
  1504
  been present throughout the day and have not said a word on the subject of the Water (Scotland) Bill or on the Remuneration of Teachers (Scotland) Bill and now intervene simply to ask a short question. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has been more responsible than any other hon. Member for keeping hon. Members up night after night on matters which to us did not appear to be as significant as they did to him. I hope that the Under-Secretary will answer my question as effectively as he answered the detailed points which we put on the Amendment of which we have just disposed.
  Having read it very carefully, I am sure that this is a splendid Bill, but will it be of any help whatever in finding a speedy and effective way to reach a conclusion on the Roberts Report on the supply of teachers, especially in Glasgow, where there is a very serious shortage and where, although we have only one fifth of the children of Scotland, we have about 60 per cent. of the part-time teachers, thus having more than our share of the teacher shortage?

  1505
  This is an urgent matter. We have been waiting for action by the Government, or even an indication that they support the principle of the Report. The Government have advanced all kinds of reasons for delaying a decision. Will the Bill help in any way to speed up a decision on this vital issue so that Glasgow no longer has to carry more than its share o' the teacher shortage? The situation in Glasgow is alarming and something must be done. Will the Bill shorten what seems to be the unreasonable delay in reaching a decision about the Roberts Report?
  11.54 p.m.
  Mr. Millan: I was delighted to hear the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) say that this was a splendid Bill, and I hope that from that it follows that he voted with the Government and not with his right hon. Friends on the Amendment. In any case, it is a splendid Bill which, I hope, will make a considerable difference to the progress of negotiations and to the way in which the negotiations are conducted for the settlement of teachers' salaries in Scotland.
  But the Bill does not deal with the actual settlements themselves, the level of the settlements, or particular recommendations like those of the Roberts Report. I answered Questions about the recommendations of the Roberts Report less than a fortnight ago when I made the Government's position clear.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: It is not clear to me.
  Mr. Millan: It may not be clear to the hon. Gentleman. There are a number of things which are not clear to him. However, I answered the point less than a fortnight ago and as it is not strictly relevant to the Bill, I had better leave it there.
  11.55 p.m.
  Mr. MacArthur: I share the feeling of shock experienced by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) on the intervention of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I remember the many hours during which the hon. Gentleman entertained us when he was in opposition. He is the last hon. Member who should try to advise any hon. Member on this side to join him in the "silent service"
  1506
  to which he used to belong and from which we are glad that he has now escaped.
  I am obliged to the Under-Secretary for replying, although he did so inadequately, to the point raised by my hon. Friend. It is within the competence of the Bill to consider the relevant remuneration of teachers. It is clear that there are certain priorities of need which will have to be considered by the Committee when it meets. I will not rehearse all of them now, but one of them certainly is the critical shortage of teachers in Glasgow. Whatever the Under-Secretary may say about what he said in reply to Questions a little while ago, we on this side are dismayed that the Government have sat on the Roberts Report for close on nine months without any sort of action. We are disturbed that the Government's main interest in education at present appears to be to try to impose on all local authorities a uniform system of education whether it meets the needs of local authorities or not. To do this in the name of social justice, at a time when 3,000 children in Scotland are receiving part-time education, shows a complete lack of understanding of the priorities needed in the educational structure.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that that arises on Third Reading. We are dealing only with the remuneration of teachers.
  Mr. MacArthur: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I feel strongly about this question, as do the people of Scotland.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not care whether the hon. Member feels strongly about it. It does not arise on Third Reading.
  Mr. MacArthur: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These are matters of concern, but I will return to the Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have ruled that these matters must not be discussed on Third Reading. It is no use the hon. Gentleman repeating what has been said already.
  Mr. MacArthur: I did not want to appear to be discourteous. I simply said that I would return at once to the Bill.

  1507
  As I indicated earlier, we regard the Bill as an excellent Measure. I believe that it improves the present structure. It provides for representation of the Secretary of State on the negotiating committee. That, I believe, will remove a weakness which we have experienced in the past and remove one of the reasons for so much dissent in past years. I hope that, with this system of representation by the Secretary of State on the committee and with the plans which the hon. Gentleman explained to us the other day about the representation of the interested parties on the committee, we can enter on a new harmony in salary matters within the profession.
  I very much regret the Government's reluctance to make a change in Clause 3. I firmly believe that the Government have, by rejecting the proposed change, insisted on maintaining a proposal which will weaken the confidence of teachers, or at any rate of a large body of teachers, in the new committee. I hope that I am wrong. However, I believe that the Under-Secretary has run a very real risk which he should never have involved himself in. Even now, perhaps at a later stage, the hon. Gentleman might give further thought to this point.
  Having said that, I commend the Bill to the House and I hope that it will prove to be the beginning of a new and happier chapter in relations with the profession.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

COUNTRYSIDE (SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 62) (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland), That the Bill be committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]
Question agreed to.
Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to the Scottish Standing Committee.

COUNTRYSIDE (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the better enjoyment of the Scottish countryside, for the establishment of a Countryside Commission for Scotland, and for other purposes, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of:—
(1) the expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act—

(a) in making payments in respect of expenses of a Countryside Commission for Scotland;

(b) in paying grants to local authorities in respect of expenditure incurred by them in relation to the countryside in or in connection with—

(i) the exercise of powers conferred on them by that Act;

(ii) the exercise of their powers under section 24 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960;

(iii) the exercise of their powers under section 2 of the Local Government (Development and Finance) (Scotland) Act 1964;

(iv) the payment of compensation under section 25 or an order made under section 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947;

(v) the exercise of their powers of acquiring land under or by virtue of any of the enactments referred to in the preceding heads of this sub-paragraph, not exceeding three-quarters of that expenditure;

(c) in defraying or contributing towards expenditure incurred for the purposes of approved proposals relating to long-distance routes;

(d) in acquiring land for public access, in defraying or contributing to the cost of managing that land and in carrying out work thereon;

(e) in providing, arranging for or assisting in the provision of tourist, recreational or sporting facilities and any equipment, facilities or works ancillary thereto on land held by him;

(f) in the appointment of wardens as respects any land or waterway;

(2) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any enactment relating to local government in Scotland or under the Forestry Act 1967;
(3) any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under the said Act of the present Session.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

ADJOURNMENT
Resolved, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]
Adjourned accordingly at Twelve o'clock.

HOUSING
  New Towns (Rents)
  New Towns (Rents)
  Vacant Dwellings (Rural Areas)
  Vacant Dwellings (Rural Areas)
  Housing Stock (Subsidies)
  Housing Stock (Subsidies)
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
  Rent Act, 1965 (Review)
  Rent Act, 1965 (Review)
  Private Housebuilding
  Private Housebuilding
  Housing Contracts (Financial Standing of Firms)
  Housing Contracts (Financial Standing of Firms)
  National Building Agency
  National Building Agency
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Local Authority Mortgages
  Private Landlords (Conversion Grants)
  Private Landlords (Conversion Grants)
  Twilight Areas
  Twilight Areas
  Housing Consortia
  Housing Consortia
  Well-Maintained Payments (Woolwich)
  Well-Maintained Payments (Woolwich)
  Building Costs
  Building Costs
  National Housebuilders' Registration Council (Inspectors)
  National Housebuilders' Registration Council (Inspectors)
  Industrialised Building Systems
  Industrialised Building Systems
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Article 4 Direction (Berkshire County Council)
  Article 4 Direction (Berkshire County Council)
  North Sea Gas (Inquiry)
  North Sea Gas (Inquiry)
  Water Supplies
  Water Supplies
  Tunnel Portland Cement Co. (Expansion)
  Tunnel Portland Cement Co. (Expansion)
  Direct Labour (District Auditors' Society Study)
  Direct Labour (District Auditors' Society Study)
  Thomas Chatterton Monument
  Thomas Chatterton Monument
  Building Regulations (New Materials)
  Building Regulations (New Materials)
  Dam, Meldon Okehampton
  Dam, Meldon Okehampton
  Grainthorpe Parish Council (Playing Field)
  Grainthorpe Parish Council (Playing Field)
  Local Authority Membership (Teachers)
  Local Authority Membership (Teachers)
  Planning Bulletin No. 7 (Public Car Parks)
  Planning Bulletin No. 7 (Public Car Parks)
  Historic Buildings (Water Tables)
  Historic Buildings (Water Tables)
  British Leather Federation (Trade Effluents)
  British Leather Federation (Trade Effluents)
  Coal Distribution Depot, Farnham (Inquiry)
  Coal Distribution Depot, Farnham (Inquiry)
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Swynnerton
  Royal Ordnance Factory, Swynnerton
  Rating (Vacant Hereditaments)
  Rating (Vacant Hereditaments)
  Hedgerow and Farm Timber Committee (Report)
  Hedgerow and Farm Timber Committee (Report)
  Tree Work (British Standard 3998, 1966)
  Tree Work (British Standard 3998, 1966)
  Wailes Dove (Bitumastic) Ltd. (Pipe Processing Plant)
  Wailes Dove (Bitumastic) Ltd. (Pipe Processing Plant)
  Teachers' Salaries (Expenditure)
  Teachers' Salaries (Expenditure)
  Local Government Employees (Cost)
  Local Government Employees (Cost)
  Historic Towns (Pilot Studies)
  Historic Towns (Pilot Studies)
  Town Centres (Redevelopment Schemes)
  Town Centres (Redevelopment Schemes)
  Loan Sanction
  Loan Sanction
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Sierra Leone
  Sierra Leone
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  India (Hyderabad Reading Room)
  India (Hyderabad Reading Room)
  British Honduras
  British Honduras
  Eastern Caribbean (Mission)
  Eastern Caribbean (Mission)
  Malta (Joint Mission)
  Malta (Joint Mission)
COAL
  National Coal Board (Brickworks)
  National Coal Board (Brickworks)
  Coal Industry, Scotland (Employment)
  Coal Industry, Scotland (Employment)
  Redundant Miners (Redeployment)
  Redundant Miners (Redeployment)
  National Coal Board (Brickworks)
  National Coal Board (Brickworks)
  Exports
  Exports
  Productivity
  Productivity
  Pithead Cost
  Pithead Cost
  Coal Distribution Depots
  Coal Distribution Depots
  Disused Collieries
  Disused Collieries
  Selective Prices (Scotland)
  Selective Prices (Scotland)
  Sales to Public Bodies
  Sales to Public Bodies
GAS
  Irish Sea Supplies
  Irish Sea Supplies
  North Sea Supplies
  North Sea Supplies
  Space-Heating Load (Cost)
  Space-Heating Load (Cost)
  Oil-Based Plant
  Oil-Based Plant
ELECTRICITY
  Power Stations (Fuels)
  Power Stations (Fuels)
  Nuclear Power Programmes (Coal Requirements)
  Nuclear Power Programmes (Coal Requirements)
  Prices
  Prices
  Drax and Hinkley Point "B" (Capital Cost)
  Drax and Hinkley Point "B" (Capital Cost)
  Generating Plant
  Generating Plant
  Sales (Iron and Steel Industry)
  Sales (Iron and Steel Industry)
  Space-Heating Load (Cost)
  Space-Heating Load (Cost)
  Off-Peak Tariffs (Sales)
  Off-Peak Tariffs (Sales)
  Load Factor
  Load Factor
  Electricity Council's Utilisation Research Reports
  Electricity Council's Utilisation Research Reports
  Privately Generated Electricity (Industrial Consumption)
  Privately Generated Electricity (Industrial Consumption)
  Generating Programmes (Capital Cost)
  Generating Programmes (Capital Cost)
  Peak Loads
  Peak Loads
POWER
  Fuel Policy (Estimates)
  Fuel Policy (Estimates)
  Energy Demand (Coal Equivalent)
  Energy Demand (Coal Equivalent)
  Energy Co-Efficient
  Energy Co-Efficient
  Nationalised Fuel Industries (Investment Return)
  Nationalised Fuel Industries (Investment Return)
  Estimates
  Estimates
  Fuel Policy
  Fuel Policy
  River Severn (Barrage)
  River Severn (Barrage)
  Oil (Lancashire Fells)
  Oil (Lancashire Fells)
TECHNOLOGY
  Aircraft Industry (Public Ownership)
  Aircraft Industry (Public Ownership)
  Government Contract (Investigation)
  Government Contract (Investigation)
  Bristol Siddeley Engines Ltd. (Inquiry)
  Bristol Siddeley Engines Ltd. (Inquiry)
  Uranium
  Uranium
  Breeder Reactors
  Breeder Reactors
  Minister's Visit to the U.S.S.R.
  Minister's Visit to the U.S.S.R.
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Customs Duty (Cameras)
  Customs Duty (Cameras)
  Reserve Bank of Rhodesia (Governor and Trustee)
  Reserve Bank of Rhodesia (Governor and Trustee)
  Alluvial Minerals (Prospecting Licences)
  Alluvial Minerals (Prospecting Licences)
  PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
  PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA
  BRITISH HONDURAS AND GUATEMALA
  BRITISH HONDURAS AND GUATEMALA
  BRITISH CITIZENS (PASSPORTS)
  BRITISH CITIZENS (PASSPORTS)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Jurors (Interference)
  Jurors (Interference)
  Child Murders (Beenham)
  Child Murders (Beenham)
  Firearms (Indictable Offences)
  Firearms (Indictable Offences)
  Prisoners (Punishment)
  Prisoners (Punishment)
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Forestry Commission (Westmorland)
  Forestry Commission (Westmorland)
  Agricultural Industry (Price Review Award)
  Agricultural Industry (Price Review Award)
  Hake (Size Regulations)
  Hake (Size Regulations)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Armed Forces (Servicemen and Civilians)
  Armed Forces (Servicemen and Civilians)
  Defence Establishments (Corporal Punishment)
  Defence Establishments (Corporal Punishment)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  River Severn (Barrage)
  River Severn (Barrage)
  Short Brothers and Harland
  Short Brothers and Harland
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Malnutrition (Educational Attainment)
  Malnutrition (Educational Attainment)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Cold Drink Vending Machines
  Cold Drink Vending Machines
HOSPITALS
  Property (Disposal)
  Property (Disposal)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Equal Pay
  Equal Pay
  Lancashire (Migration of Workers)
  Lancashire (Migration of Workers)
  Textile Industries (Lancashire and Cheshire)
  Textile Industries (Lancashire and Cheshire)
  Textile Workers (Refraining)
  Textile Workers (Refraining)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  British Honduras (New Capital)
  British Honduras (New Capital)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  New Exchanges, Cornwall
  New Exchanges, Cornwall
POST OFFICE
  Giro (Payment of Wages)
  Giro (Payment of Wages)
WIRELESS AND TELEVISION
  B.B.C.2 (Mid-Wales)
  B.B.C.2 (Mid-Wales)
  Local Radio Broadcasts (Political Balance)
  Local Radio Broadcasts (Political Balance)
SCOTLAND
  Highland Transport Board (Report)
  Highland Transport Board (Report)
  Timber Output (South-West Scotland)
  Timber Output (South-West Scotland)
  Hospitals (Geriatric Beds, Ayrshire)
  Hospitals (Geriatric Beds, Ayrshire)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Commercial Aviation (Pilots)
  Commercial Aviation (Pilots)
  Building and Construction Industry
  Building and Construction Industry
  Textile Mills, Lancashire and Cheshire (Closures)
  Textile Mills, Lancashire and Cheshire (Closures)
ROADS
  Severn Bridge (Vehicle Capacity)
  Severn Bridge (Vehicle Capacity)
  Leatherhead By-Pass
  Leatherhead By-Pass
PORTS
  Bristol Channel Ports Authority
  Bristol Channel Ports Authority

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

RAILWAY NETWORK: COST OF RETAINED LINES
2.35 p.m.
LORD REDMAYNE: 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 traffic studies have been made which led to the conclusion that a further 3,000 miles should be retained in the basic railway network; what cost-benefit analysis was undertaken in respect of this mileage; what is their estimate of the cost, and how it will be borne.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and the Chairman of the Railways Board made a fresh examination of the railway needs of the country taking proper account of social and economic factors. They had up-to-date advice from economic planning councils on the planning implications as well as information through the transport users consultative committees on cases earlier put forward for closure. They assessed all this against the Board's continuing review of traffic forecasts. But it would not have been practicable or worth while to undertake cost-benefit analyses of the whole network. We cannot give any estimate of the cost or how it will be borne until the Joint Steering Group which is now engaged in identifying and costing the Board's unremunerative passenger services generally have concluded their work. My right honourable friend has already made clear the Government's intention that all those unremunerative services which are retained
430
for wider social and economic reasons should receive a specific subsidy.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer and accepting that it is not practical to make an analysis of cost-benefit for the whole network, nor, indeed, is it perhaps necessary, may I ask him whether a cost-benefit analysis has in fact been completed in respect of the 3,000 miles of lines which the Minister proposes to retain? On the point of subsidy, may I ask the noble Lord whether it is proposed to seek to allocate subsidy only to these additional 3,000 miles of line, and on what principle that allocation will be made? Are we to assume from that, that the other 8,000 miles, the "Beeching 8,000", is now expected to be profitable?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question may I say that a cost-benefit analysis has not been made of the 3,000 miles. It is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that this is a time-consuming and costly procedure, and since it was considered necessary that an early decision should be made on the railway pattern for this country for the purposes of maintaining morale on the railways, it was decided to work in the manner described in my answer. Then, if I understood the noble Lord correctly, he wished to know whether the subsidy would apply to the additional 3,000 miles which it was proposed to retain. Am I right?
LORD REDMAYNE: Yes, whether it would apply only to the 3,000 miles.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords; it would apply to those particular stretches of line which, after study, were shown to be unprofitable. These lines would be mainly, or almost exclusively, for passenger use, and it was considered necessary to retain them because of the social purpose which they carried out.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, as there is such great interest in this subject and there are such large sums of money which the taxpayer has to pay, would the noble Lord say whether it is the intention of the Government to publish the Report of the Joint Steering Group when it is completed, so that every one can see just how the Government have evaluated the many conflicting factors and formed their own judgment?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Government are constantly evaluating the situation, because this is a developing process. If the noble Lord would care to put down another Question, I will try to get him a firm answer on the first part of his question.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that these travel studies can be extremely deceptive, for once the service on a line has been allowed to run down few people travel because it is so inconvenient, and then the figures that you get are quite unrealistic? Secondly, when he mentioned maintaining morale on the railways, will he say whether he had in mind the morale of the passengers or the morale of the staff?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: In regard to the second question the answer is, of course, both; these are interacting factors.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is the Minister aware how much many people in this country will welcome this new line of approach? Many people are inclined to think that in cutting out so many thousands of miles of track the Beeching Report was not acting in the nation's interest, and this line of approach will be welcomed by those people. In assessing the type of cost analysis that has been referred to, would my noble friend give me an undertaking that the amount of traffic which previously used the lines will be taken into consideration, compared with new routeings that have been instituted? Often it is greatly suspected that this comparison is deliberately not made in order to increase a deficiency shown on particular lines.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question. I am afraid that I cannot answer that.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, may I put this point to the noble Lord? It may be all very well for Lord Popplewell to say that these decisions will be welcomed by a great many people, but they are probably the people who do not pay for them. Who is going to pay for these subsidies? Are they paid for by central Government—that is, by the taxpayer in general—or by the ratepayers?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if the taxpayers of the country as a whole pay for the subsidies this must have Parliamentary approval. It is the intention of my right honourable friend to seek such Parliamentary approval. However, until such time as approval has been given, expenditure on uneconomic lines will be shown separately in the Railway Board's accounts.

WARBLE FLY CONTROL
2.43 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to encourage the eradication of the warble fly.]
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, the best means of controlling this pest is by the preventive application of organophosphorous dressing in the autumn. This will reduce the annual level of infestation in a herd rapidly and spectacularly, but the treatment is not 100 per cent. effective and complete eradication of the parasite from this country would be very difficult and very costly. The dressing is simple to apply, and for several years the Agricultural Departments have been conducting publicity and propaganda each autumn to encourage farmers to dress their cattle as a routine measure of good husbandry. The Warble Fly Campaign Committee, established at the instigation of these Departments, advises and encourages farmers in the use of these dressings, and Departments give encouragement and advice to this Committee. They are quite willing to discuss with the National Farmers' Unions whether there are any other useful steps which could be taken to encourage the voluntary use of these dressings for the prevention of warble infestation.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. He knows the considerable damage and loss of value caused by the grub of this fly to hides, and the intense discomfort and pain caused to cattle, and will agree, I think, that between the months of March and June it is easy to discern the little

433
lumps on the backs of cattle. Does he not think that, with the new and very effective organophosphorous dressing that is now available, it would be a simple matter to secure eradication by forbidding the sale of affected animals in markets?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I am aware of the discomfort to animals, and the damage done to hides as a result of this pest. But so far as the latter part of my noble friend's supplementary question is concerned, there are no regulations which prohibit the sale at auctions of cattle infested with warbles. Such an order could be made under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, but I would remind my noble friend that there would be great difficulties. In the first place, such an order would have only a limited application; it could be effective only during the relatively short period when infestation is apparent. At other times, infested cattle might be sold which would later develop visible infestation in the herds to which they were moved. Secondly, the order would be very difficult to police. Thorough enforcement would require inspection at each market. The Ministry have not the staff to undertake this, and it is unlikely that local authorities would be able to carry it out.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, as with this new dressing eradication is at last possible, could serious thought be given to ways of seeing that farmers get their cattle warble-free? If it is too difficult for local authorities or the Ministry to police such a regulation could the onus for inspection and rejection be put upon livestock auctioneers?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I note what my friend has to say about the point. This is a different aspect. I can promise my noble friend that I will inform my right honourable friend of the further suggestion made by my noble friend, and will ask him to give it what attention he can to see whether it is possible to find some such solution as advocated by my noble friend.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there has been a pretty good response to the campaign in this country, and would he ask the Eire Government whether they would assist in the campaign? Is the
434
noble Lord further aware that the importation of Irish cattle, which is a very important part of the beef herd, brings in a great deal of warble as a rule and that a little co-operation from Eire would be very welcome?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. I am aware of that fact, and I promise that I will once again draw my right honourable friend's attention to this problem.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, am I right in thinking that if the approved dressing of cattle were universally applied for two years, it would break the life-cycle of the warble fly and the pest would be eliminated?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, it would certainly go a long way towards eliminating the pest altogether. I would point out that a good deal of attention has been given to the problem of trying to eradicate this completely, but so far, despite all the attention given to it, it has not been possible to get a 100 per cent. cure. But my right honourable friend the Minister is keeping on with it.

SIERRA LEONE
2.47 p.m.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now make a statement on the present political position in Sierra Leone, with particular reference to the question of official recognition of the Reformation Council headed by Colonel Juxon Smith.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, as noble Lords will recall, I said in this House on April 18 that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on the internal political affairs of an independent country within the Commonwealth. There has been no change in the Head of State of Sierra Leone, and no formal act of recognition by Her Majesty's Government of the new Government of Sierra Leone is therefore necessary.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Could he tell the House whether the Reformation Council are showing signs of wishing to make Sierra Leone a republic within the Commonwealth, as I believe was the intention of the now incarcerated Sir Albert Margai? Should I be correct in thinking that Her Majesty's Government have no say whatsoever in the future of the Governor General?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is not for me to comment upon the relationship of the people of Sierra Leone to Her Majesty the Queen, but the noble Lord will probably be aware of the announcement made in Freetown last week. The Chairman of the National Reformation Council sent a message to Her Majesty the Queen presenting his humble duty to Her Majesty and informing Her of the arrangements made by the National Reformation Council for the interim administration of Sierra Leone, and assuring Her Majesty that she will be kept informed of all major developments regarding the interim administration of Sierra Leone. The message went on to say that Her Majesty had been advised that Sir Henry Lightfoot-Boston would be proceeding on leave prior to retirement.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, has my noble friend any information as to the present whereabouts of Sir Albert Margai, who is well known to many Members of this House?
LORD BESWICK: No, My Lords.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while recognising the independence of Sierra Leone and of other Governments whose democratic institutions have been overthrown by military coup. may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware of the grave concern felt by many of us about these developments in Africa? Would it not be possible for the Commonwealth Secretariat, perhaps in association with the Organisation of African Unity to try to get consideration of the whole of this problem so that we may be able to avoid the overthrow of democratically elected Governments?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am bound to call attention again to the interesting fact that my noble friend,
436
who has spent so much of his life trying to dissuade us from interfering with the affairs of African countries, now seems to be devoting himself to persuading us to take an improper interest in the affairs of those countries since they have become independent.

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION LAWS
2.51 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, and if so when, legislation is to be introduced in accordance with the evidence of the Political and Economic Planning Report on racial discrimination.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the Government will review the need for and the practicability of strengthening the existing law in the light of the P.E.P. Report, the Report of the Race Relations Board which will be laid before Parliament shortly, and any other available evidence about the extent of discrimination in this country and the effectiveness of the Race Relations Act.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether the Government will pay attention to the urgency of this issue, which has been emphasised not only in the P.E.P. Report, and by the Committee for Commonwealth Immigrants, of which the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury is Chairman, but also in the Report of the Race Relations Board which is now in the hands of the Minister? Particularly in view of the position of the school-leavers, will he urge that this should be done very urgently in the new Session of Parliament?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I have already given in my original Answer an assurance that the Government will most carefully consider not only the P.E.P. Report, which we regard as a very valuable contribution to the information available on this subject, but all other

437
relevant evidence. We are anxious to deal with this problem, but it would not be proper to deal with it until careful consideration has been given to all the evidence and, I must emphasise, when that has been given, to the practicability of introducing legislation to deal with any need that may be found to exist.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will consider. when the Report of the Race Relations Board is received, giving time in this House for discussion of the Motion on this subject which stands in my name on the Order Paper under, "No Day Named"?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the Business of the House is not a matter for me. Obviously, the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party is in a much better position than I am to make representations on this subject, when the Report has been published in a few days' time.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether I may have his full support when I make representations to his noble friend who is sitting on his right?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I disagree with my noble friend the Government Chief Whip, that it will not do any good. But the noble Lord will have my full support in the matter.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, am I to understand, when my noble friend says that the Government are going to inquire into the question of discrimination, that they will also include discrimination on grounds of sex in regard to equal pay, which is equally immoral?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, in this matter the Government will have regard to any evidence of discrimination on the grounds of colour, race or religion.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I find it very difficult to understand why the Government pontificate on this aspect of inequality and discrimination and exploitation, and fail to tackle the, as I say, equally immoral discrimination on grounds of sex with regard to equal pay. Will my noble friend give me a simple answer, because, as he knows, the trade unions supported the principle in 1881?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we are dealing with this question of racial discrimination, and I am well aware of the attitude of the Trades Union Congress to the possibility of legislation on that subject. I am sorry if my noble friend thought I was pontificating on this matter, but I assure her that I shall most certainly make representations to my right honourable friend on the point that she has raised, and, indeed, will give my own personal support in this matter.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I thank my noble friend very much.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, if the P.E.P. Report mentioned in the Question may be of importance in considering legislation, could it be made available, perhaps in the Printed Paper Office?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I can most certainly consider that, or at least see whether it is possible to have it made available in the Library.

THE ROYAL MINT
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Shepherd will be making a Statement on the new site for the Royal Mint.
EAST KILBRIDE BURGH BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
EDINBURGH CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a (according to Order), and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

DEVELOPMENT OF INVENTIONS BILL [H.L.]
2.57 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time. This is a Consolidation Bill which has come back from the Joint Consolidation Committee. I am told that some noble Lords are in a good deal of doubt as to exactly what the Consolidation Committee does. Therefore perhaps your Lordships would allow me to take advantage of the occasion to explain shortly what it does. It is in truth like any other Committee. Before it meets it has the Bill and it has a copy of the notes on clauses which the Parliamentary draftsman has prepared. It then meets and deals with the Bill as it would be dealt with, in effect, in a Committee of the Whole House. The draftsman adds anything he wants to add on the Bill as a whole, the Title is postponed and the Bill is then taken clause by clause.
Of course, it is open to any member of the Committee to move any Amendment he wishes, and it is extraordinary what abstruse points can arise, even on a straight consolidation. If it is a consolidation under the 1949 Act minor corrections and improvements can be made, and in that case the Committee has a memorandum from the Lord Chancellor in relation to those Amendments which are sought to be made as "minor corrections and improvements". This is a phrase which, I am afraid, from time to time gives rise to a good deal of semantic argument, as to whether something is a minor correction or improvement—a position which I am now considering.
The whole of the proceedings are recorded and the Reports are available in the Paper Office, as is the current one headed:
Seventh Report of the Joint Committee of the House of Lords and the House of Commons in the present Session appointed to consider all Consolidation Bills"—
and so on. I understand that the Joint Committee have recently decided that it would be right if, before they met, the draftsman's notes on clauses were also
440
available in the Paper Office, so that if any noble Lord is interested in any particular consolidation but is not a member of the Consolidation Committee he will have every opportunity to express his view.
My Lords, this particular Bill, the Development of Inventions Bill, is a straight consolidation which simply consolidates the Development of Inventions Act 1948, the Development of Inventions Act 1954 and the Development of Inventions Act 1965, but it has the merit of substituting one measure for three. Of course, it saves a lawyer's time if all the Statute Law on one subject is in one place—and not only the time of lawyers. I see that in this particular case the Ministry of Technology and the National Research Development Corporation particularly welcomed this consolidation as being a considerable convenience to them. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. This is another consolidation Bill—a straight consolidation of the Air Corporations Act 1949, the Air Corporations Act 1953, the Air Corporations Act 1962 and nearly all of the Air Corporations Act 1966. It does not include part of one paragraph of the Schedule to the 1966 Act for the reason that that particular part of that Act merely had the effect of converting into Government stock the stock of B.O.A.C. which was outstanding on April 1, 1965, and accordingly belongs really to the law of Government stock and not now to the law of the Air Corporations. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SLAUGHTER OF POULTRY BILL
House in Committee (according to Order).
House resumed; Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

HOUSING SUBSIDIES BILL
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).

EDUCATION AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: ROLE OF UNESCO
3.5 p.m.
LORD WADE LORD WADE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration has been given to the influence of education as a cause of international misunderstanding; and in particular whether they will urge upon UNESCO the need for a programme, in addition to its Literacy project, designed to lessen the nationalist bias in history text-books and to encourage a sense of world community. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In drawing attention to the influence of education as a cause of international misunderstanding and the need for encouraging a sense of world community, I have set myself a somewhat formidable task. Perhaps it would have been more respectful to educationists if I had referred to the help which education can give to international understanding, rather than used the words that I have, but I shall explain my reasons for framing the Question in this particular form.
In some respects the subject is more suited to an hour's lecture than an Un-starred Question, and bearing that in mind I shall restrict my remarks to certain specific points rather than attempt to cover the whole field. But I do not wish to limit the scope of this debate in any way. I am very pleased that so many Members of your Lordships' House have indicated a willingness to take part in the debate, and I shall listen to what follows with great interest. I am sure I shall learn much more than I can impart. I shall certainly look forward to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who is to reply on behalf of
442
the Government. I hope the subject is one which will be regarded by Her Majesty's Government as of some importance, although no one would suggest that the problem is one that can be solved by Britain alone.
Now in framing my Question I have directed attention in particular to the work of UNESCO for it seems clear that this subject comes within the aims and objects of that organisation; and at the outset I should like to say a word or two about United Nations Agencies. The United Nations is very much under criticism at the present time. Some of this criticism may be justified, some may not be. One does not hear very much about the successes of the United Nations. But the fact that the United Nations consists of representatives of independent sovereign States is bound to be a limiting factor. In so far as there have been failures, I think they have often been due to an attempt to do too much. But, whatever one's views may be about that, it would be a great mistake to minimise the importance of the United Nations Agencies. They are doing extremely valuable work—and I think that applies to UNESCO. If I am critical, it is not because I disapprove of the work of UNESCO but really that I am not entirely satisfied with the priorities.
Britain, as a member nation, has, of course, a share of responsibility. If that were not so, I imagine that I should have been unable to table this Question. There is some ministerial responsibility, if for no other reason than that Britain is a contributor to the United Nations and to its Agencies. I have been studying the figures, but I will not quote them at any length. if they are incorrect, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will put them right. In 1966 Britain contributed £27½ million to the United Nations, compared with £34 million in 1965. Of this £27½, million, £566,000 was for UNESCO, the United Nations Agency which must be regarded as having the specific task of encouraging a sense of world community. I think it is worth recalling that the preamble to UNESCO'S constitution contains these words:
"That since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed".
This phrase, I understand, was coined by a much revered Member of this House,

443
the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. When one comes to examine the UNESCO budget, one finds that 38 million dollars are devoted to education for a two-year period, 1967–68; and of this only 314,000 dollars are dedicated for "education for international understanding." This is to meet the cost of a very small department of UNESCO faced with the tremendous task of encouraging a world perspective in education. It is sometimes said by the critics: "Of what use can UNESCO be with its emphasis on education and culture when 700 million people in the world are illiterate?". It was to meet this kind of criticism that the literacy project was launched as an experiment in 1965, a project to which Britain is contributing. I do not for one moment wish to belittle the value of the project, but it would be ironical if, as a consequence, more young people were enabled to read history that is biased which, instead of improving international understanding, tends to encourage an excessively nationalistic outlook.
The ability to read and write, coupled with improved means of communication, does not necessarily bring about a more objective view of history or a fairer view of current affairs. All over the Middle East and in many parts of Africa people are listening to their crystal sets and in many parts of the world Government-controlled radio stations are pouring out abuse. There are, of course, some notable exceptions, such as the B.B.C. Overseas Service, but modern methods of communicating information are tending to facilitate the dissemination of hatred. It may be that the history books are less blatant but the effect may be more insidious, since young people are assumed to accept what is contained in the history books as a presentation of facts. Of course it is very difficult to assess the comparative influence between the spoken word passed on from parent to child, and the effect of the radio or of teaching in school. But what is taught and read at school must have have some influence. I think there is still some truth in the words of Anatole France, "History teaching may be teaching for war".
First of all, one must try to get at the facts. Thanks to the Ford Foundation and the Nuffield Trust, a study of American and English secondary school history textbooks has been carried out.
444
The outcome of that is an extremely interesting book by R. A. Billington entitled The Historian's Contribution to Anglo-American Misunderstanding. Another valuable study, a kind of pilot project, has been carried out by the Educational Advisory Committee of the Parliamentary Group for World Government. I am a vice-president of that body, and I have been a member for many years; but I am not a member of the Educational Advisory Committee and therefore I think I can commend this work without immodesty.
The Committee, of which Sir Edward Boyle is chairman, made a special study of history textbooks used in schools in Cyprus. There is a comparison between the history taught to Turkish-speaking children and that taught to those who speak Greek, the Cypriot language. The main theme in the history books of the Greek-speaking Cypriot children is the villiany of the Turks. I must not take up too much of your Lordships' time with a great many quotations, but may I quote from a book written by the General Inspector of Middle (that is, Secondary) Education, Mr. K. P. Georgiades. It is the 1960 edition, and is still being. used. He tells us that after the fall of Ammochostos in 1571, the Cypriot hero, Bragadinos, had his ears and nose cut off by the Turks. The book continues:
"In this wretched state they carried him off to the Square of Public Executions, stripped him, and when they had bound him to the ignominious pillar, flayed him alive. He breathed his last when the knife of the executioner reached his waist. But even when he was dead they had no respect for him. When they had cut off his head they took the skin. stuffed it with straw, dressed it in his clothes and carried it round as a laughing stock through the whole city and afterwards to Syria and to Asia Minor too. Such was the end of the hero of Ammachostos and such was the conduct of the conqueror."
A similar account appears in the history books of the primary schools.
I cannot find any similar account of this particular incident in the Turkish textbooks. In fact, there is comparatively little reference to Cyprus in the Turkish school books, but I noticed that the history textbooks used for Turkish children in the 12 to 15 years age group contain this statement:
"Our ancestors never attacked others unless they themselves had met with wrong or aggression. The sole reason why they won great wars was that they always had right on their side."

445
Your Lordships may smile at this expression, but it is not confined to Turkish history books. I must admit that the general impression I gained when I was at school was that the English won nearly all the wars and that England, later Britain, always had right on her side. Perhaps the harm lies not so much in the belief that one's own country is right as in the implication that there is something positively evil about the activities and motives of other nations.
Returning to the book used by Greek Cypriots, I give an example from it of the view of the English. Part VII of the history textbook, 1964 edition, used by the Greek Cypriots for children in the 11 to 12 age group deals with "The Administration of the English in Cyprus". The readers are told that in 1939:
"… on the outbreak of war many Cypriots responded to the call to 'fight for freedom' alongside the English with the hope that the English would, when victorious, grant them freedom … They hoped in vain."
The books refers to the "unethical way" in which the English behaved, and later refers to a Member of your Lordships' House. It says that after the demonstrations against the Greeks in Istanbul:
"General Harding was sent to Cyprus as Governor in order to terrorise the Cypriots."
I told the noble and gallant Field Marshal that I was going to quote that sentence, and he said that he was very sorry that he could not be here to listen to the debate this afternoon.
It would be interesting to know whether the Foreign Office have anyone responsible for collecting information about what is taught about Britain in the schools in different parts of the world. I think it would be very helpful to the British Council to have this information. I do not think that anything is done in that respect. In any case, it would be a little outside the scope of this debate and I mention it merely in passing.
My Lords, I endeavoured to collect such information as I could. Of course, I am aware that cultural activities are part of the functions of UNESCO. I think that one of its great successes has been the Nubian campaign launched in 1960. As noble Lords are aware, some of the great temples of the Nile have been saved as a consequence, and UNESCO is to be congratulated on the part it played. It is a little ironical that in the
446
same period since 1960 the textbooks in Egypt were being re-written in order that the children there should learn history more in conformity with the views of President Nasser, at any rate about current history.
I think, my Lords, that in the next ten or twenty years there may be a good deal of this re-writing of history: whether it will be for the better or for the worse remains to be seen. In most of the former colonial territories textbooks have been written by Europeans for Europeans. Even to-day in the bookshops in Morocco you find the same textbooks as, say, in the Lycée in Bordeaux, and there is great difficulty in changing because of the cost of publishing books. But I think there may be a reaction from books being too biased one way in that they may become too biased the other way; and there are educationists who recognise this danger. I would commend the West African Examinations Council, who are pursuing a very enlightened policy and deserve all the support which can be given. However, I expect strong pressures in the coming years.
We have already seen some examples of this. There was the attempt at rewriting history in Ghana during the Nkrumah regime, and some of the history, I must say, seems to me to be fictitious. In Guinea a very slanted view of history appears in the new textbook, of which I have a copy here, published by the Ministry of National Education. The contents bear resemblance to the books in Cyprus to which I have referred, but in this case the villains of the piece are the French, instead of the Turks. In Mali a new history of the country has been written, and I think the striking fact about that is what it omits. It certainly could not be called balanced. It is interesting to note that Guinea and Mali are two of the countries which are to benefit from the literacy project, and of course Britain is contributing to this.
My Lords, I welcome the idea that more people should have the opportunity of reading and writing—that is all to the good. But are we giving sufficient thought to what they will read when they become literate? There is an ever-increasing demand for education, and I was most impressed with this when I was in West Africa; but education will not

447
necessarily increase international understanding. Of course, history can never be entirely objective. No historian can be completely objective, and I am not suggesting that we should have one universal history book for everyone to read everywhere—that is a horrible thought. But it is a matter of degree.
For example, consider England and France. What British children are taught is very different from what the French children are taught; and ought we not to be considering that at the present time, when we wish to improve Anglo-French relations? The aim should be to iron out some of the worst distortions and to try to create what Senator Fulbright called "a perspective about the world" and "the ability to see the world as others see it". Surely, this is a realm in which UNESCO could help, and I should like to see European countries taking the initiative, because, after all, European countries have been responsible for a good deal of distorted history.
At one time, my Lords, UNESCO did show a lively interest in this subject. There was a book written by Professor Lauwerys, published in 1950, entitled History Textbooks and International Understanding, but this UNESCO activity seems to have been allowed to run down. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will have something to tell us about that and what is happening at the present time, but it leads me to ask about this very small department of UNESCO to which I have already referred. I understand that they have a staff of only three, and they are faced with this tremendous task of encouraging a world perspective in education. Could not Britain join with any other country which is concerned about the matter in trying to get this small department expanded? I think it is a mistake to dismiss the whole idea as hopeless just because the winds of nationalism are blowing so strongly.
Then, again, I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, about the United Kingdom National Commission at UNESCO and what it is doing in this field. Is it being hampered by lack of funds? There was a very useful sub-committee under the chairmanship of Dr. Raymond King which did some very valuable work in the early 1950s in reviewing text-
448
books, arranging conferences and exchanging information; for example, in the exchange of information about textbooks between Britain and India and Britain and Russia. This subcommittee was disbanded in 1963 and I should like to know what was the reason for that. Surely, it is through quiet and conscientious work of this kind on the part of educationists that progress can be made. The aim, of course, is to get a more balanced view of history, which is an extraordinarily difficult thing to achieve; to achieve the ultimate aim of some form of World Government or World Authority is infinitely more so, and heaven knows when we shall achieve that! But one pre-condition of success is the building up of loyalties which extend beyond national boundaries, and I believe that education can help. There are, as I say, educationists who are concerned about this matter and I hope that may be encouraged.
To conclude, my Lords, may I say this? I have referred to Governments and to teachers, but there are also the young people. We tend to think of them as protestors. It is, of course, natural for youth to protest; but there are young people who will respond to ideals, who realise that national loyalty must be balanced by a wider loyalty and who, though perhaps not using the same terminology, would agree that "it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed".
3.28 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has put us all in his debt by asking this Question and giving us an opportunity to consider an interesting proposition in the more limited form in which the Question is put; and also of making some reference to the work of UNESCO, because this proposal of his falls naturally within the competence of UNESCO. The noble Lord, said towards the end of his speech that he had the impression of a run-down of interest in UNESCO about the question of the removal of causes of misunderstanding in the sphere of education since, I think he said, 1950. I am not sure that this is altogether true. For example, in 1962 UNESCO supported the educational conference of Asian studies organised in Liverpool under the United Kingdom

449
National Commission. As one might expect, this conference showed how very little was known, or was being done, in this field, and it did prove useful.
There is no doubt that a great deal more could be done to remove the causes of misunderstanding, but the important thing to my mind—and in this I would entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade—is to get the priorities right. There are such tremendous problems facing UNESCO, on so wide a scale and with such comparatively small resources to deal with them, that the first and most important thing to do is to see that these resources are applied to the best advantage.
I believe that UNESCO was right when in 1960 it decided that top priority should be given to education. Education features first in its title, and it should feature first in its policy. If I may remind your Lordships, this was largely due to the case made at the General Conference in that year by my noble friend Lord Eccles who, jointly with the representative of India, spoke of the difference in educational provisions in different countries as:
"the greatest and the most dangerous of all international inequalities ".
He gained acceptance for his proposal that education should have priority in UNESCO'S policy.
Within the field of education UNESCO has concentrated its effort—rightly, I believe—on the developing countries. While we are arguing about a higher school-leaving age—indeed, discussing how it should be put into effect—we should remember that 50 per cent. of the world's children do not go to school at all. While we are asking for more money for adult education, we should remember that 40 per cent. of the world's population can neither read nor write. While we talk about teacher shortage when our classes exceed 30 or 40 pupils per teacher, as the case may be, we should remember that in many countries of the world there are teachers who themselves have not had any teaching beyond the primary stage.
Here surely is the first priority, and UNESCO has begun to tackle it. Since 1962, 20 secondary teacher-training colleges have been set up in Africa by 17 different States with UNESCO aid. In
450
Latin America, 380,000 primary teachers have been trained between 1957 and 1965. And in the next five years UNESCO member States in Asia, Africa and Latin America will train 2½ million more primary, and nearly one million more secondary school teachers. I believe that this is the top priority. The teachers come before the textbooks. Textbooks can put various glosses on history, it is true, but if there is the right teacher he can put the textbooks into perspective, and if we get the right teachers, we shall get the right textbooks.
But there are other ways in which both UNESCO and the Government could contribute towards the end which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has in mind, and on which I am sure we are all agreed. One admirable UNESCO project, which certainly does not cost much money but does a great deal of good, is the associated schools project, in which schools in various countries of the world exchange letters, ideas and information. Exchanges of all sorts take place between them, which can only lead to greater understanding. It embraces nearly 500 schools in 54 countries. Another scheme run by UNESCO is the gift coupon scheme, by which schools can contribute directly to helping people and organisations in overseas countries by means of gift coupons.
A third current scheme, which I would suggest might be able to help in the field of history, the UNESCO source books. The first book, on science teaching, has sold 400.000 copies in 22 languages and editions in nine more languages are in preparation. The second, on geography teaching, was published in 1955, and others are in preparation on mathematics, biology, chemistry, and health in schools. I would suggest that a source book on history might be able to achieve some of the aims that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has in mind, in suggesting to teachers that they should make independent judgments on the textbooks they receive and seek to use them for further international understanding.
Another suggestion is that maybe the Government could consider sparing a little more money for the Council for Education in World Citizenship. For many years the C.E.W.C. has done an excellent job in our schools. But the rate

451
of Government grant has fallen from £1,000 a year in 1954–55 to £500 in recent years. Although it has been increased to £950, £450 is tied to the appointment of a part-time field secretary, so that on the whole grant has fallen. Possibly here is a field in which a little more generosity could be shown.
If I may stretch the Rules of Order a little, I should like to say something about the other sides of UNESCO'S work. Specifically the Motion refers to the educational side, but I think that it would be a pity if we were to get the idea that UNESCO paid attention only to the educational priorities and not to its scientific and cultural work. After all, we in this country have a particular interest in UNESCO, because it was in London in November, 1945, in association with France, that the first conference was held which resulted in the setting up of the Organisation. The importance of UNESCO can be seen from the fact that it now has a membership of 120 nations and has given service to the cause of peace for 21 years this year. Of its total field programme of some £29 million education takes about £11½ million, and this is closely followed by science with something like £10½ million.
It was in 1964 that UNESCO decided to give equal priority to science and education. This was a natural corollary to what had passed. UNESCO had started teacher-training colleges and other initiatives in member States, but clearly was not capable—nor was it the right instrument—of continuing to run them. It could start them, but it then had to hand them over to member States. And if these States were to run their educational priorities correctly, they had to develop economically and scientifically. So in 1964 UNESCO decided that its scientific activities should take equal priority with its educational policy, and soon after its teacher-training schemes came into effect there followed schemes for training scientists and technologists in the developing countries.
Of the 69 science projects that are now taking place under UNESCO, 43 are in the realm of technical and technological education, covering 32 different countries. The Governments of those countries have contributed over £50 million towards them, and the United Nations Special
452
Fund £17 million. Another scientific project which caught the headlines was in the International Geophysical Year of 1957–58, in which 70 nations collaborated in a major project of studying our planet.
The third branch of UNESCO activities is the cultural branch. As the noble Lord mentioned, the most spectacular effort in this field was the Nubian campaign, which has been successful in preserving the treasures of the Nile Valley. But, at the same time, much practical work is being done, equally in line with what the noble Lord has in mind, on such subjects as the removal of racial prejudice; and recently there has been a major project on mutual appreciation of Eastern and Western cultural values.
In conclusion, I would say again that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for giving us this opportunity of discussing his Question, and particularly of paying tribute to some of the work that is being done by UNESCO. I hope that perhaps on another occasion we may have an opportunity of discussing the work of some of the other United Nations Special Agencies. One practical achievement of which I can assure the noble Lord is that the United Nations Library now know that your Lordships' House has a Library, whereas I have discovered that before they knew only of the House of Commons Library. I very much hope that other practical results will follow from the noble Lord's most interesting Question.

THE ROYAL MINT
3.42 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it may be convenient if, with your Lordships' permission, I now repeat a Statement that has just been made by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is as follows:
"It is twelve years since the rebuilding of the Mint was announced. Since then output has trebled, mainly for export, and capacity for minting the decimal coinage is now also required. The existing site cannot be developed economically for these purposes, and in accordance with the Government's dispersal policy a number of new sites have been examined in the development areas. In the light of this

453
examination the Government have decided that a new Royal Mint should be built at Llantrisant in South Wales. Its first task will be to produce the new decimal coinage and a work force of about 400 to 500 will be recruited, mainly from the surrounding areas. These workers will continue to be needed when the Royal Mint itself moves to Llantrisant, which will be by 1973 at the latest."
That concludes the Statement.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this Statement which has just been made in another place, though I should like to express regret that the Government did not ensure that this news was given first to Parliament, instead of being given to the people of South Wales by the Western Mail this morning. As a former Minister for Welsh Affairs, I am delighted at the fact that the Royal Mint, bringing highly skilled work with it, is coming to Llantrisant. This will certainly do some-think to encourage South Wales and offset the heavy unemployment which has befallen some parts of South Wales in the last year or two. May I ask the noble Lord what arrangements are to be made for the skilled workers at the Royal Mint in London, all of whom may not be able or willing to move their homes to South Wales?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, with his Welsh connections, has felt able to accept the Statement. I suppose he could hardly return to Wales unless he had done so. I regret the fact that this news first appeared in a newspaper, but, as the noble Lord will appreciate, Governments of all complexions have had some concern about a certain degree of leakage. In this case a large number of organisations were aware that consideration was being given to the matter. We examined some twenty different sites in different parts of the country; and it may well be that the jubilation in South Wales was such that a leakage occurred to the Western Mail.
With regard to the skilled staff who are now in the Royal Mint in London, I may say that there will, of course, be a gradual decline in numbers. In the first instance, we shall be starting up with the new
454
decimal coinage minting, and then we shall see a gradual transfer from London. Those of the skilled staff and other work people in the present Royal Mint who may wish to go down to South Wales will be given every encouragement to do so; but for those who do not wish to go—and there may be various personal reasons why they should not—alternative opportunities will be provided in Government Departments or public authorities. The Government will certainly see that what can be done for these people is done.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether his Statement is an indication of what many of us have suspected: namely that the Welsh are far better at making money than the English?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I thought that was the claim in Scotland; but the noble Lord may have a line, so far as the Welsh are concerned.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this Statement will cause great joy and satisfaction to the people of the Principality? The Chancellor of the Exchequer is not a Welshman, but it is obvious that he knows who is to be trusted in making money. Perhaps that is the answer that my noble friend should give to the noble Lord, Lord Byers.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am glad to know that my noble friend is pleased with this Statement. In fairness to those who now work in the Royal Mint, I think I should say that they are producing some 1,400 million coins a year, of which some 800 million are exported. So although there may be some virtue in the Welsh, London can also share in this.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, my noble friend is referring to South Wales. Is there any mystery about the exact place in South Wales? The Press have re-ferred to Swansea. Can he confirm that it will be Swansea?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, there is a town in my brief, but I can only give it my English pronunciation of "Llantrisant". If the noble Lord wishes to know, it is spelt as follows: L-l-a-n-t-r-i-s-a-n-t. I believe that it is some nine miles from Cardiff.
LORD MAELOR: That, interpreted, is Llantrisant.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to say whether all minting operations will eventually cease on the present site, and that the present site will be entirely vacated; or is it intended that some operations of the present Mint should continue?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I understand that by 1973 it is hoped that the whole minting operation will be conducted in the new Mint in South Wales.
LORD REDMAYNE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what are the plans for the present site? Do they take into account the great planning value of the whole of that area of London, stretching through St. Katharine's Docks?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as I understand it, no decision has yet been taken as to how this site will be developed, but I am sure it will be a matter of great interest to certain noble Lords in this House.

EDUCATION AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: ROLE OF UNESCO
3.50 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who has just spoken I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for bringing this problem before the House for examination. It is only when we come to start examining the problem that we must all realise the immense difficulties that confront us, especially those of us who are concerned to maintain world peace and security within the Charter of the United Nations.
The noble Lord who has just spoken referred to the fact that. I think, 40 per cent. of the children of the world were not receiving any education; and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, summed up that number as 700 million out of a world population of something like 3,000 million people. One cannot escape from the conclusion that the solution which is proposed in this connection, broadly speaking, is certainly a very long-term
456
matter. On the other hand, we have to realise that the world to-day is divided into many political camps and many armed camps. There are 120 nations which are members of the United Nations, each of them claiming sovereign equality in the activities of the United Nations.
We have to realise that in almost every country in the world the system of education, such as it is, is geared to the propagation of national patriotism. We are all, I think, conscious of a feeling of patriotism towards our own country: pride in its culture and pride in its history, pride even in its military achievements. We are all proud of the fact that in our own country we have produced Admirals and Generals who compare with those of any other country in the world and we are proud to belong to our own nation. But that applies in practically every country in the world. I think that it would be completely unrealistic to suppose that we could ever secure a change in the teaching of history which would abrogate the nationalistic approach. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that we ought to consider whether it is possible to bring about a lessening of the nationalistic content in our history books; but I think that that would be, in a sense, time wasted. I do not believe that it is the best way to approach the problem: I would approach it in an entirely different way.
Reference was made by the noble Lord who spoke previously to the work of UNESCO. There is no doubt—and I think that some of the facts which he put before the House established that UNESCO has done very fine work during the twenty years that it has been in existence, not only in the sphere of education, but in the sphere of health and social work, and in the sphere of economics. I should like to see UNESCO approaching this matter from another angle altogether, supplementary to the history that is taught in the schools of the world. Indeed, a person does not require to be even literate to be the recipient of propaganda from the Government to which that person belongs. Most of us have lived through two world wars in which both sides were composed very largely of people who were more or less educated. Therefore the existence of illiteracy does not prove too much of an obstacle; it only makes the solution more difficult.

457
I should like to suggest this to my noble friend who will reply to this debate. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will consider whether they could not ask our representative on the Council of UNESCO to make this proposal—and here I disagree with Lord Wade, although I am not sure that he was approaching the matter from the point of view I am about to express. He said he shuddered, I think, at the idea of a world history.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. What I had in mind was that if there were one compulsory history book for everybody setting out the official history of the world, that would be rather an appalling prospect. But certainly as an adjunct to other history books it would be excellent to have a world history.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I am not going to suggest that there should be a history of the world, something on the lines of H. G. Wells's The Outline of History, which I read many years ago. What I suggest is that UNESCO should appoint a Working Party to collect and collate all the historical development of international co-operation. I do not want population figures from all the countries of the world included, and all the economic and social and cultural information, et cetera, in respect of the 122 countries which are represented at the United Nations: I would confine its ambit to the development of international co-operation. Of course, there have been failures, such as the League of Nations. That is history, but it is part of the history of the development of international co-operation. And I should apply it not only in the sphere of security, but also in the sphere of health and education. Even in meteorology we have one of the finest examples of the development of international co-operation that excels international development in almost any other sphere.
I would take just these sections of international co-operation and put them together, and it would in fact be a history of the development of international cooperation. It would not supplant the national history books, which I do not believe is a practical proposition, for the reasons I have given, mainly because of national patriotism and even tribal patriotism. In that connection, we see
458
what is happening in West Africa to-day, in Nigeria, where there is a conflict between the tribes of the country. One has only, as I did the other day, to look at a television feature on the development of Nigeria to realise this. The Ibos in the East, and those in the North or other parts of Nigeria, have an intense patriotism towards their own tribes. I want to supplement that; I want to have something parallel to that national and tribal patriotism. I believe that sooner or later it will have to be done, and I should like to see our own Government put forward this idea of a history, which is not a history of the world but a history of the development of international co-operation over the past years.
Those of us who are strong supporters of the United Nations are faced with the fact that the United Nations Organisation itself is in effect really an agglomoration of 120 countries. It is not a separate entity; it has not its own mind or its own central thought. What it does, whether in the sphere of maintenance of peace or in the educational sphere, depends upon what the Governments in the United Nations will permit and will finance. I am not going to suggest that a world community is just round the corner—of course it is not. We have a long way to go. But surely that does not prevent those right-minded people who believe in the establishment of a world community, based on the rule of law and order, from applying their minds to the preparation of the ground, laying the foundations of a system which will transform the United Nations, which in reality is merely a half-way house, into an eventual world Commonwealth. Those who are responsible in the United Nations should begin applying their minds to preparing the ground for an advance towards the world system which will look at humanity as a whole, and not merely limit their vision within their own national borders. Having said that, I believe that none the less the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has played a useful part in raising this Question and enabling this House to discuss a vital but difficult problem.
4.1 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH:My Lords, I wish to support the general argument behind Lord Wade's Question, and to refer in particular to the latter

459
part of his Question, the importance of activities encouraging a sense of world community, especially in the minds of young people. The Preamble to the UNESCO Charter states that:
"peace must be founded on the moral solidarity of mankind."
In view of the fact that the world is spending £40,000 million or £50,000 million a year on armaments, basically in mistrust of our fellow world citizens, whatever is being done for peace by Governments, by religious bodies, by voluntary societies, by the United Nations and, in particular, by UNESCO, is clearly not enough. And I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, in his Question singled out UNESCO, because that is the Agency which has been entrusted with the particular task of creating a sense of world community.
At the time when Julian Huxley was Director-General of UNESCO he instituted, in 1951, a six-volume History of the Scientific and Cultural Development of Mankind, which deals with:
"the gradual development in its most expressive manifestations of the consciousness of the universal in man."
Although only two volumes of that series have so far appeared, this attempt to emphasise the universal in man—what he shares, rather than what divides him—is to be welcomed. I think this is somewhat parallel with the suggestion that has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, with which I wholeheartedly agree. But what seems to me to be missing and to be needed, if I may say so, is the fashioning of a plan by UNESCO to relate this "master vision of the universal in man" to educational programmes and to teacher training: for I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on the emphasis that he gives to teachers. We have, in fact, drifted into a situation where education has in too large a measure become an accomplice of nationalism.
There are many reasons for this. One is the fact that universal education started about 100 years ago, at a time when nationalism was strong. Thus, certain myths which our Victorian forbears created about various places and people are now built into our educational system, and they have been delightfully parodied in 1066 and All That. These
460
myths are passed on from one generation of teachers to another, even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has shown us with his examples of Cyprus, they have become out of date and are often harmful.
The spirit of world citizenship nowadays is rather more easily caught than taught. There are those who believe that putting a subject into the curriculum will kill it stone dead. Yet I for one am impressed with how much we believe what we are taught. It is this very efficacy of teaching that can hold us back rather than bring us forward, unless the content of education is right. Therefore I believe that more world civics should be taught in schools. This would give a framework towards the appreciation of the history of one's own and other people's nations.
Much more needs to be done, too, in defining what we mean by "world citizen"; whom we would designate as such; how we should encourage a sense of world community. The United Nations has, of course, made attempts in the past to do this kind of thing; but it seems to believe—I think erroneously—that "education for international understanding", which often is only teaching about the ways of other nations, is the same thing as "education for living in a world community". I think, therefore, that UNESCO should get back to the concept which it had in its earlier days, entitled Education for Living in a World Community—a quite different thing, entailing, as it does, some idea of our relationship as world citizens to one another and to the future world authority or world government—call it what you will—and not merely our relationship as British people to our friends or enemies across the Channel or any other particular country. A sense of world community undoubtedly has much to do with human rights, and this present year, which has been declared a "Year of Human Rights" will perhaps do something to clarify it. Certainly, race relations can be considered an acid test of world citizenship.
Meanwhile, my Lords, what is to be done? The need to encourage a perspective in history textbooks free from national bias must be accompanied by an educational content, and indeed an educational experience, to encourage a sense

461
of world community. I should like to give an example from my own experience. Last November, I was invited on an educational cruise with a group of 1,200 schoolchildren from East Anglia. These educational cruises are going on the whole time, and an enormous number of children have the opportunity of sharing this kind of experience. It was a remarkable experience, and an enjoyable one. In the space of only a fortnight we saw something of Venice, Athens, Cairo, Malta and Gibraltar. Days ashore were so planned that one could see something of modern Athens and modern Cairo, as well as being introduced to the Doge's Palace, the Parthenon, or the treasures of Tutankhamen's Tomb.
Those days ashore made an impact, as as indeed did the experience of living as a community in the ship. But what impressed me particularly was the effect upon the children of what they saw in Egypt. The poverty in the back streets of Cairo and Alexandria was something. they particularly noticed, and I suspect that their experience of this was much like my own vivid experience of the High Street in Edinburgh when I was a small child. It was the impression not of the detached, sightseeing tourist, but of children who felt that this was part of their world and their business, and who asked themselves what they could do about it. I believe that this was an exceedingly important element of education in world citizenship.
I have mentioned educational travel, and would draw your Lordships' attention to the excellent work being done by the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges, which publishes an admirable booklet summarising the services in Britain open to the young visitor from abroad. Interestingly enough, this Bureau recommends home-to-home links as the best possible form of encouraging a wider perspective. Then there are school links, working holidays, international camps, foreign work camps, and, of course, holiday study in foreign countries and pen friendships. Side by side with this is the growing custom, and one surely to be fostered, for towns and cities, universities and schools, to establish a twin relationship with kindred bodies in other parts of the world. More than a thousand British secondary schools have established a permanent link with
462
partner schools on the Continent, and this has done much to open the experience of young people to the world at large.
It is established that travel is one of the great growth industries of the 1960s and that the category of most recent growth in recent years has been that of the young traveller. Has not the moment arrived to have a new institution attached to the town or city hall, an international community centre? Undoubtedly something more will need to be done to overcome the challenge of the encounters in this country and all over the world which are going to become increasingly frequent between young people of different nationalities. One practical suggestion for mention in school textbooks as a preparation and background for seeing the world in this context is the need to identify more explicitly the benefactors of the world community, so that they can take their place alongside the gallery of national heroes, who are too often, as has been mentioned more than once, the villains of the neighbouring nation.
Why should not UNESCO organise an international competition among teachers and student teachers all over the world for their choice of who such people are, and why? The idea of benefactors of the human race, as well as national heroes, being suitable for mention in school textbooks has already found expression in an Italian textbook which was published in 1963 for use in their secondary schools. In a section entitled "Gallery of the 20th Century" there is a list, and it is a very interesting one, of 15 persons, with a description of each and why they have been chosen, and it is interesting, too, that only two of those were Italian, one of whom was Pope John. This idea can be and should be extended to various fields, of discovery, of art, of technological and scientific progress, each achievement being presented in relation to the advance made rather than the prestige of the particular country making it.
International co-operation can work if only Governments will let it. This is shown by the example of Antarctica, declared a neutral territory for peaceful purposes by a treaty of the 12 interested nations in 1959. But in this whole matter we should like to see Her Majesty's Government urging UNESCO not merely to be laying the foundations of moral

463
solidarity for peaceful co-existence—that way relatively little can be achieved— but to replace the endemic aloofness of mankind when he is acting in his tribe or nation by a positive programme of partnership. Young people, through War on Want, OXFAM and the like, have shown that this is the way that they want things to go. The outcry about overseas students fees is further evidence. The rapid extension of such enterprises as Voluntary Service Overseas shows how young people respond to what can be done with support from Her Majesty's Government and voluntary efforts.
Another partnership is in the field of education itself, for young people of different nations and of different cultures to share together in an educational experience. The example set by the Sixth Form International College, the Atlantic College at St. Donat's Castle, is, I believe, a very important and notable one, and it merits support and extension. It is for Her Majesty's Government, indeed for every citizen, to consider seriously: he ways and means of encouraging a sense of world community. In some West European countries, particularly the Netherlands, France and Germany, substantial grants are made for programmes of exchange for young people. The 1963 "Franco-German Youth Agreement, whereby young people from France and Ger-many are able to travel to each other's country provided they go with an authorised group, and even receive a subsidy towards the cost of their stay of something like five new francs a day. is now having a significant effect on Franco-German relations.
There has been a desire in France to lave a similar arrangement with this country, but the initiative has so far not seen forthcoming from this country. However, there is a working party on British-German contacts, and let us hope that that can perhaps be the beginning of a more progressive policy in this field. What s needed is for a far greater impetus to be given by all Governments, not only to travel, or even educational travel, but, if possible, by encouraging specialised activities on a global basis, since I suspect that the best way of becoming a world citizen is to join in wherever one is with some local activity; then one really feels part of the new surroundings.
464
One of the most urgent matters on which the Government could take action straight away is to provide in London accommodation for young people of school age from overseas. This is closely linked with the kind of opportunities of which I have just been speaking. There is no building specially designed for use by school groups making study visits to London or passing through, and especially adapted for use by groups or individuals from abroad. What is needed and what has in fact been planned by a group representing 40 voluntary organisations is to build a new international youth hotel in central London. This group. which started to investigate the matter in 1956, envisages a 500-bed hostel in London. There has been hardly any recognition by Her Majesty's Government of their responsibility for helping to provide this, except for a small grant of £350 for preparation of a survey.
The need can be indicated by the fact that more than 60,000 French pupils visit England each summer, more than 30,000 Germans, 12,000 Swedes and 6.000 Finns, to name those four countries alone. There are endless requests for finding London accommodation for school, youth and student groups, and I believe we must try to do something to see that this accommodation is provided. This is something which I hope can be looked into by the Government at the highest level, since the failure to create in London any accommodation, when splendid hostels for this purpose are available in most of the European countries, is an omission which needs correction.
My Lords, I think we need to take much more seriously the place of international understanding and partnership in education for the avoidance of conflict and the creation of the conditions in which peace may be built. If this he one of the major issues of our time, then we must surely look to Her Majesty's Government, in its support for UNESCO and in other ways, to give themselves wholeheartedly in support of every instrument by which peace and understanding may be served. We have entered upon an era when young people will inevitably be made increasingly aware of peoples of other nations. Surely what we look for is that the character and the content of their upbringing shall be such that they can see

465
themselves and their countrymen, together with the peoples of the world, first and foremost as human beings, as fellow members of a world community.
4.20 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I make no apology for beginning by referring to that memorable first sentence of the Constitution of UNESCO, to which my noble friend Lord Wade has also made reference. One is proud of the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, was the author of a phrase which I think will live for all time:
"Since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed."
From the Constitution of UNESCO it is clear that its first purpose is the creation of those "defences of peace" in the minds of men.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich has indicated, in the development of UNESCO there has been a slight departure from that first purpose to other purposes. Therefore it is important to emphasise that in the last resort the final attainment of peace in the world will not depend on Governments; it will not depend on the United Nations; it will not depend on disarmament conferences: it will depend on the degree in which the peoples of the world have a sense of world consciousness, and not only a sense of belonging to their own nation. The French philosopher, Etienne Gilson, has said that,
"the task of UNESCO is to give the United Nations a soul"
The United Nations is the body, but it cannot live for peace without the spirit. The creation of that spirit is the mission of UNESCO, the coming to men of a sense of belonging to the whole family of man.
At the twentieth anniversary of UNESCO, in October last year, the Chairman of the Executive Board, Mr. El Fasi, asked:
"To what extent has UNESCO helped to construct the defences of peace in the minds of men?"
I recognise at once all that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said about the achievements of UNESCO, which are very great; but as he spoke I had in mind also the immensity of the task which it has to
466
fulfil. I had in mind the fact that in the world to-day, a world which technically is becoming smaller with every year that passes, the intensities of national and group antagonisms in the world seem to grow in the same proportion. Regretfully, we must recognise to-day that the success of UNESCO in its great task has been limited. When we ask why, I think that the answer is twofold. First, it has had to operate in a political climate which is not sympathetic to a sense of world consciousness—the great ideological division between East and West, the new nationalisms of nations as they become independent. In that atmosphere, the creation of a sense of world consciousness is difficult. But in addition to appreciating that climate in the world, it is our duty this afternoon to look a little at UNESCO itself, and, still more, to look at the Governments on whose support UNESCO depends.
I want to add to the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to the good works of UNESCO. I think here of my noble friend who is present in the House, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and of the investigations which he made for UNESCO. I think of those two great books Men Against the Desert and Men Against the Jungle, which gave some hope in the solution of the problem of world hunger; but, unfortunately, the lessons were so little applied. I think particularly of one activity which was mentioned by the noble Lord, the Literacy campaign, which gave hope to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people of learning to read. When one has said all that and more, one must recognise that UNESCO has not created among peoples as a whole the image of its purpose, and that for most people UNESCO is still a rather curious jumble of letters, the meaning of which they do not understand.
When one asks where the fault, if fault there is, lies, and looks at the UNESCO organisation itself, I would say that it is suffering from one feature which also applies to other great international agencies: it tends to be a little top-heavy. Many of us have visited its headquarters in Paris, and we have caught the devotion of members of its staff; but I am informed that, of the total staff of 2,600, 1,600 are at the headquarters, a wrong proportion. Even so, there seems

467
to be some maldistribution in the personnel of that staff. The essential responsibility of UNESCO is to extend international understanding; yet I am also told that a few months ago, at any rate, its Department of Education for International Understanding had only three senior officers. The Department has initiated fine projects, and again I want to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare says, particularly in praise of the Associated Schools Project. But its resources are severely restricted, and when one looks at the results and bears in mind the need, how can one be satisfied with the impact which that project has made on five hundred schools? If it was really to influence the thought of school children in different countries, the number should have been at least a hundred times as great as that. The Department has also had its commendable gift coupon scheme which was initiated in 1952, and yet to-day none of us can he satisfied with the fact that it has raised only £500,000 in 14 years.
I want to look at the necessary support from Governments, and especially our own. Article VII of the Constitution asks Governments to set up National Commissions to further the aims of UNESCO. I propose to read items 1 and 2:
"1. Each Member State shall make such arrangements as suit its particular conditions for the purpose of associating its principal bodies interested in educational, scientific and cultural matters with the work of the Organisation. preferably by the formation of a National Commission broadly representative of the Government and such bodies.
2. National Commissions or National Cooperating Bodies, where they exist. shall act in an advisory capacity to their respective delegations to the General Conference and to their Governments in matters relating to the Organisation and shall function as agencies of liaison in all matters of interest to it."
That is to say, the first aim of the National Commissions which are set up is to act with scientific, cultural and educational organisations in order to extend the sense of world consciousness; and the second aim is to act as an advisory body to the Government in relation to the conferences which are held by UNESCO itself.
I would say, from looking at what the Government have done, that they have concentrated on the second purpose and
468
neglected the first. This was put quite succinctly by Mr. Martin, the Secretary of the United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO, and head of the UNESCO Department in the Ministry of Overseas Development, when he was addressing the Education Advisory Committee of the Parliamentary Group for World Government on February 8, 1966. He said that the main task of the National Commission in recent years had been to advise the Government on the attitudes which it should take to the programmes proposed for UNESCO. I do not underestimate the importance of that. Of course it is necessary. The methods of advice are complicated, and I do not propose to discuss them in detail. But I would just say to the representative of the Government that the present procedure means that as regards the final programme which comes before the Biennial Conference of UNESCO there is very little opportunity to amend it or to add useful proposals to it. I think he may find that that will also be true of other Agencies of the United Nations, and I would ask him to look into that subject.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I just ask my noble friend a question? I am not quite sure what he means. Which final programme does he refer to?
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am talking about the procedure as outlined by Mr. Martin in the speech to which I referred, and which I shall gladly hand to the Minister. I am referring to the programme which is submitted to the Biennial Conference of UNESCO by the Director-General. The Director-General prepares an original programme which goes to Governments and National Commissions. They make their comments, it goes back, and the Director-General then prepares a final programme. My complaint is that there is too little time between receiving the final draft and the holding of the Biennial Conference, either for the National Commission or for the Government to make amendments or additions which might be useful.
As I said, there are two purposes for the National Commission: one is to give advice, and the other is to carry on its work of education among the people. I am suggesting, as indeed Mr. Martin has suggested, that the emphasis is placed on advice to the Government, rather than

469
on education among the people. The explanation of the National Commission is that there already exist organisations which undertake these duties—the Council for Education in World Citizenship, the Arts Council, the British Council and others. I submit that the existence of these societies, so far from being an obstacle to activity, provides an opportunity for effective activity. As I said, Article VII says:
"…for the purpose of associating its principal bodies …"
—associating, using, expanding their work in the development of world consciousness.
I want particularly to refer to the Council for Education in World Citizenship. All of us who have attended these quite extraordinary gatherings in the Westminster Central Hall will have seen the children from all over Britain, who for three days listen to experts dealing with international questions. Those who have sat in the group seminars with those children or who have been to their schools know the enormous value of the work which the Council is doing. And yet even with the additional grant of this year, the contribution of the Government to their funds was only £950. I submit that that is a very meagre sum. To the International Bureau of Education the contribution of the Government is only £840. The biggest useful contribution which the Government make is £40,000 from the Department of Education and Science for the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges. I say to the Government that when we are spending over £2,000 million on defence, those are meagre sums for the fundamental task of developing among peoples the sense of world consciousness which must be the basis of peace.
Finally, I want to supplement the criticisms which I have voiced by welcoming recent developments. They are stated in a letter from the Minister of Overseas Development dated June 16 last in reply to a deputation which was led by Sir Edward Boyle on behalf of the Parliamentary Committee for World Government. The letter states that the National Commission is being reconstructed, is to have 25 members, is to have a development sub-committee, a public relations committee and four programme advisory committees. I should
470
like to ask the Minister, if he is within reach of my voice, what has been done since that announcement on June 16 last year in the appointment of those committees and, more particularly, in the activities which those committees have carried out.
My Lords, behind all this the fundamental fact is that the world is technically smaller, but people retain ideological and national divisions. The greatest of all needs to-day is the creation of the mind and spirit that we belong to the whole world. The Prime Minister has recently said that all parties have the ultimate aim of World Government, that UNESCO was set up to inculcate a sense of world community and that some of the best minds are devoting themselves to this task. That is true; but are we giving them adequate help to fulfil that task?
"… since wars begin in the minds of men, it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed".
We are asking the Government to give priority to that aim.
4.41 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for only a very short time in this debate. I was very interested when I saw the Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Wade—and I was particularly interested in the speech which we heard this afternoon from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, which I think was most remarkable. I intervene because I am interested in that part of the noble Lord's Question which talks about:
"… the need for a programme, in addition to its Literacy project, designed to lessen the nationalistic bias in history textbooks and to encourage a sense of world community".
When I read that phrase it occurred to me how very difficult it was to do this. Writing history is, I suppose, one of the most important activities which men and women authors and historians engage in from one generation to another, and it is very difficult to see how this can be done without any bias.
One's attitude to history, it seems to me, is influenced by how far or how near one has been to the events which are recorded in the history books. If one may think in terms of fairly modern events, the attitude of the historian to-day, writing the history of the 1914–18 war, is quite different from that of the historian writing about the war

471
of 1939–45, which is still so fresh in the memories of many of us. In fact it is very difficult to take a detached or dispassionate view of historical events one has lived through, and to get a fair appreciation of those historical events one must, I think, be prepared to read many writers and then to form one's own judgment. I do not think that history can be written without bias, or with no personal flavour of the author.
Furthermore, I do not believe that you can denationalise history. My experience —other noble Lords have perhaps had similar experiences, but mine is still vivid in my memory—was that at the age of 16 I was sent to Paris to be educated in a French lycée, where I spent two years studying the ordinary subjects which school children studied in that period, history being one of them. Hot from an English school where I had been studying the Napoleonic Wars, I suddenly found myself studying the Napoleonic Wars in a class of French girls. The glories of Napoleon, French reactions to the Battle of Waterloo, or the 100 days and what happened at Elba, were taught to the class in the Lycée Victor Duruy in an attitude completely different from the period of study which I had completed in my own school. Both were genuine historical truths, but the emphasis was obviously very different. Imagine trying to write a history of Napoleon which would please the English, the Germans and the French. It would be impossible. Nor would it be true; and after all is said and done however much we want to prepare the world for a peaceful future, one must write the truth of the past. It is a very difficult thing to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, is to follow me in this debate, and no doubt he will draw upon his very great experience of UNESCO, which I have not had. But he and I both belong to the same country. We are both Scots, and I am sure he has had the same experience as I have when making speeches abroad—that is, how astonished people are when told that we fought the English for 300 years. This is an historical fact which I do not hide. This war has now ceased, except on the football field or in the minds of fervid Scottish nationalists, but that does not stop me (and I am sure
472
it does not stop the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder) from being very proud of the fact that I am a citizen of the United Kingdom and not only of Scotland.
It would be impossible to write the history of Scotland and leave out wars, whether they were religious or national. And I do not believe that it would make nations more peaceful if this were done elsewhere. What has happened in history is ploughed into the soil of every nation. It is the stuff of which nations are made; and the further back you go the deeper it is dug into the soil. What is more (if I may continue the agricultural metaphor), it is organic in the soil. It melts and disappears, and becomes part of the soil, unable to be separated again. I believe that this process is part of the life of every nation, and need not lead to modern nationalistic behaviour, although admittedly nationalistic behaviour still exists.
The reasons for the last terrible war are all too well-known, and no writing of history would have deterred the Nazis. No writing of history could or would, I hope, want to cut out this period, because it was a terrible period. It is part of world history. UNESCO has a real obligation, as has any other teaching or writing of history, to tell what happened in history as it happened, and I think it would be impossible to find textbooks which were accurate which did not tell those facts. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, quoted some terrifying passages from textbooks in use in Cyprus, but I wonder whether it is not possible for the answer to be given in recommendations from UNESCO for books which do not give that very fierce bias which were given to the House this afternoon in his quotations.
Presumably when asked, UNESCO recommends books to teachers, and to recommend those which give many points of view would in my opinion be the right course for them to adopt. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that there is no greater urgency than to get more teachers for the developing countries, and I hope that the books used will be simple, straightforward accounts of historical developments, if possible unbiased, but in any case factual and honest. To build a world community is, of course, what all of us should work towards, but it will take many years.

473
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich has outlined many of the modern methods which can be and are being developed. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway., mentioned the work of the International Exchange Council and of the Council for World Citizenship, both of them excellent and admirable organisations. These are the modern ways in which young people come together and plan or hope to plan for a world community. This I believe to be a better way than the idea that you can obliterate the past by the way in which you write history books, and we should give UNESCO the responsibility for disseminating history in all its aspects, rather than history written for a special purpose. I hope that the Government will support the organisations which aim to broaden the educational view, but I also hope that nobody will consider that the re-writing of history books will obliterate the past or make the future any easier.
4.50 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, in my —I should say "our"—highly civilised country, we have now ritualised the religious wars into the Rangers v. Celtic football match. Time is a great healer. If only we had enough time to cope with the world situation, we might succeed in doing what the English and Scots have done. For example, it was once true that thirty Elliots were hanged over Berwick Bridge; and I am not sure now who knows whether it was the Scots or the English who hanged them. That is one example of how you can, in fact, begin to forget. My father died at the age of eighty-two never having shaken hands with a Campbell, because the Campbells of Loch Awe in 1547 had carried off the heiress of the Calders and forcibly married her. So my father never shooks hands with a Campbell all his life. I am a professor of international relations; I have to shake hands with the Campbells.
We do advance, but the trouble is that even when we are supposed to be speaking the same language—and we Scottish and English have approximately the same language—we find, in fact, that we are creating international misunderstanding. For example, during the Cuban crisis I found myself being driven across
474
New York by one of those talkative New York cab drivers. It was the morning after President Kennedy had declared the "quarantine" of the island of Cuba. My Lords, the word "quarantine" is one of those weasel words that are going to cause a great deal of trouble and are going to confuse history. It had, in fact, confused this cabby.
He wanted to know what "quarantine" meant. I told him that it meant blockade: that the blockade was a hostile act and that the first shots across the bows of a Russian convoy would mean a shooting war. The cabby took all this very soberly and seriously, and said, reasonably: "But if them Russki ships have nothing to hide, why don't they just stop and let us look-see?" I said that that was a very interesting question, and that there was once a British ship, called H.M.S. "Leopard", which stopped an American ship, called the "Chesapeke", "just for a look-see". One thing led to another, and then we British burned the White House. He swung the cab into the kerb, pulled up and said: "The British burned the White House?" I said, "Yes". He turned round and said, "Ruddy Commies!" When I explained to him that this was the war of 1812 and that he was confusing the Redcoats with the Reds he was prepared to let bygones be bygones.
It may be that some noble Lords have forgotten that we burned the Capitol and the White House in Washington. The oversight is entirely forgivable, because the war of 1812 is liable to be dismissed in a line or a paragraph in our history books. We were rather preoccupied with the Napoleonic Wars. But it fills chapter after chapter in any American junior history book and fills them with lurid cartoons and pictures. I quote a current American high school book:
"In 1814 the British General Ross entered Washington and with barbarism which distinguishes the Vandals of the Middle Ages, but which is unknown to civilised warfare. his troops burned not only the Capitol hut its extensive library and records pertaining not to war but to peace and civilisation."
My Lords, memory has long knives and history books sharpen them. To encourage something we call patriotism, or nationalism, or just tribalism or parochialism, they glorify victories, no matter what the price of those victories; they foster grievances, build up archetype enemies

475
and give them labels and names. They romanticise squalid episodes; forget what is inconvenient or disgraceful, and just ignore the achievements which are the web and woof of the common pattern of mankind—the kind of thing to which my noble friend Lord Rowley is asking UNESCO to pay some further account. As Nehru pointed out in his Letters from a Father to His Daughter, to Indira, then aged ten, anyone would think that all history happened in the West; that the only culture which mattered and had ever mattered was the Graeco-Roman tradition. Or, as Professor Patrick Blackett, President of the Royal Society, once said at an international conference:
"If a man from Mars had arrived on Earth any time between 3,000 and 500 B.C. he would have concluded that the people of the Near and Middle East were the superior beings of this Earth but between 500 A.D. and 1,500 A.D. he would have decided in favour of the Chinese and the Indians."
We, incidentally, in Western Europe would have been the Barbarians.
H. G. Wells did his best to get things straight and in perspective in The Outline of History, and Sir Julian Huxley, as has been mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, inspired and initiated, when he was Director General (and followed through in 1951), the scheme under the aegis of UNESCO, The History of Mankind. There are six volumes, as the right reverend Prelate also pointed out. The first and quite outstanding volume by Jacquetta Hawkes and Leonard Woolley, dealing with pre-history, has been published, in many languages, all over the world and has been received with universal acclaim. Another, I think, has also been published. But the subsequent volumes, because we are moving forward into the history of present States have all had to overcome enormous difficulties.
Why is this? Because, my Lords, UNESCO is not a supra-national body, but an inter-governmental body; and no matter how much it claims objectivity and independence for the project (in fact, it did bulkhead this project by sponsoring it and making it self-sufficient), it cannot ignore the sensitivity and querulousness of Member States. Nevertheless, those volumes, when completed, will be a very remarkable achievement and very much in accord with what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is asking. And,
476
in substance, I suggest, they will go a considerable way towards that for which my noble friend Lord Rowley is asking—although I appreciate that he is asking for the spelling out, in more specific terms than we have yet seen, the common achievements of mankind towards international understanding. But the problem with The History of Mankind will be to ensure its world-wide dissemination, in 49 or 50 languages, and its reflection in the school textbooks. How does one get it into the schools themselves? This is not comparative history; it is not a comparison of history of nations. It is an attempt to bring through loud and clear, the nature of the common history of mankind.
My Lords, the price of common understanding, for which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, is asking, is eternal vigilance. I, like the noble Baroness, believe that it is humanly and institutionally impossible to fumigate or decontaminate all class books of mistakes, abuses and historical obscenities. I am cynical enough to believe that it is impossible to expect even scholarly historians to do this. History is not a compendium of proven facts; it is a critique of half-truths, however well-intentioned and however well-vetted. Read the accounts by our Generals and Admirals turned historians and compare the accounts, not of their adversaries, but of their colleagues, their brothers-in-arms. One wonders whether they were written about the same war or whether it was a private war of their own. Or read historians reviewing other historians. Or compare your own living experience of events with the rationalisations which eventually appear in historical appreciations.
I lived through an agonising period in the Congo, travelling 10,000 miles though all the provinces. I saw for myself, and investigated instances, and delved into the murky international conspiracies, which were as fetid as the swamp forests themselves. This was in 1960, at the beginning of all our troubles, and I am appalled by what passes as objective accounts of the period and, more particularly, by the utter perversion and travesty of the United Nations' role there. Yet I know that my own account is charged with the emotion of circumstance and distorted by the myopia of events. I can only be —and this is as it should be—a witness,

477
and my testimony should be judged with that of others; but in all historical appreciation it depends on what case you are trying to prove.
My Lords, one of the things we are trying to do through UNESCO, and indeed the example very usefully being shown by British publishers, is to provide, as we have to as a producer-country, textbooks, history books and so on for the new countries. We are in fact—and the publishers themselves are—getting the local people to do not so much the translation as the interpretation of these books. History books and history teaching tend, as we know, to stop at a safe distance from contemporary events. Living history is distrusted as journalism—although reputable journalists (and I hope I may include myself in that description) are in fact the true historians of our time—and treated in schools as current events. I am all for this. Frankly, I would rather that the schools were dealing with current events than with prejudiced history or what passes as history, which is often sheer flamboyancy.
I do not underestimate the value of dealing with current events, because the younger generation do not read contemporary history with the bloodshot eyes of old feuds, or the bigotry of ideological prejudices. For instance, this year is the 50th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Every one of us here have subjective feelings about that Revolution and about the intervening years; but I have a feeling that the younger generation will take less account of October, 1917, than of October, 1957, the occasion when the U.S.S R. launched the first space satellite. Indeed, my Lords, I would utter an absolute heresy: I would say that for the younger generation, including certainly many of my own students in Edinburgh, history began in 1945. Everything before that is pre-history or "classical", something to be studied as a discipline or with the detachment with which we study the Peloponnesian War or speculate where Hannibal got his elephants.
For them 1945 was not only the end of a great war, it was the beginning of a new age into which they were born: the Atomic Age, followed by the Computer Age of cybernetics and automation, by the Space Age in which man first broke
478
the gravitational fences of his planet; and the D.N.A. Age, perhaps the most portentous of all, because in D.N.A., deoxyribonucleic acid, we have the information code which chemically instructs cells how to grow and differentiate and determines the heredity of succeeding generations. This is the secret of life, and when we think of what we did with the secret of matter, exploding it as a cataclysmic bomb, we have reason for misgiving about the secret of life unless we apply wisdom to science.
It is against this background, my Lords, that the younger generation is now confronted with the necessity for common understanding. All this has happened in 22 years—telescoping eras, each as significant as the Iron Age, or the Bronze Age, or the Renaissance or the Industrial Revolution, all in the lifetime of those who have barely reached their majority. They were born into a world so drastically changed that their elders who still deal with world affairs—regrettably, according to the protesters—have not quite grasped what in fact has happened. But the younger generation do grasp it. They take all the marvels for granted. They know that this is a small planet round which a man-made satellite can travel 16 times a day; a planet so diminished in time and distance that it has become a neighbourhood. You may not like your neighbours in a neighbourhood, but one thing is true—you cannot ignore them; you have to try to understand them. With communication satellites we bring events on the other side of the world into our sitting rooms. Events intrude upon everyday life. Events are like nuclear fission: they produce a chain reaction. They flash-weld the world into one. Therefore, my Lords, in our concern to straighten out history books, let us consider the history which is being written with the speed of light by the radio waves of our eavesdropping neighbourhood.
I sympathise very profoundly with the intention of the Question. I am sure that UNESCO sympathises, too—I mean the UNESCO Secretariat as such. But UNESCO is an inter-governmental organisation of 122 sovereign nations. What has been suggested for it means that it would have to try to rationalise all the history books of the world. To "vet" the textbooks of all its members would be

479
a task of absolutely inconceivable magnitude. It can, as it has done in The History of Mankind, provide an honest prototype and hope that it member-States will respect the objective truths. It has produced a matrix of history for which the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has been asking and which in part meets the point made by my noble friend Lord Rowley. It is the job for member-States, including our own, to do the conversion. As our contribution to healthier world thinking we should be interpreting history, not in terms of battles long ago but of present realities and opportunities for better understanding.
My Lords, I ask Her Majesty's Government very seriously to consider the ways and means by which they can synchronise the teaching with the new awareness of the young, and encourage the world sense which they have and which so many of us do not have. This, I would say, is the stuff of education itself, which is not merely a question of how we are going institutionally to try to meet the points raised in the Question.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referred, as did my noble friend Lord Brockway, to that quite exemplary institution, the Council for Education in World Citizenship. With as much enthusiasm, almost with more enthusiasm, I want to back what they have said. It is quite a remarkable organisation. Some of your Lordships, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Brockway, may know of its activities at Central Hall. Some of you, like myself and my noble friend Lord Brockway may have been victims of this organisation. this Conference at Central Hall. I say "victims" of this organisation because it is one of the most exacting and devastating experiences in the world. I have seen eminent Members of your Lordships' House under cross-examination and castigation by sixth-formers and I have seen their arguments torn up and thrown out of the window. I will not mention names—I might even include my own if I did. I hope that those who have had this experience have enjoyed it and have benefited from it as much as I. It is cathartic; it is like an intellectual nature cure.
But that occasion, that annual event, is only one of the continuous activities
480
of C.E.W.C. all over the country—probing, analysing, criticising, rejecting, handing over this analysis to the young people who are not yet cynical or prejudiced or corrupted by what passes as history. This is the stuff of contemporary history; this is how it ought to be dealt with—at the receiving end, among the people who arc going to be responsible for the world of the future. C.E.W.C. is one of the ways in which modern history can be understood.
There are other ways in which a sense of world community can be encouraged, and I also subscribe to the appreciation of other organisations which have been mentioned. The greater encouragement of all this is our British responsibility. It is not something we have to pass over to UNESCO. It is something we have to do for and through UNESCO, but it is our responsibility. It is a continuing service for the aims and objects of UNESCO and for the intention underlying the noble Lord's Question.
I go round the world praising organisations such as these, of which we have created the prototype. Nevertheless, I am ashamed of my country and of my Government when it comes to admitting what we pay to them for doing it. We have heard that C.E.W.C. gets £950 a year. It is true that much of its work is done through education authorities, and I must pay tribute to those authorities who are inspired to help the cause of world understanding. But what are we expecting of the devoted servants of this organisation, some of whom have been working in it for many years? I admire them enormously for staying. They have given their lives to this work, with little recognition, though I am sure with a great deal of personal satisfaction and achievement. It is a shame that we should all underestimate their efforts.
It has been suggested that we should show what people are, outside the heroes, the great figures of history. Every year UNESCO promotes on a world scale the recognition of centenaries. Next year will be the 150th anniversary of the birth of Karl Marx. I am glad to say that at the General Conference of UNESCO the Russians came, with surprising timidity, but perhaps with latent bluster behind it, and asked that Karl Marx should be recognised. There was no resistance from any part of the world,

481
because we were talking about something, the recognition of someone who has had a profound influence on mankind, which can be done objectively through UNESCO. It strips away all ideology and on this we can have common ground.
Many years ago, when I was on the original UNESCO United Kingdom delegation, we proposed a series, "Of Human Excellence", and submitted a list of people who had made their imprint on the world in the things in which every community was interested. We did not get away with that. J. B. Priestley proposed an Order of Merit on a world scale, an Order of World Citizenship. I think that this was a brilliant idea, because it was an accumulator. We could have nominated six in the first year, 60 in the next year, 600 the year after, then 6,000 and then 6 million, until finally we secured recognition that merit was for the accomplishments of the common citizen.
I hope that I shall not forestall anything my noble friend on the Front Bench will say in referring to the questions of my noble friend Lord Brockway. I declare an interest here, because I was British delegate at the General Conference last year and I am a member of the National Commission of UNESCO. It is true that over many years we have been neglectful of the real purposes of the National Commission. I believe that too much emphasis has been placed on its second function, that of advising the delegation. But I assure your Lordships that the United Kingdom Commission has been reorganised, and briefing in anticipation of the General Conference is going forward.
I would give my noble friend this assurance about the biennial programme. In the past Governments have found themselves confronted with a fait accompli too late for the National Commission to influence events, but we are now moving into every department ahead of time to try to find out what they propose to do, I hope constructively and not negatively, and on these lines lies the encouragement that we shall be prepared for the next General Conference. We are still a long way from achieving total international understanding, but in a world of about 3,400 million people, of whom over half are illiterate and of
482
whom, at least in the developing two-thirds of the world, half are under the age of 15, that is to be expected. I follow the right reverend Prelate in believing that the young generation throughout the world, because they have been born into a world of awareness, will be receptive if our methods of communication are not the poison gas of propaganda and the paralysing gas of apathy.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I have heard with great appreciation what my noble friend said in reply to the points that I raised. I do not think that they have been publicly stated before and I am delighted that they should be stated now.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, we went to the last General Conference pretty well confronted with something we could not radically change, and now we say that, so far as the next two years are concerned, we are going to see in advance what we can helpfully do.
5.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, when I heard the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, and of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, on the subject of the inevitable nationalistic bias in history's teaching, my mind went back to the middle-1920s when it was my duty to teach American history to American schoolboys in the ancient city of Philadelphia, the city in which the Declaration of Independence was signed. I felt a certain degree of nervousness at the situation, but I believe that it all went very well. Youth is generous and youth is humorous. We both laughed a good deal that I should be expounding to American boys the iniquities of Lord North and George III. Perhaps I was in the position to explain that those characters were to be blamed rather for stupidity than for ill-will; and when it came to the burning of the White House I was able to explain that it was a retaliatory burning in revenge for the burning of Toronto by American troops in the same war.
I believe that we exaggerate the importance of the textbooks and the bias contained in them; and I believe that, at least in civilised countries, that bias is gradually disappearing. The last time I

483
was in America I noticed that American schoolchildren were learning their geography from a book with the inspiring title of One World.
I have heard a great many highly informative and able speeches, and I find little that I can add to them. I was particularly interested in the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. This is a matter in which the Churches can have a considerable degree of influence in many countries, and not least in the new nations of Africa. Education is still largely in the hands of Christian bodies, and they are in a position to influence, to some extent, the historical teaching that is given in the schools of these new nations.
I will not try to add to the words which the right reverend Prelate has uttered, but I should like to render to him the support of some 2,400 Prelates who constituted the Second Council of the Vatican. In December, 1965, that Council, after full and careful discussion, adopted a document entitled The Church in the World To-day. One important chapter in that document concerned the necessity for peace and the means that should be adopted to avoid international war. With your Lordships' permission, I will quote the penultimate paragraph of that chapter, because it should certainly be on record in any discussion such as we have had today. It is the paragraph most relevant to the subject under discussion. It reads:
"The strenuous and ceaselessly prolonged examinations of peace and disarmament problems, and international conferences about them, must be considered the first steps towards a solution which need to be pressed forward with great urgency in the future if they are to achieve practical results. Nevertheless, men should beware of committing themselves only to the efforts of others without taking trouble about their own minds. Statesmen are not only answerable for the public welfare; yet they depend very much on public opinion and sentiment. It is no use their setting out to establish peace so long as feelings of hostility, contempt and mistrust, racial hatreds or obstinate ideologies divide men and set them against each other. Our greatest need is to reorientate people's minds, to re-educate public opinion. Educators, especially of the young, and those who shape public opinion, should think it a most serious duty to create in the minds of all a new feeling for peace. All of us, indeed, must change our hearts, looking to the wide world and to those tasks we can perform together to help our race to better itself."
5.25 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I should like first of all to associate myself with those noble Lords who have expressed appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for initiating this discussion this afternoon, and for the well-informed and interesting speech with which he introduced it. Our discussions this afternoon have turned mainly upon UNESCO—what it does, and what it might be expected to do. It is the case, I think, that UNESCO, if I may borrow a phrase which I think was used by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has failed to impress the image of its purpose upon the nations. if by that the noble Lord meant that it has failed to impress the image of its purpose upon the people, I should certainly agree with him; and I should feel no sense of disappointment, because UNESCO is not the sort of organisation that will ever impress the image of its purpose on the public mind. It is essentially an organisation which exists to influence Governments. If we can say that it has succeeded in impressing the image of its purpose on Governments—and I think it probably has—then UNESCO is in fact performing the task for which it was created.
I must confess that when I first read the terms of the noble Lord's Question I felt a certain amount of apprehension. My alarm was aroused by the latter part of the Question, in which he calls for a programme:
"designed to lessen the nationalist bias in history textbooks …"
We have not heard much this afternoon about that part of the Question. The noble Lord himself gave us some instances of that which I think illustrated clearly what may happen if that particular mode of propaganda is employed. Indeed, in our generation we have watched this happen again and again in Communist States, Fascist States and totalitarian States of all kinds: they seek to influence the minds of men through children's textbooks. This is a dangerous principle to follow, and I am glad that we have not heard UNESCO pressed too vigorously to revise the textbooks which are used in teaching in schools. It is a subtly dangerous thing to do. It is not dangerous only because the wrong material may be found in textbooks; it is dangerous, too, because some things

485
which ought to be included in textbooks are left out.
I should regret the use in English schools of textbooks which made no reference to the great service which this nation paid to India during the period of our rule there. Britain brought to India two things which India never had before and which she has never had since. We brought to the Indian continent peace, and we brought unity. We brought an end to the continuous strife which we found in that continent when we went there. In the short period since we have left India, the Indian Government have been engaged in two wars, one with another nation of the Commonwealth.
I personally should regret to find in English textbooks no reference to the great services which this country has rendered to the peoples of Africa. In less than a century we have brought civilisation to places where—let us be frank about it—barbarism existed before we went there. True it is that we have not been wholly successful in establishing in the African States the Parliamentary system upon which they were founded, but the time may yet come when Parliamentary government may make better progress in Africa than it has done hitherto. Surely it is a good thing that each generation should be taught something of the services that the British people have rendered in those two great continents. My Lords, there is nothing unduly nationalistic about that.
I should regret, and deeply regret, if some movement were made to eliminate references of that nature in the textbooks used in schools. It is a regrettable fact—but it is, I fear, a fact—that there are many persons in the world to-day who condemn every act this country ever does, or has ever done, as blameworthy, merely because it has been done by the British people. I hope that persons who hold these views—and I regret to say that sometimes they seem to be not uncommon —will have no part in deciding what ought to have a place in school textbooks. It is just as important that these textbooks should contain the acts for which this country can be justly proud, and not only those acts for which it can be condemned.
There is not much more I desire to say. There is, I think, in all these questions a danger that we may teach children that there exists some agency to which their
486
loyalty and legitimate pride should be directed, rather than to their own native land. I cannot think it is wrong to bring children up to love their country and to respect its institutions; to respect what their country has done in the world. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for having eliminated from his speech any suggestion of that sort. I am sure that that means that this afternoon we all wholeheartedly endorse what he has said in opening this most interesting discussion.
In conclusion, my Lords, perhaps I may offer a word of apology to the noble Lord who is going to reply for the Government. Because I have an engagement, from which I cannot escape, at six o'clock, I shall not have the good fortune to be here to hear him wind up this discussion.
5.32 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for raising these issues of international misunderstanding caused by education. Having studied history after the First World War, not only at Oxford but also at Bonn University and later at the Sorbonne, I am particularly conscious of these difficulties. I believe that a measure of international education is a most valuable corrective to nationalism in textbooks, and that this will become much more important when we enter Europe, especially important perhaps at teacher training level. Several speakers in the debate have drawn attention to the disappearance, the slow disappearance, of differences between England and Scotland over the centuries, and I should certainly hope that something similar can be achieved at least in Europe.
Two current examples of international education, in both of which I must declare an interest, are the Atlantic College at St. Donat's Castle in South Wales and the European Institute of Business Administration at Fontainebleau. I mention these examples because otherwise the phrase "international education" seems rather obscure. The Atlantic College, now expanding to about 240 students, is a sixth-form or pre-university college, with boys from thirty countries, about one-third of them from Great Britain. They are aged from 16½ to 18½—old enough to want to know about the

487
world, but still young enough to be impressionable and free from fixed prejudices. After only four years the Atlantic College has sent its students to a hundred and one universities all over the world, thus proving that this sort of education can be a great success. It is only the first of a chain of international colleges mixing boys of different nationalities and different social origins.
The Atlantic College is taking part in the negotiations of the International Schools Examination Syndicate at Geneva, which aims at producing an international Baccalaureate examination. This, if generally accepted, would vastly diminish the present difficulties which make it hard for a boy of one country to go to a university in another. I believe that developments of this sort would do more than almost anything else to diminish the misunderstandings which are caused by education. I mention these negotiations, which are really of great importance and significance, because they already seem to be leading to a more unified and less nationalistic attitude to school curricula as regards history. Probably in the end there will have to be some real meeting of minds about the contents of textbooks. Perhaps UNESCO can help. I agree with those who have said how very difficult this is, and if we think of the terrible events we have seen in two World Wars in our lifetime we realise that it is extremely hard to produce objectivity among writers of history about them. Meanwhile, it is good for the students at St. Donat's and other international colleges to beat these problems out for themselves and to compare the textbooks on history which they bring from their own countries.
Secondly, I mentioned the European Institute of Business Administration at Fontainebleau. This is a sort of all-European Harvard business school. We teach the most modern business management techniques in English, French and German to post-graduate students from a great many countries. The British students, I am glad to say, seem to do particularly well there. We are producing at Fontainebleau a race of businessmen able to operate in several languages in any part of Europe or America, or indeed beyond. When these
488
carefully selected men from the Atlantic College or the European Institute of Business Management, or other similar institutions, get to the top of the tree, as in due course many will, their training and the links they will have with similar men in other countries can hardly fail to be an inestimable asset for the cause of better international understanding.
Let us not exaggerate. These institutions which I have mentioned are still on a very small scale. They are a begining of something which may, and perhaps should, become a feature of the new world which the computer revolution is now producing. For everywhere the great companies and new industrial groupings are spreading out across the frontiers. Names like Shell, I.C.I., Unilever, Philips, Olivetti, and many others, are a household word in several continents. The men needed by these vast concerns are not likely to be produced by a narrow nationalism in education. We all need to move forward to new conceptions, such as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has adumbrated. And for this purpose I believe that a measure of international education would seem to offer valuable advantages.
5.39 p.m.
LORD GRIDLEY: My Lords, as I am the last speaker in this debate, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a very few minutes before the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, winds up and makes his comments on the speeches of various noble Lords. While sympathising with the obvious sincerity lying behind the Motion which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, the object of which is in the interests of world peace, nevertheless I find it difficult to define precisely in practical terms the term in the Motion, "nationalist bias", as portrayed in history books. The noble Lord, Lord Wade, has given us some examples of an excessive national bias, which I think are a quite obvious danger to world peace. So far as our own nation is concerned, I do not think we are guilty of this with regard to our own history. I also submit that we are not guilty of any excessive national bias.
I am a believer in the Commonwealth of Nations and the origin of its evolvement, with all its ideas and attainments,

489
and in particular our association with our friends in that community. I feel that this community, as it exists, is an example of how a world community should evolve in a wider sense. I am also concerned that we may fail in our contribution to world peace. We may fail because we shall not be strong enough in placing before the world community the great experience which has come to us from our associations with other nations in this Commonwealth which has evolved, and which would be of great benefit to the world community at large. After all, there was a time when we extended our influence over one-quarter of the globe.
With regard to the period of time in our history which has been covered by noble Lords in this debate, I should like to speak of a period which is nearer to the present time. We have been through the momentous occasions of two world wars, and that is a period of which I can speak from my own experience. In addition to that, having been a member of the Colonial Service overseas, giving effect to the policies of Her Majesty's Government, whether Labour or Conservative, I have been able to see for myself the effects of those policies, emanating no doubt from deliberations in another place and from deliberations of noble Lords in this House. Living among the people who are directly affected by these policies I have been able to see the results, and it is only right to say that they have been invariably good. Mistakes we have made, but on the whole we have done far more good than harm.
My Lords, it is worth while giving a few examples of what we have done in the territories for which we were responsible. I will give only a few examples, and I hope that they will be recorded in our history for posterity. We respected race, religion and local custom in all the territories which we administered. The rights of every individual were respected. We were second to none in seeing that there was no exploitation of the local community, and that all revenues which accrued from trading were paid into the coffers of the countries which we administered. Thus roads, hospitals, schools and universities were built, to the benefit of the local population. All these benefits were paid for indirectly by traders from this country,
490
a fact which is often forgotten at the present time.
I know another country in Europe which had possessions in a part of the world in which I served, the revenues of which went towards the revenues of their home Government. We would never contemplate anything like that, and it is worth remembering these things when we call into question any act of our own. A national bias is right, provided that we stand for what is right. There is very little wrong with what we have done, and we have done much that has benefited a great number of people.
What else did we do? We enacted labour codes to protect the workers in all areas from exploitation. Later, and as the countries advanced, we recruited trade union advisers from the Trade Union movement of this country to represent the workers locally and to train them to bargain in a free community, to the advancement of their own prosperity and status. All the time we trained people to manage their own affairs and to take over the posts we held, to our eventual extinction.
We must get out of the habit of making excuses for ourselves. We can only help world peace by insisting that much of what we have done is recorded for the benefit of all and for others to follow, if they desire to do so. It would seem that the examples we set and the precepts we followed would fit well into any pattern designed for a contented world community, living at peace, as an example for the United Nations to follow.
5.48 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, I must crave your Lordships' indulgence for not having put my name down on the Marshalled List, but I have been abroad until to-day. I wish briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Wade, in his Unstarred Question from my own personal experience with regard to history. I went to schools in six countries—convents, boarding schools, day schools, high schools, pensions, and eventually to a boarding school in England. I certainly had a comprehensive education, but my history was fragmentary.
Perhaps I may give an illustration of what I had to reconcile in my mind. I learned in France, of course, that Charlemagne was the great French Emperor.

491
I learned in Germany that Karl der Grosse was the greatest Emperor they had ever had, and it was not until I came back to boarding school in England that I discovered it was the self-same person. Nevertheless, I think I benefited from having had a three-dimensional characterisation of this one man, and learning European history in Europe is certainly a tremendous advantage, for which I am grateful.
I was struck by the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, that the Foreign Office might inquire into the attitude that other countries take towards us in their history books. Perhaps I might give him this example, which again I experienced in the United States of America, when I was in New York in 1952. I went round some of the elementary schools and a teacher asked whether the children might ask me questions. I said, "Certainly", and the first question I was asked, by a young boy of about 10 or 12, was, "How much subsidy do you still get from your Colonies?" This was in 1952, and regretfully I was reinforced in my opinion that United States foreign policy was still, so far as Colonialism was concerned, based on the Boston Tea Party.
Then of course one has had personal experience of the divergence between our Churches, and between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England in particular, which are united in my family in a particular way. We remember the fulminations of the Pope against the Protestant heretics in the old days, and the vilification of the scarlet woman by the Protestant heretics on their side. Now this is all being brought together, understood, and the exaggerations removed. I was struck by a member of my family, who is a Catholic, who came to an English Communion service and was almost horrified by the fact that it was almost identical with her own Mass. This shows that when people come together in discussion or in reading or writing history, many of these misunderstandings disappear.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. I do not think it is possible for modern history to be unbiased. After all, it is written by living people about people still living, or just
492
recently dead, and it would be a dull form of history if this were reduced to a sort of encyclopædic monologue. But as to past history, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has raised a most important matter in regard to school textbooks. I greatly hope that, should we go into the Common Market, there will be a European University where perhaps special research may be made into European school textbooks, not with a view to making them all the same, but with a view to bringing to light exaggerations or gross omissions, so that in Europe we may grow together from childhood upwards in a friendly way.
I believe that this will be especially important in view of the writing of history which must be going on in the Communist countries at the present moment, and which I am afraid we should consider biased. What the historical teaching in China is at the moment, I tremble to think. Therefore I feel that we are greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Wade for having put down this Question. There is a great deal of work to be done, especially, I think, in school textbooks, and I hope that, certainly in Europe, when the Community grows together, it will work together on this aspect.
5.52 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I should perhaps apologise to the House for intervening at all because, owing to an engagement fixed a long time ago, I have missed most of this debate, including a number of speeches which I particularly wished to hear. I shall be brief, but I want to raise one matter which I believe to be of some importance. The first thing that struck me about the terms of the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, which has given rise, I am assured on all hands, to a most interesting debate, is the entire absence of mention of the word "truth". I cannot help thinking it very important that the textbooks should try to tell the truth, and I do not suppose anybody will differ from that view.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, mentions in his Question one possible source of distortion, of the truth; namely, nationalism. But if there is in a particular textbook a distortion through nationalist feeling, there is at least a possibility of that being corrected by

493
another book with perhaps a different bias; and both those biases may, of course, be unconscious. But there is little remedy against the bad influence of a hook which deliberately lies, and, unfortunately, such books have been deliberately published by UNESCO. I shall, of course, proceed to give an example, to which I drew the attention of this House nearly five years ago, and the Foreign Office Minister who answered my Question admitted that the facts were as I stated them.
We shall not necessarily get more accurate books if we try to exclude any single influence that may effect a particular historian. In such study of history as I made at school, and when I read Greats at Oxford, I hope that I learned the value of turning to original sources and trying to discover the truth to the best of my ability. In this short debate, in which I think I am the thirteenth speaker, I happen to be the fourth Rugbeian, though I am afraid that I am very much senior to any of the others who have spoken, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. We had a great teacher in my day, the late Mr. Hastings, and I think I learned a little from him about trying to ascertain the truth; and I learned a good deal more when I read Greats at Oxford, though the periods of history I then studied were the Classical periods in Greece and Rome.
But what is the record of UNESCO? Here my memory may be playing me false, but I believe that at one time UNESCO set about trying to create a new history of the world, but in order to be free from any kind of bias it decided to omit Christianity. That was not, if I am right in my facts, perhaps the most useful way to produce a good history of the world, because, whatever may be thought of the disruptive effects of introducing Christianity when Christianity is not a universial religion, a world history written without mention of Christianity was most unlikely to be true.
Let me come to my example of the publication by UNESCO of a book that deliberately lied. On December 18, 1962, I tabled a Question in this House:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether UNESCO has recently published a booklet called Equality of Rights between Races and Nationalities in the U.S.S.R.; whether the authors (inter alia) thus describe the annexation
494
of the Baltic States: 'In 1940 the Soviet régime was restored in the Baltic republics which voluntarily joined the Union'; where responsibility for this publication lies; and what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to secure its immediate withdrawal and to prevent the funds of UNESCO from being used in future for a work of such a character?"—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, Vol. 245, col. 1017, 18/12/62.]
That, my Lords, was the Question. The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, at that time my noble friend Lord Dundee, replied in these words:
"My Lords, the booklet referred to by my noble friend was published by UNESCO earlier this year and it contains the reference to the Baltic States which he quotes. Responsibility for publication lies with UNESCO. The Director-General of UNESCO has been informed that in the view of Her Majesty's Government this particular booklet falls far short of the standard of objectivity and regard for the truth which ought to be observed in UNESCO'S publications. So far as future action is concerned, the Executive Board of UNESCO is setting up a Publications Committee to prepare general directives concerning publications of UNESCO, and the United Kingdom member of the Board has supported this proposal."—[col. 1018.]
I asked, in a supplementary question, whether the Minister recalled that:
"the Governments of this country since the annexation have consistently refused de jure recognition of U.S.S.R. sovereignty over these territories because of the circumstances of their annexation,"
and I added these words:
"Why cannot the Communists pay for their own propaganda? Is it not outrageous that the funds of UNESCO, to which we contribute, should be devoted to the dissemination of falsehood?"—[col. 1018.]
I do not apologise for those words. So far as I know, UNESCO has never apologised for this publication; nor, so far as I know, has this publication been withdrawn. I bring this matter to the notice of the House to show that it is not only nationalist feeling that may introduce bias. The most disastrous results may be brought about by deliberate lying, of which this is a notorious example.
History books are important, and we want them as nearly as possible to tell the truth, and certainly never deliberately to tell an untruth; but we deceive ourselves if we think that the only thing that can cause an untruth or a bias is nationalist or patriotic feeling. An untruth can result from many other things, and not least from deliberate lying. Of the many international institutions at present working in the world, lying has been indulged in as much by UNESCO as

495
by any other body. I hope that the discussion initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Wade, will have a happy result and will call general attention to the importance of textbooks and the importance of truth in textbooks. But we ought not to blind ourselves to the use which has been made in the past of UNESCO, which may be made of UNESCO now, and against which we must guard in the future.
6.2 p.m.
LORD ROWALLAN: My Lords, I also should like to apologise for not having put down my name among those wishing to speak in this debate and for intervening. I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade, very much indeed for having given us such an interesting afternoon. I am sorry I was not able to be present when the noble Lord opened the debate, but I have listened to the other speakers with interest and also with a certain amount of satisfaction; because so much of what has been said and suggested this afternoon was familiar to me during the 14½ years I had the privilege to lead the great body of Scouts and, indirectly, Guides—some 17 million young people throughout the world. They have learned how to live together in harmony, not by destroying their national pride but by building it up, thus giving themselves the self-respect that enables them to appreciate the national pride and achievements of other countries as well as their own. We have taught them that the privileges which we enjoy to-day have not come just by chance, but as the result of sacrifices, of life itself in many cases, of countless thousands of men and women who have trodden this path before us. Do we realise the inspirational value of those lives? Do we realise the importance of teaching the boys and girls of to-day the heritage which they have received from generations past? Do we give sufficient emphasis to the fact that privileges carry with them responsibilities?
When I was Chief Scout I attended many international gatherings, great camps with anything from 10,000 to 50,000 boys. They did not have the International Scouting flag over their little camps, but they flew the flag of their own country and paid tribute to it at the flag-raising every morning. They remained people of their own countries, with their own cultures, their own civilisa-
496
tions, their own religions; but at the same time they were able—Jew, Christian and Moslem—to live together and to realise that they were of one body, the one with the other. One cannot destroy national spirit and expect something of value to come out of that destruction. If one destroys the spirit of a people, all that can follow is some woolly internationalism with no value behind it and no true understanding of the lives of others.
Our boys, in their thousands, travel overseas to the uttermost parts of the earth. They camp together; they live in the homes of the boys of the nation which they are visiting; they get to know and understand each other in a way they never could in a directed tour. Let us teach our boys the history of our nation. Let us teach them what Ham Mukasa, the greatest African I have ever met, said to me when I was visiting his country. He said: "If only the young could understand!". When I asked what he meant, he told me what it was like before the white man came, when ritual sacrifice was common and slave raids ravaged his peoples.
We have much to be proud of. I believe that we have done more to civilise the world than most of the other nations put together. We have carried misfortune with us in some cases, but in general an understanding of the interdependence of mankind. Let us teach our boys that. Let us teach the value of the heritage which we have received, and teach them to pay their way through this world by shouldering the responsibilities which go with privilege. Lack of self-respect is at the back of half our troubles to-day. If we can build self-respect in our young people, we can look forward to a future as glorious as our past should be recognised as having been.
6.8 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for initiating this discussion. I should like to congratulate him upon having done so in such a constructive and stimulating way. The noble Lord, Lord Rowley, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and I and others have been associated together over many years in trying to

497
further the causes about which the noble Lord has spoken to-day, and I have always had a great respect for the tenacious loyalty which he has had for the conception of a World Government. It struck me as most remarkable that appeals for support for a better spirit of understanding should have stimulated some most extraordinary ideas and the thought that there was in this any sense of attack on a genuine sense of pride in one's own national achievements. I have as great a sense of national pride as any noble Lord in this House, but that does not in any way belittle my endeavours to secure an international understanding and an international loyalty, which this world so badly needs.
Much has been done by those who share the noble Lord's views to create a change in the climate of opinion about this. At one time those who supported the idea of a world community were regarded as cranks and even dangerous. But as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said, all the major political Parties now pay at any rate lip service to this idea of World Government and world citizenship. But I agree that much more needs to be done, and I say that all the more feelingly having heard the revealing contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford, who comes along without giving any notice, without even saying that he is going to speak, let alone what he is going to speak about, and on the basis of one instance makes the most sweeping charges of lying against a great international organisation.
I share the disappointment of those who find in current United Nations' activity a good deal of fault-finding, as between one nation State and another. I accept what has been said about the opportunities which challenge UNESCO to generate or regenerate the intellectual, philosophical and political climate, which would encourage the growth of the United Nations as a genuine world organisation, within which individual nation States, bereft of some of their more dangerous powers, can still develop their national characteristics. If we can increase the effectiveness of UNESCO—one of the United Nations' own Organisations—in this struggle for the minds of men, then I believe that the days of permanent world peace could be brought perceptibly nearer.
498
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, however, seemed to suggest that the smallness of Britain's contribution restricted the work of UNESCO. But, of course, the Organisation is financially autonomous, and its budget is determined biennially by the 120 member States. Our commitment is to provide just short of 7 per cent. of that budget. Seven per cent. of the whole, as the contribution from one of the 120 members, is not on the face of it, at any rate, an especially mean contribution. At all events, that is the agreed proportion that this country pays towards the United Nations' costs. Last year our proportion involved a payment of £566,000 for the year, and as the budget for the two-year period, 1967–68, is 61·5 million dollars our share will be approximately £730,000 for each of those two years. But in addition to its regular budget UNESCO will dispose of a further 57 million dollars in carrying out work as an executive agent for the United Nations Development Programme. We contribute to this Programme on a voluntary basis, and last year we subscribed just under £4,200,000 and have pledged a similar sum for this year.
The noble Lord was especially critical of the sum spent by UNESCO on education. He said that 38 million dollars, which is the amount available from all sources including the United, Nations Development Programme funds, is an impoverished-looking figure. I quite agree with him that if one compares this with the estimated sum of £40,000 million spent every year on military preparations, it seems a disgracefully mean figure. But when one compares military expenditure with the resources devoted to any one of the world's social services, the proportion is always an affront to human conscience. When I say that, I am not in any way attempting to denigrate what has been done by national communities in other respects, but that figure of £40,000 million is a challenge to the decency of all of us. Until we can get that sum down we cannot really claim that we are a civilised world. However, one cannot blame UNESCO for the size of military budgets.
The sum to be spent on what is called UNESCO'S approved programme—Education for International Understanding—is 156,000 dollars. It is fair to say that this is not all the story, and that there are

499
other items of UNESCO's programme which also aim at increasing international understanding through education. The programme of youth activities, for example, with a budget allocation of 389,000 dollars, includes a substantial sum for the promotion of youth participation in development and international co-operation.
I was delighted to hear the case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and by my noble friends Lord Ritchie-Calder and Lord Brockway, for increased support of the Council for Education in World Citizenship. All of us who have had any personal contact with the work of C.E.W.C.—and I suppose that goes for a good many of us in this Chamber—would like to pay tribute to the organisers and to the young citizens who take part in its activities. I gather that their services now extend to 1,300 member schools. Incidentally, these member schools also pay a contribution to the cost of the organisation, and the money which is received from the Central Education Department is not all on which they depend.
Reference was made to the remarkable Christmas Conferences which C.E.W.C. organises, and I must say that I personally derived a great deal of satisfaction from learning that the demand for places in those Christmas Conferences always exceeds the number available. I find that a tremendous encouragement, and I believe it should be a tremendous encouragement for all of us who have faith in our young people. It is the fact, however, that the Council receives a grant of £950 a year from the Department of Education and Science, and £130 only from the Scottish Education Department.
I must point out to my noble friends, and to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that financial support for education in this country comes very largely from local education authorities, and there is absolutely no reason why the local education authorities should not make a contribution towards C.E.W.C. Some of them indeed do, and one hopes that more of them will do so. Nevertheless, my right honourable friend the Minister of Education has said that he is prepared to consider carefully the possibility of an increase in the Government grant, and
500
I hope very much indeed that what has been said this afternoon will be read and considered by my right honourable friend before he makes a decision on this point.
I was greatly impressed by the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, but, of course, as I am sure he will realise, much of what he mentioned is being supported by Her Majesty's Government or by the local authorities. Educational cruises, for example—and I was interested to hear that he had been on one—rely directly upon the support of the local education authorities who, together with the Department of Education, recognise their educational value.
Special emphasis has been placed on school links, which were mentioned by the right reverend Prelate, and I understand that well over 1,000 have now been established between schools here and schools abroad. Undoubtedly, many home to home links have also sprung naturally from these exchange visits, both between schools and between towns and cities, in connection with what is known as the town and city "twinning" programme. I assure the right reverend Prelate that Her Majesty's Government encourage town twinning as a means of promoting international friendship, although, of course, the initiative must lie with the towns themselves or with their local authorities. A Joint Twinning Committee now exists to co-ordinate policy on exchanges, and the secretary is provided by the Association of Municipal Corporations, while the International Union of Local Authorities is also represented.
The right reverend Prelate, and the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, spoke with warmth of the Atlantic College at St. Donat's Castle. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Foreign Office made a total grant of £80,000 to enable the College to establish itself, but on the clear understanding that this was to provide time to raise capital funds from non-Government sources. While we wish it well, and while the College has been given provisional recognition as a further education establishment, it has always been maintained that no further Government financial assistance could be given without altering the status of the institution. However, I understand that things

501
are going well with the College, and the next three prospective sites are already known, and are in Canada, Scandinavia and the Federal Republic of Germany.
The right reverend Prelate also mentioned the provision of accommodation for overseas visitors; and, as he said, the conference on accommodation for young visitors has been considering the possibility of providing a permanent hostel in London. As I believe he also mentioned, a sum of money, small but sufficient for the limited purpose for which it is intended, has been advanced for carrying out a feasibility study of the project, which should enable a suitable appeal for funds to be launched.
Given time, my Lords, one could give a list of many other activities which go towards building international understanding, some of which have been mentioned—such activities as the Associated Schools Project and the London International Youth Science Fortnight. I would also mention the Co-operative College at Loughborough. Then there have been Human Rights Year, War on Want, World Refugee Year, OXFAM and the British Volunteer Programme, of which mention has been made. This has grown since 1962 from a scheme which involved £28,000, covering the cost of 320 volunteers, to what it was last year, when the Government were providing £763,000 and there were between 1,600 and 1,700 volunteers. Many of these volunteers, I might say (and I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, and others, who spoke about the importance of teachers) were in fact young men, and in some cases women, who went out as teachers.
Special mention has been made, in the Question itself and in the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and others, of the need for better history textbooks. Here, I can probably tell the House something of what UNESCO has done. I cannot tell the House what it did in relation to the specific publication of which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, made mention, but I will make it my business to find out. Following a project involving the international exchange and review of geography textbooks, UNESCO has now taken another initiative, modest but interesting, with regard to secondary school world history books. Canada, France and the United Kingdom were asked in late 1965 to recommend three
502
world history textbooks in current use by students in the 15 to 18 age group for review by specialists in India, Japan and the U.A.R. The idea is for these reviewers to pay particular attention to accuracy, adequacy and objectivity, and balance of treatment of their own respective countries. If this pilot project is successful, UNESCO proposes to extend it, provided, of course, that Member States mutually agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Wade, asked about the other experiment, which was started in 1950, when a Committee of our own National Commission for UNESCO appointed a Textbook Sub-Committee. They did some work, but very little progress, I understand, was made. Indeed, I share the doubts, expressed by my noble friend Lord Rowley, about whether a sizeable programme of action comparable with the World Literacy Programme would bring practical benefits, compared with what might be done with the same amount of money in other fields of education and science which now claim UNESCO'S prior attention. However, this does not mean that we should not consider very carefully what more might be done; and I would suggest to the noble Lord that this is a matter which should properly be considered by the United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO—or, rather, in the first instance, the Commission's Education Advisory Committee.
I will undertake to ensure that this conception of revising national history textbooks will be considered by the National Commission, and I thought there were two other specific proposals made this afternoon which are also worthy of consideration. One was put forward by my noble friend Lord Rowley, when he suggested the idea of a U.N.-sponsored study or a U.N.-sponsored publication of a history of mankind's effort to construct a world organisation. The other proposal, put forward by the right reverend Prelate, was for a similarly sponsored work on what he called the benefactors of the world; in other words, not national heroes, much as we might applaud them in other contexts, but heroes of the human race. Both these proposals seem to me sensible and practical, and worthy of consideration; and I will endeavour to see that they are so considered by the National Commission.

503
I want to say a word about this National Commission, because I detected in what was said by my noble friend Lord Brockway a criticism that was both inaccurate and unfair. At the beginning of 1965, responsibility for the United Kingdom's relations with UNESCO was transferred from the Department of Education and Science to the Ministry of Overseas Development. This was meant to be an opportunity for a new initiative, and certainly the then Minister of Overseas Development, Mrs. Barbara Castle, intended to use it as such an opportunity.
As a result of the advice which she received, the National Commission was reconstituted last year. It is now a body of just over 20 people chosen as individuals for their personal ability and special experience and knowledge. The Minister of Overseas Development is Chairman of the Commission, which is assisted by four advisory committees, a public relations committee and a development committee. My noble friend asked what action had been taken following the statement that these bodies would be set up. The answer is that they have been set up and they are actually at work. In total, more than 60 individuals are directly associated with their work. My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, as one would have gathered from what he said this afternoon, is one of those involved, and I should like to pay my tribute to the contribution which he has made.
My Lords, this Commission is very conscious of the fact that more needs to be done to involve voluntary organisations and other interested sections of British public life in the work of UNESCO. The Commission wishes to ensure that useful suggestions for action reach it and, if regarded favourably, are put forward by British delegations to UNESCO for further consideration and action. This is precisely what I am proposing to do about the three specific proposals that have been made this afternoon.
The newly reconstituted National Commission, jointly with UNESCO, had responsibility for the holding of a Round Table on Human Rights at Oxford, a Symposium on Agroclimatology at Reading University and an International Symposium at Cheltenham on Education for International Understanding at Primary School
504
Level. Celebrations were held in London last October to mark the twentieth anniversary of UNESCO, and on that occasion the Department published and distributed to universities, technical, higher and adult education institutions, secondary schools, public libraries and other interested organisations in the United Kingdom an illustrated booklet entitled Britain and Unesco. I accept from my noble friend that in the past some voluntary organisations have suggested that they were not sufficiently in touch with the National Commission, and it was to break down any sense of isolation that the Commission held a one-day meeting last September at Lancaster House for the purpose of telling representatives of non-Governmental organisations about the current work of UNESCO and of providing them with an opportunity to ask questions.
Following the recent General Conference of UNESCO a series of more specialised meetings is being held to acquaint voluntary bodies of the outcome of the recent General Conference and to invite comments about the future. Although the National Commission meets under Ministerial chairmanship, and its Secretariat is provided by officials of the O.D.M., it is by no means dominated by the official world. As I have said, some 60 to 70 people from all sections of British life are closely involved. The chairmen of the advisory committees are distinguished people from universities and other walks of British public life. Some of them took a full part as members of the British delegation in the proceedings of the Programme Corn-mission at UNESCO's recent General Conference, and the three chairmen of the advisory committees have already paid short visits to UNESCO Headquarters for exploratory discussions with officials there on future lines of work. This I hope answers the criticism made by my noble friend that the programme is drawn up by the Director-General without any opportunity of criticism or of amendment. The fact of the matter is that it is drawn up only after various bodies have had the opportunity to put forward their suggestions.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, if my noble friend will read Hansard tomorrow he will find that I made no statement of that character at all.
LORD BESWICK: I am bound to say, without wishing to give offence, that in that case I do not know what my noble friend said. I will, of course, read what he said. What I understood him to say was that a draft programme was drawn up by the Director-General, and that there was insufficient time to make amendment to this programme before it was put into operation.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, unfortunately my noble friend was in another place when I was making this statement. Therefore, I excuse him for not hearing what I said.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, although at the time I happened to be, technically, outside this Chamber, I was, in fact, consulting my advisers on the very points my noble friend was raising. However, what I am saying is that suggestions are made at the biennial Conference of UNESCO. They are considered—and considered after the various advisory committees of the various Member States have had the opportunity of putting forward specific proposals—and the draft programme which is drawn up by the Director-General is drawn up after taking into full account the ideas and suggestions advanced by the various delegations from the different Member States.
What I am now going on to say is that if we are to persuade UNESCO of the need of a programme designed to lessen nationalist bias in history textbooks, then clearly we first must persuade our own Commission; and that, in turn, will take advice from the sub-committee, in this case the Education Sub-Committee. I stress again that the advisory sub-committees are not dominated by officials. The Chairman of the Education Advisory Committee is, I think, well known to my noble friend. He is Mr. H. L. Elvin, Director of the Institute of Education. The Vice-Chairman is Sir Ronald Gould, General Secretary of the N.U.T., and I see a list of names, prominent and distinguished, from technical colleges, teacher-training colleges, comprehensive schools and the Co-operative College at Loughborough, as well as the universities and local education authorities. I am sure that my noble friend will be satisfied that it is the sort of body he would like to have considering the proposals made this afternoon. I can assure noble Lords that consideration along these lines will be
506
welcomed by my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development, in his capacity as Chairman of UNESCO's National Commission in the United Kingdom.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood said, in the course of a speech which I found most interesting, that all the re-writing of history books cannot obliterate the past. I quite agree. But what we can seek to obliterate, to use the words quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, is hostility, contempt and mistrust which spring from incomplete understanding of the past. It is on that understanding that we can look forward more surely to a future which does not despise national pride, but, at the same time, has a genuine sense of world citizenship, and which is based on a system of enforceable world law, which will make war between national States inconceivable. Towards that objective I hope that this debate will have made a modest contribution.

PRESERVATION OF CATHEDRALS
6.35 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration they are giving to the preservation of our cathedrals. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this layman will be fairly brief, because he wishes to learn what the Church, in the person of the right reverend Prelate, and what the State, in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, have to say. My Question is intended to be restricted; it is intended to relate only to the 28 ancient cathedrals in England in the use of the Church of England. It is not intended to relate to the 14 or so more modern Anglican cathedrals. It is not intended to relate to the cathedrals in Scotland or in Wales. It does not relate to the cathedrals in the use of denominations other than the Church of England. But, of course, the principles or matters at which I would invite your Lordships to look, by extension or implication could be applied more widely than to these 28 great English cathedrals.
These cathedrals mean a lot to almost all of us, whatever our denomination or whether we can be denominated. There is the spiritual value; there is the refreshment they bring to those who enter them;

507
there are their long, close and enduring links with the soil from which they spring and there is their splendid music. But it is not of these matters that I was primarily thinking when I put down this Question. It was rather of the cathedrals as buildings, as buildings at the top of the world class in the arts of the architect, the glazier, the mason and the sculptor. We all have our favourites. There are some for which I have a particular penchant: Durham, that complex of Church and State, crouched above the River Wear; Lincoln, riding high over our Eastern plain; Salisbury, with its long and lovely spire rising from the Wiltshire Downs—which I and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, know so well—the great long stride of Exeter, and so on.
We all have our favourites. I am afraid I have not mentioned any with which the right reverend Prelates here are most intimately associated at the moment. Be that as it may, most would agree that the English cathedrals, as a group, constitute one of the supreme manifestations of European and English art. They are frequented every day by more and more people, our fellow countrymen and visitors from abroad. Most of us would feel that these cathedrals, by and large, are carefully tended and maintained; all of us would agree that they should be.
It is not that which worries me; it is rather the cost of this care and whether in future it can satisfactorily be met. These great fabrics are expensive to maintain and may need much restoration. Perhaps, by way of irreverent parenthesis, I may suggest that being, in these two respects, not unlike some of your Lordships, myself included, they should command your special sympathy. In any event, nine appeals for our cathedrals are at present open and I am very conscious of this, living as I do equidistant between Winchester and Salisbury. In all, these appeals amount to over £2½ million; and now, on top of this, we learn of the need for operations of great magnitude to York Minster. We learn that unless this great work is done well and done quickly, the cathedral may be past saving within a decade and a half. We must all wish the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, well in the appeal which he has launched to secure this great national possession.
What chiefly worries me, my Lords, is that we seem to be on something of an upward curve. The sums required to maintain this heritage of cathedrals seem to be increasing. I am not clear why this is so or indeed whether it is so. Is the massive development going on in the vicinity of many of our cathedrals affecting the water tables, as we have heard, and sapping the foundations of the cathedrals? Is traffic the real villain of the piece? Or is it just old-age, aggravated by enforced neglect in the war years and the post-war years?
In any event, the maintenance of these cathedrals and the financial responsibility for them at present rests, if I understand the position correctly, squarely on their deans and chapters. The cathedrals were deliberately excluded from the Ancient Monuments Acts from 1913 to 1953; they have likewise been partly excluded, as I understand it, from quite a lot of our planning legislation. It is true that they are not specifically excluded from the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953, under which the Historic Buildings Council was set up, but they have since been excluded in practice as the result of deliberate Government policy. Likewise, while they are eligible for assistance from the local authorities under the so-called Channon Act of 1962, and although Chichester and possibly also Lincoln have received some assistance from their local authorities under that Act, finance under this Act can hardly be expected to make any great contribution towards their upkeep.
As your Lordships are aware, the position across the Channel is very different. Cathedrals and certain churches classified by the Beaux Arts are owned by the State, and other churches in France are owned by the communes. Elsewhere in Europe, again as I understand the position—for example, in Belgium, Spain, Italy, Greece, Denmark and Sweden—cathedrals are maintained, in varying degrees, by the State. There are, of course, precedents for State intervention closer home. Across the Border the cathedrals of Glasgow and, Dunblane are maintained, and have been maintained since the Reformation, by the State. Parliament voted funds for St. Paul's after the Great Fire of London, and in 1818, after the Napoleonic Wars, for building new churches to stem the

509
feared tide of social unrest. However, with one or two small exceptions—parts of Westminster Abbey, for example—the responsibility for cathedrals, including the financial responsibility, rests squarely on their deans and chapters. My doubt, and it is only a doubt, is whether in future the shoulders of the deans and chapters. broad though they may be and buttressed though they may be by the generosity of the public, are broad enough to sustain this burden in its entirety.
As I see it, there are four main possibilities. We can continue much as at present. There is a lot to be said for this. All too often when we get into difficulties we run to the State for help. Moreover, a successful appeal is a valid source of local pride and does much to bring cathedral and people closer together. I think I should prefer a continuation of the present position, on the one condition that the great sums needed can be raised quickly enough. But I must confess to some doubt whether this is possible, although I have no doubt whatsoever that the appeal of the noble Earl, Lord Scarbrough, will have the success that it must have.
A possible alternative course would be to continue as at present, with the State making perhaps some ad hoc provision, presumably by grant aid, in cases of special need or emergency. This might be acceptable to the Church. I do not know. But I wonder whether it would commend itself to the State. Or we could go the whole French hog and adopt the French solution of State or local ownership in return for State or local aid. For an Established Church there might be a certain rough logic about this solution, and there is the precedent for it over the Border in Scotland. Yet I should have thought that any such solution would be repugnant to many churchmen; it would certainly go against the grain with me. Moreover, if total responsibility for our cathedrals were vested in the State, the total cost of their maintenance would, before long, fall exclusively on the State, and the wells of private charity would quickly dry up.
In any event, my Lords, so radical a solution would seem to me unnecessary. If, under the Historic Buildings Act, grants for the preservation of our domestic architecture can be made with
510
out the private houses concerned passing into public ownership, surely grants could be made to our cathedrals without the fabric of the cathedrals passing into public ownership.
For grants of this nature more systematic provision might need to be made, covering both maintenance and restoration. As a quid pro quo the Church might possibly be asked voluntarily to agree to submit its great cathedrals to the same sort (I do not say the same, but the same sort) of planning disciplines as govern our secular buildings. A possible avenue and filter for such aid might be the Historic Buildings Council, that admirable institution with its corpus of experience and expertise. If so, it would, of course, need a big injection of new funds, for its present funds are clearly inadequate for its present purely secular purposes. Alternatively, we could establish some special machinery, conceivably based on the development of the Cathedrals Advisory Committee. This Committee has now been in existence for almost twenty years, and it has a very responsible and representative membership.
All these possibilities, and many more, are doubtless open to us. I do not know whether we need radically to change the present procedures, or, if so, what would prove to be the best solution. All I suggest, and this I should like to do as vigorously as I possibly can, is that if we do decide at some future date that we need to institute a new system, we should at all costs preserve room for voluntary donations, for private generosity. It would be a great pity if our great cathedrals became entirely dependent on State aid. If State aid is needed I should favour the principle of matching funds, possibly on a 50–50 basis. There is already a precedent for this near at hand, in that successive Governments have undertaken to provide £200,000 every five years for our redundant Anglican churches provided that a comparable contribution is forthcoming from the Church.
My Lords, I have purposely couched these remarks in fairly general and very tentative terms. I do not possess sufficient knowledge to judge the degree to which our churches and our cathedrals are menaced and the extent to which public funds may be needed to ward off this menace. If the danger exists, and I

511
suspect that it may, I cannot help thinking that our senior Church authorities should now be scratching their heads very hard, and I hope in fairly close concert with the State authorities. Eight days ago we read in The Times that the Dean of Winchester had said that the Prime Minister was fully alive to the difficult position of the English and Welsh cathedrals and very sympathetic to them in their plight. The Dean was reported as going on to say that the Prime Minister had recently written that he had been looking into this matter. I do not know whether in fact the Prime Minister has been looking into this matter with sympathy; I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, can confirm that he has. I do know, however, that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has himself been looking into this matter with close attention. It is therefore with a special interest that I await his reply.
6.50 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for putting down this Question and for his understanding. constructive, vivid and perfect speech. I have no doubt that those who bear responsibility for the English cathedrals will read with great interest the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I anticipate that the noble Lord may express his personal interest and sympathy and the concern of the Government, and it is possible that he may say that it is for the Church to initiate action if it wishes to ask for help from the State.
I wish that my right reverend friend the Bishop of Leicester, who is Chairman of the Cathedrals Commission, could be here this afternoon. I think he would want me to express his regret that a previous engagement prevents his attending. I believe that it is his view, and it is certainly my own opinion, that we should appreciate the sympathetic attitude of Her Majesty's Government, and that the Church of England should be willing to enter upon any discussions with the Government to elucidate the position and to see what co-operation was needed.
I do not think that at this stage we should want to commit ourselves to any of the four courses outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. I think that we should want discussions, for this is not
512
an easy question and there are many arguments on both sides. We are considering to-day, as the noble Earl has pointed out, the preservation of our cathedrals, and this means of their fabric, not of their furnishing or ornaments. I anticipate that this summer the Church Assembly may appoint a committee to report on the upkeep of all churches, including cathedrals, to inform the Church about the actual cost of repairs and to consider possible sources of money. One important source of money is clearly a contribution by the State. Such a committee would be well placed to consult with the Government. I hope that the Government would be willing to consider both a capital grant, to which the noble Earl was referring—a capital grant so that if there is a sudden emergency, there is money available—and an annual contribution to supplement money raised locally for the cathedral, say on a pound for pound basis, or on a different basis if the cathedral faces exceptionally heavy expenditure. The Church is more actively engaged in raising money for its churches than many people realise. Figures are hard to come by, but it seems probable that not less than £4 million has to be found every year for the maintenance and restoration of parish churches alone.
Two Canadian friends were staying with us last weekend. They were visiting this country after 20 years of absence. They planned their fortnight with meticulous care, and they had given first priority to time for leisurely visits to English cathedrals. They are typical of thousands who come from overseas, and they will find our cathedrals well-cared for and faithfully served. I believe that this is an opportune moment for considering the possibility of a Government grant for the preservation of the fabric of cathedrals. From my talks with some of the deans and their advisers, I believe that the churches would welcome a Government grant, provided the minimum strings were attached to such a grant, and provided that the Cathedral Chapters were fully consulted and their wishes sympathetically considered.
Increasingly our cathedrals are accepted as the mother churches of the Christian community, and we delight to have services to which we can welcome members of the Free Churches. In the

513
last two years we have been thankful in St. Albans to welcome Roman Catholics who have planned pilgrimages to the shrine of St. Alban and who have been happy to say their prayers at this shrine. Our cathedrals are shrines which are more and more valued by our people and our visitors, whether or not they have any religious allegiance. These buildings are powerful witnesses to the Christian faith and to the greatness of our inheritance. We should unite in our efforts to preserve them. For these and other reasons, I greatly look forward to hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
6.56 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MAN-CHESTER: My Lords, I should like to add a brief word to what my right reverend friend has said. First of all, I should say that I have no axe to grind. Manchester Cathedral will require no Government grant. It is in better condition than it has been for 500 years, and it is unlikely to require any money from the Government. But I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for the well-informed speech he has given on the subject, and for the persuasive way in which he has brought the subject to our notice.
There is increasingly in our cathedrals a willingness—there has always been in Manchester—to place them at the disposal of other Christian denominations, if they so wish it. It is not so long since—and it will soon happen again—that the Presbyterian Church of England celebrated Holy Communion in Manchester Cathedral, the Cathedral being handed over to them for their own rite. That has always seemed to me to be both right and proper.
I feel that were the Government to take this matter up with the Church, there would be a wide support in public opinion for something being effectively done. All I really wanted to do was to thank the noble Earl for the extraordinarily informative and excellent way in which he has brought this matter to your Lordships' notice.
6.58 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for raising this issue and for giving me the
514
chance of expressing something which has been tribulating the Church of Scotland for a considerable number of years and on which considerable correspondence and interviews have taken place with Her Majesty's Governments, at any rate over the last ten years. It interested me that the noble Earl should have excluded Scotland in his opening remarks, and when he got on to the support of the Churches in Europe I was prepared to interject; but what he said about Glasgow and Dunblane Cathedrals showed me that he had done his homework extremely thoroughly. Few people in England—indeed, few people in Scotland —appreciate that position.
The ancient cathedrals and the abbeys in Scotland, though we manage them without bishops, deans or abbots, and even though they are small and few in number, are very precious to us, from the ancient church at Whithorn, to which St. Ninian came, to the Abbey at Iona, which owes so much of its restoration to the work of my noble friend Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, who has just joined our company in your Lordships' House. I should think that the Abbey needs no support, having had such a protagonist over the last thirty years, but there are other cathedrals in Scotland which require support and are in a fairly parlous state. There is St. Giles's Cathedral in Edinburgh, with its crown, supported, one might say, by the burgh through the centuries, until 1925, when the Act removed the support of the local authorities. It will interest the right reverend Prelates here, at any rate, that in Scotland we have more of the ancient crowns on ecclesiastical buildings. The architect who put the crown on Newcastle put the crown on St. Giles's, and also on King's College, Aberdeen, both of which crowns, one might say, are in good heart.
The tragedy, however, is the crown of the Church of St. Michael, Linlithgow—Linlithgow, where Mary Queen of Scots was born and where the King, her father, died. That church had one of these later crowns, but owing to the fact that the congregation were unable to pay for its maintenance, the crown has fallen. There we see the old Palace maintained by the Ministry of Works, and the Abbey, at its door, unsupported and dependent upon the congregation for its maintenance.

515
Visitors go into Linlithgow Palace, and the congregation have to maintain St. Michael's Kirk in order to accommodate the visitors.
Much the same can be said of our cathedrals at Dunkeld and at Brechin. These are small communities and they are old buildings which require a great deal of money for their upkeep. There is also in Aberdeen the Cathedral of St. Machar, another illustration of how the congregation were unable to maintain it, although the disaster happened about 300 years ago, when the great central tower fell, not as a result of the Reformation, not as a result of Cromwell, but because the congregation had not the money to maintain it. Then there is what is perhaps the most acute case at the present time; that is, the Cathedral of St. Magnus, in Orkney, possibly one of the most interesting cathedrals in the whole world, which was built by the Norwegians. They used to come there; they careened their ships from there, and they sailed out.
I should like to draw the attention of the Government to this interesting point. Some years ago the University of Aberdeen discovered on the Holy Island of St. Ninian, in Shetland, the St. Ninian treasure, which is unique. That treasure has been taken by the central Government, fortunately not to London, but to Edinburgh, and is maintained there. That treasure has been taken, and no support is given to the church there. No compensation has been made; there has been no quid pro quo.
With regard to the Cathedrals of Glasgow and Dunblane, these are the property of the Crown, and, as the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has rightly said, have been the property of the Crown for centuries. It may be of interest to know that the fact that these are Crown property has not dried up the natural charity for their support. The amount of money that has been spent in providing new windows and doing up the interior of Glasgow Cathedral in the years since the war has been very considerable. The Government have kept the cathedral wind and water tight; and much the same might be said about Dunblane. An interesting modus vivendi has been reached regarding the cost and maintenance. The custodians are paid for
516
their work in the proportions of six-sevenths by the State and one-seventh by the church, the proportion being chosen for obvious reasons.
In Scotland, we have very few of these churches. There are in England nearly 10,000 pre-Reformation churches still in use. In Scotland we have but 62, and we are most anxious that the Historic Buildings Council should be allowed to provide money for the maintenance and establishment of these churches. We in the Church of Scotland have from time to time approached the Government. Our last approach produced, in November, 1965, a letter from the Minister of Public Building and Works, in which he said that he fully recognised the difficulties in Scotland, but that what we suggested—namely, that the Historic Buildings Council should help with these old churches:
"would involve a major change of policy which would have to apply to England and Wales, as well."
This is exactly what troubles us in Scotland, and what troubles the people in Wales: that as we are subsidiaries of the United Kingdom, nothing can happen to us because of some repercussion in England. The Minister then added:
"In addition to this there is the related problem of redundant churches throughout Great Britain."
The question of redundant historic churches in Scotland simply does not exist, and the Minister was badly briefed in bringing that into his answer. As I have said, we have but 62 of these churches, and not one of them is redundant. They are far too precious to be allowed to become redundant.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? He has just described Scotland as a subsidiary of England. He must know perfectly well that we have governed England for the last 200 years.
LORD BALERNO: The noble Lord is entitled to his opinion as to who has governed England and who has governed Scotland. I admit that we have had successive Scotsmen in the Ministry of Works, but the Church of Scotland has had no more change out of the Scotsmen when they were at the Ministry of Works than it had out of English Ministers. I think that, in all fairness, I should

517
say that. I feel that some of the Scotsmen who come down to govern the United Kingdom perhaps (shall we say) lose a little of their national pride.
I think that the question which arises from all this is whether in Scotland we should not have our own Historic Buildings Council to deal with our own peculiar problems.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will excuse me for intervening, Scotland already has its own Historic Buildings Council.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' pardon. The finances and the policy of it are controlled from London.
LORD BOOTHBY: By Scotsmen.
LORD BALERNO: That being so, I should like to move on to something slightly different, perhaps to avoid sparring with the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, with whom invariably I come off second best. The Local Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act 1962, which enabled local authorities to contribute by grant or loan to the preservation of historic buildings, including churches, did not apply to Scotland. But I welcome the action which the Government are now taking by putting an Amendment into the Civic Amenities Bill, which is before Parliament, saying that the Act will apply to Scotland. We in Scotland are grateful for that.
It has been said that one of the reasons why the Historic Buildings Act is not being applied by the Minister to churches in occupation as such is because of the resentment that it might create with other denominations than those of the Established Churches. This, I submit, no longer holds good; and I question whether it ever held good during the current century. In Scotland we have had Roslyn Chapel, a chapel owned privately but occupied by the Episcopalians, receiving a Government grant, and I have never heard of any resentment by Presbyterians, by members of the Church of Scotland, because this was so. Dunblane, thanks in good measure to the Historic Buildings Council, has established a centre for the Scottish churches in old houses which are surrounding the ancient cathedral—interesting and historic old houses, because they are on the old main road. It was from
518
them that the Duke of Cumberland marched in 1746, and as he passed by he received various articles thrown out of the houses upon him. It is now the centre of the (Ecumenical movement in Scotland. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans spoke of the Roman Catholics being granted the use of St. Alban's Cathedral.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I said we were happy to welcome them as pilgrims. It was not quite the same point.
LORD BALERNO: Then it would appear to me that we are advanced a stage further in Scotland. I think that in certain of the Scottish churches this has already happened. It has caused minor ripples, but so far as I am aware no major criticism as yet. There are other churches in which the Episcopalians are welcomed. In some of them they have held their Communion services, and I am assured by the minister of Dunblane Cathedral that that cathedral is at the disposal of any Christian denomination at a time when it is not required for his own parish purposes.
My Lords, I have studied the Report of the Church of England Assembly in 1964 when this matter was raised on a report by the Dean of Gloucester. I found it very difficult to follow the statement of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, who was worried about the possibility of State aid stirring up controversy if it were given, as it would be in the historic churches, to one specific denomination.
I want to come back to this point of the Historic Buildings Council's not being allowed so far to give money for the upkeep of the churches. An undertaking given by a Minister in another place in the year 1953 has ever since then been regarded as binding on his heirs and successors, and seems to be as unalterable as the Laws of the Medes and Persians. In effect, a statement in Hansard has been given the validity of an Act of Parliament. Has a Minister the right to limit in perpetuity an Act of Parliament? If in 1953 Parliament had wished to exclude historic churches from the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act of that year, surely Parliament should have said so. It did not.

519
Therefore, it seems to me to be beyond all reason to assume that historic buildings which are still in use for the purpose for which they were erected should be excluded from the grant. I would ask Her Majesty's Government whether they could not take another look at this particular point, and earn a considerable amount of gratitude from the Church of Scotland and from Scotsmen generally.
7.18 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I want to speak for only one minute. As a member of the Historic Buildings Council—I think, one of the original members —I would say that I cannot remember the English Historic Buildings Council ever having the smallest responsibility for Scotland. Furthermore—and this is my own personal opinion—having looked at the way in which this plan was worked out in the early stages, I think that by and large Scotland came better out of it than England, bearing in mind the very much heavier charges and responsibilities which we have in England. That is not to say that I grudge it; but when one looks at the proportions as they were then worked out, I do not think there was any particular grievance.
This is not to say that the money which the Historic Buildings Council have at their disposal is enough for all their needs in either country. One way and another a great deal of good work has been done. But I think it ought to be made clear that if this particular extra ecclesiastical responsibility were added, they would need to have a much larger grant. The existing grant could not possibly be stretched to cover both. There is a question of principle here; not a question of taking on a little more. But we have a rather good precedent, which I hope the noble Lord who is going to reply may refer to, and that was the device worked out to help the Oxford colleges in their trouble. A special Treasury provision was made for the Oxford colleges. I should think it is worth while to look closely into the details of that special provision to see whether anything could be learnt there from which might be of some help in the particular duty we have to maintain our incomparable cathedrals.
7.20 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, we are all united in our gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for raising this matter. This is a timely moment to air it. It has been in the Press; there are the new appeals being launched which are larger than ever, with public discussion of the possible danger from sinking water tables. All this makes it a timely moment for this debate. The noble Lord named his favourite cathedrals, and without saying that they are mine—because I do not think it becomes a member of the Government to have favourite cathedrals—I should like to say how glad I am, as I am sure we all are, that we have three right reverend Prelates with us to-day. We have the Bishop from St. Albans, with its wonderful, long, lolloping nave, and so convenient to Londoners who wish to visit it. We have the Bishop of Manchester, whose Cathedral, although it may not be the largest or grandest of English cathedrals, is certainly shortly to be the cleanest—and this is the most important thing: I wish that the same could he said of all our great mother churches, and not least of that which is closest geographically to your Lordships to-day. Then we have the Bishop of Norwich, whose cathedral is the Queen and Mother of all the fantastic, inventive Gothic churches of East Anglia.
I have one or two detailed points that I should like to bring forward before I come to generalities. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, raised the question of the water table. The Government have of course seen what has been said by the surveyor of York Minster about this problem. I would assure the House that the Government have available to them all the time the studies of water tables in general throughout the country, which are available from the Water Resources Board, and also studies of the effect of falling water tables on buildings in general, which are carried out continuously by the Building Research Station. We do not at the moment know of any specific studies about the effect of falling water tables, or indeed whether water tables are falling in such cases under historic buildings. However, I intend to have such evidence as we have

521
available to us reviewed, and we shall then see whether it is necessary to cause special studies to be undertaken.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, mentioned the letter from the Prime Minister to a Member of Parliament which was quoted by the Dean of Winchester in a recent sermon that attracted much notice. The Prime Minister said in his letter that he was fully alive to the difficult position of the English cathedrals. This indeed is so; and the same is true of those members of the Government whose duty it is to advise him on these matters. He also set forth the fact, which is very much in the minds of us all, that there is no bar to the making of grants towards cathedrals. They have not been made, but there is no statutory reason why they should not be made.
I think all noble Lords would agree with me in echoing good wishes to our colleague, Lord Scarbrough, who is leading the appeal for York Minster—the latest in a Tong series of large appeals, and I believe I am right in saying the largest it has ever been necessary to make for an English cathedral. We wish that appeal a speedy fruition.
The difficulties of cathedrals in the upkeep of their fabric are well known to the Government and to all those interested. These difficulties have been slightly alleviated recently by action taken by the Church authorities themselves. The maintenance and repair of the cathedral fabric is the responsibility of the chapter, and has to be met out of the chapter's revenues. These revenues also have to pay for the cathedral staff and for the services in the cathedrals, so there is a great deal of competition for the money available. It is not always appreciated that the Church Commissioners have no power at all to provide money for the repair or maintenance of cathedral fabrics. What power they possess they gained in 1963: the Church gave them the power to pay out for emergency repairs any capital which they hold as endowments for a cathedral, provided that the money is repaid within five years. It is not much of an alleviation, but it is something. They also obtained powers in 1963 to make grants for the stipends of the dean or provost, and up to two canons for any one cathedral, and for the repair of property other than the cathedral church itself. The effect of this is to release the
522
cathedral funds for the repair of the fabric itself.
The present situation regarding the repair and alterations of cathedrals and related matters, which has attracted attention recently, is as follows. The existence of the Cathedrals Advisory Committee has already been mentioned in this debate. The deans and provosts of English cathedrals, at any rate, and I believe I am right in saying of others also, meet periodically, and there has recently been some discussion, both among the deans and within the Cathedrals Advisory Committee, of relationships between the Cathedrals Advisory Committee on the one hand and deans and chapters on the other hand. It would be true to say that neither side has been entirely content with the present procedure. The Cathedrals Advisory Committee in particular have considerable doubts about the terms on which they may be called in by a dean and chapter to advise, and the way in which their advice must be handled after it is received. I have recently had conversations with both sides—that is, with the Cathedrals Advisory Committee, which called on me, and with representatives of the Deans' Conference—and I have every hope that the slight difficulties—they are only slight—which have existed will very shortly be ironed out directly between these two responsible bodies.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, spoke to us of Scotland, and here indeed we have an atypical situation. He told us how Glasgow and Dunblane Cathedrals are the responsibility of the Crown and are under the guardianship of my right honourable friend the Minister of Public Building and Works—a most unusual arrangement. He did not mention the fact that Kirkwall Cathedral has an even more unusual arrangement. It used to be under the guardianship of the Minister. I understand it is now the property of the local authority, and, if I am correct, that would make it unique in the British Isles. I would just confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, interjected: that there is a Scottish Historic Buildings Council which advises the Secretary of State for Scotland on the expenditure of Exchequer money for the upkeep of historic buildings, in much the same way as the English Council advises my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing

523
and Local Government in England. Therefore the Ministry of Public Building and Works is responsible only for those churches which may or may not be taken into State possession. If it is simply a question of giving State money to a church which remains in church hands in Scotland, then that, I should hope, would be administered according to Scottish values by Scottish persons in Edinburgh, and I will ensure that what the noble Lord said about it is drawn to the attention of the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I should like to draw to the attention of noble Lords who are interested a most valuable Report forming part of the considerations that are at present under way within the Church of England. It is called The Report of the Redundant Churches Fund Committee [reference Church Assembly 1619] which was published earlier this year, and in Appendix V of that document there is a valuable round-up of procedures in other European countries in this matter of State aid to churches and cathedrals. I will quote from this document. I have not caused it to be checked by the State machine, but I think the Church machine is fairly good. It says that in France (and I heard this myself on a visit to France earlier in the year) all cathedrals belong to the State, all parish churches belong to the commune—that is, to the local authority—with the exception of those built after 1905. Therefore in France cathedrals and churches are directly under State ownership and the State is responsible for their upkeep.
The same situation prevails in Italy, and this is much less well known. Cathedrals and major churches are under State ownership and the State is responsible for their upkeep. I confess that even more surprising to me was the fact that the same situation prevails in Portugal. In Switzerland, churches and cathedrals, though not I think in public ownership, are subject to ordinary planning control under cantonal law. In Holland, cathedrals are subject to State planning control and receive State grants. In Austria they are subject to State planning control and receive State grants.
To give a general idea of the situation, I should like to put this in proportion
524
by taking the House back to 1913 when the first of the series of Acts that form the corpus of our present legislation on preservation of historic buildings was passed. In those days the question arose whether churches in use as churches, and, a fortiori, cathedrals, should be treated in the same way as other historic buildings. After due debate in both Houses Archbishop Davidson made a famous speech in this House in which he argued against a move which was afoot to have cathedrals and churches treated in the same way as other historic buildings, and said, in effect, that the Church would look after them itself. Ever since then this arrangement has been adhered to by successive Governments and successive Church Assemblies; and that is the situation we are still in to-day.
As a result of this severance from the machine of State control and State aid, which go hand in hand, the Church has always considered itself as cut off from State financial aid. Even though the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953, which is the main legislation in the field now, would permit the Minister of Housing to make grants for the repair of churches or cathedrals, provided that they were of outstanding interest, it has been made clear by successive Government spokesmen (and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, referred to this) that the slender resources available for historic buildings as a whole would not, at any rate for the moment, be used for ecclesiastical buildings in use as such, though of course they could be used if the church was no longer a church. To this there is one exception. A State grant of £20,000 was offered for a new pavement in Westminster Abbey, but opinions differed about the merits of the scheme; no agreement was reached, the new pavement was not installed and the grant was never paid. But in that one case the principle was breached. And Historic Building Council grants have been paid for buildings which, though not cathedrals, are close to being cathedrals, the prime example of this being the cloister at Wells.
How do we stand at the moment? I think the first thing I should say is that the Government are following with the closest and most sympathetic interest the deliberations within the Church of England about this matter. We can only

525
welcome the setting up of the new committee, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans referred, which is to review the entire question of support for churches in use, including cathedrals. I do not want to commit this Government or any other, and I do not want to look too far ahead either, but at the moment I can see the difficulty which would face any Government that was asked to provide State funds for the maintenance of cathedrals without, at the same time, the cathedrals being subjected to the full effect of the Town and Country Planning Acts. The reason I say this is that in all other cases, in all other types of building, the Historic Buildings Council grant goes hand in hand with the application especially of Section 33 of the
526
current Town and Country Planning Act. That is the section relating to building preservation orders and providing for notice of intention to be given to change a building of outstanding historical and architectural merit, and the other familiar provisions.
This is where I would wind up, my Lords. It is not, I think, for the Government to take any initiative in this field. No approach has been made to the State since 1913. If ever such an approach is made, the Government, assuming it is the present Government, and also, I imagine, any future Government, would receive it with an entirely open mind.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before eight o'clock.