Sitting of 11 December 1967

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

    Water Supplies (Fluoridation)
    Dr. David Kerrasked the Minister of Health what proposals he has for extending the fluoridation of water supplies where these are deficient in fluorine content.
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Health what is his present policy with regard to extending the fluoridation of water supplies.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Kenneth Robinson): Since the benefits and safety of the fluoridation of water supplies were established beyond doubt, my policy has been to urge local health authorities to arrange for its introduction and to assist them in implementing their proposals. The need for further action is constantly under review.
    Dr. Kerr: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Answer which he gave to
    2
    a Question which I put to him on this subject last week does not reveal a satisfactory result to this policy of guiding local authorities? Would he now give urgent consideration to doing something much more strenuous, knowing that he will have the support, probably of the majority of hon. Members but certainly of hon. Members on this side of the House?
    Mr. Robinson: I am aware that in certain areas the wishes of the majority of local health authorities in favour of fluoridation are being frustrated by one or two who are opposed and who receive their water from the same supplier. Clearly this is a situation to which I must give consideration.
    Mr. Cronin: Is it not the case that fluoridation is now a routine public health measure in the United States and most advanced countries? Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that many big advances in medical science, including vaccination and antiseptic surgery, have been the object of irrational opposition and that it is his positive duty to ensure that fluoridation takes place in this country on an extensive scale in the interests of our children and future generations?
    Mr. Robinson: I certainly agree with what my hon. Friend says about the benefits of fluoridation. It is true that the United States and certain other countries are more advanced than we are in this matter. I hope to have fairly shortly the results of dental studies in the United Kingdom after 10 years of fluoridation. These will, I believe, give

    3
    further proof of the value of this measure. I hope that their publication will overcome any remaining doubts on the part of local authorities.
    Sir J. Vaughan-Morgan: What does the phrase "constantly under review" actually mean in this context?
    Mr. Robinson: Precisely what it says.

    Cigarette Coupons
    Dr. David Kerrasked the Minister of Health when he proposes to introduce legislation to ban cigarette coupons.
    Mr. K. Robinson: As my hon. Friend knows, the timing of legislation is not for me.
    Dr. Kerr: I suppose that I must say, "In thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply", but is he aware that his reply is not satisfactory? Does he realise that a number of us on this side of the House do not see the banning of cigarette coupons as the answer to this most complex problem of discouraging people from smoking? While we think that this is a very useful measure in indicating the Government's intentions towards cigarette smoking, can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the whole programme will be prosecuted with greater vigour than appears to be the case at the moment?
    Mr. Robinson: When I discussed the possibility of a voluntary ban with the industry, I offered it a reasonable, indeed a generous, period for the winding up of existing schemes. Since the Government have announced their decision and the industry is on notice, I regard the winding up period as now running. Therefore, the timing of legislation is not perhaps as vital as it might otherwise have been.
    Sir J. Rodgers: What evidence has the Minister that the giving of coupons by cigarette manufacturers increases the consumption of cigarettes?
    Mr. Robinson: We had a considerable exchange at Question Time on a recent Monday on this matter, and I expressed my view that the giving of gifts—more gifts and better gifts the more cigarettes one smoked—prima facie suggested that it was an encouragement to smoke more.

    Doctors
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Health if, in view of the critical national shortage of doctors, he will discuss with the British Medical Association and other interested parties the possibility of reducing the load on doctors by training a grade of assistant doctor to undertake routine medical work.
    Mr. K. Robinson: No, sir. We must await the report of the Royal Commission on Medical Education, which is expected early next year.
    Mr. Roberts: Has any work study analysis been carried out on the work load on the general practitioner from the point of view of seeing whether part of his routine work could be passed on to other qualified people such as health visitors?
    Mr. Robinson: A number of studies have been made, and we are also helping doctors to make better use of their time, for example by assisting general practitioners to employ ancillary help.

    Alcoholism
    Mr. Hiltonasked the Minister of Health (1) if he will now state the approximate date by which he expects to receive the finalised report of the survey into the problems involved in the rehabilitation of crude spirit drinkers;
    (2) if, in view of the resolution on crude spirit drinkers by the Council of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, details of which have been sent to him, he will now consider using national resources to help solve the social problems arising in the East End of London, due to the concentration of vagrant crude spirit drinkers within the area.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I have recently received advice on the organisation of facilities for the treatment of alcoholism, but it recognises that medical treatment offers little prospect of success unless voluntarily accepted. Such treatment is available for persons living in Tower Hamlets.
    Mr. Hilton: I cannot understand what the Minister is referring to when he speaks of such treatment being available in my borough, unless he is referring to members of the Simon community which is a voluntary but ineffectual body. Is he

    5
    aware what delay in this matter means in my constituency? Is he aware that a near-violent confrontation took place between tenants and members of this community a short time ago? Does he not realise that if Government agencies do not do something in this matter, vigilante action by the people themselves is a possibility for which he will have to bear responsibility?
    Mr. Robinson: On the question of treatment, facilities are available at St. Clements Hospital where there is a five-bed unit for alcoholics. I have deliberately limited my reply to the area of my own responsibility, which is that of treatment. My hon. Friend will recall that there was a petition from Tower Hamlets on the more general problem which was received last July by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office.

    Haemophiliacs (Cars)
    Dr. Winstanleyasked the Minister of Health if he will arrange for persons suffering from haemophilia to receive grants to enable them to make suitable adaptations to their own cars.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Eligible disabled persons, including those suffering from haemophilia, are entitled under existing flies to a cash grant towards the cost of converting their own car to hand control.
    Dr. Winstanley: This very small group of people, who have not been provided for in a long time, will be most grateful to the Minister for that statement.
    Mr. Fortescue: Will the Minister give serious consideration to the suggestion that haemophiliacs and others should be issued with adapted cars if they are themselves willing to pay the difference in co between the car and the invalid tricycle which they have already?
    Mr. Robinson: I have answered Questions before about the eligibility of haemophiliacs for motor cars rather than for invalid tricycles but, without any commitment, I am prepared to look at the matter again.

    DOCTORS PROVIDING FULL GENERAL MEDICAL SERVICES IN ENGLAND AND WALES AT 1ST OCTOBER, 1966*

    Age-group (years)

    Under 30

    30 to 34

    35 to 39

    40 to 44

    45 to 49

    50 to 54

    55 to 59

    60 to 64

    65 and over

    Percentage

    …

    …

    3·3

    10·6

    15·0

    17·7

    14·3

    13·8

    10·1

    8·2

    7·0

    *This is the latest date for which these figures are available.

    General Practitioners
    Mr. Juddasked the Minister of Health what is the proportion of general practitioners in England and Wales in each of the following age groups, 25 to 30 years, 30 to 35 years, 35 to 40 years, 40 to 45 years, 45 to 50 years, 50 to 55 years, 55 to 60 years, 60 to 65 years and over 65 years.
    Mr. K. Robinson: As the Answer consists of a table of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Judd: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the figures indicate a serious danger of a grave shortage of doctors in this important sphere of the Health Service? Will he assure the public and the House that everything possible is being done to overcome this potential shortage?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, but I would not accept what my hon. Friend said because I think he will see when he studies the table that there have been no great changes in the age structure in recent years, apart from the decrease in the proportion of those under 30. This is partly due to the welcome tendency for doctors over the years to undertake vocational training before they enter general practice. We are steadily increasing the intake to medical schools.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: What result, if any, has come from counter brain drain activities in the United States to relieve the shortage of doctors? Is it true that a number of doctors who have been asked to return have found it difficult to obtain employment in the specialities in which they operate?
    Mr. Robinson: There is a later Question to be answered on this subject. The hon. Member will be glad to know that already 50 doctors have accepted appointments in this country and provisional arrangements are being made to bring them back here.
    Following are the figures:

    Experimental Health Checks
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Minister of Health if he has now assessed the reports of his Social Science Research Unit and of the local medical officer of health in regard to the Rotherham experimental health checks; and what advice he is giving to local health authorities who are considering offering similar periodic screening facilitiis for certain types of illness.
    Mr. K. Robinson: I am awaiting these reports. Authorities considering this kind of action are advised first to discuss their proposal with my medical officers, who can explain the problems involved.
    Mrs. Butler: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the public response to these schemes has been most enthusiastic and almost overwhelming, and that a number of medical officers of health are raring to go on with similar schemes if they get an enthusiastic response from the Department? Would he look at this with some urgency and try to get his reports collected as soon as possible?
    Mr. Robinson: As I have said before in this House, I am most interested in what is being done in Rotherham and elsewhere, but I am not satisfied on present evidence that this method of detecting disease should be recommended to local authorities generally. I have still to receive the report of the Rotherham Medical Officer of Health. The report of the Social Science Research Unit will, we hope, be completed very shortly.

    Loughborough General Hospital (Nigel Haywood)
    Mr. Croninasked the Minister of Health why a small child, Nigel Haywood, who died shortly afterwards when recently taken to Loughborough General Hospital suffering from acute poisoning, was given no treatment nor first aid but referred to his private doctor; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. K. Robinson: As my hon. Friend knows the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board has appointed a committee of inquiry into this case and hope to receive its report early in the New Year.
    Mr. Cronin: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that as this tragic incident happened several months ago it is absolutely incomprehensible to the people of Loughborough that there should be such a long delay in publishing the results of the inquiry?
    Mr. Robinson: I am glad to have this opportunity of explaining. The child died on 23rd-24th September. The hospital board appointed a committee of inquiry on 11th October. I understand it is making good progress. It has to interview a doctor who is absent abroad but is expected to return in January. The committee hopes to complete the report and present it to the board before the end of January.

    Psychiatric Social Workers
    Mrs. Knightasked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to place the salary rates of psychiatric social workers on an equivalent basis with those of other workers in the social services.
    Mr. K. Robinson: This is primarily a matter for the negotiating bodies concerned, who take into account the relevant work and responsibilities of the several groups of workers in the social services.
    Mrs. Knight: But would the Minister, who is, after all, not unconnected with the results of the inquiry, not recognise that social workers do an important and arduous and very difficult job, and psychiatric workers as much as any of them, and that there ought to be parity in their payment?
    Mr. Robinson: Interdepartmental discussion is proceeding on co-ordination, training, recruitment and deployment of social workers generally, but remuneration is a matter for the negotiating bodies which deal with the different services and they need to have regard to the levels of work and responsibility as well as levels of qualification. The matter is under consideration.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that psychiatric social workers give exceptionally valuable services and provide continuing care for psychiatric patients not only in hospitals but also in their own homes, and that

    9
    therefore their wage and salary claims deserve very sympathetic consideration?
    Mr. Robinson: I agree that they are a most valuable body of workers in the health and welfare services but, as my hon. Friend knows, remuneration is a matter for the appropriate Whitley Council in the Service.

    Dentists' Remuneration
    Mrs. Knightasked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the increases in the charges for dental laboratory services, he will now take steps to increase the remuneration of dentists.
    Mr. K. Robinson: No, Sir. No general increase in charges by dental laboratories have recently been brought to my attention.
    Mrs. Knight: Is the Minister not aware that not only the cost of materials for work done generally in dental laboratories but also the effects of Selective Employment Tax have contributed to greatly increased charges in those laboratories? Will he please look at the facts again?
    Mr. Robinson: They have been looked at. The level of dentists' fees has been fixed so as to allow for any rising trend in practice expenses and still to provide dentists, on average, with the target net income of £3,325 which was recommended by the independent review body. It is expected that this target will be achieved.

    National Health Service (Effect of Devaluation)
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Minister of Health what additional funds a-e to be made available to maintain the hospital building programme, in view of rising costs as a result of devaluation.
    Mr. Deanasked the Minister of Health what additional funds are to be made available to maintain the local authority health and welfare capital programmes, in view of rising costs as a result of devaluation.
    Mr. Hollandasked the Minister of Health (1) what additional funds are to be made available to maintain the hospital building programme in the Sheffield Regional Hospital Board area, in
    10
    view of rising costs as a result of devaluation;
    (2) what additional funds are to be made available to maintain the local authority health and welfare capital building programme, in view of rising costs as a result of devaluation.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Health what estimate he has made of the additional cost that will be incurred by the National Health Service and his Department as a result of devaluation.
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Health (1) what additional funds are to be made available to maintain the hospital building programme in the Liverpool Regional Hospital Board area in view of rising costs as a result of devaluation;
    (2) what additional funds are to be made available to maintain the local authority health and welfare capital building programme in Liverpool in view of rising costs as a reult of devaluation.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The effect of devaluation on Government expenditure is still under consideration and it is too early to make a statement.
    Mr. Macmillan: But is the Minister aware that even on his own admission the rate of increase of hospital building expressed as a percentage of gross investment is not rising as fast as it did? Is he prepared to give an undertaking to the House at this stage that devaluation will not cause the proportion of total of gross fixed investment to rise even more slowly—the proportion devoted to hospital building?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not accept the premises of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. If he would like to put a Question down I shall be very glad to answer it.
    Mr. Dean: On the local authority side, does the Minister recollect that there has already been a cut—last year—of £3 million on capital programmes, and that unless more money is made available his plans for the local authority services will fall even further behind his original plans?
    Mr. Robinson: It is not expected that devaluation will result in costs of the

    11
    local authorities' capital programmes rising by all that much, or, indeed, very rapidly.
    Mr. Holland: Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that rising costs will not cause any delay in the establishment of the university hospital in Nottingham, a project which is eagerly awaited there?
    Mr. Robinson: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but he will understand that I cannot give a categorical assurance while the matter is under consideration.
    Mr. Goodhart: Does the Minister expect that the cost of drug imports, now running at £15 million a year, will go up and up, and if so by how much? Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that foreign-owned drug companies which now control two-thirds of the drug industry in this country, will change their pricing policies? Does he appreciate that devaluation makes the brain drain of doctors and nurses even more attractive?
    Mr. Robinson: I have no idea how the pharmaceutical industry will react to the effects of devaluation, but, no doubt, this will emerge in due course.
    Mr. Fortescue: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake that there will be no reduction in the capital programme in Liverpool without consultation with the regional hospital board and the Liverpool United Hospitals' Board?
    Mr. Robinson: I can only give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the allocation to regional boards will be conducted in future with the same scrupulous fairness as it has in the past.
    Dr. Summerskill: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that when previous Conservative administrations were faced with financial crises they consistently slowed down hospital building programmes and cut social services?
    Mr. Robinson: That, I think, is a fact, and my hon. Friend will remember that on the two previous occasions when there had to be a cutback in Government expenditure the hospital building programme remained unscathed.
    Dr. John Dunwoody: In view of the suggestions in the national Press over the weekend that there may be cuts in ex-
    12
    penditure on the Health Service, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will resist any efforts to reduce expenditure not only on the hospital building programme but on the Health Service as a whole?
    Mr. Robinson: I take note of what my hon. Friend says.
    Lord Balniel: The right hon. Gentleman has not given any figures. Does he accept that the only way to honour the Prime Minister's pledge that there will be no cut in the Health Service and the health and welfare services following devaluation is by making an actual increase in the expenditure on these services?
    Mr. Robinson: What my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said was that the hospital building programme would not figure in the cuts in civil expenditure which he announced.

    Nursery Schools
    Miss Lestorasked the Minister of Health if he will take steps to raise the educational content and standards of play groups to those of nursery schools.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Julian Snow): Local health authorities have already been given guidance on the educational aspects of private day care, and my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science are considering what further advice is needed.
    Miss Lestor: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, but would he bear in mind that the persistence with which some of us pursue this matter is due to the fact that owing to the inadequate provision of nursery schools more and more under-fives now come under his Ministry, and that the same attention should be given to the educational standards of play groups as is given to the number of lavatories and the hygienic conditions of the groups?
    Mr. Snow: Although I should like to examine those assumptions a little more closely, may I inform my hon. Friend that there were two circulars issued in 1965 giving advice to local authorities about ways of meeting the training needs of people in charge of children. There have been two recent publications, which I

    13
    should be happy to send to my hon. Friend, entitled "Not Yet Five", and Play with a Purpose ", both issued by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I take her point about the educational requirements of this category of child.
    Mr. Maurice Macmillan: The hon. Gentleman referred to the co-operation of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Is he aware that there have been cases where local authorities seeking to make site provision for nursery schools next door to primary schools have had loan sanction refused? In view of the delay inevitably involved in providing nursery schools, will he see that better facilities for the education and looking after of children in these ways are made available at day nurseries and play centres?
    Mr. Snow: Yes, Sir. These things must take their place in the queue, taking into 2.ccount the resources available. However, there are not many people who need to be convinced of the need to cater for this group of children. The hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that this Government have taken many steps and secured much information with a view to the planning of this form of educational facility.

    National Health Service (Inquiry)
    Mr. Maurice Macmillanasked the Minister of Health what steps he intends to take to ensure that all outside interested bodies and organisations have an opportunity of making their views known in connection with the inquiry into the structure and administration of the National Health Service.
    Mr. K. Robinson: In my statement of 6th November—[Vol. 753, c. 643–646.]—I give assurances of full consultation in die course with all interested parties and indicated that I would publish a Green Paper embodying my own tentative views as a basis for this consultation and for public discussion.
    Mr. Macmillan: Are we to understand from that that the Green Paper will be published prior to consultation and that those bodies who are concerned because they have not been consulted in the course of its preparation will be consulted afterwards?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, that is so.

    Pre-School Child
    Miss Lestorasked the Minister of Health if he will conduct a public inquiry into the needs of and provision for the pre-school child.
    Mr. Snow: I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to her Question on 23rd October.—[Vol. 751, c. 1336–7.]
    Miss Lestor: While bearing in mind that my right hon. Friend has already proposed Amendments to the Nursery and Childminders Act which will help to tighten up some of the existing loopholes, will he bear in mind and comment upon the fact that, if his proposals are successful, the number of places providing child-minding facilities will be reduced and that, until a public inquiry is held to discover the number required, it will be impossible to legislate for this group of people?
    Mr. Snow: That is a very important point. There was a great deal of information in the Yudkin Report which will enable us to assess the problem as it develops.
    Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Is the Minister aware that this is much more than a question of numbers, and that it is clear that the social, emotional and other needs of the pre-school child are not sufficiently catered for and perhaps not sufficiently realised? Therefore, in my view and, I hope, that of the Minister, the Yudkin Report, supported by numerous child welfare societies, has made out an overwhelming case for a Government inquiry.
    Mr. Snow: I am not certain that further inquiries are necessary. We have a volume of information at our disposal. One interesting point is that, within the Department, we are reviewing urgently the research already carried out into the effects of the separation of children from their mothers during the working day. It is not so much a lack of information as the need for still further co-ordination of the eventual effort.

  HOSPITALS

    South Bedfordshire (Maternity Provisions)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Minister of Health how many babies

    15
    were born in hospital in South Bedfordshire in 1960, 1963, and 1966; what proportion of the total numbers born this represents; and what steps are being taken to increase maternity provision in the area.
    Mr. Snow: I regret that figures for South Bedfordshire alone are not available. I have now written to the hon. Member about the increased maternity provision proposed.
    Mr. Roberts: Have any investigations been carried out in this area into whether the proportion of admissions could be considerably increased if the time spent in hospital after childbirth was marginally reduced?
    Mr. Snow: That is a question for clinical assessment about which I should not like to express a view. However, the contract for the additional maternity beds which it is proposed to have in operation at the end of 1970 or the beginning of 1971 is going out almost forthwith.

    Macclesfield Hospital
    Sir A. V. Harveyasked the Minister of Health when reconstruction of the Macclesfield Hospital will be started; and when is the expected completion date.
    Mr. Snow: I cannot add to the reply given to the hon. Member on 4th July last year.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that that reply was a long time ago? Does he recall that in the past three years I have repeatedly pointed out that Macclesfield Hospital was built 130 years ago? What is going to be done about it? Is this another broken Labour promise?
    Mr. Snow: I do not think that this is a question of a broken Labour promise, although I must say that had there been earlier consideration during the time of the administration supported by the hon. and gallant Member, the present position might not have been as bad as it is. The

    WAITING LISTS FOR GENERAL SURGERY

    A. NUMBERS (AT 31ST DECEMBER, 1966)

    Area

    Total

    Per 1,000 population

    Shrewsbury Hospital Management Committee

    …

    …

    …

    2,009

    6·8

    Birmingham Regional Hospital Board

    …

    …

    …

    19,123

    3·8

    England and Wales

    …

    …

    …

    159,863

    3·3

    regional hospital board has received no reduction in the capital available to it. This project will take its place according to the appropriate needs in the region.

    Hospital Facilities, Shrewsbury
    Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Minister of Health (1) whether he will now make a statement on the hospital facilities available in Shrewsbury, following the representations made to him by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury;
    (2) whether he will now make a statement on the waiting lists for surgical treatment necessary for patients in Shrewsbury, following the representations made to him by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury; and how this list and the waits involved compare with those for other areas.
    Mr. Snow: The present facilities are inadequate, with correspondingly long waiting lists. The remedy lies in the new district general hospital now being built.
    I will circulate figures in relation to waiting lists in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir J. Langford-Holt: Does not the Minister agree that the waiting lists for the service in this area are among the worst in the country? In those circumstances, does he not realise that it is wholly inadequate for him to put forward proposals, as he has done, going as far ahead as 1971? Does he not realise that a great deal more urgency is needed?
    Mr. Snow: I have said that the waiting lists are undesirably long. We are taking every action that we can within our resources. Arrangements are being made for the admission of patients to the R.A.F. Hospital at Cosford to help alleviate the situation. There has been a marked reduction in the total number on the surgical waiting lists. But I agree with the hon. Member that the position is unsatisfactory, and it will be reviewed the whole time. It is accepted as a bad case.
    Following are the figures:

    B. PERIOD OF WAIT BY PATIENTS ADMITTED FROM THE WAITING LISTS IN 1966 (EXCLUDING URGENT ADMISSIONS NOT FROM THE WAITING LIST)*

    Percentage of patients waiting

    Area

    Under 6 months

    6–12 months

    12–24 months

    24–36 months

    Over 36 months

    Shrewsbury Hospital Management Committee

    …

    …

    76·5

    13·8

    8·0

    1·7

    —

    Birmingham Regional Hospital Board

    …

    …

    86·2

    9·2

    3·4

    0·9

    0·3

    * Based partly on 10 per cent. sample.

    Out-Patient Clinics, South-East Kent
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that patients have to wait between four and 10 weeks to obtain a new appointment to attend outpatient clinics at hospitals under the control of the South-East Kent Hospital Management Committee; and what steps h is taking to remedy this delay.
    Mr. Snow: In 49 out of a total of 67 out-patient clinics, the waiting period for non-urgent cases is less than four weeks. At only one clinic is it 10 weeks. Urgent cases receive priority. The regional board has taken steps designed to spread the non-urgent load between clinics.
    Mr. Costain: Is the Minister satisfied with this situation? Is it better or worse than in the rest of the country? May we have the Minister's assurance that no cuts due to the economic situation will make this situation worse?
    Mr. Snow: There is a Question later on the Order Paper about that aspect of the matter. One of the troubles in this area is that there has been a build-up of waiting lists because there has been a tendency for references to be made to specific consultants. If the load is more equally shared—and we are taking steps to get that done—the position may be alleviated.

    Nurses
    Dr. Winstanleyasked the Minister of Health if the decision of the Manchester Regional Hospital Board to limit current nurse recruitment in order to reduce expenditure is in accordance with Government policy.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Regional hospital boards determine their own priorities to contain expenditure within approved estimates.
    Dr. Winstanley: Is the Minister aware that the circular recently issued by the Manchester Regional Hospital Board suggests that nurse recruitment is now to be limited to a figure below that which was previously considered to be necessary? Does he not agree that this is the very last field in which economies should be made?
    Mr. Robinson: The hon. Member will be glad to know that since April, 1964, the Manchester Regional Hospital Board has increased its nursing staff in the region by very nearly a quarter. I understand that the hospitals in greatest need of additional nursing staff will be the least affected by these limitations, and psychiatric hospitals are not affected at all.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister have a realistic revision of establishments for nurses in hospitals which often do not give a true indication of the shortages which exist?
    Mr. Robinson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Over a long period we have considered whether it is possible to lay down national standards, as it were, for establishments. The trouble is that hospitals vary so much in their nature and the work which they do that this is proving extremely difficult.
    Lord Balniel: Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought not to shunt off his responsibility to the regional hospital board? Does he not recognise that the restriction on hospital nursing staff to 90 per cent. of the optimum establishment is causing serious difficulties in hospitals? Is it not right that the public should be aware that the problem is not a shortage of recruits but a shortage of finance coming from the Treasury?
    Mr. Robinson: That is not necessarily the answer in every part of the country. The Board is not seeking to reduce its expenditure but to limit the increase to

    19
    a level which it can contain within its approved estimates. There is nothing new in that. It happened during the time of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

    Drug Addicts (Treatment Centres)
    Mr. Tilneyasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to expedite the setting up of treatment centres for drug addicts; and whether special funds will be granted to regional hospital boards for this purpose.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Additional facilities for the treatment of heroin addiction are being set up as quickly as possible, mainly in the London area, and my Department is in close touch with the hospital authorities. The cost is not expected to be very large in relation to the funds available to regional hospital boards and I do not contemplate that special financial arrangements will be necessary. Consideration is given to any case of difficulty.
    Mr. Tilney: Will it not take a long time before the whole country is covered by these treatment centres? If extra funds are not to be provided, will not other facilities have to be cut? Can the Minister say whether in the meantime general practitioners will be able to continue to prescribe for drug addicts?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, Sir. On many occasions I have made it clear to the House that the ban on general practitioners prescribing will not be operative until we are satisfied that sufficient treatment facilities exist in the hospital service. But outside London there is no evidence that the current demand for treatment is not being met. This is very largely a London problem.
    Mr. Lipton: Is the Minister aware that facilities in the London area for the treatment of drug addicts are woefully inadequate? Will he say what they are and what they are likely to be within the next few weeks?
    Mr. Robinson: I do not accept that they are woefully inadequate. I have said that we have not yet completed the total of facilities which we want to be available for the time when the new arrangements come into operation. At the end of October there were about 70
    20
    patients receiving in-patient treatment and 180 receiving out-patient treatment for heroin addiction in some 40 hospitals.
    Lord Balniel: Can the Minister explain why he will not name the hospitals where he is setting up treatment centres for drug addicts? Until we know the names it is almost impossible to assess the progress which is being made.
    Mr. Robinson: I do not agree that it is impossible to assess the progress being made. I have given the numbers. The reason why we do not give the names of the hospitals is that it is unwise to release names if we are to prevent addicts rushing to a number of hospitals in succession, but generally practitioners in the London area have been told where treatment is available.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that in the setting up of treatment centres, particularly out-patient treatment centres, adequate care will be given to providing social welfare staff as otherwise these centres will be almost valueless?
    Mr. Robinson: I would not say that they will be almost valueless, but I agree with the implication of the question that proper social welfare assistance is very important indeed.

    Mental Illness
    Mr. Moonmanasked the Minister of Health (1) how many male and female patients aged 20 years and over were admitted to mental illness hospitals and units, including teaching hospitals, during 1966 and what was the rate for each sex per 100,000 of the population for the same age group;
    (2) how many male and female patients, aged 20 years and over, were discharged from mental illness hospitals and units, including teaching hospitals, during 1966: and what was the rate for each sex per 100,000 of the population for the same age group.
    Mr. Snow: I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Moonman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he state what steps he is taking to improve mental health in communities where the rate is far in excess of the national average?

    21
    Also will he say something about the need for improved community care, because of the great increase in discharges?
    Mr. Snow: I think the figures will indicate the general improvement in care that is being provided, as evidenced by the fact that there has been a steady decline over the past few years in the total hospital population covering mental illness 2nd the patients for this type of

    MENTAL ILLNESS HOSPITALS AND UNITS (INCLUDING TEACHING HOSPITALS) 1966 PATIENTS AGED 20 AND OVER

    Males

    Females

    Total

    Nuumber

    Rate per 100,000 Population

    Number

    Rate per 100,000 Population

    Number

    Rate per 100,000 Population

    Admissions*

    …

    65,675

    415

    95,828

    549

    161,503

    485

    Discharges and transfers

    …

    59,391

    375

    86,775

    497

    146,166

    439

    Discharges, transfers and deaths

    …

    66,771

    422

    97,386

    557

    164,157

    493

    * Includes transfers from psychiatric beds in other hospitals and units.

    Hospital Doctors (Expenses)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health what is his estimate of the total sum paid to hospital doctors in addition to remuneration in respect of travel expenses and grants for conferences, study leave, &c., at home and overseas, expenses allowances, fees for domiciliary visits and any other fringe benefits.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The total sum paid out annually in respect of domiciliary visits is in the region of £2 million, but I regret that information for an estimate under the other headings is not available.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in October of 60 doctors in one region given permission to attend conferences, including New York, Kuwait and Rome, 49 were consultants and only 3 were registrars? As it would seem that consultants can be spared from their work more easily than registrars, should we not pay registrars more than we pay consultants?
    Mr. Robinson: I think there is a fallacy in my hon. Friend's logic. He may like to know that the new arrangements for study leave enable doctors in training grades to have up to 30 days paid leave each year for fully approved courses. Senior staff may have up to 30 days in three-year periods.
    case has gone down to 121,754 at the end of 1966. It is noteworthy that the number of female patients substantially exceeds the number of males which is apparently accounted for by their greater longevity and particularly higher proneness to mental illness, which is not a matter easily coped with in question and answer.
    Following are the figures:

    Dialysis Units (Staff)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Health what is his policy regarding the employment of trained staff in dialysis departments in National Health Service hospitals; whether salary scales have been fixed; which negotiating machinery applies and whether it is administered by the matron or by the hospital secretary; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. K. Robinson: The departments are staffed by doctors, nurses and supporting technical and ancillary staff. The salaries of nurses are those negotiated by the Nurses and Midwives Whitley Council and I have determined salaries for the technical and ancillary staffs not at present covered by Whitley agreements. The staff attached to these units work under medical direction.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is an area of uncertainty over the responsibility of qualified nursing staff concerned with these duties? Will he look at this in view of the heavy work and responsibilities which these staff are carrying.
    Mr. Robinson: I should be glad to look at any problem raised by my hon. Friend.
    Dr. Winstanley: With reference to technical staff, will the Minister bear in

    23
    mind that this work involves very considerable hazards to health and that it has resulted in a number of disasters? Will he bear this in mind when establishing the pay of these technical staff as against that of other technical staff?
    Mr. Robinson: Yes, I am aware of that, and I think these considerations have been borne in mind in fixing these salaries.

    Private Beds
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Minister of Health whether general administrative costs within a hospital are included in assessing charges for private beds in hospitals.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that pay beds in many hospitals are pricing themselves out of the market? Would it not be better for them to carry the overheads of their department rather than the very high overheads of the whole hospital which accrue to the Health Service as a whole?
    Mr. Robinson: The current method of calculating charges for pay beds is based on the Regulations of 1953 which were introduced when the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) was Minister.
    Mr. Molloy: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that further aid to pay beds would mean that people who can afford to pay for these things would be, to a degree, subsidised by the general taxpayer? Would he not agree that the ideal solution to all this would be to raise the status of National Health Service hospitals so that pay beds became a thing of the past and cash would have no further consideration in the treatment of sickness?
    Mr. Robinson: I have said that I am very anxious indeed to raise standards in the National Health Service so that no one would wish to be treated privately, but in answering this Question I was referring to current methods of calculating prices. My hon. Friend will know that new methods are proposed in the Health Services and Public Health Bill which is now before the House.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: When there is such a great shortage in the hospitals because money is not being found to pay for nurses, is it not crazy to follow a policy of closing down wards of private beds which, if established, would help the whole situation?
    Mr. Robinson: I think the hon. Member misunderstands the position. The reduction in the number of pay beds which took place as a result of my review means that the beds released are now available for non-paying patients.
    Mr. Dean: When does the Minister expect his new proposal for assessing charges on a national basis to be in operation?
    Mr. Robinson: Certainly not until the Bill is on the Statute Book.

    Whitchurch General Hospital Maternity Unit)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Minister of Health what proposals he has for a maternity unit at the Whitchurch General Hospital, in view of the widespread local support for such a unit.
    Mr. Snow: None, Sir. Provision for Whitchurch is made in the new maternity unit at Copthorne Hospital, Shrewsbury.
    Mr. Biffen: Does not the hon. Gentleman recall that earlier in Question Time today he confessed that hospital conditions in the Shrewsbury district were inadequate? Is he aware that over 6,000 people have petitioned for such a hospital and that the Answer he has given will encourage the belief that hospital planners, whether in Birmingham or London, show a woeful indifference to local needs popularly expressed?
    Mr. Snow: I believe there is a great deal to be done in educating the public into a general understanding that we cannot with justification prevent patients from getting the best technical treatment. This technical treatment can be provided only within the concept of the district general hospital. That is why I have given the reply I gave. It is quite wrong to say the regional board is insensitive to local demand. It is a questiton not only of highly sophisticated equipment but also of the provision of trained staff.

    Pharmacists
    Mr. Ronald Bellasked the Minister of Health what is the deficiency of basic grade pharmacists in the hospital service in the North-West Metropolitan Region; and what action he is taking to recruit more pharmacists.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Minister of Health what action he will take to increase the number of pharmacists employed in the national hospital service.
    Mr. K. Robinson: There is a shortage a number of areas including the North-West Metropolitan Region. To improve recruitment the salaries of hospital pharmacists were substantially increased earlier this year and ways of improving the career structure are being studied urgently.
    Mr. Bell: Can the right hon. Gentleman give me the figure for the North-West Metropolitan Region, which is what I asked for? Can he say whether it is of the order of 80 per cent., because, if it is, that is a very serious deficiency indeed which seems to indicate further action beyond that taken earlier this year?
    Mr. Robinson: There are no fixed standards by reference to which they can be precisely measured. I agree it is serious in the North-West Metropolitan Region but at the last staffing inquiry over the whole country a shortfall of those in post on estimated requirements was 22 per cent. in terms of whole-time equivalents. The last staffing report showed an increase in staff in post—a small increase—from 1,405 to 1,444 in the year ended 30th September, 1966.
    Mr. Goodhart: Does the Minister appreciate that during last year the number of pharmacists, who are basic to the hospital services throughout the country, has fallen by almost 50 per cent.? Will he press on with a new career structure as a matter of urgency?
    Mr. Robinson: We are taking whatever steps we can and I think we ought to see how the recruitment position goes following the recent considerable increase in salaries.

    Hospital Schools (Staff)
    Lord Balnielasked the Minister of Health what proportion of the supervisors and assistant supervisors in hospi-
    26
    tal schools for the mentally handicapped and mentally subnormal have the appropriate National Association for Mental Health qualification or other recognised qualification.
    Mr. K. Robinson: About 21 per cent.
    Lord Balniel: Is not this proportion of trained staff in the hospital schools substantially below the proportion of trained staff in the junior training centres? Will the right hon. Gentleman bring the conditions of service in the hospital schools, particularly those relating to holidays, into line with the staff in the junior training centres?
    Mr. Robinson: I take note of that suggestion. Arrangements were made in September 1966 to enable suitable hospital staff to be seconded on full pay to courses leading to qualifications. So far, we have had 28 applications for secondment, all of which have been approved.

    Queen Victoria Nursing Institute, Wolverhampton (Blood Transfusions)
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of a recent death resulting from the system adopted for identifying blood for transfusions at Queen Victoria Nursing Institute, Wolverhampton; and what steps he is taking to prevent any further failures to identify bottled blood at this hospital.
    Mr. Snow: I am aware of this tragic incident. Blood for transfusion at this hospital is labelled in accordance with the uniform hospital system for distinguishing the blood group and I have no evidence of need for change in the system. The hospital management committee is considering what action is needed locally to prevent a repetition.
    Mr. Montgomery: Can the Minister say whether it is intended to hold an inquiry into this case? Is he aware that while he may be satisfied with the system a lot of people are not? Two people of the same name were in the hospital and the wrong blood was given to a lady who subsequently died? Is he aware that this has caused a great deal of alarm? I would be grateful if he would have an inquiry into the whole business?
    Mr. Snow: The system is perfectly all right. There were errors committed, the hospital management committee has

    27
    arranged for the paints brought out at the inquest to be studied by its nursing committee and the group medical advisory committee. I understand that questions of negligence are likely to be raised in civil proceedings against the hospital, and in those circumstances the House and the hon. Gentleman will perhaps forgive me for not elaborating.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Catering
    Mr. Websterasked the Lord President of the Council whether he has authorised special sales of wines, spirits or tobacco, in bulk, by the catering department.
    Mr. Maxwell: I have been asked to reply.
    The Chairman of the Catering Sub-Committee on 27th July notified the Committee that wines and spirits would be available at special prices. These have been offered to Members, staff and the Press, and priced on the advice of the Manager in consultation with the shippers. Tobacco is not being sold at a special price.
    Mr. Webster: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there will be considerable resentment if it is found that these attractive offers are made not from existing stocks of the House of Commons but that the House is simply being used as an agency for an outside wine merchant?
    Mr. Maxwell: I am not aware of any resentment. On the contrary, the offer has been well received and is proving very successful.
    Mr. Websterasked the Lord President of the Council what stocks of wine are held for the purpose of the special offer of wines and spirits; and what was the cost of these stocks.
    Mr. Maxwell: I have been asked to reply.
    We do not hold stocks for this purpose. The wine merchants operating the cellar stocking system took our old stock away and, in producing the special offer list for Members, have augmented these and enlarged the wine list by adding some of their own stocks.
    Mr. Webster: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the House of Commons is
    28
    being used as a mail order agency for an outside wine merchant which is a subsidiary of a very large group of brewers?
    Mr. Maxwell: I am not saying that at all. All that has happened is that the Catering Sub-Committee, looking for revenue in order to ensure that the charge on public funds is reduced, has continued the practice of providing Members, the staff and the Press with an opportunity of acquiring wines for purchase at Christmas time. As I have said to the hon. Gentleman, this is proving both popular and successful.
    Sir D. Glover: Can the hon. Gentleman explain how the Catering Sub-Committee can enter into this sort of arrangement in an organisation which does not pay rates and which is not in equal competition with people outside? Does he not realise that this is very unfair trading?
    Mr. Maxwell: We have entered into this arrangement by authority vested in the Catering Sub-Committee of the House. I believe that it is in the interests of the House that it be continued.
    Mr. Webster: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Lord President of the Council what progress has been made in considering the suggestion that the dining facilities at the Palace of Westminster should be available to the general public when Parliament is in recess.
    Mr. Maxwell: I have been asked to reply.
    Active consideration is being given to this problem. Positive steps have been already taken to enable this service to be provided, if the Services Committee approves it. It is hoped to make a further statement as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend say whether a decision will be taken in time to provide this facility for the next Summer Recess, and can he give the House an assurance that the decision will be taken by elected Members and not by any official of the House?
    Mr. Maxwell: To answer the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary Question, the decision can and will be taken in time for the Summer Recess, subject to the technical facilities being available. In answer to the second part, of course, the decision will be taken by the House and by no one else.
    Dr. Winstanley: In addition, will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the possibility of additional revenue being gained by providing refreshments for members of the public on Saturdays?
    Mr. Maxwell: We will certainly look into that as a further suggestion for improving the revenue and for making available the resources of this House to the staff, Members and their guests and visitors.
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Lord President of the Council whether, since the Catering Department is now out of the red, he will now arrange for a general increase in the wages of the staff.
    Mr. Maxwell: I have been asked to reply.
    No. An all-round increase of 10 per cent. was awarded recently.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Does the hon. Member recall that the former policy was that so long as the prices were kept low there should not be any substantial increase in wages which would not be appropriate. Now that prices have soared, is there any reason why there should be a restriction on a further reasonable increase in wages for our staff?
    Mr. Maxwell: There is no restriction on a further wage increase for our staff. As the hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect, the House has generally expressed its desire that the servants of the House be paid commensurate with the remarkable efforts that they are putting in. However, having just received an award of 10 per cent., it would be a little premature to talk about any additional awards. Furthermore, as I expect the House will note when the first report of the Catering Sub-Committee is published, it appears that we are breaking even, and we expect to be making a profit next year. I believe that we must stick to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked,
    30
    namely, that we pay bonuses only after they have been earned and not before.
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Lord President of the Council whether lie is aware of the deterioration of the quality of food in the Members' Tea Room; and whether he will give an assurance that future expenditure will be used to maintain food standards rather than on furniture and decoration.
    Mr. Maxwell: I have been asked to reply.
    I have no knowledge that the food has deteriorated in the Members' Tea Room. Since the installation of the new equipment, I understand that it has considerably improved.
    Dame Irene Ward: Is the hon. Gentleman aware, just as an example, that now it is not possible to get any decent plain biscuits—only nasty cheap sugary ones, like the Prime Minister's Questions and Answers?
    Mr. Maxwell: I would not wish to engage in any polemics with the hon. Lady. If she has any complaints about the biscuits, perhaps she would put in a recommendation and the Manager will look at it.

    Automatic Telephone Exchange
    Mr. Francis Noel-Bakerasked the Lord President of the Council when he expects to be able to install an automatic telephone exchange for the Palace of Westminster, following the report of the Postmaster-General.
    The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): It is hoped that the report from my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will be available shortly. At this stage there is nothing I can add to the Answer I gave my lion. Friend on 24th July.
    Mr. Noel-Baker: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that it is false economy not to modernise this place? The present switchboard is not only grossly unfair to the operators using it, but it is grossly inefficient and a great burden on Members of Parliament, preventing them from doing their job properly.
    Mr. Crossman: I think everybody here realises that we should modernise the

    31
    switchboard. We ought to modernise it after we have received the report from the Postmaster-General.

    Select Committees
    Mr. Cantasked the Lord President of the Council when he proposes to move to appoint a Select Committee on Economic and Financial Affairs.
    Mr. Crossman: I explained my proposals for Select Committees this Session on 14th November, but I will certainly bear this possibility in mind.
    Mr. Cant: Does my hon. Friend feel, following the economic events of the last few weeks, that there is or is not a special urgency attaching to this type of Select Committee dealing with a most critical phase of policy-making in the House?
    Mr. Crossman: I do not think that we ought to appoint Select or Specialist Committees in terms of current difficulties. There has always been a strong case for committees of this kind, and that case has been strengthened by what has been happening recently.
    Mr. Marquandasked the Lord President of the Council whether he will move for the establishment of an ad hoc Specialist Committee to examine the social costs involved in the Government's fuel policy.
    Mr. Crossman: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), I explained my proposals for Select Committees this Session on 14th November. This particular aspect of fuel policy has been, and is being, taken into account.
    Mr. Marquand: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to have the sort of effective virile committee system which he believes in, they ought to be able to take up particularly urgent topics of public concern, as well as looking at other issues, and that this one, because of the interest that it arouses in mining constituencies in particular, would be a very good candidate for an ad hoc Specialist Committee?
    Mr. Crossman: As my hon. Friend will notice, the number of candidates increases with the number of questions asked. This is a serious question, but whether we should ask a Specialist Com-
    32
    mittee to be solely devoted to examining the social costs involved in this matter is questionable.

    Prime Minister (Questions)
    Earl of Dalkeithasked the Lord President of the Council if he will make arrangements to ensure that additional time is available for addressing Oral Questions to the Prime Minister.
    Mr. Crossman: I will consider this proposal when we arrange the Question roster for the post-Christmas period.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind that there would appear to be a valid case for this request in view of the Prime Minister's assumption of direct personal control over the economy, quite apart from the obvious requirement to give him double-talking time?
    Mr. Crossman: Whatever views the noble Lord may have about the Prime Minister, I suspect his real feelings are about his own difficulties. If he has difficulties in getting answers, he should ask the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten), who has such remarkable success.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: As an alternative suggestion, will the Leader of the House ask the Prime Minister not to pad his answers so that he deliberately avoids getting to the next Question?
    Mr. Crossman: I think that is extremely unjust. The last thing of which one could accuse the Prime Minister is avoiding a debate in this House. On the last occasion, Members who were determined to ask the Prime Minister about the Common Market were perfectly entitled, in my view, to take their time, even if it did mean that others suffered.
    Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: Would my right hon. Friend agree that there is a serious aspect to this Question applying to other Ministers as well? For example, since the last Recess there has been only one opportunity to ask Questions of the Foreign Secretary. Would he look at the whole position of Question Time with a view to increasing the opportunity for Members?
    Mr. Crossman: This is an eternal question which the Leader of the House has

    33
    to deal with. Every time we do the roster we have the awareness that Members would like a shift in the balance between Ministers. On the whole, I think that the present balance is fair, but I am always prepared to receive recommendations about it.

    Accommodation
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Lord President of the Council if he will move -for the appointment of a Joint Committee to consider the allocation of space in the Palace of Westminster in order to ensure for this House a proportion more in relation to its size and functions.
    Mr. Crossman: I think this issue must await the outcome of the consideration being given at present to the constitution and functions of another place.
    Mr. Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the numbers in the other place will be sufficiently reduced that their case for their existing accommodation will be further weakened? Is it not the case that even in 1953 they had over 20,000 square feet of space more than they were entitled to by their numbers? Will he take urgent steps to get rid of the Lord Chancellor's Department from this Palace?
    Mr. Crossman: These are all important questions which indicate the state of the cold war which now exists between ourselves and the other place, and which might conceivably be ended by a change of the sort that I suggest.

    Standing Order No. 9
    Mr. Ridleyasked the Lord President of the Council if he will move to revise Standing Order No. 9 so that topics of an urgent and important nature can be debated as they arise.
    Mr. Crossman: The House has just approved a complete revise of this Standing Order and I am sure the majority of the House would agree that it ought to be given a fair run to see how it works in practice. In my view the first example was a pretty good one.
    Mr. Ridley: Is the Leader of the House aware that there is a strong demand in all quarters of the House, including below the Gangway on his own side, that those
    34
    matters should be debated, as they arise quite frequently? Could he say, therefore, how many Standing Order No. 9 debates he would expect to see during the course of a year?
    Mr. Crossman: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. The question of the number given depends on Mr. Speaker and not on the Leader of the House. If the hon. Gentleman is interested, he could read the Report of the Select Committee, which makes suggestions on this. Now we have passed a Standing Order which leaves it to you, Mr. Speaker, to decide, and you will decide.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Whilst I welcome some of the measures which have been taken to improve the administration of the House, will my right hon. Friend receive with due caution these blandishments from the other side of the House on Standing Order No. 9? Would he not agree that if we carry this principle too far we shall have no protection whatever for the Orders of the Day, with the result that general business already in the pipeline will he pushed back and back and nobody will be able to make any forward arrangements?
    Mr. Crossman: I would have thought that those of us who studied the Report of the Select Committee on Standing Order No. 9 realised that this was a bold but perfectly practicable extension of the desire for topical debates. So far we have had one on what seemed to me a thoroughly justifiable subject. I would have thought that the best thing the House can do is to wait and see what happens and be content. I am prepared to say that the increase in the number of topical debates was part of the balanced change in procedure which I have been trying to put forward.

QUESTIONS
Mr. Deedes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may have observed that out of the number of Questions that we have reached today, 12 were addressed to the Lord President of the Council, who, I am sorry to say, has now left and to whom I gave no notice.
Seven of these Questions were concerned with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) and our domestic affairs. It is not for me to

35
make criticism of the list, but I know that there are hon. Members who could wish that some other channel be found for discussing in such detail matters of our housekeeping which really are not—
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear the point that the right hon. Gentleman is raising.
Mr. Deedes: I can only speak for myself, but I think that other hon. Members would agree with me that it would be the wish of at least a majority that some other way be found of dealing with these matters, perhaps in consultation with yourself and the Lord President of the Council and his hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, with whose duties all of us have the greatest sympathy, so as to ensure that such a high proportion of the Questions on the Order Paper on a Monday should not be taken up with matters of almost purely domestic concern which, I think, do not find a very warm response in the minds of the public, who might expect us to be discussing something different.
Mr. William Hamilton: Further to that point of order. I hope that you will not take it for granted that the majority of the House take the same view as the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker. Some of these Questions are extremely important
36
and some are trivial, and that is so in the case of Questions to all Ministers. It is for the Table to judge whether the Question is in order and for the House to judge on the order of Ministers answering Questions upon any day of the week.
Mr. Speaker: The point raised by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) is not a point of order. The hon. Member for Fife West (Mr. William Hamilton) is quite right. The Table has no power to refuse any Question which is in order. The point of view which has been expressed by the right hon. Member for Ashford, that the affairs of the Kitchen Committee might not take such an amount of the Lord President of the Council's space on the Order Paper that they do is a question for the hon. Members themselves, not for the Chair.
Mr. Pavitt: On another point of order. The Minister of Health, replying to a Question by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Maurice Macmillan), stated that he would be giving a reply later on, to another Question on the Order Paper—No. 67, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson). Is it possible that the Answer could be given?
Mr. Speaker: It is quite possible, but I have not been asked and so it will not be given.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NATIONAL LOANS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.35 p.m.
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Diamond): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This Bill deals with the accounting arrangements for Government borrowing and lending. It might be convenient if first, I deal very shortly with the history of the matter and then explain what the main proposals are, and then explain what matters are not affected because the House, I think, is of the opinion that some matters are altered which are not altered. I can then perhaps deal, finally, with those matters which are altered and hope then that the Bill would receive, in due course, a Second Reading.
  To deal with the history of the matter. It is known that all Governments are God-fearing; but however God-fearing they are they find it increasingly necessary to be both borrowers and lenders. As the years have gone by this has grown, certainly in this country, to such an extent that the legislation which was introduced, mostly in the last century, to make provision for these matters is no longer relevant.
  The borrowing and lending is large in volume and extent. The number of bodies concerned is much greater and as a result of being tied to the legislation of the last century, the accounts produced and the figures and explanations put before this House are inadequate in the sense that they lack clarity and, in certain cases, are almost misleading. It is necessary for every hon. and right hon. Member, when the Budget and accounts are published, to do his own sums to find out what has been happening, because the accounts in their statutory form do not give adequate information. The famous "line" is no longer a very relevant consideration and, therefore, my right hon. Friend the then Chancellor, in his Budget speech in April this year, announced that there would be a review. He made it clear that he would review not only the form of the matter, but the substance as well.
  38
  Perhaps I could give an indication of the matters which were reviewed. The House is, naturally, entitled to know what matters of substance were reviewed and if they are not in the Bill why they have been excluded. It is clear that when one is thinking of the Government's position as borrower and lender, particularly in relation to nationalised industries and local authorities, there are three possible positions that could be adopted. The borrowing could be done by the organisation itself or one could have a separate, "in-between" agency to do the borrowing or the lending. Another alternative is that the Government could do it, as they largely do at present.
  The first possibility, that of reverting to the system whereby nationalised industries particularly raised their capital on the market by issuing securities which were guaranteed by the Government, was examined during the review. The House will remember that this was abandoned for very good reasons in 1956. Those reasons are explained in the Report of the Radcliffe Committee with admirable clarity and, it was decided, they are still valid. They related mainly to the difficulties of managing the market when there were a number of comparatively small issues, as would be represented here, continually coming before the public.
  It was decided that that alternative was still not a good idea. We considered the second possibility, of setting up a separate agency, which would deal with the lending of nationalised industries, local authorities and others which would undertake the necessary borrowing. After consideration we reached the conclusion that such an agency would convey no facilities and no advantages which the Treasury did not already possess and that there was no point in inserting an intermediate body. We are left, therefore, with the Government doing their own borrowing but with the decision to bring the accounting arrangements up to date. The Bill is intended to carry out that conclusion.
  That is the history of the matter. I turn now to the main proposals in the Bill. The major proposal is that which is clearly set out in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum and consists of separating out the borrowing and lending transactions of the Government

  39
  from their normal receipts and payments on revenue account. The broad intention is to bringing within the new National Loans Fund, which is to be set up, the transactions in which the Government act as a borrower and the transactions in which the Government act as a lender of unsubsidised loans. It is necessary to limit it in that sense. Accordingly, the Consolidated Fund will continue to accommodate receipts from taxation and ordinary expenditure out of moneys voted by Parliament.
  I think that I ought at this point to remove a possible confusion relating to the word "Exchequer". I do not propose to refer to that term any more: In the past it has been the custom to refer to payments into the Exchequer and to refer to payments out of the Consolidated Fund. To begin with, as a new Member I often wondered how this was possible. I imagined the Exchequer accumulating and growing fat and a curious fund, like a magician's hat, out of which we could continually take things without anything ever going into it.
  Sir Douglas Glover: Many people still think so.
  Mr. Diamond: The hon. Gentleman is perceptive, as usual.
  Many people still think so, but it is not the case, because as he and I discovered a long time ago, these two are one and the same thing. The confusion arises through having two different names. Anything that we can do to remove confusion is helpful. Therefore, I propose in future to refer to the Consolidated Fund as such and to the new National Loans Fund as such.
  This does not mean that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whom I am glad to see in his place, is no longer to be described in his traditional way. It is not my intention to refer to him as "the Chancellor of the Consolidated Fund and the National Loans Fund". We must in his case regard the Exchequer as an all-embracing title.
  There will, as I have indicated, therefore be two separate accounts—the National Loans Fund and the Consolidated Fund. The deficit of the Consolidated Fund will be transferred to the
  40
  National Loans Fund, or, if it is a surplus, as is normally the case, will be so transferred. The "line" as we now know it will disappear and the published accounts will, I think, show what people want to know, as far as that is consistent with preparing our accounts on a cash basis.
  I regret, however much we look at it, that we are driven to the conclusion that the Government are compelled to prepare the accounts on a cash basis, if only for the purpose of presenting information rapidly to the House, because cash accounts are presented immediately; they are there available every day, whereas accounts prepared on an income and expenditure basis take a very long time indeed. If only for that reason, it is necessary to continue on a cash basis. I repeat that the accounts that are published will in future, after the Bill becomes law, enable the House to understand the situation with much greater clarity and intelligibility.
  The statements that are presented at Budget time immediately, so that the House can make its decisions, will continue to be prepared on a cash basis. I know that the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) is very anxious that they should be prepared as far as possible on an income basis. I can only repeat that this would mean such a delay as would make it impossible to give accurate figures. One can always give approximate figures. It would make it impossible to give accurate figures at the time of the Budget. Although, therefore, the balance which will be shown will not be precisely the same as would be ultimately shown on accounts prepared in the way he and I would both like, nevetheless they will be much nearer to that figure than is the case at present.
  There are several advantages to be claimed from revising and modernising the arrangements in this way. I have described them as clarity and intelligibility, and, I would add, the removal of misconceptions. A foreigner, for example, reading our Budget statements would not realise that he would have to make allowance for the amount of nationalised industry in his own country before being able to read the figures intelligibly. If, for example, in his country fewer industries were nationalised than in this country, he would realise only after the

  41
  matter had been brought to his attention that here we are providing through this statement for the loans to be provided for all the nationalised industry of this country, whereas in his own country those industries, perhaps still being un-nationalised, would get their funds in the market in the ordinary way and the figures would not enter into the budget at all. It is, therefore, helpful for those who wish to read a pure budget statement, a statement of the Consolidated Fund, that the arrangements we propose should be carried out.
  I have said that there are several matters which the House might think would be affected by our proposals. I think that it would be helpful if I go through the major ones and explain those which are not affected by what we propose to do. First, security for loans is not affected one iota. Security for loans will, in the first place, be that of a charge on the National Loans Fund, both as regards existing loans which are transferred there and new loans, but there will be recourse to the Consolidated Fund. Therefore, the security of both Funds will be there in support of loans issued both as regards existing and future loans. I therefore think that I am entitled to assert that the security position is completely unaltered.
  The next matter which is not affected is borrowing by nationalised industries from the Government. Those arrangements will remain unaltered. So, too, will borrowing by local authorities from the P.W.L.B. Those arrangements again remain unaltered by the Bill. The Local Loans Fund is being wound up by the Bill, but that Fund is in any event a dead letter and does not affect the issue. I repeat that both the nationalised industries' borrowing and local authorities' borrowing from the P.W.L.B. are not affected by the Bill. Nor is the borrowing by local authorities from the market on their own credit. Those arrangements will go on exactly as before and are not affected by any provisions of the Bill.
  The rates of Government lending, whether to nationalised industries or to the P.W.L.B., are not affected, although the description given and the definition of the powers of the Government in lending are more precise and clear. The Bill makes it clear that all loans to national-
  42
  iced industries and to the P.W.L.B. must be hard loans—I think that is the term which most of us understand—not soft loans. They must be on terms on which the Government themselves could at that time borrow for loans of that duration and they must include a sufficient margin— a very small margin indeed—to cover the cost of issues. The way we do that normally is to raise the rate to the next⅛ per cent. We level it up to the next⅛per cent. That is a very small matter. The loans which will be made will be at the rates prevailing for Government borrowing at that time for loans of that duration.
  Those are the major matters which are not affected by the Bill.
  Certain matters are altered. One of them, although it is more a matter of form than of substance, is the authority for the limits of borrowing from the P.W.L.B. For the last two or three years the range of local authority borrowing has been at the rate of something approaching, or even in excess of, £600 million a year. That has meant that we have had to have a new P.W.L.B. Act every year.
  It is proper, of course—indeed, essential—that the House should debate fully loans of this magniture, but the proposal which the Bill contains should serve that purpose very fully indeed. The proposal in the Bill is that Parliament should fix an initial limit of £1,000 million in the Bill itself and that power should be given to the Treasury to increase that three times by not more than £1,000 million each time.
  Each such extention will be the subject of a Statutory Instrument which will be debated on an affirmative Resolution and the House, therefore, will have the same facility for debating this matter as normally takes place on the Second Reading of the Bill to increase the facilities of the P.W.L.B. I say "the Second Reading" because the practice has been that although these matters have been discussed fairly fully on Second Reading, the Committee stage has generally been absolutely formal. Therefore, I believe I am accurate in saying that we are not proposing under this system to withdraw from the House any of its powers for the proper examination of the additional amounts of these loans.

  43
  The second matter which is altered, and again is a matter of form rather than of substance, is the matter of dealing with the profits of the Issue Department. As the House is aware, the Bank of England holds Government securities as backing for notes issued. It has been the practice since 1939, I believe, for the surplus, which is described in the Statute as the profits—that is to say, the income from the Government securities, less the cost of issue—to be transferred to the Exchequer Equalisation Account. But, in fact, that is a comparatively new thing. As I say, it was introduced in 1939 and the Bill proposes a reversion to the system which, in effect, applied before that. It will obviously be recognised that the interest on these Government securities, in fact, comes from what will now be the National Loans Fund, and it is only sensible, therefore, that the profits of this Department should go back to that Fund. That is what the Bill proposes.
  There is a further alteration which is a little more a matter of substance, and that is in connection with overseas lending and subscriptions to certain international organisations. The proposal in the Bill is that these, to the extent that they are paid out of the Consolidated Fund at the moment, should be transferred from the Consolidated Fund to votes. If I may remind the House, the position at the moment is that a good deal of the overseas aid programme comes on votes, but not the whole of it. Part of it comes out of the Consolidated Fund, being lending.
  This lending would, under the proposals in the Bill, unless we made any other suggestion, go to the new National Loans Fund but, as I have already indicated, it is essential that that Fund, if it is to deal truly with the position of the Government as an intermediary in borrowing and lending, should not contain any subsidy element. Therefore, the loan should not be soft to any extent. Any subsidy element is, in fact, a contribution, an expense which the Government incur if they lend at less than they borrow. It is essential that the House should appreciate this and that the figures should reflect it every year.
  Accordingly, it would not be right that loans made to an organisation, which are
  44
  partly hard and partly soft as in the case of overseas lending where aid is concerned, should be paid out of the National Loans Fund. They will, therefore, be paid on votes. This will have the added and major advantage that the House will be able to see at one glance the extent of the overseas aid programme which is at the moment divided between the Consolidated Fund and the votes.
  Mr. F. J. Bellenger: My right hon. Friend will know from his professional experience that loans are only one part of the balance sheet. Therefore, foreign investors in particular—some might even say speculators—at times will want to see the relationship between loans and assets so far as nationalised industries are concerned. In the case of the Colonial Development Corporation, investors can see how we are doing in lending money to certain undertakings overseas.
  I am wondering whether my right hon. Friend has any proposals relating to nationalised undertakings which, at the same time as providing information for the House and others about the amount of the loans, can also provide in the form of a balance sheet the probable valuation of the assets?
  Mr. Diamond: I take my right hon. Friend's point fully. The new National Loans Fund will show loans which, so far as one can tell, are good loans and. therefore, worth their face value. There will, of course, be what is normally described as the dead weight of the national debt, but the interest on that will be serviced by the Consolidated Fund and transferred to the National Loans Fund. It is the intention, as I have made clear, that the loans made by the National Loans Fund should be hard loans, and indeed, as I should have added, in the case of local loans we are winding up the Local Loans Fund but the bad debts on that Fund are not being transferred, so as to avoid the very predicament to which my right hon. Friend has referred. As I say, they should be good loans, hard assets.
  Whether for all time one can control the situation is beyond anybody's capacity to say. If one wants to look at the whole story, just as much as with the C.D.C. one looks at the bodies which receive assistance from the C.D.C., so in this case if one wants a consolidated

  45
  view one would have to look at the balance sheets of the nationalised industries themselves and see the loans which they borrowed in this way and which are shown as loans in the National Loans Fund, to see the assets which represent those loans in the balance sheets of the nationalised industries. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention because it show that he follows clearly the point that I am making about the alterations provided by the Bill.
  There is only one further alteration to which I need refer and that relates to the Treasury's borrowing powers. Here again, it is a matter more of form than of substance, but it is perhaps important form. The Treasury's borrowing powers are re-defined in the following way. All the receipts which are to go into the National Loans Fund are defined in the Bill. So it is Parliament which is saying which receipt shall go into this Fund. All the issues out of this Fund will be defined by statute in every case. It is Parliament which is saying both what is to go into the Fund and what is to go out of the Fund. Clearly, if Parliament says that more is to go out of the Fund than is to go into it, the Treasury must be able to borrow the difference. Because Parliament controls utterly and wholly the payments into and out of the Fund, it thereby controls the Treasury borrowing powers.
  But it does not have to refer to them on each occasion. The Bill will give power to the Treasury to borrow the excess, but that Treasury borrowing is absolutely controlled by Parliament. An excess is the difference between two items. If one controls each of the two items, one automatically controls the difference between them.
  I hope that I have explained the main purposes of the Bill. It could have dealt with matters of substance, but it has not done so very much for the reasons which I have explained. The present arrangements are good arrangements, but the present accounting procedures are outmoded and outdated and do not give the House the information to which it is entitled. The Bill should improve matters considerably, and I hope, therefore, that it will receive a Second Reading.
  4.1 p.m.
  Mr. Terence Higgins: The House is grateful to the Chief Secretary
  46
  for his clear exposition of the general principles underlying the Bill. I assume from his concluding remarks that the normal privileges which the House enjoys of raising constituency matters on the Consolidated Fund will be in no way impaired under the changes now proposed. Indeed, in the debate on the Motion and Money Resolution governing this Bill we received an assurance from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that this would be so. I assume that I am right in thinking, also, that the exact timetable will in no way be altered by our having on future occasions, if the Bill is passed, a National Loans Fund as well as a Consolidated Fund.
  It is fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman's approach has been an accountant's approach, and I well understand that he may expect me to raise matters concerning the economic variables rather than just the accounting concepts. The effect of the Bill is not only to alter some of the institutional set-up in the relationship between the central Government and the nationalised industries, local authorities, the I.M.F., and so on, but also to alter the actual form of the accounts presented to the House, in particular, those presented immediately before the Budget.
  I take a slightly less optimistic view of the Government's proposed changes than does the Chief Secretary, and I notice, also, that the Economist, in an article on 4th November last, was a little less optimistic than the right hon. Gentleman. It said:
  " The Treasury is going to introduce a National Loans Fund Bill. Its object will apparently be to ensure that Britain's Budget estimates and exchequer accounts—which are presented in a highly misleading form at present—can be presented in a newly misleading form in future."
  It is right that the House should give close attention to this matter. We have to consider both the institutional framework and the accounting system which the House employs. The right hon. Gentleman has dealt largely with the Clauses of the Bill, and to some extent he dealt with them chronologically. I shall divide the debate at this stage conceptually rather than chronologically between the institutional relationship of the central Government, the nationalised industries, local authorities and so on and the

  47
  accounts themselves. I think that this would be helpful.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern), who apologises for not being able to be here at the beginning of the debate, but who hopes to catch the eye of the Chair at a later stage, will concentrate on the local authority side of the question. I shall concentrate, so far as I am able, on the broad context of economic management which the accounts covered under the Bill and under the Consolidated Fund Bill raise for the House itself.
  The question of reforming the accounts has a long history. There was a notable White Paper on the subject back in 1963, and in his Budget speech last April the then Chancellor, now the Home Secretary, first unveiled his intentions on the matter. In the debate on the Motion governing the Bill, I quoted what he then said. The right hon. Gentleman went further in the debate on the Gracious Speech and said again that he expected to introduce the Bill. We had our debate on the Money Resolution—I shall return to those briefly in a moment—and now the Bill is before us on Second Reading.
  Plainly, the Bill is very much the brain-child of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Home Secretary. It embodies both his virtues and, to some extent, his vices. It represents an endeavour to adopt a commonsense approach and to simplify our accounting procedures while, at the same time, embodying a preoccupation with accounting magnitudes and a tendency to look at the moment rather than to look forward.
  I put an appeal to the Treasury at the outset. The Bill is intended to alter the form of accounts which will be presented when we debate the Budget next April. All agree that that Budget will be of crucial importance to the country as a whole, and it would be most unfortunate if the exact purport of the accounts then presented was not immediately clear. I hope, therefore, that, before we reach the Committee stage on this Bill, the Government will place in the Library, perhaps, a pro forma account showing the form in which the accounts will be presented next April.
  The Bill does not indicate this clearly. There is no indication of what actual changes in format there will be. There-
  48
  fore, if the right hon. Gentleman would put in the Library, or publicise in some other way, the form which the accounts will take when next presented, perhaps using the figures for last year or the year before, the House would have a useful opportunity to familiarise itself with the Government's proposals, and, moreover, we should be enabled to propose such Amendments in Committee as we thought might improve the general approach.
  This is not a party political matter, but it is a matter of great importance to the economic management of the country. I do not imagine that my right hon. and hon. Friends—I certainly do not—intend to vote against the Bill today. Nevertheless, we intend to scrutinise it most carefully in Committee.
  In many ways, the Bill ties up with the debates we have had on previous occasions, particularly on the economic regulator and the question whether the Government should publish their economic forecasts. It ties up, also—I notice that one or two hon. Members opposite have left the Chamber at the moment, but, no doubt, will return later —with the question of the Letter of Intent which the Government sent to the International Monetary Fund and which we debated last week. That document includes a number of figures which, presumably, will be embodied in the accounts to be prepared under the Bill now before us.
  I turn now to the institutional changes to be brought about by the Bill. The real difference which it is proposed to make from the former situation under the Consolidated Fund is that the Consolidated Fund will have hived off from it a National Loans Fund so that the Consolidated Fund will include all the receipts from taxation and the expenditure from that Fund on both current account and capital account. Second, we shall have a National Loans Fund which will have as its source of funds the Government's borrowing, and then, again, the expenditure from that National Loans Fund will include both current account and capital account.
  I think that it will be agreed that there is a case for including all the Government's borrowing under one umbrella. On the other hand, it appears from the Bill that that umbrella will leave one or two people out in the wet, so to speak. In

  49
  particular, for reasons which remain obscure, lending to the National Film Finance Corporation and Votes under the Military Aircraft (Loans) Act, 1966, are not to be included in this Fund. Perhaps the Government should later indicate why those two items have been excluded.
  We were also rather surprised to discover in the Standing Committee which was considering the Trustee Savings Banks Bill last week that the amounts to be advanced to the trustee savings banks for capital expenditure were not to be included in this Bill. So that the House may be aware of how comprehensive the Bill is or is not, I hope that we may have a complete list from the Financial Secretary, rather than a partial one, telling us exactly what borrowing is to be financed by the Government but is not to be included in this Bill, because it is not entirely clear at the moment.
  I assume from what the Chief Secretary said that certain nationalised industries, such as British European Airways, will still be required to introduce into the House the kind of borrowing Order which we debated last week. I assume that the accounts will be amalgamated into the National Loans Fund accounts, but that the actual control will be debated stage by stage as before, and that there is no change in the institutional set up.
  Next, there is the question of timing of expenditure, which, I think the Chief Secretary will agree, is very important. Two questions arise here, stemming in a way from the debate of 29th November on the Ways and Means Resolution. I questioned what rate of interest would be charged to the various people borrowing from the Government and there seems to be a slight inconsistency in the statement which the Financial Secretary made, as reported in column 550 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 29th November. He seemed to say that the rate of interest which they would be charged was that at which the Government could borrow at any given date; that if the Government could borrow at a low rate that would be nice for the people who would get the money in the end, but that if it was a high rate that was bad luck. But following my intervention he seemed to say that it was the rate which prevailed at the moment when the borrowers borrowed. The two statements can be reconciled only if the two events take place simultaneously.
  50
  We are still not entirely clear after the Chief Secretary's speech this afternoon which rate prevails—the rate when the money comes into the Fund or the rate at the moment when the borrower obtains the money from it.
  Mr. Diamond: I am sorry if I did not make it clear, for I wanted to make it very clear indeed. Whether that is an accurate record of my hon. Friend's speech I do not know; I was not here at the time. But I want to make it clear that his second reference clarifies the situation completely, and that what I said is absolutely correct, namely, that the terms of the loan must be such that if the Government were borrowing that day—that morning, even—they could borrow on those terms for such a period.
  Mr. Higgins: I am most grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's intervention. I am glad to see that he is finally converted, as all progressive accountants are, to the idea of replacement costs rather than historic costs. I was worried about the exact purport of what was said in the debate on 29th November. From an economic point of view, as from an accounting point of view, it is desirable that the going rate should be charged, rather than a historic rate which no longer prevails.
  I want to raise two other questions which, in some ways, stem from the point with which I have just dealt. Will any attempt be made to ascertain how much of the outflow from the Consolidated Fund will be on current account and how much will be expended by the people borrowing the money on capital account? We shall no doubt debate today the vexed question of the line, and whether things are above or below it. It has been pointed out many times that this is a vague distinction, depending on whether there are specific or general powers to borrow, and having nothing to do with whether it is a matter of current or capital expenditure.
  But from the point of view of economic management we need to ask the Government whether the accounts will show whether the sums borrowed from the Fund are for capital account or current account, and what the likely effect of timing of expenditure on the aggregate demand of the economy will be. Unless I have misunderstood the

  51
  exact form of the Bill, which is fairly complicated, that question will be left in obscurity even after the reforms which the Government propose to introduce.
  I want to turn now to the broader question of the way in which the accounts are presented to the House. We are agreed that the line has tended to fade into oblivion, although conceptually I think that its residue remains in the present form of accounts, rather like the grin of a Cheshire cat after the cat has disappeared. But the Bill will finally remove even the grin from the face of the Cheshire cat, and we shall lose the above-and-below-the line distinction completely if it becomes an Act.
  But we face the problem that the Government are not tackling the matter as comprehensively as some of us feel it needs to be tackled. We appreciate the accounting difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is necessary to put the figures on a cash basis, but it is not true at present that they are fully on a cash basis, because they include estimates for future expenditure, which implicitly assumes something about the level of money income next year. Therefore, there are some attempts to forecast in the present accounts. The Government should be a bit more ambitious than they have been up to now and cover this point. They have begun to do so even in the accounts which the House now considers.
  It is relevant to ask what the present accounts are used for. They are, presumably, used for the House to appraise what is happening to the management of the public sector and the economy as a whole. Presumably, the Government and Parliament are intended to use them, and perhaps even overseas bankers and others may try to employ them as well. The right hon. Gentleman says that we need to do our own arithmetic now and reach our own conclusions. The fact is that it is very difficult, however well or hard one works at one's own arithmetic, to reach a precise conclusion of the economic significance of the accounts when they are presented on Budget day. I shall return to that matter in a moment.
  It will be a great deal easier for us to debate if the Government agree to present us with the format of the accounts
  52
  to which I referred earlier. I make one specific appeal on the point, which is vital in the present economic situation. It is no good presenting that sort of format unless one includes forward estimates as well. I suspect that the Government have in mind a format which will perhaps eliminate the forward estimates from the National Loan Fund accounts. They would, presumably, still include them for the Consolidated Fund. I hope that they will do as they did before, when we had the whole thing in one Fund, and include a forward estimate in the future figures. It would be grossly irresponsible of the Government not to provide that sort of format before we debate the figures in Committee before the House has had an opportunity to familiarise themselves with them.
  I now come to the final point which I think needs to be made initially in the debate, which is that the Government have been singularly reluctant to make any forward forecasts. We have debated this matter many times. The accounts we now get under the present financial statement are the only real forward estimates which the Government make. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer refused last year to reveal all the variables which were the basis of his underlying forecast, and, in particular, he refused to reveal the relationship between money incomes, disposable incomes, consumption, and gross national product, which itself determines money incomes.
  Therefore, there are many implicit assumptions behind the financial statement that we now get and the estimates in the financial statement for the future year which are never revealed to the House. This has been emphasised very strongly in successive articles by the Economist, which has been leading something of a crusade in asking the Government to "come clean" about their forward thinking.
  Also, we ought to be clear that the accounts are presented in money rather than constant price terms. This implies changes in money incomes, which, again, have not been made explicit in the statement laid before the House. The Chief Secretary is not right in saying that all the figures which have been presented have been on a cash basis. Many have been on a forecast basis, implying other changes. There is a very strong case for

  53
  detailing this in future accounts about the borrowing requirements of the Government.
  It is this borrowing requirement that reeds to be spelt out in more detail than was done by the Financial Secretary in the debate on the Ways and Means Resolution last week. If we are to ascertain what the aggregate demand in the economy is, we must have it broken down into consumption, investment and Government expenditure and, in turn, Government expenditure must be broken dawn into consumption and investment. I hope that we shall get a better breakdown under the Bill to show how much is current expenditure and how much is capital investment because this is very important.
  There is something else which is not spelt out at the moment. I am uncertain whether it will be spelt out in the Bill, but I hope it will be spelt out in future, and that is the relationship between saving and investment. The crucial change in the analysis of our economic affairs was brought about when it was realised that, while it was always true that saving equalled investment after the event or ex-post, whether saving and investment were balanced or not balanced before the event and what the intentions were about this made a crucial difference to the state of the economy.
  If savings exceeded investment it would tend to have a deflationary effect. If investment intentions exceeded savings intentions it would have an inflationary effect. But should we be able to estimate from the Government sector the position of saving and investment under the Bill once we have set up the National Loans Fund? This is a point that we should consider very carefully. If the answer is, "No", is it not possible to reform the accounts in some way so that we can determine this?
  Finally, we come to the question whether there is a Budget surplus or deficit. In his remarks on 29th November, the Financial Secretary was rather too optimistic over this question. He suggested that at the end of the year we should come to a position where either the National Loans Fund owed something to the Consolidated Fund, or vice versa, and one could easily establish whether the Government had run a sur-
  54
  plus or a deficit by working out exactly what the relationship between the two was and whether the Government had borrowed more than they had received in taxation or less.
  The question whether the Government are running a surplus or a deficit is crucial to the management of the economy. Clearly, if the Government run a deficit they will have to create assets which will go into the banking system, there will he a credit multiplier effect thus increasing the effective amount of money, and it will have inflationary effects. If they call in assets it will reduce the banks' liquidity position, there will be a multiplier and a reduction in the amount of money in the economy, and it will have a deflationary effect.
  But we, as the House of Commons, need to know whether the Government are running a surplus or a deficit. Unless I am very much mistaken it will riot be possible for us to do it at the moment, and it will still not be possible for us to ascertain the real magnitude of this very important concept at budget time even if the idea of the National Loans Fund Bill has been accepted. It is crucial that we should do so. I am not sure that we should not put into the National Loans Fund Account and the Consolidated Fund Account some indication of what a neutral monetary policy would involve. One of the paradoxes of the present system of accounts and the proposed system of accounts is that sometimes what seems to be an inflationary deficit is not on balance inflationary and sometimes what seems to be a deflationary surplus has the opposite effect. In short, the accounts are very misleading. I am not sure that we should not have a datum line, which is what the Government estimate a neutral monetary policy would involve for borrowing.
  But the actual borrowing requirement from the National Loans Fund is a very odd concept and does not indicate whether the Government are running an inflationary deficit or a deflationary surplus. This is not a mere academic matter. The concept itself has been very much embodied in the Letter of Intent to the International Monetary Fund, which we debated at considerable length last week. The danger of this is that we get tied up with the idea that what used to be called "the deficit" and is now called

  55
  "the borrowing requirement" is something which is meaningful. The Economist says:
  " the advantage of the new system will be that the meaningless figure which used to be called the British Treasury's overall budget deficit, and is now called its overall budget borrowing requirement, will henceforth not be called anything at all, so that the size of it will no longer scare foreigners out of their wits."
  This was written before the Letter of Intent.
  We find in the Letter of Intent that the Government are undertaking to keep down the borrowing requirement to £100 billion. This in itself is a little misleading, because the £ sign would, presumably, imply that the billion would be an English billion rather than an American or a French billion, whereas apparently one would use the billion in that sense only if there was a dollar sign.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): The hon. Gentleman suggested that we had agreed to keep the borrowing down to £100 billion. I should have thought that any Government would have found that a relatively effortless task.
  Mr. Higgins: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I was trying to make the point that the use of the expression "billion" anyway, when preceded by the £ sign, is somewhat misleading. Perhaps we ought to agree later precisely what the significance of the amount means.
  The relevant paragraph of the Letter of Intent reads:
  " Fiscal policy will continue to play the most important role in making room for the needed improvement in the balance of payments. It is the Government's intention to ensure that the Exchequer's borrowing requirement for the financial year beginning 1st April, 1968, is kept under firm control. So far as can be seen at present, this entails holding down the borrowing requirement to not more than £1 billion"—
  Yes, not £100 billion—
  " —the appropriateness of which estimate and the measures necessary to ensure that it is achieved will be reviewed with the Managing Director in accordance with the timetable specified in paragraph 9."
  If I understand this correctly, it means that a figure somewhat less than a billion will appear in the Government's accounts to be introduced under the Bill. Indeed, if what the right hon. Gentleman said the
  56
  other day is correct, the actual amount necessarily allocated between the Consolidated Fund and this Bill will be less than £1 billion.
  The crux of the matter is that the figure to appear in the accounts will still be very meaningless if what we want to ascertain is what changes in the monetary supply or what the inflationary or deflationary effects of Government policy are likely to be. It depends on which items are included in the National Loans Fund. If the Government were suddenly to denationalise steel and borrow for the operation by going on to the market, the item would be very dramatic indeed, for example.
  I am somewhat mystified as to why the former Chancellor should have felt that this specific figure had any economic significance at all in his Letter of Intent and why it is that apparently we are to perpetuate accounts which continue to be similarly somewhat meaningless figures.
  The second point is implicit in paragraph 11 of the Letter of Intent, which uses the expression that
  "…the growth of the money supply will be less in 1968 than the present estimate for 1967, both absolutely and as a proportion of G.N.P., despite the expected substantial recovery of reserves. It continues to be the Government's policy to meet its own needs for finance as far as possible by the sale of debt to the non-bank public and interest rate policy will be used to this end."
  The actual borrowing requirements, on the definition of the Chief Secretary, will depend very much on how far the Fund we are discussing is able to raise the money from non-bank sources. This is a very odd dividing line. In the relevant Clauses, such diverse things as Treasury bills and National Savings Certificates are included in the same package. There is a difference between whether the matter is being financed out of savings coming from the non-bank public or out of the issue of Treasury bills, which has an impact on monetary supply.
  What we are arguing is that the revision in the accounts which the Government propose in the Bill will still make the position far from easy and will perpetuate present difficulties in estimating the real Budget deficit or surplus and making them meaningful in economic terms. I am not sure that we should not consider how to improve this matter so that we can have presented to the

  57
  House of Commons a series of accounts which, on Budget day and at subsequent stages through the year, would enable us to improve our economic management. The Bill goes some way along that road. It does improve the situation, but we are not satisfied that we could not go a great deal further, provided that the Government are prepared to make their expectations appreciably clearer than at present.
  4.33 p.m.
  Mr. R. B. Cant: I expected that such a large number of Members would want to speak on this exciting subject that I decided to limit my contribution to two points. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and also with comments made by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I want to put two points, both of which are within the limits of my competence, not being an accountant or lawyer but a hack economist. They are, first, the setting up of the National Loans Fund within the context of the national incomes accounts and, secondly, and more important, local government finance.
  I have a little, although somewhat sentimental, attachment to the terminology "above-the-line" and "below-the-line". Perhaps this is merely a reflection of my age. Perhaps those of us who have talked about above and below the line for many years feel that it should not be cast aside so lightly. But I wonder whether this is really a very radical Bill or just another expression of our rather pragmatic philosophy on this side of the House. We have moved from Gladstone to above and below the line, to 1965 and the Consolidated Fund and the overall borrowing requirement, and now we have reached the dizzy heights of the National Loans Fund. My point is the same as that made by the hon. Member for Worthing—that in this modern age this is not enough.
  I do not want to go over many of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he has a look, however, at the American approach to Budget presentations. Although we are told by the professors that we not draw too many conclusions or seek too many parallels between our position and that of the United States, nevertheless the Americans' four different presentations—the cash basis, the administrative basis, the national income
  58
  account budget and the high employment budget—really give a much more significant interpretation of Government expenditure in the context of the national economy. Although the Bill is a useful interim clearing up operation, we could go a good deal further.
  Perhaps I can add a little addendum to this part of my speech and ask my right hon. Friend whether he has considered a public relations exercise in association with this clearing up of the presentation of the national account. I remember reading somewhere a comment by one of the professors associated with the Institute of Economic Affairs, Hobart House. He said, in effect, "If we ask how we can find out what happens in the Budget and how the intelligent man in (lie street can get as full appreciation of the really significant thing about Government revenue, expenditure, and so on, at the Stationery Office, we will be handed an information pamphlet called, ' The British System of Taxation '. If you are obviously an earnest seeker after truth you might be told that all the information is contained in the Financial Statement"
  That professor had something rather rude to say about the Financial Statement. He said.
  "…Financial statement, with its funereal looking title page, unexplained tables of revenue and expenditure, cryptic explanations of tax changes and occasional intriguing but incomprehensible details of such recondite matters as the E.F.T.A. rate on snuff imports containing not more than 13 per cent. moisture."
  Since that was written, we have had a significant additional table included in the Financial Statement, but the point is made, especially if we search HANSARD and the Finance Acts. I ask my right hon. Friend to bear this point in mind, because if, once more, we look to the American example, we find that they bring out a 70 to 80 page handout which is full of small print and heavy type and graphs and charts. It is an attempt to give the man in the street some idea of what is contained in the budget, the Government's financial accounts, which, after all, plays a significant part in his life. Not only is this done in Sweden and the Netherlands, but there is a translation into English, perhaps in the hope that the Chief Secretary will read it, and even that home of financial obscurantism.

  59
  France, publishes a very similar intelligent man's guide to the Budget accounts.
  I wanted mainly to deal with local government finance. Here we have a leg of British Government which, last year, was responsible for spending about £4,500 million, whose expenditure has increased 70 per cent. since 1961, whose borrowing since 1961 has increased 110 per cent. and whose expenditure is 7 per cent. of the gross national product. If hon. Members opposite are horrified by the overall growth of public expenditure, they must be even more so by the growth of local government expenditure, which has been considerably faster.
  I have a great deal of sympathy with those who argue that local government finance, particularly capital finance, is on a totally unsatisfactory basis and I say that partly as a consequence of reading books on the subject, but also partly because of having been a member of a city finance committee for some 15 years. From 1946, when local authorities were restricted to access to the Public Works Loan Board, on to 1953, when they were allowed some access to the stock markets, and then on to the critical date in 1956, when local authorities were virtually thrown out of the Budget, we have a history which is such that the city treasurer or the county treasurer brought up on gilt-edged stocks must have felt that the world was almost coming to an end. I have a great deal of sympathy for such people.
  But since then there have been further changes. In 1963, it was decided that the amount of money contributed by the P.W.L.B. to capital expenditure—and I emphasise that it is long-term capital expenditure—should grow from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. by 1968. This arose because of concern with the growth of temporary debt, but, such were the demands of local authorities on the Exchequer that the arrangement has had to be terminated.
  When the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, for example, says in its most recently monthly publication that it is asking the Government to make changes which are urgently needed not only to meet the need to reshape the budgetary presentation of accounts, but to place the finances of local authority capi-
  60
  tal expenditure on a rational and stable basis, the Government ought to listen to professionals of this kind. I do not think that the Bill as we now have it meets all the points which they put forward.
  The main point, with which one must have considerable sympathy, is that as the agent placing on local authorities the obligations to perform certain tasks, the Government should accept responsibility for providing them with substantially more than 50 per cent. of all and not only the long-term capital required by them. I would not know what "substantial" means, whether "substantially more than 50 per cent." is 70 per cent.
  The reasons for this can be briefly stated in this way. Anybody who has had any experience of local authority work must appreciate that planning is an impossibility. On 5th January, I shall be attending a meeting as a member of the Financial Planning Committee of Stoke-on-Trent Corporation. We shall have before us a very large number of projects and, obviously, if we are realists, we will cut down that number substantially. However, the point is that even when a project gets approval there will be no guarantee that the borrowing and financial facilities will be available. There is an air of unreality about local government financial planning.
  Local authority finance is almost completely chaotic—not that anybody is about to go bankrupt, or that expenditure is exceeding income, but only in the sense of the sources from which the funds for local authority capital expenditure are derived. The Bank of England Quarterly Review shows that during 1965-66 the amounts coming from the Public Works Loan Board was about half the total and the non-P.W.L.B. amount is quite frightening. The same article attempts to make an analysis of how much of this temporary money is derived from overseas sources and the figure given is about £500 million. We must ask ourselves whether it is satisfactory that the Government should permit a situation in which so much long-term local government expenditure is financed by short-term loans from the Euro-currency markets in London.
  I do not want to ride my particular hobby horse again, but although throwing local authorities on the money market

  61
  may have vastly improved the financial education of City treasurers and produced a race of financial innovators hardly paralleled elsewhere in the country, an element of volatility has been introduced into local government finance which no Government should permit.
  Mr. John Nott: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that three-quarters of the confusion in local authority capital borrowing arises from the fact that there are about 1,500 rural and urban district councils and more than 100 county and county borough councils and that the majority of the present confusion would cease if local government structure were reformed? I should like his comments on that, because I think that this is not so much a financial as a local government structure matter.
  Mr. Cant: I cannot agree with that, although I have a great deal of sympathy with it. I hope that the reform of local government will produce many fewer local authorities, whether it is nine or 10 large regions or 30 or 40 city regions remains to be seen. That would make a contribution, but, even so, the larger groupings would find their way into this market where the short-term funds are available, often at great expense. This raises other questions which I will not go into.
  If I believed so strongly that the Government should accept responsibility for providing a higher proportion of all capital expenditure than they do, and if I accept the implication of the Letter of Intent that something must be done to decrease the total burden of public expenditure, or the net borrowing requirement, what, as a reasonable man, must one agree by way of relief?
  I am not persuaded by any arguments which suggest that the gas and electricity industries should not draw their long-term finance from the market. A definition of a subsidised rate of interest has been given by the Chief Secretary, but I think that in another way we could say that these institutions enjoy a subsidised rate of interest, and I think that they are essentially commercial growth industries which, sooner or later, will have to pay the going rate.
  In an article in Lloyds Bank Review, the Chairman of the Electricity Council says that the industry cannot possibly
  62
  borrow on the market because it would be unfair to private enterprise and to local authorities. He deals with this question in about 12 lines. That is a totally unsatisfactory situation.
  I welcome the Bill as an interim Measure. I hope that the Chief Secretary has made a note of the two points which I have raised—one on my behalf, that we should have a more intelligent presentation of the Budget, and one on behalf of local authorities, that something should be done to help them towards greater rationality and stability in their financing by the Government accepting responsibility for providing them with about 70 per cent. of their total capital requirements.
  4.52 p.m.
  Sir Henry d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) has made one of his usual very sensible contributions to these debates. I always listen to him with interest. He comes as a successor to a triumvirate of Members, all of whom were greatly liked on both sides of the House. I feel that he is a worthy successor to them.
  I am aware that there is a more glamorous topic for discussion later and, therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not follow him in lamenting the woes and tribulations of borough treasurers, but simply say that I am substantially in agreement with what he said.
  We are discussing no less a sum than the transfer of the entire National Debt —£32,000 million. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), I prefer the older and more familiar appellation. This is quite a large sum, especially when one ascertains that on page 1034 of the 68th Edition of Whitaker it is listed under the conglomerated heading of "Homes of Sport". It is important that the Post Office sorting department should be on its mettle in dealing with the N.L.F., because otherwise there must be a danger that the Government of Aden, who are now claiming that £60 million is not an adequate subsidy for their future operations, will find themselves landed with a bill for £32,000 million. Therefore, the Post Office must get its sorting machinery in order.

  63
  The Bill follows a pattern which is very familiar to the Chief Secretary as a result of his earlier avocation, in which he distinguished himself so much and to which we all hope he will shortly be able to return and give it added lustre. This is the old situation of a public company in trouble. The first thing which a public company in trouble does is to get a new managing director. The new managing director in this case was sitting on the right of the Chief Secretary earlier; he has now retired. Then it gets a new accounting system—and this is the new accounting system in this case. We have not yet reached phase III, but we shall very soon do so.
  It will then be shown by the managing director that there should be some delay in the publication of the accounts. This was a theory laid down by Mr. Nigel Lawson some years ago—that bad figures take longer to add up than good figures. We await the next stage in the postponement of the publication of the accounts. Following that, we have the receivership and the dismissal of the chairman. I tell the Chief Secretary, without any personal feelings, that we are eagerly awaiting that event.
  The debate turns on the net borrowing requirement. Here I have a few important points to make. The net borrowing requirement was specifically referred to in the Letter of Intent which we discussed last week. Therefore, it is, presumably, a term of art and a term with meaning. Examining this Bill, there will be contributions to the net borrowing requirement. There will be the nationalised industries, perhaps at £900 million, and the local authorities, perhaps at £600 million, making a total of £1,500 million. Presumably, it will be estimated that £500 million will be generated by those same bodies towards their capital expenditure. However, there is something to put on the other side.
  I noticed that neither the Chief Secretary nor my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) referred to Clause 7, which deals with the Exchange Equalisation Account. I want to go into this in a little detail, because the movements on the Exchange Equalisation Account are in exactly the opposite direction to those on the other accounts. The
  64
  Account has a borrowing requirement when the £ is strong, and it has to borrow pounds to supply the overseas buyers of pounds who are tendering foreign currency in exchange. On the other hand, when the £ is under pressure, the Exchange Equalisation Account must pay out foreign currency and it takes sterling in. Therefore, one can say that the Account works in exactly the opposite direction to the main principle of our net borrowing requirement.
  One can easily foresee a situation in which the net borrowing requirement is kept to £1,000 million, as has been suggested, because the Exchange Equalisation Account was so much in sterling funds. This would be a source not of strength, but of weakness to the economy. However, if we are using the term "net borrowing requirement", because of the way in which the Bill is now couched, it will affect the matter most closely.
  That is something which must be brought out in the statement which is to be prepared. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing in hoping that we shall have a pro forma, but, whether we do or not, I do not think that the House will tolerate the fact that this very important figure—the net borrowing requirement—should be diminished simply because sterling is under pressure. The Exchange Equalisation Account has, therefore, been not a borrower but a lender of sterling, and has acquired sterling and, therefore, diminished the net borrowing requirement of the National Loans Fund. I hope that the point is taken.
  When I look at the other points in the Bill, I agree that it is a matter of bookkeeping. I was attracted by Schedule 3, on page 30, "Local loans to be extinguished". Peterhead Harbours Trustees are to have £36,826 18s. 10d. extinguished. Wick and Pulteney Harbours Trustees are to have £28,354 10s. 8d. extinguished. I observe that in my own county, Staffordshire, the South Staffordshire Mines Drainage Commissioners are to have £40,593 12s. 9d. extinguished. I should be sorry to look at the next edition of this Bill to see the loans extinguished which have been made to the nationalised industries, because I do not think that they would be covered in five, six, seven or even eight figures.

  65
  May I draw attention to Clause 21, which states, on audit and accounts, that
  "the Treasury shall prepare in such form as they may prescribe an account of payments into and out of the Consolidated Fund…".
  We must go into that more deeply. If this is simply a cash account, then clearly the actual issues from the National Loans Fund on current account—for the local authorities and nationalised industries—must be clearly shown, and there must he a differentiation of the capital movement, which would also be accounted for, to the Exchange Equalisation Fund, especially as under an earlier Clause the transactions with various international bodies are specifically excluded.
  If this is not done we shall be producing just another misleading form of accounts, and doing so at a time when people have lost all confidence in the monthly form of accounts which we produce. Every month we issue a statement of our gold and dollar reserves. Every month we know that that statement is only a partial and fragmentary glimpse of what is going on. When we borrowed £35 million for a year from a Swiss bank, our reserves went up by that amount. But so did our liabilities in the same year—or in this case, to a substantially larger extent. I ask the Chief Secretary, who is an experienced accountant, not to feel that the Treasury can go on pulling the wool over the eyes of everybody who reads the account. We know that there is no real substance in this monthly statement of the gold and dollar reserves, because we know that it does not take into account the liabilities which have been incurred.
  I beg the Chief Secretary, most genuinely, to see that this reformed statement for the National Loans Fund escapes from being regarded as an equally misleading document. It should show the net issues and not simply permit the position to be obsecured by allowing a lot of other material in some of it, as in the Exchange Equalisation Account, where it has exactly the opposite meaning to the issues which I have discussed. If not, people will say that no greater reliance can be placed on this statement than on the statement of the gold and foreign exchange reserves, and we must ask who is fooling whom.
  5.5 p.m.
  Mr. John Nott: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor Goldsmid) on the number of valuable points which he made. He is quite right in saying that the publication of the gold and dollar reserves has increasingly become meaningless and that the Government and the country have nothing to gain from statements of this nature, which everyone throughout the world know to he misleading. I completely agree with him that it is time that this type of practice ceased in the presentation of our national accounts and monthly statements.
  There are many other fields where we need a more open society, if I may use that phrase. To quote but one example which has not yet been mentioned in the debate, when the Bank of England issue a loan on behalf of the Government none of us knows how much is taken up by the general public and how much goes straight into the hands of Government Departments, and none of us knows how much is peddled out to the public over a period of time. I refer to tap stock. None of us knows how much of this Government debt is in a floating form, how much is ways and means and how much involves gilt-edged advances. Even in the case of Government borrowing there is a whole host of factors which would throw much light on many activities of the Government which I believe could be made available without much danger to the country.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) referred to the whole question of the presentation of the accounts, and the difference between real and money income forecasts. I entirely agree with him that there is no reason why this aspect of the presentation of our accounts should continue to be kept confidential by the Treasury. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) also mentioned the point. We want much more of an open society, so that the people can judge what is the true position. It deceives no one overseas and it does not help the country for all these important facts and figures to be undisclosed. The hon. Member said that these figures are made available to a large extent in the United States, and until Treasury and Bank of England secrecy ceases in this country, we shall not have

  67
  the national accounts in the way in which most hon. Members would like them to be produced.
  I had not intended to take part in the debate, because I do not begin to understand a large part of the Bill, but I am provoked into saying a few words by the comments of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central about local authority borrowing. We have discussed this in the House before. I do not agree with anything that he said, although I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South that the hon. Member makes a valuable contribution to our debates and that we always listen to him with the greatest of interest. For a few moments I want to answer some of the points which he made about local authority borrowing.
  I agree with him that at present there is a great deal of confusion in capital borrowing, but I emphasise a point which I made in an interjection—that if the local government structure is reformed and we come down to a system in which there are 30 or 40 first-tier local authorities, and only those first-tier authorities have the power to borrow in the market, then at least two-thirds of the confusion will cease. Most of the confusion arises as a result of the fact that there are over 1,500 small non-county boroughs, rural and urban district councils fighting one another in the market for funds, which, clearly, makes no sense. Over 100 counties and county boroughs in the country are also fighting one another in the market for funds.
  If we have a reform of local government structure which gives some kind of independence to Scotland and Wales—why should they not have it if they want it?—and similarly we come down from 100 counties and county boroughs and 1,500 smaller authorities in England to a system in which there are 40 first-tier units who are borrowing, we shall have a much clearer position.
  I do not like the hon. Member's suggestion, because it strikes at the root of local government independence. If we force local authorities into the P.W.L.B. for funds we remove from them the whole of their independence. Local government independence is something which we should encourage. It is absolutely crucial to
  68
  local democracy. I do not believe that it can be maintained if local authorities are forced back 100 per cent. into the P.W.L.B. I foresee a time when local government has been reformed and we have 40 units borrowing in the open market. That will make a great improvement in the whole of the arrangements.
  Mr. Cant: May I correct one point? I was not suggesting that money should be obtained from the P.W.L.B., but merely trying to interpret the recommendation of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants that a substantially greater proportion than 50 per cent.—I said 70 per cent—should be so borrowed. The Institute says that in the interest of local democracy 30 per cent. is something local authorities should scratch for themselves. I think that this is a compromise.
  Mr. Nott: The report to which the hon. Member refers, speaking from memory, is the report of a sub-committee set up by the I.M.T.A. to consider the problem and it does not represent the I.M.T.A.'s views as a body. I think that 10 people produced the report. I do not agree with a single word of it. Those Treasurers I have spoken to do not agree with it either.
  There is also room for the development of regional loan bureaux so that when we have a lesser number of local authorities, say 40, borrowing in the market, those which have a surplus at the end of the week or the month through the bureaux could help local authorities which have a deficit at the end of the week or month. In the North, there is a bureau which operates from Manchester. It has provided a very great service. These bureaux are doing this work as a co-operative and they save local authorities having to pay commissions in the City. That makes the treasurers very happy and I am all in favour of it. There is great room for the development of regional loan bureaux, I should like to see them encouraged and superimposed on the new structure of local government which I foresee coming about.
  There is another reform I should like to see, which also would improve the unruly situation which exists. That is for local authorities to try to rationalise the way in which they are allowed to borrow under present legislation. There

  69
  is no reason why local authority borrowing should not come down, first, to a deposit receipt to cover all borrowing tip to one year, the issue of a bond for one to five years and the issue of stock for over five years.
  Some local authorities are using mortgages which involve the mayor putting on his robes and sealing a document. That is out of date. Local authorities should bring their methods up to date within the context of existing legislation. Then we could have three types of borrowing instrument. It is largely the fault of the local authorities and not of the Government that they do not bring themselves up to date in this way.
  I am in favour of bringing local authorities much more within the main borrowing market. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central rightly referred to the dangers of £500 million short-term money being deposited from overseas through United Kingdom banks aid then being lent in the local authority market. There are great dangers in this. It led to the previous White Paper and the reorganisation of local authority borrowing. If the Government and the Treasury attempted to bring these deposits into the discount market over which the Bank of England has great control as a result of open market operations, this problem would be avoided.
  The reason we have so much confusion and danger now is that local authorities are operating in their own money market over which the Bank of England has no control at all. If more of this temporary borrowing and more of this mortgage borrowing could be brought into the main discount market over which the Bank of England has the closest control, some of these problems could be overcome. They could be overcome by encouraging local authorities to issue more bonds which could be placed on the discount market.
  It could also happen by helping local authorities to issue more bills. At the moment, bills can be issued by local authorities only if they have their own Private Acts of Parliament. Then they are allowed to issue bills through the discount market, as Manchester has done. Otherwise local authorities are not allowed to issue bills. Enabling legislation which would allow all local auth-
  70
  orities to issue a certain amount of temporary money through bills would bring a lot of short-term borrowing into the discount market which at present is outside that market.
  I accept as valid the Treasury argument that if this is brought into the discount market and local authorities are allowed to issue three-month bills instead of three-month money, the credit base would be expanded. The Treasury argument is that this must not be done, because it would be inflationary. That is a valid argument which cannot be denied. One has to put on one side the dangers of having hot money coming in from overseas through the banks into a market over which the Government have very little control against the disadvantages of bringing them into the London discount market where the bills have an inflationary effect, but over which the Bank of England has the closest and minutest control. I should favour the latter.
  Likewise with the bonds. If local authority bonds which are now issued on the discount market were made eligible security at the Bank of England in the same way as Government bonds are, that would immediately give an enormous boost to the market and enable local authorities to borrow much more cheaply. Until three years ago the Treasury held out against any development in this field, but it has grown from nothing to £300 million in three years.
  If the Treasury is prepared to change in that way and to see a type of borrowing go from nothing to £300 million in three years, and to admit that it has not caused much concern, it should be prepared to open that market even more and to expand it. It can be expanded at present only by making local authority bonds negotiable at the Bank of England. Again I see the difficulties about extending the credit base, but this is an experiment which could be tried.
  I make those points in answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. I do not know whether they are actually, relevant to the Bill, but in Committee an important matter for discussion will be the whole question of local government borrowing, which forms a huge slice of government borrowing as a whole. I would not like to see a loss of local government independence in any attempt to

  71
  force local authorities into the P.W.L.B. Let us revise the structure of local government and reform the methods by which local authorities borrow. That would overcome the problem.
  5.20 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I shall be touching on the problem which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) dealt with so effectively, but I should like first to say a few words about another aspect of the Bill. Before doing so, however, I should like to join my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) in regretting the title—National Loans Fund. I think it reminds us all too closely of recent events in the Middle East, to entitle it "N.L.F." Indeed, I was wondering whether above the line expenditure in future is to be known as "Flosy".
  This is technically a Bill for what the Minister of Power the other day called shrivelled bookkeepers. I am very glad indeed it has been widened by previous speakers to take in all the transactions which the accounts will represent. I very much hope that it will be possible to see in the accounts presented to us in future exactly whether they take a deflationary course or an inflationary course.
  When I read the 1965–66 Financial Statement I saw there an item called "Floating debt net, £409 million" and another item for interest-free notes, £680 million. These seemed to make the figures add up to £1,000 million, and I wondered just how the experts understand the national accounts, let alone novices like myself. I could not wonder that it resulted in an inflationary situation at that time, from which we had later to suffer very much indeed.
  In deflationary times, such as, I think, the present time, a large Government surplus is put into the Consolidated Fund to facilitate Government lending. This, I hope, will be very clearly shown, because at the present time it is growing to very alarming proportions. I think I am right in saying that the percentage of gross national product which has been invested has been running at about 19 per cent. to 20 per cent. for a number of years, and of that saving has averaged
  72
  about 16½ per cent., leaving a shortfall in investment to be made up by taxation of 2½ per cent. That 2½ per cent. has jumped this year to 4 per cent. and we are this year being currently taxed to the extent of £1,132 million in order to make up the gap between investment and saving as a nation. This is an enormous sum of money. If this is to be so in the future it must be clearly shown.
  Added to that, we have the alarming situation that we as a country are investing far too little. I think we are investing some 20 per cent. to 21 per cent., as I said, while Sweden is investing 32·8 per cent. Wherever we look at comparable industrial countries we find that by comparison ours is an inadequate investment. So we shall, if we attempt to match that investment, have ever greater need to increase taxation to make up the shortfall between investment and savings.
  We have the ridiculous situation where we are severely hitting the saver and investor by every form of taxation we can think of—Selective Employment Tax. Corporation Tax, Capital Gains Tax. Income Tax, so making it less profitable to save, and at the same time we have had to continue to subsidise investment in the nationalised industries through the Public Works Loan Board, and further subsidise new investment by means of investment grants.
  If the country is short of tomatoes it is a strange way of going about it to make life particularly difficult for the tomato growers so that they tend to go out of business, and, at the same time, subsidise the consumption of tomatoes by subsidising the retail price so that the demand for them increases. If we do this we get a growing gap between supply and demand for tomatoes—which is what we are now witnessing. If the National Loans Fund does nothing more than bring out the very great danger of a situation such as this I think it will have been very well worth while. While this is so the one thing we can do to improve the situation is to take fiscal measures, but it would be wrong of me to go into that now.
  I believe that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) wanted greater recourse to the Public Works Loan Board. It will be necessary unless something can be done to bring more money on to the market

  73
  generally by saving and investment. I have a great desire to see the nationalised industries go to the market for their capital. It is an enormous sum, £800 million or £900 million, which we are lending them from the Fund, and that is a very severe burden indeed, but I do not believe we can get local authorities or nationalised industries to go to the market till funds are available for them to borrow—an extra amount of something like:l0 per cent. to 40 per cent., if they were to go at present for all the money which they are borrowing.
  I therefore think that the first thing to do at that stage is to equate the amount of savings and the amount of investment which is available. I hope that we shall do this, so that we can gradually push back on to the market all those classes of public or semi-public borrowers who are at present getting substantial dollops of taxpayers' money from the National Loans Fund.
  It is necessary to do all we can, before we can send them to the market, to make sure that they are also borrowers of equal weight and strength and importance to other borrowers. It would be quite ridiculous to send the electricity industry just as it is to the market even if the funds were available—I am quite sure they are not—for the £300 million it is taking a year. I say that because the industry is so much bigger and stronger, and is a sort of monopoly, so that it could be guaranteed to obtain the funds it wanted at the expense of millions of private concerns which would find they would have to pay more, if, indeed, they could get what they wanted at all, for the capital they need. So I believe we have got to redress the imbalances in shape which some of the nationalised industries have, before this becomes possible.
  My disappointment about this Bill is that it neither looks to the time when we shall tackle shortage of funds nor to the time when we shall tackle the imbalances of size and shape of the nationalised industries. It prevents this very desirable course from being possible.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I am very interested in this. I myself have made to the House on a number of occasions small contributions on the same theme of the need to consider, at least, whether the nationalised industries should
  74
  use the market more than they do. What at the moment interests me is that the hon. Gentleman said they would be an unnecessary handicap to private concerns; they would be so strong in competition they would be sort of swamping the market. What sort of restriction has the hon. Gentleman in mind for placing on nationalised industries when they seek a share of the capital sums available?
  Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the chance perhaps to make clearer what, perhaps, I did not say clearly enough the first time.
  If we add to the market something like 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. of extra demand for funds, which is what the nationalised industries represent—it depends, of course, on circumstances from year to year—and those funds are not available, there is the effect of creating an enormous shortage of savings to match investments which are being made. Of course, this is an impossible operation to do overnight. That is why I say we must first of all have policies gradually to increase the supply of savings to meet the needs of the market. Secondly, having achieved a balance, the effect will be that a very large borrower like the electricity industry, which can always put up prices or give a sort of semi-Government guarantee, and which will pay the interest rate and will not welsh on its obligations, will be able to get its money at the expense of people who have not that great financial strength.
  Mr. J. T. Price: To round off this point, is the hon. Gentleman aware that, in making that proposition, he is flying in the face of the experience of other European countries and that about 90 per cent. of the capital needed for the indirectly nationalised industries in Italy is raised on the open market very quickly and without any complaint from the private sector?
  Mr. Ridley: I do not doubt that, but the various companies go to the market as quite small units and borrow £5 million, £10 million or £20 million. It is a different matter to go to the market and borrow £284 million, as the electricity industry has, £288 million, as the Coal Board has, and £133 million, as the gas industry has. Figures of that magnitude probably would be too much at

  75
  present, until the funds are there to meet them.
  Mr. Nott: Could my hon. Friend clarify this point? At the moment, the electricity industry, the Coal Board and the other nationalised industries borrow on the market only in the sense that the Government borrow on their behalf. Is not the distinction that we are financing them more out of taxation? If the electricity industry was to borrow on the market and its borrowing was underwritten by the Bank of England, would the availability of funds be any different from the situation where the industry borrowed from the Bank of England, which issued Government Treasury bills, gilt edge and other stock? I would be interested to hear his comments.
  Mr. Ridley: There is no difference between allowing the nationalised industries to borrow on Government guarantee and issuing Government stock, as happens at present. So long as we have the Government guarantee, it has to be done in that way. If the nationalised industries are made sufficiently independent and right as to size and shape, however, there is no need for a Government guarantee and they can borrow on their own credit. The perfect example of this is British Petroleum. To all intents and purposes, it is a nationalised concern, but no one attempts to interfere with it or tell it how to borrow. It goes to the market like everyone else and borrows in a perfectly rational way.
  In these more difficult financial times, the Government surplus has grown from £400 million a few years ago, through £900 million last year to about £1,200 million this year. Because of the shortfall in investment, the money can only be used by the Government either to give to local authorities or to give to the nationalised industries—
  Mr. J. T. Price: "Lend", not "give".
  Mr. Ridley: I accept the hon. Gentleman's correction. But the Government are not borrowing on the market the money which they are lending. They are taxing people to the extent of £1,200 million extra to lend to the nationalised industries. Therefore, we are not replacing lending with lending, but taxation with lending, and that is why it is not possible to perform this operation at pre-
  76
  sent. I hope that that will not be used by the Government as an excuse to pretend that all is well when there is this shortfall in the country's savings.
  I hope that these acounts will show the actual drawings of the nationalised industries at quite frequent intervals. At the end of each year, we get a statement of what the borrowing of each industry have been, but that is not enough. Last week, for example, suddenly we had the Coal Board asking for another £200 million as if it was a 2½d. stamp. We need to know the amounts that they have drawn against their borrowing entitlements. I hope that the Treasury will think of some way whereby it can become public knowledge how much they are taking up of their borrowing entitlements and at what times they do it, so that the country can be fully informed of the demands coming on the N.L.F. from this source. It is not by intention to delay the House for very much longer, but I should like to ask one or two questions about paragraph 10 in the letter of intent which the Chancellor sent to the Managing Director of the I.M.F. He has undertaken to keep the borrowing requirement down to £1 billion. I cannot quite make out exactly what the borrowing requirement was last year as defined in that letter. It is given as
  " the Exchequer borrowing and special transactions ".
  The figure was £287 million after the Budget changes. On the other hand, we lent £1,334 million to industry and to the local authorities. Is the right hon. Gentleman treating the special transactions as being separate from the borrowing requirement, or are the two together the £1,000 million which we must not exceed? I am not clear what it means.
  It is certain that we have never touched the £1,000 million in the past, if it means the net borrowing and special transactions together. I hope that the Financial Secretary will explain what it means when he comes to wind up the debate. It is not clear what the net borrowing requirement was at the time of the last Budget, and it will help us to understand the exact meaning of the commitment into which we have entered with regard to our creditors.
  Finally, I make one small suggestion, and it is that greater latitude should be given to the National Loans Fund in

  77
  respect of loans which it makes to various industries and bodies. At the moment, these loans tend to be on fixed terms of years at the current rate of interest. But I do not see why there should not be a number of alternatives on offer to those who would like to borrow. For instance, for long-term investments lasting up to 100 years, such as hydro plant, it might be appropriate to borrow over that sort of period. For short-term investments, in which one might include some aircraft, there could be short-term loans available, in which case higher rates of interest would be required.
  It would help the nationalised industries if there was some flexibility in the types of loans on offer, and it would be possible to introduce the rather gimmicky ideas which they have in foreign countries, such as the French loans which the E.D.F. issue and which go up in value in accordance with the growth of electricity sales. There are several stocks of this sort of which hon. Members will be aware. I do not say that they are necessarily right for our present situation, but, while there is not a market and while the nationalised industries cannot shop round to produce the cheapest loans, there is a lot to be said for the Treasury, through the National Loans Fund, to try and give them some alternatives so that they (an borrow for periods and at rates of interest which they think suit them best in an effort to bring them into an even more commercial atmosphere than they have at the moment.
  With those few comments, I welcome the Bill so far as it goes. But I agree with my hon. Friends that it does not go nearly far enough, and I hope that we shall be able to improve it in Committee.
  5.40 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Hordern: This has been an intimate, not to say rather esoteric, debate, but none the worse for that.
  We listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant), who, as usual, is very well informed about local authority finance. We also had the great pleasure of listening to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott), whose knowledge of local authority finances is even more admirable, if that
  78
  is possible, than that of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsaid, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) put one or two pertient points about the exchange equalisation account, which I hope the Chief Secretary will comment upon during the course of his remarks. He made the very important point, not only in relation to this Bill, which has a much better effect on our national accounting system, but generally, why not publish in much more detailed form and be far more truthful about the Government's own statement of financial affairs? He referred to the publication of the gold and foreign exchange reserve figures which are published each month. It really is about time that these figures were published, and published truthfully. If ever there was a time to publish them, truthfully it is now, after devaluation. If this is not the time to do it, I do not know when is. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives.
  Any Bill which has the effect of transferring the whole of the National Debt and which is designed "generally to make provision for the management of the Government's financial business", which are the words of the Ways and Means Resolution, is clearly no small creature. Yet it is not quite such a whale as it looks and is in fact a rather modest step forward on ground which has been prepared, perhaps somewhat differently, but which has been prepared for a long time.
  There was a White Paper in 1963, called "Reform of the Exchequer Accounts", which described how our present Exchequer accounts date from the Sinking Fund Act of 1875, when the aim was to produce enough revenue to cover expenditure and, if possible, to reduce the National Debt. In fact it was still possible for Chancellors to include proposals for the reduction of the National Debt until just before the first war—certainly up to 1908—but since then Chancellors seem to have had many other priorities.
  However, the present form of Exchequer Accounts is still, by and large, determined by the distinction drawn in section 4 of the Sinking Fund Act 1875, between expenditure which can specifically

  79
  be met from borrowing and all other expenditure. This distinction is not concerned with the fact that during the financial year issues from the Consolidated Fund may be, and are, met from temporary borrowing, or that the Government has no specific powers to borrow to meet more than a small part of its own direct capital expenditure.
  So the Exchequer Accounts, which are divided above the line and below the line, and which were changed only in 1965, I think, are objectionable primarily because people think that it is devised to distinguish between current and capital accounts, whereas in fact it does no such thing. Nor is it possible to claim that the Exchequer Accounts in any way reflect what is generally conceded to be the Chancellor's right to manage demand by deliberately adjusting his net borrowing requirements between fairly wide limits That is not in dispute. There is an overwhelming case, therefore, in favour of altering the Exchequer accounts so that they are at least intelligible in the circumstances of our time.
  The Economist, commenting on this new Bill on 4th November, said that:
  " the advantage will be that the meaningless figure which used to be called the Treasury's overall budget deficit, and is now called its overall borrowing requirement, will henceforth not be called anything at all, so that the size of it will no longer scare foreigners out of their wits."
  Fortunately this is not the purpose of this Bill, because, if it were, it would show a lamentable ignorance of the expertise of the gnomes, who are, quite rightly, much more concerned about the size and growth of public expenditure as a whole and of the public sector as a proportion of the gross national product. The question, therefore, is: what precise form should this reform take?
  The 1963 White Paper said:
  " No useful economic or financial function would be served by dividing up Government expenditure into one category which had to be met from revenue and another which had to be met by borrowing …"
  It is suggested that the natural division is between the transactions leading up to the net financial requirement, on the one hand, and the transactions showing how the requirement is met, on the other. The former, it is suggested, might be called the Budget account and the latter the
  80
  Financing account. The new Budget account would, therefore, show the progress of Exchequer receipts and issues under headings which correspond to the way in which taxes and expenditure have been authorised by Parliament. It would also show the effect of budgetary transactions on the cash position of the Exchequer, which is of cardinal Importance for debt management and monetary policy.
  We would like to know how the Government see the new accounts being presented. Are these recommendations to be carried out? So far as I can see, the Government do not intend to go anything like so far as these recommendations, but it would be helpful to the House to have in precise form how they see their new accounts. We gained some clue from the Financial Secretary in the Ways and Means Resolution when he said,
  "…from now on the Exchequer accounts will simply show what the Government have received in taxation and what they have spent on both capital and current account"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 549.]
  The National Loans Fund then simply plays the role of residuary legatee or bank of last resort so far as the Exchequer accounts are concerned.
  I have only one point to add to the effective presentation of the accounts, and that is to ask whether the Government propose to adopt the recommendation of the Radcliffe Report, that the Exchequer accounts and local authority accounts should be published quarterly. I hope that they will do so. In any case, it is the duty of the Government to publish the Exchequer accounts in their new form as early as possible, and we trust that this will be done.
  There was one further point raised concerning Clause 21(3) of the Bill, which says:
  " For each such financial year the Treasury shall also prepare in such form as they may determine…"
  We on this side of the House find this unsatisfactory. The form in which these statements are to be made should be predetermined and known by the House; not a form which the Treasury may think up at its own pleasure.
  I come now to the National Loans Fund. It would be quite wrong to imagine that the sole task of the Fund

  81
  is to act as the lender of last resort to the Government. As I see it, its main function will be to act as the repository of our National Debt and the effective means by which the Government's monetary policy can be carried out. But it will also have a further obligation. I refer particularly to the financing of the Public Works Loan Board, referred to by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central. The Public Works Loan Board has a long and rather confused history, particularly in recent years, in regard to calls upon its resources.
  Under Clauses 3 and 4 of this Bill, both the method and the amount of the Fund to be made available to the Public Works Loan Board are to be changed, and I thank these need to be looked at very carefully.
  Under Clause 3(8) the Local Loans Fund is to be wound up as from 1st April, 1968. That is the difference in form. Under sub-paragraph (11) we find that the loans that the Loan Commissioners may make correspond to the loans made under Section 9 of the Public Works Loan Act, 1875. There is no effective difference, therefore, in the type of loans to be made, but a very distinct difference in both the method and the amount.
  Nobody could claim that local authority financing in recent years has been either tidy or desirable in its method. It really is very important to get a sound and sensible policy for local authority financing, and I do not think that that is what we shall be getting under this Bill.
  The problem arises because local authority current expenditure and capital requirements never cease to rise very rapidly. The estimate for local authority capital expenditure for 1967–68 is £1,526 million I prefer the old terminology myself—against £1,403 million for 1966–67. These are very large increases in terms of money, and can be compared against an accumulated loan debt of the local authorities of some £12,000 million.
  Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I think that my hon. Friend is putting in an extra £1,000 million.
  Mr. Hordern: I do not think so, but I will refer to this later. I believe that I am right, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing this out.
  82
  It was originally intended in the 1963 White Paper referring to local government finance that up to 50 per cent. of each authority's gross annual long-term borrowing requirements would eventually be met by the Public Works Loan Board and that the increased access should be allowed at the rate of 10 per cent. each year. The rate at which the Public Works Loan Board was lending, which was then 5⅞ per cent., became very favourable when Bank Rate was raised to 7 per cent.
  Consequently, the Board lent £535 million in 1965–66 against a Budget estimate of £360 million and £518 million against an estimate of £400 million in 1966–1967. There has also been considerable pressure from local authorities for short term funds. A very efficient market in short loans to local authorities has grown up in the City and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives has a considerable knowledge of these operations.
  The trouble is that it has become so efficient that it has attracted large funds from overseas, so much so that the Bank of England has reckoned that a quarter of all temporary borrowing came from overseas. As a result we have had the unfortunate spectacle of hot money supporting long-term local authority capital projects—borrowing short to lend long, the classical route to bankruptcy. Nor does it seem at all likely that this situation will be changed. At the end of May the Government announced new rates for local authority quotas then in line with the rate at which the Government could borrow. Under the Housing Subsidies Act local authorities could get Government subsidies for the difference between 4 per cent. and the rate at which they could borrow for new housing, which was half their total borrowing requirements. Since Bank Rate has been increased to 8 per cent. this provision is likely to prove very expensive indeed. The important consideration with regard to this Bill is whether the existing 34 per cent. quota for local authorities and 44 per cent. for focal authorities in development areas is to be increased.
  The present Home Secretary said on 7th November:
  " It is my policy, as it was that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that local authorities should be able to borrow more from the Public Works Loan Board in future

  83
  than they have done in the past."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th November, 1967; Vol. 753, c. 866.]
  We need to know whether this access is to be increased in order to judge whether the £1,000 million mentioned in Clause 4 with its further three renewals will be adequate. As a general principle it must be desirable for authorities to fund much more of their short-term debts. This will be an additional factor besides the ever-increasing demand for funds.
  If the quotas are to be raised to 50 per cent., which seems very desirable, the £4,000 million mentioned in the Bill is likely to last for just a few years. In the past we have been accustomed to having debates on the Public Works Loan Board Bills which attracted many hon. Members interested in local government. I observe that by this Bill the extensions are subject to an Order passed by affirmative Resolution of the House. We shall be certain to have more of these debates. Presumably when these amounts are consumed the Government of the day would have to introduce further Public Works Loan Board Bills, I would like the Financial Secretary to confirm that this is so and that they will be introduced in much the same form as the old ones.
  If it is right that in principle local authorities should be able to borrow from the Government on a medium-term basis, it is difficult to see why this should not also apply to their short-term borrowings. The effect of retaining the quota system at 34 per cent. has been to put increasing pressure on the whole of the short market. Local authorities are competing against each other for short loans and interest rates have therefore been forced up. If the purpose embodied in Clause 12 is to have a rational and unified debt management policy, which is very desirable, it seems absurd that this should not also apply to short-term loans.
  In its quarterly review of December, 1966 the Bank of England said that if the Exchequer was forced to assume responsbility for local loans, it may not be able to attract enough lending and would therefore have to borrow through the banking system. Presumably this means through issuing Treasury Bills. There has been considerable pressure on the part of local authorities to issue their own
  84
  Bills. The objection has always been that they would form part of the banking system's reserve ratio of deposits, and thus be inflationary in their effect. Exactly the same argument can be applied to Treasury Bills, but at least Government Bills could be more easily marketable and therefore cheaper.
  The Government are in great difficulties in their financing of local government expenditure and this Bill will do nothing to improve that situation. One day the nettle of local authority financing must be grasped. Nothing could be more ludicrous than to give Government sanction to local authority expenditure and then decline to use Government authority to raise the necessary funds. The only effect is to hamper the Government's own financing power.
  During the debate on the Ways and Means Resolution the Financial Secretary was asked some questions about interest rates which would be available to local authorities by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I will not go into this in detail because I see that it has been dealt with, but there seems to be a slight anomaly here. The Financial Secretary said of these rates:
  " The answer is that they will rise and fall according to the cost to the Government and it is the cost to the Government at the time the loans are made that will be relevant."
  In another passage he said:
  " If the Government have been prudent and borrowed earlier at a cheaper rate, there is no reason why the cheaper rate should not be available for the customer."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 549–550.]
  I do not believe that both statements can be true. Perhaps the Financial Secretary can clarify this.
  This Bill seems to be a sensible but small improvement in the presentation of our national accounts. It could also lead to improved debt management. We should like to see the accounts presented more often—at least half yearly, not annually. We will need to look at this in detail in Committee, but for the moment we welcome the Bill.
  5.57 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I will do my best to deal with all the points raised by hon. Members. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern) for describing this Measure as a modest step

  85
  forward, because the Government are always very modest in whatever they put forward. They are also of a progressive character, as was very fairly conceded. No Government can ask for more than that by way of praise from an Opposition, however fair-minded, and no one can be more fair-minded than the hon. Member.
  The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) can put at rest his fears that the interesting excursions upon which we normally engage on the Consolidated Fund Bill will be disturbed by this Measure. They will not be affected in the smallest degree by these arrangements. Those debates will continue. Their technical relationship with the Consolidated Fund Bill still remains, and hon. Members will have the same wide-ranging discussions that have characterised that Bill on previous occasions.
  There will be no alteration of any kind resulting from this. Neither the procedure nor the time-table will be affected. The Bill will include borrowing powers, so that the House has its traditional reasons for ranging widely. The hon. Member was a little more critical of this Bill. We all understand why the hon. Member for Horsham could not be here throughout the debate. It produced that happy flexibility of discussion, and an agreeable contrast between the opening speech made for the Opposition and the Opposition winding-up speech. It may be that the course of the debate had a persuasive or illuminating effect.
  At all events, the hon. Member for Worthing quoted incompletely—I am sure not with the intention of misleading —part of the Economist's complaint in connection with the Bill. As I understand the Economist's complaint, what it was really asking for was the publication of national income forecasts at Budget time. That is a completely different question from that now being considered by the House, which is whether we should not have, at the time that the Budget accounts are presented, which is the source material of all other discussion, also a national income forecast.
  Many hon. Members have evinced a similar inclination. Perhaps they all read the Economist, or perhaps they have reached the conclusion independently. It is an interesting and not unattractive prospect that we could have this exercise
  86
  at Budget time. Obviously I can make no commitment, but I will certainly see that the matter is studied.
  I come now to deal with the way in which these accounts will look when they are translated from statute to actual accounts for publication.
  Mr. Higgins: I did not intend to quote selectively. I think that on looking at the full quotation the hon. Gentleman will find that I was, if anything, rather generous to him. The quotation goes on, after some other passage, to say this:
  "…the real reform that is needed in Britain's present disgracefully misleading budget estimates is to let the country know on what forward estimate of money national income the detailed revenue estimates are based, so that people can then analyse how far any eventual shortfall below estimate is due to a deflationary shortfall in national income and how far to an inflationary shortfall in some taxes' yield; the Treasury still does not understand that, so long as it keeps this a state secret, every sophisticated observer at home and abroad will treat its National Loans Fund bill as a bad joke."
  The two are completely inter-related: they cannot be separated.
  Mr. Lever: I hope that I have not unfairly summarised the Economist's complaint. I am not always absolutely capable of interpreting the journalistic jargon of economic publications, but I read the article to mean that what the Economist wanted was the publication of national income forecasts at the same time as the Budget was published—in this case the National Loans Fund accounts and all the other accounts it is proposed to publish. That is what I said. I do not think that that complaint is anything to do with this legislation.
  They are really saying that this legislation can do something to improve the existing presentation of accounts. It does not give us what we would all like to have, namely, a national incomes forecast which would link with these accounts and produce a great deal of comment, information and judgment of a useful kind. That feeling has been echoed by the House today.
  I will certainly see that it is looked at. It does not relate to the Bill, which is concerned purely with publication. It is purely a question, not of making forecasts of national income, which is an economic exercise—this is not an economic exercise —but an accountancy exercise. This is a

  87
  presentation of source material, rather like a company balance sheet presents the facts of the company's finances, its trading account and its capital account. Thereafter, there can be a chairman's speech putting, perhaps, a more illuminating interpretation upon the figures and expanding the background against which the company is operating. That is a separate question. What we propose in the Bill is to clear up the Government's balance sheet and present it in a more realistic, more intelligent, and less Gladstonian form.
  The hon. Members for Worthing and for Horsham would like to see what it will look like. They hope that it will not be left completely to the Treasury's discretion to decide at the last moment and to change it from year to year. There is no such intention. I will ensure that there is a pro forma available which will show the House what exactly these new accounts will look like. I would hope that hon. Members would draw the conclusion that the new accounts are superior to the old accounts and that they are easier to read. The facts are all in the old accounts. We shall get these facts in the new form. I will ensure that the hon. Member for Worthing has a pro forma in his possession. In fact, I should be very surprised if there is not one in his box already. I will see that it is made available to the whole House, and indeed made publicly available. It will certainly be there before we reach the Committee stage.
  I come to what has been turned into the vexed question of the nationalised industries' borrowing rate and what I said. I have puzzled over what HANSARD records me as having said. I think that I have found the solution. I hope that it is not slanderous of the reporter who took down what I said. If I am slandering him and if I did actually use the words recorded, I must take the blame myself.
  I have come to the conclusion that I did then say what I propose to say now. I will simply repeat what I said then and leave out two "nots" which have been put in. I am now referring to a point raised by the hon. Gentleman who intervened usefully in the debate. I will leave out the two "nots" which quite gratuitously were put in by the HANSARD reporter. What I said was this':
  88
  " Without going to the nearest fraction of an interest rate, the Government will lend to a nationalised industry or a local authority at their own cost of borrowing at the time that they are lending—plus certain expenses. If the Government have been prudent and borrowed earlier at a cheaper rate, there is no reason why the cheaper rate "
  should be available. One "not" goes out of the window at that point, as hon. Members will see:
  " there is no reason why the cheaper rate should be available for the customer. If the Government have borrowed sums of money at a higher rate earlier, there is no reason why the borrower should "
  pay the higher rate. Another "not" goes out of the window.
  " there is no reason why the borrower should pay the higher rate."
  Then the whole thing is quite clear.
  I do not know why these two "nots" made their incursion. If it was my fault, I apologise to the House. If it was the reporter's fault, it will not be the first mistake of this kind which has been made in HANSARD reporting, alas. I know their difficulties.
  I go on to say this—it is perfectly clear:
  " The borrower will in each case pay the going cost at the time of borrowing on the borrowed money."
  This is absolutely consistent with what I said. Later, when I was pressed again on this point, I said this:
  " The short answer is yes. The longer answer is that when we lend from the National Loans Fund to any of the borrowers, a local authority or the nationalised industry, the loan will have a term on it and the rate of interest fixed will be the rate appropriate for that term at the time of borrowing."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 550]
  I was perfectly clear in my own mind, and if those two "nots" are eliminated it is clear that that is the position. I hope that the House is now satisfied, and I am sure that that position is the one that the House would wish to be the case.
  I am asked what lending of the Government is not to be included in the National Loans Fund. Film finance, alas, does not always come within the description of undoubted fully repayable debt. Hence, that will not be put into the National Loans Fund, which is exclusively where the Government are lending money to absolutely solvent borrowers who, on ordinary going rate terms, may with confidence be expected to repay in full. For

  89
  this reason, unhappily, the National Film Finance Corporation borrowing has not qualified at all times.
  Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid: I am amazed that the heavens have not opened and a thunderbolt has not landed on the lion. Gentleman's head whilst he has been describing some of the classes of borrowers who will help themselves from he National Loans Fund as thoroughly solvent in every way. Is he not aware of the vast extent and size of the deficits which are written off annually in respect of some of these loans?
  Mr. Lever: It may seem a circular argument, but the nationalised industries, irrespective of their particular deficits from year to year, are thoroughly solvent, because the Government will ensure that their solvency in undoubted. Therefore, nobody expects them to default on these loans. In the longer term, I should have thought that in any event on their own merits all would be well. If it were not so, it would not really matter, because tree Government, among their duties, plainly have a duty to ensure the solvency of the nationalised industries. Therefore, when the Government act as agent of one of the nationalised industries and borrow the money, they have lent it to a perfectly solvent customer, although admittedly, in this somewhat circular way, the ultimate solvency depends upon the lender. This has happened in history before.
  The other loans which will be out, apart from trifling matters of a very minor character which are more appropriate for the Committee stage, are loans to development corporations and developing area countries, where the loans are not always made on the absolutely commercial basis that applies in the case of nationalised industry and local authority lending. In those circumstances, it was thought right that the House should see those as voted by the House rather than lent out of the National Loans Fund.
  Will there be forward estimates with the National Loans Fund? We now publish shortly before the Budget a White Paper on the Consolidated Fund lending. Something on these lines will continue to be published for the National Loans Fund lending. There will be no reduction in the total information of this kind available in the next accounts to the House. If the hon. Member has the pro forma be-
  90
  fore the Committee stage he will probably be satisfied about that point.
  The Economist complaint is that it wants details of the national income to be produced in some paper published with the Budget and with these accounts. The complaint, at any rate, widened the debate for hon. Members and enabled them to tender advice on various economic matters not strictly related to the Government's purpose in presenting the Bill, which is strictly an accountancy purpose for clarifying the Government's accounts and not for clarifying the national accounts. These are the Government's accounts dealing with local authorities and other bodies and with the Government's own expenditure and tax raising. Whether the House ought to insist that at the same time the Government should trouble themselves to prepare a full scheme of some kind presenting the national income and the national accounts for economic information is another matter.
  I know that this has been a strictly non-party occasion today, but I cannot help noticing that there is nothing like the exchanges between the Government and Opposition Front Benches to produce an impatient perfectionism which is missing in the long years when the capacity to make these interesting changes exists. There is nothing like the Opposition Front Bench to demand a better world when one has not got the obligation of instantly bringing it about. However, this is not a matter that I am complaining about, because it is probably true of both parties.
  I think I have dealt with most of the points that were raised by the hon. Member for Worthing. If there are other detailed points which he would like to raise, we shall, no doubt, have ample opportunity to go into them when he is improving the Bill in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Cant) was keen that we should increase the powers of the local authorities to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board. Of course, he is aware that we are now trying to increase the proportion from 20 per cent. to 50 per cent. This is a very interesting question on which the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Nott) held forth. I can easily see that it is possible to have many points of view about it.

  91
  My general point of view follows rather closely that of the hon. Member for Horsham, to whose words I listened with great sympathy.
  Where we have a great number of local authorities whose solvency in the end must be guaranteed by the Government, who have varying degrees of expert knowledge and expert advisers, whose requirements are often in small unwieldy sums at inconvenient times, it must be better to try to organise the borrowing of the local authorities at a central point by the Government. The Government thereafter can meet without all the paraphernalia of the market the detailed requirements of the local authorities. They can then provide the local authorities with short-term, medium-term and long-term funds according to their needs and according to which particular brand of economic and financial orthodoxy is in vogue at the Treasury at that particular time.
  I know that the classical phrase of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is often quoted out of context, that borrowing short and lending long is the road to bankruptcy. I am sure that he never intended this to cover all circumstances and all persons, though I have not consulted him on this point. I can only testify, on the evidence of my own eyes, that I have seen many people who have been borrowing short and lending long all their lives, with not bankruptcy as a result but a degree of affluence that would be the envy of almost every hon. Member. When it is done with the correct precautions and on the right basis, it forms the fundamental ratio of banking itself. Every large bank does precisely that, and those who do it in proper circumstances, far from ending up in bankruptcy, end up with a very prosperous business. Those who do it without adequate precautions, whether they be countries or bankers, are liable to end up in considerable embarrassment and difficulty.
  For my part, I do not see it as a practical permanent situation where local authorities compete with each other at irregular times for irregular amounts in the market for their differing requirements. It does not seem to me to be to the general public advantage that Todmorden should fight Oswaldtwistle, offering one eight above each other when the
  92
  money is there, in order to get the money out of the market. I do not complain that the skilled advisers who advise these authorities do not do their best in these circumstances, but they cannot individually arrange their affairs as satisfactorily as a central borrowing point can. There are, of course, other factors which make it advantageous, one factor being that the Government are a large borrower and thus have a very marketable security. A local authority has to pay a bit more for its borrowing because it has not so marketable a stock, among various reasons.
  All sorts of economies may be made by borrowing centrally. It may be asked: if this is the case, why do we not get 100 per cent. of the local authority borrowing arranged in this way, instead of moving up merely to 50 per cent.? The answer is that at this time so sudden a change in procedures would probably produce inconveniences. The movement is in the direction that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central desires. I can assure him that, speaking for myself and not venturing to predict the future, I would suppose the movement in the end will go further than the 50 per cent. as soon as it can conveniently do so, because all logic seems to be in that direction.
  Mr. Hordern: The hon. Gentleman is referring to increasing the quotas from 34 per cent. to 50 per cent. for local authorities in respect of the Public Works Loan Board. Can he say when?
  Mr. Lever: I am not able to say at the moment. In any case, it is not strictly relevant. I have been tempted away from the strict brief. This is an accountancy Bill and it does not matter for the purpose of the Bill whether we lend at 2 per cent. or 22 per cent. to meet the local authorities' requirements through the National Loans Fund. The House is not deciding at what percentage, if any, local authority borrowing shall go through the Fund. It is deciding that there will be this Fund out of which local authorities can borrow if the Government are minded to lend them the money.
  I must not trespass too far because, quite apart from trespassing beyond the rules of order, I might trespass even further and beyond the limits of strict discretion. The hon. Member for Walsall,

  93
  South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) raised a very appropriate point when he said that the Exchange Equalisation Account has rather an odd effect. When sterling is weak the Government are receiving large quantities of sterling and reducing their borrowing requirements. When sterling is strong the Government are increasing their borrowing requirements. From the point of view of the issue of presenting the accounts and the true Government borrowing and expenditure position, all this is made clear in the paper, As the hon. Member will see when we come to the pro forma. There will he a neat statement which will show how much has gone to the Equalisation Account and how much has come from the Equalisation Account. With that piece of information, I am sure that the problem raised by the hon. Member will be cleared up.
  The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) raised a number of problems. He was anxious that we should tailor our offers to the local authorities in accordance with their needs. I shall bear fully in mind all the points that he raised. I think these are questions of debt management and do not relate to the presentation of accounts which is really the main purpose of the Bill. This is not a Bill that pretends to revolutionise our economic management, still less our economic situation. This is a Bill for improving the presentation of our accounts so that he who runs, or does rot run too fast, may read rather better than on the previous occasion. I accept the description of the Bill given by the hon. Member for Horsham, that it is a modest step forward but a useful one. As the hon. Gentleman will discover when we go into Committee and consider detailed matters more closely, it goes a little further than the 1963 White Paper, but that was, perhaps, to be expected from this Government. On the whole, I am grateful to the House for the critical welcome which has been given to this modest step forward.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEEDINGS (SOUND BROADCASTING EXPERIMENT)
  6.20 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): I beg to move,
  That this House approves the making of sound recordings of its proceedings for an experimental period for the purpose of providing for Members specimen programmes.
  The House will recall that, in the debate on 20th November, 1966, on the question of broadcasting our proceedings, it was decided, by a single vote, not to go forward with a combined experiment in radio and television coverage of our debates, as had been recommended by the Select Committee. That debate was largely about television, but I said in my winding-up speech that the issue of the sound broadcasting of our proceeding was of the greatest importance, and expressed the hope that we should have another look at the sound broadcasting aspect of the question on its merits, not merely its merits for mass communication but its merits from the point of view of historical record, since, surely, a sound version of our proceedings is worth recording and keeping for ourselves, even if we decide not to publish it to the world.
  Since that time, we have had the Report of the Select Committee on the televising of proceedings in the House of Lords, and it has been decided that a short television experiment should take place there in February of next year. I am sure that the results of that experiment will prove useful to this House in enabling us to make up our minds on whether we should have a further look at the possibility of televising our own proceedings. This is, however, obviously a matter on which we should proceed very carefully and make absolutely sure that what we do reflects the considered feeling of this House, and after consultation through the usual channels, I do not propose to take any further steps this Session in the matter of television.
  This evening, my proposal relates exclusively to sound broadcasting—indeed, only to experimental recordings of our proceedings to be heard by hon. Members and members of the British Broadcasting Corporation recording staff. It would provide no authority for any kind

  95
  of public transmission. It would be authority merely to undertake the experiment, which was, I think, recommended by the B.B.C. in the memorandum which it submitted to the Select Committee.
  What is proposed is that the B.B.C. should first satisfy itself that the microphone installations in the Chamber are adequate for that purpose and to make any necessary alterations. Then, after its preliminary technical trials, the B.B.C., for a limited period, would provide experimental sound recordings of our proceedings. These would be played back to hon. Members at selected points throughout the Palace. Secondly, from these live recordings, the B.B.C. should devise a short series of edited extracts as examples of what in future might be a sound radio programme illustrative of live quotations from our speeches. These experimental programmes would be played back each night in rooms where hon. Members could listen to them. After sufficient time, say, two or three weeks, the House would, I suggest, be in a position to decide whether it wished some such progamme to be a regular feature of broadcasting.
  I emphasise that the recordings which we should hear in the experimental period would be on a closed circuit connected to points within the precincts, though the circuit would also have to be linked to the B.B.C. in Broadcasting House where the specimen programmes would be prepared. I emphasise again that whatever was done would be on an entirely experimental basis, and nothing in the way of a decision about future permanent broadcasting of our proceedings would be taken without coming back to the House for further authority. In other words, the authority for which I am now asking is simply and solely for the experiment under those conditions. There will be no resulting public transmission.
  The question of the timing of the experiment is still one for further discussion with the B.B.C. It would, of course, be an experiment for the B.B.C. as well as for us, but I am pretty sure that it will do all it can to ensure that the experiment will be completed well before the end of the present Session so that we may then reflect as a House
  96
  and decide what permanent decision should be taken.
  Before putting forward these proposals. I consulted both Opposition parties. I think that they share our view that the time is now opportune for this issue to be put before the House.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the cost be borne on public funds through the B.B.C. or through the House?
  Mr. Crossman: The cost will certainly be borne on public funds.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: But will it be through the B.B.C.? Will it be on the Corporation's account?
  Mr. Crossman: I think I am right in saying that it will be on our account. I do not think that we have ever suggested in any of these experiments that we should not bear the cost of them.
  6.25 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Bryan: I thank the Leader of the House for his brief explanation of his proposal for a closed circuit sound broadcasting experiment. I do not complain at his brevity, as the principles of the proposal were fully debated at about this time last year and we have since had the Report of the Select Committee on television in the House of Lords. No one can say that we are short of information on the subject. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would say whether he will wind up this debate, as he did the last one.
  Mr. Crossman: Yes, I shall seek to do so. I was deliberately brief because I felt that I might be more useful in answering questions than in repeating matters which are so well known.
  Mr. Bryan: The proposal in the Motion debated last year was more ambitious than the one now before us, the question then being whether we should have an experiment in sound broadcasting and television broadcasting as well. When the right hon. Gentleman tried to put his foot into that particular door, he got it fairly severely trodden on, almost as though by a stiletto heel. This time, we have a far more modest proposal. The right hon. Gentleman has put the tip of his toe in the door, and I wish him better luck.

  97
  Important as radio is, it is not even half as important, I suggest, as an experiment in television. Should the sound broadcasting of our proceedings ever come to pass, the public audience will be smaller. It will also be narrower, as for the more serious type of programme the audience is composed more largely of older people than is normal. The message is less vivid, too, because as a communicator television is very much more effective than radio.
  However, in certain respects, radio has advantages over television in an experiment of this kind. The first advantage is that it is much cheaper. The other experiment would cost us, I believe, About £150,000, or even more. This time the experiment would be far cheaper. I shall be interested to know what it will cost, in fact. Another advantage is that it will not disturb our proceedings, and neither will it disturb our habits, as the other experiment would have done, with the introduction of lighting, cameras and so forth. Moreover, only one organisation will he doing it, which will make matters far simpler than having alternate weeks covered by I.T.A. and the B.B.C. Last time, we were told that we should be tied in our timings, largely because of the racing calendar. We were informed that the outside broadcasting teams had to be free again by the time the flat racing season started. That was something of an impediment, too.
  For all these reasons, in particular the matter of cheapness, it should be possible to have a longer experiment, if that were so desired. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of two or three weeks. I should be surprised if we get all the lessons we want in so short a period. On the last occasion, we talked in terms of five to eight weeks, and many of us were not entirely happy about that, but the difficulties of that experiment and the cost of it forced us to accept some such time scale.
  In the present experiment proposed, I should prefer no set time to be laid down. I imagine that it would not be too expensive. The Sub-Committee of the Services Committee, which, I take it, will again be in charge, ought to be able to judge how the experiment is going, and I suggest that it ought to be continued so long as useful lessons are being learned, however long that period may be.
  98
  The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the sort of programmes which might be the subject of the experiment. I assume that we all have in mind a live edition of "Today in Parliament". That is the one programme we all know about. But in the course of the experiment they may well find that there are other more interesting ways of presenting our proceedings than a straight imitation of programme. Therefore, I should say let us not hurry.
  I expect many lessons to be learned, some of which will have a bearing on the televising of the House. For example, we shall get evidence to guide us on the whole thorny question of editing, which we discussed very fully and inconclusively in the last debate. We came to no conclusion, and the advice of the Leader of the House to us was to spend the next few months considering this unresolved question. We shall have had our minds made up one way or the other when we have seen the success, or lack of it, of editing on radio.
  The Leader of the House also emphasised in the last debate that only about 2 per cent. of the words uttered in the House would ever be broadcast. When we hear the radio experiment, that will give us some sense of this proportion, and possibly bring comfort to those who have feared over-exposure of other hon. Members if not of themselves.
  I am very much in favour of the Press being allowed to listen to, and comment on, the experiment. The Leader of the House seemed rather to go out of his way to say that only Members of Parliament and staff of the B.B.C. would hear it. Whether he lays that down or not, there is nothing to stop a Member writing in the Press or telling the Press about it. Therefore, I think that the experiment will be reported, and it would be better to take the bull by the horns and invite the Press to make its comments.
  Members of the Press will be very good judges of the effect on the public if the broadcasting of our proceedings ever reaches it. They will also be somewhat more diligent in their judgment than we shall be. The Leader of the House may be rather disappointed to see the small numbers of M.P.s who will listen to the various experiments in Westminster Hall, or wherever it may be,

  99
  because on the whole we are pretty busy when we are in the Palace of Westminster. It would be worth repeating the broadcasts, in whatever form they take, several times a day and possibly the next day. Presumably it would cost nothing to do so. If they were at regular two-hourly intervals people would know when they were coming and could fit them into their daily programme.
  It would be useful if the Leader of the House could keep us up to date with comments on how the experiment is going during the experimental period. Could he give us a slightly broader picture of the general situation on broadcasting the House if the Motion is carried? We hear that it will start in February, but, as he explained, we do not know the length of the experiment.
  Mr. Crossman: The House of Lords experiment will start in February. I could not give a date for ours because it will depend on the B.B.C.'s technical examination of the situation.
  Mr. Bryan: I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that explanation. Will the broadcasting of another place be a long or short experiment? Shall we in this House have an opportunity of seeing its results? Will those broadcasts be relayed into rooms in this House? It would be very valuable if we had the results of our own radio experiment and the results of the experiment in another place at the same time.
  In the last debate, on 24th November last year, less than half the House voted on the proposal to have a television experiment. It was rejected by one vote. If it comes to a Division again, I should say that even fewer than half the House will vote. We on this side of the House treat the proposal as a non-party matter. Hon. Members on this side will not have the benefit of advice from our Whips. Speaking personally, I believe that the Motion, although less significant than its predecessor, is important, and I hope that it will be approved by the House.
  6.34 p.m.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will acquit me of inconsistency if I say straight away that I shall oppose the Motion. I am familiar with the technique of the foot in the door, and
  100
  I know that my right hon. Friend's very modest presentation of the Motion tonight is a tactical exercise which is expected to pacify and mollify the House.
  It would be unkind of me to repeat some of the arguments that many hon. Members on both sides of the House employed when we objected so strongly to the televising of the House 12 months ago. Some of us said that we did not want this place turned into a performing flea pit. Similarly, I have no wish to see the House, with all its great history and traditions, merely becoming an adjunct to the Press and television authorities.
  The greatest forces behind the previous attempt to get closed-circuit television cameras into the House came not from hon. Members, not from our constituencies, but from interested people in the television organisations. I was reliably informed, after the attempt had collapsed, much to the surprise and annoyance of my right hon. Friend, that several dispositions made by television authorities in London elsewhere had had to be cancelled. Various appointments had been made of top officials in anticipation that that proposal would go through on the nod.
  I think it is true that it was long before the debate on 24th November last year that the House became interested in the matter. Although only a minority of Members voted, the House was very crowded on the night. Many more hon. Members were in the Chamber to hear that fascinating debate than went into the division lobbies. I will take you, Mr. Speaker, and the House generally into my confidence. They did not vote because nobody expected that there would be a Division, least of all my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. He thought that the proposal would go through on the nod, that apart from a few desultory or token words of opposition from various hon. Members it would be nodded through. He was so certain that that would happen that long before the debate arrangements had been made to instal closed-circuit television cameras. When I made enquiries I was told that they were installed as a sort of substitute for the enunciators, which have been working in the House for so long, or an alternative method of informing hon. Members about the business of the House.
  Mr. Crossman: The installation of the so-called television enunciators was a completely separate matter, done before I became Leader of the House. It has absolutely nothing to do with the problem of the presentation of our proceedings to the public. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be confused about this. That was entered into as an experiment because of the expense of the old enunciators, in the belief that it was more efficient and cheaper, it has no implications for the televising of our proceedings here.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for what he says. I do not impugn his good faith, and I want to be fair. But it is a remarkable example of the long arm of coincidence that preparatory to that debate, in which the House rightly or wrongly rejected on a free vote a closed-circuit experiment which would have cost about £30,000 a week for a number of weeks—a fantastic bill which the House did not like very much—closed-circuit television cameras were put in. If they were put in, as my right hon. Friend says, instead of the enunciators, it is remarkable that 18 months later the enunciators are still here and the television cameras are working with them in double harness and confusing hon. Members to some degree—
  Mr. Crossman: I do not want to debate enunciators. Before I became Leader of the House it was decided that there should be an experiment with enunciators of that type. It was decided that before we committed ourselves for or against television enunciators as a permanent installation we should try them out while we had the old enunciators so that we could compare the two. That had nothing to do with televising our proceedings on the Floor of the House. My hon. Friend is confused over the fact that we have a broadcasting system on the Floor of the House which is used for HANSARD, and that it is conceivable that if we had a radio experiment from the Floor we should not have to duplicate by having another set of things hanging down from the ceiling. That is the only thing that could overlap between broadcasting our proceedings and the problems of other things going on outside the Chamber.
  Mr. Price: I am interested in that explanation. Obviously I must accent it.
  102
  I will not pursue that line of country, although it is a valid line. We are not so naĩve in this House that we accept everything we are told from official quarters. We have to be a little sceptical and try to confirm whether we are being correctly informed of important developments in the House. That is what we are here for. We are not here as voting tallies always allowing ourselves to be herded into the Lobby when someone decides that a certain line of policy is the one. I am a loyal member of the Labour Party. No one can produce a better record in this House of loyalty to one's party. But I am getting a little tired of being told by experts of what is good for me. I prefer my own opinion sometimes to the expert opinion.
  I do not want to make a long speech. I do not want to be rhetorical or use elaborate phrases. I want to put the commonsense point of view of some of my hon. Friends and myself. We say, first, that we have no evidence from our constituencies that the country wants this innovation. We are more likely to hear that too much time is taken up with Parliamentary reporting. Perhaps the kindest thing for some of us in this House is the fact that the House is not more widely reported.
  If the Leader of the House is to have any responsibility under the experiment and if the experiment goes beyond experiment and becomes a sort of pipeline to the country, recording the fluent voices of hon. Members in the flesh instead of their merely being reported by somebody in the Press Gallery, I am not sure that the country will be very much attracted by the idea. After all, we have a daily programme on sound radio—" Today in Parliament "—and very rarely do people tell me that some words of wisdom, or otherwise, that I may have uttered in the House have been picked up by the programme. I never hear it, but am told that is so.
  That is a strictly edited version. I should be extremely sceptical, with all the knowledge that I have from many years of working in this House, that once the process of editing or, a more unpleasant term, "censorship"—a dirty word in this House—applied to what was said in the House and any kind of equity was shown as between one hon. Member and another, I should require a

  103
  great deal of convincing that it was being done either judicially or fairly. I say that for good reason. One knows that the contacts and links that exist between television and radio authorities and certain hon. Members are too close for the health of this House. The House is rather silent at the moment. I do not want any applause or opposition. However, many people are aware that there are little kissing rings of all kinds going on between the publicity authorities and hon. Members. One or two who take part may be present tonight. If they are they will probably speak.
  I do not think that it is a good thing for the health of the House if selectivity, which is also a very difficult word for my right hon. Friend in other connotations, is to be applied to editing of the programmes. Before any of my constituents could hear my voice, I imagine I should have to be on better terms than I am at the moment with some members of Her Majesty's Government. That is putting it rather bluntly, but I think there is something in it. That is not because I want anybody to listen to me. I want to be free to say what I believe to he true, whether people listen or not.
  A great many things have happened in connection with this House in recent years, in the post-war years in particular, which in my honest opinion have reduced the status of the House in the country, not only in what has been said and done, but in a great deal of the gimmicking and playing up to the Press which has sometimes disfigured our debates in a most undesirable way.
  I spoke about the effects of the proposal on the country and said that the country might not like it. If the country wanted it it would have asked for it. I should like to know from the Leader of the House of any evidence that has been presented to our Select Committee or to himself or to any member of the Government to show that the country is stumbling over itself to have our beautiful voices recorded on sound radio. It is perhaps a lesser risk inflicted on the public to have our voices rather than our faces recorded. Here I am speaking for myself. I am not speaking for any clique or cabal. What I say I say temperately, moderately and modestly. I
  104
  hope, for myself and I am not stooging for any clique. We all know what goes on in this place. [Interruption.] I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) is most anxious to elaborate on what I am saying if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye, and he can say it on the basis of greater experience than mine and say it in a rather different way.
  I wish to convey to the House in general and my right hon. Friend in particular that I am not prepared at this moment, even on an experimental basis, to accept the Motion, first, because I do not think the country wants it, secondly, because I think that if the country got it it would not like it, and thirdly, and finally because—
  Mr. E. Shinwell: We have other things to do.
  Mr. Price: —this is no time to be playing about with any more gimmicks. The country is facing grave issues of major importance, and I do not think we get any great credit in the country for occupying so much of our Parliamentary time with these matters of the convenience of hon. Members and the procedures of the House when much of it would be better employed and give a greater lead to the country if we were dealing with the major issues confronting us.
  Tonight we are witnessing another little move to introduce into the House something that many of us feel in our bones is wrong. It is not being done by a frontal attack. I am sufficiently well versed in the tactics of politics to know that one does not often achieve one's objectives anyway by making a frontal attack. If one is faced with opposition and has had a bump on the nose, one goes round the corner and approaches the objective by a more indirect route. That is what is happening tonight. For the reasons that I have stated I shall feel obliged to oppose the Motion, and I hope that I shall have the support of the House in doing so.
  6.50 p.m.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: I was unable to attend the debate on 24th November last year and this is the first time I have spoken on the question of the broadcasting of proceedings. I am grateful to the hon. Member for

  105
  Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) for providing me with yet another term by which to express the public opinion of this House. He said that he did not wish it to become a performing flea pit. There are some who regard the House as a gasworks while others say that Guy Fawkes was the only man of sense about the whole thing. I like to think that we are not just a warehouse of wafflers but that we try to make this a workhouse for wisdom. But I am not sure that we are likely to be the best judges of that.
  What worries me about this proposal is the idea that the final decision on whether or not the experiment is a good one which can be conducted on a wider basis is to lie with us. I am inclined to think that the public should be the final arbiters. They send us here and, through their taxation, pay us. Therefore, whatever is the outcome of the experiment and however important it may be that we ourselves should see the early results first, I hope that no final decision will be taken until, when we have done our best with the experiment, the public have had an opportunity of having a say.
  But there is one great danger coming out of this. Some hon. Members like to speak in this Chamber whenever they can. Others do not often speak in the Chamber, if at all, and all too often the public has the impression that those hon. Members do no useful work here. Yet we all know that there is an immense amount of work going on in the Palace besides what goes on in this Chamber. I therefore want to pick up with particular relish one point made by the right hon. Gentleman in the debate last year, when he said that Standing Committees would not be overlooked. He was talking in the context of television.
  There was the decision of the House in the last Session, and repeated in this one, to establish these new Select Committees—the Select Committee on Science and Technology, in which I am particularly interested, and the Select Committee on Agriculture, which did a useful job in studying preparations in the Ministry of Agriculture towards the Common Market. I am sure that these Committees will have very great public interest—an increasing interest as the years go on. They are distinct from some other Select Committees we have had in
  106
  that their proceedings are open to the public anyway.
  If we are to make this experiment, then, wherever the Press attends a meeting of a Standing or Select Committee, in fairness to those hon. Members—not least—who do an immense amount of work in these Committees but do not often speak in the Chamber, we should consider making sure that these Committees get a fair share of any recordings made.
  I am not worried about the technicalities involved in this. I am sure that the B.B.C. technicians will be able to overcome any difficulties. But some of our best debates will be the hardest to record, because when a debate is showing a certain amount of vigour and hon. Members are perhaps more rowdy than we would think entirely desirable, it will virtually make it impossible for anyone to pick up with a clarity which would be desirable the principle speaker at the time.
  Those of us who occasionally occupy the Chair know how difficult it is, when presiding over a Committee of the House, if a large amount of conversation is going on on the Government Front Bench—as is often the case— for even the Chair always to be able to hear what is being said if the hon. Member speaking is below the Gangway and rather far away.
  There may be technical difficulties here. It must be ensured that the supporting noises and the opposing noises hon. Members make from time to time in some of the bigger debates do not completely drown the one person who perhaps ought to be recorded and whose remarks are perhaps more interesting than those of some others.
  Sir Knox Cunningham: Would not my hon. Friend agree that there may be another side to this, in that in these great debates a Member may make a remark Mr. Speaker does not hear but which is very audible to the public at large?
  Sir H. Legge-Bourke: That is a legitimate point. There are occasions when asides become the principal observation because a microphone happens to have picked them up, and occasionally it would have been much better if those asides had not been uttered. But I take the point. However, I am sure that these

  107
  difficulties can be ironed out and I do not wish to stop this experiment.
  But the House must consider the financial stringencies of the nation. We must consider the full cost in a year. I would say that the initial costs are likely to be heavier than the continual running cost over the years. Therefore, we should be rather careful to make sure, if there is to be large capital and running expenditure, that it is relevant to the economic stringency of which we are all too well aware.
  Finally, there is the question of editing. I understand that the B.B.C. will be responsible, and I am certain that hon. Members, be they a Sub-Committee of the Services Committee or any other ad hoc Select Committee, are not the right people to edit a Parliamentary programme. That is essentially a matter for those experienced in editing. Whether we eventually go on to television or only go as far as sound recording, the job must be done by expert editors. Hon. Members may have other things they do better, but they certainly could not do editing. I hope that we shall be quite clear about that.
  Reading Senator Fulbright's book, "The Arrogance of Power", I came across the following quotation from Mark Twain which seems appropriate:
  " We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it—and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove-lid. She will never sit down on a hot stove-lid again—and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one any more."
  6.58 p.m.
  Mr. David Winnick: The proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is very modest. Indeed, I did not expect much of a debate and came into the Chamber hesitating to speak because I felt the decision might have been taken on the nod. But obviously my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) is very much opposed to the idea.
  We should bear in mind that, apart from anything else, the House of Lords is to experiment with television. We are only experimenting with radio. I can foresee a situation in which the House of Lords may decide to televise its proceedings for the public while the House of Commons decides not to televise its
  108
  own. The public will thus see the House of Lords in action but not the House of Commons. That does not frighten me in the least, because if that situation occurred and the House of Lords were televised, that would be the greatest incentive for the Commons to be televised.
  If we knew that day after day the proceedings of another place were being televised, I am certain that most hon. Members, even though they might now be anti television, would say that we must televise the Commons as soon as possible, that the televising of the Lords was unfair competition. Therefore, I am all for having the Lords being televised as that should speed the way to our being televised.
  I was very sorry when last year those of us who wanted the Commons to be televised lost by one vote. Perhaps we should have organised ourselves better than we did. However, we did not do so and, on a completely free and non-party vote, we lost by only one. I was sorry to hear the Leader of the House say that the issue of televising the Commons would not come up again this Session —perhaps I misunderstood. It would be rather unfortunate, but perhaps continued pressure from both sides of the House by hon. Members in favour of televising our proceedings may make him change his mind.
  It seems to be part of our rather conservative attitude that in the age of mass television we are tonight discussing without much enthusiasm, whether we should experiment with radio. This is remarkable. I could understand the House in the 1930s or 1940s debating with some hesitation whether to experiment with radio, but today, ten years after mass television, it shows how conservative our attitude is towards various experiments that we should be considering whether to bring our proceedings to the majority of the electorate.
  I want people to know about the workings of Parliament. It is true that personally I have not received any request from constituents on this issue, but it is not a matter of receiving requests from the electorate. In the present state of politics I want to ' sell "the House of Commons. [Laughter.] I do not mean "sell" in that sense. I want people to understand and appreciate the workings of Parliament, because already in the present

  109
  economic crisis certain people in certain sections of the community are saying that they have no time for Parliament or that Parliament should neet only once a year. There is an anti-democratic feeling among certain people, although I see from some of their letters that they are rather keen to deny that accusation. It is all the more important that, rather than being on the defensive, we should go over to the offensive and explain what Parliament means, and the best way in which to do that is to let the electorate see the workings of Parliament—the putting of questions and the debating of issues of today.
  A rather interesting article on Parliament appeared in the Sunday Times yesterday. Written by Ronald Butt, it concluded:
  "The party politicians, for all the seemingly idle chatter of their arguments, preserve our liberties as no junta of business men or technocratic administrators could do."
  That is obviously right. All hon. Members agree with that, or they would not be here.
  But in this age of mass communication we tend to isolate ourselves. Our accommodation for visitors upstairs is extremely limited. Constituents cannot cone to listen to Question Time unless they first write to get a ticket. Some years ago it was suggested that there should be closed circuit television of the Commons upstairs which would allow 1,000 more people to watch our proceedings. The programme "Today in Parliament", which is broadcast in the evening and again the following day, seems to be very popular with many people. There is an interest in Parliament and at a time when so many anti-democratic and anti-Parliamentary voices are being raised, we should do our utmost to demonstrate the necessity for Parliamentary democracy. The best way to do that—and this was my view last year—is to televise our proceedings.
  If this experiment is a foot in the door —and I am not willing to deny it, although I do not know what the views of the Leader of the House are—I am all for it, and the sooner we agree to this proposal and to televising our proceedings the happier I shall be.
  A century and a half ago there was bitter argument in the House about whether the Press should publish our
  110
  debates. Some hon. Members objected at that time, saying that it would undermine the dignity of the House if our proceedings were published. They were obviously conservative in their day, but if they were in the House now, they would be arguing against this modest proposal and certainly against televising the House. Just as it was inevitable that sooner or later reports of our proceedings would be published in newspapers and newspapermen allowed in the Gallery, so the time will come inevitably, I hope not too far in the future, when our proceedings will be both broadcast and televised.
  7.6 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison: I am entirely opposed to the Motion, on a number of grounds. First, it appeared on the Order Paper only on Friday and we have not had very much time to consider it. Perhaps the Leader of the House does not appreciate that hon. Members have to go to their constituencies and engage in other things over the weekend. This Motion has been brought on much too soon.
  Mr. Crossman: I announced it when I announced the business of the House on Thursday afternoon.
  Mr. Clark Hutchison: It may have been Thursday afternoon and I am sorry that I did not hear that announcement, but, even so, the debate has come very soon after the announcement for a subject of this importance.
  Secondly, I believe that the experiment will lead to many other undesirable experiments. It would lead to the public listening to our debates and that would have very grave consequences. The experience in Australia, for example, should be sufficient to prove that the public does not want it, and Australian Members in Canberra would be very glad to get rid of it.
  My most important reason is that this is a time above all times when we should be considering expenditure. Everybody knows the parlous state of the nation's finances and the stringent financial conditions now obtaining. I do not know how much the experiment will cost—perhaps only a few thousands, which is not very much—but thousands add up and at a time when public expenditure should be cut, it is wrong that we should add to it. The House would do very well

  111
  to scrutinise all public expenditure from now on and not add to the burdens of the taxpayer. I should like to know what the Leader of the House has to say about that.
  I have two general observations. If we get either T.V. or radio in the House, two things will follow: the Front Bench will be strengthened against back bench Members; secondly, let us bear in mind that both are monopolies.
  7.9 p.m.
  Mr. Michael English: At the beginning of the debate I found myself in the unusual position of disagreeing with one of my hon. Friends and agreeing almost entirely with an hon. Member opposite. The remarks of the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) were particularly sensible. I did not share the view of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison). I appreciate his sincerity when he says that we should not take this decision now, because it might cost some money, although that argument could be, applied to almost any of our decisions on any subject. As the principle of broadcasting has been with us for forty years or more, it is time that the House took account of the possibility of broadcasting its proceedings.
  The reason why I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) is this. Our words are already broadcast. I do not say that the Motion will lead to the House having its own words broadcast. It is purely an experiment. But we recognise that it is an experiment designed for the purpose of broadcasting our words. I advocate this. I have advocated it consistently ever since I was elected, for a very good reason, namely, that our words are already broadcast. The question is not whether the words of hon. Members will be broadcast this week, but whether they will be broadcast by themselves speaking or by somebody else.
  On "Today in Westminster" or "The Week in Westminster" there are innumerable spoken quotations from hon. Members. The question is: should it be somebody else's voice or our own? That is the only substantial difference. Hon. Members may say that that is not
  112
  necessarily true with television, but that is not what we are discussing tonight.
  I should congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the simplicity of his Motion because it avoids a lot of problems. It was suggested in the Committee on Broadcasting. It was rejected for reasons which I need not go into. My view is that it is better to proceed by easier stages and for the House to deal with the problems of communicating its proceedings by radio before it attempts to tackle the much more difficult problems of television. Although I am an advocate of both, I would say that we should take the simpler medium first and deal with the problems which that involves and then proceed to consider the problems of the more complex medium.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton asks, "Who wants it?". He merely illustrates the fact that many opponents of the idea have not read the Report of the Committee on Broadcasting. In an Appendix to that Report, the results of a public opinion survey were quoted. Several were produced in newspapers at that time. It was clear that people who had any opinion at all were in favour of the broadcasting of our proceedings. There is no real doubt about that. For hon. Members to say that that is not the case is gilding the lily. They may legitimately argue that it would alter or have an effect on our proceedings or that they do not want our proceedings to be broadcast, but to argue that the public at large do not want them to be broadcast can be disproved by the public opinion surveys which have been published.
  I should like to raise two points on the Motion with my right hon. Friend. The implication of the Motion, just because it is simple, is that any facilities which the broadcasting authority, the B.B.C. in this case, requires will be granted to it by the House of Commons Services Committee. My right hon. Friend is nodding his head and therefore I gather that that is the case. That is a good thing. That is the proper way to do it.
  The second point which is not so clear is this. My right hon. Friend said that the House must decide whether the experiment shows that we should broadcast our proceedings to the public. Does the House make up its mind simply from

  113
  what it hears—the specimen broadcast—or will there be a Select Committee to advise the House?
  Mr. Crossman: When we have had the experiment—and I want to discuss later how long it should last—if it has been a success we should put another Motion before the House saying, "In the light of the experiment, we should have broadcasts by the B.B.C.". But that would be a separate Motion and a separate debate based on the experiment. This Motion is limited solely to the experiment.
  Mr. English: I thank my right hon. Friend. In that case, I agree with the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan), who mentioned the question of committees. Very much will depend on how the broadcasting authorities interpret the fair degree of freedom which the Motion gives them. As we said by the Select Committee of which I was a member, if they completely ignore the proceedings in committee and merely devote themselves to certain features of the proceedings of the House, I shall be very much more concerned with what may happen than I have been up to now. I say that as one who in principle advocates this experiment but who believes in proceeding by finding out ways in which it can be done.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton said that this is not a matter of major importance. That has been implied by hon. Members opposite who have said that the experiment will cost a small sum of money and, therefore, it should not be made. In my view, this is a matter of very major importance. The public image of the House was at its highest when it was being made known through all existing means of communication—in the nineteenth century and the early part of this century when in every newspaper Parliamentary proceedings were published and there were no other means of communication.
  The beginning of the decline of Parliament in the public eye can be traced to the time when it ceased to appear on media of communication and when other media of communication grew up in which Parliament was not specifically presented. There is no doubt about that. One can argue about whether there is a connection, but there is no doubt that the two events are concurrent in time. In my view, there is a connection.
  114
  There is no doubt that there cannot be effective democracy unless we have an effective means of communication between the electorate and the elected. For that reason, I am in favour of this idea in principle. One can argue that there may be difficulties and that there are problems. I spent many hours in the Committee discussing the problems. I agree with all that. But the one argument which I do not believe is true is that this is not a matter of major importance. Whatever the outcome—whether it is to broadcast or not to broadcast to the public—the effects will be considerable and of major importance to democracy.
  7.18 p.m.
  Dr. M. P. Winstanley: If I have learned anything since becoming a Member of the House, it is that one can never count on anything going smoothly, however innocuous it may appear to be at first sight. If I had not learned that yet, I should undoubtedly have learned it tonight.
  I wish briefly to offer my warm support and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends for the Motion. I should like to endorse very strongly everything said by the hon. Members for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) and Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and dispute the remarks of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price).
  The main objection raised in the original debate by hon. Members on both sides of the House was that having television in the House would be a nuisance and that it would result in Members being heated by lights, with wires all over the place, and suffering inconvenience. One thing is crystal clear: there is no possibility of hon. Members suffering inconvenience from this experiment. Without doubt, it can be done virtually without hon. Members noticing and certainly without their being inconvenienced. That argument can utterly be dismissed.
  The hon. Member for Westhoughton rested part of his attack on selection. He asked, "How are the programmes to be selected?" I believe—and this has been said before—that in a matter of this kind one ought to trust the people who are doing the job. It is purely an experiment to decide whether we are satisfied that they can make an acceptable kind of selection which will not distort the House in any way and which will not be unfair.

  115
  It is my belief that the people engaged in broadcasting, whether television or radio, are engaged in broadcasting rather than in politics. They are anxious to do a good and efficient job in presenting a programme and in presenting a balanced programme.
  I believe that the right action for the House to take is to have confidence in these people in the B.B.C., who have such an excellent record, and in their ability to do this with fairness. Nevertheless, I share the view expressed by those hon. Members who have said that to ask hon. Members themselves to try to do what is a professional and technical job would be a terrible mistake.
  The hon. Member for Westhoughton also said that there was no evidence of public demand. If we were never to do anything until the public had made their clamour about it very loud, we should never do anything at all. We should still be watching the magic lantern and we should never have had the cinema. It is for people like the B.B.C. to lead the public in this kind of direction, and, whatever the Leader of the House may say, we should remind ourselves that this experiment is not entirely for hon. Members but is also for the benefit of the B.B.C. They may decide that it is not very good and that it is not the kind of programme that they want to put out. If they so decide, it does not matter very much what we say. We should leave that side of it to the B.B.C. and not worry about waiting for the public—
  Mr. Kenneth Lomas: In view of the hon. Member's remarks about public demand or the lack of it, may I ask whether he is not aware that less than 5 per cent. of the Members of the House are present to debate whether their voices should not should not go on the air? What conclusion does he draw from that? Does he not realise that the majority of Members, as is obvious by their absence from the Chamber, are not in favour of the broadcasting of debates?
  Dr. Winstanley: I should not be so naïve as to make any assumption or deduction from an arithmetical calculation of the number of hon. Members on either side of the House at any particular time. That would be as misleading as
  116
  attempting to divine what is or is not public opinion on this matter.
  The hon. Member for Westhoughton is a Member whom I know and we all know to be very jealous of the rights of the House and very proud of the House, and to have a great affection for the House and all its proceedings. I understand his fears. He does not want it to be changed. I do not altogether agree with him. But if he thinks so highly of the House—as I know he does—why is he so afraid of letting people see it?
  There is, I am sure, misunderstanding at the moment. People do not properly understand what goes on here. But I can see nothing but good coming from allowing the public more fully to know what happens and what does not happen. In saying that I fully take the point made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) that things go on in other places than the Chamber, and I hope that Standing Committees, Select Committees and Specialist Committees, too, would share in this kind of experiment.
  The cost of the experiment would be minimal. I admit that we must not squander money unnecessarily, but the B.B.C. could mount an experiment of this kind for a very small sum indeed. Indeed, they are constantly mounting experiments of this kind to decide whether other matters are right and proper for broadcasting. They have to have such a budget for these experiments and we should not be put off by that difficulty.
  May I put two points to the Leader of the House? If the Order is approved, I hope that we shall persuade those responsible for carrying it out and for doing specimen programmes to do some regional programmes so that hon. Members may see some experiments on a regional basis. I do not want to suggest that my foot is in the door, as so many hon. Members have said. Indeed, I hope that my foot is not in my mouth when I mention this. But perhaps the B.B.C. could also consider, purely for experimental purposes, offering the sound tapes for use in conjunction with pictures on television—purely as an experimental process and at a later stage. I am not saying that this should happen straight away, but it is a possibility worth considering.

  117
  I warmly welcome the Order and I hope that it is approved. Hon. Members have referred to the fact that the previous Motion was defeated by one vote. It is ironical to note that to my personal knowledge five hon. Members were away from the House doing television programmes at that time. I hope that not too many hon. Members are away this tame doing sound radio programmes.
  7.26 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: I sometimes despair of the conservatism and reaction of hon. Members in many parts of the House, and in the most unexpected quarters, whenever we discuss problems of this kind. I was not altogether surprised by the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Westhaughton (Mr. T. F. Price), because he his a cynical and suspicious trait in his character almost as great as my own. I, too, view the actions of Government—of whatever political nature—with the greatest of suspicion always, and therefore I do not take amiss the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton when he voices suspicion that this might be the foot in the door, the attack from the rear which can often lead to trouble.
  But I believe that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will go down in history as the most radical reformer of the House we have ever seen or are ever likely to see, and this Motion is a step in the same direction. One can advance all kinds of reasons for not taking it—for example, calling in aid the lack of public interest or the lack of interest in the House. But my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas) knows that we can have a foreign affairs debate in the House, when we are discussing matters of peace and war, with a smaller attendance than the present attendance, and that does not necessarily imply that hon. Members are not vitally concerned and interested in questions of peace and war. It is no indication whatever of the lack of interest in a topic. If a conclusion may be drawn at all, I draw an opposite conclusion to that of my hon. Friend: that the House found this Motion so agreeable that they thought that it would go through virtually on the nod.
  After all, it is an experiment for two or three weeks. It commits nobody to
  118
  anything. After the experiment the Leader of the House will have to report to the House what further progress, if any, might be or should be made and whether the whole idea should be dropped or whether it should be extended. For my part, I hope that it will be extended, and in a minute or two I will suggest ways in which it might be extended.
  The second argument— a rather specious argument—is that there is no evidence that the public want it. There is no evidence that they wanted the National Loans Bill which we have lust debated. There is no evidence that they want many things which the House does. The House is not here merely to follow the public. To some extent it must lead the public. When my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton expresses terror that the public should find out what happens in this place. I remind him that we are not a monstrosity and that we do not belong to the Trappist order. We are here to say what we think on behalf of our constituents, and if they do not agree with what we say they will very quickly find out about it by other means.
  The great danger at the moment is that they get a distorted view, very often from the Press. There is an alleged disillusionment with politics and politicians. If there is disillusionment, it stems in large measure from the distortion and the treatment of what happens in this House by other organs of dissemination of information. I think the Press is very largely to blame for this alleged disillusionment about what goes on here. I am as interested as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison), and others who have spoken in this debate, in expenditure on this matter. Of course we must all be concerned with public expenditure, but we must strike a balance between the money we have to spend as an elected body and the benefit that accrues to the public from it.
  If this limited, closed, narrow experiment succeeds and we extend it to the public, the public will assess whether they are getting value for money. They will very quickly tell us whether they think they are getting value for money. Those who do not like it can switch it off. They have that recourse if they do not like it coming into their homes.

  119
  In answer to the question, "Where do we go from here?" I agree with the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) that the period suggested is much too short for any worth while experiment. We should think rather in months than weeks. I sympathise with the view that the Press should be allowed to see and to assess the experiment. That is the way in which one builds up public opinion. The Press could make comments on the experiment, on how the techniques could be improved, what the dangers are, and so on. If we are allowed to see it, there is no reason why the Press should not see it also.
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) was speaking, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House explained the procedure which would follow the experiment. I hope that there can be further experiment within the precincts of the Palace of Westminster. I sometimes look at Westminster Hall and see a grossly under-used mortuary, almost. If this experiment proves a success and worth extending, I wonder if we could extend the radio broadcasts of the proceedings of the House to Westminster Hall. I wonder if we could heat it and provide accommodation for the public there so that when there is a big occasion—perhaps Budget day—it would be possible for a very large number of people in Westminster Hall to hear what the Chancellor is actually saying. That is the kind of extension I should like to see.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) about extending the process to Committees. I take the view that even more important work takes place, unpublicised, in Committee upstairs. I am very much a believer in Committees. Almost all the Select Committees have now made their proceedings, in all or in part, accessible to the public and the Press. A logical extension of that, if the proceedings of the House were broadcast, would be also to have the proceedings of either one or all of those Committees broadcast.
  From these remarks my right hon. Friend will conclude that I am very much in favour of the experiment. I wish it the best of success. I hope that it will go much further than the inadequate and
  120
  limited experiment proposed to the House tonight.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew: (St. Albans): I speak as one who voted against televising the proceedings of this House, but I am beginning to doubt the wisdom of that decision. The reason why I voted against at the time was simply that I was worried about the question of editing. When I listen to "Today in Parliament" on my radio, if I have been present throughout most of the debate, I begin to doubt whether the description of that debate is a description of the debate I heard.
  On the other hand, when I analyse the situation I realise that however hard I might try to be impartial and objective in balancing the factors during a debate I am being partial because I cannot possibly avoid being partial. My anxiety was how anyone else could be impartial, because all people have political views, even if they are television commentators or radio reporters or editors. Therefore, I had in mind great anxiety as to how any editing of a television performance would come about and whether it would give a balanced view.
  One trouble now is that the vast television viewing public gets only one picture of this House. It is the picture of Ministers and shadow Ministers being interviewed by a television commentator. It is not very difficult for a commentator, perhaps having failed to get elected to Parliament, to think up one or two questions which a Minister or a shadow Minister cannot answer at a particular moment and to make him look a fool, to make it look as if the commentator or interviewer it all-wise and the Minister or shadow Minister is all foolish.
  I am not certain that the so-called lack of interest in Parliament and the impression that people today consider all politicians are unworthy does not arise from this picture which the public generally get of Ministers, shadow ministers and Members of Parliament being made to look shifty, foolish or ignorant merely by clever questioning whereas, were we televising the proceedings, it would be possible for the public to see hon. Members in their own surroundings.
  Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I rapidly bring myself back into order by saying that, having changed my view, I

  121
  think this must be a step in the right direction and an experiment well worth making. My only anxiety is, as the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) said, whether the period is quite long enough to assess the success of the experiment. I also agree with those who have mentioned Committees upstairs. It is most difficult to get a balanced idea of who is doing the work in this place if one merely knows the number of Questions an hon. Member Las asked at Question Time or the number of speeches he has made on the Floor of the House. I hope that these matters will be considered by the Leader of the House and I hope that the House will accept this Motion.
  7.38 p.m.
  Mr. Denis Coe: I welcome this Motion. I was present at the last debate when we discussed televising the proceedings, but I did not take part in it. One thing which disappointed me more than anything else about that debate was the fact that the House turned down a simple experiment
  It is my impression that after that debate the general public were in some confusion about the fact that we did not turn down the actual televising of this House but merely an experiment to see whether we wanted to do it. I therefore hope that the House tonight will make good that previous decision by accepting this experiment for what it is—something which will give us and, as the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) pointed out, the B.B.C. an indication of exactly what is possible in these circumstances.
  In wishing that this experiment will go ahead, may I hope that it will continue for longer than my right hon. Friend has suggested? A longer period than three weeks would give us a better opportunity to judge the matter fully.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) claimed that our constituents do not want this experiment. One of the advantages of being a new Member of Parliament is that one's constituents like one to go to talk to them about one's first year in Parliament. I have done a great deal of this. I must tell my hon. Friend that on each occasion the indications were that my constituents very much wanted
  122
  to have the opportunity of seeing Parliament at work or of hearing Parliament at work, and I believe that this is very important.
  Some people argue nowadays that Parliament's prestige is going down. One of the reasons for this, I think, is the feeling that the work of Parliament and the work of the people are two separate things. Any means of communication which can bring them closer together is something which we, as Members of this House, ought to examine very closely. I suggest that televising and the broadcasting on radio of our proceedings will be a help. I know that there are problems associated with it and I think we would be foolish to ignore these, but I suggest that an experiment of this nature will give us a good idea whether it really is a possibility or not.
  I submit that any form of editing of reports of our debates by television and radio would be less partial, less biased, than the present reports of our debates which are, as it were, broadcast through the Press. I cannot believe that any editing done by the broadcasting authorities could be as biased as the reporting of our debates in the Press. Therefore I cannot help feeling that, whilst there is a problem connected with editing, it is something which, in terms of our everyday work, will be much more fairly done by radio or television than could possibly be the case in a biased Press.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton also talked about this place as being a performing flea pit—or wishing it should not be considered a performing flea pit. Again, I would say to him that we already have in the Public Galleries members of the public coming to see us at work. Therefore I cannot see any logical reason why we do not extend this principle to embrace a wider audience. It is surely important if Parliamentary democracy is to he held in high repute. Once we allow the public to see us at work here I do not feel there is any reason to argue against extending that principle further, or that, by doing so, we should be doing anything harmful to this place.
  I re-emphasise the point that if we are to televise the work of this Chamber it is very important that we give a balanced picture of Parliament as a whole, and

  123
  the only way to do that is to look at the Standing Committees and Select Committees as well. I hope that when my right hon. Friend winds up the debate he will be able to give us some sort of guarantee on that matter.
  That is all I wish to say. Like others, I hope that this experiment is the beginning of a process by which we can look to a number of ways in which Parliament can draw closer to the electorate. This is a limited experiment. I urge the House to take a look at it. Then, on the basis of that, we can decide where to go from there.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: This is the first occasion when I have had the opportunity of following in a debate my own. Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe). I regret therefore having to disagree with a great many of the things he has said, especially as this is the first time I have had to disagree with him since he came to this House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) said that reactionaries were found in strange quarters of the House. I am told that I have some sort of label as a "moderate" who occasionally goes mad and criticises the Government. I must warn my hon. Friend that on this issue he has a reactionary right behind him. I was one of that gallant band of 131 who some months ago wandered into the No Lobby to cast votes against televising our debates. It was the most reactionary vote I have ever cast in this House, and I have cast some strange ones, but I have never enjoyed a vote more, and I think I was right at that time.
  I began by being in favour of broadcasting and televising, but then I found that it seemed that we were not going simply to broadcast the proceedings of Parliament but that we were going to make our place, our Chamber, our House, our Parliament, available for some other people to decide what they were going to say happened in this place and what picture they were going to show of it. This was confirmed when I found, after the negative vote of the House, that television sets had already been ordered,
  124
  and we have them in various parts of the Palace. I understand that certain enunciators were on order as well. We have had other things on order as well, before the vote of the House.
  Mr. Crossman: I think perhaps my hon. Friend was not present when I carefully explained to the House at the beginning, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), that this was a completely untrue statement. The question of the enunciators is a totally different thing. It has nothing whatever to do with broadcasting proceedings here. I am sorry if my hon. Friend did not hear my previous explanation.
  Mr. Ogden: My apologies to the Leader of the House that I did not hear that explanation when he first gave it. I had anticipated that this debate would take place later than it has. I am very grateful for the explanation he has given and I am sorry he has had to repeat it. I accept entirely what he has said. All I can say is that it would be very easy to convert the one kind to another.
  I concede entirely that the logic of the argument and the theory against televising or broadcasting is precisely the same as that of the argument put up against recording proceedings of Parliament in HANSARD or in the Press or anywhere else. The same argument applies, but I am entitled to ask, For what purpose? Then we come back to this point. I am told by one of my hon. Friends that "democracy is imperilled" unless the experiment goes through. Is it that 630 Members of Parliament are not able to convince people outside this House of the importance of Parliamentary democracy unless we have the broadcasting and televising of our proceedings? I cannot accept that explanation.
  We are told that this is an experiment limited in scope, limited in time, for which we are to have the spectacle of television screens in Westminster Hall—and we criticise vandals outside. And there should be reporting of Committee proceedings, too, it is said.
  We shall need Channel 1 for the House of Commons and Channel 2 for the Lords. If the Lords want to televise their House, let them do it. But let them also pay for it. Let them pay for it if they

  125
  want to televise their House. Then, for the Committees we shall need Channels 3, 4, 5, 6—perhaps up to 13 to include the Services Committee. Who is going to listen to all this?
  And what will be the cost? I am sorry I did not hear the figures which my right hon. Friend may or may not have given. —[An HON. MEMBER: "None of us did."]—But the suggestion apparently is that it will cost only a few thousand pounds. I am not a Scot, but perhaps the newest hon. Member, the Member for Hamilton (Mrs. Ewing), representing the latest opposition party in Scotland, would agree that "mony a mickle mak's a muckle"—every little bid adds up. So this may cost £6,000, £10,000, £20,000 at a time when the B.B.C. wants the licence tees to be increased from £5 to £6, or whatever it may be.
  I agree with the hon. Member who said that it is never a good time to make changes—it is never a good time to raise the salaries of Members of Parliament, it is never a good time to raise pensions, it is never a good time to do anything eke; but I would draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to an article which appears in The Guardian this morning by Mr. William Davis, the Financial Editor, who has been right before! We a -e asked to tighten our belts, and Davis forecasts that before we are through this economic crisis there may be higher taxes, higher Purchase Tax, higher taxes on tobacco and drink, and higher Income Tax, hire purchase controls, with restrictions on overdrafts, and so on. With all this economic difficulty, are we going to spend £20,000, perhaps, on a limited experiment here?
  If any hon. Members want to hear their own voices, let them buy a tape recorder. If they want to see their pictures, let them buy themselves a camera. This experiment can well be held over for another twelve months.
  7.50 p.m.
  Mr. J. J. Mendelson: To my great regret, I have heard only part of the debate. However, while I have been present there have been references to the last vote when the Motion before the House related to the televising of our proceedings. Great play has been made with that decision, and there have been a number of actual or implied accusa-
  126
  tions made against those hon. Members who voted against it.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will make nothing of the fact that some of us were not here at the beginning of the debate. He seemed to be about to make something of it, but I would remind him that we were not to know that the previous debate would fold up so early—
  Mr. Crossman: I did not mean any implication in what I said. I wanted to explain why, having already said it once, I did not want hon. Members to feel that I should say it twice.
  Mr. Mendelson: My right hon. Friend now wears a sweet smile, and I accept his friendly intervention in the spirit in which it is made.
  I want to express regret that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison) has told me that he intends to desert those of us who voted against the Motion last time. It means that we are now even, and my hon. Friends and I will have to work hard to find a replacement for him. However, it should not prove difficult.
  The argument is an extremely serious one. While one may have one view about the limited experiment in broadcasting being proposed today, it would be illegitimate to broaden the argument from there to television and other kinds of experiments which might be proposed. I understand that the Government are not putting forward the Motion about televising our proceedings again because they have not a majority in favour of it, any more than they had last time. They are well advised to take that view, because they are not likely to get a majority in favour of it.
  When they refer to the last vote, hon. Members do not make life easy for themselves by giving the impression that there are 131 fuddy-duddies who are not "with it" and who have not moved into the second half of the twentieth century. There were serious grounds for their opposition, and, since the vote, I have had occasion to discuss the matter with a number of people who are active in television and broadcasting companies. They do not take that view, because they know the seriousness of the problem involved.
  Any support for the Motion before the House tonight must not be taken as an

  127
  indication that the same support will be forthcoming for an extension into television, and I hope that my right hon. Friend does not dissent from that. The differences must not be blurred. The one very powerful argument which has not yet been adduced and which moved a very small majority of hon. Members to reject the previous Motion is that there is a clash between media. It is an objective argument which has nothing to do with particular predelictions about the House of any individual hon. Member. It resides in the fact that television is tied to its main function of providing entertainment.
  There is an element of education in the B.B.C. Charter and the I.T.A. arrangements, but, essentially, in a highly competitive way, television has to provide entertainment. One of the pre-conditions of success is that viewers should be riveted to their chairs. It may affect the commercial companies first, but Auntie B.B.C. will have to follow, because she has to take into account her own position as a competitive organisation. After a number of months, if it is shown to the senior executives of the companies concerned that there is no audience for the programmes, they will have to consider whether there ought not to be something else in their place at those times. As a result, the proposition to televise everything being done in the House will go out of the window very soon.
  As soon as it becomes a firm proposition, however, the question immediately arises: how much, and what is to be shown? It is at that point that it becomes a matter of selection. The present quarter of an hour of "Today in Parliament" is no guide to what might happen in the selection of material for television. "Today in Parliament" is a useful programme which is listened to by a very small number of people who bear no comparison to the mass audience of television programmes. The man who edits "Today in Parliament" is under strict instructions to produce as objective a report as he can without regard to its entertainment value. Entertainment plays no part. As we know, the most enjoyable reports in "Today in Parliament" are those which report us or our closest friends as having taken part in a
  128
  debate. That does not mean, however, that it is of great entertainment value.
  Dr. Winstanley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not mean to mislead the House, but he intends to do so by suggesting that there are only ten or 15 minutes of broadcasting of Parliamentary reporting. In fact, the average is 4 hours a week of radio broadcasting which stems directly from this place.
  Mr. Mendelson: That intervention is unworthy of the hon. Gentleman. It is wrong to suggest that I might mislead the House. I was addressing myself to one programme, "Today in Parliament". That programme is often quoted as a reason why people should not worry about selectivity, but the point is that "Today in Parliament" bears no comparison to what we are discussing.
  What was in the minds of the 131 hon. Members who voted against the previous Motion and what has not been disproved is that, if a clash of media occurs, the consequences may be that there will be the kind of reporting of the proceedings of the House which leave out most of what is most important. I have in mind the quiet work and the interventions of many hon. Members, very often influence debates and policies much more than other hon. Members, but who would not be great entertainment on television.
  Mr. Coe: Would my hon. Friend agree that one way of finding out whether this is likely to happen is to have an experiment?
  Mr. Mendelson: I do not think that that would help at all. These propositions have nothing to do with technical experiments.
  The other main point argued on the previous occasion was that, if there have to be certain changes introduced into the House, if the whole machinery has to be changed because people outside find that they are more interested in certain types of procedure than others, if it is found that some of our procedure is out of date and has to be made more comprehensible to people outside, what of it? My answer is that the procedure of this House exists for the purpose of passing legislation. Is is not there for entertainment. If there are to be changes in our procedure, they must be made by the House to provide better government

  129
  and not in order to satisfy pressures from outside. That was the argument. It was powerful then and it is equally powerful today.
  My right hon. Friend has already agreed that any suggestion of supporting his experiment in broadcasting implying future assent to another start on the attempt to televise the House does not follow. He said that these two matters are completely dissociated from each other. I welcome that, but I warn the Government that they must not in any way in the future try and foreclose a debate or make any technical arrangements whatsoever or provide any public Honey either in this Chamber or in another place without the prior approval of this House. They would meet the pierce opposition of many hon. Members in this House if they did not strictly adhere to this principle.
  8.1 p.m.
  Mr. Crossman: With permission of the House, I would ask leave to speak a second time.
  I would like to give the two assurances that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) asked for. First, I emphasised in the brief remarks I made at the beginning that this was strictly a debate on a proposal for an experiment in sound radio, and involved no implication about television. I may have gone too far for some hon. Members by saying that we did not propose to make any proposals about television during this Session at all. We think that is something to be thought over.
  Secondly, on the question of estimates etc.—I will speak about costs in a moment—I will give that assurance as well.
  I should like to comment on something else that my hon. Friend said. At the conclusion of his comments, he summed up a point of view put by a number of h Dn. Members—not always those who were opposing. I agree that the medium of television is a different medium from that of sound radio. In a sense, I was nurtured in sound radio. I spent six years doing sound radio. I am aware that I shall never be as at home on television as on sound radio. I belong in that sense to the sound radio epoch, which is a different technique.
  130
  From the point of view of education and getting people to listen to the guts of the thing, there is much to be said for sound without the picture. To-day in Parliament "on sound radio, for example, will give just about double the number of words in a quarter of an hour that one would get in quarter of an hour on television. If one wants to provide a service for those interested in Parliament, then a service on sound radio with live extracts may give one a better service technically than a television programme. This is why I was careful in opening the television debate to make a distinction between the two, and to plead with the House to take note of their respective merits, because they are not the same issue. I was sorry when hon. Members seemed to get so enmeshed in the television debate that sound radio almost got lost in the discussions.
  I am not prejudging television. I am saying that taking sound radio on its merits, one can make a strong case for saying that it is a medium well suited for those who are really interested, but not for the mass of people who are not. I suspect that people who want to know what was said in Parliament will switch on sound radio rather than television, as long as sound radio exists. There is a lot of evidence for this, because, despite television, sound radio still has an enormous public. What for? For news and information. It is a good service for news and information.
  What we are discussing now is whether, on a sound radio service, the live voice of the M.P. should be used. One can either have live broadcasting of a debate or extracts. But this is not the same as saying "Shall we have it on television as well?" We are right to discuss it separately.
  I am delighted that we have had a rather longer time than some expected for this debate, because it has been interesting. I am grateful to hon. Members for the number of extremely useful suggestions that they have made, and I want to go rapidly through them. I start with the very helpful speech of the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan). In ten minutes he put over half the relevant points which need answers.
  Concerning the length of the experiment, I am encouraged in one sense. I said two or three weeks. That was not

  131
  in my brief. I put it in, and perhaps on reflection I should take it out again, because he may be right in saying that two or three weeks is too short a time for a test. Since these tests on radio cost so little compared with television, a more prolonged test, if it suits the House, is something I will consider.
  The reason we have not been able to give an estimate is that we do not know the number of weeks this will take. I might, however, be able to answer the question about what a day of radio will cost after a fortnight's experiment, because capital investment is tiny. We have the place wired, but the B.B.C. has to test whether this wiring is good enough. We shall then be able to see the difference of capital cost between a radio experiment in a place already wired for sound and a television experiment where cameras have to be built into the walls. One is a relatively cheap and easy thing; the other demands major capital investment. Before coming to a conclusion on whether we introduce it permanently, there must be estimates and an agreement with the B.B.C. as to who pays for what and what the relations are.
  The hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) was right when he said that this is not only an experiment for M.P.s, but that this is an experiment for the Corporation as well. It has to solve a number of technical problems which were raised by hon. Members, including the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). There are a number of technical problems about sound broadcasting of this lively place which we can only test by experiment. We will have a live closed circuit, and we will be able to go into a room and hear what one of our violent scenes sounds like. We shall then be able to hear what happens to the voices, and we will hear what the B.B.C. can make of it in a programme on the same evening and hear whether it is fair or not.
  I say to the opposers that I still think it is a bit unreasonable not to be prepared even to see what it is like on closed circuit, although one would be nervous if one thought of trying it out without first seeing it on a closed circuit.
  The hon. Member for Howden also pointed out that one of the lessons we do not know about yet is waste. The
  132
  figure of 2 per cent. usage which I optimistically gave is probably more than that on ordinary television. On sound radio, provided it is a success and the B.B.C. wants to use it, the estimate would depend on whether it went out regionally as well as centrally. I can see only a large scale use of the voice of a Member if we have large-scale regional use. The B.B.C. has regional services, and it is prepared to try regional as well as national programmes.
  I come to the question which several hon. Members raised, including the hon. Member for Howden, concerning the Press. This is something that I have to discuss. I have discussed it informally with members of the Gallery already. When I announced last week in Business that we were to have this debate, they asked, "Are we excluded?" I said that it is difficult, because it has to be a closed circuit experiment. Before making up our minds about it we do not want it prejudged from outside. It is equally true that I regard the Gallery as very good Parliamentary critics, and it would be unrealistic to say that they should be excluded from listening, whereas an M.P. could listen and give a report to a paper. I am sure that we shall be able to reach a friendly arrangement with the Gallery whereby they join in with us studying this, and seeing it as an experiment and not as something for the public. This seems possible, and I want to discuss it with them. I feel sure that I shall have the support of the other side of the House in going to the Gallery in that spirit, and saying, "We want you, in listening with us, to play the game in trying it as an experiment and not giving it to the public as though it was news."
  I was also asked about the House of Lords experiment. That is quite different. The House of Lords experiment will be for three days in each of two weeks—six days of televising. We are making arrangements, if the House agrees, to have a committee room wired up so that we can have the House of Lords experiment on all the time and we can watch it. I felt sure that Members would like a place where they could see the House of Lords experiment for themselves on closed-circuit television. That will be available in Westminster Hall for us to look at, although I am dubious whether in six days we will be able to draw any

  133
  conclusions. However, we will have a chance of seeing what it is they are doing and how they are doing. If this Motion is approved we shall be doing our radio experiments as fast as we can.
  Mr. Ogden: So far my right hon. Friend has answered points raised by his supporters. Does he know who will pay for the cost of the Lords experiment?
  Mr. Crossman: The House of Lords experiment will be paid for by the Government, by the Budget, and by money voted for the experiment. It is, I think, £18,000, and was announced about eight months ago. We decided not to go on, but the Lords decided that they would.
  I do not feel that I need to answer one part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), because my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Coe) gave a much better answer than I could. This was to do with the evidence of the demand for broadcasting. I think that on reflection my hon. Friend would agree that there is some evidence that the public, in so far as it is interested in politics, likes to have its politicians live rather than secondhand or dead. It likes them live, and the evidence is to be found in that there is a greater public desire for seeing on television or hearing on radio a live controversy between politicians than there is for a reported discussion by a journalist.
  Mr. J. T. Price: How does my right hon. Friend know that?
  Mr. Crossman: For the very simple reason that the public look at those programmes a great deal more than it looks at programmes that merely discuss.
  If I may take a concrete example, there is an admirable programme on B.B.C.2 called "Westminster at Work". I suspect that it has very small number of people listening to it, who must be very interested in Parliament, because it does not have much live controversy. My suspicion is that all the evidence suggests that live controversy, whether in the studio, on the Floor of the House, or in Committee, is something which appeals to the public. It is more interested in that than in an account of it, just as people like to go to a football match rather than to read a newspaper report. Although it may be thought to be offen-
  134
  sive to compare our proceedings with sport, it is a fact that, by and large, the public likes to see things. If it cannot come to see us, the only thing that it can do is hear or see on radio or television.
  There is some evidence of what the public taste is. This does not mean that we shall give way to the public taste. My hon. Friend raised the point whether the public taste existed, and I would say that it does.
  Mr. Clark Hutchison: Will the right hon. Gentleman say how many approaches or letters he has had from his constituents in Coventry about radio or television in connection with this place, because I have had none?
  Mr. Crossman: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been listening to the argument. The evidence is to be found, for example, in the attitude of advertisers to certain kinds of programmes. They only place their advertisements near the programmes they feel will draw an audience, and there is overwhelming evidence that this kind of programme has a great appeal. Ask the journalists and they will say that this is so. I am not saying that we ought to do this, I am answering the point about whether there is evidence of demand.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely asks a question about Select Committees and Standing Committees. He reminded me of what I said in the debate on television. We are wired upstairs in three of our Committee rooms. This was done, as the House knows, mainly for HANSARD purposes. It would be just as easy—in many ways easier—to record for the B.B.C. from a Committee room than from the Floor of the House because of interruptions. Intrinsically there is no technical difficulty that I know of in extending the experiment from the Floor of the House to a Committee room upstairs, or to a Committee room outside. It is up to those on Specialist Committees to decide whether they want to be treated in this way. I will discuss, through the usual channels, with both parties, who have been very helpful to me on this subject, about what should be clone on Standing Committees, and if the House have no objection it would be a great mistake not to have an experiment with at least one Standing Committee to see whether some of the technical problems could be met. This also would be on

  135
  closed circuit. I can see no intrinsic reason for failing to do this, and I am grateful for the suggestion.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) said he was very sad because he felt that we were too late in the race for radio. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton might agree with me when I say that the experiments in radio have not all been successful. When one talks to Australians and New Zealanders, they are very critical of their radio experiment. This is because they were very ambitious. They provided a separate channel so that one could listen day and night. We have learned modesty from that. We have learned that the allocation of a channel to ourselves would be aping for ourselves an attractiveness which we only possess at rare moments in our lives. There are moments when everyone wants to televise us or to put us on: there are moments when they do not.
  Mr. J. T. Price: They would put us out of this House if they heard this.
  Mr. Crossman: It is by no means proven by the previous experiments that we could not make mistakes later. But we will not make the same mistakes as the Australians, the New Zealanders, or indeed the West Germans. This is a limited experiment on closed circuit to start with to see how it works out, and whether the technical difficulties can be solved, and the verisimilitudes of the debate, and the back-bench interruptions, which are of the essence of our House, can be retained. If we do not have them it would be a pretty poor reflection of what actually went on.
  One of my hon. Friends said that I was putting a foot in the door for television. I am not, I am not entitled to do so. I can only carry the House as far as it is thought right to go in this. On this project it has been agreed through the usual channels, that this is the right distance to go. If the House agrees, they agree that I should put forward these suggestions in this form, and it is therefore in this form that I do so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) gave an excellent definition, and stressed the difference, between live radio and television in the treatment of news. He asked me
  136
  a number of detailed questions. He asked who would be responsible. This would be the same as we proposed last time. Then it was proposed to have a Sub-Committee of the Services Committee, largely recruited from the Select Committee, which did the excellent work on television and broadcasting. We will have this matter under the control of this Committee, which will have, as it goes along, to take the House into its confidence and ask how long it should go on and what kind of programmes we want.
  I hope that Members will go regularly, and give suggestions to this Committee especially set up for the purpose of giving the House the kind of experiment that it wants. I do not know how long it will take or how we shall get on.
  I was also asked about tapes for television programmes. This is a new idea, and I rather suspect that it will be stretching the definition, but I will consider it and put it to the Services Committee—whether the use of tapes from the sound radio should be allowed on a television programme of the B.B.C. I do not know what the answer is, but I will look at it. I suspect it will be looked upon as "chiselling" and trying to go a bit too far.
  I was asked, too, about extending broadcasts to Westminster Hall. That is a question which ought to be asked when the experiment is over. I see no reason why the public who are waiting outside should not have some radio as well as something to eat and drink. This is the kind of thing in which the Services Committee is keenly interested, and I am sure that hon. Members opposite would agree that it is worthy of examination if we go beyond the experiment and reach the actual thing.
  Lastly, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West said, quite rightly, that this is a matter of major importance. I think that he was answering my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton, who tried to imply that we were doing this in a hole-and-corner way. Let me tell my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton frankly that I think this is very important. Maybe I am wrong, but I have a feeling that by the time we tabled the Motion the House had already made up its mind about this and that we would not need to have a long and controversial debate, because I believe that

  137
  basically people realise that we would be thought to be a little timid if we did not do this.
  We have thought this out carefully. We have made the difference clear in our own minds. This is to be judged on its own merits. Of course it will influence the decision on television. Who doubts that? However, it might influence it by making people say, "This is the kind of service we need from the House of Commons. We do not need anything further". This may be the conclusion which will be drawn. The answer is—do the job, have the experiment; make up our minds about live radio; leave television for later, when we have seen first how this experiment works and whether we want to apply it to the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House approves the making of sound recordings of its proceedings for an experimental period for the purpose of providing for Members specimen programmes.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS PROCEEDINGS (SOUND BROADCASTING EXPERIMENT)

    LESOTHO (GIFT OF A CLERKS' TABLE AND CHAIRS)
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a gift of a Clerks' table and chairs to the Lesotho National Assembly and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.— [Mr. Grossman.]
    To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

    BOTSWANA (GIFT OF A PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY AND SILVER INKSTAND)
    Resolved,
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will give directions that there be presented, on behalf of this House, a gift of a Parliamentary library and a silver inkstand to the Botswana National Assembly and assuring Her Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same.—[Mr. Grossman.]
    To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (NETHERLANDS)
  8.23 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that on the ratification by the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Netherlands) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th November, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.
  This is another of the Double Taxation Orders which are gradually being brought before the House. I can only apologise for the fact that these, unlike troubles, come singly. The House would prefer them to come in groups. It is unfortunate that on this occasion, and with my apologies, it comes as a single one.
  This new Convention is to replace the existing Double Taxation Convention between the United Kingdom and Holland which was signed on 15th October, 1948. The new Convention retains much of the substance of the 1948 Convention, but the opportunity has been taken to bring the text more closely into line with the model articles which the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has recommended member countries to adopt. I will try to state in summary the most important variations from the 1948 Convention and, if any hon. Member has that detailed curiosity which sometimes uncomfortably emerges in these discussions, I will do my utmost to cover the points raised.
  First, and perhaps most important, is withholding tax on dividends. The 1948 Convention provided, in effect, that dividends flowed from company to company in both countries without any withholding tax. The new Convention in general permits each country to charge a tax on dividends paid to residents of the other country at a rate not exceeding 5 per cent. in the case of dividends received by a company with a holding of 25 per cent. or more in the paying company and in all other cases 15 per cent.—-that is, 5 per cent. where there is a 25 per cent. holding, which is treated for this purpose rather generously as being a semi-subsidiary company, and in all other cases 15 per cent. Where income continues to be taxable in both

  139
  countries, relief from double taxation is given by the country of the taxpayer's residence. That will be the position under the new Convention.
  The new Convention also includes provisions, absent from the 1948 Convention, whereby capital gains are normally to be taxed only in the country of the taxpayer's residence, unless they arise from the disposal of the assets of a permanent establishment which the taxpayer has in the other country.
  Under the new Convention, as under the 1948 Convention, shipping and air transport profits and certain trading profits not arising through a permanent establishment are to be taxed only in the country of the taxpayer's residence. Government salaries and pensions are normally to be taxed by the paying Government. Payments made for the maintenance of visiting students are, subject to certain conditions, to be exempt in the country visited.
  The Convention is in general to take effect in the United Kingdom for all years for Corporation Tax and for 1968–69 and subsequent years for Income Tax, Surtax and Capital Gains Tax. The 1948 Convention is superseded as from the dates on which the new Convention is to take effect, subject to a saving to prevent the retrospective withdrawal of relief due under the 1948 Convention.
  I hope that this modest agreement which has been reached covering double taxation with the Netherlands will meet with the approval of the House.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The Convention certainly accords very closely with the Model Convention of the O.E.C.D.—indeed, perhaps more closely than any other we have yet considered in this current series. Therefore, I have very few points to make on it.
  One point which I might make by way of introduction is that I am delighted to see that my words spoken last Thursday night in objecting to the retrospective element in many of these Conventions have so rapidly borne fruit.
  I confess that this was probably in print before I addressed the House on Thursday, but the fact is that, contrary
  140
  to what we have had so far, this Convention is expressed in Article 31, paragraph (2,a,i):
  " In respect of income tax (including surtax) and capital gains tax for any year of assessment beginning on or after 6th April, 1968."
  I am delighted to see that, and I hope this precedent will be followed, rather than the other which I criticised last week.
  The one question I should like to address to the Financial Secretary on the Convention arises out of Article 11, which is the article concerning withholding tax on dividends and which he described briefly, succinctly and accurately to the House a moment ago. My question arises on paragraph (7) which provides as follows:
  " Not later than five years after the date of the entry into force of this Convention the taxation authorities shall consult together to study the possibility of an amendment of this Convention which would reduce the rate mentioned in paragraph (2a) of this Article."
  The rate mentioned in paragraph (2,a) is the withholding rate of 5 per cent. which the Financial Secretary properly said will be the rate allowed on investments which amount to more than 25 per cent. of the voting power.
  This appears to raise a question. With the 5 per cent. withholding tax it seems that both the United Kingdom investor in Holland and the Dutch investor in the United Kingdom are treated broadly similarly. In each case the foreign tax paid both as the underlying tax and as the withholding tax will exceed the tax which would have been payable in the investor's own country. Therefore, no further tax would be paid, the whole amount of the tax in the investor's own country being relieved as a credit under the double taxation Convention.
  If the 5 per cent. withholding tax is abolished—which is clearly possible under the terms of paragraph (7) which I have just read—then, whereas this would continue to be true of the United Kingdom investor in Holland, it would no longer be true of the Dutch investor in this country. This arises because the rate of Corporation Tax in Holland is currently 46 per cent. whereas the rate of Corporation Tax in this country is 42½ per cent.
  Therefore, the question I ask is: will not the effect of removing the 5 per cent.

  141
  withholding tax be to create a greater imbalance between the two sides than already exists if it is retained? Inevitably the rates of tax differ. There is bound to be some imbalance. Would not the effect of removing this withholding tax be to increase imbalance to the detriment not only of the United Kingdom investor in Holland but also of the United Kingdom Revenue, in that if the 5 per cent. withholding tax is removed the Dutch investor in this country would pay only his 42½ per cent. Corporation Tax on that share of his profits and would create the difference between that and the 46 per cent. tax in his own country to the Dutch Revenue?
  Mr. Harold Lever Mr. Harold Lever indicated assent.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am not wholly convinced that I am right, but I am glad to see the Financial Secretary nodding. Does not this seem to lead to the conclusion that the United Kingdom Government would be wise to resist any move by the Dutch authorities to remove or even reduce this 5 per cent. rate?
  This leads me to a further question. If this is right, why was this provision included? Did the British Government feel it necessary to accede to a Dutch request that this provision should be included? Can the Government at this stage give any indication of what their attitude would be if the Dutch Government came forward with a request to invoke the provisions of paragraph (7) and start to negotiate for the reduction or even the removal of the 5 per cent. withholding tax? If the hon. Gentleman can throw a little more light on this provision, I see no reason why the House should not accede to his request to give this Order an unopposed passage through the House, and we could let it go like that.
  8.34 p.m.
  Sir Eric Errington: I should like to ask a simple question arising out of Article 31. The article states that the Convention shall have effect, in respect of Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax, on 6th April, 1968; and in the case of Corporation Tax, in the year beginning on or after 1st April, 1964. I hope that the question I have to put is simple and susceptible of simple answer. Is there a distinction between the effect of the statutory Instrument of 1948 and Article 31 of the Convention?
  142
  I ask that question in regard to all the matters covered save Capital Gains Tax and Corporation Tax, which did not exist in 1948. I have in mind anyone who would get the benefit of this double taxation relief in respect of Income Tax and Surtax. Will there be any difference in effect for the ordinary man in the street who receives dividends during this year and next year? I think that I understand the effect as regards Corporation Tax, though I am not sure why the date is 1st April, 1964.
  8.35 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Lever: The hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) asked about Article 11(7) and wanted to know why it was there. I am sorry not to be able to be specifically enlightening upon the circumstances which lead to the finalising of any particular Article and its paragraphs. These are all the subject of careful negotiation, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and, in the nature of things, the negotiations have to remain confidential. Otherwise, it would not be possible to have the free contact of minds which is necessary to achieve treaties of this kind.
  All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that, after discussion about the arrangements covered by Article 11, the parties came to the conclusion that it would be desirable and useful if, after five years, we could look at the matter again. It will be observed that this represents a change from the previous 1948 Convention practice. The parties have agreed that, in the circumstances, they will look at it again together if necessary, if either of them wants to, in five years.
  Mr. Patrick Jenkin: The paragraph begins
  " Not later than five years… "
  It can be renegotiated within five years, as I understand it.
  Mr. Lever: I accept the correction. Within five years, we can talk about it and look at it further. What view would be taken at any point during the five years, if the Netherlands Government asked us to consult or if we asked them to consult about it, I cannot say at this time. As the hon. Gentleman said a day or two ago, when we discussed the double taxation treaty with Belgium, there may come a time when I shall be

  143
  on the other side of the House discussing these somewhat esoteric matters and he will be on this.
  Mr. W. Howie Mr. W. Howie(Luton): Never.
  Mr. Lever: I recognise that that is exceedingly improbable, but the hon. Gentleman seems to regard it as probable. However, even as a possibility, one must exclude the thought that I should attempt to forecast what the hon. Gentleman would say were he in my position when the relevant consultations took place. All I can say at this stage is that, whether his computations are right or wrong, we shall bear in mind what he said about the consequences if any consultations do arise.
  In reply to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington), I can only say that no one will be worse off retrospectively by reason of this Convention. The 1948 Convention is kept in force so far as it confers a benefit which would otherwise be taken away up to the date of this Order coming into force. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman can be quite clear that until today every United Kingdom citizen is treated for tax purposes at least as well as he would be treated under the 1948 Convention. I think that the hon. Gentleman went on to ask how the new treatment will compare with the old.
  Sir E. Errington: On dividends. There are other matters to which I need not refer. I ask only about the Income Tax position.
  Mr. Lever: As I thought I had explained, the old position was that neither Government took anything for dividends. Under the new Convention, if one has a holding of 25 per cent. or more in a Dutch company a 5 per cent. withholding tax will be taken from the dividend. If one has a holding of less than 25 per cent., a 15 per cent. withholding tax will be taken from the dividend. Both withholding taxes are new, because the previous Convention arranged that no withholding tax would be taken by either party. I think that that meets both the hon. Gentleman's points. If I have not quite followed them I would gladly go into them later with him.
  As the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford said, the Convention
  144
  closely follows the O.E.C.D. recommendation, with this modification. I hope that the Convention is acceptable to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that on the ratification by the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Incomes) (Netherlands) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th November, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

  DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF (NETHERLANDS)
    SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
    Mr. Bishop, Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby and Mr. John Pardoe added to the Sub-Committee on Coastal Pollution appointed by the Select Committee on Science and Technology—[Mr. Howie.]

  ECCLESIASTICAL AREAS (ROCHESTER DIOCESE)
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. Albert Murray: I beg to move,
  That the Supplementary Scheme to give effect to the proposals of the Diocesan Reorganisation Committee of the diocese of Rochester for amending and making additions to an original Scheme for the rearrangement of the pastoral supervision of the parishes of Gravesend (Saint George), Saint James, Gravesend, and Holy Trinity, Milton-next-Gravesend, which was laid before this House on 14th November, be disapproved.
  The matter concerns a Reorganisation Areas Measure affecting a church in my constituency, with which I should like to deal as objectively as I can.
  I have been very grateful during my researches for the help of Mr. James Benson, who is well known in my constituency as a historian. I hope that in the time I represent Gravesend, both in the past and in the future, I shall have a tenth of the knowledge he has of the ancient town. I also thank the Rev. Michael Beek, who became Rector of Gravesend when some of the moves on the Measure had already occurred.
  All of us receive a great many letters about different things when matters come before Parliament, but I have received as

  145
  many letters about the Measure concerning St. James's Church, Gravesend, as I have ever received on any constituency matter.
  One of the rectors of Gravesend, the Rev. Robert Joynes, and his brother, the Rev. Richard Joynes, walked one day in tie 1840s from Gravesend down to the village of Cobham, which is in my constituency. They asked the Earl of Darnley if he would give some land for them to erect a church. He did so, and the Church of St. James was opened in 1852.
  Since that time the Church of St. James has become a landmark in my constituency. It is very well situated at the corner of the main road from London into Gravesend. Its posters are seen by every person leaving Gravesend, and those who signed the Petition felt that the posters in the sight of the Church were silent witness and that they were challenge and cheer.
  In 1952 it was decided that the Church of St. James should become the parish church of Gravesend and that the Church of St. George should become a chapel dedicated to Princess Pocahontas, who was one of the first American visitors to our shores, and also become a mayor's chapel. The Church of St. George then last its former importance in ecclesiastical terms to the town of Gravesend. In 1964 it was decided to spend a large amount of money—about £8,000—which had been raised in various ways, and included a bequest, on installing a new organ at the Church of St. James and doing a great deal of re-roofing.
  I am told by the objectors to the scheme that the bombshell was then dropped on them—that the Church of St. James was to be closed. They adopted various methods of stopping that plan coming about. In doing so they obtained 1,600 signatures to a Petition which stated:
  " The undersigned, being residents of Gravesend I, wish by this memorial to register strong protest against the contemplated demolition of the Church of St. James, Gravesend, for both varying and unitedly-held reasons.
  For some of us because the demolition will remove from a dominating position in the town a place of Christian worship convenient for attendance by those residing within a half-mile radius of its south-western, southern and south-eastern sides; there being bus halting points from all directions, except the north, within a few feet of its doors, this fact affording opportunities to the less mobile to attend public worship:"
  The Church is listed by all the buses using this as a stopping point. Everyone knows that the Church of St. James is on this corner.
  " For others of us because the silent witness of the existence of the church on a prominent corner site near to its shopping area, with its large notice board carrying frequently changed messages of challenge and cheer, has been an important inspiration to passers-by and would be greatly missed:
  For others because the church's contribution to the visual aspect of the western end of Gravesend at the corner upon which it stands by the existence of a dignified structure which supplies a welcome break from the architecture imposed by the necessities of commercial activities upon neighbouring buildings, as well as the reminder of its principal function.
  For yet others because they feel that St. James's Church can become, and can be, a rallying point for future religious activity in the direction of evangelisation.
  For these and for other unenumerated reasons, the signatories signify their strong opposition to the proposed demolition."
  The objectors also say that because of the uncertainly about the future of St. James's Church the congregation has been dropping in size not because people do not wish to worship at St. James's Church but because they feel that the future has been jeopardised by the plans.
  Not only have I received letters from many constituents but a letter from a person in Australia. I am certain that this person would not be able to appear every Sunday morning for worship but the letter shows that, even in a far part of the Commonwealth, people feel strongly about St. James's Church.
  The point made by the letters concerns the question of the application of the Reorganisation Areas Measures, 1944, to St. James's. The objectors contend that it cannot be applied in this case, since St. James's comes within the exclusion provisions in part I of the Measure.
  Section 1(ii) states that a parish shall shall be excluded where
  " it appears to the committee that, by reason of causes attributable to the war, or as the result of planning or replanning schemes, the number or situation of the population has so changed, or is likely so to change, as materially to affect pastoral supervision; ".
  They feel that while there have been changes in the area and a certain amount of movement from it, the town plan shows that there is likely to be a movement back towards this area. The objectors also feel that the parish church

  147
  designate, as it were, St. George's, is in an area which will not have so much residential as industrial occupation.
  I ask my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Brigg (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu) if, on behalf of the Church Commissioners, he will reconsider this scheme, together with the possibility of a public inquiry being held. The objectors feel that their objections have not been heard as well as they might have been. They feel that had there been a public inquiry, the objections would have carried the day and that the diocesan authorities would have reconsidered the plan to demolish St. James's.
  I thank the House for its indulgence on what is a purely constituency matter. I felt that the House should hear the objections before it accepted the scheme and I hope that the Church Commissioners will reconsider the scheme in the light of these objections.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Mr. Murray) has moved the rejection of the supplementary scheme in tones which make it extremely difficult to criticise him. He has been extremely objective and has tried to put both sides of the question.
  This supplementary scheme lies before the House for acceptance or rejection under Measures which have laid down the procedure in these matters, the Reorganisation Areas Measures of 1944 and 1954. They laid down that certain areas must first by Order be designated reorganisation areas. This area was so designated, quite correctly, under the Measures. Secondly, schemes have to be presented showing in what manner the pastoral reorganisation of the areas once designated is proposed.
  At all stages in these procedures there have to be requisite consultations and these were all carefully carried out when the original Order was put forward, and there has been no objection whatever to the designation of this area as such an area. It was only when schemes came to show details by which the reorganisation was sought to be effected that there began to be criticisms, as was only natural, because the details of the scheme are far
  148
  more likely to produce some sort of criticism than is the Order itself in principle.
  When the scheme for these parishes in Gravesend was first put out, there was anxious consideration by the Diocesan Reorganisation Committee for 18 months and, as a result, as long ago as 1950 the scheme was put forward as a proposal. Even then there was some objection and criticism, because part of the scheme was that St. George's, the ancient mother church of Gravesend, which it is now sought to make the parish church, was thought to be about to be closed down and there was considerable objection to that. Indeed, the borough council objected to it strongly. An amended scheme was therefore put forward in an effort to meet the objections, and when that was put forward in 1951, there was no objection and the scheme came into operation in 1952.
  Eleven years went by and it was found that one of the churches of the trinity of churches in Gravesend with which we are dealing had become dangerous and had to be demolished, so it was said. Another scheme had to be put forward and again no objections were received. The supplementary scheme now put forward is for the name of the benefice and the parish to be altered from that of St. James's to that of St. George's Gravesend and for St. George's Church, excluding that part of it which is a memorial chapel, a chapel of unity in memory of Princess Pocahontas, should become the parish church and that St. James's Church should be closed down. This scheme was initiated by the former incumbent and rural dean and he obtained the consent of his parochial church council to the scheme, that which is now on the Table. A resolution of the parochial church council accepting the scheme was passed by 18 votes to five.
  I have mentioned the consultations which have to take place before a scheme comes before the House for acceptance or rejection—the bishop, the rural dean, the parochial church council, Gravesend Borough Council, Strood Rural District Council, Kent County Council and the planning authority, the Ministry of Public Building and Works, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Central Council for the Care of Churches all had to be consulted, quite apart from local consultations of a more informal nature.

  149
  On the very eve of the institution of the new incumbent, there was held a further special parochial church council meeting, as a result of which, by thirteen votes to five, a resolution was passed which most certainly did not oppose the scheme, but which used these terms:
  " In view of the present financial state of the country in consequence of which all major planning schemes are deferred, and in view of objections raised to the closing of St. James's Church, the Parochial Church Council proposes to the Church Commissioners that the scheme be indefinitely deferred ".
  That was slightly contrary to the previous resolution passed by the Parochial Church Council. But on 1st June, 1967, the rector and the Parochial Church Council reconsidered the draft scheme after the rector had just come on to the scene. As a result of that reconsideration, they accepted the scheme by fifteen votes to four.
  In the circumstances, I am sure that the House would not wish to pay too much attention to the fact that a petition was signed by 1,600 people, although, of course, it must pay attention to all expressions of view coming, in particular, from the locality. But I wonder whether it could be said that a large proportion of the 1,600 who signed the petition were worshippers at the church, because only about 60 attend the most popular service. I wonder how many of them contributed to the diocesan contribution last year, when the contribution was not made up.
  Mr. Murray: I am sure that my hon. arid learned Friend is talking, not about the 60 who attend the most popular service, but about the 1,600 who signed the petition.
  Mr. Mallalieu: I am sure that people would contribute as best they could, but the contribution was not fulfilled because of the financial state of the congregation which habitually uses the church.
  I want to say how much I personally and, I am sure, everyone else who has dealt with this matter feels for those whose church to which they have become accustomed, in which perhaps they were baptised, possibly confirmed and married and to which they have looked throughout their lives, is threatened with removal. I understand fully their feeling, and I know that everyone else under-
  150
  stands it, that they have been driven to accept this solution whereby the ancient mother church of Gravesend should again become the parish and centre of something living.
  It is true that there have been great population changes there, and there are still more to come. As far as anyone can see, those which are to come are likely to be in favour of making St. George's—the church which this Scheme seeks to make the parish church—the centre of Gravesend in every sense. There is no doubt that people who have worshipped all their lives in a certain church feel deeply about this matter, but there is little doubt, after all the enquiries and careful and anxious thought given to this matter, that if the church is to make her living witness in Gravesend, the best way in which it can be done is for St. George's to become the parish church once again. St. James's, the church, will not disappear, but the building of St. James's will disappear in the near future if the Scheme is accepted. The church will go on and, I submit, with greater vigour than ever if it is allowed to concentrate in this ancient and beautiful church of St. George's.
  Question put and negatived.

  ROAD ACCIDENT, LEICESTER
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Howie.]
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. John Farr: I wish to make it clear at the outset that I raise this subject not because I am dissatisfied in any way with the attitude of the Home Office in the case of Mr. Riley's father or that I am at all dissatisfied with the attitude of the police towards the accident which occasioned the late Mr. Riley's death. Rather I raise the matter tonight because I am incensed that the law as it stands makes it impossible for the local constabulary in Leicestershire successfully to bring any prosecution against those responsible for Mr. Riley's death.
  The House may wonder why I should seek to bring before it at this fairly early hour for an Adjournment debate the case of a hit-and-run accident. After all, these are occurring every day and, as our traffic laws get more and more stringent, hit-and-run accidents are likely to

  151
  be more and more severely penalised. In this case there is one special aspect. It was a hit-and-run accident and the victim, the late Mr. Riley, died, having languished in hospital for a few weeks, after he had been knocked off his bicycle. But the significance of the case is that no police prosecution has followed against the driver of the vehicle responsible.
  Hon. Members may say that obviously the police do not know who was responsible for the accident and who was driving the vehicle. What makes the case unique is that the county constabulary know who was in the car at the time of the accident when Mr. Riley was killed. The House may say, if that is the case there can surely be only one answer to the question why there has been no police prosecution against the car driver: it must be that the vehicle was a corps diplomatique vehicle. I can assure the House that that is not the answer. The only reason why the county constabulary are unable to proceed against the person in charge of the vehicle is that they cannot positively identify which of three known occupants of the vehicle had his hands in the wheel at the time of the accident. They know without a shadow of a doubt the names of the three occupants, who were witnessed by many people. But simply because these three people have wilfully conspired together to deny that any of them was driving, the constabulary are powerless to act. It is for that reason alone that I have felt obliged to bring the case before the House tonight.
  I have received some very courteous, full and informative letters from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, for which I am most grateful. He has explained exactly how the hands of the constabulary are tied, and I make it clear to him that I fully appreciate that they are powerless to act. Before I conclude I shall, I hope, suggest one or two ways in which possible future repetitions of this type of accident can be avoided so that the driver cannot get away scot free.
  The story of this accident begins on 23rd December when the late Mr. Riley was bicycling to work in the morning. He was hit by a vehicle driven at a fairly fast speed—according to a witness, 40–45 m.p.h.—and travelling on the wrong side of the road. His bicycle was thrown to
  152
  one side. Mr. Riley was seen to fly through the air. As I have described, after languishing in hospital for a few weeks, he died.
  The vehicle carried on and did not stop for a moment. It was not until midday that the vehicle was traced. Traced it was without a shadow of doubt because there were eye witnesses who jotted its number down on cigarette packets. One eye witness actually identified the three occupants of the vehicle. According to the coroner's report, he happened to know them all and was so exact as to identify the position in which each of the occupants was sitting. There were plenty of eye witnesses, and at midday the vehicle was traced and police proceedings commenced.
  It came out at the coroner's inquest early this year that a number of witnesses had been traced. One person who gave evidence was not an actual witness of the accident but he was the foreman in charge of the three men seen to get into this vehicle and drive away. They finished their nightshift in a Leicester factory at 5 o'clock in the morning and started drinking whisky. Just before 7 o'clock they were warned by their foreman that none of the three of them was fit to be in charge of a vehicle. He advised them not to drive, to which they made some unidentifiable reply and he saw no more of them. Those three men got into the vehicle and shorly afterwards it came up against Mr. George Riley, who was bicycling to work in the other direction, and hit him with the fatal result I have described.
  One would think that when there is an incident such as this with three men positively identified and named by a person who happened to know them all, there would be no difficulty whatever in the law taking its proper course, a course which I am quite sure when it was enacted in this House hon. Members on both sides intended it to have—that the driver responsible should be prosecuted for this lethal crime, and, if he could not be pinpointed, surely that the three of them should be prosecuted for conspiring together to deflect the course of justice.
  I first came into this case as a result of a visit from my constituent, the late Mr. George Riley's son. He came to see me and placed this sorry chapter of incidents before me together with letters

  153
  from the Chief Constable of Leicestershire explaining that the police were powerless to act because they could not definitely pinpoint the driver. Mr. Riley's sail, to put it bluntly, wanted blood. Sympathy was no good to him.
  I took the case up by writing to the Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department and to the Lord Chancellor, bath of whom corresponded in a very sympathetic vein. The Lord Chancellor was good enough to say that, although the police were powerless to act, it might be that Mr. Riley's son might wish to initiate private proceedings. Mr. Riley's son is not a wealthy man. He cannot go to great expense in initiating private proceedings with a problematical outcome. The Under-Secretary gave me advice, which I fully accept, that under the law as it stands at the moment the police are powerless to act.
  The reason, as I said earlier, I have brought this case forward for debate on the Adjournment tonight is that this must be a loophole in the law. If it is the case that three known and positively identified occupants of a motor vehicle can get away with a hit-and-run accident involving the death of an innocent party and get away with it simply because the driver whose hands were actually on the wheel at the time cannot positively be identified surely there is no reason whatsoever why this sort of thing should not spread—once it is seen that this is a way of avoiding the proper course of justice, that two or more people involved in a hit-and-run accident can get together and say, "Let none of us admit he was driving, and provided we keep mum and nobody positively identifies us we shall get away with it". If this were to become widespread it would be a quite improper avenue of escape for those who take charge of a vehicle when they are not fit to do so and use it as a lethal weapon to strike down some innocent victim.
  I do not wish to conclude my remarks by being over fulsome, because the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite knows very well my views about the case. I want to conclude by putting to him a comparison which I think is fair in this instance. If a gang of criminals in the course of armed robbery kill the person they are robbing, or kill an innocent
  154
  passerby or bystander, every one of the members of that gang is liable to be charged, on being apprehended, with the crime of murder. I most strongly feel that if two—or, as in this case, three—occupants of a motor vehicle which is involved in a hit-and-run accident causing the death of an innocent person conspire together to maintain silence, each of those two or three should be charged with the offence which would be pinned upon the driver were he known.
  I am not a lawyer. I am only concerned in a simple way with trying to obtain justice for my constituents and those who come to see me. There is, without shadow of doubt, a gross injustice here. Mr. Riley remembers his father and wishes to see that those who were responsible for his death are brought to book. I hope that, as I have raised this matter tonight, even though the hon. and learned Gentleman assures me, as I know he is going to do, that there is nothing he can do about it now, he will at least recognise the gravity of this case and give me a promise that he will seek to have amending legislation introduced—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is just across the border at this moment.
  Mr. Farr: —at the next proper opportunity available.
  9.18 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dick Taverne): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for raising this case in the way he has done, and I certainly have every sympathy with Mr. Riley's son in this tragic accident in which his father, Mr. George Riley, was killed. The hon. Member has described the circumstances of the accident. Perhaps I could add a little more about the background.
  Mr. Amriki Singh had the use of a motor car belonging to Mr. Hardhajan Singh, who was at that time in India and had given permission to Mr. Amriki Singh to use the car while he was away. The car was driven to work by Mr. Amriki Singh on 22nd December, with a Mr. Sohan Singh and a Mr. Jarnail Singh. As the hon. Member has said, early the next morning those three got drunk. At

  155
  about 7.20 on 23rd December a Mr. Cassidy saw the accident in which Mr. George Riley was thrown off his bike. He took the number of the car, incorrectly as it turned out, though it was later traced, but he did not see who was the driver.
  Another witness, Mr. Freestone, told the police that he heard the collision and saw someone flying through the air after being struck by the car. Again, he could not identify any of the occupants. A Mr. Crowe heard the collision and saw the body of a man flying through the air. He, again, could not identify any of the occupants of the car. So far, one has a number of people who saw the accident but could not identify the person driving the car nor any of the occupants.
  Then there was a Mr. Ram Prokash, who told the police that at about 7.30 a.m. on the day in question he heard someone knocking on the front door of his house. He opened the door and saw Mr. Jarnail Singh standing near the driver's door of the car, which he knew to be the property of Mr. Hardhajan Singh. He saw Mr. Amriki Singh on the front passenger seat, very drunk and unable to help himself. He also saw Mr. Sohan Singh standing on the pavement near the car.
  A further witness, Mr. Majhor Singh, was near the place in question and saw a car coming towards him. It was this car, and he saw the occupants. He said that the driver was Mr. Amriki Singh, so there one has an identification. However, he says that Mr. Jarnail Singh was sitting in the back and that Mr. Sohan Singh was sitting next to the driver. A further witness, Mr. Kewal Singh, again saw the car in question and saw Mr. Jarnail Singh sitting in the back. However, he did not know who was driving the car, or how many people were in it.
  As for the occupants of the car, obviously their statements were highly relevant as to whether there was any conspiracy to defeat the ends of justice. Mr. Sohan Singh said that, when he left the factory with the other two, he sat in the rear seat of the car, Mr. Amriki Singh sat in the front passenger seat, and Mr. Jarnail Singh was driving. He does not remember which way the car travelled and does not remember being involved in the accident.
  156
  Mr. Jarnail Singh told the police that Mr. Amriki Singh drove the car to work on the day before the accident. He said that, at five o'clock on the morning of the accident, they started to drink. The foreman shouted to them, "Are you going to drive home?" and he replied, "No, we are going on the bus." They drank a lot more, but he could not remember how they left the factory or how he got home.
  Mr. Amriki Singh agreed that he had a lot to drink. He did not remember leaving work and knew nothing about an accident. He was not aware that the car had been involved in an accident until he was told by the police.
  A newspaper report of the coroner's inquest states that Mr. M. Singh, who must have been Mr. Majhor, reported that he was walking down Mere Road when he saw the car strike a pedal cyclist. However, he told the police that he did not see the impact take place and did not hear the sound of any crash.
  What were the police to do, in those circumstances? As the hon. Gentleman recognises, they were in great difficulties because, although there were three witnesses of the accident, none could identify the driver. Another witness would say that Mr. Amriki Singh was the driver but that he did not see the accident. Then there was Mr. Sohan Singh, who stated that Mr. Jarnail Singh was the driver, and then there was Mr. Ram Prokash, who said that, some ten minutes or so after the accident, Mr. Amriki Singh was sitting in the passenger seat and that Mr. Jarnail Singh was standing by the driver's door.
  There was no evidence to identify the driver, and it is a well-established principle that the police ought not to prosecute unless there is evidence which pinpoints the person whom they intend to charge. This would have been a very serious prosecution for causing death by dangerous driving, they had to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt, and there was no indication of who was the driver.
  It was not only the view of the police that there was no evidence against anyone; it was also the view formed by the solicitors consulted by Mr. Riley's son. They took the same view: that there was not enough evidence to justify criminal proceedings against any particular person.

  157
  As the hon. Member has recognised, ft ere is, in any event, no question of the Home Secretary interfering in the decision of the police not to prosecute.
  The question then raised by the hon. Member was whether perhaps there could not be a prosecution for conspiracy. The charge here would be one of conspiracy by the alleged occupants to obstruct the course of justice—again a question for the. Chief Constable concerned—and, on the information the Chief Constable had, there was no evidence to justify any sort of prosecution on the ground of conspiracy. Most of them did not know what had happened.
  It is true that under Section 232 of the Road Traffic Act the owner of the car has to give the police the information that is required and other persons have to give any information in their possession about the driver at the material time when certain offences, of the kind obviously involved here, have been committed. But in this case the owner was in India, and it may well be doubted whether it could have been proved to the satisfaction of any court that anyone else was deliberately refusing to provide information. It did not seem to arise.
  It is a tragic case. It is a shocking warning of the worst of the sort of cases which led to the introduction of the Road Safety Act this year. I can understand the utter feeling of frustration on the part of Mr. Riley's son, and I can understand the feelings of the hon. Member, but this kind of situation not uncommonly happens under the traffic and general criminal laws and one cannot go arounds saying that in that case, whoever is guilty, the law must prosecute innocent and guilty alike.
  I remember a case a long time ago of a judge who, in the course of a trial, gave a very graphic example of the difficulties which the law sometimes faces. The example he gave was of two people who were in a room with a third person who was murdered, and it could not be established which of the two had actually struck the blows, nor could it be proved that they had acted together. The judge said that it was the duty of the jury to acquit in the circumstances, because the worst of all possible things would be for an innocent man to be convicted.
  158
  We are faced with a similar situation here. We know that there were three people in the car, but the police could not establish who the driver was, so there was no alternative but, in effect, not to prosecute anyone. It is very sad when someone who is clearly guilty evades justice, but it would be even more sad if someone who was not the guilty party was prosecuted and convicted. This could not be called a case of deliberate evasion of justice when no one could remember what happened.
  As the hon. Member conceded, this case was thoroughly investigated. It is a sad and tragic case, but there was no other alternative for the police to pursue.

  OCEANOGRAPHY
  9.29 p.m.
  Mr. Tom Dalyell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise the subject, of which I have given notice to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology, of the development of the marine sciences, the development of the marine environment, and the general state of British oceanography.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Gentleman given notice to the Parliamentary Secretary of his intention to raise this?
  Mr. Dalyell: I have indeed. On two or three occasions over some weeks now I have been in contact with the Ministry of Technology about an Adjournment debate and I gave definite notice that, should the House collapse, I would be raising this matter. I gave notice at ten minutes past Four this afternoon, the same time as I gave notice to you, Mr. Speaker, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for being here.
  On a previous occasion I was lucky to do the same thing on Aldabra where perhaps my purpose was destructive in trying to prevent something. On this occasion it is entirely constructive and my hope is that I will do something to encourage the good efforts of the Government in the matter of the marine sciences. Even though we are at the beginning of what I hope will be a very long story, the Government already have a fairly

  159
  good tale to tell about their efforts on marine environment development.
  The purpose of this Adjournment debate is to progress-chase what the Government have been promising. Such a debate offers an opportunity which we do not get in the debates on the Floor of the House to progress-chase what might be called recondite issues. I would first of all refer my hon. Friend to the Question I asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science on 3rd July. My Question was:
  "…what study is being made of the possibility of greater exploitation of the resources of the sea and the sea bed by the United Kingdom."
  The reply by the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), was:
  " Two initiatives have recently been taken. First, the Government have initiated a review which will examine what additional work would be profitable and how such work could be put into effect and co-ordinated with existing activities."
  I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary how far this review has got, and whether he has anything to report since July of this year.
  The Secretary of State went on:
  " Second, the N.E.R.C. is examining the extent to which it would be justifiable and practicable to expand its exploration of the Continental Shelf with particular reference to economic returns and the needs of the extractive industries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1967; Vol. 749, c. 195.]
  I wonder how far that examination has got. Perhaps my hon. Friend can tell me.
  A moment ago I used the phrase "a recondite issue". Perhaps one should put this in the setting of the American context, where last year the Federal Budget was of the order of 330 million dollars for the marine sciences. This year it is of the order of 410 million dollars, and next year it will go up to 490 million dollars.
  The Americans have set up a marine sciences programme and some idea of its importance can be measured from the fact that the Vice-President of the United States, Vice-President Humphrey, is Chairman of the Marine Sciences Council. From an interview of half an hour that I had with him in June, in his office in the Senate, there is no doubt that this
  160
  extremely important American politician attaches great weight to his duties as an active chairman of the Marine Sciences Council.
  Not only are the American Government paying attention to oceanography and the marine environment, but American private industry is too. Although I have no exact figures, Boeing Lockheed, General Electric, Westinghouse and North American Aviation, and General Dynamics have each sunk over 100 million dollars of their own money into industry associated with the marine environment.
  This is becoming true in this country. I would refer to the Cameron Ironworks in my own constituency. It has the most modern forge, at any rate in the Western world, and is extremely concerned to know how the British Government will develop an industry associated with marine environment.
  I make no apologies for arising a subject that is not perhaps regarded by most people as being highly important at present. It will certainly be regarded as being extremely important in the 1970s. Here I must commend the initiative of the Government. They were very active in encouraging the Atomic Energy Authority to sponsor a conference at Harwell bringing together academics, industry and many other interested parties. The Harwell conference was a great success. My hon. Friend was officially represented by some extremely able members of his Department. What end product has come from that conference? Can my hon. Friend give any progress report?
  I want to refer also to the good work of the National Institute under Dr. Deacon. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would agree that perhaps the time has come to make the work of the National Institute rather better known than it is now. I want to ask one minor question. When there was a tragic aircraft crash in the Mediterranean why was it, when researching the metal structures of the aircraft at depth, that we went to American experts rather than use our own experts?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with the subject which he himself has chosen for the debate.
  Mr. Dalyell: This is in fact related to the work of the National Institute of

  161
  Oceanography under the Director of the Institute, Dr. Deacon. I think that salvage work is one aspect of the work than can be done in the marine environment. I would justify that question by the importance which is attached to it my some members of the National Institute.
  I would like to ask, too, about the re search ship "John Murray". I commend the Government for their action in promoting even a very small ship in this field. Do the Government intend to build any more ships to enlarge on the work which is being successfully carried out by the "John Murray" at present? I would refer to a letter from the Minister about the National Environment Research Council of 22nd September:
  " N.E.R.C. is particularly concerned to ensure that research workers have the sophisticated equipment they need to make the best use of their time and skills."
  This has got to be given priority. What are the Government doing to provide the necessary equipment in what is necessarily becoming an ever more sophisticated field of operations?
  I want to refer also to the Report of the Working Group of N.E.R.C. on a British National Oceanographic Datum Centre. In a letter the Department wrote, it was stated that this was being pursued, and I would like to know if the Parliamentary Secretary has any news to report.
  I come now to the biggest of all the laboratories dealing with the marine environment. This is the Fisheries Laboratory at Lowestoft, where I think last year the expenditure was of the order of £1,1 90,000.
  I want to refer to a letter dated 23rd August from my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell), who was at that time the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology. He said this:
  " Briefly the situation is that there is no technical difficulty in producing a fish protein concentrate of the type you mention and no doubt about its nutritional value. The real problem which has been shown up by trials in developing countries is the lack of any substantial consumer demand for such a material.
  It may well be that the expanding populations of the developing countries will need to mike some changes in their traditional diet if they are to be adequately fed, but there are many problems in this; the technical ones are the least formidable, the fundamental revision of customs and the development of distribu-
  162
  tion lines are likely to be most difficult where the need is greatest."
  I think that my hon. Friend knows that this is a matter of some contention. There are very many scientists, particularly those who are concerned with likely shortages of nutritional value after 1975 and into the 1980s, who really find it difficult to accept the view which is put by the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, the then Joint Parliamentary Secretary.
  I ask my hon. Friend whether in his Ministry there is any reconsideration of thinking on the matter of marine protein concentrate. The view abroad, particularly among the Americans, is that there is an important future. Although I would not wish to stray from the current subject, it is in this very week that the remarkable developments of B.P. at Lavera in the South of France, led by M. Champignat, have become public in the ability to make protein derived from petroleum products. This has some bearing on the need for marine protein concentrate, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend has any observation to make on this important matter.
  Next I come to the role of the Navy. I think I should make it plain that I would not put forward any proposition to the effect that suddenly overnight the Royal Navy should cease to be a fighting service and should give up its entire being to the needs of the marine sciences. This is not the argument at all. But I think it is true, and it is certainly the opinion of a number of highly placed naval officers to whom the Ministry of Defence know I have been talking, that there is scope for a great deal of enlargement of the Navy's activities in the development of marine environment, particularly in the hydrographer's department, and the simple charting of the Continental Shelf, which needs to be done around British shores.
  I should like to refer to a letter from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, dated 7th September 1967, as follows:
  " Both the Hydrographer and the Director of Naval Physical Research are members of the Oceonography and Fisheries Committee of the Natural Environment Research Council. This involves close liaison with British scientists, institutions and industry concerned with oceanography and the Committee constantly

  163
  reviews the national effort. As a result a national programme for the future exploration and study of the sea is developing. The Hydrographer advertises well in advance the general movements of his survey ships, and, as far as possible, accedes to requests for accommodation and facilities for oceano-graphical studies. During the last few years, for example, we have granted such facilities to scientists from the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and the White Fish Authority, and are now planning, in collaboration with the Royal Society an examination of heat exchange between the sea and air in mid-Atlantic. Close relationships are maintained, amongst others, with the Department of Geology and Geophysics at Cambridge University ".
  I think we are often inclined to be critical in this House, and very often in the past, perhaps, I too have been critical, of defence thinking, but I would pay tribute tonight to the excellent co-operation that the Navy has shown in these matters, and say that all these scientists to whom I have spoken have the highest regard for their naval contacts. In this House I think an expression of thanks ought to be given to the Navy for their great co-operation, and particularly to the Defence Ministers who have encouraged it.
  I should like to refer to something else in my hon. Friend's letter. He went on to say:
  " Any increase in civil interest and commercial activity in these fields would make it practicable, except for specialised naval applications, for a longer and more effective attack to be made on these problems. This would he to the advantage of the Royal Navy but we would expect that in return our own contribution to the research programme would continue on a wider basis to be of help to all participants ".
  I hope that my hon. Friend will convey to the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy that many of us would like to see his activities in this field enlarged at the present time, especially when there is perhaps going to be a rundown of naval personnel, and this extremely important work could be an example of weapons being battered into pruning hooks. There really is scope for the Navy at the present time to take part in an enlarged British marine science programme.
  I have however, one criticism, and here I refer to a Question answered on Friday, 23rd June last. I asked the Secretary of State for Defence
  164
  " if he will consider ways in which information on diving obtained by the Royal Navy, Fan be made available for British industry involved in the civil development of the seabed."
  The Answer was:
  "Details about standard naval operational diving techniques are already available to industry generally ".
  There are some people in industry who dispute that somewhat, but the Answer goes on:
  " Information on techniques still in the research and development stage, however, could be released only to those firms which have a clear appreciation of the considerable risks involved. The Navy Department is already planning a symposium on this subject to which representatives of industry and of other Government Departments concerned would be invited."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1967; Vol. 74, c. 364.]
  Has this symposium taken place—it is rather important—and what has the follow-up action been?
  Second, is my hon. Friend satisfied with the number of skilled divers available in this country? My general impression is that we are becoming very short of skilled divers in relation to the industrial and other tasks ahead of us. Would not the Navy be the best qualified of all to train them in this field?
  Next, a question of which I have given by hon. Friend notice regarding the Government's help to the Kraken project off Oban. Does he think this is a good and worthwhile use of resources?
  Now, a rather different question: how can we fit in with the United States programme? There are some of us who believe that oceanography and the development of the marine sciences presents an ideal occasion for meaningful international co-operation. My hon. Friend knows that, for the second time this year, the secretary of the American Marine Sciences Programme, Dr. Ed Wenk, was in this country talking to the Minister of Technology and also to the Minister of State for Education and Science, my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchen (Mrs. Shirley Williams). If we are to have that international co-operation which many of us would like to see, there is some desirability in having overall direction of the British marine sciences programme. I understand the dangers in having a number of civil servants imposed from above and, perhaps, a number of naval officers imposed from above. But this is not what

  165
  is asked. What is being asked for is a focal point of leadership and co-ordination so that we may deal with countries abroad and, perhaps, gear our own programme to their needs as well as our own.
  Here is a concrete example. It is not my business tonight to refer to the Aldabra Atoll in a defence context. I say only that there are many who would like to see a modest pioneer research station set up on Aldabra. This is certainly the view of the Royal Society. We would like to see it set up in conjunction with a number of other research stations which would he promoted and paid for by the American Government. It is certainly the view of the head of the Smithsonian Institute, Dillon Ripley, that there is considerable scope for co-operation between Britain and the United States in a world oceanography programme. I think that many pure scientists would like also to see the Soviet Union and other countries included.
  There is a practical basis here for something which can be done in the Indian Ocean now. I hope that, in the not very distant future, there will be an undertaking from the Government to join in the work which the Woods Hole Institution in the United States is doing in the Indian Ocean and to promote that small research station on Aldabra which could be the beginning of a joint marine science programme in that part of the world.
  What about the mining of phosphorite nodules, which is important for British industry, and, perhaps the most important thing in the short term that a marine development programme could do, the production of gravel? Can my hon. Friend say anything about the production of gravel in relation to the kind of programme we have discussed tonight?
  There is also the simple point that the legal problems of the sea must be solved as soon as possible. Mr. Jerry Brougher the vice-president of the Cameron Ironworks, which are now becoming so important to Scottish industry, said in a discussion that the first thing politicians must do to help industry is to sort out the legal problems. Mr. Brougher, speaking from his base in Texas, has a considerable knowledge of the problems confronting us in marine environment industries. Perhaps my hon. Friend will have discussions with my right hon. and
  166
  learned Friend the Attorney-General to see what can be done.
  Finally, I should like to raise the question which must be related to any marine science programme, that of desalination plants. The most practical example is the possibility of the West's setting up a desalination plant in Israel and perhaps another in the Arab world, through a firm such as Weir Westgarth. I refer to the Memorandum of Mr. Edmund de Rothschild, which has been discussed with various members of the Government. He is happy that it should be quoted in public.
  It is headed: "Water for the Middle East", with sub-heading, "U.K. Content in Cost Estimates", and reads:
  " Analysis of the capital cost of a dual-purpose power water scheme incorporating an S.G.H.W. reactor and multi-stage flash distillation plant, based on a submission made by the U.K. A.E.A. in February, 1966 (giving 200 MW(E) saleable electricity and 100 m. gallons of water per day) shows the following breakdown of costs between currencies. These figures should only be considered as an indication and would need revising before any actual quote might be made, in order to incorporate advances in reactor technology."
  The important figures are that the United Kingdom component in a power/ desalting plant would be £35 million, comprising 69 per cent., and other currencies £16 million, comprising 31 per cent., of a total of £51 million. Of indirect costs and water and electrical transmission facilities the United Kingdom component would be £13 million, comprising 54 per cent., and other currencies £11 million, comprising 46 per cent., of a total cost of £24 million. There is also the question of ancillary equipment. That is a practical, sensible, technical scheme whereby the lamentable situation of food supplies and irrigation in the Middle East might be partially solved.
  Although it may be an off-beat issue at present, a vast potential exists in a marine science programme not only for developing countries but for ourselves. Anything that we can do for the Middle East or countries in tropical areas suffering from droughts will more than replace military expenditure we commit at present, and it would have the added benefit of vastly helping British industry and our balance of payments. A marine science programme would be an example of enlightened self-interest, and that is why I commend it.
  9.54 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) for giving us an opportunity to discuss marine science and technology. As he said, he kindly gave us notice of his intention to raise the matter some time ago and he did so again earlier today.
  The House had an opportunity of discussing marine science earlier this year when the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) raised it on 31st May. My hon. Friend who replied was the present Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, then the Minister of State, Department of Education and Science, and he dealt mainly with the scientific aspects of the work. I shall take the opportunity tonight, in reply to the very wide-ranging questions that my hon. Friend raised, to concentrate mainly on the technological aspects.
  I would say in passing that the work of the National Institute of Oceanography is well known and appreciated. I am happy to undertake to look at what further steps might be taken to make it better known. I have nothing to add to the letter of my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Economic Affairs on the work of the Fisheries Laboratory and, in particular, fish protein concentrate.
  In the defence area we are, by virtue of the integration of the former Ministry of Aviation with the Ministry of Technology, combining those parts of the defence research programme and the civil research programme which fall within our area of activity. An instance from the marine field is the hovercraft area, where we have a single hovercraft unit covering both defence and civil applications.
  My hon. Friend asked a number of questions in the technology field on which I should like to concentrate. He referred to the review announced by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Education and Science. The review was set up following the Harwell Conference and was committed to a working party with terms of reference roughly on the following lines. It was asked first, to review research and development now in progress on all aspects of marine science and technology in the United Kingdom. This will, I hope, meet the point that my hon. Friend made about the very diverse
  168
  activity that is going on and the need to examine its inter-relations to provide at any rate the beginnings of the focus of co-operation which he asked for in the context of international developments.
  Secondly, the working party was asked to identify areas of marine science and technology which are likely to be the most economically profitable, and to consider what further research and development would be necessary to exploit them. It would be a mistake, and unjust to the working party, to expect more than preliminary conclusions from its study of the problem. We cannot expect fully justified projects with full cost-benefit analyses attached to them. It can only be an initial identification of areas which are worth examining more closely with the help of experts.
  Thirdly, the working party was asked to advise on a programme of action and on means of co-ordinating the existing and proposed programmes of research and development. We shall, therefore, be following up the work of the working party and have an open mind about how this should most effectively be done.
  My hon. Friend asked how the Government looked at the problem of developing the industry which will be concerned with exploiting marine science and technology and meeting maritime demands of all kinds. Anybody who has been as concerned with the world of science and technology as my hon. Friend has will agree that we have now a great deal of experience on the relationship of major programmes to industry, and, looking back, I am sure that he would be the first to point to the dangers of a really major applied research programme undertaken by an organisation which was not integrally linked with industry. Clearly there is a rôle which institutions dedicated solely to research, with their own source of funds, are able to play. But we must make sure that that rôle is planned with the close co-operation of industry and that arrangements are made with industry—
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gourlay.]
  Dr. Bray: We must make sure that arrangements are made with industry for the exploitation of research and that industry is brought into the guiding and shaping of the programme. Perhaps I can best illustrate this by referring to a point which my right hon. Friend made about the work on desalination which the Atomic Energy Authority at Harwell has been working on, in a programme under Section 4 of the Science and Technology Act, for the past year or so. In that part of the programme of work which has been directly relevant to current exploitation—the work on multi-stage flash distillation — they have been highly successful, together with Weir Westgarth. This firm specialising in this work, has secured practically all the major world contracts in this area open to public tender in the course of the past year. That is a remarkable achievement on which I am sure the Atomic Energy Authority and the company deserve the congratulations of the House.
  But it shows the kind of arrangement which we have to make in marine science and technology generally. We have to have a set up in a firm which has not only the right technology but also the right management and sales organisation and which is able to form the right link with the research organisation. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will not press us—I do not suppose for one moment that he will—to set up some sort of maritime research authority with a budget of anything like the size of the United States budget on the marine sciences programme. If this kind of relationship with industry is to develop, clearly we must get down to very considerable detail in examining the areas to which a marine sciences programme cart contribute. These were very extensively explored in the conference at Harwell in April to which my hon. Friend referred.
  I should like briefly to remind the House of some of the very wide-ranging subjects which need investigation in this area and of the many possibilities in marine technology. Perhaps the most immediate problem is the development of improved methods of fishing. Other hon. Members may have had the experience which I have had in a nuclear submarine of watching the movements of fish swarms on the sonar. I am told that in the North
  170
  Sea in a submarine it is possible to watch swarms swimming into and out of the nets controlled by the trawlers and that they often wish they had some means of shouting "grab" when the swarm is in the net. Clearly such techniques are extremely expensive and not suitable, as they stand, for use in an ordinary trawler, but there is the question whether a fishing fleet should be so organised that expensive gear could be concentrated in one ship and used for the guidance of neighbouring ships. These possibilities clearly should be explored.
  My hon. Friend referred to the production of fish protein concentrate. It may be possible, and indeed desirable, to go somewhat further than that and to meet an animal feeding requirement by tapping the ecological chain at a somewhat lower level, filtering out and processing concentrates of small crustaceans living in the sea, making that the basis of an animal feedingstuff.
  A further development is fish farming which might be expected to go beyond the breeding of gourmet varieties to fish of more staple varieties.
  It is notable and regrettable that so much of the experience of deep water civil engineering is now concentrated in the United States. This is evident to those who have visited the North Sea oil rigs, the pipe laying barge and so on, from the colossal concentration of American expertise in this connection. Clearly we were right to exploit it where it was available, and we could not conceivably have built up the volume of effort which we have on the Continental Shelf without American technology. Equally clearly, it is a subject in which we should examine the contribution which we can make ourselves.
  There is a need for fundamental information about the environment at the bottom of the sea. Here I should like to refer to the project which my hon. Friend mentioned, the Kraken project at Oban. This is an under-sea laboratory parked at a depth of about 90 ft. where scientists will live and work at the pressure of the surrounding environment and will themselves be able to work in conditions which in a sense are more natural and certainly less expensive than those of similar experiments overseas which have gone mainly simply for increased depth without necessarily greater

  171
  relevance in application. A very large part of the Continental Shelf is at relatively shallow depths—obviously, by definition—and in working at depths of this kind it is useful to have the sort of experience which may be collected from the Kraken exercise.
  My hon. Friend referred to the possibility of undersea mining. The first stage is exploration. Means of coring and sampling the sea floor are a necessary start. There is the possible use of small, cheap manned submarines, the possibility of their independent operation, or, perhaps, more practically, the operation of such submarines at the end of feeder cables.
  Clearly, if one is exploring such devices as these the Navy has a very important contribution to make in many cases. Diving is an obvious case. The cheapest way of securing development is often by the adaptation of naval gear. There is a serious lack of manpower for routine diving operations. The glamorous "trouble-shooting" diver is available at a price. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for suggesting that we ought to consider ways of increasing manpower for the more routine tasks.
  Some types of undersea mining are achieved already. Gravel is extracted from the sea bed in very large quantities. There are possibilities of a few metal lodes, but probably a more fruitful source of deposits for mining will be horizontal layer deposits. It is known that off the North-East coast there are deep potash beds which could well run out under the sea for considerable distances and be exploitable there. Deep deposits are difficult enough to mine on shore, and probably for some time it will be a matter of land-based shafts leading to underwater galleries going out to sea in the manner of current coalmines, but clearly it would be a mistake to limit the ingenuity of miners in future.
  Through the wide range of technology which the Working Party is now exploring we can look for some areas where there is an immediate payoff and where firms will currently have expenditure proposals for projects which they can put to us for Government support. We are beginning to gather the experience, not least in the Programmes Analysis Unit at Harwell, to select particular projects in
  172
  industry which are worth supporting. It may well be that there are longer term projects which should properly be undertaken within a purely research institute. We shall certainly explore them, including the possibility of international co-operation in a rather more comprehensive programme such as my hon. Friend suggested.
  My hon. Friend is aware that there is a major programme in meteorology. The main feature of this programme is that it has a definite objective—to improve weather forecasting. To forecast efficiently, one needs good current recording of a very wide range of meteorological phenomena. This is the basis of a successful international programme. If one has less clearly defined objectives and means of obtaining them, an international programme can be almost destructive of international goodwill. We need to see clearly the objects at which we are aiming and then get on to the stage of proposing international co-operation.
  My hon. Friend mentioned legal problems. He is right in stressing their importance. It was the quick and speedy resolution of the legal problems of North Sea oil and gas exploration which led to the quick development of the North Sea. It is equally clear that it is possible to adopt a solution which secures a quick, immediate payoff but possibly at the cost of creating much greater longer term problems such as those we are facing in the North Sea. But this is a question, not for me, but for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power. I take the point in relation to marine technology.
  Mr. Dalyell: I ask my hon. Friend for an assurance that he will approach the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers involved with some definite proposals to the United States Government and to the Marine Sciences Council in the United States—the Smithsonian and Woods Hole Institute—about the possibility of a British centre at Aldabra in conjunction with other American projects in the western Pacific and the Indian Ocean. Would my hon. Friend put that case?
  Dr. Bray: In so far as this is a question of research, I will draw the attention of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to this proposal and ask him

  173
  to take the appropriate action. In so far as it is a question of technology, I am sure that it will be covered by the Working Party. If it is not covered, I will draw the attention of the Working Party to this proposal.

  TAXATION (ROAD USERS)
  10.18 p.m.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I should like in the few minutes available—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Gentleman given notice to a Minister that he intends to raise a matter?
  Mr. Taylor: I was coming to that, Mr. Speaker. I gave the Financial Secretary notice, only at 8.41 p.m., that I hoped to raise this question. I apologise to the House for doing it now. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for being willing to come along to the House. I apologise to him for keeping him waiting. I hope that what I have to say will be of some small interest to him.
  I wish to raise the question of the burden of tax on private and commercial road users, because at present the Government are considering their future financial policies. While I appreciate that it would be wrong to raise any specific—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must realise that if he wants to ease the burden of tax it can be done only by legislation, and he cannot raise the question of legislation on the Adjournment.
  Mr. Taylor: I was not intending to do that, Mr. Speaker.
  As the Minister is considering financial policies at present, I hope that he will bear in mind the question to which I wish to draw his attention, namely, the burden of tax on commercial road users. I hope that today, next year and in future he will keep this matter constantly in mind—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no point in the Minister's keeping it in mind unless he is to improve it by legislation, and legislation is out of order on the Adjournment.
  Mr. Taylor: Yes, Sir. I just wanted to draw the Financial Secretary's attention to the facts, in the hope that he would take note of the points which I intended to put to him.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not want to appear stubborn. The hon. Gentleman must know that on the Adjournment it is in order to raise matters of administration of the Government but not in order to propose reforms of legislation.
  Mr. Taylor: No, Sir. I was not intending to suggest any reforms of any sort, but simply to draw attention to the specific point which I mentioned to the Minister, and that is the burden of tax on road users. I did not intend to suggest in any way a change in the law or any changes even in administration. I hope it will be in order for me to proceed. If it is not in order, I will sit down. I was simply wanting to draw attention—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The difficulty is that lamentations must be followed by legislation, and it is not in order on the Adjournment to raise matters which can be put right only by changing the law. To change taxation means changing the law.
  Mr. Taylor: I wanted essentially to draw the Minister's attention to the plight of road users and the burden on them. I wished to raise this, not with the intention that anything specific should be done in any way. I wanted to draw attention, first, to the fact that road users are the great majority of the population and that taxation is a matter of great relevance, particularly as regards prices in development districts and manufacturing facilities in development districts. I did not want in any way to suggest that a change should be made in the present arrangements. Perhaps I can proceed. If it is out of order, I will sit down and apologise to the House.
  Mr. Speaker: Unless the hon. Gentleman produces something apart from new legislation, he will have to sit down. The purpose of the Adjournment is to raise with a Minister matters for which he is responsible, but not matters which he can put right only by changes in the law. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know that by now.
  Mr. Taylor: I should have studied the matter in greater detail. Could I draw the Minister's attention to two facts, and two facts only? First, every second family in Britain has a car. This means, on the question of road users and private cars, that every second family in the country is affected. In other words, it is not a question of a minority interest. At present, the question of the costs of transport is directly relevant to the three main avenues of administration for which the Financial Secretary is responsible and has very much in mind at the moment. The first one is the question of development districts and regional development. Clearly the question of the cost of transport is a very vital matter for development districts. I hope that in administering the present tax arrangements the Financial Secretary will bear this very much in mind.
  The second matter of which I know that the hon. Gentleman is very conscious at present is the question of the level of prices in Britain. These have been increasing. Obviously we want to prevent further increases. In these circumstances I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear this in mind in the administration of the taxes on road users. In 1960 the burden of tax on motorists was—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. With all the administration in the world, the Financial Secretary cannot administer a tax out of existence. A law must be brought in to do that. The hon. Gentleman cannot advocate a change in the law on Adjournment.
  Mr. Taylor: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was not intending to suggest any change in the law. I wanted simply to draw the Minister's attention to a burden which exists, thinking that perhaps he was not fully aware of the extent of this, particularly in development districts.
  I will make one final attempt. If this is not in order, I will not proceed. On the question of the burden, I have mentioned that the question of road expenditure is directly relevant. I draw the Financial Secretary's attention to a document which was issued by the British Road Federation and sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently when he was considering future administration and policy. This document drew attention to the fact that there were three main countries affecting road users—the United States, Germany and Britain. In 1965 the latest period for which figures are available in the United States round about £5,000 million was spent on roads. The amount raised in taxation from road users was—
  Mr. Speaker: There is going to be a Budget, I understand, in April. The hon. Member must raise questions of taxation when we come to the Budget. He cannot do it on the Adjournment.
  Mr. Taylor: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Financial Secretary for taking unnecessarily the time of the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOSPITALS
  Public Appeals
  Public Appeals
  Hospital of St. Cross, Rugby
  Hospital of St. Cross, Rugby
  London Teaching Hospitals (Teaching Procedures)
  London Teaching Hospitals (Teaching Procedures)
  Hospital Management Committees (Local Authority Representation)
  Hospital Management Committees (Local Authority Representation)
  Medical Staffs (Transport)
  Medical Staffs (Transport)
  Male Nurses (Recruitment)
  Male Nurses (Recruitment)
  St. George's Hospital, Morpeth (Nurses)
  St. George's Hospital, Morpeth (Nurses)
  Pay-Beds (Review)
  Pay-Beds (Review)
  Hospital Supplies Committees
  Hospital Supplies Committees
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Waiting Lists (Gateshead and District)
  Waiting Lists (Gateshead and District)
  Pulmonary Tuberculosis
  Pulmonary Tuberculosis
  General Medical Services, Thundersley
  General Medical Services, Thundersley
  Mental Health Act (Local Authority Facilities)
  Mental Health Act (Local Authority Facilities)
  National Health Service (Administrative Structure)
  National Health Service (Administrative Structure)
  Residential Home, Plymouth
  Residential Home, Plymouth
  Long-Term Disabled (Review)
  Long-Term Disabled (Review)
  Over-Prescribing
  Over-Prescribing
  Departmental Officials and Consultants (Visits to America)
  Departmental Officials and Consultants (Visits to America)
  British Doctors (North America)
  British Doctors (North America)
  Meat (Burial)
  Meat (Burial)
  Drug Addicts (Methedrine)
  Drug Addicts (Methedrine)
  General Medical Practitioners
  General Medical Practitioners
  Local Authority Clinics (Breconshire and Radnorshire)
  Local Authority Clinics (Breconshire and Radnorshire)
  Cervical Cytology Clinics (Wales)
  Cervical Cytology Clinics (Wales)
  Abortion Act (Registration of Nursing Homes)
  Abortion Act (Registration of Nursing Homes)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT (OAT CAKES)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT (OAT CAKES)
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS (SCOTLAND)
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS (SCOTLAND)
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Industrial Firms (Foreign Ownership)
  Industrial Firms (Foreign Ownership)
  North Walbottle Colliery
  North Walbottle Colliery
  British Airline Pilots' Association (Dispute)
  British Airline Pilots' Association (Dispute)
  National Union of Bank Employees (Dispute)
  National Union of Bank Employees (Dispute)
  Industrial Training Boards
  Industrial Training Boards
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Trade Unions (Recognition)
  Trade Unions (Recognition)
  Government Training Centres
  Government Training Centres
  Staff Associations
  Staff Associations
  Vacancies
  Vacancies
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (OVERSEAS TRADE)
  DIPLOMATIC SERVICE (OVERSEAS TRADE)
  SOUTHERN YEMEN
  SOUTHERN YEMEN
  PHILIPPINES (BRITISH NATIONALS)
  PHILIPPINES (BRITISH NATIONALS)
  CAMBODIA
  CAMBODIA
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION
  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  BRITISH EMBASSIES AND CONSULATES
  BRITISH EMBASSIES AND CONSULATES
  EDUCATIONAL GRANTS (OVERSEAS ORGANISATIONS)
  EDUCATIONAL GRANTS (OVERSEAS ORGANISATIONS)
  HUMAN RIGHTS (CONVENTIONS)
  HUMAN RIGHTS (CONVENTIONS)
  KURIA MURIA ISLANDS
  KURIA MURIA ISLANDS
  SUDAN
  SUDAN
  GERMANY
  GERMANY
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  U.S.A.F. Flying Bases (British Contractors)
  U.S.A.F. Flying Bases (British Contractors)
  Palace of Westminster
  Palace of Westminster
  Bricks
  Bricks
  Office Development
  Office Development
  Shopping Developments
  Shopping Developments
  Noise Levels (Survey)
  Noise Levels (Survey)
  Foreign Office (Brussels Residence)
  Foreign Office (Brussels Residence)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Wage Stop (Sick and Unemployed Persons)
  Wage Stop (Sick and Unemployed Persons)
  Sickness Benefit (Mr. Batsman)
  Sickness Benefit (Mr. Batsman)
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Industrial Injuries (Prescribed Diseases) Act (Lodging House Attendants)
  Industrial Injuries (Prescribed Diseases) Act (Lodging House Attendants)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Malaysia
  Malaysia
  Brunei
  Brunei
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Non-Industrial Civil Service
  Non-Industrial Civil Service
  Customs (Indecent and Obscene Books)
  Customs (Indecent and Obscene Books)
  Nationalised Industries (Revenue Deficits)
  Nationalised Industries (Revenue Deficits)
  Members of Parliament (Purchasing Power of Salary)
  Members of Parliament (Purchasing Power of Salary)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Cannabis
  Cannabis
  Dangerous Drugs Act 1967 (Regulations)
  Dangerous Drugs Act 1967 (Regulations)
  Child Care Officers
  Child Care Officers
  LANCASTER HOUSE (CONFERENCE INVITATIONS)
  LANCASTER HOUSE (CONFERENCE INVITATIONS)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Meat Bones (Disposal)
  Meat Bones (Disposal)
  Food (Price Increases)
  Food (Price Increases)
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease
  Officials (Farm Land and Buildings)
  Officials (Farm Land and Buildings)
  Forestry Roads (Grant)
  Forestry Roads (Grant)
  Compound Feedingstuffs (Prices)
  Compound Feedingstuffs (Prices)
  Agricultural Industry (Price Guarantees)
  Agricultural Industry (Price Guarantees)
  Welsh Rural Development Board
  Welsh Rural Development Board
  Rural Development Board, Mid-Wales (Public Inquiry)
  Rural Development Board, Mid-Wales (Public Inquiry)
  Radioactive Waste (Irish Sea and Atlantic)
  Radioactive Waste (Irish Sea and Atlantic)
HOUSING
  Rent Increases (Greater London Council)
  Rent Increases (Greater London Council)
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Planning Appeals (Bedfordshire)
  Planning Appeals (Bedfordshire)
  Common Rights (Registration)
  Common Rights (Registration)
  Camping Sites
  Camping Sites
  Retail Floor Space
  Retail Floor Space
  Shopping Development
  Shopping Development
  Council House Rents (National Board for Prices and Incomes)
  Council House Rents (National Board for Prices and Incomes)
RAILWAYS
  British Railways Board (Members)
  British Railways Board (Members)
  British Railways Board (Chairman)
  British Railways Board (Chairman)
ROADS
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Radial Route 7
  Radial Route 7
  M4 (Tormarton-Liddington Section)
  M4 (Tormarton-Liddington Section)
  Signposts
  Signposts
  Accidents (Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Newburn)
  Accidents (Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Newburn)
  Pedestrian Crossings (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
  Pedestrian Crossings (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
  Road Schemes (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
  Road Schemes (Newcastle-upon-Tyne)
TRANSPORT
  Road and Rail Fares (Increase)
  Road and Rail Fares (Increase)
  Heavy Lorries (Vehicle Excise Duty)
  Heavy Lorries (Vehicle Excise Duty)
  Abnormal Loads (Mileage Charge)
  Abnormal Loads (Mileage Charge)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  SELF-GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND AND WALES)
  SELF-GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND AND WALES)
  DEVALUATION
  DEVALUATION
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WALES
  SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WALES
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (STATE BOARDS)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (STATE BOARDS)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Vietnam
  Vietnam
  R.A.F. Yatesbury
  R.A.F. Yatesbury
  Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve (Training Cost)
  Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve (Training Cost)
  Welsh Units
  Welsh Units
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Turner Paintings
  Turner Paintings
  Teachers Centres
  Teachers Centres
  Her Majesty's Inspectors (Curriculum Development)
  Her Majesty's Inspectors (Curriculum Development)
  New Primary School, Belton
  New Primary School, Belton
  Social Science Research Council
  Social Science Research Council
  Community Centres (Grant)
  Community Centres (Grant)
  Undergraduate Courses
  Undergraduate Courses
  Certificate Courses
  Certificate Courses
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Mr. Aubrey Jones
  Mr. Aubrey Jones
COAL
  Coal Industry Housing Association (Rents)
  Coal Industry Housing Association (Rents)
GAS
  North Sea Supplies (Price)
  North Sea Supplies (Price)
  Prices
  Prices
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Select Committee on Science and Technology (Report)
  Select Committee on Science and Technology (Report)
  Power Stations (Coal Price)
  Power Stations (Coal Price)
  Fuel Policy White Paper
  Fuel Policy White Paper
ELECTRICITY
  Nuclear Power Programme
  Nuclear Power Programme
TECHNOLOGY
  Magnox Nuclear Power Stations
  Magnox Nuclear Power Stations
SCOTLAND
  Hospital Medical Staff (Married Accommodation)
  Hospital Medical Staff (Married Accommodation)
  Fort William Pulp Mill (Road Expenditure)
  Fort William Pulp Mill (Road Expenditure)
  Forestry Roads (Grant)
  Forestry Roads (Grant)
  Roadside Breath Tests
  Roadside Breath Tests
  Power Stations (Coal Price)
  Power Stations (Coal Price)
  Hunterston Nuclear Power Station
  Hunterston Nuclear Power Station
  Solway Barrage Scheme
  Solway Barrage Scheme
  Henry Committee
  Henry Committee
  Halliday Committee (Report)
  Halliday Committee (Report)
  Social Services Reform (Legislation)
  Social Services Reform (Legislation)
  Site Clearance Schemes
  Site Clearance Schemes
  Fauldhead Colliery (Closure)
  Fauldhead Colliery (Closure)
WALES
  Passenger Transport Authority
  Passenger Transport Authority
  Civil Service College
  Civil Service College
  Geophysical Surveys
  Geophysical Surveys
  Eastern Avenue By-Pass, Cardiff
  Eastern Avenue By-Pass, Cardiff
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Roads
  Roads
  Housing (Agricultural Workers)
  Housing (Agricultural Workers)
  Traffic (A48/A40 Road)
  Traffic (A48/A40 Road)
  Red Dragon Flag
  Red Dragon Flag
BOARD OF TRADE
  Companies (Political Contributions)
  Companies (Political Contributions)
  Welsh Firms (Members of Parliament)
  Welsh Firms (Members of Parliament)
  Empty Factories (Greater London Area)
  Empty Factories (Greater London Area)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Wales)
  Industrial Development Certificates (Wales)
  Board of Trade Advisory Committee (Grants)
  Board of Trade Advisory Committee (Grants)
  Price Changes (Devaluation)
  Price Changes (Devaluation)
  Manufacturing Industry (Investment)
  Manufacturing Industry (Investment)
  Power Stations (Exports of Machinery and Equipment)
  Power Stations (Exports of Machinery and Equipment)
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  Royal National Lifeboat Institute (Grant)
  Royal National Lifeboat Institute (Grant)
  Stanners Trading Estate (Employees)
  Stanners Trading Estate (Employees)
  Board of Trade Factories (Newcastle and Newburn)
  Board of Trade Factories (Newcastle and Newburn)
  New Jobs (Newcastle and Newburn)
  New Jobs (Newcastle and Newburn)
  British Weeks (Scotland and Wales)
  British Weeks (Scotland and Wales)
  Export Rebate and Selective Employment Tax Premiums
  Export Rebate and Selective Employment Tax Premiums
  Vicuna Wool
  Vicuna Wool

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

MOTOR VEHICLE SIDELIGHTS AND FOG
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any information concerning the fog-penetrating power of motor-car sidelights in daylight.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, motor vehicle sidelights are not intended to penetrate fog. The Highway Code advises the use of headlights in daytime fog.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Does he appreciate, I wonder, that in spite of the instructions in the Highway Code the vast majority of motorists use only their sidelights in daylight fog, and that this practice is dangerous because it is misleading?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think that that is an interesting observation. I will see that that point of view is transmitted to my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, would the Minister of Transport consider making an order that during fog, and even possibly after dark, nothing less than dipped headlights should be used? That is a widely held opinion in motoring circles.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will convey that point of view also to my honourable friend.

TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS IN EARLY MORNING
2.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many traffic accidents per thousand vehicles occur in the Metropolitan Police area between 7.0 and 8.0 a.m., and between 8.0 and 9.0 a.m. in the months of December and January.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, in December, 1966, there were in the Metropolitan Police District 296 traffic accidents between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. and 344 between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. The corresponding figures in January, 1967, were 244 and 286. Figures of traffic flow are taken on a sample basis only; these suggest that in both months the volume of traffic during the later hour was about half as much again as during the earlier.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him whether he appreciates that if this information could be turned into terms of percentages of traffic flow it would give an indication of what danger, if any, is likely to arise as the result of moving the 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. heavy traffic from the first hour of daylight into the last hour before sunrise, as will occur with the introduction of British Standard Time?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, My Lords. The effect of the introduction of British Standard Time will be to move the higher risk period, influenced by the weather and the dark, forward into the period of increased traffic flow, influenced by the clock. The change is therefore likely to lead to more accidents in the morning. But this is only part of the story, because we cannot ignore the effect at the other end of the day when the period of higher traffic flow will be advanced from the dark into daylight. It appears that, taking morning and evening together, there will be more travel in daylight and less in the dark than at present under Greenwich Mean Time,

855
and that the reduction of accidents in the evening should be greater than the increase in the morning.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would be kind enough to explain this. With the introduction of British Standard Time the evening rush hour traffic will run in the dark. But it runs in the dark now, and therefore rush hour traffic in the evening, so far as I can see, will not be affected in this way.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, it will be affected because we do not get any less daylight under the new dispensation than under the present one. It merely means that we get more daylight in the evening, and it is the experience that there are fewer accidents at that time. That is why, during the passage of the Bill, I told the noble Earl that all the teaching organisations preferred the children going to school in the dark rather than going home in the dark.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that on the whole people are more sober in the morning than they are in the dark?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, My Lords. The drinking hours are usually thought to be the evening and the later hours, but it is also the case that people going to work appear to be under greater stress and urgency than when they are going home.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, is it not sometimes the case that people going to work have a greater degree of hangover?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord knows this from his experience. I would not know.

BREATHALYSER TESTS
2.41 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the number of drivers who have been required to submit to a breath test in connection with the new drink-and-driving laws and the reasons why they have been required to do so, indicating how many had been involved in accidents; how many were alleged to have committed traffic offences; and how many were suspected of having alcohol in the body.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, during the period October 9 to October 31, the police in England and Wales required breath tests under Section 2 of the Road Safety Act 1967 in 2,724 cases. In 811 cases the person concerned was suspected of having been driving or attempting to drive at the time a vehicle was involved in an accident; in 1,049 of having committed a traffic offence while the vehicle was in motion; and in 864 of having alcohol in his body. These categories are not mutually exclusive, however. Thus, chief officers of police believe that nearly all the drivers recorded as having been required to take the test because of a moving traffic offence were also suspected of having been drinking.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information, which is interesting and worthy of study. It seems to me, on first impression, to indicate that the police have been operating this rather strict law with their usual discretion.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether all the 2,724 cases were cases where people were suspected of committing a moving traffic offence?—for cases are being brought to my notice where people are being subjected to a breathalyser test where it would not seem possible that they could have been guilty of a moving traffic offence.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, when the noble and learned Viscount again studies the figures I gave he will see that,

857
of the 2,724 cases, 1,860 concerned people who were pulled up because of a moving traffic offence and 864 because they were suspected of having alcohol in the body. There is no evidence whatever that the police have been conducting what some people describe as random tests for alcohol.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I will give the noble Lord notice of a case of that sort that has been brought to my attention.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government the numbers of drivers who have been required to submit to a breath test in connection with the new drink-and-driving laws; the numbers required to go to a police station for a blood or urine test; and the numbers of such cases in which it has subsequently been discovered that the blood alcohol level was not in excess of the prescribed limit.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, during the period October 9 to October 31 the police in England and Wales required breath tests under Section 2 of the Road Safety Act 1967 in 2,724 cases. In 927 of these the driver was required to provide a blood or urine specimen for a laboratory test. Of 729 blood specimens analysed, the forensic science laboratories reported 157 as being below the prescribed limit. Of 96 urine specimens analysed, 11 were reported as below the equivalent level.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that information, and ask him whether he does not think that 157 out of 927 is a rather high proportion of breathalyser tests which showed a positive reaction yet on blood test or urine test showed that the accused person was innocent?
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords, I do not agree. There always must be a time lag between a person's taking a breath test which shows a content above the level and his then going to a police station, taking a second breath test, having a doctor summoned and having
858
a blood test sample taken. During the passage of an hour there can be a fall of from 10 to 20 mgs. of alcohol content per 100 mls. of the blood. Then, when the samples of capillary blood are taken there is the chance of some evaporation. Containers may not be firmly fixed down, and there may be some further evaporation. And finally, with the extremely accurate tests taken at the laboratory—several are taken and the results averaged—in cases where the blood content is less than 100 mgs. per 100 mls., 6 mgs. are deducted, which is three times the normal margin of error, and where it is over 100 mgs. per 100 mls. 6 per cent. is deducted. So there is a great bias in favour of the person who is being tested. Indeed, after the second test, when it still shows evidence of being above the equivalent level, there is in many cases no prosecution by the police.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that further information and ask him whether he is aware that I feel somewhat reassured by the machinery and the margin of 6 per cent. or 6 mg. which is allowed? But in view of the very unpleasant experience involved to a motorist, man or woman, who is arrested after an adverse breathalyser test and taken by the policeman to the police station, where he is kept for some time while his blood test is being taken, does not the noble Lord think that the breathalyser testing should be set at a greater margin of tolerance, in order to ensure that not such a high proportion as 1 in 6 of those taken should be incorrect?
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords. I do not agree that the amount of tolerance allowed is not sufficient. And, however shocking it may be to a person to be stopped, and then, as a result of a test showing alcohol content above the prescribed level, be taken to a police station for a sample of blood, it is even more of a shock to be knocked down by a drunken motorist. I would remind the noble Lord that the figures for the Metropolitan Police District show that there was a reduction of 1 in 8 in the number of accidents in October, and a reduction in accidents occurring between ten o'clock at night to one in the morning of more than 2 in 5. In Birmingham

859
the drop is even more marked. I would ask noble Lords to consider that because of breath tests there are hundreds of people walking about unscathed who otherwise would be lying in hospital or in their graves.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am entirely with him, as is everybody else, in wishing to see a reduction in the number of accidents? But is he aware, also, that the period has been far too short to reach conclusions of the kind that he has just been putting to the House? Is he aware, further, that while we all wish to see a reduction in the number of accidents, we also wish to see that basic justice is maintained?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord's desire for basic justice is no more than that of my right honourable friend, my Department and everybody in the Government. It is with the element of justice in mind that these tests have been introduced. They have been debated in this House, and the noble Lord is aware that I have gone to the greatest extent in my power to give him the maximum amount of information. I do not think anyone can say that the police are not exercising this power with the greatest discretion, or that, when a driver has to be taken to the police station, there is not a very considerable bias—indeed every bias—in his favour, so that in no case is action taken unless there are strong grounds for believing that action is necessary.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, is there not a simple answer to this; namely, that one should not drive if one has been drinking?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords, and that is what a great many people have voluntarily been doing, because in the opinion of chief officers of police there is a substantial reduction in the numbers of people driving at night.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that, in view of the considerable decrease in the numbers of deaths on the road, most people regard the inconvenience to the few individuals, such as has been described to us to-day, as of little importance, in view of the great benefit the breathalyser has given to the country?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I believe that what my noble friend has said represents the general opinion of the public.

THE CHRISTMAS RECESS
2.50 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I make a Business Statement about the Christmas Recess? Subject to the progress of business, it is hoped that the House will adjourn for the Christmas Recess on Wednesday, December 20, and reassemble on Tuesday, January 23, 1968.
It may also be for the convenience of the House if I mention the arrangements for this evening. There is a long list of speakers for the debate to-day, and I hope your Lordships will agree that, for the convenience of those who serve in your Lordships' House, we should adjourn for half an hour at a convenient moment near 8 o'clock. Buffet dinners will be available for your Lordships between 7.30 and 8.30 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for that announcement, but I should like to ask why this House is informed only to-day about the Christmas Recess, whereas I understand that another place was informed on Thursday.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Statement was not exactly the same, because I am suggesting that we rise on Wednesday, whereas in another place they rise on Thursday. But I agree with the noble Earl that there has been a breakdown of communications, which I greatly regret, and I have expressed my feelings on that matter to the people concerned.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it is not unusual for this House to rise one day earlier than another place, and I hope the noble Lord will impress upon those responsible for producing this notice that this House should be kept properly informed. It is not the first time this has happened, and it really is most discourteous to this House.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I accept the strictures of the noble Earl, and I have already expressed the view that your Lordships, who serve voluntarily, for the larger part without any pay are, if anything, entitled to more consideration than those in the other place.

STANSTED SITE AND THIRD LONDON AIRPORT
2.54 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER rose to call attention to Her Majesty's Government's decision to build London's third airport at Stansted; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have to declare a restricted interest in that I reside in Essex, but far enough away from Stansted not to be directly affected. I should like to thank the Whips for arranging to hold this debate to-day, the only possible time before the Christmas Recess, and to thank so many of your Lordships for attending this afternoon. This is a vital issue, and your Lordships have not had a chance to express your views on this subject, despite the fact that a White Paper has been issued and this problem was debated in another place last May.
It is most appropriate to consider this question at this particular time as it involves the planning of the spending of tens of millions of pounds, and it would be quite wrong to embark on this type of expenditure without the most careful study and examination. I am sure that Her Majesty's Government will also welcome this chance, in the present economic conditions, to show the world that financial projects of this magnitude are now going to be re-examined most carefully. As so much has been said and written about this project I propose only briefly to outline the main points, leaving more competent and experienced speakers to deal with the different aspects in more detail.
In the first place, I refer to the Report of June, 1963, of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Third London Airport. In the foreword by the then Minister of Aviation it was stated that:
"Although the Government believe that Stansted should be selected and designated as London's third airport the primary reason for the Report was to give those affected the opportunity to consider and discuss the reasons for the choice of Stansted."
This original Inquiry into the suitability of the various sites was dominated by aviation experts. The chairman was an Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Aviation, and out of a total of 16 members of the committee, 14 were airway special-
862
ists. It is understandable that this first study should have been conducted by technical experts. But, as was to be expected, this meant an over-emphasis on the claims of this section of the community without due regard to the other interests involved, resulting in the Committee's decision that they would like Stansted as the site; and consequently they dismissed far too easily the other alternatives.
The Government of the day, although in favour of the choice of Stansted, made it clear that no final decision had been taken and that the possibilities of alternative sites would not be dismissed until after a public inquiry had been held. Sir Alec Douglas-Home wrote to Mr. R. A. Butler (as he then was) on September 13, 1964, as follows:
"It is important that this inquiry should be thorough and genuine and I want to make quite clear to you that the Government has in no way made its final decision, and cannot do so until it receives the report of the inquiry".
As the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, is speaking this afternoon he will no doubt confirm and develop this point.
In October, 1964, the present Government came into power and, through the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, properly instituted an inquiry into the local objections. After a very careful and unbiased examination, the inspector who conducted this inquiry was so impressed with the case of the local objectors that he concluded that the choice of Stansted would be a calamity for the neighbourhood and would be justified only by a national necessity, which necessity was not proved by the evidence submitted. The inspector was ably assisted by the Government's appointment of Mr. J. W. S. Brancker as a technical assessor. Mr. Brancker is one of the most eminent international consultants, and he examined the Government's technical case most thoroughly, which he found wholly unconvincing. In fact the evidence failed to pass any cross-examination. Having instituted this inquiry, Her Majesty's Government appeared to disregard completely the findings of both their inspector and technical assessor and went ahead with the choice of Stansted.
What I do not understand is why this inquiry was undertaken in the first place

863
if the findings and recommendations were to be ignored. In the final paragraph of the inspector's conclusions he stated:
"In my opinion a review of the whole problem should be undertaken by a committee equally interested in traffic in the air, traffic on the ground, regional planning and national planning. The review should cover military as well as civil aviation."
This advice was not accepted and the Government decided against a further inquiry but to hold a review, not in public this time but behind the closed doors of Whitehall, and even the composition of the committee was a secret. This review resulted in the issue of the White Paper (Cmnd. 3259) which in no way vindicated the Government's case. The whole basis of the facts and findings has been shown to be unsubstantiated or false.
I sincerely hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will tell us what check was made on the Defence Minister's estimate of £25 million for the cost of removing the firing range from Shoeburyness. I cannot think of a more unsuitable place to have a major firing range in modern Britain than in the middle of the Thames Estuary. Those noble Lords who have studied the maps showing aircraft movement in South-East England must have been as horrified as I was to find this firing range in the centre of all the different air routes, forming an invisible barrier to aircraft 20 miles long, 7 miles wide and 60,000 ft. high. Whatever is decided about a third London airport, in the interests of safety and future air travel this range must be moved to a more suitable and remote site.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will also tell us why no estimate was included in their review for the cost of removing the military airfield from Wethersfield if Stansted were chosen. I find it difficult to accept the cost of £25 million for moving an obsolete firing range and only £8 million, as stated by Mr. Jay in another place, for moving a military airfield. We all know that this unhappy decision will not only require land for the airport itself—a total of approximately 5,000 acres—but thousands of acres will be necessary to house the 100,000 people required for this development and for the schools, shops, hospitals, new factories, offices, roads, et cetera, all on farm land where productivity is 60 per cent. above the national average, with
864
an estimated loss of agricultural products of £1 million per annum.
According to standard practice, when the facts on which an inquiry has been based are materially altered, the inquiry has to be reopened and fresh conclusions drawn in the light of the new circumstances. In this case the evidence was submitted and conclusions were drawn on completely different facts. For instance, the Ministry of Aviation stated at the inquiry that the airport would have a pair of parallel runways with a possible short third runway in the distant future. Now there are to be two pairs, and only recently it has been announced that the angle of the runways is to be altered. I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that the effect of four runways positioned at a different angle completely alters the noise pattern and greatly increases the volume compared with those originally considered. This means that additional and different people will now be in an area of intolerable noise. Those people were not given a hearing at the inquiry.
In recent months there have been further projects put forward by independent experts, and I was particularly impressed by the imaginative suggestion for the development of Foulness Island. This suggestion depends on the removal of the firing range whose existence has been the main reason why Foulness was not properly considered by the various inquiries. It also assumes that Southend Airport would not be adversely affected; in fact it would be integrated into the air pattern of the new international airport. To the layman, this plan appears to have overcome the noise and nuisance problem. It does not use valuable agricultural land; in fact it reclaims land from the sea and has an unlimited area for expansion.
An attractive feature to me is that it tackles the transport problem by creating a three-tier elevated link which would include a motorway, a monorail, giving rapid access into the heart of London. It would have the additional advantage of solving the transport problem from this vast area and linking up Tilbury Docks with London and the new airport. This plan would enjoy a high safety factor, as it is an established fact that the chances of passengers surviving in an aircraft crashing on approach or take-off over

865
land is almost nil, whereas over water there is a high chance of survival, as was illustrated recently in the crash at Hong Kong when the majority of people were saved.
From the meteorological point of view, Foulness has a better record of weather conditions, of cloud and visibility statistics, than Stansted. It may be argued that this project will cost more than Stansted when the costs of the motorway and monorail are included, but the 16,000 acres of War Office land on Foulness Island, if sold after this development has taken place, will cover not only the cost of the motorway but also the cost of the airport itself. This means that a large, modern and safe airport could be built at less than the makeshift airport at Stansted.
There are two reasons why I have pressed the Government to debate this issue. The first is to draw attention to the way in which this problem of a third London airport has been handled. This is perhaps the biggest single planning decision which a Government of this country has ever had to make. Is it right for any Government, on such an important issue as this, to ride roughshod over county councils, regional and national economic planning councils, and a public protest of this magnitude? This is setting a most dangerous precedent for all future planning. The second reason I introduce this Motion is in the hope of persuading the Government to reconsider the problem in the light of the new evidence and the alterations to the regional plans put before the inquiry. We have at the moment one of the worst economic crises of the century. Surely, now is the time to show the world that vast financial propositions will not be entered into until a comprehensive feasibility study has been carried out, possibly in the form of a Royal Commission.
It has been intimated in another place that this whole question is so urgent that we cannot spare additional time for a further investigation, although I must mention that a period of one year elapsed between the inspector's report and the issue of the White Paper. The reason for this urgency was that the standard busy rate at Heathrow and Gatwick would have reached saturation point of runway capacity by 1973. But in the White Paper, paragraph 7, it was
866
shown that the sustainable hourly rate of aircraft movement had now been increased to a total of 109. This was made up of 64 for Heathrow and 45 for Gatwick. Using the Inter-Departmental Committee's Table I at page 3 of their Report, this means that saturation will not be reached until 1977. Furthermore, in the 'seventies jumbo-jets and supersonic aircraft will be coming into operation. These larger aircraft carry more passengers per flight, and this fact alone defers the need for a third London airport by at least another year, which means 1978.
In these circumstances, my Lords, we have time to examine this entire question in depth without jeopardising Britain's competitive position in world aviation. I therefore urge Her Majesty's Government to reconsider this problem, and to examine in detail the other alternative project before they force schools and hospitals to close, and thousands of acres of valuable and beautiful countryside are lost for ever. I beg to move for Papers.
3.16 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, for having initiated this most important debate to-day. In view of the tremendous interest which has been shown by, I think, 30 noble Lords who intend to speak, and because of the able way in which this debate has been introduced, I shall confine my remarks to the briefest possible.
This is certainly not a Party controversy, but I should like to enter a plea from these Benches that the Government should consider, even at this stage, changing their mind and preventing what may turn out to be a most unwise and far-reaching decision. I should perhaps say that, so far as I know, I have no interest to declare in this matter, except possibly as one who travels a great many thousands of miles a year in aircraft. But I think that in any event we should at least try to learn some of the lessons which can be learned from what has happened since the Stansted affair first came on the political scene.
So far as one can see, looking back with hindsight, a number of mistakes have been made, and indeed others are going to be made unless there is a change of view. First of all, as I believe the

867
noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, said, a mistake was made in the composition of the original committee set up in 1961. This was a technical committee, consisting almost entirely of people versed and expert in civil aviation matters, who appear to have been concerned only with the question of whether Stansted might be viable as a London airport. I believe that this was the wrong question. Instead of asking: will Stansted be all right as a London airport? they should have asked: where is the best place to put the third London airport which we shall require in the 'seventies?
What followed from that point, I believe, was that the Government accepted that Stansted should indeed be the third London airport, subject to the formality of a public inquiry. This, I think, was a fundamentally wrong approach, and typical of the way in which our Administration often works, by asking the wrong question and getting the wrong answer. I should have thought that the right answer would have been, as early as 1961, to have considered a national traffic and communications plan and to determine, as the inspector said in his Report, in the light of road, rail and other developments the best possible position for the third airport.
It seems that all along this has been treated as an airport problem, in isolation from any of the other factors which affect communications generally. Of course, few people want an international airport dumped in their midst. But I believe that we are all convinced, certainly I am, that a third airport has to be established somewhere, though I should have thought the Report by the inspector who conducted the public inquiry must throw very serious doubt indeed on the wisdom of choosing Stansted. It was a most damning document, and one I should have thought that a Government would be most irresponsible to disregard.
It may be that a new inquiry is not the right answer. I should like to know. It may well be that a Royal Commission is too unwieldy. But I should like to have it proved to me, because at the moment I should have thought that the inspector's recommendation was the one concrete proposal that we have before us. I think that one thing is certain;
868
namely, that the plans for Stansted should not be implemented until the Government have exposed to Parliament their own national communications plan, if it exists, showing how they see the road, rail and air systems being developed in the national interest, and where the third airport fits into the plan.
I think also we ought to be told the truth about the timing of this matter. Is it really true that we must take a decision immediately? As I understand it, the work would not be begun on Stansted's new runways until 1971–72 and it would not be required until about 1974. I consider that some new appraisal should be made as quickly as possible from the point of view of traffic and communications, not just in regard to the location of airports. I would ask en passant whether we ought not to be anticipating needs for the new international airports, perhaps in the Midlands and in the North, towards the end of the 1970s? When one sees how long Stansted has been discussed, it makes one wonder whether that, too, should not be part of the national communications plan.
One of the advantages which has resulted from the public outcry is the amount of work which has been done on alternative proposals. I know that one must be careful not to have too many bright ideas in this field where technical experts can trip one up, but I, like the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, was attracted to the alternative of Foulness which, apart from the disturbance which it would cause to the School of Gunnery at Shoeburyness, seems to have a great deal to commend it. It does not enroach on good agricultural land, the noise nuisance is far less (and, indeed, the reclamation of land in a small Island like this is something which appeals to me) and I do not believe the technical difficulties are so great. I gather that the major problem is the actual cost of removing the firing range. I, too, should like to query the figure of £25 million. What is it made up of? Can the noble Lord give us a breakdown? It must be a most peculiar range if it has £25 million worth of equipment there. This is a matter in which one wants to be looking a long way ahead. Are we going to need this type of firing range in seven, eight or nine years' time? These are the sorts of things which a proper feasibility

869
study should go into and should give the answers to.
One site which I have not seen mentioned at all—and there may be a good technical reason against it—is Blackbushe. This, I remember, had a very good weather record in the war, and was the sort of place you could always get into when everywhere else was fogbound. I believe that it is surrounded by Forestry Commission land. Perhaps it is not big enough, but it seems odd that one can find no reference to it in the reports.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to be basing a good deal of his case on the fact that the 1961 Committee considered only, as he put it, the viability of Stansted. Would he say where he gets this idea from?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. What I am saying is that after they had surveyed the different sites, they came down—and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—and said that Stansted is a viable airport. But I do not think they said that Stansted is the best possible choice if you are looking for a third London Airport. That is the only point I wanted to make. My plea is that the Government should demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the choice of Stansted fits correctly into a plan for the proper development of our traffic and communications to meet the requirements of the last quarter of the twentieth century. So far as I am concerned, they have failed to do so.
3.25 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): The Government have been much criticised for choosing the wrong site for the third London Airport, and for conducting the inquiries which led to this choice in a needlessly private manner, and are still being so criticised in this House. There are two quite separate points here: was the choice of Stansted the right choice? And was the choice reached in the best possible way? I shall deal with both. But first, a few general observations.
I have not hitherto heard it seriously contested that London needs a third airport. This was foreseen by those responsible as far back as 1953, when Stansted
870
was, for the first time, designated as a likely site. Since then the growth of civil aviation has followed the expected pattern. This year there will have been, in round figures, 15 million passengers using the existing London terminals, Heathrow and Gatwick. Extrapolating, we may expect that by 1974 there will be 27 million, and by 1980 43 million wishing to use whatever terminals we may have for them around London. But the number of passengers gives an exaggerated impression of the rise in demand because the size of aircraft is increasing, so the ratio of aircraft movement to passenger movements is decreasing. We may expect the number of passengers to increase three-fold by 1980, but the number of aircraft movements to increase only by 75 per cent. This latter figure is speculative for the obvious reason that the very big aircraft we are talking about are not yet in service and we do not know their turn-round times.
Stansted first began to be borne in mind as a likely site for the third airport in 1953 because a preliminary examination suggested it would be. In 1961 the then Minister of Aviation judged that the time had come to conduct the more thorough study which would be necessary either to confirm that assessment or to find a better site, since the date when Heathrow and Gatwick would be saturated was then determinable and the next step was required. The Minister appointed a committee, and this committee considered not simply whether or not Stansted was a good idea, but also, in some detail, 18 sites, including Sheppey and Foulness. The result of this more detailed examination was to confirm the earlier rough assessment that Stansted was the right place. Their report was published in 1964, and was accepted by the Government. There were immediate local objections, and this was natural. The Government therefore sent an independent inspector into Essex to conduct an inquiry into these objections. We are now at the third stage: first, the rough assessment; second, the detailed examination and choice of Stansted as the right place; and, third, the inspector.
It is very important, and I shall return to this point later, to understand that this inspector's terms of reference were not to consider the need for a third London Airport, nor to consider the best

871
site for a third London Airport, but to consider simply the objections to the proposal that the third London Airport should be at Stansted. He was not asked to inquire into the first two questions because the Government were satisfied then, on the evidence available to them, as they are satisfied now on the evidence which is now available, that a third airport was necessary and that Stansted was the best place.
The inspector concluded in effect that the construction and operation of an airport at Stansted would be unpleasant for those living in that part of the world. This has never been in dispute. An airport anywhere is unpleasant for those who live there. He went on to say, in effect, that he could not judge whether it would be more unpleasant for those living near Stansted than for those living near other possible sites, but that he thought the whole question should be reviewed yet again by a committee equally interested in air traffic, ground traffic, regional planning and national planning. This review should cover military, in his view, as well as civil aviation. The inspector's recommendation that the review should cover defence aviation now caused the Government to be faced with the following dilemma. If the review were to be conducted in public, with public submissions from public bodies and private individuals, it would not be able to examine the defence problem in any detail for obvious security reasons. If, on the other hand, it were to make a proper examination of this defence aspect, it would have to be done in private and, as we all know, private inquiries carry less conviction than public ones.
So the Government decided in 1966—and here we are at the fourth stage of the procedure—that the inspector was right and there should be yet another general review. But they decided that the defence aspect was so important—that is, that the right choice depended so much on how many defence airfields would have to be closed or reduced according to where you put your third London Airport—that, in spite of the disadvantages, this review should be conducted in private. All the interests mentioned by the inspector in his report—namely, civil and military aviation, surface transport, national and local
872
planning, as well as the economic aspects and agriculture which he had not mentioned—were represented and taken into account in this review.
Its outcome was reported in the White Paper on The Third London Airport presented in May of this year. And once again it was the same; though the disadvantages of Stansted were obvious and grave, yet they were less grave than those of any alternative site. The White Paper was debated in the House of Commons and was approved there by a substantial majority.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I put one question to the noble Lord? He has stated that an important reason for not having another inquiry in public was, as I understand it, the defence aspect. Can he say why that was not quoted as a reason in paragraph 40 of the White Paper, where totally different reasons are given for not having the inquiry?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I should imagine for reasons of length. There is such a mass of literature on this subject already that one cannot always give every reason. But even the House of Commons debate was not the end of the matter. When Mr. Crosland took over this summer as President of the Board of Trade, he naturally wished to inform himself about this hotly debated matter, and he caused work to continue in yet greater detail than before. The continuing work continued to show that Stansted had fewer disadvantages than any other site.
I will turn now to a comparison between Stansted and the three alternatives which ran it closest over the years of study and which are most commonly mentioned by knowledgeable people. The three alternatives are Sheppey, Foulness, and a possible site halfway between London and Birmingham which, for the sake of discussion, is generally taken to be the one of Silverstone. I must make it clear that when I say "Stansted" I mean what has come to be called Stansted II; that is, Stansted with the runways angled in a certain manner that will increase the cost by £8 million to £10 million but will greatly reduce the number of people who suffer inconvenience from noise. This is a local adjustment which has been proposed to be made on the

873
same site. It is shortly to be discussed between the Government and the local planning authorities. I shall now examine these four sites under the five headings of, first, construction costs; secondly, noise and amenity; thirdly, agriculture; fourthly, surface transport; and fifthly, air traffic control and defence. I shall be giving figures and I could do this in many different ways.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether he is going to quote the figures which are contained in a document which, I think, was produced by the British Airports Authority, so that I may be able to follow them?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I did not say that.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: No, my Lords. I asked the noble Lord whether they are the figures.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I did not follow the noble and learned Viscount's question.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I was asking whether the noble Lord was going to quote the figures given in a document produced by, I think, the British Airports Authority.
LORD KENNET: No, my Lords, not specifically. I was saying that I could give the figures in many different ways. The costs incurred, wherever the airport was, would be incurred over a period of years. One must have a common base date for purposes of comparison, and that date for the figures I shall give will be 1970. Before I give them, I should like the House to bear in mind, simply as a rough, subjective measure of comparison, the cost of a new hospital and of a new university. A new general hospital of 600 beds costs about £5 million. A new university for 3,000 students costs about £15 million.
I turn now to the first aspect of comparison between the four sites; that is, construction costs. Stansted would cost about £59 million, Sheppey would cost about £65 million and Foulness about the same. I should explain that when, both now and later, I say "Foulness" I refer to a Foulness Airport on dry land, as it is mentioned in the White Paper, not to one which might be built on land
874
reclaimed from the sea—an idea which has recently been discussed, especially by the Noise Abatement Society and by two speakers already this afternoon. The extra cost over Stansted, taking into account both land reclamation and extra surface transport links, of a Foulness in the sea would be perhaps £40 million. To continue now with the comparison of constructions on my four sites, the Midlands site of Silverstone might cost £62 million.
I should like to turn now to the question of noise and amenity, which is the most difficult of all to determine. First, we must get out of our heads any suggestion that people, or a majority of people, will not or do not want to live close to airports. Certainly the noise is bad, but the work and prosperity produced is good. We can see this reflected in the market price of houses close to Heathrow, which shows no appreciable deflection from the normal. We all know that people who live there object to the noise, and we all know what measures are taken to reduce it, but the fact remains that those houses are not standing empty because life is impossible, and they are not even changing hands at reduced prices because life is beastly.
The measure which has been adopted in order to make some monetary assessment of noise and amenity factors is the following. First, estimate the number of people living inside the noise and number index contour of 40; that is, the contour where people report not that life is beastly but that the noise is rather a nuisance—and, of course, it includes far more people than higher N.N.I. contours. The next calculation has been made of the number of buildings of various sorts which would, because of their nature or their closeness to the airport site itself, have to be soundproofed; and another calculation can be made of the cost of moving house to those families who minded the noise more than they liked the increase in jobs and wealth. The figures which resulted from such calculations showed that there was virtually nothing in it as between the four sites.
Now the House will no doubt feel, as we feel in the Government, that any money value which one may seek to put on amenity is bound to be unreal, and I simply mention this method of calculation as one way of thinking about this difficult matter. For my own part, I

875
would attach far more importance to the question: how many people live within the N.N.I. contour where noise is a nuisance? Because, after all, soundproofing is not going to help you when you have tea in the garden, or walk down the street or have a picnic in the woods. The answer to this question of how many people live within the relevant contour is as follows. It is estimated, in round figures, that within the 40 N.N.I. contour there live at Stansted 20,000 people, at Sheppey 36,000 people, at Foulness 24,000 people and at Silverstone 15,000 people.
Even this calculation does not tell the whole story. We all know that aircraft approaching on exactly the same path, as they have to, every few minutes make a nuisance far out beyond the line at which a single aircraft is unpleasantly loud; and we all know that aircraft have to circle in vertical stacks which may make a continuous buzz when an airport is congested. It may be that aircraft approaching Stansted will, on days of heavy traffic only, have to come in rather high over Cambridge. But to get this in proportion, I would ask the House to picture in their minds a map of the Thames Estuary, and to visualise how Foulness lies in relation to Southend and how Sheppey lies in relation to the Medway towns. They are much closer than Stansted is to Cambridge, and Southend and the Medway towns are all larger than Cambridge.
I turn next to agriculture. The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, said that the agricultural land in question at Stansted produced 60 per cent. more than the national average. So it does, indeed, but only if you include in the national average the wilderness lands and the moors and the National Parks and all the totally unproductive land. If you take it as against just the average of proper agricultural land, the difference is nothing like so great. From the point of view of agricultural land, there is very little to choose between the four sites, and I do not propose to dwell on this matter any more than is necessary to say that the agricultural land at Foulness is as good as it is at Stansted and that the land on the island of Sheppey is of lower quality than at Stansted or Foulness, but that it is most unlikely that all the extra
876
development which follows a major airport could be squeezed on to the island. It would have to overflow on to the North Kent mainland, where the agricultural land is of the very first quality; that is, better than at Stansted.
I turn now to surface transport. The new surface transport links needed for Stansted would cost about £7 million; those needed for Sheppey would cost a minimum of £27 million—and much more if, as is possible, the rail tunnels in the Medway towns had to be duplicated; at Foulness the new traffic links would cost £22 million; and at Silverstone the cost would be about the same. The journey times from Central London achievable at this cost would be as follows: Stansted, 45 to 50 minutes; Sheppey, by road, half an hour longer than Stansted, and, by rail, 15 to 20 minutes longer; and Foulness about the same as Sheppey. One must also remember where the airport traffic in each case would end up in Central London. From Stansted it can come to Kings Cross, which is quite good for the sort of places international travellers are likely to want to get to. From Foulness it would come to Fen-church Street or Liverpool Street, and you would then have many thousands of extra people every day trying to get through the City. There has been some talk of new types of surface links—monorails, and so on. These are very much unproven, and the results of a study recently carried out in Manchester into the pros and cons of using these things in built-up areas throw a lot of doubt on them. I should not myself much care to have to justify the planning decisions which would be necessary to drive one of these through either the East End or South-East London.
I will leave my noble friend Lord Beswick to explain in greater detail than I the situation about air traffic control and defence, because of his great experience in those two fields, and will say now only that this is the factor which rules out Silverstone. Silverstone appeared very attractive on many other grounds, but defence decisions were taken in the 1950s which mean that the R.A.F. now has a vast capital investment in airfields which will be affected by any major civil airport in the Midlands. Such an airport at Silverstone would necessitate the closing of eight R.A.F. airfields,

877
and would reduce the operation of thirteen others, which would leave Silver-stone at the very least £36 million down on Stansted.
Stansted may mean closing the United States air base at Wethersfield; Foulness would mean closing, and Sheppey would mean substantially reducing, the operation of the Municipal Airport at Southend. It is sometimes claimed that this would not matter because the Southend Airport could be used for housing, or some other useful development. But the air traffic which now uses Southend would have to be accommodated somewhere, either at a new minor airport or at the third London Airport itself, which would therefore suffice for the total load of traffic for a shorter time. It would shorten its life if it had to absorb Southend Airport. In other words, as regards the true social cost, the closing of Southend Airport is neither here nor there except that there is a negative money sign on the actual demolition of those buildings and the construction of others.
Both Sheppey and Foulness would involve the closing of the Army firing range at Shoeburyness and the Army would have to do its testing somewhere. The cost of moving and getting another place might be about £20 million to £25 million, which must be thrown into the balance against either estuary site. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, asked how that could be, and what the £25 million worth of buildings would amount to. That is not the whole story. There is also the question of buying the land—and it takes a lot of land to test shells—in some other place.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, am I right in thinking that the firing range was in fact moved during the war, to Llandudno? Was that very difficult?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I do not know these historical points, but the noble Lord would be right in thinking that there would be a net cost of £20 million to £25 million in moving that range.
LORD BYERS: Not over the sea.
LORD KENNET: I heard the noble Lord say, "Not over the sea". The point about this form of testing is that you have to pick up the bits.
To all these figures we have to add the fact that if the third London airport is
878
to go anywhere but to Stansted it is going to arrive later, because there must be many months of further examinations and inquiries. It is hard to cost this, but the attempt has been made and we must add about £10 million for delay for either Sheppey or Foulness. That must be done, because in any of these other cases we should be overrunning the saturation date for Heathrow and Gatwick and must reckon with an overall loss of international air traffic from this country to others, particularly France.
My Lords, the figures I have been giving are not gospel. They cannot be. But because the Government are better placed than anybody else to take all factors into account—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Why?
LORD KENNET: Noble Lords ask, "Why?" It is because the Government are at the centre and are able to call for facts from all quarters—a fact which is not true of any other possible assessor of this situation. Because the Government have more staff available, and because that staff has been working uninterruptedly on this problem for the last six years, we must accept that these figures reflect the true reality of social costs and social benefits more closely than and other figures we have got or shall get.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, would the Minister allow me to interrupt him? If the Government Lave so much staff who have worked so hard to get these figures out, how is it that we cannot have more details of the £25 million?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, security would be—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD KENNET: Noble Lords laugh, but perhaps those who have had anything to do with the testing of weapons will realise there is a point here.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his Department, in a letter, have been given particulars of the break-up of the £25 million cost, and that in a short time I hope to reveal them to the House?
LORD KENNET: I am well aware of the fact that my Department have received those figures, but I am not at the moment in a position to say whether they can be revealed to the House.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: But the noble Lord's Department have been given these figures.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, we are having a long debate and I should like to continue. Noble Lords who interrupt will have a chance of speaking. It is this fact—namely, the fact that these are the best figures we have got or shall get—which I think justifies me in informing the House that, with all reservations about unknown factors and about human fallibility, the overall difference in cost between Stansted and the other three sites is as follows: Sheppey would cost £31 million more; Foulness, on land—the cheaper Foulness—would cost £35 million more; and Silverstone would cost at the very least £62 million more. I would remind the House of what I said earlier: for purposes of comparison, a new hospital costs £5 million and a new university £15 million.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? For the purposes of those figures, has he capitalised the future value of the agricultural production from Stansted, or not? Is that included, or not?
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords.
In recent days the decision to adopt Stansted has been criticised by many bodies, as well as by private individuals. The two bodies to whose criticism we must pay the greatest attention are the South East Regional Economic Planning Council and the Standing Conference of South Eastern Local Authorities. Both these have levelled their criticism not so much against the choice of Stansted as against the fact that they were not brought sufficiently into the consultations, and have asked that from now on they would be consulted on the planning of Stansted and on all the consequences of that for the surrounding area. I should like to say now that they will be consulted, and the Government look forward to fruitful consultations with these bodies on the remaining stages of the planning.
Having said that, I must admit that the way in which consultations and inquiries in this whole history have been handled has not been as good as could have been wished; but, and this is the point, it has been as good as could be
880
achieved under existing law and practice. I have already described how the defence factor made it necessary for the Government to carry out the review called for by the inspector in private and not by means of a public inquiry. Defence matters must always, to a certain extent, be treated in this way. But there is another aspect in which the Government hope to be able to effect some improvements in future. At present our planning law lays it down—and practice in extra-statutory inquiry conforms with it—that the only way to apply for planning permission is for the would-be developer to ask for the answer "Yes" or "No" to a given development at a site named "A". The machinery then swings into action; the inspector hears objections and the Ministry, in due course, gives the answer, "Yes" or "No." For the very great majority of planning applications this is the best way; but for a few very large developments—and I would include the third London airport in that class—and perhaps for a few developments of a new type which raise unfamiliar questions, normally of a technical nature, this procedure is not sufficient.
For that reason, in the Town and Country Planning Bill which will shortly be laid before Parliament, the Government propose to introduce a new system which will enable someone wishing to initiate a development which is either very large or is of a very unfamiliar nature, and which raises questions of a national or regional and not only local importance, to make an initial application without specifying a particular site.* An inquiry can then be held into the preliminary question of where such a development should go and reasons may be heard for putting it on sites, "A", "B", "C", or "D". This preliminary inquiry will then choose one of those sites and then there will be a second inquiry of the familiar local type into the local objections or considerations affecting the site chosen. It is obvious that such a wider system will better tend to ensure that the right place is chosen and that the reasons for its choice are fully understood by all who may be affected. I should not like to leave this subject without recording my
* See OFFICIAL REPORT for Wednesday, 13th December, col. 1105.
own conviction—and, I believe, the conviction of all those who have been able to observe this matter developing at the centre—that if such a procedure had been in existence while the third London Airport question was being considered, it would not have come up with any other choice than Stansted; and, in view of what I have already said, perhaps the House may agree with me in this. But what this alternative procedure would have done would have been to carry a far greater section of informed and fair-minded opinion with it.
Finally, my Lords, I am not so optimistic as to suppose that I shall have carried all of your Lordships with me in what I have been saying. But to those who remain unconvinced I would say this: Is your objection based on a truly-informed and objective conclusion that some other site is better than Stansted? Or, on the other hand, is your objection based simply on your knowledge and love of Stansted and the country around it and this feeling that an airport there will bring bad consequences for the neighbourhood? If so, I should agree with you that it will. It will also, of course, bring good consequences in greater wealth and opportunities around. But this I admit—and the Government have always admitted it—it will bring bad consequences, too. If your objection is based solely on this and not on any comparison of these bad consequences with the bad consequences which would flow from the choice of any other site, I would ask you most earnestly to consult your consciences as to whether you should continue to oppose the Stansted decision. Because Stansted has been chosen, we know what the opposition has to say; we do not know what the opposition to Foulness or Sheppey would have to say, because they have not been chosen. But we may guess that it would be very much the same. This Chamber is not a place for gladiatorial contests between the representatives of limited local interests or between them and the Government; it is part of a national Legislature where wise decisions must be reached in the national interest alone.
3.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I have listened to the noble Lord with a considerable amount of sympathy because often in the past I have had to bat on
882
a sticky wicket, as he has had to do to-day. I sympathise with him because I think that in a debate of this magnitude and importance some member of the Cabinet (who have a collective responsibility for this matter) should have been put up to speak. My approach to this matter is, I hope, objective. I have no interest in Essex; I have never lived there; I have been to Stansted only on two or three occasions. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, at the end of his speech posed two questions. One was, "Can you suggest an even better site than Stansted?" My difficulty is that I do not think it is for us—nor do I think it was for the objectors at the local inquiry—to produce better sites. My complaint is that there has been no thorough examination by all the interests concerned to see whether there is a better site.
One of the difficulties in dealing with this matter is that every time there is a debate, every time there is a Government statement, every time a new Paper is produced, the facts are always altered. I do not blame the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for that; but I will at this stage give one simple instance. He said in the course of his speech that it would take 45 to 50 minutes to get to Stansted by road. At the public inquiry, the Ministry's case was that it would take 60 minutes. And that was completely exploded.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I hope the noble Viscount will forgive me for interrupting. I do not think I said it would take 45 to 50 minutes to get to Stansted by road. I believe I said that it would take 45 to 50 minutes to get there.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I assume that if the noble Lord was talking, about Stansted, then he meant "to get to Stansted". I cannot think otherwise what meaning can be given to his statement.
My Lords, I was glad to hear, as I live only three miles from Silverstone, the noble Lord's emphatic and persuasive rejection of that as an alternative site. But he went on to say that the cost of building rail transport from Foulness to London would be £22 million and that the same would apply to Silverstone. I simply cannot accept those figures. Silverstone is only about 15 or 16 miles

883
from the M.1, and a lesser distance from the electrified line to Crewe. It cannot cost as much as it would to build an entirely new line to Foulness over a distance of 50-odd miles. I give these two immediate instances of how difficult it is to accept the statements of facts and figures presented by the Government.
LORD KENNET: Perhaps I may make a further interruption. The noble and learned Viscount is introducing his own facts and figures with the idea of a construction of a new railway line the whole 50 miles from London to Foulness.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord gave no details of how he arrived at his cost. But I should have thought that, on any view, with the road system as it is at present, to say that it would be necessary to spend £22 million to connect Silverstone with the M.1, or to construct a rail spur, was wholly unrealistic. I shall have more to say about costs later, as this has been introduced as one of the major arguments against the suggestion.
My Lords, I have risen to speak on this Motion because I think that the issues are not just local. I do not want to be critical in any Party sense, or to make any Party points, but I think the issues raised are of very great national importance. I attach some importance to the fact (I should have thought that the noble Lord would have attached some importance to it, but he did not deal with it) that in this case there have been breaches of well-recognised procedures; and that I regard as a serious matter. Also, I do not feel that it has yet been demonstrated that the decision to build a great airport at Stansted is right in the national interest. Despite what the noble Lord has said, I hope that what is said in your Lordships' House to-day will not be without effect and that the Government, even now, will pay some attention to the views of this House.
I was glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, did not produce the argument that time would not permit of a further proper and thorough inquiry. My Lords, I shall seek to show, as the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, did, that if that is put forward as an excuse for not having the inquiry which
884
everyone wants it is really not an excuse that could be accepted. To-day we hear, for the first time, that the reason why it could not be held, although it would be an inquiry of the sort the inspector was recommending, is the defence interests involved, which would have to be dealt with in private and in secrecy. I find that very astonishing. May I remind your Lordships of paragraph 40 of the White Paper published in May, 1967? It said:
"The Government decided against an independent commission. In the first place, a decision either for or against Stansted was becoming urgent. Furthermore the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Third London Airport had already made a thorough examination of the question in 1962 and 1963; the subsequent publication of their report and the public inquiry itself gave an ample and well-used opportunity to all interests outside the Government to put forward their own points of view. Accordingly, nothing useful seemed likely to be achieved by initiating a further round of public discussion of the same material. Not only would such a procedure inevitably be very time-consuming but it would also have involved both the Government and all the other interested parties in renewed work and expense in preparing and submitting evidence; and at the end of the day the decision would still have been for the Government to make."
There is not a single word there about defence interests making it impossible to hold that inquiry in public. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in answer to an interjection said something to the effect that one could not put everything on paper. But it would require only one sentence to give that reason. It is not there. That is why I say that those who are feeling critical about Stansted are always finding that the arguments are altered. I am not attacking the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. No doubt he has been fully briefed on this subject, but he has been briefed to put up an argument not contained in the White Paper; and even if it had been it would, I think, have carried very little credibility because defence interests did come within the scope of a public inquiry and were dealt with there. It would be perfectly easy, as it was with that public inquiry, not to allow that inquiry to develop into the consideration of anything that was secret. It happened at one public inquiry and I cannot think why it should not happen at another one.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I always ask that we should have more

885
information about military affairs, but will not the noble and learned Viscount be fair on this point, and admit that my noble friend Lord Kennet did say that eight airfields would be affected; and the difficulty about having a public inquiry would be that one would have to say exactly what those airfields were being used for, what equipment was on them and why it was so difficult to move them?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I do not accept that in the least. It was not said, with regard to Wethersfield, what equipment was on that aerodrome, or anything of that kind. The information was given in a White Paper, and could have been given at a public inquiry, and I have no doubt that that information would have been accepted. So, my Lords, I cannot accept that pretext as a valid pretext for not holding the inquiry which the inspector recommended.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that no one had seriously contested that a third London airport was necessary. I think that is the first question which has to be considered; and the second one is, as I would put it: if so, is Stansted the right place for it? With regard to the first question, the curious thing is that it does not appear to have been the subject of any real consideration at any time. It appears to have been assumed over the years that if the capacity at Heathrow and Gatwick were exhausted, then it would necessarily follow that there should be a third London airport. The White Paper published in 1953 proposed that Stansted should be held in reserve in case of an additional airport to Heathrow and Gatwick being needed later. But then the Estimates Committee of 1960–61 questioned the expenditure on Stansted, and that led to the appointment of the 1963 Committee.
That Committee were asked to consider, not where the third airport should best be placed in the whole country—nothing of that sort; they were appointed:
"to consider the requirements for a third London airport, including timing and location."
The Chairman of that Committee was a Mr. Hole, then Under-Secretary at the Ministry of Aviation and now chief executive in the British Airports Autho-
886
rity; and as the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, said, 16 members of that Committee—all except two—were concerned with aviation. There was one civil servant from the Ministry of Transport and an assistant secretary from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The committee were well constituted to consider whether a third airport would be wanted, and when it would be wanted—and here I disagree slightly with the noble Lord, Lord Byers. I think the first matter to tackle would be to consider when more facilities for aircraft would be required than could be given to Heathrow and Gatwick.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, will the noble Viscount be kind enough to give way one moment more? He is now going back over this hoary criticism that the second Inter-Departmental Inquiry was overloaded with aviation people. I hope that he will come on to the fact, which I mentioned in my speech, that the third one contained representatives of all those interests which the inspector said it should, and two more. On the point about whether there had to be a third London airport, and that there could not be a third English airport, I would refer him to paragraphs 18 to 23 of the White Paper.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: If the noble Lord really interrupted me to know whether I should deal with certain matters it does not encourage me to give way again. I certainly propose to deal with all those matters; but I wish, if I may, to deal with this matter first, because I think it is an important matter in the background.
I quite agree that the Committee were well constituted—I am not criticising that—to consider the question of a third air-part from the point of view of the use of aircraft. But, my Lords, I do not think that anyone could suggest that the Committee were an appropriate body to consider all the factors which ought to be taken into account in deciding where the airport should be placed. None the less, that Committee thought fit to express their views on planning matters and on transport facilities to and from London. It appears from their Report that they would have liked to have a third airport which was (if I may use the word which appears in their Report,

887
but which my noble friend Lord Cones-ford may not like) omnidirectional, as indeed Gatwick and Heathrow are. But they were prepared to sacrifice that important requirement because they agreed that no site outside one hour's journey from Central London—and they meant Grosvenor Square—should be considered unless there was shown to be no alternative. They said that Stansted
"… appears to be the only one that will meet the criterion of one hour's travelling time from the West End."
This statement was shown at the public inquiry not to be justified.
I put this question—and I hope that we shall have an answer to it from the noble Lord, Lord Beswick: Why should it be assumed, when the capacity of Heathrow and Gatwick become insufficient, that a third London airport is the answer? If we take into account all the factors, may not the right answer be to have it farther away, where it can be omnidirectional, and perhaps may be conveniently sited for some other centres of population? It was not considered at that stage whether there was any other possibility except a third London airport.
When Mr. Blake was appointed to hold his inquiries, his terms of reference expressly stipulated that objectors were not to question the need for a further major airport serving London. It might be said that it was inappropriate for considering this at the public local inquiry, but it was at that stage, before the public local inquiry, that there should have been the kind of preliminary inquiry to which the noble Lord now refers, when planning and all other interests affected should have met to consider what would be the best. Nothing would have prevented that under the existing law. Then there could have been a local public inquiry to hear local objections. One question which ought to be borne in mind is surely the question whether, when we take into account all the costs, the price to be paid by the community is not too high. And we must not give precedence to aviation.
Before I leave the Committee's Report, there are one or two passages to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. The Committee said that:
"Stansted … lies in an area offering scope for large-scale population growth."
888
None of the planning authorities agreed with that. They said:
"An enlarged airport at Stansted would inevitably stimulate residential development in the area. The airport itself might ultimately employ some 7,000 to 10,000 people; if allowance is made for families and for employment created indirectly by the airport, a population growth of between 25,000 and 50,000 could well be expected. In addition to this, the airport, together with the new motorway, would greatly enhance Stansted's attractiveness as an area for the development of commerce and industry and would make the locality a strong candidate for a planned increase in population on a larger scale."
The planning authorities responsible are all against any such development.
The Committee said that the new airport must be ready by about 1973. That was based on their view that the capacity of Heathrow and Gatwick would prove to be insufficient. They assumed that a second runway would be built at Gatwick. That was proposed in 1963. In the White Paper of 1967, four years later, it was said that it was not certain whether that would materialise, and that it might be subject to a public inquiry. Then in June, 1967, the then President of the Board of Trade said in another place that it would be built. I ask to be told: Has nothing been done about that? It will certainly be wanted before a new airport with parallel runways, and it looks a little odd to argue about the necessity of building Stansted if nothing has yet been done about a second runway at Gatwick.
I think that it is important to note what the Committee really meant when they said that a third London airport would be required by about 1973. They did not mean that an airport with two runways would be wanted then. That is made clear beyond all doubt on page 15 of their Report, where they say:
"The full effect on airspace of Stansted's operations will not, however, be felt until, some years after it has come into use as the third London airport, the growing traffic requires a parallel runway system, that is, probably not before the late 1970s."
I ask your Lordships to note those last words. So it would appear that all that would be required from about 1963 to the late 1970s is use of the existing runways at Stansted; and if a second runway will not be wanted till then, does not that make nonsense of the argument that there is not time to investigate the whole question properly?

889
Now I come to the public inquiry. At that inquiry, three members of the Committee of 1963 gave evidence in support of the Ministry's case. It was presented by no less an advocate than Sir Milner Holland. He did not call a single witness with authority to speak on planning questions. Perhaps no planning expert would support the proposal. The inspector reported that all the evidence submitted to him was to the effect that a development of this kind in this area would be bad regional planning. I have read the inspector's report. It shows that the Ministry's case as then presented was shot to pieces, and that the Committee's Report of 1963, if I may use an expression which the noble and gallant Field Marshal Lord Montgomery of Alamein frequently uses, was "hit for six."
I will not remind your Lordships about many of the observations in that Report, except this. In relation to noise, the Committee presided over by Mr. Hole said:
"Bishop's Stortford and other large communities nearby will not be subjected to discomfort from the noise of aircraft using the airport.
The selection of Stansted would provide an excellent opportunity for the co-ordinated planning of the airport and nearby residential and industrial zones so as to avoid the noise problems that have created so much difficulty at Heathrow."
They said that it would not create a "serious noise problem."
When we get to the inquiry we find that it is thought there will be a serious noise problem. The inspector's report makes it clear beyond doubt that the noise for many people will be quite intolerable. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, indicated that wherever we put the airport that is likely to be the case. But I do not take that view. In considering what is the cost of Stansted, surely all its costs should be taken into account. A good deal of what I had been proposing to say has already been said, but I find it difficult to accept the statements in the White Paper, bearing in mind that it says that the 1963 Committee's Report
"constituted a comprehensive and searching reexamination of the many complex issues."
In the light of the inspector's report, I do not see how that Committee's Report can be so regarded.
890
Now I come to the part to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred, to the review after the inspector's report. Who conducted that review? Who were its members? We have not been told. Were they all civil servants? We know who served on the 1963 Committee. Mr. Jay, President of the Board of Trade, said that one of the members of the 1963 Committee served upon this reviewing body. Did any of those who gave evidence for the Ministry at the public inquiry serve upon it? May we be told? It seems to me a very curious thing to have had anyone who served on the 1963 Committee, or who gave evidence in the support of the Ministry's case at the public inquiry, taking part in this searching and independent re-examination. I should like to make it clear that I am not questioning the sincerity of any member of the 1963 Committee or of any of the witnesses for the Ministry at the inquiry, but they were proved to be wrong in many respects. It seems to me odd, to say the least, that any of them should have been asked to participate in this further review.
When I read the White Paper, the first thing that struck me about it was that it was putting forward a very different case from that put forward by the 1963 Committee. The method of forecasting the capacity of Gatwick and Heathrow is entirely altered. They concluded that a third airport would be wanted in 1974 or 1976. It did not seem to me from reading that—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will deal with this point—that two more runways will then be, required. I do not understand this conclusion in the White Paper to involve the rejection of the 1963 Committee's view, that a second runway at Stansted wall not be required until the late 1970s.
Then the White Paper (and this is the first time we get an attempt to do it) attempts to show that the third airport must be near London. I find it not uninteresting to note that only air traffic requirements were considered, and not the wider aspects of the problem. Then it is, as the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, indicated, that for the first time this White Paper put forward or revealed that the real plan was to build at Stansted not two runways, but four runways—two sets of parallel runways. Can Stansted be developed to hold two

891
pairs of parallel runways? This has never been investigated. At the public inquiry there was no mention of it. Surely, if that is the plan, it must necessarily involve that a further inquiry should be held, and also that the first inquiry was really a waste of time.
What would be the extra men involved, and the extra noise? The assessor, Mr. Brancker, to whom reference has been made, has written that:
"If a second pair of runways is to be added, then the picture will be changed radically, and areas which were not considered at all at the inquiry will become subject to higher noise value."
Then the White Paper goes on to consider a number of alternatives, including such as Silverstone, not even suggested at the inquiry.
We have heard a lot about cost to-day. No evidence of cost was given at the inquiry, but now it is—to try to help make out the case for Stansted. We have heard a lot about the cost of moving the Shoeburyness artillery range. We are told that it is £25 million, and that this really rules out Foulness. On October 13, 1967, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government wrote a letter which gave details of how that £25 million was arrived at. A figure of £4·3 million was attributed to the cost of building a sea wall if they moved to a new location—although, of course, not knowing where they would go to, they would not know at the time when these costs were estimated whether they would want a sea wall at all. It is figures of this kind which make one doubt all the figures about cost which have been used in the White Paper, and used again to-day.
Before I come to say more about cost, I find that the Government's approach at this stage is one of which I cannot avoid being very critical, and for this reason. When we had the Franks Committee, that Committee reported that
"a Minister should be under a statutory duty to submit to the parties concerned for their observations any factual evidence, whether from his own or another Department, or from an outside source, which he obtains after the inquiry."
Here, from what I have mentioned of the contents of the White Paper—the reference to alternative sites not considered by the inquiry, the cost, and many other indications—it seems clear that a lot of
892
information was obtained after the inquiry. After the Franks Committee reported the Ministry of Housing and Local Government sent out a circular which said:
"If new factual evidence is brought to the Minister's notice from any source after the inquiry, and in his view it may be a material factor in the decision, he will give the parties an opportunity of commenting on it. If the Minister considers it necessary, the inquiry will be reopened."
Your Lordships will remember all the controversy in which my predecessor as Lord Chancellor was engaged over the chalk-pit case. That inquiry was also a planning inquiry, but not a statutory inquiry, and the Council on Tribunals took a part, with the result that Regulations were made which provide really for what the Franks Committee reported should be done. In two recent cases—with regard to the gas station at Bacton and the hoverport at Pegwell Bay—the inquiry has been reopened. But in this far more important instance, the Minister and the Government have not given the parties at the inquiry an opportunity of commentting on the new matter contained in the White Paper, and commenting before the decision was arrived at; nor have they reopened the inquiry. All that has happened has been the production of the White Paper containing the decision to go ahead. The Stansted Inquiry, though a planning inquiry, was not what is called a statutory planning inquiry, and the rules which had been made did not apply. It is upon this ground, as I understand it, that the Government did not comply with them in these respects.
The Franks Committee and the Council on Tribunals were concerned with the broad principles of justice. Everyone would consider it monstrous that after a case had been heard judgment should be based on matters which had not come out at the trial. Yet is not that what has happened here? On a matter of such great importance, I submit that on that ground alone the inquiry should have been reopened; and it may well be that when tested in cross-examination some of the statements in the White Paper could be shown to be as ill-founded as some of the statements in the 1963 Committee's Report.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount what material it is that he is referring to as having been received after the inquiry?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord has only to see what matters were considered at the inquiry and what is referred to in the White Paper. First of all, on the cost element, there was no evidence given as to cost at the inquiry. Now we are asked to accept, without any cross-examination or testing, differing figures on cost. As to the £25 million, there was no evidence before the inquiry about the alternative sites, such as Silver-stone. If the noble Lord wants to look further, if he looks at the appendix to the White Paper he will see that reference is there made to information given after the inquiry by way of confirmation from British Railways.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, all these were the matters considered at the review which had been called for by the inspector. Does the noble and learned Viscount consider that the Government should have refused the inspector's suggestion that there should be a review?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I do not think the Government complied in the least degree with the inspector's recommendation. There has been no evidence that they complied with it. We are not told even who conducted the review.
LORD KENNET: The noble and learned Viscount—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to continue. He did not like it when I interrupted him once, but I have given way to him a great many times. The point I was making is that, quite apart from that, there is an obligation, where there has been the public inquiry, to comply with the requirements of the Franks Committee Report, the Ministry of Health Circular, and with the principle of the thing in broad justice to those affected. That has not been complied with. That is my charge, and I stand by it.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount is kind enough to yield again. First he complains that additional matter is taken into account after the inquiry, at the review, and then he complains that there is no evidence that the Government have accepted the inspector's recommendation that there should be a review. I wonder which he means.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will later read what I said, he will see that it is not contradictory. I do not mind the Government's taking into account matters and information which come to them after a review.
LORD KENNET: I am glad to hear it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord really should contain himself. What I was saying is that, if they do, they are under an obligation, before reaching a decision, to give the parties who took part in the inquiry an opportunity of commenting upon that new information, and, if need be, of reopening the inquiry. I am surprised that the noble Lord, who I believe has some connection with the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, should not be aware that this principle is accepted by his Department.
May I now come to another matter? The Standard Regional Planning Conference, formed in 1962, which has on it the chief planning officers of the Greater London Council, was never consulted; nor was the Regional Economic Planning Council, but in another place the Government sought to excuse themselves by saying that they could not consult them without breach of what I call the "chalkpit rules". It seems to me that the Government, in refraining from consulting them, have sought to take advantage of the rules, which they have broken in other important respects.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I hate to interrupt the noble Viscount again but I presume he does know, does he not that the Regional Economic Planning Council was not set up in time to be consulted?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I do not accept that it was not set up in time to be consulted. Certainly it was not set up before the public inquiry, but it has not been consulted yet.
My Lords, I know that I have taken a long time, but I have been interrupted a good deal and there are one or two other matters that I should like to deal with in this context, because the White Paper stated that the development order would shortly be laid before Parliament. That was in May. Now we are told that the reason for the delay is the

895
realignment of the runways, which is being considered with a view to eliminating noise which, according to the 1963 Committee's Report, would be no obstacle. This means that the existing runway at Stansted would be scrapped, extra costs would be involved and the cost estimates would have to be revised. But it means more than that, as the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, said, because noise will be inflicted on people unaffected by the use of the runways proposed at the time of the inquiry. They did not object then, but they may want to object now; and, as I understand it, they are not to be given an opportunity of doing so. We are told now that the local authorities will be consulted. Consultation after the decision is no substitute for consultation before. I really do not think this will do.
Reference has been made to Foulness and other places. I am not going to suggest that another place is better than Stansted (I do not feel that I am competent to do so), but what I do say is that there has been no thorough examination of the other alternatives. I have received two massive publications, one dealing with Foulness Island and the other with building an airport on the adjoining sands. It is true that in each case the plan would involve the closing of the Shoeburyness artillery range. I understand there is a very good officers' mess there, but I gather that the rest of it is pretty obsolete. On account of the artillery range, consideration of Foulness appears to have been ruled out, but it would seem to me to be more in the national interest to move that artillery range than to create this great airport at Stansted.
I have been given a paper, which I was interested to see, in view of the noble Lord's comments. I have seen the noise and N.N.I. figures for Foulness from either angle. I understand that this document which I have in my hand was produced on the authority of the British Airports Authority. In this document it is said that noise would affect greatly Southend, Rochford, Rayleigh, Thorpe Bay, Shoeburyness and Leigh-on-Sea. When you look at those contours you find that it would not affect any of them if the runways were aligned in the same way as they are proposed to be aligned at Stansted. In this document
896
it is said that Foulness Island is ruled out because the land there is very good agricultural land. So it is. But the Ministry of Defence control a great deal of it, and 60 per cent. of it can be used only for growing grass.
As to cost, while figures were given of costs, they have never been examined, although there was some effort at the inquiry to agree upon them, without success. I regard the arguments on that aspect, as so far advanced, as thoroughly unconvincing, and one of the things I am hoping is that someone, even now, will be appointed to make a proper and full inquiry. We were told by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that the Government really knew best; that they had more civil servants. I do not question the latter statement, but all these matters should be inquired into by an independent body, not just by civil servants. This has often been done in the past. Judges have often been required to act as chairmen of inquiries into such matters. Why should that not happen here, even now? If the result, after full consideration of this matter by a body which did not contain on it those who had previously formed opinions, was that Stansted was the answer as the noble Lord thinks it would be, I think the public would accept it. But as the matter stands now, I, for one, cannot think that the case for Stansted is proven.
In conclusion I should like to deal with one other matter. It may be said by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, when he comes to reply, that time will not permit of such an inquiry. This sort of argument does not come very well from a Government who have occupied so much time upon this matter, but I remember having been appointed, with the Lord President of the Council, to serve on a committee with an even bigger task than this committee would face. After the war we were both appointed to an Anglo-American Committee to consider and report upon problems of European Jewry and of Palestine. We were asked to complete that task in three months, and we did so. I cannot believe that, in the light of all the information that has now been gained, an impartial committee, presided over by a judge, would take a very long time to investigate and report upon this matter.
If I am right in thinking, as I have been told, that the White Paper itself

897
shows that the capacity of Heathrow and Gatwick will not be exceeded until 1978, Stansted will not be wanted at all until that time; and there is one runway which could be used then. It took five years to build Gatwick from scratch. If we allow six or seven years, say, for the building of Stansted, that brings us to 1971 or 1972. Is it not ridiculous to assert that time does not permit of a proper inquiry? I hope that the Government, even at this stage, will listen to the plea I have put forward, a plea which has been expressed by many bodies. But if they are not prepared to do so, I comfort myself with the thought that the final decision rests with Parliament, and if the Government persist in a decision which is generally regarded as thoroughly bad, and which certainly has not been proved to be a good one, I hope that Parliament will not approve.
The White Paper said with regard to Stansted:
"The loss of land would be part of the high price to be paid for the benefits of the airport to the nation".
It has yet to be demonstrated that the price to the nation of putting the airport at Stansted does not far exceed the benefits which would result. It has yet to be demonstrated that another site, taking into account all the relevant factors and not just air traffic, is not more suitable. As I say, I hope that, even at this stage, the Government will have second thoughts and decide that there must be a further inquiry before this project goes ahead; and if the Government so decide I, for one, shall think it not a sign of weakness but a sign of wisdom. I apologise to your Lordships for having made the longest speech I have ever made in your Lordships' House.
4.42 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, unlike the noble and learned Viscount to whose very powerful speech we have all listened with such interest, I have a personal interest to declare in this matter in that I am a resident and a farmer not all that far from Stansted itself. My home, I gather, will be in the area of aircraft stacking and therefore will be subject to some nuisance. I was at one time chairman of the group of hospitals, one of which is in Bishop's Stortford, affected by this scheme. And I have a very great love born in my childhood from
898
bicycle rides in that area, of places like Thaxted and the other lovely parts of that countryside. So I approach this problem with a considerable bias against the proposal to make Stansted the third international airport of London.
When, not long ago, I found myself in the Board of Trade, in the Ministry responsible for this particular project (although I myself had no departmental responsibility for it) I thought it right that I should look into it with considerable care. I will admit immediately that even three years in Government had not entirely dispelled from my mind the belief, which I believe some of your Lordships share, that it is occasionally possible for officials to subordinate the welfare of the public to departmental and administrative convenience. So I did not go into this matter with a completely unbiased mind; I was hoping—I confess this quite frankly—that I should find my suspicions that Stansted was a bad place would be confirmed. But I did not. Having gone into it as carefully as I could at that time, I came to the conclusion that although Stansted was far from being an ideal site for a third London airport it was, in the circumstances that obtained at that time, in 1964—and that still obtain to-day—the least bad of any of the areas that presented themselves.
We have heard a great deal about independent experts and how important it is that this matter should be submitted to independent experts—the assumption being, of course, that the officials who originally looked into this matter were not independent but were, for some reason or other, already prejudiced in favour of Stansted. In the initial stages, as my noble friend Lord Kennet has made very clear, there were a great many areas which were looked at, a great many potential sites which were investigated; and the people who looked into this were, in their different ways—and they comprised a very wide range of people—all experts, and they were all completely independent, in that none of them had any particular reason for favouring or opposing any particular site. The answer they came to was that in the circumstances Stansted was the right place; and the arguments put forward in support of this view were manifold and very detailed indeed. It would be pure waste

899
of your Lordships' time if I rehearsed those arguments. Most of them you have already heard, very ably expressed by my noble friend. Others of them I am sure you will hear from my noble friend Lord Beswick at the end of this debate, whenever that may take place; and from the look of it it will be at a fairly late hour.
What I should like to deal with briefly now is not so much whether or not Stansted should be the third international airport—because, as I say, we have heard the arguments in favour; we shall hear more, and I personally believe that it is the best—but what lessons we can learn from this (as I freely admit it to be) sadly mismanaged affair, and how we can organise our affairs so that in the future we do not have to make use of what I describe as being the best possible site or the least bad site in to-day's circumstances, but we can in fact choose the ideal site and make sure that the country gets, in fact, the best, instead of what is only a second or third best.
The first point I would deal with, of the two lessons for us to learn, has already to a large extent, I am glad to say, been answered by my noble friend Lord Kennet. That is the question of a public inquiry. Of course, public inquiries are essential in any planning matters of this sort, in any matters involving compulsory powers of purchase or utilisation of land—the type of thing with which my noble friend's Ministry concerns itself so much, as do other Government Departments. But what is suitable to inquire into regarding the desirability of making use of one site or another, or one particular site for a particular project, in one locality is clearly of no use at all when it is something which is undoubtedly going to arouse a great deal of local opposition wherever the project may take place. We know perfectly well that if Stansted had not been chosen, if the choice had been Sheppey, or Foulness, or Silverstone, or anywhere else, the local inquiry there, with the opposition rightly and naturally engendered to it by local inhabitants, would have been such that it would have been almost impossible for the inquiry to come up with a result other than it did for Stansted; that is to say, for the locality it is a bad thing and it can be justified only if overriding national interest makes it necessary.
900
In these circumstances, I think it is essential that we should with the least possible delay develop a new form of inquiry for matters of this sort, where not only local objections are listened to but where it is open to, if not incumbent upon, those who object locally to propose alternative sites for this proposed development, and where those areas which have been proposed as alternatives are given due warning that they are down to be named and so have an opportunity of presenting their case, either agreeing or disagreeing. Until we have that form of public inquiry, I do not see that it will serve any more useful purpose than it has done in the case of Stansted. As I say, my noble friend has given an indication that the Government are already working in this way. I am extremely glad to hear it, and I sincerely congratulate him and his Department on learning this lesson so surprisingly quickly.
The second and more important lesson that we should learn is the need for having really long-term and comprehensive planning for any projects of this kind. I have no desire to make a Party political point here, because I admit quite freely that it could well have happened had we been in power at the time instead of noble Lords opposite, but the great error in the siting of Stansted arose not in 1964 or 1965 and in the years which followed from then—although there were errors and stupidities, I freely admit—but in the 'fifties, when we should have been looking at a comprehensive transport plan for the whole country; and, coupled with that comprehensive transport plan, we should have been looking at our defence plans and at our industrial development plans also.
So far as air transport is concerned, the primary object is to transport people as rapidly as possible to as near as they can be landed to the area where they wish to go. There is no point in bringing people from Rome or New York who wish to go to London and depositing them in Newcastle, Manchester or Edinburgh. You must put them as near to the centre of London as you can. Assuming, as I do, and accepting the arguments that have been put forward that there will be need for more people to be landed close to the centre of the City of London in the mid-1970s than

901
Gatwick and Heathrow can possibly provide for, we must have an airport which is as close to the centre of London as possible.
Your Lordships know perfectly well that geographical distances are not the only or, indeed, the most important criteria. There may be places which are miles further from the centre of London, but because of access into London, either by road or by rail, the journey takes a shorter time than if you put the passengers down closer. I would also say that the modern air traveller and the traveller of the future is going to be more inclined to travel from the airport to his appointment by road than to have the nuisance of getting on to a train and then getting out at Victoria Station or King's Cross Station, or wherever it may be. So we must concentrate increasingly on means of road access.
Secondly, although the majority of passengers want to come to London, there are many who wish to go to the Midlands—to Birmingham, Manchester, Coventry and further North. Therefore, the ideal site for a third London airport from that point of view would, if the noble and learned Viscount will forgive me, be quite close to his own home. At least it should be somewhere in the neighbourhood of Silverstone or Luton, in that general area North of London, between London and Birmingham, close to the good main line to Euston, close to the good main road, the M.1, which possibly might have to be strengthened and enlarged in order to take the extra transport. Had this plan been thought out in the 'fifties, in my submission that would have been the ideal spot. Furthermore, again with respect to the noble and learned Viscount, there are areas there which are not famous for their great natural beauty or for the unspoiled character of their rural amenities.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord does not know the country round there at all well. It is far more beautiful than at Cambridgeshire.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I am glad to say that Cambridgeshire for the moment is not at issue; I think my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden will agree with me on that. I was not saying that there was no beautiful country there;
902
I was saying that there are areas there which could be utilised without impinging too greatly on rural amenities or beauty. Furthermore, there is considerable industrial development already taking place in many of these areas. So, without being too specific, all these things point to somewhere in the Luton area.
But, of course, that has been knocked entirely on the head, as my noble friend pointed out, by the fact that there are a large number of military aerodromes which were put there on a deliberate defence decision during the 'fifties. That decision, I suspect—noble Lords who were concerned with this will correct me if I am wrong—was not taken as part of a general national development plan, integrating air transport, road transport, industrial development and the rest. It was taken in a vacuum, devoid of and divorced from all other considerations. That is where the initial error arose in this whole planning of where our third national airport should be.
As I say, I do not want to make Party political capital out of this. I am bringing it up only in the hope that, because of these faults which have taken place in the past, we shall learn for the future, and we shall in all future types of development make absolutely certain that the military aspects of the problem, the amenity, the industrial and other aspects of planning, the whole urban rind rural planning of the country and our transport projects will be coordinated in order to complement each other instead of antagonising each other. It is too late to do anything about that so far as the question of Stansted, Sheppey or any other place is concerned.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt, would he not admit that there is a possibility of a further public inquiry?
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I have not yet come to that point. I have not thrown it out, and I will deal with it, although in fact it is far more for my noble friends on the Front Bench to answer that. But I will deal with it now. I am not at all opposed, in theory or in principle, to a further public inquiry, but I believe that this has been inquired into, if not ad nauseam, at any rate to such an extent that there is nothing further that can come out of an inquiry

903
so far as the people who have made the decision are concerned. I do not believe that there are any new factors which have not been assessed and taken into consideration.
Hitherto, I have said that I support the Government in what they have done. I will now criticise them for their handling of this matter. I do not believe that this matter has been well handled or sensibly handled; it could have been done in a far wiser way. I do not believe that the result would have been any different. I certainly disagree with my noble friend Lord Kennet when he says that the inquiry which was recommended by the inspector could not have been held in public because of security reasons. Quite frankly, that does not "wash" at all. The inquiry could have been held, and I believe should have been held, in public, and when certain matters arose which were of security significance, the evidence could easily have been taken in camera and not published. But the whole bulk of the inquiry could, and I believe should, have been held in public.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if we had done that, I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Dilhorne, would have let us get away with it?
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked me and has promoted me at the same time. That is the ordinary way that you deal with matters which are in secret. It does not stop the inquiry being held.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, demoting him again, I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount would not have allowed the Government to get away with anything that they should not have got away with, and I think he would have done his best to have stopped them getting away with things even which they should get away with. But I do not believe that he would have succeeded in doing this; and in any case that is no reason for not having done it in that way.
I shall not detain your Lordships any longer on this point. As I say, I think the Government have handled this in a clumsy way. I think they could have put forward their reasons far more convincingly than they have done, and I
904
think that the inquiry in particular should have been in public. But I am not pressing them now to reopen the matter and to have a further enquiry. I do not believe that it would add anything at all to the knowledge that is already there. I do not believe that it would alter the decision which I consider has been rightly taken. All it would do is still further to delay. I am sure it will take far more than three months to have an adequate inquiry into this highly complex matter.
Without going into all the details of the need for speed, the noble and learned Viscount mentioned the fact that there was one runway already at Stansted and that there was no need for the second runway until late in the 'seventies, so the whole matter could be postponed, as I understood him, until then. But it is not simply a question of runways. If Stansted is going to be a major international airport, a great deal of expenditure, quite apart from that on runways, has to be undertaken, such as expenditure on terminal buildings, facilities, road and rail links, and so on; and to do all this for one runway when one has not decided already that a second runway will be on the same place would be highly irresponsible and a waste of public funds. So I accept the argument for speed, and therefore I do not support the request for a further inquiry. I believe that the Government are doing the right thing. I only wish that they had done it in a rather more manifestly right manner.
5.2 p.m.
LORD BUTLER OF SAFFRON WALDEN: My Lords, I have been involved with Stansted since this project was first thought of. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to some investigations in 1953. I remember feelings before that, when I was a Member for the district. In fact, since 1929 I have known the district thoroughly. I know every village, every church, every road, every lane, every end, every hamlet, and every pub; and I know most of the people affected and how much they are likely to be affected. I find it difficult not to let this sentiment govern solely my discretion and judgment in this matter.
I am taking part in this debate for the purpose of asking for the holding of a proper public inquiry. I say to the Government that they little know that

905
what is concerning my friends in the Stansted district is that they feel they have been bulldozed and not properly treated. They feel that justice has not been done and that the case has not been proved. I would congratulate the Essex and Hertfordshire Preservation Society and their officers on their long fight, and also my successor, Mr. Peter Kirk, the Member for Saffron Walden. I hesitate to say that the fight has been successful, because whenever success has come our way the Government have adopted methods, which I think have been illegitimate, to counter, to ignore and to depose the public will.
Our first success was getting the inquiry set up, and it is quite legitimate for those who have been involved in Stansted to take pride in the results of the inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, to whom we are indebted for introducing this debate, referred to a letter from the then Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas-Home, written to me when I was Foreign Secretary and Member for Saffron Walden. That letter was certainly written, and willingly accepted by me because I was having rather a difficult time in my own constituency. It promised that the inquiry would be impartial. The inquiry was impartial, and I am going to detain your Lordships, not for very long since I cannot improve on the case put by my noble friend Lord Dilhorne, just to remind you of that inquiry and of what the inspector said.
The inquiry said, first of all, that it would be a calamity for the neighbourhood if a major airport were placed at Stansted. Such a decision could only be justified by national necessity, and necessity was not proved by evidence at this inquiry. That, really, is the text. I believe that if my friends were satisfied—and I know my successor as Member for Saffron Walden has already stated this publicly, and the deputy chairman of the Hertfordshire and Essex Preservation Group has also said so—by a public inquiry that this was inevitable, they would accept it, and I would accept it. But what we are blaming the Government for is for not having such an inquiry and in not following up what was suggested by the inspector himself.
906
The only thing the inspector said which was favourable to the Government over Stansted was that the proposal succeeds on the viability of air traffic. Of course, it does. If you are going to get a large, beautiful piece of open agricultural country, carve it up as you want and alter the runways as you want, naturally you can make it viable for air traffic—at colossal expense. That is obvious. But he also went on to say that there were strong arguments against it on grounds of town and country planning, and the point has been dealt with by my noble friend Lord Dilhorne. The inspector also found that there is bad ground access from London, and he said:
"I consider that the proposals put forward would be unacceptable to passengers and airlines to an extent that might make the airport of only moderate value."
It is ridiculous for me to sit in your Lordships' House and listen to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, talk about its being 45 or 50 minutes to London. During the whole of my early years in Essex I lived at Broxted, which is likely to be almost completely destroyed as a village, and I know that it is impossible to get from Stansted, even on the M.11, in 45 minutes to London. If, as is suggested in the evidence, there is to be a rail link via Tottenham, King's Cross, Farringdon, Holborn Viaduct and Blackfriars to Victoria, it will be quite impossible to do that in 45 minutes.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I agree. I think that my noble friend meant, if he did not say it, that the rail journey time from King's Cross to Stansted would be 45 minutes. The road journey, of course, is much greater.
LORD BUTLER OF SAFFRON WALDEN: My Lords, I have travelled on these railways all my life, and I should be very surprised to see them improved to that extent. If they are thinking in terms of a monorail, on the lines of the one I saw from the Japanese airport to the capital when I was visiting Japan as Foreign Secretary, then they are talking business and I do not mind listening, but I do mind listening to the Government when they exaggerate or underestimate the difficulties of this distance.
The inspector went on to mention noise, about which I shall speak later.

907
He said that this would change the character of the neighbourhood, which is quite obvious, and that it would result in the loss of much good agricultural land. Those who have spoken hitherto have not dealt at length with one agricultural feature which I want to deal with. I calculate that the total land requirements of Stansted, in regard to the two double runways, would come to some 15,000 acres. I have consulted Sir Dudley Stamp's Land Utilisation Survey, and I find that there is only 4 per cent. of the land in Britain which is better than this. Four per cent. of our land is quite excellent, notably in Lincolnshire. Then comes some 15 per cent. of the land which is "the best arable". In that comes the whole of the Stansted area. Eighty per cent. of the rest of the land of Britain is inferior to that of Stansted.
I have consulted the National Advisory Service and the Cambridge University School of Agriculture, and I find that 15,000 acres would produce a total in value of cereals of about £750,000 per annum. That includes sugar beet, potatoes and other crops grown on cereal acreage. Livestock in the Stansted area would amount in value to some £230,000. That would come to a total of nearly £1 million a year. I have compared this with the calculations on North Essex farms, done by the Cambridge University School of Agriculture which costs those farms, and when I farmed there I used to get my costs in that way. That is an enormous sum of money—£1 million-worth of food—and with our balance-of payments difficulties I think it constitutes an important argument against proceeding at Stansted, unless it can be proved absolutely at a public inquiry that we cannot do any better. I believe, for example, that Essex has done its bit with Bradwell, Hanningfield, Basildon, Harlow and other places where agricultural land has been taken. Therefore, I consider that this seizing of 15,000 acres of agricultural land is one of the most serious aspects of the whole matter.
I have said already that the inspector came down in favour of an inquiry. My difficulty is that since this statement by the inspector no public investigation of an impartial character has ever been set up. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that the Government were right. That
908
sounds like one of those political pamphlets which are put out by either side of the House, and I do not want to get involved in a political discussion, since this is not a political matter; but I was told as a Young Conservative that the Socialist Government always said, "The Government are right". The noble Lord has now said it; but that is not good enough for the people. They simply do not believe it. The Government may be satisfied that they have been perfectly right, and they may have put endless pain and labour into their efforts to prove this matter. But it is no good telling the people that the Government are right: there must be an independent inquiry.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Walston, who preceded me, that it would be perfectly possible—my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne agrees with me—to segregate the defence aspects of an inquiry, to have them either independently or in camera, and it would be perfectly possible for the Government now to concede a public inquiry and reserve the whole defence position. It would appear now that the same group within Whitehall, experts and civil servants, have throughout steamrollered this decision through, resulting in the White Paper, with all its innuendoes and inaccuracies.
One of the greatest inaccuracies and difficulties in the White Paper comes from paragraph 40, which was quoted by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne. This is quoted by Mr. Brancker in The Stansted Black Book with which I have been provided, and from which I want to make one or two quotations. Paragraph 40 contained, as one of its reasons for not having a public inquiry, the following:
"Furthermore, the Inter-Departmental Committee on the Third London Airport had already made a thorough examination of the question in 1962 and 1963; the subsequent publication of their report and the public inquiry itself gave an ample well-used opportunity to all interests outside the Government to put forward their own points of view."
But according to Mr. Brancker:
"One thing which the public inquiry did show was that the Inter-Departmental Committee had not made a thorough examination of the question. With the exception of the viability of Stansted in terms of Air Traffic Control, and the fact that it was physically possible to build a pair of parallel runways on

909
the site, almost every other bit of evidence came to pieces under cross-examination. This statement therefore is wholly erroneous and cannot be accepted as a reason for not having an independent commission."
In my view, therefore, the White Paper in paragraph 40 is quite inadequate, as my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has made out, and I think that is the most important conclusion of Mr. Brancker in what is called the "Black Book".
He comes to several other conclusions. He draws attention to the fundamental inconsistency in the White Paper about the actual size of the proposed airport. At the inquiry, as we know, the third London airport had to be shown capable of providing space for one pair of parallel runways. No mention was made of two pairs of parallel runways. Therefore, the White Paper concept of an airport equipped with two pairs of parallel runways completely alters the conditions under which Stansted had been investigated at the inquiry as a suitable site. Two pairs of runways have a completely different meaning, and necessarily a much greater effect on overall cost and a much more serious impact on amenities, especially with regard to noise.
The Government say that they have re-sited these runways. Well, I wrote to the Prime Minister himself and pointed out that the old runways caused the aeroplanes to come straight over the spire of Thaxted church, one of our most priceless gems of architecture in the country. If those runways are re-sited to avoid Thaxted church, well and good. But I have no knowledge of how they are to be re-sited. I have no possibility of going before an inquiry to put my case or to hear, and I believe that just that sort of thing ought to go before a public inquiry so that we can be reassured. Mr. Brancker goes into a great many more points, which I think I had better skip, owing to the late hour of the debate. But I think his book, The Stansted Black Book, is a very important one for noble Lords to read.
My Lords, I want to say just a word now about the alternatives; and I must say, in deference to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that he gave us some facts and figures about alternative places. I am perfectly ready to be convinced on this matter, but I have had from the Noise Abatement Society, with a request that
910
I eventually write a preface to it, a closely reasoned case for this new idea of using Foulness off the land, in the sea on reclaimed land. I was dining with my good friend Dr. Luns, the Foreign Minister of Holland, on Monday, and he was telling me how much his country had reclaimed land from the sea, and how much bigger they were now than some of their neighbours, although in the old days they had been almost the same size.
We must have a little imagination in this country. We must look ahead and have ideas. And if it is possible to scrape up sand from the sea by the dredging which can be done and make a place, as this Noise Abatement Society report says, which is over the sea and away from the land, and if we can connect that with London by a monorail, then we shall have solved our problems. I agree that it may be very expensive, but why should not this matter be looked at by a public inquiry to satisfy us whether it is the best place? I am also taken, despite the horror of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, by the idea of Silverstone. It is a very good site in England as such, and a very good place. But I think we want much more satisfaction than staccato utterances, such as we had this afternoon, that these places are not possible, because I do not think conviction has yet been carried that Stansted is inevitable at the present time.
I want to say just a word about noise, and this quotation comes out of a little book called The Stansted Affair: A Case for the People. Professor Richards speaks as follows about noise:
"It is clear that the noise which will arise from the proposed airport at Stansted will render life intolerable to the present inhabitants of this rural area and will hamper them in their daily routine. Every effort must be made to keep the nuisance of any airport to a level very much below that at Heathrow."
He then goes on to declare that it is difficult to envisage an ultimate population of less than 100,000 in the area, taking into account other industries directed to the region, and a school population of some 25,000. In the work of the Stansted Working Party, Dr. Bungay, my old friend the education officer in I Essex, introduces a report on the effect on schoolchildren which this airport is going to have. It really is an extremely serious decision for our area, and I

911
honestly believe that unless it is accompanied by some much better evidence than we have had hitherto there will continue to be boiling and seething indignation, which will not be a good start for any venture like this of the third London airport.
I should like to summarise my remarks quite shortly. First, this decision is a disaster for the neighbourhood. Secondly, it is contrary to all sensible town and country planning, and the Plan for the South-East. Thirdly, it represents a major setback for food production. As the first bulldozers are not expected on the airfield for several years, the right course, as suggested by the public inquiry, is to have a proper inquiry now, before the matter is settled. There is plenty of time. There is more at stake than living conditions and airports and people's happiness. What is at stake is the handling of this matter by the Government. Democracy, if it is to work properly, must see that justice has been done, and that has not been realised by those of my friends who live in this area. They do not think that justice has been done. What they feel now is not that the bulldozers are several years away coming on to their homes and cottages, but that the bulldozers are already here in Parliament, and that this matter is going to be pushed through whatever happens. I sincerely appeal to the Government. They will get us all on their side if they concede a proper public inquiry, defence matters being segregated, if you like, and then the Stansted Friends, who have as their slogan "People not Planes!" will be able to say honestly that the Government care more for people than for planes.
5.19 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I have to declare a personal interest, for I am involved with churches and schools that will be gravely affected by the decision to build this Stansted Airport. Recently I attended the council meeting of a church college of education in the area—a college that is expanding rapidly—and the council believes that if this airport is established the college is doomed. The noise would be intolerable, even with double glazing. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron
912
Walden, has spoken about the airport with the special authority that his long and distinguished record in Government sanctions. I entirely agree with his summary and believe that he has precisely expressed the feelings of so many people who live in Hertfordshire as well as in Essex.
Recently I received from the clerk to the Hertfordshire County Council notice of a resolution passed at their last county council meeting on November 28. I quote the terms of it:
"… as it is now proposed to realign the runways at Stansted and to increase their number from two to four, this Council again urges the need for a full inquiry. Such inquiry to consider road and rail communications, the grave problem of providing a satisfactory educational environment and, in particular, the planning and economic consequences of accommodating a large additional population in an area where the Regional Economic Planning Council and other statutory bodies are not in favour of development."
My Lords, I tried to weigh what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said when he advised us that people should search their consciences. It seems to me that people in the area, with a knowledge and love of Stansted, wish to reach a truly informed and objective conclusion—those, I think, were his words—but they simply have not the necessary information available to them at present. So I continue to support this request for a public inquiry. I believe that the North-West Essex and East Hertfordshire Preservation Association has done valuable work. It does not say, "Put the airport anywhere so long as it is not on top of us". It says, "The airport policy chosen must be demonstrated to be the right one if sacrifices are to be called for in the national interest." I submit that that is a very representative point of view. I will not enlarge on the public indignation which is felt in the area, because facts about that have already been so adequately given. But I believe that it is important to emphasise that the Government's decision should be challenged, first, because of its competence and, secondly, because of the method followed to reach it. The Government have announced that the runways are to be realigned. I do not know that officially we have ever had a notice indicating the first alignment. But it is worth noting that although the new alignment might give Bishop's Stortford a little less noise

913
—and that would be welcome to us in that area—it would increase the noise at Harlow, and so another dense community would suffer just as much as Bishop's Stortford would have done.
My Lords, the secret inquiry has disquieted people. If it is impossible to have another inquiry, I hope that at least the Government will consider publishing as fully as possible the results of the last inquiry, omitting the sections which refer specifically to defence. The noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, and other noble Lords, have mentioned the food production factor, and I shall therefore not cover the ground I had intended to cover, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for his figure that £1 million worth of food a year might be lost if Stansted were to be fully developed.
I turn now to the noise factor. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned the people who live in the Heathrow area, and indicated that they were not desirous of moving from that area. I have seen the report of an analysis recently taken in the London Airport area, in which people were questioned about their reasons for wishing to move. It discloses that their motive was not that they wanted to get better living accommodation; it was not that they wanted to be nearer their work; it was that they wanted to be away from aircraft noise. There may have to be further delay if there is to be this independent inquiry, this further inquiry, but I am certain not only that the people who live in this area would feel that they had had a fair deal, but also that confidence elsewhere would be restored in Government procedure by inquiry if our request received the attention it deserves.
I have only two more points. I apologise for the fact that an engagement in the diocese, which I cannot avoid keeping, means that I must leave the House before the conclusion of the debate. I regret that I shall not be able to hear a number of subsequent speakers, but I shall carefully read the Hansard report of the debate, particularly the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. Finally, perhaps I may say how I appreciate the hard work and the diligence of civil servants, and the hours they must have given to preparing their case for Stansted. I accept that another inquiry must add to their work, and I am certain that this is
914
already onerous enough. Nevertheless, I consider that a case has been fully made out for another inquiry in depth.
5.26 p.m.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, if the Motion before your Lordships' House concerned the failure of successive Governments to evolve a national airports policy that fits in with regional development and our environmental objectives I should not be speaking in support of the Government this afternoon. However, I believe that much of the criticism aimed at the Government over Stansted is unjustified, and I shall try to show why, in my view, the Stansted decision should stand at this late stage. However, before I do so, perhaps I may offer my apologies to the House as, owing to a previous engagement, I shall not be able to stay until the end of the debate.
Secondly, perhaps I should declare a rather unusual interest. My home in the country is some 15 miles from Stansted as the crow, or should I say the jet, flies, but only 3 miles from Wethersfield Airport, which, as your Lordships know, will eventually cease to operate when Stansted is fully developed. The choice before me, therefore, was a very difficult one, but perhaps I may say in passing that Wethersfield has one great advantage. Through the courtesy of the American Base Commander, there is virtually no flying at weekends, whereas so far as Stansted is concerned, of course, if it is fully developed as an inter-continental airbase peak flying will probably be during the weekends.
There is, I believe, general agreement that a third London airport will soon be necessary. This becomes clear when one looks at forecasts of future traffic and the utilisation rates of Heathrow and Gatwick. These figures are widely available and known to your Lordships, and I will not take up time in repeating them. There would also, I hope, be general agreement that in an overcrowded country like ours any airport, no matter where we put it, is bound to cause some disturbance and annoyance. This means that a decision to build an airbase at Sheppey or at Foulness, or at any of the many other sites suggested, would lead to protests and criticism by local interests and, no doubt, attempts would be made to reverse the decision.

915
It is of course possible to minimise noise and disturbance by locating the airport in a sparsely populated area. Unfortunately, noise, and its effect on the locality, is only one of the many conflicting considerations such as safety, air traffic control, access, compatibility with existing airports, costs, and so on, that have to be taken into account. If lack of noise were the overriding consideration, the new airport would probably be located in the middle of the ocean; if access were all-important, we might put it in the heart of London. However, what we have to do is to consider the relevant aspects in order of priority and pick a site that offers the best compromise.
According to the experts, the key factors favouring Stansted are air traffic control and safety. The problem is to preserve our high standard of safety in conditions of ever increasing traffic. Therefore, from a technical and operational point of view Stansted is superior to any of the other sites considered. This was the conclusion of the Inter-Departmental Committee that has been so frequently referred to by noble Lords in the debate so far this afternoon. I am aware that attempts have been made to question the decision on technical grounds; but there is no evidence that the original decision was wrong. The Inter-Departmental Committee were staffed by experts who had access to all the relevant information, and they spent over two years considering the question. There has been no attempt by the Government—or, indeed, by the British Airports Authority—to hide the adverse environmental consequences. Valuable agricultural land will be sacrified. But that is only one of the many factors that have to be taken into consideration; and loss of land is part of the inevitable high price that has to be paid for the benefit to the nation of the necessary new airport.
In my opinion, it is a gross exaggeration to say, as has been done on some occasions, that in selecting Stansted the Government are defying public opinion. Opposition to Stansted (and I in no way criticise—indeed, I respect—those who have organised it) has been provided by a competent and highly organised campaign of local interests, backed by most of the Press. It has been described as the most remarkable lobbying of the decade. To such interests the loss of
916
good agricultural land and the possible threat to an historic church are of the utmost importance. I understand their concern, for I, too, have a deep affection and appreciation of the many lovely villages and churches I know in that part of Essex. But despite the understandable strength of local feeling, those who are opposed to the use of Stansted do not represent the whole of public opinion or, necessarily, the national interest. And it is the national interest that I want to stress.
My Lords, in my opinion, the national interest is best served by having a third London airport in operation by the middle-1970s, by which time Heathrow and Gatwick, with the additional runway, will not be able to cope with the increased air traffic. Are we really going to be in a position in the early 1970s to turn away increasing passenger and freight traffic, and tourist trade, for it to be snapped up by Continental airports? The Chairman of the British Airports Authority recently estimated that Britain would lose over £12 million in foreign currency earnings in the one year of 1974 if the third London airport were not in operation by that time. And the longer the delay after that, the greater the annual loss.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord. I am not sure where he gets his facts from in this particular case. It has been clearly shown in the Government White Paper, which no doubt the noble Lord has studied, that the saturation point of the runways is now at 109 per hour. If the noble Lord refers to Table I in the Inter-Departmental Committee Report he will see that it is in 1977 that the saturation point of 109 will come into operation; not 1973 but 1977.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, I said 1974. In speaking this afternoon, I do not pretend to be an expert; but I can assure the noble Lord that I have studied the matter carefully, and have done quite a lot of homework on the White Paper. I have said that I am no expert; but surely no new inter-Continental airport can come into operation overnight. And whether it comes in 1973 or 1974, the fact remains that nobody can tell for certain whether the annual increase rate in passengers is going to remain at 14 per cent.,

917
whether it will drop to 12 per cent. or go up to 16 per cent. Nor can anyone say exactly when the jumbo-jets will come in to handle the bulk of the traffic. One can only say that obviously during the next ten or twenty years a lot of traffic will not be carried in jumbo-jets. Therefore I do not think any of us can be swayed too much by future estimates of traffic; one can only predict the trend. I am quoting the estimate made by the Chairman of the British Airports Authority within the last few days. I think it is of great importance. Once we lose traffic to the Continentals, not only passenger traffic but freight traffic, which is going up at a greater rate, it will be extremely hard to attract it back.
My Lords, I do not believe—and I admit that my whole case stands on this—there is any possibility that any new, large, multi-purpose international airport can be ready to operate in the middle-1970s unless the Stansted decision stands and the necessary work starts soon. In my view (and I have considered the subject at great length), at this late stage it would be wrong for the Government to give way to pressure to reverse their decision and to start another round of time-consuming surveys, consultations and inquiries. On average a Royal Commission takes about three years to report, and a Departmental Committee about two years. In my view, my Lords we simply have not the time to repeat the whole process. It is likely that after a new inquiry Stansted would be chosen once again. To quote from an interesting article in the Sunday Times:
"There are enough immutable factors, however, to suggest that even if the Government, with the assistance of a Royal Commission, goes over the ground for a third time, Stansted will again emerge as the number one candidate."
But even if a new site is selected, it will be criticised by different local interests in the same way as Stansted is at present. My Lords, in my opinion we must not delay any longer. We must not start new time-consuming inquiries. We must get on with the job; otherwise we shall face serious economic consequences which would be harmful to the country.
5.41 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I accept the need for a third airport around London. Indeed, it may well be that in future years three airports
918
will not be sufficient. Nevertheless, I believe a decision upon Stansted now would be wrong. It may be that some time in the future a decision on Stansted could be right, or maybe not; but before any decision is taken I feel convinced that the nation's needs regarding airports should be examined on a far wider front and in far greater depth than has hitherto taken place with three Inter-Departmental Committees and one public inquiry. I say that from a somewhat different angle than that adopted by other noble Lords who have spoken today, for I believe that as well as the social aspects which have been spoken about so eloquently there should be a full examination of the economics embracing likely trade and passenger trends and a ful examination of technical aspects of future types of aircraft, of future landing needs and of future systems of control which may well make the limitations which the British Airports Authority talk about to-day quite outdated.
I believe that all those things should be examined, and the possibility in years to come of vertical-lift aircraft, which in twenty years may well affect our airports policy. Someone in the air world once rather facetiously stated that he looked forward to the time when cars would be parked on London Airport runways and the aircraft would take off from the car parks. We have not got there yet, but that is the sort of imaginative proposition of the future which should be taken into consideration in the wide review which I advocate.
My Lords, these wonders—new controls, new systems of radar, new types of aircraft—are all just round the corner, as it were, and it is not sufficient for Government Departments to say, "We know best on all these matters". I do not believe that the nameless experts in the corridors of Whitehall, or that excellent new body, the British Airports Authority, have the wide knowledge, or probably the time, to carry out the examination which I feel is necessary before any decision is come to. I cannot accept what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, seems to say, that "the gentleman in Whitehall knows best". I am not impressed by the reply that there have been three Inter-Departmental Committees and one public inquiry. Nor am I impressed

919
by the dictum of the new President of the Board of Trade in his words, "I have satisfied myself again …". The Executive are not always right. Their views are sometimes seen through the wrong end of a telescope and they get a very small vision of the future.
I should like to remind your Lordships of an incident when the Executive were rather short-sighted about airports. Plus ça change, plus c'est la méme chose." When I look at the debate on June 6, 1939, on the Air Ministry (Heston and Kenley Aerodromes Extension) Bill, I see that the Minister used these words on behalf of the Executive:
"The need has arisen, largely from the requirements of present-day and future aircraft in regard to airports. High-powered and high-speeded aircraft and the use of navigational aids necessitate longer runways than those of the present size, built when the aerodromes were constructed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, June 6, 1939, col. 373.]
The Minister went on to say:
"The future of civil aviation requires a ring of terminal airports in which Heston is designed to play a leading part as one of the chief airports. As the House was informed on the Air Estimates of the new types of civil aircraft being ordered with Government support,"—
just as to-day—
"and while these are air-liners of great technical advance, nevertheless they unfortunately need two thousand yard runways …" [col. 374.]
On Third Reading the Minister said:
"I believe that this is an airport which will be one of the finest, if not the finest, in the country, and will be a credit to the country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, July 12, 1939, col. 2366.]
This was in 1939. Yet at that time Sir Frank Whittle was working on jet engine development. At that time the pressurised super-Constellations were undergoing their test flights in America. In those days people were talking of supersonic travel—Whitehall was not, but other people were. Six years later we saw how inadequate and short-sighted was our thinking in 1939, and London Airport was developed. It was the Executive who were short-sighted. The finite mind of man has very strict limits of vision. In 1939 the Executive had such a short vision and the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Executive, had also very short-sighted—let me quickly say that the Minister was myself. We
920
can now see how it is wrong to leave this great decision to the men in Whitehall alone.
My Lords, do not let us repeat the errors and short-sightedness of 1939 in 1967 and 1968. Let us have a wide inquiry into the aspects and future of civil aviation and national airport needs, not only London needs but national airport needs, before we tie ourselves to something we may be regretting greatly in the course of a very few years. I should prefer to take the risk of delay which was spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and not have the airport ready by 1974. The arguments against the dangers of delay are expressed from a rather partisan point of view, and one could easily destroy them, but I would accept the dangers rather than trust to the assurances of the Executive which have led to a wrong decision now.
If we had an inquiry, perhaps a Royal Commission, and it endorsed the decision of Stansted, I believe that the public would accept that gladly with conviction. If a Royal Commission rejected the Executive's view, the nation, while excusing those who had come to a wrong decision, would nevertheless be glad to find that they had been saved from its implementation. I urge consideration not of the London needs, but of the national needs for a generation ahead by a body of wise, disinterested and experienced men, whose findings would command public confidence and support. Unless this is done, I hope that we shall object to further proceedings on the Stansted Order when it comes before your Lordships' House. This is not a Party issue. I can see no great constitutional crisis because we take a view on Stansted. And I hope that the Order will be rejected, unless the Government give an undertaking now that they will hold the inquiry asked for by the majority of noble Lords who have spoken to-day.
5.52 p.m.
LORD PLOWDEN: My Lords, first may I apologise for not having been here when the noble Lord moved his Motion. I had to be in Birmingham at the annual general meeting of my company. I must declare an interest, because my family have a house within a few miles of Stansted. As we have heard from various speakers this afternoon, this is not a Party issue. I doubt whether any other

921
issue of this kind has raised such a storm of protest. It is not just from the locality, as has been suggested, but from people and organisations all over the country and without regard to Party.
I support the demand for a further public inquiry, not because I know whether there should be or should not be a third London airport, or whether it should be at Stansted or not. I support it because I do not know, and because I think that we cannot know until there has been the wide public inquiry which was called for by the inspector in his report.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord certain that the inspector called for another public inquiry?
LORD PLOWDEN: I agree that the inspector does not say a "public" inquiry, but this is the whole implication of paragraph 48 of his report. The Government say that they have made this inquiry, and that the results are set out in the White Paper. But what happened? The inspector held his inquiry between December, 1965, and February, 1966, and reported in May 1966, but his report, of great public importance, was kept secret for a year. It was then published along with the decision of the Government, and almost at the same time the White Paper was published. Then, as we know, the Government said that nothing useful was likely to be achieved by a further round of public discussion.
I do not propose to go into the details of the White Paper. It is full of statements presented as facts which the public are expected to accept, notably the estimates of costs. The record of the Government—of all Governments—as a forward estimator, particularly in the aeronautical field, gives me no confidence in these estimates. But since the secret, private inquiry carried out by the Government, by civil servants, when we are asked to-day to recognise as knowing best, various things have happened. It now seems that there will be four runways instead of two. The existing runway, which was given as one of the ways in which money was to be saved—indeed, as one good reason to put this airport at Stansted—is to be discarded and put on one side. The runways are to be realigned, affecting quite different people. We have heard that at the peak there are
922
to be some 160 flights an hour, but we were told before that the peak would be something like 64 flights an hour. Yet the Government say that they are going on, that it is best for the country that this airport should be built, and that it would be a waste of time to hold further inquiry. Can one wonder that there is strong public feeling that the public is being pushed around and that the Government do not care about people as individuals, for all their talk about planning?
Turning to the wider issues, the White Paper assumes without question that it is necessary to provide for all the air traffic that may offer itself to London, and it very nearly assumes that this should be done in the cheapest possible way. It seems to me astonishing that a Government committed to planning for social reasons should take its stand on these propositions. In other spheres, it makes great play with cost-benefit analysis. There is very little of that in the White Paper on the case presented to us.
The fundamental question in all these problems is: What price should the community pay for technological progress? The forces which drive us on are naturally commercial ones; it pays the airlines to meet the demand. But they do not have to pay the social costs. It is the duty of the Government to take these social costs into account. Our social legislation for the past 150 years provides many examples. It used to pay to employ women and children in mines and factories, but we thought the social cost was too high. It would pay to pour smoke out of factories and homes into the atmosphere, but legislation has decreed rightly that there should be smokeless zones. It pays to make motor cars available as cheaply as possible and use them when and where we like, but we are still struggling with the social cost this is imposing on us. It would pay to-day to concentrate factory development in the Midlands and South-East, but as a nation we are willing to pay a high price to prevent this and to direct factories into development areas. This is what regional planning is about.
Can there be any possible reason for not asking these same questions about airports? There is no overriding reason or need to meet the full commercial demand. We do not have to meet all the demands for air traffic. We have

923
heard this afternoon from the Chairman of the British Airports Authority that there will be many more airports by some date undefined and we have got to provide them. But why? We have just as much choice here as we have had, and still have, on similar issues. It is not self-evident that it would be a material disaster if some air traffic were diverted to the Continent, or even to the Midlands or the North of this country. But if we are willing to pay the price—and for all we can say now, we may be—it is not evident that it should be the cheapest price, in money terms. Another site may be slower to reach, much less convenient, more expensive to the airlines or to would-be travellers and more costly to build. But it would not necessarily be against the wellbeing of the whole community.
All these are not arguments for or against Stansted, but they are arguments for a full inquiry, with all the facts before it, and an inquiry at which all the interested parties, national as well as local, have an opportunity to give evidence and to hear and comment on the evidence. The Government say that this will cause intolerable delay, and that a third London airport is so urgent that we cannot wait. But if the issue is important enough—and if ever there was an important issue, this is one—we can and should wait. As we have heard this afternoon, there is ample time. The estimates in the White Paper are already suspect, The advent of large-capacity aircraft has meant that people and goods can be carried with relatively fewer aircraft. The runway capacity problem is reduced. This is even recognised on the movement estimate given in the White Paper.
But wherever London's third airport goes, it will entail expensive, extensive building to accommodate the 100,000 or so people who will be dependent upon it. It will need the building of roads and rail access. It will alter for all time huge areas of the countryside. There have been accusations and counter-accusations, and statements about which Government has done well or badly. My Lords, I think that all of us, whoever we are, are to blame. The melancholy history of our failure to make a national airports plan—indeed, our progressive retreat from
924
this very idea—is set out in a Fabian Tract, No. 377. I recommend this to the President of the Board of Trade, who has written several books about the future of Socialism and the great planning Party. There is a lesson to be learned from this, and it is that it is not yet too late to look at this thing properly and in a national context.
Before a final decision is reached, let all the facts be openly—I repeat, "openly"—considered, and the convenience of air travellers and the airlines weighed against the changes that the inhabitants of the South-East will have to face. It is for these reasons that I appeal to the Government to institute now, before it is too late, an open further inquiry into this whole problem. I should like to add this warning—it is not a Party warning: I do not belong to any Party. The Government seriously under-estimate what people feel about the way they have handled this matter. There is a feeling throughout the country, in all Parties and in all walks of life, that the Government have behaved unfairly and unreasonably, and this is a very potent force in British public opinion.
6.5 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Plowden. My only embarrassment is that he has expressed so well my own views on this matter that, in consequence, I must modify my speech. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, for introducing what I believe to be the most serious issue raised in any debate in which I have taken part in times of peace. We are discussing what the Government themselves hope to be the greatest airport in this country, and perhaps the greatest airport in Europe. It is to be planted in the middle of valuable agricultural land, in a countryside of unique value to London and to its own inhabitants. All this is to happen in defiance of the views of all informed planners—the planning authorities, societies interested in planning, and individual planners of great fame, both national and local. It is to happen against the express recommendation of the inspector, who held a long public inquiry, and against the view of his expert assessor, who has a worldwide fame, and whose letter to The Times and subsequent book have been quoted

925
by, among others, my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden in his splendid speech this afternoon.
I ventured to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, when he gave as a reason for not holding a public inquiry the fact that confidential matters of defence might fall to be considered. There are many answers to that which have been given. But is it credible that that was the true reason, when the Government had actually set out their reasons in paragraph 40 of the White Paper and defence does not appear among the reasons set out? The paragraph has been quoted in full by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne, and in part by my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden; and my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden also quoted the devastating reply of Mr. Brancker, the assessor. The fact is, of course, that the reasons given in paragraph 40 for not holding a public inquiry are so contemptible that something better had to be thought out, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, produced a much better reason. The only trouble was that he had not looked at paragraph 40 of the White Paper before he produced it.
I have mentioned some of the remarkable features of what is now proposed. I come to another point. All this is to be done in direct contravention of the pledges of Ministers of the present Government and of their predecessors. The two noble Lords who have ventured to speak from the Back Benches in favour of the Government's proposal have said that it is too late now to have a public inquiry or further consideration. What they wholly overlook is that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was Minister of Aviation, gave an express promise that this point would not be taken. Let me read from a letter written by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to Brigadier T. J. P. Collins, Chairman of the Planning Committee of the Essex County Council, on September 24, 1965. I quote from it; far more is set out on page 30 of The Stansted Black Book, but I will read a few sentences:
"First, it was represented to me that, unless the terms of reference covered the question of timing, it would be possible for Ministers to make the inquiry a formality by refusing to follow up indications in the Inspector's Report that an alternative site was preferable to Stansted, on the pretext that the necessary study
926
and survey of the alternative site would take too long and development of the airport could not wait. I assure you that this will not occur. If the outcome of the inquiry is that another site is to be preferred to Stansted, this will be followed up and it will not be ruled out for lack of time to study and survey the site."
I wonder what the present Chancellor of the Exchequer will think when he reads the argument that it is too late to do anything else; that it is too late to honour the pledge that he then gave in those considered terms.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is the Lord contending that the outcome of the inquiry was that another site would be better than Stansted?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, if a new public inquiry showed that this was the best site then in all probability I would accept that, subject only to this, that the question would then be that which was so well posed by the noble Lord, Lord Plowden: we should have to consider whether the airport was worth the price we had to pay. But I think the case for an airport is so strong that, if there were such an inquiry—a public inquiry of merit presided over by some such person as a High Court Judge—and it were possible to cross-examine the witnesses in favour of the present proposal, I should accept the result of that inquiry.
LORD KENNET: Would the noble Lord be so kind as to give way for a moment? I gather, then, he is not contending that the inquiry said that another site would be better, and he cannot therefore be alleging that the pledge has been broken.
LORD CONESFORD: Indeed, my Lords, I am alleging that the pledge has been broken. I read the passage; it speaks for itself. I am quite content that the public of this country and the Members of this House shall decide between us. What more emphatic decision could one have in a public inquiry than the words of the inspector? I cannot find the relevant paragraph just at the moment, but I am perfectly certain the noble Lord can find it for himself, and I will paraphrase it. It is to the effect that the airport would be a disaster to the locality, and that it could be justified only on the grounds of public necessity—and that public necessity has not been proved. In

927
fact, my Lords, it is paragraph 21, which says:
"It would be a calamity for the neighbourhood if a major airport were placed at Stansted. Such a decision could only be justified by national necessity. Necessity was not proved by evidence at this inquiry".
If that is not an indication that alternative sites ought to be considered further, I do not know what is.
LORD KENNET: Will the noble Lord allow me to intervene?
LORD CONESFORD: I will yield to the noble Lord in a minute, but I should like just to finish this point. If that statement does not directly bring the pledge of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer into question, I do not know the meaning of the English language.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, other sites were of course considered, as I recounted at some length in my speech at the beginning of this debate. The pledge of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was to the effect that if another site emerged from the inquiry, or from the review (I do not mind where), as being preferable to Stansted, the argument of delay would not be adduced in order to rule out consideration of such alternative site. It has not been, because no other site has been suggested.
LORD CONESFORD: The House and the country can judge between us, but how on earth an inquiry into Stansted could prove that another site was superior I do not know. That the report of the inspector indicated that in all probability another site would be superior I do not think is open to doubt, but I am absolutely willing that the public should decide between us.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if the noble Lord had heard my initial speech he would have heard me say that the inspector was not inquiring into other sites. That was done by the review recommended by the inspector.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, if the noble Lord really thinks that the review recomended by the inspector was a secret examination in some room in Whitehall, which the Government say has taken place, though they will give us no indication as to what its nature was, nor
928
even who conducted it or who took part in it, I say again what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Plowden: that it is absolutely obvious that that was not what the inspector intended.
I am absolutely amazed at what the noble Lord has said. After all, the reasons why the public inquiry has not taken place, as I pointed out earlier, are set out in the paragraph of the White Paper which has been read by my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne and quoted in part by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. It used to be said that justice must not only be done, it must also be seen to be done. The policy of the present Government seems to be this: injustice must not only be done; injustice must be seen to be done. And that is what, up to date, they have accomplished.
The planning outrage is the most monstrous that I can remember. It was my concern for what was happening to town and country, my love of architecture and the urbanity of our historic cities and the beauty of our villages and the serenity of our countryside, that first drove me into politics. It was on these subjects that I had spoken (and sometimes written) before I entered the House of Commons, 32 years ago. I hope the House will pardon me if I speak with some passion on this subject. It soon became my lot to be the first Minister to become exclusively engaged on the subject of town and country planning, and it fell to me to pilot through the House of Commons the Bill setting up the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and thereafter to take a leading part in the House of Commons in the planning legislation between 1942 and 1945.
As a result of my lifelong interest in this subject I am convinced that, unless the decision on Stansted is reversed, town and country planning in this country will be considered a bad joke. England has made notable contributions to town and country planning. No value which the art and science of town planning are designed to serve will have any chance of survival, if this Stansted decision stands and there is no further public examination. Transport, my Lords, is a great servant but a bad master. To imagine that you can plant an immense airport in the midst of the rural scene, in defiance of every considered plan for the area,

929
without disastrous effects is to say goodbye to the use of reason. The results will be devastating.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to allow me to intervene? I apologise for intervening so often, but so many things are said which ought not to be unchallenged. The noble Lord talked about putting down an airport "in defiance of every considered plan for the area". I would remind the noble Lord that Stansted has been reserved as a possible site since 1953. I wonder whether he considers the plans for the area which were in vigour between 1953 and 1964 to have been unconsidered.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord, whose concern—whatever he says to-day—for the cause of town and country planning I do not question, and to whose concern for amenities I have before paid tribute, would for a moment dispute that the transformation now proposed from the airport already there to what may be the greatest airport in Europe required further planning consideration. That transformation has received no support whatsoever from any planning authority, local or national, or from any planner of repute.
I think it is quite absurd (and here I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Plowden), to put the convenience of air travellers before every other consideration of the national interest. I am going to give an interesting example of this predominance and interesting evidence of where the authors of this scheme are to be found. I was once—although I have forgotten most of what I knew—a classical scholar, and sometimes studied textual criticism. I am going to bring before the House a rather amusing example, I think, showing whence these proposals emanated.
Noble Lords may have read in paragraph 51 of the Report of the Inquiry, that Sir Milner Holland, the very highly skilled advocate, putting the case for the Ministry of Aviation, dealing with accessibility, said that the airport must be within "one hour's travelling time from Grosvenor Square".
We know, of course, that the airport will not be within one hour's traveling
930
time of Grosvenor Square, but that is not the point I wish to make. I ask noble Lords what they really think of such a requirement. The greatest airport in Europe, perhaps, is to be built in valuable and hitherto unspoilt country; and one of the considerations which may make that necessary is that, whatever the objections may be, the airport must be within one hour of Grosvenor Square.
Why Grosvenor Square? Something in my mind went back to another reference to Grosvenor Square. I remember a debate, in which I took part, initiated by my friend the late Lord Brabazon of Tara, on February 22, 1962. I then read extracts and referred to "the Report of the Committee on the Planning of Helicopter stations in the London Area." As a result of the criticism that I, and I think others, made in that debate, and the eventual waking up of the local planning authorities in London, I do not think anything further has been heard of that absurd White Paper. But this is what it said, on page 4: the helicopter station should be
"not much more than a quarter of an hour from Grosvenor Square."
This is very interesting because it proves that these curious officials—God bless them !—who were in the Ministry of Aviation and have now been transferred to the Board of Trade, have always had this idea that the only thing to be considered in relation to any development of the aircraft industry was how long it would take to get to an airport from Grosvenor Square. The wider interests, the interests of agriculture, the interests of town planning—all those do not matter at all.
A ghastly feature of the Stansted outrage is that its authors seem quite unconscious of what it is that they are destroying. I wonder whether I may mention a few things. I think that another noble Lord had intended to be here to put the case for the National Trust, but as he is not here perhaps I may mention Hatfield Forest, 1,049 acres, in the immediate vicinity of Stansted, held inalienably for the public good by the National Trust and visited by some 45,000 people every year, now about to be ruined by noise and other interference. Is that not something deserving of a little consideration? It may be that some noble Lords read the

931
splendid letter from the sculptor, Henry Moore, in The Times—his eloquent protest. I remember many years ago visiting friends among the artists' colony in Great Bardfield. Mr. Masefield seems to think that all that concerns visitors to this country is how to get, with enormous rapidity, to the centre of London—I expect that is again Grosvenor Square. Does it never occur to the British Airports Authority that some people might like to come to this country to visit our historic villages and see our beautiful country; that they would be prepared to take a little longer to get to the centre of London, if London were a pleasanter place in which to stay, and if our countryside remained a beautiful thing to enjoy.
Are not the blunders of the siting of Heathrow and Gatwick already sufficient? Must we, in making a greater airport than either, repeat all the blunders that were then made and ensure that, because of the nuisance it will be, even this new airport will not be fully operative? Rather more than thirty years ago, on June 18, 1937, I made in the House of Commons my first protest against what we were doing to town and country. I then read a few sentences of what Professor Trevelyan had written. I wonder whether I might remind noble Lords of what Professor Trevelyan said:
"Without vision the people perish; and without natural beauty the English people will perish in the spiritual sense. In old days the English people lived in the midst of nature, subject to its influence at every hour. Thus inspired, our ancestors produced their great creations in religion, in song, and in the arts and crafts—common products of a whole people spiritually alive."
It is still not to late to fight for such an England. But you have an alternative: you can turn England into a sonic slum and obey the faceless men who have produced this plan.
6.32 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: My Lords, I promise to be short. I would respectfully suggest that the question which Her Majesty's Government ought to be considering is not whether Stansted is the best site for a third London Airport, but the question as to the best site for this country's main international airport, designed for carrying out the functions
932
of an international airport, and at the same time serving London. So far as I am aware, that question has never been considered.
I would suggest that such an airport should fulfil certain conditions. In the first place, it should be sited, so far as possible, in a sparsely populated area. In the second place, its operation should cause the minimum noise nuisance to those living in the neighbourhood. In the third place, its operation should cause the minimum nuisance by noise to the inhabitants of London itself. In the fourth place, as an international airport it should not only be capable of handling an increasing denisty of air traffic, but actively encourage the maximum use of its facilities. Fifthly, it should be served by a fast system of communication to Central London, either by conventional rail, monorail or possibly hovertrain.
If those conditions were to be accepted as valid, it would mean this. In the first place, the site should be either on the coast or in the Thames Estuary, where the approaches would be largely over water, so reducing to a minimum the noise nuisance to those living nearby. In the second place, the site should be at some considerable distance from the centre of London, and not, like Heathrow, so placed that as your Lordships well know, aircraft approaching to land in the prevailing wind fly low over Chelsea, Kensington and indeed over Westminster, an operation which I think I can safely say is nowadays causing many of us to pass sleepless nights.
Thirdly, no restrictions should be placed on aircraft movement at any time during the day or night. In this connection Heathrow now restricts its traffic, particularly at night, because of the quite understandable complaint due to the nuisance by noise. They are in fact turning away traffic. Fourthly, that international airport should be served by a fast rail system to London and, at the same time—I think this is an important point—Customs and passport officers should be available on the train to carry out their duties during the journey. I think that most of us have experienced the frustration of a journey by air from, say, Paris to London when, after a fast flight—they get faster every year—one is kept waiting at Heathrow for the luggage to

933
be unloaded and transferred to the Customs room, followed by a tedious wait while the Customs officers carry out their duties. This is followed by a slow dreary journey by bus to London. The time take by the actual flight is often far shorter than the time taken after disembarking from the aircraft and arriving in London.
Before I come to Stansted, I should like to say that if my conditions are accepted, Heathrow itself fulfils none of the conditions; and the only argument that I know of for the retention of Heathrow, let alone Stansted, as an international airport appears to be that so much money has already been spent there. I venture to think that that is unsound reasoning. If a fundamental mistake has been made, the only solution is to cut the loss and to start afresh on the right lines. Heathrow, I would submit to your Lordships, is entirely unsuitable for it; present purpose, that is to say, as an international airport; and certainly any further expenditure on Heathrow ought, in the national interest, to be stopped at once.
I want now to turn to Stansted. Stansted fulfils none of my suggested conditions Indeed, I suggest that it would give rise to yet another complication. One of the most important of an international airport's functions is to cater for the "in transit" passenger. Let us suppose that a passenger from Stockholm wishes to fly to Montreal, and that there is no direct flight available from Stockholm to Montreal. That passenger might well fly from Stockholm to Stansted by a Scandinavian airline, with a view to flying on to Montreal by B.O.A.C. How is he to get from Stansted to Heathrow? No direct rail service is available; no fast communication connecting the two airports exists by rail. The only suggestion that one can make is that there should be a ferry service by air between the two airports, creating more and more noise over London, which is quite unacceptable.
I therefore venture to suggest to your Lordships that what is required is an airport some 50 to 80 miles from London, with its approaches over water, connected by a fast rail system to the centre of London. We have heard a great deal about Foulness. I for one would hesitate to advocate any particular site for such
934
an airport, because so far as I know Her Majesty's Government have never considered this problem. But if and when they do consider this problem, it is obvious that Foulness is one of the possible sites which should be considered—and when I say "Foulness" I mean the Foulness site as reclaimed from the sea.
6.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I must apologise for not being present at the beginning of this debate, and I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for not hearing what he had to say. I recognise the difficulty of the decision on this matter, but I must also say that I am not "on lobby" as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, suggested, and have no interest in Essex. I have, however, been interested in aviation for quite a number of years, not least in the development problem which arises from airport siting. One thing that strikes me about this problem now is much in line with what my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has said; that is, that it is extremely easy to make grave mistakes as to the future in aviation.
I know it sounds easy to say that our forbears were stupid, but they were just as clever as we are on the facts available to them. May I give some idea of the sort of mistakes which have been made? The first guideline for aircraft that I know of was in 1929, 1,000 yards by 600 yards. That was the official recommendation. Perhaps some local authorities may have made some serious mistakes. Much more serious was what happened ten years later. The Maybrey Report, which was a very careful Report, produced by those best able to do so at the time, decided on a standard-size airport to which aircraft constructors would have to conform. They laid it down as 1,300 yards by 1,000 yards. That situation did not last through the war, and ten years later came Heathrow. By that time yards had been changed into feet, so that the 4,000 feet of 1937 had been doubled to 9,000 feet. That was a step forward. But by 1952 the view was expressed on behalf of those developing the airport that this should be long enough and strong enough to serve any aircraft likely to be operating in the foreseeable future—and, incidentally, there were to be 160 movements an hour from Heathrow. It is quite clear already that we

935
have not obtained one-quarter of those movements, and the runways are now to be extended by about 50 per cent.
Ten years later we had the Inter-Departmental Committee of 1963, and we find this statement:
"As a basis for our studies we have assumed that supersonic transport will require no more from navigational ground facilities and airports than the most demanding subsonic aircraft…"
That is a very brief statement, and I doubt whether it is accurate. Are we going to say that the Concorde, let alone the aircraft beyond it, is going to demand no more than the Boeing 707 does at present? It is on this ground that I am going to be bold enough to question the technical wisdom of going to Stansted at all.
The first point about Stansted is that it is going to be restricted from the word "Go", and I believe it is fundamental, in developing a new airport of this importance, that it should be unrestricted. I do not believe that sufficient ground is going to be available during this period. Mr. Jay said 3,600 acres, but then added tentatively rather over another 1,000 acres. A simple mathematical calculation, taking two pairs of runways at full length, would mean obviously a bigger size than that. I notice that the inspector talked of 10,000 acres being affected, and the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, talked about 15,000 acres. If we are going to do something worth while, surely we should think in terms of, say, 15 square miles—something really big. This is what the Dutch have done at the entrance to the river at Rotterdam. They have there created some 15 square miles of land, on which they have already let factories to Krupps, I.C.I., Shell and Volkswagen. This gives some idea of the importance of the development which can take place. I am told that it costs about £5,000 an acre and is sold at £12,000 an acre. So that shows what can be done.
The fundamental consideration here is that we have to think about a fourth airport; and if there is one thing that stands out quite clearly it is that there is not going to be room in South-East England for a fourth London Airport unless it is at the same place as the third. One could certainly not put a double airport at Stansted in any circumstances what
936
ever. It is obviously economically desirable that the third and fourth airports should be at the same place. I think that the place to look for this is somewhere in the Thames area. I do not know whether Foulness is the best place, but there is nowhere else where one can get conditions in any way resembling those to be found in the Thames area. Such a choice should be of considerable value to the Port of London Authority in depositing dredging material; they would be glad to have somewhere to put the sand which they would dig out. At Rotterdam they are working to 65 ft., whereas the draft in the Thames is not much more than 30 ft. The time may come when port and quay facilities will be required not in London, as at present, but at the mouth of the Thames.
I would remind your Lordships that by the end of this century the country will increase in population by 50 per cent. Are we going to cram this population all into one area? Is there not a great deal to be said for opening up a new area to be served by a good railway, an area which might thereby become one of great importance? I know that there are difficulties and that the old bogey of Shoeburyness keeps cropping up. I do not know about Shoeburyness, but I know that at the Admiralty we stopped experimenting with guns ten years ago—and maybe in ten years the War Office also will stop experimenting with their guns. I may be wrong in that, but I think we ought to have some solid evidence on the subject. Communications are difficult, but if one opens up land there may be a benefit from the capital gains tax. At least something of this sort will accrue to those who develop it. The Inter-Departmental Report of 1963 says, rather ominously, that we should look at the fourth airport in four or five years' time "when the future may be clearer". Well, my Lords, four years have gone by since then. Is the future any clearer? I should have thought that there is only one thing that is clear, and that is that these two airports have got to be in the same place.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury (who is not here at the moment), obviously took a pro-Stansted line by saying that there is no time. I am quite sure that there is time, for the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Plowden; and that is what we may make much more use of

937
provincial airports which are at present greatly under-utilised. Indeed, one of the problems of congestion is due to the fact that B.E.A. and other airlines are funnelling all their services through London before they go overseas. I am sure that this is no excuse for not having an investigation. Thirty years ago it was very difficult to persuade people that big new factories would go up in developing areas in Scotland, the North of England and elsewhere. We know that they have gone up. The first was Rolls Royce, whose factory went up well before the war; and I am quite certain that a large number of overseas airlines could be persuaded to operate from the regions, and indeed from the development areas.
I find it very hard to see how any President of the Board of Trade could ever have agreed to paragraph 22 of the White Paper. It is a pure piece of guesswork. If you are developing in Wales, in the North-East, or in Scotland, the first necessity is to provide good communications. He says that it is impossible. I think this is the essential element of a regional policy which no doubt Mr. Jay, and I dare say Mr. Crosland, would be anxious to see. The slightest examination of the figures suggests to me that somewhere in the region of 3 million people come to airports in the middle of London from outside London. I quite accept that a third airport is necessary. I have said that regional airports can be used merely to postpone the time when that becomes necessary.
Let me ask the Government to take a long view of what has happened. The Civil Aviation Departments have made a succession of poor judgments on this, and they may well be making an equally poor judgment at present. Let us avoid the sort of error which the railways made 100 years ago in selecting the wrong gauge. It may be that, if they had chosen the right gauge, many of the problems of the railways would not be with us to-day. Let us try to avoid that if we can. Let us for the moment divert all the aircraft we can to the Provinces, for this will be an enormous advantage to the economic development of this country. Let us then look to see where we are and make an airport which will be unrestricted and which could be the finest airport in Europe or in the world.
6.50 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, at this hour, with 17 speakers hopefully waiting, I shall be very brief indeed. It would be most complacent to think that after some 16 or 17 speeches, with 17 more to come, one would have anything to say which would not already have been said and which will be said after I have sat down. But there are three short points which I should like to make. The first is that, having heard the Government's defence, I believe they regard the matter as really resolving itself into a very narrow point; that the inspector (and I must confess that I do not see it in the same way, though I certainly accept that they are putting forward this contention with total sincerity) recommended that there should be a review, and they are saying that there has been a comprehensive review but it has not been in public.
May I venture to suggest to the Government—who will know that I bear them the friendliest disposition—that this is a rather naïve suggestion? I do not think it can really be suggested that the views of the inspector in this matter will be met, and, above all, the misgivings and worries of people who live in the area will be allayed, by saying that a review has been conducted in private. If it is suggested that such a review has taken place, I think that at least—and I am by no means sure that this would be enough—the fullest details of the personnel connected with such a review ought to be published, so as to inspire confidence on that score.
My own belief is that the inspector intended that there should be a further public inquiry, and I would urge on the Government, even at this late hour, and knowing, as I am sure to be the case, that their concern is to press on with what they regard as a vital commercial and industrial necessity, that they may be insufficiently taking into consideration a factor which is of paramount importance, and that is the fears and anxieties—if I may use the word, the positive neurosis—that they have created among the people who live in that area. One has only to visit the area to realise that people have been living under a most horrible threat for very many years, and I do not believe that the Government are conscious of the fact that they have unwittingly—and not only this Government,

939
but their predecessors—inflicted on that community very terrible hardship. It would at least be a comfort to hear some expression of real regret and concern for the population of that area.
It is a most delightful part of the country. It has the most delightful amenities. It has beautiful countryside and elegant, charming period houses. But people are living there under the threat of seeing the whole thing totally erased. Yes, I say "totally erased". despite the nod of dissent from the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I think that people who are living there in anticipation of the arrival of this vast airport are people who are justifiably exercised and worried by what is to happen to their homes.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I do not know whether perhaps there is a feeling in Stansted, and indeed in the country in general, that if you fly an aircraft over a pretty old house the old house falls down. Of course it does not. There are far more listed buildings, buildings of historic and architectural interest, within the noise range of Heathrow than there will ever be at Stansted, and they are all standing up very nicely.
LORD GOODMAN: During the afternoon I have had cause to admire the doggedness with which the noble Lord has maintained the defence of a by no means easy subject. I shall not comment on that observation, because I may be compelled to be a little unkind.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, we have the village of Finchingfield, one of the most beautiful villages in Essex—we call it the picture-postcard village—and over that village the Sabre jets from Wethersfield fly continuously during the week—luckily, as I have already said, not at the weekend. Those houses are still standing. The people may suffer from that inconvenience and noise from Wethersfield, but the beautiful houses and the beautiful church are still there.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, I imagine the noble Lord would not deny that jets do in fact damage houses near the runway.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, on a point of Order, I should like to remind the
940
House that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is addressing it.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I think that these contentions are a little unworthy and almost a little desperate. Anyone who visits that area and observes the plans that are intended to be put into operation in relation to the area can have no doubt about the legitimate misgivings that are entertained by the local population. I put it no higher than that. Of course, it must be necessary for the better welfare of the community to undertake painful decisions, to do damaging things, but what I regard as of paramount importance is that people should be satisfied, and publicly satisfied, of the necessity. That is where I have very grave doubts about the wisdom of seeking to brush off this matter on the footing that, having carried out a private review, that suffices and it is unnecessary to make a public demonstration of the fact.
I am very much inclined to agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, said. I think, without putting it in melodramatic phrases, that to some extent the democratic process is on trial here. Quite apart from the quesion of where we put an airport, which must be a matter of great importance, the survival and working of the democratic process is something which, in importance, transcends any other consideration. It may well be that, if the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is to be believed, the Government will be inflicting a benefit on the people by bringing them within the vicinity of this noise. But they do not believe this; they believe that they are going to suffer great harm and great damage, and when people are put into that position it behoves the Government to establish, and to establish publicly, that there is a need for this damage to be inflicted.
I think it would be a totally mistaken policy to tell people that there are departmental and similar considerations which make it difficult, awkward and uncomfortable to have a public investigation. If I may say so, democracy and the working of the democratic system may often be tiresome, awkward, difficult and uncomfortable. But I am perfectly convinced that the present Government are

941
as wedded to this system as any Government we have ever had. I am perfectly convinced that if they are now proceeding in a fashion which, in this instance, gives rise to doubts and misgivings, it is because they have some misapprehension on something where I am afraid I cannot follow them.
I therefore urge them at this moment, however late it may seem, however important it may seem to put this airport into the earliest possible use, to give consideration to the question of whether a more important issue is not involved, whether there is not a principle which, as I have said, transcends the question of where we put an airport, and which makes it necessary to satisfy the residents of this area that if their amenities are to be affected they are being affected for a good purpose—for the public welfare.
6.58 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships very long, but I feel I have a contribution to make, perhaps especially as I have no sentimental attachment to Essex or Hertfordshire or the area of Stansted. If I do not follow the noble Lords who have already spoken it is not because I do not share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, whose powerful speech impressed me greatly; it is not because I do not share the expressions of dismay which we have heard about the destruction of valuable agricultural land and of our unrivalled countryside; nor is it that I do not worry about the question of amenity, and particularly noise, which has been mentioned by so many of your Lordships.
In this connection I refer not only to noise, as such, affecting people on the ground, but noise in the same way as the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, spoke of it; in terms of its restriction on the value of an investment in an airfield, and also the restriction on the investment in aircraft in terms of services being restricted, with further restriction on the pay load of aircraft because of noise, which therefore impairs the value of the investment in the aircraft. I agree very much with what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, said about ancillary airports such as Prestwick and the like, which leads up to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, that there are other con-
942
siderations beyond the fact that there should be another big airport near London.
On February 2, 1953, I took off for India in a Comet 1 into a north-easterly gale, and we crossed the coast above Sheppey. I had one ghastly glimpse of the seaward end of the Thames Estuary or that day. Your Lordships will recall the disastrous floods which the gales and the spring tide of that day caused; and I am consequently one of those who believe that, with the disappearance of the Zuider Zee, which is so rapidly being totally reclaimed, those who warn and warn again of the risk of future disaster to the lower reaches of the Thames, and to much of London itself, are absolutely right.
The subject was covered in the illustrated section of the Observer a few weeks ago, and in that paper a barrage was indicated as being the likely outcome. For this reason, I believe that work on such a barrage should be wedded to the construction of London's third airport. Therefore I favour a site on the Essex sands, rather than at Stansted, with the barrage being used as the road-rail link with the South Bank of the Thames, feeding into the much easier connections which, as your Lordships will have seen in the papers, are praised by those who support Sheppey as the proper site for the third airport. The shortness of this route in terms of time and of cost is commended by the supporters of Sheppey for that very reason. Incidentally, I am one of those who regard with the gravest suspicion the White Paper's figures for the road-rail communication with London from Stansted. Did the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, say that £7 million was the figure?
My Lords, such an airport as I and so many visualise on the reclaimed sands, and the barrage, will call for a massive assemblage of highly specialised machinery, labour and "know-how", all of which could in some measure be shared between the two, with consequent vast economies on both projects. I am tempted to ask your Lordships whether the consideration of this possibility is acceptable to you, in which case even if the advantages of the Stansted proposal are marginal (which I do not agree), and even if that proposal is unacceptable, an inquiry should undoubtedly be held; and

943
in this respect I agree with every word spoken by the noble Lord who has just sat down. In such an inquiry the possibility of the scheme I have put forward could be considered by those concerned.
Before I sit down there is one other matter I wish to raise. I have listened throughout the debate, but I have heard no reference to the pilots' views. Such an inquiry would undoubtedly result in the pilots' associations giving evidence and in the views of the men who have to fly the aircraft being heard.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked on what it was that those who were unconvinced about Stansted based their feelings. As I have said, I have no interest in Essex, but I am jealous of our agricultural heritage and have respect for our countryside. I am influenced by some knowledge and experience of airports and of the noise problem. I am confident that the right plan for modern aircraft is to stack, take off and gain height over the sea, and that, as we see in other parts of the world, such would be achieved by an airport which I visualise on the sands, connected to London by a barrage controlling the tides.
7.4 p.m.
LORD NETHERTHORPE: My Lords, it has been contended that some of the best speeches that were ever made were never delivered, and on that basic premise I was inclined to refrain from speaking, that mine might be counted among them. However, I was moved to speak by some remarks that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and also by a desire to speak in support of the inimitable and admirable way in which the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, presented the agricultural case against Stansted and at least in favour of reopening the inquiry. I must confess an interest, in that my son lives within the periphery of Stansted, in that beautiful village called Ugley—and, indeed, it is a beautiful village, as many of them are round there.
One of the points the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made about the agricultural evaluation was that the claim about the productivity of the land in the Stansted area being 60 per cent. in excess of the national average was correct only because the national average was inclusive of hills,
944
moorlands and mountains. That is in fact wholly untrue. It is 60 per cent. in excess of the average of the tillage acreage of this country, which is a very different thing. Therefore, to evaluate at some £1 million worth of production the 15,000 acres that are likely to be taken even then undervalues, under-assesses, what the impairment of agricultural production could be. Because there is nothing more deleterious to agricultural production than being on the periphery of a large conurbation. The encroachment by trespassers, by dogs and so on, inevitably varies the type of farming and the productivity pattern or attainment that can be carried out.
Therefore, against the background of the current balance-of-payments situation, there is, I consider, a new factor that can be brought into consideration; and I believe that this new evidence merits a further inquiry. It is that if agricultural production is going to be lost to the tune of £1 million per annum, then with devaluation it is going to cost that much more hard-earned currency in the export of goods and services in order to pay for what is being displaced in that particular area by way of productive effort in agriculture. Those are the points which I think add to the case that has already been submitted to the previous inquiries, and which I think amount to new evidence which, by itself, creates a prima facie case for a new inquiry.
7.8 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I have no interests whatsoever to declare. I do not live in Essex. I know it slightly, and love it very much, but I have no connection with it. Moreover, I have no connection with the firm which has produced this excellent alternative to Stansted as a third London airport. Before I start, I should like to comment on one or two things which were said by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. I am sorry he is not here to hear them, because he might have been able to contradict them. I am joining in this debate purely because I feel that the people who live in and around Stansted—and, in fact, all those who love open English country—have had less than justice done to them.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, talked about sound-proof houses. My Lords, does he really think that we are going

945
to live inside our houses, with all the windows closed, all the year round, summer and winter? Some of us are still mobile enough to enjoy working in our gardens, and one has not much protection from aircraft noise there. In fact, even at Epsom, where I live, which is a good way from Heathrow, I have more than once—quite frequently, in fact—had to stop speaking for the space of one or two minutes while a plane was going overhead. So far as the re-siting of the runways is concerned, it does not make much difference in noise. Whether a plane is directly overhead or not, it is going to make just as much noise.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, also referred to greater development in Stansted bringing greater wealth to the neighbourhood. Money does not always mean happiness. I have no doubt there have been great developments at such places as Battersea, Brentford and London Airport itself; but does he really consider that because of their greater wealth those places are preferable to the Cotswolds, the South Downs or the Weald of Kent? I cannot see that such an attitude is really worth considering. I do not deny that a third London airport is desirable; and I venture to differ slightly from my noble and learned friend, Lord Dilhorne, who said that he felt it need not be near London. I feel it must be near London because, in spite of everything we have done to build new towns and overspill areas and all the rest, there is no doubt that the centre of civilisation still remains in London. It is the centre of Government, the centre of the arts and the centre of finance; that is where business people and artists will want to come.
I am very impressed by one thing in the brochure about the new Foulness airport which I expect most noble Lords have seen. It is the extraordinary series of utterly inaccurate statements which have been made by the British Airports Authority. For instance, in regard to cost, Stansted is given as the lowest. The new Foulness airport would cost presumably about £30 million—and that is not such a very high figure when one remembers that a single Concorde costs £7 million. But they have not taken into consideration the fact that an enormous amount of good argricultural land will have to be bought at Stansted and compensation will have to be given to the
946
farmers who are deprived of their farms. It is estimated that about 9,000 acres are affected.
As far as road access is concerned, the Airports Authority say that the building of a motorway will be £20 million more expensive at Foulness. But consider the facts. Most of the Foulness motorway would be over flat, undeveloped land, whereas the opposite is the case with Stansted, where the country is hilly and the contours run across road direction, This can be proved by the fact that on the railway line between King's Cross and Stevenage there are seven long tunnels. Therefore, construction of a motorway from here to Stansted would be far more expensive. Thirdly, there is the effect on defence activities. That is stated to be large at Foulness; but actually the present firing range is practically obsolete and, in any case, with the new scheme which proposes to reclaim land from the sea, no land will be taken at all.
The Airports Authority claim that if Foulness were adopted the aerodromes at Southend and Rochester would have to be closed, even if they were still operational. That is not true; they could still remain open and would be relieved of a great deal of heavy traffic which they are not really capable of handling. The Authority are quoted as saying that in the case of Stansted the towns affected would be Bishop's Stortford, Harlow, Sawbridgeworth and Thaxted. But there are others to the West and North that will be affected: Stevenage, Welwyn Garden City, Hertford, Saffron Walden, Cambridge, Royston and Chelmsford, which together have a population of 438,275. All those will be badly affected by aircraft noise; whereas with the new Foulness scheme using reclaimed land no towns would be affected because both approach and take-off would be over the sea. Reclaimed land may be thought to be rather an extreme method; but, in fact, it is practised constantly in Holland; and it may be of interest to remember that a reclaimed land scheme was used for the purposes of the Montreal Expo 67. If it is possible to do this for a temporary thing like that exposition, surely there is even more reason to do it for an important thing like an airport.
My Lords, Governments are made up of human beings, and any human being cart make a mistake. Perhaps one might

947
say that this Government hold the record for having made more mistakes than any other; but whether that is your Lordships' opinion or not, there is no doubt that every Government have made mistakes. But how much more should we respect them if they would only come into the open and admit it, instead of hedging round and producing a lot of completely un-understandable statistics and trying to make out that they are right. As far as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, thinks, the Government "know right". I can only say that my experience has been that they "know wrong".
7.19 p.m.
LORD WEDGWOOD: My Lords, in rising, to speak in this debate I should like to preface my remarks by saying that I am not an expert on air transport requirements; I have no technical knowledge about the engineering problems involved, and I do not live in the Stansted area—in fact, I live in quite the opposite direction. But I have some thoughts—and I have had some little experience in the past—of land usage and it is in this connection, and on one other matter, that I should like to offer to your Lordships such ideas as I have.
I do not intend to comment on the rights and wrongs of what has happened over Stansted so far. We have all heard most of them, I think, this afternoon from any distinguished speakers. There is also The Stansted Black Book and the recent consulting engineer's report on Foulness. It is my view, my Lords, that if there is a reasonable alternative site on land of low productive value which could be engineered to fill the needs of national air requirements, that site should be chosen, even though it might cost more initially, and even if it means altering a decision taken at Government level. This, as many speakers have said this afternoon, is not a Party political issue and should not have been treated as such.
We have in Britain a population of some 54 million which, we are told, will increase again substantially within the next twenty years. That is inevitable. As a nation we have become more dependent on purchasing food from agricultural countries overseas, with the profits of our industrial exports. It is problematical whether this facility will continue indefinitely in the future, or
948
whether indeed food will always be obtainable from overseas. At the same time, the population growth in our towns and cities over the past 100 years has resulted, as we all know, in the disappearance of much agricultural land of high potential under housing and factory buildings. As I see it, we have reached a stage when the likelihood of a further rapid increase in the productivity per acre in Britain, such as has taken place due to scientific invention and improved management, is less certain; and I believe that we shall face either a higher bill for imported foodstuffs, with consequent loss of sterling reserves, or a reduced standard of living through our inability to feed ourselves adequately.
The proposed airport at Stansted, with its runways, service buildings and perimeter urban development, must result, as many noble Lords have said this afternoon, in the loss of many more thousands of acres of land of high agricultural productivity. The figure of 15,000 acres was given by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, in his most interesting speech, and that, my Lords, is 22 square miles. As has been stated so often, this airport, if it is eventually built, will affect rural life over a wide area, and there will be a further reduction in land available for producing homegrown foodstuffs worth £1 million a year, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, pointed out—and this is production year after year, as the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe, reminded us. Of course this is happening daily all over Britain where the needs of housing and industry are urgent, and there is not much which can be done to contain this continual drain of agricultural land under building. But on this issue of an airport, where there may be a good alternative site on land of less or no agricultural value. I submit that there is an overwhelming case for sensible land usage which should be given far greater attention.
I am one of many, my Lords, who believe that we can no longer afford to dissipate our limited land resources as casually as we have in past years. It is not so much a question of priorities; it is a question of attitudes of mind. Other countries have similar problems even with lower population figures relative to their land mass and some are, as we all know, energetically evolving modern

949
ideas to deal with these problems. Indeed, all over the world the need for intelligent land usage is essential if the next generation is to avoid the inevitable retribution that will overtake nations which believe to-morrow can always take care of itself. The land which we have in our care to-day to feed our future population should not be so easily destroyed when, with forethought and wise investment, our needs might be met through greater imagination in land use and, in this case, possibly by reclamation from the sea.
Most of your Lordships have probably read the consulting engineer's report on Foulness with the same interest as I did myself. Surely we can hope that this proposal will now be considered seriously by the Government. It seems that in this report we have a concept which is truly imaginative, and sufficiently factual to make further expert examination imperative before further planning takes effect at Stansted. Surely reclamation of land from the sea is in the national interest where it can be put to such good use.
The Low Countries have been doing this sort of things for centuries and we, too, should now start utilising what potential resources of this nature we may have and thereby reduce pressure on our very limited land space. If Foulness was found to be a feasible airport site, as it is indicated it might well be, and if air safety is at least as good as at Stansted—and it is claimed that it is safer—it appears to me to have a number of other very considerable advantages besides those of good land usage. Communications would be immeasurably superior to those possible at Stansted. For example, by its position on the coast Foulness could facilitate rapid transport to continental ports and to the fast developing East Anglian ports, as well as those of Kent. Whether it would bring air passengers nearer to Grosvenor Square, I am unable to say.
The introduction of hovercraft connections could speedily transfer passengers and air freight over wide areas of the Thames Estuary, including the Port of London and Tilbury and to industry on both banks of the river. Another great advantage of Foulness, in my view—and this is my second point—is that the noise factor which, as so many speakers have said, must add greatly to the dis-
950
comfort of those living in the Stansted area, would be much reduced if the new airport were built on the seashore.
My Lords, the time has gone by when planners, Government or any other body, can disregard the effect of noise on the public, and choose to say, as they do, "They will get used to it, let them grumble." It is steadily being established by medical investigation here and elsewhere that traffic noise, and particularly the intermittent high screech of jet aircraft, has a progressively deteriorating effect on the human nervous system, with accompanying disorders and increasing irritability and nervous tension.
This noise factor is a facet of airport planning which needs to be given greater attention, for with the introduction of the, Concorde in the early 1970s it is my own belief, from what I have heard over past years, and following the recent tests which have been carried out here, that the people of Britain, as well as those living in other densely populated countries, may not accept the much more shattering sonic boom of this plane over their heads and may insist, if it is to fly at all, that it does so over the sea. Foulness would be a much more suitable airport for the Concorde in this respect than any inland position, and I suggest that Her Majesty's Government should give this some extra thought.
In conclusion, my Lords, I should like to add my thanks to those already expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, for initiating this important debate to-day, with a dispassion and clarity which has been most impressive. In supporting the great weight of opinion shown in your Lordships' House in favour of the Government convening a public inquiry on Stansted and the siting of the new London airport, I hope that they will immediately investigate the possibility of an alternative at Foulness. I also urge Her Majesty's Government to accept that they need to carry public opinion with them on this matter, as it is obvious that so far insufficient attention has been paid to the opinions of the many fully responsible and informed bodies concerned with the siting of this new airport.
In the midst of all other difficulties, this is the time to think big and imaginatively for the future. I suggest that if the technical details of Foulness can be

951
established and are favourable, the long-term cost is not likely to be so much greater than the cost of Stansted that we cannot and should not afford it. I feel sure that the country would warmly welcome such a constructive and exciting project as reclaiming land from the sea and building the most modern airport in Europe, with all that could mean in new hope and new pride in a national determination to create something out of nothing, rather than destroy more of what is best in our rural landscape.
7.32 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I should declare that I am a former Chairman of Essex County Council and for fifteen years or so have been the leader of my Party on that Council, both in control and in opposition. But to-night I feel like an Essex nationalist. I feel that I should apologise to your Lordships for appearing in the rather unusual role of a Party political eunuch. Perhaps this is not so strange as it sounds. This Stansted scheme was conceived under a Conservative Government. The Labour Government were left to carry the baby. That was perhaps in the natural order of things, but the present Government have gone one step further and have decided to have this little Tory love-child legally adopted. So your Lordships see the difficulty in which I find myself.
In my appeal to the Minister, I do not intend to embroider what I say with any appeal to sentimentality. Of course, among the people of Essex there is to a certain extent a sentimental feeling about this question—but only to a certain extent. There are men and women, many of them in the eventide of their lives, who are to have their homes taken away. There are farmers whose forebears have tilled the same fields for generations, and who have now to see them sunk in a sea of concrete. While we talk so much about national parks, here is a delightful, quiet little corner of England that is to be rudely disturbed. As I say, I do not intend to base my appeal to the Minister on sentimentality, a sentimentality that might be a subject for tears. If it can be proved legitimately, by proper inquiry, that Stansted is the right place to put this airport, then I feel that the sentimental feelings of the people in the neigh-
952
bourhood must be subordinated to the greater need of the nation's interest.
I do not think that there is any doubt about the need for a third London airport, but I ask myself three questions. First, is Stansted the right site? Secondly, was the procedure which led to the adoption of Stansted impeccable and above public criticism? Thirdly, is the cost which is put before us beyond dispute? My answer is, No. And I think that that is the answer of a large number of people. I feel that the Ministers are being too magnanimous in showing loyalty to the civil servants who conceived this scheme. It is the Ministers who are suffering for that loyalty at the moment, and this is something that grieves me very much. I feel that all the possible alternative schemes that have been mentioned ought to have their sites put under the same kind of microscope of a public inquiry as the one held at Chelmsford.
Let me take the last of my three questions first—the question of cost. The White Paper says Stansted will cost £51 million, less £4 million for the existing runway, making a net total of £47 million. I do not believe that figure. The Ministry themselves said that it was only a rough indication. My noble friend Lord Kennet (and tonight I underline the word "friend") now alters that figure completely, and says that Stansted will cost £59 million, against the £47 million mentioned in the White Paper, while Sheppey would cost £65 million, against the £132 million in the White Paper.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, perhaps I could explain the different figure. The one I gave was for Stansted II, with the runways turned. This, as I said, adds £10 million to the cost.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, my noble friend said that these are "the best figures the Government have". I remember a somewhat similar turn of phrase being used with regard to a Prime Minister about ten years ago, and used then in a derogatory sense. I want to know when we are going to get a final figure. We have had a hotch-potch of figures from the White Paper to the present debate, and we do not know where we are.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I make one point clear? It will help your

953
Lordships later on, when I wind up and have another lot of figures. My noble friend used the 1970 corrected figures. I propose to use the figures that appear in the White Paper.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, let me take the figures in the White Paper. To that £47 million net we have to add something in the region of £10 million for the cost of realignment of runways. It might probably be £14 million more, because the £4 million existing Stansted runway is going to become useless; but for the purpose of argument let me call it £10 million. Add half a million for the cost of the road link from the airport to the M.11. The White Paper puts it at £1 million, but I am assured that it will cost at least £1½ million. Then we have to add £2 million in order to expand the size of the M.11. As originally planned by the Ministry of Transport, the M.11 was to be of six lanes, but it will require an extra two lanes to accommodate all the traffic that is going to be generated by the airport. These figures are from somebody whose name I cannot mention but who really does know his job. What did my noble friend say?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I said it was a pity the noble Lord could not say by whom he was informed.
LORD LEATHERLAND: And it is also a pity that my noble friend could not tell us who were the members of this departmental inquiry. Then add £10 million for the transfer of Wethersfield. Wethersfield is a very sophisticated establishment, and I doubt whether £10 million would cover the cost, particularly as we are told that it would cost £25 million to transfer the antiquated artillery depot from Shoeburyness.
These additions increase the already identified extra cost at Stansted by £22½ million, from £47 million to, roughly, £70 million. This excludes the possible full cost of the transfer of Wethersfield, which I have counted as £10 million, and excludes £5 million for the rebuilding and soundproofing of schools in and around Stansted and Bishop's Stortford. It also excludes all the new schools, the fire stations, the clinics and the police stations that will have to be built to accommodate the extra 100,000 inhabitants. It excludes the capital value
954
of the food produced on the farmland to be taken: that is, £1 million a year loss, capitalised at say £15 million. This, I know, will not appear directly as a budget item in the cost of the Ministry—it is merely a cost to the country—but I think it must be taken into account.
It excludes also the subsidy that may have to be paid to B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. in respect of the removal of any of their buildings and installations from Heathrow to Stansted, and these are running into a cost of £43 million. It also excludes the £45 million being spent on enlarging Heathrow, because Stansted will not be able to cater for all the air traffic of future years. So it really looks as if this Stansted scheme will cost well over £100 million. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, can laugh, but the figures that he put forward were, he said, merely the best figures he had; and the Ministry said they are only a rough indication.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I should not let the noble Lord's figures go past without saying that they are completely unfounded and irresponsible.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Let me show how unfounded they are. Is it unfounded that £10 million is to be spent on realigning the runways? Is it unfounded that another £10 million, or something near it, is to be spent on transferring Wethersfield? Here is £20 million out of the £22½ million that I mentioned, to be getting on with.
The White Paper estimate also excludes some less specific and perhaps more doubtful contingent liabilities. There are six military airfields under the stacking area of Stansted. I do not know whether they will be able to be used to their full capacity for their present purposes if Stansted is established. But what I do know is that the very reason why Silver-stone was turned down was because it had eight military airfields under its stacking area. What is sauce for the goose may be sauce for the gander. Then, big road expansions will be needed inside the Greater London Council area; that is to say, from a point somewhere about Wanstead, where the M.11 will end. If we do not have those expansions there will be a terrific pile up of road traffic just inside the Greater London area. Obviously I cannot put that into figures. If it is suggested that we should use the

955
North Circular Road, I will merely entertain noble Lords by saying that it took me over two hours to do ten miles round that road a few weeks ago.
While I am discussing the White Paper estimates on cost, I want to see what is said about the railways. When the White Paper compares Stansted with Sheppey it includes £40 million for extending the main line from Sheppey; but it does not include anything at all for extending the main line from Stansted. I think we know that expansions in both cases will be necessary, and this might add more millions to the estimated Stansted cost. Incidentally, in suggesting that the mainline expansion for Sheppey will cost £40 million I think the White Paper may conceivably be in error, because British Railways now say that the cost of that expansion will be £25 million, of which £12 million, anyway, was being spent in order to cater for existing overcrowding on the railway. So this £40 million which is debited against Sheppey really comes down to £13 million when we make a comparison between Sheppey and Stansted, and that narrows the gap which apparently exists between the rival schemes. I am sorry to say that I have no confidence in the figures of cost that have been put before us, either in the White Paper or from other quarters since.
The second question that I asked myself was whether this decision had been reached in a way that was impeccable and beyond public criticism. History tells us that we have had the public inquiry. But it has since been suggested that that inquiry was not of the very full statutory kind which was mentioned after the chalk-pit case. As a result of the chalk-pit case it is understood that if any new evidence is heard after the inquiry has been formally closed, then the protesters shall have the opportunity of cross-examining on that new evidence. If it is now definitely stated that this was not a full statutory inquiry at Chelmsford, it was a pretty good smokescreen; and this is how a large number of people in Essex are beginning to regard it.
What happened at the inquiry? There were six criteria on which the inspector pronounced. He pronounced in favour of Stansted on one, and against Stansted
956
on the other five; and he thought, as has been said, that a review of the whole problem should be undertaken by a Committee equally interested in traffic in the air, traffic on the ground, regional planning and national planning. What notice did the Ministry take of that recommendation? They did not set up this new public inquiry. Instead, they had a private inquiry of their own, and they heard new arguments from many people, no doubt members of the Civil Service, experts in aviation. These experts in aviation, many of whom had been involved in the original Stansted choice, naturally stood by their original decision and refused to admit that they had been wrong in the first place. There was no chance for the protesters to cross-examine on the new evidence.
But this is only part of the story. In addition to spurning the inspector's findings, after the original public inquiry had been closed, and after all the cross-examiners had been sent home, they secretly altered the whole basis of the scheme. The runways were doubled; the amount of noise was doubled; the amount of land to be taken was considerably increased. It is something like a motorist who has successfully defended himself against a charge of parking but who suddenly finds himself convicted behind his back by a "packed" jury on a charge of dangerous driving, although he never had the charge put to him and never had a chance to deny it.
So the people in Essex, quite understandably, are beginning to feel that not only are they being badly damaged, but they are being badly double-crossed, as well. We are now told that the scheme has been changed again, and that the runways have been realigned. This is certainly going to relieve some local residents of the inconvenience that they were going to suffer from the noise, but it will bring a whole lot of other people right into the direct line of fire. Are they to be given a chance of cross-examining on this new decision? No, of course not. The change, on the whole, I should think is an improvement. But we are told that the wind on certain days will come in such a direction that the new runways in their new direction will be unusable. That means less efficency, and it means a loss of income to the airport.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would like to say on what proportion of the time this will be so.
LORD LEATHERLAND: No, my Lords; because the information that has been given is so carefully kept very secret from us. All this chopping and changing about, this doubling of the runways, this slanting of the runways—what a condemnation it is of the slipshod way in which the whole plan was originally conceived! And let me add for emphasis that it was conceived by the Conservative Government of that day. But is it so surprising? It was hatched by the same people who conceived the now roundly condemned and hopelessly inadequate airport at Heathrow. They were wrong then. Might they not be wrong now?
The third question I ask myself is whether Stansted is the right choice. The only thing that has been proved so far by the public inquiry is that it is the wrong choice. Many other schemes have been put forward. There are Sheppey, Foulness Island and the sands off Foulness. These three all have one indisputable advantage over Stansted. The planes will stack over the sea, they will land from the sea, and in the case of the two Foulness schemes they will ascend over the sea and the noise will be eliminated almost completely. The risk of a crash over a residential area will be eliminated almost completely. And, my Lords, planes do crash—one crashed and burst into flames on Stansted airport only last week.
Now if I were to try to assess the technical merits of these various schemes I should be told that I have no expert professional qualification, and of course that is true. I am just a simple citizen, but I have yet to hear that simple citizens have been deprived of their rights. These schemes have been drawn up by real experts. Some of them, perhaps, contain a little "special pleading", but I think that is all the more reason why they should be submitted to examination by an impartial committee before they are turned down, as they have been turned down by the Ministry so far, and that they should not be turned down by a secret group of the Ministry's own men—the very men who were responsible for the Stansted decision in the first place, and who naturally do not want to depart from that decision.
958
Perhaps I may try to make one or two comparisons between these various airports. In the first place, as has already been said, Stansted would take thousands of acres of rich farmland at a time when our balance of payments demands the production of more food at home and not less, and further thousands of acres of land would be taken for industry and for housing accommodation which will have to be provided around the airport. If we are told that Foulness also comprises good farmland (as we probably shall be), the answer is that more than half of it is not used as good farmland, and the Shoeburyness authorities will not allow it to be so used. The Foulness reclamation scheme will take no land at all.
In regard to visibility and fog, the situation is worse at Stansted than at Foulness. At Stansted it will be necessary for the aircraft to fly overland nearly 40 miles inwards and 40 miles outwards, whereas Foulness needs no overland flying at all. We know that airline operators like to reduce their time in the air as much as possible, and 40 miles at slow speed would be a big burden on their fuel consumption—a burden that would not exist if Foulness were adopted.
Then there is the question of military flying. There is no proof in the White Paper that military flying would be affected, but there are six military air-fields in the stacking area of Stansted airport, as I mentioned some time ago, and with aircraft continually going up and coming down, and with twice as many military aircraft flying each day as there would be civil aircraft, I have a feeling that there might be some interference. I hope this will be investigated, or that my noble friend Lord Beswick, a very distinguished air pilot himself, will be able to give us satisfaction on that point.
I will be reckless, and say that instead of adding to the difficulties of Southend Airport, Foulness will ease those difficulties, because it will be able to take the big night-flying jets that now land at Southend, about which Southend is already complaining and against which it is taking municipal action. I think Stansted might be less popular with the airlines because of the additional fuel consumption which might be involved. At Foulness there would be no overland flying and no need to slow down speed,

959
apart from the stacking operation, so there would be no undue wastage of fuel.
Looking at the question of industrial development at Stansted, this would take rich farmland, whereas at Foulness there are thousands of acres of virtually unused land where industry would be a blessing rather than a curse. And if we look at Sheppey, the planners there are loudly demanding such development, and did so by means of notices printed in the papers last week.
I should like to ask what happened before Stansted was chosen. Were the airline operators asked whether they thought Stansted was better than Foulness? Were the pilots asked? Were the international airline authorities asked? I think the answer is "No" in each case. Was the London Regional Planning Conference asked? The answer is "No". What is the view of the Greater London Council? The answer is that the G.L.C. is dead against Stansted, as also is the Essex County Council Planning Authority. Was the Department of Economic Affairs asked? The answer is "No", although that Department is already considering the whole question of national airport policy. Was the South-East Economic Development Board asked? It certainly was not asked. I shall probably be told that the Board was not in existence at the time of the inquiry. But it has been in existence since, and it has not been asked, and the Board now says that the proposal for Stansted airport will compel them to reinvestigate their whole strategy for the Eastern Region.
My Lords, what is the use of having planning organisations if you do not ask their advice? I admit that Stansted is nearer to London as the crow flies, but we are not crows, and we do not travel like crows. Big road and rail developments would be needed, no matter which of the airport sites is chosen. I wonder whether it is realised how much extra traffic will be generated by the third airport, wherever it may be. We are told that by 1980 this third airport will need to handle nearly 55,000 passengers a day. With seven people in a car this is nearly 8,000 cars a day; with 3½ people in a car it means over 15,000 cars a day. With 35 people in a coach, it means over 1,500 coaches, and with 800
960
people in a train it means nearly 70 trains. This problem of transporting people from the airport to inner London by road will be enormous, especially in the rush hours.
In some of the documents that have been circulated some futuristic transport schemes have been put forward. Personally, I have my doubts about a good many of them. I think that what we have to visualise is a special electric railway running direct from the airport to central London, overground, on fairly cheap land, until it reaches the London border and then diving underground into a specially constructed tube. The journey would be quick, taking only 30 or 40 minutes, and the Customs examination could take place on the train, thus eliminating one of the great irritations confronting foreign passengers when they arrive in this country. Under such a scheme as this—and I am sure it will have to come some day—the time distances between Stansted and Foulness or Sheppey would be virtually the same.
I come now to the subject of noise. At Stansted it would be a menace; at Foulness it would hardly be a problem at all. I am not going to talk about statistical tables of decibels, of which we have had many quoted. I just want to speak about plain noise in people's ears. The Stansted scheme's authors have tried to belittle the noise problem at Stansted by comparing it with Heathrow. They say the Stansted noise will be only a fraction of that at Heathrow, and they reach their verdict by taking the amount of noise and multiplying it by the number of people. That is sound up to a point, but what are they going to do about it? They are going to put down another 100,000 people into the Stansted area, thus immediately cancelling out this very clever argument.
May I take a side glance at what I might call a new strategy, though of course it is not part of my basic case against Stansted? Would it not be better, instead of keeping the Heathrow failure—and failure it is—in addition to Stansted, to scrap Heathrow, where in any event you have to spend £30 million or £40 million in the next few years in bringing it up to date, and build at Foulness or Sheppey a super airport to cater for the traffic both of Heathrow and of Stansted. Experts say that it is possible.

961
We could sell the Heathrow land for housing; that would help to pay for the cost. That is only a sideline suggestion, remote from the main lines of my argument.
I think the Ministry are giving us a botched-up job, just as they did at Heathrow. I do not think they are looking far enough ahead. We have to look to the 1990's and to 2000, and not merely to the late 1970's or 1980's. We do not want the Heathrow story all over again where we built an airport that is wholly inadequate and very objectionable. Whatever is said about costs of the rival schemes, we have to bear in mind that this is capital expenditure to be spread over a long period of years and will be revenue-earning; therefore we want the assets we create to be the best possible, and to have the best possible revenue-earning potentiality.
I was going to say something about Shoeburyness, but owing to the time I will not do so. I will say one thing, however. The lawyer representing the Government, when he appeared at the inquiry, had the opportunity of putting a witness into the box to testify to the indispensability of Shoeburyness. But he did not put him in the box, and this makes me suspicious because lawyers do not usually keep a valuable witness out of the box.
The original Departmental Committee of 1963, whom I have already criticised and who, of course, in this non-political role I am adopting, I have to say were a Tory Departmental Committee, originally suggested Stansted. They stuck to Stansted all the way through. How did they decide on Stansted in the first place? Did they inspect all the airfields. Of course not. They inspected only one, and that happened to be Stansted. Yet the Committee had eighteen months in which to carry out their inspection. Their Report says:
"Our advisers have visited the more promising of the alternative sites and we ourselves have visited Stansted."
Stansted was the only one they took the trouble to look at. I think the Government of that day should have sent them back on their business to do their job properly. The Government should have got their little book of quotations out and directed the Committee's attention to the one which says, "the gentleman in White-
962
hall does not always know best". But I think the main reason why the Committee picked on Stansted, back in those days, was that it had an existing runway. This is virtually now going to be scrapped, so the whole basis on which the entire Stansted scheme is based has been swept away.
It is not my duty to argue the case for Sheppey, or for Foulness Island or Foulness sands. I certainly prefer the reclaimed land scheme. It would add to our acreage, instead of reducing it. It is engineeringly practicable, as has been shown by the airport designers of Holland and by the people, as the noble Lord, Lard Somers, said, who designed and constructed "Expo 67" at Montreal. I think it would be a good idea if we showed the world that Britain can do something really imaginative. It may be said that reclaiming these vast areas of sands is a dream, to which my retort is, Stansted is a nightmare.
The inspector said:
"Much of the evidence seemed to me to be rather superficial".
and his assessor added:
"…almost every piece of evidence came to pieces under cross-examination."
My Lords, on nearly every count the case against Stansted has serious elements of doubt, and I think that the benefit of the doubt should be given to Stansted. There is, without doubt, time for another inquiry. We know that Heathrow and Gatwick are to have their leases of life extended by a number of years. We know that a consortium of civil engineering firms can work wonders when it is put on the job. Finally, there is that promise of which we have been reminded; the promise that shortage of time would not be used as an excuse for steamrollering through a Stansted decision. I think that promises are very good things. Cannot we be especially virtuous to-night and say that we will keep this one? I think we should have a new Commission, sitting in public. If that were to happen, justice would be seen to be done, and nobody would then have any reason to complain. I want to save the Government from a very embarrassing situation, which is not entirely of their own making. I think that a new Commission would be the best thing for the Government, for Stansted and for the country.
[The sitting was suspended at 8.6 p.m. and resumed at 8.40 p.m.]
8.40 p.m.
LORD REDESDALE: My Lords, it is rather like starting a race as a greyhound straight out of the trap on to a cold track, to be first off after an adjournment; so I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I make a particularly bad speech. However, so far as speaking is concerned, I have only one advantage, and that is that I am usually quite brief; consequently, I shall not detain your Lordships long. I have no interests to declare on this subject. Therefore I do not have to search my conscience, as requested by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. However, I felt that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, made such a good case for Silverstone that I was momentarily worried, being a supporter of motor racing. It would appear that there is but little chance of Silver-stone ever being chosen as the site for the third airport. Undoubtedly, the third airport will be the most important airport we shall have. This is obvious, because this airport will have to meet the demands for aircraft until about the year 2,000. Consequently, this decision should not be rushed into.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, made an impassioned plea that we had no time to waste. This brought to my mind an article written in the Daily Express by Mr. Robert Pitman back in June, when he said that it seems strange that the chairman of the Airports Authority should be only a part-time appointment. This seems a pity, in view of the fact that the Airports Authority are one of the most important Boards in the country; and if there is such a hurry and urgency at the moment, it seems strange that we do not have a full-time chairman. However, that is by the way.
I feel that this decision on the third airport must be based to a certain extent on flexibility. Many noble Lords have made excellent speeches to-night and covered most of the technical ground, but I feel that one point that was not covered was that the aircraft that will be using this airport for some years to come are going to change considerably, and that flexibility in terms of what changes are going to be necessary to the airport has not really been thought of
964
fully in terms of the capacity of the airport.
It seems that Foulness could offer far greater flexibility than any of the other sites mentioned. It would be a great pity if Foulness were ruled out on cost alone, because the reasons that have been given for the extra cost of Foulness rather than Stansted seem to be a little dubious. For instance, the £25 million for moving the range is a little strange. After all, I believe this range was selected originally because it was easy to recover cannonballs. In this day and age it seems that that particular role has been superseded. Surely the closing of Wethersfield would offset the cost of moving the range, and in our present economic position we cannot afford to fire off any significant number of shells without going "into the red". The really important point is that if the airport at Foulness could be more effective in terms of flexibility, then obviously the range is of no significance.
Another aspect of the choice of the airport that has worried me somewhat is that everyone has been talking about rail times. To me, this sounds as though we are talking about the glorious age of steam. I do not think we should even consider a system of transport that would be obsolete by the time it was built. We should look ahead and examine the possibilities of the hover rail trains. After all, if it is travelling at 300 miles an hour the hover rail train could, even with a start and stop time, reach London in well under 15 minutes. So let us look ahead to the needs of the future and plan a system that can make the most of the technical advances and use these technical advances now. Heathrow and Gatwick have proved to be inadequate in many ways so do not let us make this mistake with the third airport.
8.45 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, if I am the exception and am not interrupted by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I can promise you the shortest speech of this evening. I venture to interpose my opinion on your Lordships for two basic reasons only: first, because of the experience that we in Devon have had of what I might call "the Ministry", the hands of Whitehall, and secondly, because I am a farmer. A year or more ago, on three separate occasions, the

965
Ministry went ahead with dismemberment plans for the county in which I live, for no other reason that I could see than that this was in the administration pipeline. On one of those occasions the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that it was one of the most stupid things the Government had done. However, he advised his followers on that occasion not to vote against it. He got very little thanks from the Government.
So it is with Stansted. I think it is because the scheme was in some sort of pipeline that the Government must go ahead with a plan which, as practically all your Lordships have said, is not a good one. But the faceless ones of bureaucracy and their front men seem to say "Go", while everything else says, "No". All the figures, all the promises, all the local opinion say "No" to Stansted.
The noble Lord, Lord Bannerman of Kildonan, in his admirable maiden speech last week, underlined what all of us from the Provinces dislike so much about London and what it stands for to us. How we envy Scotland and Wales and their inbuilt facility for protesting against the governesslike attitude that we all feel is coming from London towards us now! They all know what is best for their little Jimmie! I hasten to add, however, in the parlance of those who are dealing with racial problems, that some of my best friends are in London. I leave to others who are more able than I to enunciate on broken promises, Disregarded inquiries, ruining of amenities, noise and safety problems. These factors have been dealt with, I will not say ad nauseam, but continually this evening. They all go to argue against Stansted as the third airport.
Secondly, I come to my own bee in my own bonnet. My particular bee in the bonnet is that I feel that in this world of so much starvation, population explosion, or anything else that you like to call it, it is downright immoral to put good productive land under concrete, tarmac, bricks or water when there is an alternative. As a farmer, may I say—and this has been mentioned by many speakers this evening—that it is a stupid thing to do in our present financial difficulties.
Surely one would have to be an awful cynic not to be thrilled by the possibilities of the new Foulness scheme, where
966
you add instead of subtracting from your country; where you interfere with no amenities; where your noise is over the sea, and so on, ad infinitum. And if the Gunners are going to lose a range, there are plenty more good ones to be had all over the place, from Dartmoor to the West of Scotland. Apart from that, all else is gain by the new Foulness scheme. To my way of thinking it would be worth it, even if treble the cost of Stansted. I should like the noble Lord to-night to send for the pantechnicons, if only to give Whitehall a headache. However, if and when the Stansted Order is laid, all I can suggest to your Lordships is that it be thrown out lock, stock and barrel, no matter what anybody says anywhere else.
8.51 p.m.
THE EARL OF LINDSEY AND ABINGDON: My Lords, I have to declare an interest, in that I live ten miles from Stansted. At the time of the public inquiry I received a map from the Noise Abatement Society which informed me that I should be living in future on the edge of the intolerable noise area. However, I was prepared to await the findings of the public inquiry and accept them. I think that goes for everybody who lives in that part of the world. But we all know and have again been reminded this afternoon, of the controversy which this project has aroused since then. First of all, we had the Government White Paper going against some of the recommendations of their own inspector, followed by a bulldozing debate in another place in favour of that White Paper, followed by "Black Books" and counter recommendations, all of which have been ignored. Why? Anyone who has read the literature—and there has been lots of it—on this subject will quickly realise that Stansted has become the "sacred cow" of the faceless bureaucrats at the Board of Trade, and any realignment of runways cuts little ice.
Having said that—and I realise the Government have had a pretty rough ride to-night—I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, when he sums up if he could give us an undertaking in regard to the Lea Valley Regional Park, a report on which was submitted by the Civic Trust and the recommendations were approved by this House, that the new realignment of the runways at

967
Stansted will in no way affect the recreational amenities. A large capital development is scheduled for this recreational park, and there will be no point in having it if it is made intolerable by aircraft noise.
Finally, I want to go into the ground communication aspect. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that the estimated time by rail would be 45 to 50 minutes. Did he mean from Stansted to Liverpool Street, or from Stansted to Victoria?
LORD KENNET: To King's Cross.
THE EARL OF LINDSEY AND ABINGDON: At present the non-stop diesel trains from Bishop's Stortford take 45 minutes—that is, if there is no congestion on the line. The electric trains take anything up to an hour, with intermediate stops. Therefore I should have thought it would take a little longer, over the hour, to get to King's Cross.
As regards the road communications, both on the A.10 and A.11, I did a timing exercise the other night, which happened to be last Friday, a particularly bad night. I did not time it from Grosvenor Square, but from Harrod's car park. It took me exactly two hours to get from Harrod's car park to my home, which is ten miles nearer London than Stansted. This is not an exceptional case; it has happened before. The average time, if one keeps within the speed limit, would be 1½ hours and, I should think, 1¾ hours to Stansted. If the M.11 is built I gather that under the present planning it will terminate somewhere on the North Circular Road in the Woodford area, but in order for buses to get from the proposed Stansted airport to the Victoria Air Terminal I should have thought that road would have to be extended a good deal further into central London to get the journey within the time limit proposed; that is to say, one hour.
Another aspect which ought to be borne in mind is that there is a very high volume of heavy traffic on both the A.10 and A.11 going into London with vegetables and agricultural produce for Covent Garden. All this traffic will go over to the M.11 when it is built, thus congesting that road even more than was expected with the increased traffic
968
from the airport. Therefore we shall be back to square one.
One section of the White Paper which amused me was paragraph 57, in reference to Silverstone:
"Silverstone also has other drawbacks. Access from London would not be as good as for Stansted; the road journey, via the M.1 and a special link road, would on a tentative estimate take about 100 minutes even in off-peak periods …".
Well, my Lords, as I have explained, it often takes 100 minutes to get to Stansted. I think I have said enough on this subject, but I hope the Government will bear in mind the two points which I have raised. The first is in regard to ground communications, as I am quite convinced, by personal experience, that they have underestimated on this factor. The second is in regard to the undertaking which I should like to have about the Lea Valley Regional Park.
8.58 p.m.
LORD STRANG: My Lords, all the things which I thought of saying have been said already, several times over. At this late hour I will not burden your Lordships with repetition. I propose simply to confine myself to saying that I strongly support the plea of those speakers who have argued for a new and comprehensive public reappraisal of the project for a third London airport and, pending such a reappraisal, for the suspension of the Government's decision to locate that airport at Stansted.
The case for a further exhaustive indepent public study of London's airport problem seems to me to be quite inescapable. Seldom can a demand for such a study have been so powerful and so widely supported as this has been. The study should cover not only Stansted, but also the various possible alternatives, including in particular the imaginative and far-sighted suggestion to locate an airport on reclaimed land off Foulness Island. Indeed, one might go further and say that what is needed is a national airport plan into which various regional and national airport needs can be fitted, and for this a Royal Commission might perhaps be the right answer. But so far as Stansted is concerned, cannot the Government be now persuaded to take heed and suspend their decision, pending further study?
9.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, I rise in support of the Government in their proposal to develop Stansted as the third London Airport, not because I believe that Stansted is the ideal site, but because it was by far the best of the sites proposed. I am not convinced that the Board of Trade's priorities are correct in their assumptions on the overspill of air traffic from Heathrow and Gatwick, the latter surely being capable of handling comfortably a 50 per cent. increase in traffic, and more with further expansion.
I feel that the original Report on the development of the third London Airport was outstanding, not for what it said, but for what it did not say. A great number of the present objections were bound to follow as a consequence. I am interested in the development of aviation in the South-East of England, and particularly in the continued development and operation of Southend Airport. Noble Lords on both sides of the House may wish to know that it is a municipal undertaking and is the only airport in the country which, without State aid, is making a net surplus and making a considerable contribution to the local general rate fund. It employs 2,400 people, and in terms of air transport movements is the second or third busiest airport in the country; in terms of air freight it is the third busiest; and in terms of export freight the statistics show that it is second only to Heathrow.
In reply to my letter to the Prime Minister expressing my concern at the refusal of the Minister of Housing and Local Government to grant Southend Corporation planning approval for the extension and widening of the subsidiary runway at the Airport, the Prime Minister, in his letter dated October 17, stated:
"I fully share your views on the importance of Southend Airport and the contribution it makes".
My Lords, at the Stansted Inquiry certain assurances were given in evidence concerning air traffic at Southend Airport with the development of Stansted, and I shall constantly seek confirmation that there will be no interference in the operation of Southend Airport or with its operating companies. I agree with noble Lords who have already spoken that
970
there is a strong case for a further inquiry forthwith. In conclusion, I reiterate that I shall stand by the Government's decision for the development of Stansted, with the reservations that I have made.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I would just add one sentence to what the noble Earl has said. This has been a devastating debate. I think the Government must revise their views and stop this Stansted business altogether. In the whole of my Parliamentary life, I have never heard a more devastating debate than this has been. It has been "murder."
9.4 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, before elaborating briefly on some of the points which have occurred to me, I should first like to refer to some points which have been made during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, who kindly brought this subject to the Floor of the House, mentioned Southend and it seems to me that perhaps the problem has been erroneously put across. Because if the Foulness project were elaborated upon, or came to fruition, then, whatever anyone might say, Southend would have to stop operating. If you look at the alignment of the runways proposed at Foulness, you will find that the take-off path of one of the runways at Southend and the landing path of another of the runways are quite conflicting, and short of restricting the rate of movement at both airports it would be necessary to stop operating at Southend. This, I am advised, is the professional viewpoint.
Secondly, to go further on the Foulness proposal, which seems to be rather "money no object", I feel that the monorail proposal which is an integral part of the Foulness plan—whether we build in the sea or just alongside it—deserves more study. Certainly, it could not be ready in the time required, even it one were to put the time back to, say, 1980. A monorail giving a speed of 300 miles an hour just does not exist at this moment of time; nor is it likely to exist before 1980.
The other objection to Foulness, which particularly applies to the proposal to put all the runways on land reclaimed from the sea, concerns approaches over the sea. Many noble Lords have said

971
that this is a good thing, but it is not altogether a good thing. If I may make one or two points on that, I should first like to say that it is practically impossible, and certainly has never been done or even projected hitherto, to install what is known as a Category 3 I.L.S. on a runway which has approaches over the sea, because there is no firm base for some of the runway aids. This Category 3 I.L.S. is necessary for the blind-landing operations with which B.E.A. are now experimenting, and which they are expecting to go into service in the near future at London (Heathrow) Airport. Also, I understand that there are considerable civil engineering difficulties in the reclamation project at Foulness, and I do not think that the report which was widely circulated to your Lordships before this debate went sufficiently into those points. I am by no means qualified to judge on the civil engineering aspects, but those who are tell me that the problems have been underestimated and that, in particular, the costs are wildly optimistic.
May I now come on to the points that I want to make, which do not necessarily arise directly out of the debate we have had to-day? It seems to me that the necessity for the Government to maintain their decision to build at Stansted has now become not only an over-emotional point but a point of national economic importance. After all, we have had two Government Departments endorse the decision, and we are faced with the problem that the growth in London's air traffic during the next five or six years, up to 1973 or 1974, is going to be such that by that time, without any shadow of a doubt, Heathrow and Gatwick will be overtaxed. We have been told (and nobody, I think, is in any position or would wish to doubt these figures) that by 1973 or 1974 the total number of air transport movements offering to Heathrow and to Gatwick combined—and this allows for some increment in the traffic at present being handled at Luton and Southend Airports—will be of the order of 350,000 movements per annum.
In addition to the increment in traffic at Luton and Southend, we are expecting, within the 350,000 movements, to have improved the facilities at Gatwick—to have built a second runway, to have improved the air traffic
972
control procedures currently in operation and, in particular, to have adopted more widely than at present a device known as an A.T.C. transponder, which at this moment is used to only a limited extent on the airways. Also we shall have improved the ground facilities at London, Heathrow. We shall have expanded the parking areas, and to a degree some of the runways. We shall also have built the cargo terminal at London, Heathrow, which will in itself attract additional traffic. Therefore, by 1973 or 1974, or even a year later if you insist—because, after all, a year, I suppose, is within the tolerance of accuracy that we can expect in these calculations—we shall be faced with the requirement to build a third London airport. No, my Lords, not to build, but to have in operation a third London airport.
The question, therefore, is not: Do we require a third London airport? The case has been made out overwhelmingly by some noble Lords, perhaps unwittingly, but certainly by the Government and, of course, by the Airports Authority. On the point of the Airports Authority, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made mention of the fact that the chairman of the Authority is a part-time chairman. Perhaps I may take this opportunity to say that if the noble Lord knew the chairman as many other noble Lords and myself do, he would know very well that the integration that the chairman has effected of his other activities with his duties with the Airports Authority is such that he certainly puts in more time and effort than many other people do who are so-called full-time chairmen.
But, to revert from that digression, we have now to decide where to put our next, our third, London airport. If we wanted to put it at Foulness, or at any of the suggested sites other than Stansted, there is no doubt at all that we should have to wait well beyond 1973 or 1974, which, whether we like it or not, is the date by which we must have a third airport.
I feel that the arguments that have been put forward to oppose Stansted are perhaps not altogether fair. We know that there are a number of picturesque and no doubt desirable villages in the Stansted area; and certainly it is valuable agricultural land. But it is not the most valuable agricultural land in the

973
country. And, after all, we are not going to take the 15,000 acres that have been suggested; that is not, I am told, the area of land that is required. The maximum is 9,000; so that to say 15,000 acres is really erroneous. But the countryside, although, as I have said, it is good, is not perhaps perfect. I am told, for example, that there are used-car lots in the area, or at least within reasonable distances; and, as one noble Lord—it was the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I believe—said, the fact that an aircraft is flying overhead does not mean that buildings suddenly fall down. They do not, my Lords; this has been proved time and again.
The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, said that the removal of the air force base at Wethersfield would cost £10 million. I wonder whether the noble Lord realises that that base is operated by the United States Air Force, and not by the Royal Air Force; and presumably they have already been consulted about the removal of their impedimenta from that base. In the aviation world, at least, it is common knowledge that that base is due for closure, anyway. I think the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, also said that there were six or seven airfields under the holding pattern of Stansted. I was flying the holding pattern last week. There was only one airfield underneath, which was Wethersfield. I should be interested to know what were the others.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to confirm the point that Stansted, in my view at least, is the only possibility for this third airport. If we now decide to hold further public inquiries or a Royal Commission, or whatever is decided upon—and despite what my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne said this must take longer than three months—it surely will impose another delay of at least two years. This would be unacceptable within the time scale we are thinking of, because by then it will be too late; the traffic will have gone elsewhere, and the substantial revenue that we expect to recover from foreign visitors will be lost. I would therefore close with a plea that the Government should stand by their decision to build the third London airport at Stansted.
LORD SOMERS: The noble Lord mentioned 9,000 acres as being the amount of land required for Stansted. Is that
974
not the ground needed for the airport only? That figure surely would not include the ground needed for the various buildings roundabout, and for housing all the workers on the airport.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I do not have the precise information to answer that point at the moment. I should have thought that the accommodation for personnel and their families who would necessarily be attracted to the airport would largely be found in the area already built on in Bishop's Stortford and other neighbouring towns.
9.16 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I came to your Lordships' House to-day holding the opinion that, on the facts as I have seen and understood them, there had not been enough public inquiry as to where London's third airport should go. Even after hearing my noble friend Lord Kennet and my three noble friends who have spoken in favour of the decision, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who has just sat down, I still think there is a very strong case—to me it is an overwhelming one—for reviewing the matter main. But at the same time I should like to offer my sympathy to my noble friend Lord Kennet who has had all afternoon to bear such very heavy fire.
I want to make only one short point, and that is about costs. I do not know by what means the Government department or departments concerned arrived at their estimate of the comparative costs of Stansted and the other sites; but it is a fact of human nature which is found even among the most hardheaded businessmen that the estimate for the job which won favours in one's mind has a tendency—I will not say anything stronger than that—to come out lower than the job one does not want to do. This is a psychological fact, and perhaps the Government, and indeed everyone else concerned in this matter, would look at the comparative costs again, bearing this point in mind.
9.19 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I am the 27th speaker in this debate, and one might suspect that there is nothing more to say; and in fact, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. However, the case that I wish to lay before you has yet to be fully unfolded. I believe that one of the great

975
privileges of speaking in this House is that matters of national importance may be discussed in an atmosphere conducive to determining the true facts of the case without recrimination: and to-day I claim this privilege. I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, for bringing before us this important issue and I sincerely believe that the Government will have cause for reconsidering their view.
The aspect I wish to deal with concerns noise, and in this connection I feel that I should declare an interest in so far as I am much concerned with the aims and objects of the Noise Abatement Society. I am not a civil engineer I am in no way involved in airport control or navigation, but I would remind your Lordships that it is thanks to the fact that the Noise Abatement Society commissioned the report which we are fortunate in having before us that such great interest has been shown in the Foulness "Mark II" over-the-sea plan. This is a highly professional report, and it is greatly to the credit of the Noise Abatement Society, which has taken an infinite amount of trouble in gathering together not only material relating to noise but also material on dredging the Thames Estuary. It has produced a mass of material on the question of a rail link, or a possible transport link, between Foulness and London.
The starting point of my argument is the Starred Question by my noble friend Lord Foley on "Airport Take-off Noise Limits and Safety" which came before your Lordships' House last Thursday and is recorded in the OFFICIAL REPORT, at columns 777 to 779. At this late hour I do not feel it advisable to refresh your Lordships' memory on the matter. I feel sure that your Lordships will remember the substance of the questions which arose and which related to the fact that airline pilots are obliged to cheat the regulations in order to take off with safety. This I beg the Government to regard as a matter of deep concern. We want our third London Airport to be a very safe place. We have had several very serious accidents this year: one near Manchester, one in Sussex and one, which was mentioned last week, when an aircraft blew up at Stansted itself. These are matters of enormous public concern,
976
and the safety aspect is one which will recommend the project of Foulness "Mark II" over-the-sea plan as being of prime importance.
I do not think that the Government have adequately considered the noise problem. We have had a number of statements this afternoon, but what they mean, by implication, is that we are being rather silly about noise. This is not so, and I would draw the attention of your Lordships to the most thoughtful speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wedgwood, on the subject. Further, I would reexamine White Paper (Cmnd. 3259), of May of this year on the findings of the Stansted inquiry. The inspector, Mr. G. D. Blake, outlined the main criteria and in Appendix 2, paragraph 2(iii), one of his ideal criteria for a major London airport is stated to be
"A situation in respect of noise which would not inhibit operations."
This again is a crucial matter my Lords. Surely the 24-hour use of an airport is one of the most economic factors to be considered, and this is given only in the two possible alternatives to Stansted, Foulness and Sheppey. I should like to quote paragraph 3(d), on page 26 of the White Paper where the inspector's views are very clear. The paragraph is headed "Noise", and says:
"The amount of noise generated by an aircraft was likely to stay fairly constant in the foreseeable future and supersonic aircraft would probably not aggravate the problem. Noise would affect more people at Stansted (where a hospital and some 20 schools would have to be closed) than at any of the alternative sites."
I turn next to the immediate practical steps which the Noise Abatement Society has taken in connection with this important matter. For nearly eight years now the Noise Abatement Society has been pressing the various Government Departments concerned in order to build a major London airport on Foulness and Macklin Sands, in the Thames Estuary. This airport was designed to be four times the size of Heathrow and capable of handling the whole of London's air traffic for the foreseeable future. I wish to pause here for a moment because my noble friend Lord Trefgarne brought up the matter of the acreage of Stansted and mentioned 9,000 acres, which is a perfectly correct assessment. It must be remembered that the present size of

977
Stansted is 877 acres. My noble friend Lord Somers brought out the important fact that we have to double the size of acreage, to 18,000 in this case, in order to eliminate the people caught in the noise nuisance net.
I am not going to deal with the noise-nuisance factors or the technical aspects of this problem. Everyone is fully briefed on the subject by the diagrams featured in Figure 10 of this Report which show an area surrounded by a red contour. But I should like to take issue with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne in regard to category 3 I.L.S. It has been found possible at two notable airports where landings take place over the sea, Kaitak, at Hong Kong, and La Linea, at Gibraltar, largely to eliminate this problem. However, I do not speak from experience, as my noble friend clearly does.
The Noise Abatement Society has taken up the challenge and has formed a consortium prepared to undertake the building of the new airport at no cost to the taxpayer and, in addition, to provide rapid means of transport to Central London. The consortium would hope to recover the £50 million cost by being permitted to build a town for some 250,000 inhabitants on what would then be the obsolete Heathrow Airport. This solution to the London aircraft noise problem was too simple for the Government to grasp. In 1963, when they decided on a third London Airport, without proper advice or independent inquiry they again rejected Foulness and chose this most unsuitable site at Stansted. The plea on the ground of the intolerable noise level has especially been brought out in the pamphlet entitled The Case for the People, by Professor Richards, which the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, mentioned, and I recommend this pamphlet to your Lordships' attention. I have spoken for too long on the matter of noise and noise abatement, but this is crucial to the whole question of deciding whether Stansted is or is not desirable. In my view, it is clearly quite unacceptable.
9.29 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, like the speakers who have gone before me, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, for initiating this somewhat long debate to-day. It is absolutely
978
right that your Lordships should discuss this vitally important matter. It has rightly been called one of the most important decisions of planning policy which this Government, or any other Government, is likely to be called upon to face. This is an area where questions of national interest, of planning policy and of amenity interweave, an area incidentally in which your Lordships' House has almost invariably shown itself to be both responsive and responsible. It is right, therefore, that this House should have placed itself in a position to tender advice to the Government, and that it should tender it, as your Lordships are very well able to do and I think have done this afternoon, in an atmosphere free from any undue Party bias. I should like to make one point clear straight away. I have not approached, and we on these Benches do not propose to approach this question in a factional or Party spirit; and I was glad to see that a number of noble Lords opposite took the same stance.
It is also right that this House should have an opportunity of discussing this matter now. No Order has yet been laid. No irretrievable step has yet been taken or need be taken. We have a new Minister with the Board of Trade and one who has a fresh and alert mind. There is still quite enough time for the Government to think again. All Governments have to think again on occasions. Moreover, since there is no Order before your Lordships' House to-day, we can consider this matter dispassionately. We have been able to weight the pros and cons, in so, far as we can get at the facts—and that is not very easy—without having to look over our shoulders at the possible political and indeed constitutional issues which we shall have to face if the Government decide, against all the advice which has been tendered to them in your Lordships' House, and against so much evidence, to proceed by Order.
I should also like to make it quite clear that we on these Benches are at one with the Government in their desire to equip our country with really adequate and up to date airport facilities. Of course we are. We recognise that really good and carefully sited airports are as important to us in the twentieth century as well sited seaports were to us in the nineteenth century. True, the Port of London has

979
been overturned as the premier seaport by Europort, but we are at least at one with the Government in their desire to see airports that serve London and the London region remaining as the premier airport complex in Europe.
Nor do we wish to quarrel with the Government's contention that a new airport to serve the London region within a decade or so may very well be required. I would agree that that need has been pretty well established. Nor would we underestimate the difficulties confronting this or any other Government in deciding on the location of a major airport of this nature. It may be easy enough to fit a great intercontinental airport into the great and open land masses of North America or the Eurasian Continents, but it is not an easy matter to accommodate such an airport within our relatively small Island, so limited in extent, and so rich, and yet so fragile, in its natural and architectural and man-made beauty. It is no small matter to find a suitable place for such an airport within reasonable distance of London. All this is, I think, common ground.
It is also, I think, common ground, or it has been for all save four or five of the almost thirty speakers in your Lordships' House this afternoon, that the case for Stansted is not yet proven. We all agree that it passes muster on air traffic control grounds, and there will be no need for the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, when he winds up the debate to labour that point. But on all the other grounds considered at the public inquiry it fails or, at least, it has not been seen to succeed. On access from London, I quote the inspector:
"I consider the proposals put forward would be unacceptable to passengers and airlines to an extent that might make the airport of only moderate value."
Those are pretty strong words, and they have not, at least in my view, been effectively challenged in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
On the question of noise, the White Paper blandly states that Stansted is acceptable in that ground. I should like to know to whom it is acceptable, save the Government and their experts. Certainly nothing that has been said in your Lordships' House has convinced me that it is acceptable. Loss of agricultural
980
land: we have heard the arguments on that very forcibly deployed by, among others, my noble friend Lord Butler of Saffron Walden and the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe.
Then we come to town and country planning, the aspect which worries many of us perhaps most of all. A great intercontinental airport in a region such as this part of Essex will have vast implications in terms of population, transport requirements, industrial development, and the need for more social and physical infra-structure—a point which the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, rightly made.
Just once again, I should like to quote the inspector on this point:
"All the evidence submitted to me was that development of this kind in this area would be bad regional planning."
As my noble friend Lord Conesford has said, it has been condemned as such by all responsible planning opinion, and there is the remarkable fact that no responsible planning bodies have yet been properly consulted. Of course, local—indeed, regional—considerations need not necessarily be paramount; the decision to go ahead could still be justified by national necessity. I would again contend that national necessity was not proved at the inquiry; indeed, the reverse. It has not been proved in the Government's White Paper, and it has certainly not been effectively sustained in your Lordships' debate this afternoon.
A number of noble Lords have referred to what I hold to be one of the cardinal recommendations of the inspector, namely, that a new review of the whole problem should be undertaken. The Government have claimed that they have followed the inspector's recommendation by undertaking a further departmental review. I must confess that I share the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, as to whether or not that really was following the inspector's recommendation. They claim, too, that nothing useful seemed likely to be achieved by a more open inquiry, in view of the public inquiry which had already been held. But new facts and new arguments have been advanced since that inquiry was held. A further wide-ranging inquiry would have a great deal of new material to bite on, and indeed a rather different Government case to examine. I take but a few examples.

981
All these examples have been given in your Lordships' House this afternoon and it is impossible to advance any fresh ones.
There is the question of noise. The Government no longer accept the 45 N.N.I. (noise and number index line) as a starting point, although the Government witness accepted it at the inquiry, and it has very wide ranging implications. There is the question of access. As my noble friend Lord Conesford pointed out originally, the road access was based on Grosvenor Square, for some reason, and rail access to Victoria. Perhaps for good reasons that has now been changed, and rail access is to King's Cross and Liverpool Street. I do not wish to argue the pros and cons of that: all I would say is that the Government once again have changed their tune.
Thirdly, there are the new air traffic calculations in the White Paper—more movements of passengers, I think I am right in saying, coupled with rather fewer movements of aircraft—which naturally derive from the advent of the jumbo jets. All this is perfectly explicable and understandable. But in fact in some considerable and significant measure these estimates take some of the urgency out of this particular issue at the present time. Again the Government have changed their tune. But this is not all. There have been vital changes in the proposed layout of the airport itself. We have now learned—and it was made clear in your Lordships' House this afternoon—that instead of a pair of parallel runways, or possibly three runways, there are to be two pairs of parallel runways. We now learn that the proposed runway direction is to be realigned. Perhaps more important still, the Government have shown by the consideration which they have given to sites far removed from London—to Silverstone and Bedford—that they were prepared to cast their net far wider than did the Inter-Departmental Committee some five years ago. Again they have changed their tune. I am not quarrelling with that, but it means that a different Government case is being made. We have heard again—and this is new or recent—that a fourth London airport may no longer be required; again a change.
And finally the question of costs. The question of costs was not considered at
982
the inquiry and it has a tremendous bearing on the possible alternatives to Stansted. I think the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, made a devastating critique of some of the Government's costings, and for his pains he was reproached by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, as being "unfounded and irresponsible". All I would say is that the Government costings, such as I have seen, are pretty flimsy and bear some looking at. But I do not see any point in bandying about these criticisms on these technical points across the Floor of your Lordships' House. Surely the answer is to test them by an impartial inquiry.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, perhaps I may clear up one point, in fairness to my noble friend. The word "irresponsible" was used, but that was in connection with a particular item which the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, mentioned, the closing down of certain B.O.A.C. facilities at Heathrow. No one has ever mentioned they should close down and go to Stansted in that way.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, let me get this right for the record. I did not use the word "closing"; I said the removal of certain of their buildings and installations from Heathrow to Stansted.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I do not wish to come between the two noble Lords opposite, but these points of relative detail need to be sifted at a further impartial inquiry. There has certainly been enough change of front on the part of the Government to justify, by that itself, a further and open inquiry. But there are many other grounds which justify it. There are the limited terms of reference of the original inquiry, the fact that it was not considered within the framework of a national airports plan, tied to a national communications plan—to quote the noble Lord, Lord Byers. There is the fact that there was no deep consideration of the alternative sites. There is the fact that there was no proper cost-benefit analysis, such as the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, has rightly called for And fourthly and finally, and not least importantly, there is the fact that as yet nothing has been done to allay what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, called the legitimate misgivings of the local population. Nothing has been done really

983
to ensure that the democratic process here not only works but has been seen to work.
As I have listened to this rather long debate this afternoon I have been almost irresistibly reminded of the debate in your Lordships' House nearly six years ago on Ullswater. I have been reminded of that evening when, under the persuasive spell of Lord Birkett—and I wonder whether there is any Member of your Lordships' House who heard the last great speech from that great advocate who will ever forget it—your Lordships exercised your undoubted right to reject that part of the Manchester Bill which dealt with Ullswater. I have been reminded of that debate not just because, like the noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Beswick, this evening, I happened then to be on the receiving end of it, but also because the issues confronting your Lordships' House then were in many important respects not dissimilar from those which confront you to-day. There was the issue of need. I do not think that any of your Lordships then contested the need of Manchester and of the North-West for more water, any more than most of your Lordships would wish to contest the need of this country, and indeed of the London region, for a great new airport.
There was the issue of urgency. Manchester and its supporters claimed that their thirst for water had to be satisfied within a matter of a few years; just as the proponents of the Stansted solution, like the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, claim that a decision to go ahead with this project must be taken without any further delay whatsoever. Then, as now, the Government experts tended to support this plea of urgency. Finally, there was the choice of the site. Manchester and its supporters took the view—and were able to support that view with cogent argument—that only from Ullswater could the region's thirst for more water be satisfied in time. To-day, the supporters of the Stansted proposal claim that, unsatisfactory though the Stansted solution may be in certain respects, any alternative is even more unsatisfactory. Then, as now, this argument for what I would call the unique site was supported by the Establishment experts.
These are not the only similarities between the two cases. Then, as now,
984
there was a deep sense of outrage. Those who opposed Manchester six years ago were imbued with an intense determination that the fate that had befallen two of their great lakeland gems should not befall Ullswater. They were imbued with an intense conviction that the Establishment, whether in Manchester or in Whitehall, had examined the whole question too narrowly and not in its wider regional, or indeed national, setting. They held, and hold, strongly and sincerely that had the facts been looked at in a wider setting, quite dispassionately, a more satisfactory alternative would have been found. And this sense of outrage was sustained by a feeling that in a matter where intense local feelings had been aroused, and where wider amenity issues were at stake, neither the local nor the national issues had been properly ventilated, and that those who represented them had been overridden.
The parallel between these two cases is really quite close. Those who are opposed to Stansted are determined that the fate that has befallen Heathrow shall not befall a quiet and characteristic East Anglian landscape. They, too, are imbued with an intense conviction that this airport, this whole issue, has been regarded too narrowly. They, too, feel that justice has neither been done nor been seen to be done; they feel, to use my noble friend's expression, that they have been bulldozed by the big battalions of Whitehall. They consider that in a matter so vitally affecting local, regional and national interests, there has been quite inadequate consultation. Above all, in both cases the opposition is far more than merely local. It has been made clear time and time again in your Lordships' debate this evening that in both cases the opposition is local, regional and national.
While I am speaking in this strain, and in conclusion, I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord who will be replying to two aspects of Ullswater which may have their moral for us this evening. When I was preparing for that debate I naturally took advice from those most qualified to give it, the experts. I grant that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is a great deal more at home in the air, in the planning of airports, than I was in the water in attempting to help to plan Manchester's water supply. Nevertheless, he will undoubtedly need, as will

985
other Ministers, to take advice from those most qualified to give it.
I would only remind him that six years ago it was the unanimous view of the Government experts that there was no valid alternative, within the time-scale to which we were working, to the particular solution then proposed by the Manchester Corporation. However, when your Lordships had pronounced, and pronounced against Manchester; when Manchester, and indeed the Government, were right up against it, it was quite remarkable how, in quite a short space of time, not only one or two, but a dozen or so alternative solutions came to light. Indeed, the ultimate solution was one which was rather different from any of those. The moral is that expert opinion, however expert, especially entrenched expert opinion, must be very carefully weighed indeed. I put this in only because of the almost touching faith in the infallibility of Whitehall displayed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, this afternoon.
The second point I should like to recall to your Lordships is that when this House had pronounced against Manchester a Committee of Inquiry was set up over which I had the honour to preside. The membership of that Committee was wide. It included representatives from all the main local authorities, and had there been regional bodies at that time, it would have included them, too. It included the experts, the opponents, and the "Crown Prince of amenity", the noble Lord, Lord Strang, who was then Chairman of the National Parks Commision. This wide membership was matched by wide terms of reference. It is precisely a further inquiry of this general nature which so many of your Lordships have asked the Government now to undertake.
I should not wish to prejudge the precise form of the Inquiry: that is clearly a matter for Ministers. I would only say that some Inquiry of this nature, be it a Royal Commission or be it something more expeditious, is most emphatically required. It should have the widest possible terms of reference; it should be able to consider this particular framework in its general setting; it should be able to deal with regional planning policy; and its membership should be such that it would contain men and women espe-
986
cially qualified to advise on the long-term planning implications of the various choices now before us.
In conclusion, I should like to express, with all the force at my command, the hope that the noble Lord will take back to the Government, and to the Ministers concerned, the strong and, indeed, virtually unanimous view of your Lordships' House that a further full and open Inquiry is required before any final decision is taken. It would be a sign of confidence on the Government's part, not a sign of weakness, to commission such an Inquiry forthwith before they ask your Lordships' House to pronounce one way or the other on a possible Order. There are precedents for such an Inquiry, and the importance of this issue is almost unprecedented. I sincerely hope that, even at this very late hour, in view of the extraordinarily emphatic opinions expressed from all parts of this House to-day, the Government will choose a course which both simple justice and common prudence dictate.
9.54 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in another capacity I was somewhat reluctant to agree that the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, should take this day when we could have used it, as I thought, much better for the purpose of Government legislation. But I am bound to say that from his point of view he has made very good use of the time which he has gained. As the thirtieth speaker in this debate, I am sure I shall not be expected to take up all the points which have been made, but I hope to deal with the essentials.
The noble Lord, Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, has made out a formidable case against Stansted. However, what he and his friends have not proven, and indeed what they have not really attempted to prove, is that another adequate and equally efficient site is available. What has been argued is that we need another public inquiry. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that he was in error when he suggested that the 1961 and 1964 Committees were concerned simply with the task of considering the viability of Stansted. Their remit was much wider. In fact, they considered over 12 airports and gave their thorough consideration to all of them before they came up with the answer of Stansted.

987
Moreover, the second review which, as the Government spokesman has claimed, was instituted as the result of a recommendation of the inspector at the public inquiry was not composed of the same people as the original whole Committee. It is quite true that, in accordance with practice, that Interdepartmental Committee has not been named, but I can say that the chairman of the Committee came from the D.E.A., and all the interests which had been mentioned by the inspector at the inquiry were represented on that review. There were members from the Department of Economic Affairs, from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, from the Board of Trade, from the Treasury, from the Ministry of Transport, from the Defence Services, from the Ministry of Agriculture, and the only two persons who sat on both—they did not really sit on both, as they were not members of the Committee—were a technical witness and a secretary.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord says that the names will not be revealed. Does the noble Lord recognise that the 1963 Committee disclosed the full nature of their Report, the members and their positions? Is he really saying that names cannot be disclosed now? Will he indicate who were the members who served both on the Committee and on the review?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, for myself I can see absolutely no reason why the names should not be given, and I would certainly consider whether they should be given to the noble and learned Viscount. But in accordance with practice, as I understand it—and I think the memory of the noble and learned Viscount will be the same as mine—the names of such a Committee are not made public.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord has said, if I heard him correctly, that there were two members of the Committee who also took part in this review. I also asked whether any witnesses at the inquiry took part in this review.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have no doubt that expert witnesses giving factual evidence probably gave evidence at the two different inquiries, but the con-
988
stitution of that Committee was completely different, its purposes were different, it was entirely in accordance with the recommendations of the inspector at the inquiry; and of the two names which appeared in the two lists one was a technical expert, whose evidence I do not believe has been challenged on either side of the House, and the other individual served as one of the secretaries on both occasions.
I am all in favour of the democratic process, and I accept that Committees of Inquiry have their uses. But, really, they are no substitute for Government. It was once thought, by many of us, that a Committee of Inquiry would solve the problem of the aircraft industry but, with all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, who spoke earlier, the exercise that he conducted into the aircraft industry was not a very helpful example to set in this connection.
One point which significantly has not been made in this House, except to some extent by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, is that the third London airport is not required. As the public debate about Stansted has progressed, the complaint that we really did not need a third London airport has been dropped. In the Report of the study commissioned by the Noise Abatement Society—and, like the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, I too should like to offer my congratulations to the Society on the constructive attitude which they have adopted to this controversy—there was absolutely no attempt to question the need for a third London airport. They emphasised that the need was there, and indeed the need had been made, to quote them, "frighteningly clear". The real argument, then—and I think this is the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—is where and, to an important extent, when this airport is needed.
Now I do not believe that in this comparatively small and thickly-populated Island, the frustrations and the limitations placed upon the choice as to where this airport should be are fully appreciated. I can quite understand the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, not wishing me to refer at any length to the air traffic control aspect of matters, because it does not really fit in with his argument; but when one considers the limitations which are placed upon us, it really is—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord. If he had been listening very carefully to my speech, he would have heard that I paid due recognition to the fact that the Government were faced with an extraordinarily difficult choice.
LORD BESWICK: What the noble Earl said in this context was that he hoped I would not labour the question of the air traffic control problem, but I propose to labour it because it is very relevant to the argument which I propose to set out.
What I am also saying is that if one considers the limitations which are placed upon us, and if one considers them fairly, I think there would be very much less talk about Governments riding roughshod over individual wishes, or of Civil Service bureaucrats ignoring people's rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said, some of us have been through all this before, not only as in the case of 1939 but later, in the 'fifties, when the search was made to get an agreed second London airport. I recall then these same so-called bureaucrats, the civil servants, to whom I was very pleased to hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Albans pay a much-deserved tribute. It would be easy for these civil servants, in the light of this lobbying, to throw in their hand. That would be the easy way out. The hard thing for them to do is to continue to say what they believe to be right; and I think it is entirely wrong and unfair of noble Lords, in this House, and others outside, to attack these civil servants, who are trying to do their job, and just dismiss them as bureaucrats, quite regardless of the public interest.
My Lords, in the case of that search for a second London airport, I can see now those civil servants coming back into my office and endeavouring to put down on the map the details of the land that was available for a runway about 5,000 feet long. Either the flat areas were covered with houses, or else, if you went out into the open spaces, you had a piece of territory which, if levelled off for a runway, would start off as a cutting and would end as an embankment. There are these limitations which have to be understood. But more important than the limitations of the terrain is this prob-
990
lem, in terms of space, which is posed by the air traffic control requirements. It is difficult for those of us not directly concerned with this matter to appreciate the volume of air space which is needed to accommodate traffic using a major airport, and the relationship of the siting of one airport with another. If we are to make the right judgment in this matter, we must take this aspect fully into account.
There must be space in the close vicinity of the airport for marshalling the arriving and departing traffic. For an airport with twin landing streams to parallel runways, it is necessary for the aircraft approaching to settle down on their respective radio beams at different altitudes. With a glidepath of about 3 degrees, and the lowest joining height of 2,000 feet, the aircraft need to take up their position at least ten miles from touchdown. To this ten miles must be added a couple of miles for getting the aircraft settled on their approach path from their arrival route, and an extra three or four miles to give flexibility to the controller to keep up a high movement rate. Thus we need, from the beginning of the runway, something like 16 miles.
On the departure side, the distances are not so great, but space has to be allowed for them to fan out departures so as not to cause delay on the ground. Bearing in mind that airports must work in doth directions, one is left with a volume of space required which is about 40 miles long by 20 miles wide, from ground level up to about 5,000 feet. To this must be added airspace at a higher level, where aircraft can be held should there be an interruption in operation at the airfield or should the arrival rate temporarily exceed landing capacity. These volumes are egg-shaped, approximately 20 miles long by 15 miles wide, and they extend from about 5,000 to 15,000 feet. With these criteria in mind, it is not difficult to appreciate the huge area around an existing major airport which virtually sterilises, pre-empts, space. When one comes to consider it, the site of another airfield, a new airport on the extended centre line of an existing airport, with its runways pointing in the same direction—as one might expect, with the prevailing winds—would have to be about 40 miles away; while a new airport to one side of an existing one

991
could possibly be made to operate satisfactorily as close as 30 miles away.
I am bound to confess that my own personal view was that the new airport should be to the North, in Cranfield possibly, or, for other reasons, there is a case for going to the South-West. But when one sees the demands of air traffic control translated on to the charts, it seems that to the North it is quite impossible without breaking into the air space of other airports and other airfields. My noble friend Lord Kennet touched briefly on the question of military airfields. If one considers that to the North of London—and this relates to the suggestion made by the noble and learned Viscount, of the airport at Silverstone—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, with great respect, I did not suggest Silverstone. I am dead against it. The only point on which I can support the Government is on their objection to Silverstone.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am glad that the noble and learned Viscount has indicated the difficulties involved in moving a nuisance from one place to another. So far as Silverstone is concerned, if one were contemplating another major international airport there it would affect some 21 military airfields. When my noble friend Lord Kennet spoke about the additional cost of £62 million which the construction of this airport at Silver-stone would entail, he was thinking primarily of the cost of moving at least eight of those 21 military airfields out of the air traffic control zone.
If one sees this problem set down on the charts, it is the fact that the obvious, sensible and safest area is to the North-East of London. Stansted makes sense air-traffic-control-wise, and it brings an international airport nearer to a sector of England less well served by Heathrow and Gatwick. To some extent this meets the second consideration of the noble and learned Viscount, in so far as it does, to some extent, fulfil the need for a regional airport. It is offering to another area of England an international airport facility.
My objection to a site East of London, apart from the amenity consideration, rested upon surface access considerations. For anyone in a hurry—and here I agree
992
with the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden—to have to go through the City and through the eastern sprawl seemed to me an exercise in obstinacy. But much of the dissatisfaction that has been expressed to-day about road possibilities deals with the present road system. The Stansted project takes forward transport planning into account. I have more details than were available at the inquiry about the long-range road planning in North-East London. I hope that the noble Earl will not say that this is another case of our changing our tune. It is a question of being able to give, in rather more detail, some of the points expressed generally at earlier inquiries.
The Ministry of Transport expect the M.11 to be complete from Stansted to the North-East corner of the motorway box at Hackney Wick by about 1975. By then, or shortly afterwards, the eastern section of the North Cross route, the northern section of the motorway box, may be built, together with a line to King's Cross to join the Western Avenue extension. This would take the motorist to as near Central London as, say, Portland Place. But even if no motorway is assumed closer to the centre of London than the North-East corner of the motorway box, the Ministry of Transport now estimate the approximate average off-peak journey time by road between Central London and Stansted in about 1975 to be of the order of 65 minutes. This may sound, and I confess it does to me, somewhat optimistic, as it assumes an average of 50 miles an hour for 35 minutes on the M.11 and then 30 minutes to Central London from Hackney Wick. Nevertheless, even if it is optimistic, it compares favourably with the available alternatives.
I propose to say more about the Foulness possibility later, but in relation to this question of accessibility by road Foulness shows up badly. Assuming a construction of a 10-mile dual carriageway link to the site from the A.127 near Southend, and various improvements to junctions along the A.127 to the Greater London Council boundary, or an entirely new road from the site to the G.L.C. boundary to replace the A.127, the off-peak estimate for that journey from Foulness is still 85 minutes. Incidentally, it was put to me, when I inclined to pessimism on this prospect of struggling to Stansted airport by road,

993
that of course not all air passengers using their own cars will start off from Central London. Much of the traffic will join the radial road at one or other of the London ring roads; and, given a good omni-directional air service from Stansted as well as Heathrow and Gatwick, potential passengers, I am sure, will start to sort themselves out, choosing the most accessible Airport and tending to relieve pressures now building up en route to the present two London Airports.
A comparison of rail journey times is also favourable to Stansted. The times given to me are 45 minutes for the Stansted—King's Cross run, and over an hour from Foulness to Fenchurch Street. Foulness (I now refer to the Foulness proposal on the sands) seems to have emerged, certainly to-day and I think recently, as the most serious challenge to Stansted; and in large part I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that this must be due to the excellently produced and very persuasively presented study commissioned by the Noise Abatement Society.
Foulness has none of the disadvantages, with one minor exception, from an A.T.C. point of view, presented by other considered sites to the North or to the West. But in the claims about amenity and the lower noise factor the Foulness supporters overlook the practice of aircraft fanning out, as I have said before, from the flight path after the initial climb. When I recently pointed this out to one Stansted critic and said that people at Southend would suffer—and more people than at Stansted—his response was, "Well, at Southend they are used to noise." But I am sure this is not the attitude of most of those who urged Foulness as against Stansted.
I am certain that this Foulness proposal needs to be studied very carefully, but leaving aside, for the moment, accessibility, if we study the Foulness proposal carefully, it is shown to fail on two other counts—on cost and on timing. Taking land costs at Stansted, as given in the Study, the additional cost of constructing a similar airport at Foulness would be at least £20 million.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, can the noble Lord give more precise figures of how that is arrived at?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I finish what I am going to say? If I can give the noble Lord any more information, I shall be glad to do so. To that would need to be added the additional cost of road and rail improvements of some £14 to £34 million. To this again has to be added the cost of replacing this controversial Shoeburyness firing range. I am bound to say, speaking for myself, that I have never treated this one very seriously, though I have no doubt at all that it will cost a great deal to move it to some other ground. But the figures I give do not include Shoeburyness, and I do not believe that the figure influenced any decision on this matter as between Foulness and Stansted. Few can argue that, given a few millions either way on these estimates, Foulness would have cost some £50 million more in total, but the item with the biggest doubt about it must be the cost of preparing sand, which, as the Study itself says, at high tide is some three fathoms below water, to take the weight of modern aircraft. I am sure that the engineers are right when they say that it can be done, but I agree with the noble Lord who said that to say that it can be done, and to say that it can be done at a given figure at this point of time, are two very different matters. And when it comes to claiming that the original estimates are certain, one has to be as starry-eyed as the Conservative Minister who said originally that the Concorde would cost us only £70 million.
Just as important as the extra construction cost would be the extra construction time. No responsible Government could commit the millions required for the reclamation of the sands of Foulness without far more research than has been undertaken so far. Tidal studies and a detailed soil survey would take at least nine months. It is estimated that it would take four years to assemble the seven reclamation dredgers, 20 trailing suction dredgers and the substantial fleet of barges needed for this project. To say as the Report does, that the work could be done within two years is sheer wishful thinking. The carefully considered professional advice available to the Government suggests that Foulness II could not be operational before the late 1970s, and that assumes no unforeseen engineering snags.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord has dealt with the project of Foulness which involves the reclamation of land. His main objection there has been the time and delay in dredging and clearing the land. Would he say what are the objections, so far as they are different, to the Foulness project using Foulness Island, which he knows is in the scheme?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I could go into the details, which are not all of the same order. But I was endeavouring to deal with the case that has been made to-day about Foulness II. The objections to the other have been published in the White Paper, and I had not proposed going into them again. Maybe I could, but I want to deal with the possibility of an Inquiry, and if I may be allowed to get on, I shall soon turn to that.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have been extremely interested in what the noble Lord has said about the possibilities and difficulties of the Foulness solution, in particular what he gave as his personal opinion about the removal of the Shoeburyness range. May I take it from that that at least his personal opinion would be against the War Office view which was expressed in the Inter-Departmental Committee's Report, that it was irreplaceable, and against the view of the military witness who took the same standpoint at the Court of Inquiry? May I also ask whether, when he talks about the removal of the Shoeburyness range, he has all the facilities there in mind?
LORD BESWICK: I have no doubt that in a court of law the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, would call those leading questions. I am not against what was said by the military people. All I say is that I do not believe that their view would be the deciding factor, if on other grounds Foulness appeared to be suitable.
I want to deal with the question of the loss of agricultural production, to which the noble Lords, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden and Lord Netherthorpe, referred. I think the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, spoke of a potential loss of £1 million a year in the loss of food; and I accept that import savings at the present time are very
996
important indeed. But so, of course, are export gainings and the earnings of foreign currency. If one takes the estimate of the British Airports Authority, who say that for every 1 million overseas air passengers lost the country would lose £12½ million in foreign currency, then I think we have to accept that this loss of food production, regrettable as it is, is more than outweighed by the loss of foreign currency that we should suffer unless we had this third London airport on time. By 1977, on present growth rates, 7 million passengers would have to be turned away unless we have this additional airport capacity, and of the 7 million 40 per cent. are estimated to be overseas visitors.
LORD PLOWDEN: Can the noble Lord give us some more information as to the basis on which the British Airports Authority says that these tourists will earn £12 million for this country? Is it landing fees, or what is it? Is this information coming from the Board of Trade or from the British Airports Authority?
LORD BESWICK: The figure is made up in some detail by the paper which was put in by the Airports Authority, which has been circulating round the House, and of which I should be glad to provide the noble Lord with a copy. I wanted to save the time of your Lordships, but it is made up of three elements. There are the actual earnings of the Airport Authority—and their present earnings are put at £5 million a year in foreign currency, mostly in landing fees; there is the question of earnings by our own airlines, and the amount of money spent by overseas visitors coming into this country.
I want to deal with the point which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, made about the possibility of a public inquiry, without putting back the third airport to beyond the time at which saturation point would be reached. The whole Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Netherthorpe, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, and, I believe, others have said, estimated that the saturation point would be reached by 1973 with this 104 per hour at the peak hours. Some play was made of the fact that there were other figures in the White Paper, and that the saturation

997
point was given as 109 per hour at the peak hours. I do not think there is really anything in this. The White Paper figures were given on the basis of later information. In either case—104 or 109—we could cope up to 1973. In that, I do not think there is anything between us. But after that, says Lord Dilhorne, we can manage until 1977 by using the existing one runway at Stansted, and in that event, up to 1977 we should have time for this additional public inquiry.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord has, I know not intentionally, put words into my mouth. I did not say that. I pointed out that the Committee had said that the second runway would not be wanted until the late 1970's.
LORD BESWICK: I should hate to put words into the mouth of the noble Viscount but I do not believe what he is now stating is very different from what I thought he was saying, namely, that the second runway would not be needed until the late 1970s. In fact, they said 1977, and I am accepting that, with one runway in operation, we should be able to cope up to the year 1977.
The noble Viscount's point (I think I am now quoting him correctly) was that, given that fact, we should have ample time for a public inquiry. But from 1973 the estimates are that there will be an increase of 14,000 movements a year, which certainly one runway at Stansted could accommodate, but only if the 14,000 movements actually went to Stansted. However the truth, which we cannot escape, is that the airline companies will not go to Stansted to use this one runway unless their air terminal facilities are there. We have to accept that those same airline companies just will not invest the money for the additional facilities unless the airport at Stansted is a permanent one. They just will not put in the necessary facilities if it is only for a matter of two or three years. Then again, no Government and no local authorities would be justified in spending the money on road improvements—which the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, said was so important if we were going to use Stansted—if there was a possibility in the year 1977 of moving to another site.
So we come up against the stark fact that permament additional capacity is
998
needed by 1973 or 1974. The question which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, posed is: Could we get this permanent capacity by 1973–74 and still hold a public inquiry? My Lords, it would depend upon the type of inquiry. The noble Viscount suggested that the streamlining was feasible, but he then went on to talk about the necessity for cross-examination. If we are to have the cross-examination which he obviously requires, the degree of streamlining is doubtful indeed.
What we have done is to formulate an estimate for three possibilities: Stansted, another inland site and a Foulness-type site, given another public inquiry. I do not know whether I can go into all the details, but for Stansted, if we were to have a public inquiry, which might take anything from 1½ to 3 years, according to the degree of streamlining—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Three years!
LORD BESWICK: One and a half years I should have thought was the most reasonable estimate, but that would mean 5½ to 7 years including the time of the public inquiry. The other site, if it was an inland site, would be a matter of 7½ to 8 years. If it was a site of the Foulness type, given a public inquiry taking about 2½ to 3 years—and that would be absolutely essential in order to get the engineering facts required—then it could not possibly be in operation for another 9 to 9½ years.
So on these estimates, which I think Lave been fairly and objectively made, we have the possibility of an elapsed time (including the inquiry) in the case of Stansted of from 5½ to 7 years; in the case of another inland site 7½ to 8 years, and in the case of a Foulness-type site, 9 to 9½ years. This clearly brings us back again to Stansted. If the inquiry again came out in favour of Stansted we should be all right as a civil air power; but if it did not we should be sunk. We should then not have the capacity which will be needed after 1973–74.
My Lords, I do not underestimate the noise nuisance and the loss of amenity to some residents in Essex which an airport at Stansted would bring. But much of the feared nuisance is, I believe, psychosomatic. There are twenty times as many people affected by noise around Heathrow as will be troubled, even on the

999
wildest estimate, at Stansted. Most of the people so affected at Heathrow accept it as an essential national requirement.
The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked me a specific question about the effect on the Lea Valley Regional Park. If the runways are realigned roughly North—South the general pattern of traffic to the South of the airport will be nearer to the East, which should improve the situation in the Regional Park, but it is too early to indicate the extent of the improvement. But even without that improvement which the realigned runway would bring I feel that the noble Lord has exaggerated the dangers.
THE EARL OF LINDSEY AND ABINGDON: My Lords, it was I who asked the question, and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for specifically answering it.
LORD BESWICK: The noble Earl has changed his seat; he was sitting earlier where the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, now sits. May I put this point to the noble Earl? Aircraft now using Heathrow pass over Richmond Park at a lower altitude, and far more frequently, than they would over the Lea Valley Regional Park. Wild life and natural bird life has by no means gone as a result of aircraft crossing over. My wife, who is more interested in these matters, tells me that during last year in Richmond Park there were seen a great-crested grebe, a red-breasted merganser, a Brent goose, sparrowhawks, kestrels, and stock doves; and barn owls have been seen breeding. I cannot think it would be the end of all things if at 3,000 feet a certain number of aircraft passed over the Lea Valley Park.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, would not the noble Lord acknowledge that aeroplanes over Central London to-day are an infernal nuisance?
LORD BESWICK: They are a nuisance; whether they are an infernal nuisance is a matter of opinion.
On an A.T.C. judgment there is little to choose between Stansted and Foulness, but I should have thought that any fair and impartial person would accept that on the counts of capital cost, construction time and surface accessibility the national decision must be for Stansted. Perhaps I may be permitted one other reflection
1000
on surface accessibility—and I was reminded of this by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden. It was just about twenty years ago when I first heard the joke about the designer claiming that he had designed an aircraft capable of flying at 25,000 miles an hour. His friend said, "We shall be able to fly round the globe within one hour", and the designer said, "No my friend, two hours". "But", said his friend, "at 25,000 miles an hour you get round the globe in one hour". "Ah", said the designer—and this was 20 years ago—"it will still take one hour to the airport".
We now go round the globe at just about 25,000 miles an hour, or at least the astronauts do. But we are still talking of elapsed time at off-peak period of 65 to 85 minutes. I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, that if we really meant business we should be giving more thought, more money, doing research and conducting more inquiries into construction problems on the surface travelling to the airport. A purpose-built vehicle, travelling at 100 to 300 miles an hour, probably with customs and traffic control processing en route could widen the choice of airfield considerably. But as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, that must be something for the future, and it cannot be brought within the time scale needed for this third London airport.
In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, I would say that it has been an interesting debate. I have no doubt that it has been a useful debate, in one way or another. It has been a debate in which noble Lords, responsible and informed, have stated their opinions, and what they have said obviously must be considered and assessed.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord is coming to a conclusion. He has been very good in seeking to answer questions. I asked him one question about the second runway at Gatwick, but it may have slipped his memory. Has anything been done about that? Because that affects the urgency for the third airport. I asked him a specific question.
LORD BESWICK: Yes. The estimate I made of 104 or 109 movements in 1973 was based upon the construction of the second runway at Gatwick.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, may I query that point with the noble Lord? Did I hear him say that in regard to the runway at Gatwick? That, surely, does not tie up with what was said in the White Paper. There are 45 at Gatwick.
LORD BESWICK: That is quite true. It is 62 at Heathrow.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: It is 64, I think, and 45.
LORD BESWICK: In good faith I am saying to the noble Viscount that my estimate of the saturation capacity in 1973 is based upon there being a second runway at Gatwick. One of the difficulties about the second runway is that it will not double the capacity of the present single runway. It will have to be built too close to the present runway to enable either one to be used to the fullest capacity.
I was saying that it would be wrong to ignore what has been said to-day. But it would be equally wrong for me to suggest that Her Majesty's Government, after all these inquiries and studies, with the best professional advice available to them, should attempt to dodge their duty of taking the decision simply by the easy expedient of appointing another Committee of Inquiry.
10.38 p.m.
LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTER: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, and also to those noble Lords who so patiently and attentively listened to the various speeches. I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount for his strong and forceful speech. If the noble and learned Viscount had been conducting his case in the courts he would have won hands down. I was pleased to have support for this Motion from the Bishops' Bench, from the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of St. Albans. I am sure that everybody was impressed by the sincerity and strength of the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden and the noble Lord, Lord Plowden.
We all respect the speeches from the Government Benches. It is not easy for
1002
those noble Lords to speak against their Front Bench. The noble Lords, Lord Leatherland and Lord Raglan, are to be congratulated both for their speeches and for showing the country that this is not a Party political issue and that everyone is concerned, irrespective of Party. The Liberal Benches contributed to the debate a fine speech from the Leader of the Party, the noble Lord, Lord Byers. Only five speeches out of 31 were against this Motion, and it has been most apparent that the House in general was not in sympathy with the Government's case. Everybody on both sides has made fine speeches, and I hope I shall be forgiven if I do not mention every speaker by name. But may I congratulate my friends from the Cross Benches, the noble Lords, Lord Strang, Lord Wedgwood, Lord Netherthorpe and others for their support? I am sure that the House would like me to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, upon his brilliant speech; and, lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for bravely trying to sum up the Government's case.
I must, however, correct one point. I, and I believe most of the noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon, are not for or against Stansted. What we are asking the Government is that they reexamine this case. I do not accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, regarding Foulness Island. The Dutch are doing a similar operation with the building of Europort at Rotterdam, and I understand that they are prepared to assist us with our problems. Lastly, I do not accept, or understand, what the noble Lord was saying about the standard-busy rate at present, and I should like to refer the noble Lord to paragraph 7 on page 6 of the White Paper.
My Lords, a very clear case has been made out by all those speakers who have supported this Motion. This has not been answered by Her Majesty's Government, and I sincerely hope that they will consider your Lordships' feelings before laying an Order on the Table of this House. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before eleven o'clock.