Sitting of 31 January 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL (By Order)
    BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday 8th February.
    CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
    COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL (By Order)
    Second Reading deferred till Thursday 8th February.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Aluminium Smelter (Site)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can now make a further statement on the proposed siting of an aluminium smelter in Scotland.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in the plans for the provision of an aluminium smelter in the Highlands.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I have nothing to
    1316
    add to the Answer I gave in the House on 6th December.—[Vol. 755, c. 1432.]
    Mr. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing concern at the repeated leaks, rumours and wrangling over this important new arrangement and, as six Government Ministries now seem to have their fingers in this pie and several nationalised industries are also involved, would be assure us that he will cut through the massive confusion and ensure a decision soon?
    Mr. Ross: 1 really have nothing to add, as I said. I am aware of the complexity of the matter, as the hon. Gentleman obviously is, and I can assure him that we will try to cut through the complexity and arrive at the right solution.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is so interested in this matter that he did not even attend last night's debate on the subject? Can my right hon. Friend say whether the possibility of firing such a smelter with Scottish coal has been excluded or not?
    Mr. Ross: I can assure my hon. Friend, as he will probably have learned last night in the debate which he initiated, that all possible considerations are being taken into account in dealing with the proposals before us.
    Mr. Noble: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that although the problem of what fuel should be used may be very complex, the single factor that this is desperately needed in Invergordon will be in the forefront of his mind?
    Mr. Ross: That has not left my mind since this matter first arose.

    Commercial Buildings, Glasgow (Rates)
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to make a further statement on his inquiries into the rating burden on commercial buildings in Glasgow.
    The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): No, Sir.
    Mr. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that this is a serious and urgent

    1317
    problem, with many shops being forced to close in Glasgow? What organisations is he consulting and to what extent will the Glasgow retail trade be taken into consultation?
    Dr. Mabon: My noble Friend the Joint Under Secretary of State has received two deputations, on 1st and 14th December, which submitted a considerable number of facts and points which are now being processed. I hope that, after these matters are checked, Ministers will be able to consider the matter afresh.

    Crime Prevention
    Mr. Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now introduce legislation to curb the crime wave in Scotland.
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends taking to combat the growth of crimes of violence.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he proposes to take to deal with the rising number of crimes of violence.
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has now concluded all his consultations with interested parties on the question of new criminal legislation; and when he expects to introduce such legislation.
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he now proposes to take to reverse the growing crime wave and increases in acts of violence, in view of his recent discussions with interested parties; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Norman Buchan): As my right hon. Friend stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend, the Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson), on 23rd January—[Vol. 757, c. 100–101]—he is still considering the proposal to give the police a power of search under the Prevention of Crime Act. But I believe that for the prevention of crime we must chiefly look to social measures within the existing powers of local authorities, the police and voluntary organisations and to the co-operation of the public. For this
    1318
    reason I have undertaken the task of surveying this field and, where appropriate, encouraging fresh initiatives for the prevention of crime.
    Mr. Monro: Why is it that, if the Department is so keen to do something about this, the hon. Gentleman's Government blocked the Private Member's Bill to include search for offensive weapons last Friday afternoon?
    Mr. Buchan: As I said, this question is still open; the hon. Member understands the procedure of the House as well as I do. The exclusion in that Bill of a specific power of arrest would imply that it already existed in common law. It therefore follows that the subsection of the Prevention of Crime Act under which an arrest can be made "with reasonable cause to believe" is an extension of that common law power. If that were so, it would obviate the need for powers of search altogether.
    Mr. Galbraith: How long will the hon. Gentleman go on considering this? Does he realise that people are extremely concerned? If motorists have to put up with the breathalyser, surely people who carry weapons should be treated more rigorously?
    Mr. Buchan: There has been no delay on this matter. The Act gives the police power to arrest where they have reasonable cause to believe that a weapon is being carried. We are now being asked —this is why we and hon. Members opposite should give thought to this—to compel the police to prove that a weapon is being carried before arresting. This fight weaken, rather than strengthen, their powers.
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: However laudable these long-term considerations may be, does the hon. Gentleman not realise that this situation is becoming explosive in the short-term and that, particularly among the police, there is a real sense of frustration and a feeling they are not getting the backing from him and his hon. Friends in dealing with crime in Scotland?
    Mr. Buchan: I do not think that it helps when hon. Members opposite use such words as "explosive". On the police, it is precisely because of the possible extra risk to them involved under

    1319
    the request for search that we must also consider this. Whether they might be better protected without such powers is something which we would consider.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of combating this increase in crime is to increase police recruitment? Can he give any figures to show whether or not there has been an improvement in the last three years or otherwise?
    Mr. Buchan: Yes, I agree completely with what my hon. Friend says. The interesting figures, especially when one considers the manpower available to the police, including officers and full-time civilians, are that, from 1962, the number rose by about 1,500, from 10,817 to 12,284. The manpower of the police themselves rose from 9,692 in 1962 to 10,247 and we are making earnest efforts to increase this rate.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that recently an innocent died as a result of an attack by someone using steel combs? Does he realise that the police felt that they did not have adequate powers to make a search, and that, if they had those powers, this element of detection would probably help to prevent such crimes? Would he act before it is too late?
    Mr. Buchan: Again, there is absolutely no proof that extended powers of search would have stopped this specific case. We must not spread this kind of irresponsible statement. I assure my hon. Friend that his view is not universally shared by the police.
    Mr. MacArthur: Will the hon. Gentleman move quickly from consideration to action? Will he not recognise that there is a growing and responsible demand for a power of search in circumstances of this kind? Would he not, if only as an interim measure, consider a power of search for the police for a limited experimental period?
    Mr. Buchan: This is one of the aspects which we are considering, and I agree that there is a responsible attitude as well as that shown by the kind of irresponsible requests which we have heard this afternoon. We are examining this time factor also. A good deal has been done, especially following my meetings with the Glas-
    1320
    gow magistrates, including the establishment of the working party to take positive action to deal with the social problems, which in Glasgow is also a fruitful line of development.
    Mr. Lawson: Would my hon. Friend bear in mind that many of us think that his course of action is the right one, but that those who have studied this question think that it is exceedingly difficult to know exactly what the Glasgow police are asking for, even when they see it in black and white? Would he therefore continue his close study and not give way to political pressure by hon. Members opposite?
    Mr. Buchan: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. Glasgow magistrates yesterady requested the Chief Constable to seek a meeting with the Lord Advocate to get further clarification of the powers as we have already outlined them to him.
    Mr. Noble: Will the hon. Member not consider that his use of words just now was a little wrong? Hon. Members on both sides of the House, as well as policemen on both sides of this question are acting entirely responsibly, in their view, in trying to get a very serious problem across. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to take some action.
    Mr. Buchan: I accept, of course, that there is a legitimate anxiety and responsible expression of view on this. What I was suggesting was that some of the exaggerated statements made about this subject do not help anyone—not the police, the magistrates or ourselves—and I hope that we will see this kind of restraint in pressing for these measures.

    Pit Closures
    Mr. Monroasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice has been given to him by the Economic Planning Council regarding pit closures in 1968.
    Mr. Ross: The advice given to me by the Scottish Economic Planning Council on this and other matters is, and must remain, confidential.
    Mr. Monro: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that this continued uncertainty about pit closures in Scotland is causing much alarm and despondency in the areas likely to be affected? Will Fauldhead be kept open until the summer?
    Mr. Ross: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Ministerial responsibility here is. not mine, but special arrangements have been made to bring into close consultation for advice the Economic Planning Council and, through me, the Minister of Power. This is being done— [Interruption.]—someone asks why it should be confidential. The very statement of the fact indicates the need for confidentiality in respect of advice given.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the miners' trade union has gained the impression that there will be no pit closures before the closest possible examination and consultation by the Economic Planning Council? Does he not think that it would be in the interests of the miners if he verified this impression?
    Mr. Ross: I can assure my hon. Friend that I have already met the trade union and that it knows the position well in respect of the liaison which has been promised them, and which has been carried out. A sub-committee of the Economic Planning Council has already visited and had discussions with the N.C.B. at the pits which were highlighted for closure in Scotland. They have already reported to me and I have conveyed my findings and the advice which they have given to the Minister of Power.

    Emigration Overseas
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will instruct the Scottish Planning Department to carry out an up-to-date survey of the reasons for the increase in emigration overseas from Scotland and the decline in the population of Scotland since 1964.
    Mr. Ross: A detailed study and analysis of migration movements is being carried out by a working party of the Scottish Economic Planning Board as part of a wider examination of population problems.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Surely it is not a coincidence that there has been this rapid and sustained rise in emigration overseas since the right hon. Gentleman took office? If he cannot think of anything better to do, would he consider seeking an assisted passage to Australia
    1322
    for himself and his family and, if the Australians will not assist his passage, asking the people of Scotland, who would?
    Mr. Ross: As far as I recall, the last Member of Parliament who went to Australia from this place was a Conservative, and he came back. This rise in migration started back in 1951–52. What we have been able to do in two years is stem considerably the flow to the south. We are also concerned with the overseas migration. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this must have worried his Ministers, but there was no evidence of highlighting this in their considerations of industrial and economic policies in Scotland in this House.
    Mr. David Steel: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think, though, that there is a case for surveying the reasons for this increase in emigration overseas? Particularly, will he look at some evidence which exists that people go overseas on unreasonable assumptions about the standard of living which they will get and so on? Perhaps there is something which we can do in this direction.
    Mr. Ross: This is true. It is difficult to get at motives, because this entails interviewing the people who have already gone, and it is not easy to reach them, but we have got together a working party of the Scottish Development Department, the Ministry of Labour, the Registrar-General and the Scottish Statistical Office, which is going into the facts. We are studying the places which these people leave and those to which they go, and we are satisfied that we may get from an analysis of these facts an indication of motives which will back up some of the other things we have been given. Sometimes, also, the justifications for going are unrelated to the true motives.
    Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there has always been much emigration from Scotland overseas? Is he further aware that it is not always economic reasons that persuade people to go abroad; that we have always had a spirit of adventure and loyalty and a wish to advance Scotland's cause? Many of them have proud records which should not be trailed through the mud.
    Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend is right in pointing out that Scotsmen have often been footloose. The prosperity of the world would have been less if it were not for Scotsmen going abroad. This will always be so. The pattern today is not one of people going from Scotland because they have no jobs, but of people being lured from jobs in Scotland because manpower is scarce elsewhere. We have to ensure that we should create the right opportunities—properly paid opportunities—in Scotland for our own people.
    Mrs. Ewing: When was the working party set up?
    Mr. Ross: An announcement was made in this House, or in another place by Lord Hughes, on 6th December.

    Public Expenditure
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what will be the full extent of cuts in public sector spending programmes in Scotland resulting from the Government's latest economy measures.
    Mr. Ross: I do not have this information, but as regards the services for which I am responsible I would refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply of 17th January to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton).— [Vol. 756, c. 591; Vol. 756, c. 687–8.]
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have devised a new sort of motto—that it is better to travel hopelessly than to arrive. What on earth is the point of retaining targets for public sector investment while at the same time admitting that there is no hope of reaching them?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Member seems neither to travel nor ever to arrive anywhere definitely in any of his Questions. He asked a Question and I have given the Answer, which is related to the fact that there are certain matters concerning defence and the nationalised industries which can be included in the term "public sector spending programmes". He should know that these are not matters which can be properly and easily analysed in geographical areas.
    Mr. G. Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the serious cuts in the housing programme——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a Question on housing on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the cuts announced in reply to the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and see whether more of the money could be used to help to relieve the situation resulting from the disaster of the recent hurricane?
    Mr. Ross: I think the hon. Member is slightly mixed in his motives. He wants to restore cuts and at the same time to increase expenditure. He had better take these things separately in relation to their actual priorities.
    Mr. Dewar: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if we take the recent cuts in public expenditure in Scotland as a proportion of total public expenditure, the figure is only about half of the figure for Great Britain as a whole and this is still a continuing example of the demand for development of the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Ross: This is perfectly true and it carries out the pledge we have given in relation to Scotland and the development areas. A matter which is often overlooked is that in relation to public expenditure tied to achievement in economic expansion and growth in Scotland this is where we have made no cuts at all.

    A9 Road
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what recommendations he has received from the Highlands and Islands Development Board on the improvement of the A9 road south of their area; and what action he is taking.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: In a Press statement of 16th May, 1967, on the report of the Highland Transport Board, the Highlands and Islands Development Board recommended that the PerthPitlochry section of A9 should be included in the priority roadworks to be completed by 1975. Various improvements of this stretch are already in hand, or being planned, but my right hon. Friend is considering what general improvement can be included in the road programme for the 1970s.
    Mr. Campbell: Will the Minister ensure that the recent cuts in the road programme will not fall in any way upon the stretch of the A9 from Perth to Blair Atholl since this is the main access by road to the north and central Highlands?
    Dr. Mabon: Work in hand at the moment is £300,000 in three schemes. We are about to authorise two schemes totalling £135,000 and we have some minor schemes which may be in the programme. They will be in addition to the consideration we are making of the programme for the early 1970s.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Minister realise that it would be greatly to the advantage of Scotland to spread industrialisation instead of having it cornered in the South-West?
    Dr. Mabon: I do not know about concentration in the South-West, but it is certainly the policy of the Government to seek industrialisation all over Scotland.

    Scottish Economy (White Paper)
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue a progress report on the first half of the period covered by his White Paper on the Scottish Economy.
    Mr. Ross: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies given to the hon. Members for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) and Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) on 25th October and 6th December, respectively. —[Vol. 751, c. 1725–6; Vol. 755, c. 1426.]
    Mr. Campbell: As the halfway point in the six-year period covered by this White Paper was reached a month ago, at the end of 1967, and in view of the drastic changes in policy which the Government have made since the publication of the White Paper, why does the Secretary of State not seek to inform Parliament and the country of the facts?
    Mr. Ross: The hon. Member will appreciate that he has not been reluctant in questioning me on various changes in policy in various debates in this House and elsewhere and getting the kind of information he seeks. We also publish regularly progress reports on various aspects of the economy in the quarterly bulletin on Scottish development.
    Mr. MacArthurasked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will now publish a revised version of his White Paper, The Scottish Economy 1965–1970, in the light of the Government's latest economic measures;
    (2) if he will publish a White Paper detailing the effect on the Scottish economy of the Government's latest economic measures.
    Mr. Ross: With permission, I will answer Questions 26 and 27 together.
    No, Sir. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already made clear that the Government will continue to give special priority to the economic growth of the development areas.
    Mr. MacArthurWith great respect, Operations Nos. 26 and 27 are totally separate. I wish to ask a supplementary question on each. Is that permissible, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: No such right exists.
    Mr. MacArthur: Then my supplementary question is directed to Question No. 27. Why will not the right hon. Gentleman publish a White Paper detailing the effect on the Scottish economy of the cuts following devaluation? Is he aware that three solemn pledges given by the Prime Minister in November have now been broken? Is he aware that the housing programme and school building programme have been cut, and that the hospital programme has been slashed? Will he and his right hon. Friend now make a full and clear statement about the total effect of the cuts on the Scottish economy?
    Mr. Ross: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts. Perhaps he will appreciate exactly what was said about the infrastructure expenditure and look at what is being done about that. He talks about cuts when in fact we are spending more than before, though not as much more as we had recently planned. In the past three years we had hoped to approve about 96,000 houses. We have actually approved 100,000, and we are well ahead of our house building target. If we can get the response from the private sector on a very considerable increase we shall reach our target there. The hon. Gentleman should know quite well that the statement my hon. Friend

    1327
    made about the school building programme shows that we are still building towards the rate that we intended. The same is true about hospital building. The financial resources placed at the disposal of the regional hospital boards are still higher than was originally proposed.
    Mr. Willis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this is the third or fourth revised plan for which the hon. Gentleman has called? In view of the debate on Monday, could he tell us how many additional civil servants and how much additional Government expenditure would have been required to produce those three or four additional plans?
    Mr. Ross: There have been a considerable number of demands for more civil servants, and we must add to them all the other demands about local authorities. As usual, hon. Gentlemen opposite are speaking with two voices.
    Mr. Noble: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the words used by the Prime Minister on 19th November when he said:
    "But the priority programmes of housing, school building, and hospital building will be safeguarded in all these measures, and the job of bringing work to development areas will be given a still higher priority."
    How does that fit in with the right hon. Gentleman's statement that my hon. Friend was wrong on all three counts?
    Mr. Ross: The amount of work being done on housing and in the school building and hospital building programmes is higher than last year. It may not have been as high as hon. Gentlemen opposite would like, but they should appreciate that we are talking about what was said in the White Paper on the Scottish economy, where we gave a figure for what we would spend on the infrastructure. We are well up to that target.
    Mr. MacArthur: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Edinburgh (Transport Problems)
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the review his Department has been holding with Edinburgh Corporation about traffic
    1328
    and transport problems in the city is yet completed.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: With respect, I am not quite sure what review the hon. Member has in mind. Edinburgh Corporation is now considering the letter which my right hon. Friend sent to it on 9th January indicating his provisional decisions on its proposals for a new road network; and a study is being made of transportation and land uses in the whole of East Central Scotland.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: I understood that the Minister was helping Edinburgh Corporation. Does he realise that, with what is proposed in the Transport Bill regarding railways and difficulties about the ring road, we do not know where they are and that there is utter confusion in Edinburgh? Will he not bring forward some scheme so that the citizens may know what is happening?
    Dr. Mabon: After the letter of 9th January, my right hon. Friend advised me on things I could say to Edinburgh Corporation when I met them on 12th January. These were extensively reported in the Press. We hope that the transportation study for East Central Scotland will be ready by the end of the year. As to the specific matter arising from the public inquiry on the quinquennial review, that matter is being considered by the Corporation next month I understand. We hope thereafter to get ahead with both the internal Edinburgh study and other matters affecting the whole question.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that tremendous improvement could be made in Edinburgh by having one-way streets in many places with very little public expenditure? Is his Department giving as much help as possible to the Corporation in looking into this?
    Dr. Mabon: The Corporation has done some work in this regard which has not always been appreciated publicly. The suggestion made by the hon. Member will be borne in mind.

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will request the local authorities in Scotland

    1329
    to institute a register of all those in their respective areas who are suffering from physical disabilities but who are not in receipt of industrial, war or other pensions or special tax allowances or grants.
    The Under Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Brace Millan): Local welfare authorities are already required to keep registers of permanently disabled persons in their areas. Where persons on these registers appear to be entitled to financial assistance, the local authority's officers notify the Ministry of Social Security. I doubt whether special registration, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman, would achieve any more.
    Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does the Under-Secretary realise that if we wish to help the category of people mentioned in my Question it is necessary to identify them explicitly? This is the suggestion. Can he press on with the work because many of these people are in dire difficulties?
    Mr. Millan: I appreciate that. Already a great deal is done to identify them, as my Answer demonstrates. A survey under the Government Social Survey is being initiated dealing with the particular question of identifying the disabled living at home. I hope that that will give us additional information.
    Mr. G. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that the system of registration is at present not comprehensive and it does not supply all the information required? Can he say whether the Social Survey, announced in reply to a Question put by me, has yet started?
    Mr. Millan: I believe the Answer that was given to the hon. Member was that it would be starting some time in the current year. That still stands.

    Buildings of Historic and Architectural Merit
    Earl of Dalkeithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the purpose of his policy of listing certain buildings as being of historic or architectural merit; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: The purpose is to guide local authorities in performing their functions under the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947.
    1330
    Statutory listing is going ahead as fast as resources allow.
    Earl of Dalkeith: Would the Minister of State agree that this magnificent work of listing which is going on will be quite fruitless unless it is carried to its logical conclusion of implementing many building preservation orders? Does he realise that the record in Scotland over building preservation orders is deplorable when compared with that of England?
    Dr. Mabon: The answer to the first question is "Yes", and on the second I would not agree. There are one or two outstandingly bad examples—I concur in that—but the record generally is fair. Putting the past aside, in future both local authorities and the Government intend to do better.

    Forestry
    Earl of Dalkeithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cumulative acreage of woodlands in Scotland classified as unproductive scrubland; what proportion of this he estimates it would be in the national interest to clear and replant with timber-producing trees; and what conclusions he has reached as a result of his study of the reason for their not being so treated.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: The area of unproductive scrubland in Scotland is estimated to be about 200,000 acres. Nearly half of this area is unsuitable for forestry, owing mainly to exposure and inaccessibility; and it would not necessarily be in the national interest to convert all the remainder to forestry because much of it provides useful shelter for stock
    Earl of Dalkeith: In the interests of wise land use, would the Minister of State do as much as he can to encourage the bringing into use of that part which could be turned into profitable forestry land and, if necessary, consider re-introducing the scrub clearance grant which, sadly, was abolished by the last Government?
    Dr. Mabon: I much appreciate the noble Lord's comment about the last Government. We are still paying the grant under the 10-year scheme, which

    1331
    was introduced in 1963. The Government at that time thought that the worst of the wartime scrub had been dealt with. We are examining the matter again. I do not want to raise any false hopes. I think that we should look again at the latest returns, which will shortly be available, and see if we should do anything further in this regard.

    Private House Building
    Mr. Galbraithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he intends taking to encourage the growth of private house building.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: Through the local authorities and the Land Commission we are trying to make more land available. We are continuing even closer consultations between the construction industry and the Scottish Office using the working party comprising representatives of the Scottish Association of Registered Housebuilders and the Scottish Development Department. Above all, we must build up the prosperity of Scotland so that far more people feel able to buy their own houses.
    Mr. Galbraith: Does the Minister of State agree that the real reason is, not so much the lack of land, as the unreasonably low rents of local authority houses, which make rates so high on private houses? If this is not the reason, can he explain why proportionately such a vastly greater number of private houses are built in England and Wales? Wales is not any richer than Scotland. There must be some reason.
    Dr. Mabon: The Welsh do not pay so much for their houses. There are other points. Other comments could be made. It is wrong to fasten on one reason as there are many. The builders have agreed with us that action to counter the lack of availibility of land might help. We are tackling this task with some energy.
    Mr. Manuel: Does not the Minister of State agree that one of the reasons for rates being higher in Scotland is that industry is still derated by 50 per cent.? Is my hon. Friend further aware that I am not arguing that the rate burden on industry should be increased? Hon. Members opposite should remember that
    1332
    the rate burden must be borne by other people when industry is derated.
    Dr. Mabon: There are a number of points which we could debate for some time on this issue. To answer the question simply, I am aware that this is the impression. I do not know whether factually it is correct.

    Land Tenure
    Mr. James Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to terminate the feudal system in Scotland.
    Mr. Buchan: As my right hon. Friend announced in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie) on 26th July last, he is having an intensive examination made of the possibility of major reform of the Scottish system of land tenure. In recent months officials have been in consultation with a number of bodies with a view to developing proposals.—[Vol. 751, c. 146.]
    Mr. Davidson: I am aware of what the Minister has just told the House. Is he aware that most of those concerned in Scotland—feu-ers, vassals and those who pay feu duties—would be quite satisfied if they were given the legal right to redeem their feu duties and if at the same time a legal right was given to planning authorities to over-rule those conditions contained in feu charters which affect planning?
    Mr. Buchan: These are among the proposals which have been reaching us. They will be considered.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there have been many intensive examinations of the feudal system in Scotland, including one very authoritative one by an ex-Secretary of State for Scotland, Tom Johnston, into the noble families? Does not my hon. Friend realise that local authorities which build houses and which then wish to lay sewage pipes along river beds are being bled white as a result of this system? What we want is not intensive examination but action.
    Mr. Buchan: I will take that advice very much to heart. I assure my hon. Friend that noble families will be part of the matter under consideration at the end of this exercise.
    Mr. James Davidsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy in regard to the payment of multures when the mill concerned no longer exists.
    Mr. Buchan: These payments, whatever their origins, are now in effect land burdens and they will be considered as part of the examination of possible land tenure reform which my right hon. Friend announced on 26th July last in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie).—[Vol. 751, c. 146.]
    Mr. Davidson: I am very glad to hear that this is also under consideration, but is the Under-Secretary aware that in practically every case that I have examined the mill concerned no longer exists and it is an utterly obsolete conception that a man should pay a mill duty for the right to have his corn ground in a mill which probably has not existed for 100 years?
    Mr. Buchan: This is true. The multures still exist. Unfortunately, they have now established themselves as a recognised condition of the occupation of individual properties. I recognise their archaic nature. To some extent they were replaced by the Thirlage Act, 1799. They are still written into the system. They are one of the factors which we shall be reviewing.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does my hon. Friend recognise that speedy legislation to sweep away the archaisms of practically 1,000 years would not be welcomed by every hon. Member on this side and that the burdens of landholding which have been referred to by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) existed even at the time of the last Liberal Government?
    Mr. Buchan: I am certainly aware that these burdens existed, both under the last Liberal Government and under other previous Governments. I think my hon. Friend was stressing that he would not want over-speedy action. I hope that a modicum of speed would not be unwelcome.

    School Building Programme
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what cuts are envisaged in the school building pro-
    1334
    gramme in 1968 as a result of devaluation.
    Mr. Millan: Capital expenditure on school building will be reduced by £2·4 million and £3·5 million in 1968–69 and 1969–70 respectively. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of Circular 667 on this matter, which my Department sent to education authorities on 23rd January.
    Mr. Eadie: Is the Under-Secretary aware, subject to his answer, that there may be differences of opinion in Scottish education circles about the school leaving age but that there is no difference of opinion about comprehensive education? [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] There is very little difference of opinion in Scotland about comprehensive education. Will my hon. Friend give the House an undertaking that there will be no cuts in relation to the further movement towards comprehensive education in Scotland?
    Mr. Millan: As my hon. Friend will see when he reads the Circular, one of the priorities that we have asked education authorities to adhere to is any key project for comprehensive reorganisation.
    Mr. MacArthur: Is not that a shocking reply? Is not the Under-Secretary aware that what he has just said flies completely in the face of the assurance given to the House by the Prime Minister that there would be no cut in the education building programme?
    Mr. Millan: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. It was obviously clear from my right hon. Friend's statement on 16th January that the reason for deferring the raising of the school leaving age was to make these savings in school building in 1968–69 and 2 1969–70.

    Local Authorities (Overspill Agreements)
    Mr. Hugh D. Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what examination he has made of the financial and social burdens falling on exporting local authorities under overspill agreements; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: At present Glasgow is the only Scottish exporting authority. A continuing examination of the

    1335
    complex financial problems and social consequences is proceeding both within the Government and in conjunction with the Corporation of the city of Glasgow, the local authority associations and a number of other bodies.
    Mr. Brown: Does my hon. Friend recognise that he has my support in his sympathetic approach to Glasgow, even though the rate support grant exercise has been a failure? In the light of the persistent political prejudice against Glasgow Corporation on behalf of commercial undertakings, which suggest that it is only due to a low rent policy, will my hon. Friend agree to set up a high-powered independent committee to examine the social and financial implications of overspill?
    Dr. Mabon: On the second point, my hon. Friend will know what I said in response to a question asked by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). That is a separate matter which is being studied by Ministers presently in the light of facts and points submitted to them on the 1st and 14th December. On the second point, my hon. Friend is wrong in saying that the adjustment of the rate support grant has failed. This matter is still being discussed with the local authority associations among themselves in the working party which has met at St. Andrews House several times this month and which will continue its meetings until later this year, when it can make recommendations. As for the meetings of Glasgow Corporation, I think that they begin on 22nd March for the purpose of discussing this. If my hon. Friend wants any figures, which are complex, I shall be happy to write to him.

    Local Authority Expenditure
    Mr. Hugh D. Brownasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what savings in expenditure by local authorities are estimated arising from the circular issued on 18th December, 1967; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: My right hon. Friend cannot yet make an estimate because some local authorities have not yet reported, and some will wish to review their decisions in the light of his discussion with the local authority associations on 26th January.

    Meat and Livestock Commission (Headquarters)
    Mr. Buchanan-Smithasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had in relation to the siting in Scotland of the headquarters of the Meat and Livestock Commission; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ross: I have received various representations, including those sent to me by the hon. Gentleman, on the suitability for this purpose of locations in Montrose, Perth and Cumbernauld.
    The location of the Commission's headquarters is still under consideration, and I have nothing to add to what was said on the subject on 24th January by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.—[Vol. 757, c. 403–4.]
    Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Can the Secretary of State confirm that no final decision has yet been taken regarding the location of the headquarters? Second, will he accept our assurance that, in his efforts to secure the headquarters for Scotland, he will have the support of every Scottish Member?
    Mr. Ross: I am quite sure of that. We have the support of Scottish Members for anything which we think is right for Scotland. However, we must take a balanced view on this question. It is a matter which affects the whole of the United Kingdom, affecting all producers, distributors and traders. No final decision has yet been reached.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is not Ayrshire a great agricultural county, and would not the ideal place be the town of Ayr?
    Mr. Ross: I am not sure that I agree that Ayrshire is just a great agricultural county. I think that it is the greatest agricultural county. We must not understate our advantages in Ayrshire. However, having certain advantages, we must be prepared to give way to others who are more in need of additional support
    Mr. Stodart: Will the Secretary of State impress upon his right hon. Friends the value of the staff of between 150 and 250 which the Meat Commission will employ to a town in Scotland like several of

    1337
    those which have been mentioned? Further, if the matter is still just in the balance, will the right hon. Gentleman throw in a little of his charm and make certain that we get the headquarters?
    Mr. Ross: I shall do what I can in proclaiming the advantages of having it in Scotland. But there are other considerations as well. I should like to think that mine was the decisive voice, but it is one of the voices.

    Grant-aided Schools
    Mr. Wrightasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the close estimates already required from and submitted by grant-aided schools in Scotland for the financial year 1967–68 will be allowed to have added to them the salary increases due to teachers in April 1968 before being treated as the final estimates for the year.
    Mr. Millan: No, Sir.
    Mr. Wright: Do the Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend appreciate the significance of that reply? We have already been warned that there are cuts in the direct grants to schools, and we are now being advised, are we not, that parents will face a double blow when the close estimates become final? Is it the Minister's intention to destroy grant-aided schools. or does he intend to force them to be independent of the State school system?
    Mr. Millan: The cuts already announced in the assistance to grant-aided schools have been very modest. In a. period when Government expenditure as a whole is being cut, it is only right that the grant-aided schools should bear their part of the burden.

    Trade Statistics
    Mr. Wrightasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is proposing to take in order to prepare a report on Scottish trade statistics similar to the Catto Report of 1952.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: It is not practicable for the reasons given in the Catto Report itself, to prepare comprehenseive trade statistics for Scotland, although records of overseas trade through Scottish ports are now published in the Digest of Scottish Statistics.
    Mr. Wright: Does the Minister of State fully realise that, since last November or thereabouts when there was a prominent by-election, the relationship of Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom has been a subject of vast concern in Scotland? Will he reconsider his view on this matter and consider a Commission which might investigate the total financial relationship, including foreign policy and defence, of Scotland to the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Dr. Mabon: To the first part of that supplementary question, the answer is "Yes, Sir". In reply to the second part, I remind the hon. Gentleman that many industrial and commercial firms have establishments on both sides of the Border and could not produce meaningful trade statistics except in relation to their operations as a whole. Whether we should be justified in setting up such a Commission or employing additional civil servants and, at the same time, asking these firms to give us a breakdown of returns, I do not know. At present, I am inclined to think not.
    Mrs. Ewing: Was the Minister's point about its not being practicable made with reference to expense? If so, is he aware that the known cost of Catto was only £900 for printing and publishing, and many investigations cost a great deal more than that?
    Dr. Mabon: The hon. Lady has missed the point. It has nothing to do with the actual expense as such. It has to do with the employment of manpower, not just in the public sector but also in relation to the demands which we should have to make on many industrial and commercial firms which have establishments in both Scotland and England in asking them to break down their accounts. This is the trouble we have to face in this matter. I would ask the hon. Lady not to make guesses at these things but to realise how complicated the whole matter is.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is my hon. Friend aware that an effort to analyse how much of the "Queen Elizabeth II", which is assembled in Scotland, is produced in Scotland and what comes from England and other parts of the United Kingdom would be a fantastic operation to carry out in every firm concerned? It would be ridiculous to waste money on this exercise.
    Dr. Mabon: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I should add that the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) does good service for Scotland in giving us estimates of exports from Scotland to overseas markets. But the Council would never pretend that these are exact. They are not official returns, and, moreover, they require a great deal of willingness on the part of firms in Scotland which help in giving the information.
    Mr. MacArthur: This is a perfectly reasonable request. Is not the Minister aware that there is a good deal of concern in Scotland on this matter and it is quite reasonable to ask that the question be settled once and for all? Even if it is not possible to obtain precise information, would not an approximation be of some value?
    Dr. Mabon: I would say "Yes" to the first and second points which the hon. Gentleman makes. As to the third, there would never be any satisfaction in having approximate figures. We must do it properly or not at all. I have explained the immense difficulties in having it done, in the demands it would make on the Government and—I emphasise this—on private industry, too.
    Miss Herbison: I appreciate the great difficulties in carrying out such a survey, but will my hon. Friend give further thought to it? Scottish people like the truth, and there are so many misleading statements on this subject made in Scotland. Would it not be a good thing if we had the truth?
    Dr. Mabon: I have never yet said "No" to my right hon. Friend. Yes, Ma'am.

    Transport Bill
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from Scotland's hauliers and lorry drivers about the Transport Bill; and what reply he has sent.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: None, apart from representations from the Traders' Road Transport Association and a circular from the Road Haulage Association. My right hon. Friend has replied, reaffirming the Government's view that the Bill will increase the efficiency of transport services
    1340
    to the Scottish economy but that certain technical aspects of the Bill, in particular the provisions about abnormal loads, are being specially considered by the Transport Committee of the Scottish Economic Planning Council.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon:That reply is totally unsatisfactory. Does not the Minister recognise that there are two additional points at issue which are of extreme importance to Scotland's economy: first, the rise in costs due to transport charges, estimated in my part of the world at a minimum of 20 per cent.; second, the need for flexibility, particularly for exporters and those engaged in the food and fish industries, who are directly threatened by the provisions of the Bill?
    Dr. Mabon: With respect, there has been a great deal of nonsense uttered by hon. Gentlemen opposite, either through ignorance or because they are misinterpreting the Bill's provisions. It is quite wrong of them to go about the country saying what they are saying, without proper examination of the Bill.
    The answer I gave was an exact and precise answer to the Question. If there are further representations to be made to us, Scottish Ministers would be happy to receive them.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Does my hon. Friend realise, from representations which I have made to him, that the hauliers and carriers in Aberdeen associated with the fish trade regard the Bill as a threat to their existence? Will he make representations to the Minister of Transport accordingly?
    Dr. Mabon: The Minister of Transport has received copies of any representations from the organisations I have mentioned or from my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite immediately they have come to our office. She is aware of them. But, as I said, there is a great deal of exaggeration. I admit that fears are being raised because of misunderstanding about the Bill and we shall do all we can to allay them. There is a great deal of misreading of the Bill's provisions.
    Mr. G. Campbell—
    Mr. Lawson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it customary to discuss on the Floor of the House the provisions of

    1341
    a Bill which is at present being considered by a Standing Committee?
    Mr. Speaker: It may be referred to.
    Mr. Campbell: Do the hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State consider that the Bill, if enacted in its present form, will be good for Scotland?
    Dr. Mabon: Yes, Sir.

    Housing Programme
    Mr. Eadieasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what cuts will take place in the housing programme in 1968 as a result of devaluation.
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what he estimates is the annual saving on housing under the new economy cuts.
    Dr. Dickson Mabon: The number of public sector houses approved in 1968 and 1969 will be about 34,500 and 36,500, respectively, which is 1,500 less in each year than we had expected to approve. This should reduce housing investment by about £2 million and £5 million in the financial years 1968–69 and 1969–70, respectively.
    Mr. Eadie: Does my hon. Friend agree that the case has now been made for no housing cuts in Scotland because of the recent storm damage? Although hon. Members on both sides of the House welcome the fact that we are building more houses than ever, a response such as I have suggested would, I am sure, receive the appreciation of the House.
    Dr. Mabon: I think that my hon. Friend is aware from the official returns that not only was last year a record one for completions in Scotland but that we approved a large number of houses, which will ensure that we achieve the figure of 50,000, given sufficient private sector development, in 1970. I have met on behalf of my noble Friend the conveners of 40 authorities in the past four or five days, and I have assured them that no houses will be taken from the list if they are related to economic growth, replace unfit houses, or are in an area which has a serious local shortage. On my hon. Friend's point about the storm damage, my right hon. Friend is waiting to see the final outcome of the disaster.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can my hon. Friend also give us an assurance that there will be no cut in the allowance of
    1342
    houses to local authorities with a long waiting list?
    Dr. Mabon: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Did the Minister say that it remains the Government's intention to build 50,000 houses in 1970? If so, has he clearance from the Chancellor of the Exchequer for that statement?
    Dr. Mabon: What I have said is that we still hope to be able to build 38,000 houses in the public sector and 12,000 in the private sector. I have been trying to make these matters clear to private builders in the past few days, and there are reports in the Press today about that.

    Fishery Protection
    Mr. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied that the Scottish Fishing Protection Squadron is at sufficient strength to protect Scottish fisheries; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Buchan: I think my Department's fishery cruisers are generally effective in keeping down infringements of the regulations governing methods of fishing. The strength of the fleet is, however, one aspect of the protection service which will be looked at by the committee of inquiry which my right hon. Friend announced on 8th December last.—[Vol. 755 c. 423–4.]
    Mr. Baker: Does the Minister agree that with the partial lifting of the 3-mile limit for the inshore fishermen part of the strength of his squadron can now be deployed in keeping foreigners at bay? What plans has he for the use of helicopters to strengthen the squadron in the future?
    Mr. Buchan: The question of the use of helicopters will be within the remit of the committee, and I should not like to comment on that. A great deal of the problem of foreign vessels is the responsibilrty of the naval protection service.

    Agriculture, Fishing and Forestry Industries
    Mr. Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied as to the level of the incentives to the Scottish agricultural, fishing and forestry industries to expand in the national interest; if he will given an assurance that

    1343
    they will be exempted from the cut-backs in public expenditure: and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Ross: The level of incentives for agriculture will be closely scrutinised during the Annual Review. I cannot anticipate the outcome. As to the fishing industry, I have nothing to add to the reply that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 24th January. The rate of grants for private forestry under the dedication and related schemes is under review.
    As to the second part of the Question, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply he received from my hon. Friend, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on 24th January.—[Vol. 757, c. 398, Vol. 757, c. 111.]
    Mr. Baker: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, with a good deal more sympathetic help from the Government, the resources of Scotland could supply much of the food which we now import?
    Mr. Ross: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. I am sure that he will not expect a reply in advance of the outcome of the review.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that up to £10 a day is now charged in many Scottish rivers for a day's salmon fishing? Does he think that that helps to increase the food supply for Scotland or the fishing owners' rights? Can he do anything to deal with those charges?
    Mr. Ross: That is a little outside the Question on the fishing industry here, but I assure my hon. Friend that we have been looking into it under the Hunter Report. There is another Question on the Order Paper to which I am giving an Answer today. But I could tell my hon. Friend of other rivers where he could fish for a lot less than £10 a day.
    Mr. Stodart: Although the right hon. Gentleman has been obliged to go into purdah on the subject of the Review, will he admit that the fall in Scotland's food output in the past three years must show
    1344
    that the present incentives are totally inadequate?
    Mr. Ross: That fall may not be related to incentives. The hon. Gentleman will remember the bad autumn for hill farming which we had about two years ago. That was not related to incentives but rather to the weather of the previous winter.

    QUESTIONS
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair tries to protect the interests of hon. Members who put Questions on the Order Paper, but it is rather difficult if the supplementary questions and answers in the exchanges become long, as they have become today. We have had only 28 Questions today.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I desire to raise with you a point of order, of which I have given you private notice. It appears that under Rulings which, I think, have not been publicly promulgated, a limit is being applied by the Table Office to the number of words that may be included in a Parliamentary Question intended for Oral Answer, and it also appears—as, for example, from Question No. 80 today— that there is a certain variety in the application of these unpublished rules. It would be of great assistance to right hon. and hon. Members if you would be prepared to give us some guidance as to the limit which you in your wisdom intend to apply so that hon. Members may not in their innocence offend.
    Mr. Speaker: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving me notice. The limit to which he refers has been applied for many years, but I think he is right in suggesting that private Rulings made by Speakers from time to time on this matter might very well be made public. My own researches show that the only existing public Ruling on this issue was given by Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown on 6th April, 1943, in c. 472 of HANSARD, when he insisted that Questions should not exceed ten lines, which is equivalent to something over 100 words.
    Since that date, the Table has had to cope with an ever-increasing number of Questions and from time to time has

    1345
    advised Mr. Speaker on the need to keep the limit under review. Several private Rulings by my predecessors made the limit 100 words, and in May 1966, on advice, I asked the Table Office to limit the length of an Oral Question to roughly 70 words, counting the necessary periphrases as one word and using discretion in cases of special difficulty.
    I agree that a further public Ruling on this may well be helpful, and, indeed, perhaps that it might have been made some time between 1943 and 1968. On the whole, the limit of 70 words seems to have worked effectively and economically over the past few years, and right hon. and hon. Members have accepted the guidance of the Table. The average length of Questions is 30 to 40 words. If, however, the House felt the limit to be unnecessarily cramping, we would revert to the earlier limit of 100 words.
    On the other issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I would say that the Table is human and, no doubt, sometimes errs in applying what is, after all, a rule-of-thumb method. I would point out, however, that right hon. and hon. Members can always appeal to Mr. Speaker if they are troubled about a decision of the Table. It is a tribute both to right hon. and hon. Members and to the Table that such an appeal vary rarely happens, and I think that the House would wish me to take this opportunity of expressing its sincere appreciation of all the diligent and helpful work of the Table Office, to which we give an enormous amount of detailed work every week.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. First, may I respectfully thank you for that very clear Ruling, and also, if I may, associate myself with what you have said about the Clerks at the Table and the servants of the House. May I ask for clarification of one further point? My submission related to Oral Questions. Would you indicate whether the same or other limit applies to Questions for Written Answers?
    Mr. Speaker: I would say, by and large, roughly to both. We have to consider the economics of the Order Paper.
    Mr. David Steel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I revert to
    1346
    your comment concerning Scottish Questions today? We only dealt with 28 Questions today. May I ask whether it is possible to draw this matter to the attention of the Select Committee on Procedure and suggest that the services of the Scottish Grand Committee might be more profitably used?
    We are sent here to probe and examine the actions of the Executive, and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland has responsibilities equivalent to those of nine different English Ministers. Yet Questions to the Secretary of State for Oral Answer appear once in five weeks on the Order Paper. Scottish Members therefore are unable to carry out their proper duties.
    Mr. Speaker: As one who attended Burns' Night last Saturday, I am not unaware of the problem. Indeed, it has been raised on the Floor of the House several times, but it is not a matter for me. It is for the House itself to decide.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If Questions had been put down to the Secretary of State for last Monday, they would have been reached.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. When you were answering my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), you indicated that Questions for Written Answer would also have the same limitation. Could I draw your attention to the fact that, since there is no limit to the number of Questions for Written Answer, if there was a limit to the length of Written Questions, this would really mean that more such Questions would be put down.
    Mr. Speaker: There is no doubt that if any Ruling is made by Mr. Speaker and approved by the House ingenious hon. Members will seek to circumvent it.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we be allowed to associate ourselves with your tribute to the Table? If the House were as sensible as the Table, it would be far more efficient. Will you also accept the suggestion that an hon. Member who cannot put a Question in less than 70 words deserves to be sent back to elementary school?
    Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the Table will note the tribute and the modest reference the hon. Gentleman made to himself in company with other right hon. and hon. Members.

TRAWLER "KINGSTON PERIDOT"
Mr. James Johnson Mr. James Johnson (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the reported disappearance of the Kingston upon Hull trawler "Kingston Peridot".
The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu): It is with profound regret that, for the second time in a week, I have to tell the House that a fishing trawler has gone missing.
The steam trawler "Kingston Peridot", with a crew of 18, left her home port of Hull on 10th January for the Arctic fishing grounds off North East Iceland. She was last contacted on 26th January off North Iceland, but when the further contact which had been expected on 28th January was not received, ships in the area were immediately asked to try to make contact. When this proved fruitless, an air search and shore and sea search operations were ordered yesterday, 30th January, and they are continuing today.
I am keeping in close touch with events and am awaiting the results of the search before considering what further action should be taken. Once again I offer my sympathy, and, if I may, that of the House, to the families who are being subjected to this dreadful anxiety.
Mr. Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend. Is he aware of the mounting anxiety felt by all sections of the people of Hull in that this is, or may be, our second major disaster in a week? I am sure that the House will join in sending deepest sympathy to all the anxious people in Hull and to all those who are suffering, particularly the wives of the missing men.
Since the apparent loss of the "Kingston Peridot" has come such a short time after another loss, will my hon. Friend now decide, and decide finally, on the formal, special inquiry he talked about last week in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North
1348
(Mr. McNamara)? All people in Hull would be grateful if he would expedite the findings.
If I may put one further point to my hon. Friend, on Monday he talked about a circular being sent out 18 months ago requesting that these vessels should report their position daily. Normally that has been done. However, will he make it statutory that they do it, and for it to be done every 12 hours rather than every 24 hours?
Mr. Mallalieu: On my hon. Friend's second point, about making the reporting of positions statutory, I am seriously considering that. It would also be important to make it statutory that the owners should report any failure of contact as soon as possible. On that, I am sending out a circular forthwith to all owners urging them, at the moment that they lose contact, to notify the coastguards.
My hon. Friend referred to a special inquiry, and I imagine that he is talking about the special inquiry which will be automatic once the trawler is presumed lost. We must wait until that is decided.
Mr. Wall: Is the Minister of State aware that right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House would wish to be associated with the expressions of sympathy and anxiety for all relatives of the men missing in this trawler? Will he confirm that there can be no possible connection between this missing vessel and the "St. Romanus", missing last week, though fishing in entirely different areas? Secondly, may I support the view that some such organisation as the naval "Sub-smash" might be put into operation for trawlers, making it necessary for them to report every 24 hours, so that immediate action can be taken if they fail to do so?
Mr. Mallalieu: I confirm that there is no connection between the two. They were widely separated. I have already dealt with the hon. Gentleman's second point.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the expressions of sympathy to the relatives of those involved in yet another disaster? Trawlers seem to be going down like ninepins, and one is prompted to ask

1349
why. Is there some failure of communication which has not yet emerged? Was there a wireless operator aboard on this occasion, as, apparently, there was not on the last occasion?
Mr. Mallalieu: There was a wireless operator on board on this occasion. Thank goodness, it is not true to say that they are going down like ninepins. It is tragic that there should be these two incidents in one week. I believe that weather conditions in both areas were pretty bad, but we do not know what happened.
Mr. McNamara: I thank my hon. Friend and other hon. Members for the commiseration extended to the people of Hull in this second tragic loss in the last week. Is he aware that in both cases, the two major items for safety, the radio and the life rafts, seem to have failed, and that, in the second case, there was at least a 24-hour gap between the lack of communication and the setting up of a search? Finally, may I underline the anxiety being felt throughout the country and urge him to come to the House and make a statement about both tragedies as soon as possible?
Mr. Mallalieu: I will certainly undertake to do that. We do not know whether it was a failure in radio communication. On my hon. Friend's point about delay in the case of the second trawler, as far as I can see there was no delay. All ships in the area were alerted the moment that there was failure of contact.
Mr. Prior: Is the Minister of State aware that the whole House will support any measures considered necessary to help stop this sort of tragedy? Is he also aware that it is very important that nothing should be done to cause additional anxiety to the families of those at present going to sea, or, indeed, to the fishermen themselves? We should be very careful, when looking at the problem, not to raise unnecessary
1350
anxieties in the fishing industry as a whole.
Mr. Mallalieu: I agree with the hon. Gentleman on both points.
Mr. Ellis: Does my hon. Friend accept that the events of yesterday and today show clearly that a large number of questions need answering? While we appreciate that he is still making inquiries, and notwithstanding the longer survey which he is making into the problem, will he come to the House as soon as possible with such suggestions as he may have so that they may be put into operation immediately?
Mr. Mallalieu: Certain steps are being taken today and tomorrow. I hope to be able to make an announcement to the House, perhaps on Friday, in reply to the question raised by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) on Monday.
Sir A. V. Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman take into account that, in the past, at any rate, a number of trawler skippers have been reluctant to make use of their radios for fear of giving away their positions, particularly if they are on good fishing grounds? Will he ensure that safety considerations come first?
Mr. Mallalieu: I know about that, and I agree that safety comes first. If it is necessary to make it a statutory obligation, we will do so without regard to other considerations.
Mr. Clegg: Is the Minister of State quite sure that enough aeroplanes are engaged in search for the missing trawler?
Mr. Mallalieu: Particularly in the case of the second one, both the R.A.F. and the United States Air Force operating from Iceland were most co-operative.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order.

TRADE UNION COMMISSION
3.46 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a permanent commission to which the Minister of Labour may refer for report and recommendation matters relating to the structure and operation of trade unions; to deal with mischiefs arising thereout; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
The general climate of opinion has changed greatly since I began to advocate this some nine or ten years ago as a first step in dealing with problems which now exercise people's minds. Though the proposal contained in the Bill has not been adopted by any political party, each party has considered other ways of dealing with the same problem.
That, at least, is progress. At first, the fairly general reaction was that nothing should be done by Parliament or the Government and that such matters should, in the phrase which was almost sacred at one time, but which now is never heard, be left to "both sides of industry". In my view, the expression "both sides of industry" is itself an anachronism, and long years of leaving it to both sides produced remarkably little result.
Trade unions occupy a powerful position in our national life. They affect many people directly and all people indirectly. It would not be surprising if provision existed already for their accountability such as that proposed in the Bill, or some machinery of a more positive character. The continuing absence of it and the hostility to it which lingers here and there is due, I think, to the history of protracted and often bitter struggles by which the trade unions built up their position. They built it up in constant collision with established authority and with the law. Although that battle is long past, it is still difficult for some people to realise that the trade unions are now part of the establishment and must assume a stable place in the balance of the constitution.
By a process very familiar in our history, the successful rebel assumes, with a share of power, a share of responsibility, and, once the militant phase is over, a share of accountability. In public matters, everyone is accountable to someone else. Many are accountable to
1352
Ministers of the Crown—we sometimes think that too many are. The Ministers are accountable to this House. This House is accountable to the people. Employers as such are accountable to the Monopolies Commission and the Restrictive Practices Court.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Not in the case of lock-outs.
Mr. Bell: By virtue of their size, cohesion and immunity from legal process over a wide area, trade unions now exercise great power. But they are excluded from the competence both of the Monopolies Commission and of the Restrictive Practices Court. They are not answerable to any Minister of the Crown, nor are they answerable to this House. The objections to and difficulties in making them answerable in any of those four ways are too obvious to need any further exposition from me this afternoon.
The Bill which I seek to introduce tries to overcome this problem by setting up a Commission—not another Royal Commission to brood over the subject for two or three years and then produce a general report which must be controversial, and which may therefore need another two or three years of brooding over—but a permanent Commission, analogous to, though different from, the Monopolies Commission. The Monopolies Commission can consider only what the President of the Board of Trade refers to it. I propose that the Trade Union Commission should consider only matters referred to it by the Minister of Labour.
Like the Monopolies Commission, it should have power to report and make recommendations which, if Parliament so resolved by affirmative Resolution of both Houses, would have the force of law. That, again, is the procedure in the case of the Monopolies Commission. The matters which could be referred to it would be those relating to the activities and structure of trade unions. I do not believe that particular industrial disputes between employer and employee could be successfully referred to a body of this kind.
Matters relating to union structure in a particular industry might usefully be so referred. We might not have spent so many fruitless years trying to grapple,

1353
for example, with demarcation disputes in the shipbuilding industry, with a final solution still out of sight, if we had had a mechanism of this sort available. I remember that the Shipbuilding Advisory Committee said that the situation in the industry:
"…stems from the history and traditions of the industry, which die hard and have their effects even after the original cause has disappeared."
Such a Commission would also be useful in dealing with those embarrassing and difficult cases affecting personal liberty and membership of trade unions, with which we have no other way of dealing. There are many cases of restrictive practices which have been condemned from both sides of this House.
Mr. Frank Allaun: As has the hon. and learned Gentleman's profession.
Mr. Bell: I am always happy to extend the application and grateful for support for the principle. I refer to such practices as those in the London newspapers, which were so scathingly referred to in paragraphs 77 to 114 of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Press. It pointed out, among other things, in relation to the magnitude of those practices that many of them were 40 years old and added:
"Inefficiency is not turned into efficiency because the parties have agreed to it …The truth is that the very organisation of industrial relations in this industry contributes to inefficiency."
It may be asked why, since we have a Royal Commission about to report, deal with the matter at this moment? The danger of a Royal Commission is that when it reports there may be initiated a broad doctrinal solution of this problem, while what I ask leave to introduce is a much more British and pragmatic method of approaching the problem—a method which, by its very character, would enable there to be gradually built up a volume of case law on the subject by a series of fair and impartial reports.
The next step might easily take shape in our minds and be as uncontroversial as the Restrictive Practices Court was after some years of the Monopolies Commission. All this should have been done years ago. It is the simplest and most practical way of doing things, and it takes the heat out of the controversy, allowing
1354
particular solutions to be found for particular problems. A new perspective then builds up naturally as time passes. Instead, we have let the whole matter drift because of its awkwardness, and we will very soon find ourselves forced to make general decisions of speculative effect on generalised arguments in the inflamed atmosphere of party controversy.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that he is proceeding under the Ten Minute Rule.
Mr. Bell: I am now closing, but the occasional interruption, which itself is unusual on these occasions, and I believe contrary to our practice, inevitably slightly stems my progress. The House has seen fit to give leave for this Bill in the past. Owing to adverse conditions at four o'clock on Friday afternoons, it has not made further progress. I ask leave again in the hope that, with better fortune and in the changed climate, the proposals which I favour may be more fully considered to, I believe, the public advantage, as this great problem moves at long last to the foreground of political attention.
3.55 p.m.
Mr. Eric Ogden: I rise to oppose this Motion put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell). In the kindest possible way and in the shortest possible time I will ask the House to put this Motion out of its misery by voting against it in the Division Lobby. May I first declare my interest as a member of one of the oldest and, I think, one of the most honourable trade unions in this country, the National Union of Mineworkers. I would emphasise that I speak not at the behest of my union, or for any other union, but as the elected representative in this place of my electors of Liverpool, West Derby.
A Tory Motion to reform the trade unions is becoming an annual event. In 1966 we had a Motion put forward by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), which has now been lost in the mists of time. In 1967 a Motion was put forward by the hon. and learned Member, and that was shot down in flames most effectively by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). Now, in 1968, we have this call

1355
for a permanent trade union commission, not some transitory thing, but a permanent commission, with, no doubt, a distinguished chairman, a learned judge perhaps.
I would not suggest that the hon. and learned Member is attempting to make jobs for the old boys. No doubt its membership will comprise constitutional lawyers, representatives of learned institutions and industry and trade unions, a gaggle of noble Lords, resurrected from oblivion in another place, with their advisers on admissions, experts on evidence, pundits on procedure, clerks for correspondence and typists for transcripts—all permanently employed on a permanent commission. With ten, 20 or 30 members to make it fully representative, it would need perhaps 40, 50 or 70 members of staff, all civil servants, with someone to make the tea.
There would have to be a permanent home, worthy of its dignity, here in central London, Westminster perhaps. That will cost a pretty penny, and it will take the wages of a great many railwaymen, postmen, dockers and shop assistants to pay for that little lot. This permanent commission is an unnecessary growth of bureaucracy.
The Opposition complained ferociously yesterday, and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) at 10 o'clock led his battered and bleeding troops—and my hon. Friends can be selective about the adjectives—through the Division Lobby to complain about the continued growth of bureaucracy.
An Hon. Member: It was not yesterday.
Mr. Ogden: It seems only a short time ago that the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South went into the Lobby complaining about the growth of bureaucracy. At three o'clock this afternoon he is asking for more bureaucrats—probably on the principle that if he cannot beat them he had better join them.
However, if he is serious in his intentions—and I confess that I have some doubt of that because of his use of words like "mischief" and "accountability" and so on—I would remind the House that we have a Commission sitting at this
1356
time, a Commission created not by the hon. and learned Member and his hon. and right hon. Friends, because the present Leader of the Opposition, when he was Minister of Labour, refused a request for a Royal Commission on the Trade Unions; but we have a Royal Commission on Trade Unions and Employers' Associations, and the matters it is proposed it should deal with, I remind the House, are
"To consider relations between managements and employees and the role of trade unions and employers' associations in promoting the interests of their members and in accelerating the social and economic advance of the nation, with particular reference to the laws affecting the activities of these bodies".
It is hoped the Commission will report in April. I can understand the hon. and learned Member's impatience about some things, but I do not think that to wait till April is too much to ask.
I have tried to be fair, and I tried to get some more information about Conservative proposals for trade union reform, and so this morning I went along to the Tory Party's Central Office in Smith Square and was received by a charming young lady—I was given a warm welcome—if not designed, then chosen, to distract one's attention from the more serious aspects of politics, and, perhaps, to make the Tory Party more attractive. I said that I was trying to find something about Conservative proposals about trade union reform.
I had to wade past displays—the old Conservative trick—of the flag of our country, a trick the Conservatives use when trying to raise funds. At last I got some information. I got a Conservative manifesto, and in it was a chapter, "The Conservative way ahead", which said:
"First, we will be transforming industrial relations by introducing a new Act covering the trade unions and employers' associations."
No doubt they intend to transform them. I got a pamphlet entitled, "Productivity, Wages, and the Trade Unions", and another pamphlet entitled, "Trade Unions for Tomorrow "——
Mr. Speaker: I hope the hon. Member now will come to the Bill.
Mr. Ogden: I was wading my way from the Central Office to come to it, Mr. Speaker, but I could find little, if anything, about a Bill.

1357
Trade unions in this country have played an honourable rô1e in the past, and are doing so in the present. Their members, in a free society, are entitled to band together to serve the interests of their members. They have accepted their -responsibilities, and the hon. and learned Member is offering nothing which they need. We know perfectly well what the Tory Party means when it talks about trade union reform. It means attacking he trade union movement, which is the first line of security of the Labour Move-
ment. Mr. Speaker—I very nearly said Brother Speaker—Mr. Speaker, and brothers on this side of the House, when the Tories attack the trade unions there is only one thing to do—hammer them in the Lobbies.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 80, Noes 207.

Division No. 36]

AYES

[4.3 p.m.

Astor, John

Glover, Sir Douglas

Orr-Ewing, Sir lan

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

Goodhew, Victor

Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

Gower, Raymond

Page, Graham (Crosby)

Berry, Hn. Anthony

Grant-Ferris, R.

Page, John (Harrow, W.)

Body, Richard

Grieve, Percy

Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

Bossom, Sir Clive

Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

Braine, Bernard

Hastings, Stephen

Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

Bromley-Davenport,Lt.-Col.SirWalter

Heseltine, Michael

Russell, Sir Ronald

Buck, Antony (Colchester)

Hill, J. E. B.

Scott-Hopkins, James

Carlisle, Mark

Hirst, Geoffrey

Stainton, Keith

Channon, H. P. C.

Holland, Philip

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

Chichester-Clark, R.

Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

Tilney, John

Clegg, Walter

King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

Cooke, Robert

Kitson, Timothy

Van Straubenzee, W. R.

Cooper-Key, Sir Neill

Knight, Mrs. Jill

Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Costain, A. P.

Longden, Gilbert

Walker, Peter (Worcester)

Crouch, David

Loveys, W. H.

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Cunningham, Sir Knox

McAdden, Sir Stephen

Wall, Patrick

Dance, James

Maude, Angus

Ward, Dame Irene

d'Avigdor Goldsmid, Sir Henry

Mawby, Ray

Weatherill, Bernard

Eden, Sir John

Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

Webster, David

Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

Emery, Peter

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Eyre, Reginald

Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles

Farr, John

Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Foster, Sir John

Neave, Airey

Mr. Ronald Bell and

Gibson-Watt, David

Onslow, Cranley

Mr. John Biggs-Davison.

NOES

Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

Concannon, J. D.

Ginsburg, David

Allen, Scholefield

Conlan, Bernard

Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

Anderson, Donald

Corbet, Mrs. Freda

Greenwood Rt. Hn. Anthony

Armstrong, Ernest

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Gregory, Arnold

Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

Cullen, Mrs. Alice

Grey, Charles (Durham)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Dalyell, Tam

Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

Beaney, Alan

Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,w.)

Grifflths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

Bence, Cyril

Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

Grimond. Rt. Hn. J.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

Bessell, Peter

Dempsey, James

Hannan, William

Blackburn F.

Dewar, Donald

Harper, Joseph

Boardman, H.

Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Booth Albert

Dickens, James

Haseldine, Norman

Boston, Terence

Doig, Peter

Hefter, Eric S.

Bottomley Rt Hn Arthur

Dunn, James A.

Henig, Stanley

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

Bradley, Tom

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

Hilton, W. S.

Bray, Dr. Jeremy

Eadie, Alex

Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Ellis, John

Hooley, Frank

Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)

English, Michael

Hooson, Emlyn

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

Ennals, David

Horner, John

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

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

Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

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

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

Buchan, Norman

Foley, Maurice

Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

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

Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

Hoy, James

Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

Ford, Ben

Huckfleld, Leslie

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Fraser, John (Norwood)

Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Angle'tv)

Coe, Denis

Gardner, Tony

Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

Hunter, Adam

Manuel, Archie

Roebuck, Roy

Hynd, John

Mapp, Charles

Rose, Paul

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

Marks, Kenneth

Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)

Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

Ryan,John

Janner, Sir Barnett

Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)

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

Mendelson, J. J.

Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

Mikardo, lan

Short, Mrs. Rene(W'hampton,N.E.)

Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

Millan, Bruce

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Miller, Dr. M. S.

Silverman, Julius (Aston)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Milne, Edward (Blyth)

Slater, Joseph

Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

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

Small, William

Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

Molloy, William

Spriggs, Leslie

Judd, Frank

Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

Steel, David (Roxburgh)

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

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Swingler, Stephen

Lawson, George

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Thornton, Ernest

Leadbitter, Ted

Moyle, Roland

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Lestor, Miss Joan

Murray, Albert

Tinn, James

Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

Neal, Harold

Urwin, T. W.

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Newens, Stan

Varley, Eric G.

Lipton, Marcus

Ogden, Eric

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

Lomas, Kenneth

orme,Stanley

Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

Luard, Evan

Oswald, Thomas

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Lubbock, Eric

Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

Wallace, George

Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

Owen, Will (Morpeth)

Watkins, David (Consett)

Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

Palmer, Arthur

Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

McCann, John

Pannen, Rt. Hn. Charles

Wellbeloved, James

MacColl, James

Pardoe, John

Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

MacDermot, Niall

Park, Trevor

Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

Macdonald, A. H.

Parker, John (Dagenham)

Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)

McKay, Mrs. Margaret

Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

Winnick, David

Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

Pavitt, Laurence

Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

Mackie, John

Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

Maclennan, Robert

Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

Woof, Robert

MoMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C)

Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

Yates, Victor

McNamara, J. Kevin

Price, William (Rugby)

MacPherson, Malcolm

Probert, Arthur

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

Rankin, John

Mr. E. S. Bishop and.

Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

Rees, Merlyn

Mr. Michael McGuire

Question put and agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.
Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put
1360
forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 89 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third lime and passed.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
4.14 p.m.
The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Anthony Greenwood):I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Lewis Silkin moved the Second Reading of the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 21 years ago this week. Thanks to that signal beginning, we can say that modern land use planning in this country has now come of age.
By providing a complete system of control over new development in England and Wales, and by requiring each planning authority, through its development plan, to take a long term look at the future of its area, the 1947 Act made it possible for planning authorities to check the sprawling development that spoilt so much of the countryside between the wars and, at the same time, to promote urban redevelopment. The New Towns Act, 1946, the 1947 Act, and the National Parks Act, 1949, taken together, did a very great deal to improve the general quality of life in Britain. But the time has come to move ahead again. This is what we are doing with the Countryside Bill, and with the Town and Country Planning Bill which the Secretary of State for Wales and I are now presenting to the House.
We have, of course, had quite a number of Town and Country Planning Acts since 1947. They dealt mainly with compensation, and left the development control and development plan system virtually untouched. By contrast, this Bill brings the system itself up-to-date. It is not concerned with compensation: the adjustments it makes in that field are purely incidental.
The problem now is not to establish a new system of control, but to make it more relevant to current needs and techniques, and more sensitive to modern thought and current pressures for change. For example, it must take account of regional planning, and must respond to the call for decentralising decisions where these can be taken locally. The range of planning is now broader. The uses of
1362
land must be looked at alongside the problems of the movement they generate. There is a growing realisation, too, that plans must be able to stand up to economic and financial scrutiny; and that what happens in the area of one planning authority may have a profound effect on another. We are now seeking to bring these matters together; we can no longer risk having them handled in separate compartments. We must also speed up the system and make it more positive.
I have four aims in mind.
I want quicker decisions. The Bill provides for alterations in levels of responsibility which will speed things up, as well as a number of other changes which will cut red tape. I want the system made more effective, so that we get from it the quality of results we all want. In various ways, the Bill takes in a little slack, notably on enforcement and historic buildings. And the new development plan system, when it is in full operation, will lead to a real improvement in the quality of planning which will show increasingly positive results as the years go by.
These improvements, however desirable, would not be of much use if the system were to lose its fairness. I have been concerned throughout to see that there are proper safeguards for those affected by planning proposals.
Above all, I am determined that there shall be more real public participation in planning. I want people to have a much better chance of being involved in the planning of the area they live in and of influencing it. Planning is for people and about their activities, not just about areas. Bringing people into planning means a good deal more than the "right" to inspect plans and object to them. I want to make sure that people can get to know what the planning authority is proposing to include in its plans before attitudes harden. The Bill provides for this in Clauses 3(1) and 5(8).
But there is a good deal more to it than a provision in a statute. In some places, attitudes have got to change: we must get rid of the idea that the planners and the planned are on different sides of the fence, and we must study ways of getting them talking together. Some authorities, perhaps, will

1363
need advice on this. As I announced to the House just before Christmas, I am, in association with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, setting up a committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington). This will make recommendations as to the ways in which we can bring people into the planning process.
These then are my main purposes. I doubt whether there are many hon. Members who would quarrel with them.
I turn now to the main contents of the Bill. I shall try not to give a clause by clause account, but to review the things which are most important—I hope with brevity. We have, after all, published the report of the Planning Advisory Group, to whose work I should like to repeat my tributes; a White Paper whose contents have, I am glad to say, been generally welcomed; and also the recent Management Study on Development Control by Local Authorities.
Part I provides for the new development plan system.
Clauses 1 and 2 bring out very plainly the increased breadth of subject matter of the new plans. The development of wider planning concepts, the increasing importance of road traffic, and the overriding need to prepare realistic plans which we can afford, all make it necessary to set about plan-making in a radically different way.
Town planning is no longer concerned with the town as a static pattern of uses, but as a dynamic piece of machinery, which must work as efficiently and as economically as possible. I do not think I can emphasise too strongly— and the Minister of Transport is in complete agreement with me on this—the need for complete integration into the planning process of land use, transport and investment programming; and for an integrated approach to the examination and approval of plans.
The other big change is the division of the development plan into two parts.
First comes the structure plan, for approval by the Minister. The structure plan will be a written statement with
1364
diagrammatic illustrations. It will not allocate particular bits of land for precise uses. Instead, it will deal with broad policies for the use of land, for making the town a living entity, and for making it a worth while place to live in, work in and relax in. It will relate the effect of these policies to movement and will set out in general terms proposals for "action areas" where concentrated change by development, redevelopment or improvement is expected to start within ten years.
Thereafter will come the local plans. These will normally be for the planning authority itself to consider and, after proper publicity and due consideration of objections, to adopt formally. Perhaps the most important will be the action area plans for the areas where the authority propose concentrated change. These action area plans will escape from the present rigid, two-dimensional treatment of comprehensive development areas, which—as we have learnt over the years—offer only the most limited idea of what changes are really going to involve.
Local plans will also cover small and medium sized towns of up to 50,000 people. They will also include district plans, illustrating more fully planning policies in particular parts of a town, and putting the action areas in a wider context. Local plans, too, will be used for countryside and recreational policies. This is a town and country planning Bill.
There are two related questions which my right hon. Friend and I examined with great care before deciding" to go ahead with these changes—whether they should be made in advance of local government reorganisation and, if so, whether local planning authorities should be left, in normal circumstances, to adopt formally their own local plans.
On the first of these questions we concluded that it would be right to move forward into the new system, but to do so progressively. A number of the most forward-looking planning authorities, administering areas with urgent planning problems and responsible for the conditions in which millions of people live, are able to make the change and ready to do so. They should not be held back—or penalised—by the inadequacies of the present system during the years which must inevitably pass

1365
before the Government's conclusions on the Royal Commission's report, are translated first into legislation, and later into new units of local government. I thought that The Times leader this morning was very wise in that respect.
The Bill therefore permits (as can be seen from Clause 2(1), which should be read with Clause 80(3)) the phased introduction of the new development plan system. I shall use this power to bring the system into operation at the outset only in selected areas. The Bill itself in Schedule 1 provides for an early start in London.
I think I should outline to the House how the Secretary of State for Wales and I will set about the selection of authorities in England and Wales to prepare the first wave of structure plans. We shall not say some authorities are suitable and some are not. The first wave will consist of a comparatively small number of authorities. From them we shall gain useful experience for the later operation of the new system on a countrywide basis. We do not want to repeat the situation of the early 1950s, when the submission of development plans by every planning authority, more or less at the same time, caused a monumental log-jam in Whitehall. Moreover, we do not want to force the new system on any authorities who may feel that they are not ready for it, some possibly because they have recently reviewed their plan under the old system or are conscious of staffing difficulties at the present time.
Subject to these qualifications, we shall try to bring together groups of authorities, working together voluntarily, whose areas taken together will provide a better basis for planning than their areas taken in isolation. And, of course, any groupings of this sort are entirely without prejudice to the conclusions of the Royal Commission.
The authorities concerned must be staffed and organised to do the job; and special consideration will be given to those with pressing problems that can best be tackled through the new techniques. Above all, the new system is only for those authorities who are really prepared to accept their new responsibilities. We shal want to be satisfied that they take public participation seriously
1366
and will have proper regard to objectors to their plans.
The first wave, therefore—in addition to Greater London—might consist of a maximum of about eight groups of planning authorities—20-30 authorities in total—whose entry to the new system might be spread over a period of time. No formal steps towards the selection of authorities can be taken until this Bill has passed into law; but I hope to start discussions with potential candidates in the summer. Meanwhile, if any planning authority is in doubt whether it should proceed with a development plan review under the present system, the Secretary of State or I will be glad to offer them informal advice.
The power of a local planning authority to deal with its own local plans has given rise to a good deal of comment, some of it rather emotional. Those who argue that doubts on this point should be resolved by making these local plans subject to ministerial approval are, I believe, failing to realise the character of the change that is being made. And those who say that the Bill is making the planning authorities "judge and jury in their own cause" are using an easy catch-phrase, but misunderstanding the function of the planning authorities. That function is basically administrative rather than judicial—to prepare plans in the interests of the area and of all the people living in it. The critics are also ignoring the safeguards for the public. These are an integral feature of the Bill and will be spelt out further in the regulations which Clause 11 provides for.
The distinction between structure and local plans is not just a parcelling out of different types of subject into different documents for the sake of convenience. It reflects a radical change of approach. This hiving off of local detail is the only workable way of unclogging the machine and doing away with the intolerable delays—often a matter of years—which will be with us permanently if central government is going to have to continue to deal with the objections that may be made to any line drawn on any map for any part of the country.
And behind all this is the principle of devolution or decentralisation, which seems to me so important. We have got

1367
to be clear about the matters with which Ministers should concern themselves and the matters for which local democracy should answer. The new structure plans will identify the issues for central government—the questions that have regional or even national significance. A few local plans will bring up issues of this kind; they will be exceptional, and the Bill covers this by providing powers for the Minister to gain jurisdiction over them under Clause 7(2). Most local plans are essentially matters for local government; and as long as they are dealt with openly, and in accordance with fair procedures—and the Bill provides for both these things—we believe they should be handled locally.
I can see no reason why an authority should not, in the ordinary way, take a fair and balanced view of the ideas put forward by objectors to local plans. There must, of course, be proper precautions against unfair pressures in the exceptional case, so the Bill provides an elaborate safety net. My hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State will deal with the safeguards in detail later; but let me just mention them briefly. The Bill keeps all the normal rights of objection and hearing. It gives the Minister the power to intervene in any local plan at any stage. There can be recourse to the courts. And the Council on Tribunals is given jurisdiction over inquiries held into local plans—that is Clause 6(b).
I have dealt with development plans at some length because they occupy a central place in the planning system, and I shall deal with the rest of the Bill more briefly, so that hon. Members may have as much time as possible to express their views.
Mr. John Fraser: Can my right hon. Friend say why there is no express provision in Part I of the Bill for consultation at the formulation stage by local planning authorities with regional planning councils and regional planning boards? To give an example, it will be impossible to implement a recommendation in the South-East Study without the closest co-operation, at the formulation stage, of authorities preparing structure plans.
Mr. Greenwood: I am glad that my hon. Friend has raised this, because it is
1368
important. We have not included it in the Bill, but it will be our intention to give advice to local authorities, emphasising the need for consultation with regional economic planning councils. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having reminded me of that.
I turn, now, to development control. Development plans deal with the strategy of planning: development control looks after the day-to-day decisions. Here, too, our aim has been to provide speedier procedures, more effective control, and fair treatment for those affected.
On planning appeals—there were about 10,000 last year—slow decisions mean inconvenience, hardship, and even injustice. For years now my predecessors and I have been trying to get them settled more quickly. Many of them relate to development on a small scale. For example, in the last quarter of 1967, 33 per cent. concerned a single house, and a further 10 per cent. groups of not more than ten dwellings. These, together with a whole range of different kinds of minor development, account for 60 per cent.-70 per cent. of all the appeals made to the Minister.
These appeals are very important to the people immediately concerned; but very few of them indeed raise issues of ministerial policy. Over the last five years or so, the decision has followed the Inspector's recommendation in more than 97 per cent. of planning appeals, large and small, which have gone to a local inquiry. In all those thousands of cases the three months occupied in preparing a decision in the Minister's name have added nothing of substance. The Franks Committee saw the folly of this ten years ago, and it recommended in paragraph 392 of its Report that decisions on some appeals should be taken by Inspectors.
The proposal put forward in Part III of the Bill is that in these minor cases the responsibility for giving the decision should be the Inspector's, and not the Minister's, whether the decision follows a local inquiry, or an exchange of correspondence between the parties. I believe that this change will be welcomed, and that most appellants will prefer a quick decision from the man who has himself seen the land, and heard the arguments at first hand.

1369
Of course there are, and always will be, cases on which the decision must be ministerial. The division of appeals into Minister's cases, and Inspector's cases, is to be tackled in three stages. First. the Bill, in Clause 17(2), limits the range of cases that may go to Inspectors for decision. These include the normal planning appeals under Section 23 of the 1962 Act: appeals concerning trees and listed buildings; and enforcement appeals. Secondly, regulations made under Clause 17(1) will prescribe the classes of appeal to go to Inspectors for decision. Thirdly, there may be exceptional cases, within those prescribed classes, where the jurisdiction should be the Minister's because a wider national issue is involved. In these cases the Minister can, as it were, recover jurisdiction by issuing a direction.
In the first set of regulations I do not intend to go beyond ordinary appeals against refusal of planning permission. The first instalment will include appeals concerning single houses. By this one step jurisdiction will be transferred on about 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. of all appeals. I should also like to transfer jurisdiction at the earliest possible date on those other minor cases that I have mentioned, which would bring the total up to about 60 per cent. or 70 per cent.
In our view these are changes which deserve the support of the House. They will make for simplicity—one-stage decisions instead of two-stage—directness, and speed, without forfeiting quality in decision.
In two further aspects of development control there is a clear need for more effective provisions—enforcement, and the protection of buildings of historic and architectural importance.
On enforcement, I shall mention the two most important changes. The Bill will abolish the rule which has prevented local planning authorities from taking action against contravening development which has not come to their notice within four years. It also introduces a new'; stop notice "which will enable them to bring building operations to a halt while an enforcement notice is being dealt with. This will enable the Minister or the Secretary of State to come to a decision on the merits of the enforcement notice without having their hand forced by the completion of the building meanwhile.
1370
On buildings listed for their architectural or historic importance, the Bill telescopes existing procedures. At present there has to be a building preservation order if we are to protect a listed building. Under Clause 33, "listing" itself will confer protection, and express consent will be required for the demolition of any listed building or for alterations or extensions which would affect its character. The owner will retain his normal rights of appeal.
The Bill also removes the financial incentive which sometimes tempts developers to buy such buildings and leave them to decay so that the planning authority is forced to allow demolition and so provide scope for profitable redevelopment. Clause 45 enables the planning authority to buy a listed building compulsorily at a price which disregards the prospects of profits from rebuilding if it can show that
"the building has been deliberately allowed to fall into disrepair for the purpose of justifying its demolition and the development or redevelopment of the site."
There are, I should stress, plenty of safeguards for the bona fide owner.
Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: It seems unfair to expect local authorities to follow the terms of Clause 45 about the compulsory purchase of a listed building unless they are given money with which to do it. They cannot afford to pay large sums of ratepayers' money for compulsory purchase.
Mr. Greenwood: I think the hon. Gentleman knows that there are grant provisions in the Bill, but I would not at this stage want to commit my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to encouraging any extention of public expenditure. Perhaps this is something that we might discuss in Committee.
Part VI of the Bill includes various simplifications and improvements in the law on development control. For example, Clause 51, which will enable local authorities to delegate simpler planning decisions to their officers, will be in the interests of speed and efficiency.
Clauses 52 to 54 provide that a planning permission should be acted on within a fixed period—normally five years. This will encourage people to get on with development instead of holding on to land, and will prevent the planning machine

1371
becoming clogged-up with unused permissions. as has happened in some areas.
The biggest and most important change in Part VI is in Clauses 48–50. These provide for the setting up of planning inquiry commissions to deal with what the White Paper described as
"cases that raise wide or novel issues of more than local significance."
The essential difficulty is that the local inquiry method is not suitable for these big and complex cases. The inquiries tend to develop into gladiatorial struggles, with counsel for the promoters arguing that the scheme put forward is the only right and possible one and counsel for the objectors arguing that the scheme will be a disaster—unless it is carried out in the next county but one.
The ability of the inspector to probe the underlying questions and to reach conclusions is very limited in these circumstances; and there may be important considerations of a national or regional character which it is at present nobody's business to bring forward. Consequently, when the Minister gets the report of the inquiry he may find that crucial questions are only partially answered.
The solution put forward in the Bill is the provision of a strong team of qualified investigators in place of a single inspector; wider terms of reference, and a procedure which will enable them to investigate in depth and not just to hear representations.
Clauses 48 and 49 therefore empower the Minister to set up planning inquiry commissions to investigate planning appeals and applications, including proposals by statutory undertakers that may receive deemed planning consent from their sponsoring Minister, and proposals for development by Government Departments—the first time that such development has been made subject to statutory procedures.
A commission will have three to five members and will be constituted expressly for the matter referred to it, so its members, between them, will have the special knowledge required. They must be able to talk on level terms with the experts of the organisation promoting the development and be able to form their own views on the validity of the
1372
arguments governing the siting of the project.
A planning inspector will normally be a member of a commission, to provide knowledge of planning policies and procedures and to conduct, for the commission, the local inquiry that will form part of its proceedings.
The commission's work will be in two stages. It will start by considering the broad background to the proposal, on the basis of evidence provided by the promoters of the scheme, the local planning authority, Government Departments and interested individuals and organisations, including the amenity societies. At this stage its procedure will be similar to that of a Royal Commission or public committee.
I should regard it as unnecessary—and, indeed, wrong—for the parties to try to present their case at this stage through legal representatives. It must be for the commission to decide which are the issues that it wants to probe at this stage and to carry out the investigation itself. Any examination of witnesses will be in public, unless issues of national security come up. Copies of the evidence received by the commission and transcripts of the examination of witnesses will be made available to the public to assist at the next stage.
The second stage of the investigation will be a local inquiry, following the usual pattern, into the scheme and the objections to it. At this stage the promoters or their representatives will be expected to deploy their case and will be subject to cross-examination. Anybody or any organisation with something relevant to say may attend or be represented, and will be heard.
The commission will prepare its report after it has completed both stages of its work. This will bring together all the evidence of a general nature collected at the first stage of its proceedings and the further evidence from the local inquiry. In its report it will also be able to deal with the question of alternative sites. The Minister may invite its special attention to this as a general point—that is dealt with in Clause 49(4)—and may refer more than one application for concurrent consideration by the same commission.
Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether

1373
this wholly admirable new procedure can be applied to the siting of the third London Airport?
Mr. Greenwood: I rather expected that the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) would raise that point. We must be careful not to become too involved in this matter. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware, consideration of the question of a third London Airport was conducted by a non-statutory inquiry. But the new procedure is relevant to this extent I think: that it would be for the Government or the Airports Authority to decide in principle about a third London Airport, and it would then be for the Airports Authority to put in an application, or a number of applications, for planning permission, after which it would be for a planning inquiry commission to consider the applications.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Is that right? The third London Airport procedure is under Section 14 of the Town and Country Planning Act. I do not find that there is any jurisdiction for a planning inquiry commission under Clause 49, in respect of matters arising under Section 14 of the 1962 Act.
Mr. Greenwood: The inquiry that I was referring to was a non-statutory inquiry, but if the right hon. and learned Gentleman—whom I remember was one of the few surviving participants in our discussions on the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act—takes that view I hope that we shall have an opportunity of considering it further in Committee.
Mr. A. P. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there is some diffidence on the part of the public, in that when the Government talk about consultation it is like volunteering in the Army? At what stage in the procedure, if at all, does he expect that the public will be able to bring in the services of the Parliamentary Commissioner?
Mr. Greenwood: The Parliamentary Commissioner is not specifically mentioned. Existing rights of appeal remain as they were. I am sure that the hon. Member knows that we have made specific provision for public consultation. We propose to spell that out in Orders
1374
and Regulations which will be issued under the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept our sincerity in wanting to bring in the public to a much greater extent than has ever been attempted before.
I should tell the House that Lord Silkin took two hours and eleven minutes in presenting the 1947 Bill. I am anxious to complete my contribution in a much more limited period.
I had reached the stage of referring to the preparation of the report and had said that the Minister may invite the special attention of the commission to the possibility of alternative sites. This may happen where a choice needs to be made between two rival schemes, or where the promoter of a scheme himself puts forward alternatives for examination.
This is something that I envisage happening more frequently once we get the new procedure going. Developers will know that big schemes may be subject to examination in depth and that putting all their eggs in one basket will become much more risky. Moreover, even where only one site has been put forward in the first place, the opening stage of the commission's work may suggest that other areas ought to be looked at.
In these circumstances the commission may put it to the promoters that they ought to have one, or more, additional applications before them if they are to reach a conclusive result. The Minister would call in any additional applications and refer them to the commission.
In each of these circumstances the commission would hold a local inquiry into each of the applications referred to it, but make a single report on the whole complex of issues. I do not expect that more than a handful of cases in any year will call for this new treatment, but where it is employed it should produce a more satisfactory result for all concerned.
There is one matter of some importance which is not now in the Bill but which will be the subject of new Clauses that I hope to introduce in Committee. The treatment of statutory undertakers under planning law has given rise to criticism in recent months and there has been some rather inaccurate talk about their freedom from planning control.

1375
They are, of course, subject to planning law and require planning permission for their development. For the most part the permissions they are granted by the General Development Order are not out of scale with the permissions similarly given to private industrialists. What causes the difficulty is not the ability to control their development, but the cost of doing so. Statutory undertakers differ from other developers in the very important respect that compensation must be paid if permission is refused for development of their operational land, that is broadly speaking, land which they use or own for the purposes of their statutory functions. Compensation is also payable to them, as to other developers, if they are prevented from exercising a permission which they enjoy under the General Development Order.
The reason why statutory undertakers were originally given this special position was quite simply that they were statutory undertakers. They are under an obligation to provide services to the public and they cannot, like a private firm in planning difficulties go elsewhere, or start another business. They have to go on providing the service, and if the planning authority wanted to put up their costs by restricting their activities, it was thought right in the past that the planning authority should reimburse them.
However valid these arguments were once felt to be, the climate of opinion has changed since. Planning must still pay sensible attention to the need to provide essential public services economically. On the other hand, any modern industrial undertaking must be prepared to conduct its business in a way which minimises ugliness, and to accept reasonable costs to make its buildings, plant and operations acceptable to public opinion.
The conclusion which the Secretary of State and I have reached, in agreement with our colleagues concerned, is that, in those, circumstances where statutory undertakers are entitled to compensation for planning restrictions but private developers are not, the cost of the restriction should be equally shared between them and the planning authority; or, to put it another way, their entitlement to compensation should be reduced to 50 per cent. This reduction in compensation
1376
would apply in two cases: first, where permission is refused for the development of operational land, and, second, where the planning authority takes action to withdraw permission for development authorised by a Private Act or Order. It is some of these authorisations that have proved troublesome recently. In addition, we intend to bring forward certain minor changes that concern the definition of operational land, and the treatment of planning decisions which relate to it.
This is a Bill which deals for the most part with procedures, and procedures are not the most exciting of subjects—but they are procedures which govern the whole quality of our surroundings. I believe that the changes which the Bill makes will lead to a substantial improvement in the quality of planning, and will give the citizen a better deal. I believe, too, that the Bill will bring about improvements of the kind which we. all want— quicker decisions, fair decisions, more effective planning, and a better chance for ordinary people to influence the plans that concern them.
As in so many fields of activity, time is not on our side. The speeding up of the housing programme—four houses for every three built before 1964—the extension of the motorways, the development of regional policies, technological change, all generate new pressures. Those pressures we must turn to advantage. Seventeen years ago, Mr. Clough Williams-Ellis, to whom Britain owes so much, warned us satirically about the pressures which were being generated. He wrote:
"They flung out a fine new by-pass
When the first was a chock-full street,
And the glorious day isn't far away
When London and Liverpool meet,
And nothing remains of England
Where the country used to be
But a road run straight through a building estate
And a single specimen tree."
In fact, Lord Silkin's Act laid down the principles which gave Britain what is probably the finest planning system in the world, and British planners are at work in every continent. But the dangers which Mr. Williams-Ellis foresaw are still with us and we must equip ourselves to deal with them. That is what we are doing today. This Bill, probably more than any other in this Parliament, will determine what Britain is like at the end

1377
of the century. It provides us with a great opportunity and one which I believe Parliament, the local authorities and the professions are anxious to seize.
4.55 p.m.
Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I am glad that, for once, I can give a warmer welcome to the Minister's speech than has sometimes been the case in the past. On this occasion, we are all grateful to him for having introduced, in characteristically urbane fashion, a Measure with those general purposes we agree. He may have claimed rather more for the Bill than it deserves, but no doubt, with our usual good will on both sides, we shall be able to improve it in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman perhaps claimed too much when he suggested that there might be four houses for every three built before 1964. I think that he believes that the 500,000 target by 1970 still stands, although, of course, as we know, the Prime Minister has abandoned that "pledge"—not "lightlygiven promise".
We welcome the Bill in so far as it goes a long way towards fulfilling the recommendations in the Report of the Planning Advisory Group set up by my right hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) and Argyll (Mr. Noble) when respectively Minister of Housing and Secretary of State for Scotland. Whereas the essence of the Barlow Report in 1940 was the need to bring planning machinery under stronger central direction, the principal theme of the Planning Advisory Group's Report was the need to move in the opposite direction, and in so far as the Bill accepts both the principle of decentralisation and the detailed recommendations for achieving it of the Planning Advisory Group, we regard it as an important move in the right direction.
After all, we on this side have repeatedly urged the importance of a drastic reform and simplification of planning procedures. We thought that this should have had priority over, for example, the Land Commission Bill. However, no one can doubt that the present system of approvals of development plans is far too cumbersome or that, as the Planning Advisory Group said, initial development plans are largely
1378
out of date before they are finally approved, and the so-called quinquennial review procedure fell years behind. Therefore, in the context of our present local government structure, the provisions of Part I of the Bill, replacing the present development plan with a new-style plan containing the two elements of the structure plan and the local plan, are soundly based.
I should like to emphasise that one of our main aims in this Bill must be to see that more land for building comes forward at a more sensible and orderly rate. If we are to have—I hope that we will— four houses built for every three before, this is is essential. A rising population, with earlier marriage and an increasing number of separate households, coupled with the pressure from all sides to speed up the replacement of obsolete houses and buildings, means there is bound to be a demand for a speedier release of land. It has been estimated—it must be a vague statistic—that between 50,000 and 60,000 acres of previously undeveloped land will be required each year in the foreseeable future.
Now land prices are rising faster than ever before, of course. They are at a record level. Rather hopefully, the Minister of State mumbled something just now about the Land Commission, but that will not help: it will only interfere with the process which could easily be carried out under existing procedures by the existing local authorities and local planning authorities. The only remedy —whatever view we take of the Land Commission or any other organisation— for the rising land prices is that more land should be made available for development so that the supply can match the demand.
Turning to the Bill's specific provisions, it is probably sufficient that the structure plans, subject to the approval of the Minister, for each county and major town should simply outline the broad pattern of development. Equally, there can be no objection in principle to the local planning authorities being responsible for showing in detail how a structure plan will be implemented and giving guidance about the type of building which will be acceptable.
However, I have two major reservations to make at this stage. The first is that I feel that we must be satisfied—

1379
I am not yet so satisfied—that the provisions of the Bill will be relevant to the substantial reorganisation which will have to be undertaken as speedily as possible after the Report of the Royal Commission is received. We must have in mind all the time the need to fit our planning machinery into the context of regional policies. As the Minister appreciates, we certainly cannot afford to wait for the Report and the subsequent legislation before taking some action, but we must be clear about the direction in which we are going.
The White Paper on Town and Country Planning, Cmnd. 3333, stated:
"The new planning process must account for evolving regional policies."
We all agree with that. Unfortunately, it is still not clear what the regional policies are likely to be or what the Government may have in mind. I welcome the fact that the Bill makes some provision for concerted planning by a group of local authorities. I have much preferred in local government the concept of the joint board or committee or grouping dealing with a problem in which the areas of local government are too small for a particular function, to a Whitehall-appointed body. I would rather that the Minister sought advice from a group of local authorities on planning matters than he sought the advice of the regional economic planning council, which is simply the creature of Whitehall.
The Bill seems to give some effect to the concept of regional planning, but it is an ad hoc arrangement of uncertain duration. Should the Royal Commission on Local Government recommend, and the Government of the day accept, a two-tier system of local government, with the first tier being regional bodies exercising authority over a much more extensive area than the largest of the present local authorities—except, of course, the Greater London Council—then there would be a strong case for integrating a great deal of this new planning machinery into the new local government machinery. That would necessitate the establishment of permanent regional planning authorities.
We on this side have advocated for some time some reform of this kind so that we could have a bigger authority dealing with some of the broader issues
1380
and having extensive delegated powers and responsibilities. As our 1965 policy document—I have noticed from earlier proceedings that hon. Members opposite are now going to Central Office to inform themselves about the way in which we can back Britain—"Putting Britain Right Ahead", stated:
"We want to see big changes in planning methods and procedures. The system needs to be made quicker. We propose it should be organised on a more regional basis than at present".
I am sure that that is right.
The Standing Conference on London Regional Planning and the allocation of functions between the Greater London Council and the London boroughs provided, under Conservative Administration, an indication of the future structure for sensible regional co-ordination, and, in this context, it is a matter for examination in Committee as to why the Bill contains provisions which seem, to me at any rate, to abrogate some of the existing powers and functions of the G.L.C.
My second and perhaps more fundamental reservation about Part I—indeed, it is a weakness found throughout the Bill—is that it fails, in spite of what the Minister said, to provide adequate protection for the individual and the public. Indeed, the Government seem not to have given sufficient attention to many of the representations made to them on this matter.
We have to simplify procedure and speed up the planning process, but we have to do it in a way which preserves —many of us think extends—protection for the public. I very much agree with what the Minister said about the need to extend public participation in the whole planning process. I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome his announcement that his hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) is to have some special responsibilities in this field. We know the great feeling he has for this subject, his great knowledge and the confidence he has inspired. That was a very welcome announcement.
It is true that to safeguard the ability of the individual to halt proposed development at the structure plan stage, the Bill requires local authorities to promote as much publicity and open discussion

1381
as possible before a structure plan is submitted to the Minister. However, it is very difficult to see how individuals will find grounds for specific objections to a merely diagrammatic plan. Nor is it easy to see how an individual can easily object to an action area as such. This new concept of an action area, which really is an area of comprehensive development included in a structure plan, is one of the most important features of the Bill.
Equally, it is hard to see how an individual can effectively object to the pattern of the transportation system. The structure plan will provide the basis of the local plan. To protect the public, therefore, it is essential that there shall be full and adequate rights to objection to the local plan, particularly as it does not require Ministerial approval unless he calls it in..The provisions of Clauses 5 to 7 are wholly inadequate and require drastic amendment. More is required than merely letting the local authority take such steps as—in the words of Clause 6(8) "Will in their opinion" secure adequate publicity and give persons who may be expected to have an interest an opportunity to make representations.
It is not clear how the power to make representation under Clause 11 derogate from that discretionary power. We are all in favour of giving local authorities and other bodies the widest possible discretion in financial and administrative matters, but where they act in a quasi judicial capacity there must be the normal safeguards of individual rights. I am particularly opposed to the provision that objections to a local plan are to be heard by an inspector appointed by the local planning authority itself, and only if the Minister so directs by a person appointed by him.
Ultimately the success of all our efforts to achieve effective planning depends on public acceptance and public confidence. I can foresee bitter resentment being felt, and expressed, by many objectors whose representations have been overruled. They certainly would feel, however misguidely, that in some way the planning authority had been judge and jury in its own cause, and this is unfair. This seems to be a matter which could easily be resolved by allowing the inspector to be appointed in some other way.
1382
Of course we have to construct a balance between speed and efficiency and the reasonable right of objection and appeal which is not always an easy thing to do.
When it comes to planning appeals generally, dealt with in Part III of the Bill, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the Minister said. We all know that the whole system of Section 23 appeals against deemed refusal of planning permission has been on the verge of breaking down. The White Paper said that the number of appeals was 12,000 to 14,000 a year. There were only 10,000 last year, but that no doubt was the result of Government policies damping down the rate of growth and development in the country. At present it takes about nine months on average for Whitehall to decide on a planning appeal. This period conceals a spread of three to 18 months more. Yet, as the Minister explained, in less than 3 per cent. of cases is the Minister's actual decision different from that of his inspector.
The Minister also explained that many of these appeals concern individual houses or minor developments. Clearly the case for some delegation is unanswerable, leaving the Minister to call in only those appeals which raise a major principle or issue which it is right that he should consider. I was once in his Department as a Parliamentary Secretary and I do not think it can be any secret that the phrase, "the Minister's decision" is in many cases nothing more than a legal fiction when it comes to the question of determining literally thousands of planning appeals. As we know, and it is quite right, only the more difficult cases find their way to the desk of the Minister or to one of his junior Ministers. It is remarkable how well this has worked in practice and how good the Department has been in selecting those matters which clearly raise some difficulty, political, economic or personal, which the Department thinks the Minister should see. This could have given rise to a real problem sooner or later.
I confess, however, that I am not particularly happy about the proposal to delegate the hearing of appeals to a single inspector who, I understand, will be the employee of the Minister. I should like to go rather more carefully into the status

1383
and answerability of the new-style inspectors in Committee. If they are to have this judicial function the more they are separated from Whitehall machinery and brought within the judicial machinery, the better. I have always favoured the idea of regional tribunals. Although I appreciate that there are difficulties about this, and the Committee on Tribunals and Inquiries accepted the idea of delegation to single inspectors, I am reluctant to abandon my position.
Here again my concern is that we should devise a system which is acceptable to the public and which inspires confidence. The public feel a little happier if at any time they can appear before a panel. We organised this satisfactorily with the Lands Tribunal. From time to time only one member of the Tribunal sits but on other occasions there are a number sitting. There are occasions when it might be wise to have more than one inspector sitting, perhaps with assessors.
Mr. Julius Silverman: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm two things? First, would this not increase the number of civil servants? We have heard so much about that from hon. Members opposite. Secondly, is there not a great shortage of inspectors?
Mr. Rippon: I realise the difficulties of staffing and that there is a limited number of persons for these jobs. It is essential that we should find a system which is acceptable to the public and which inspires confidence. We have to consider every proposal in terms of cost benefit. That is a factor which is very relevant. I wish hon. Members opposite raised it more often. That would be of tremendous benefit. I may have to accept that argument, but it is very hard to persuade Ministers that it is something they should apply. I am concerned here about protecting the public but, if it is a matter of imposing the power of Whitehall, then, as we heard on Monday, they wait for a sausage factory to close and then they snap up the typists.
While still on the subject of planning inquiries and appeals, I welcome particularly Clauses 48 to 50, which provide for the establishment of planning inquiry commissions on the lines of the proposals in paragraph 29 of the White Paper. It
1384
is true that the present machinery has been quite inadequate to inquire into developments having national or regional importance or being concerned with matters of novel, technical or scientific significance. I think this has been proved by the whole Stansted affair. As I said in the debate on national airport policy on 29th June last year, this is exactly the procedure we were asking to be applied to Stansted. It still remains the only way in which we can determine the merits of alternative sites, particularly of Foulness.
It should be done even at this stage. There is no need to wait for the specific provisions of the Bill now that the Government have indicated their policy. It could be done on a non-statutory basis without going into detail and the legal considerations raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith).
Mr. Brian Batsford: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the Greater London Council recently decided that there should be an entirely new inquiry into the question of the third London airport?
Mr. Rippon: I am very much obliged for that intervention. I believe the Greater London Council only yesterday made further representations to the Government on this matter.
Another problem which might not have arisen if we had followed this procedure is the difficulty over the British Museum Library, which was grossly mishandled by the Secretary of State for Education and Science because the Government looked at it in too narrow a context. There the whole scheme had developed into a planning concept which embraced a major portion of London and concerned the university and a number of other matters. We would have been helped by this sort of commission, and this may be true of the future planning of Whitehall and other matters of that kind.
I turn back to Part II of the Bill which deals with the enforcement of planning control. I agree that the existing four-year period within which an enforcement notice can be served is probably too short. I also think it wrong that there should be no limitation period at all. There is a great deal of feeling about

1385
that both in the House and outside. How long a period should be regarded as reasonable must be left for further consideration in Committee. The limitation on the duration of a planning permission in Clause 52 is also open to question. This tightening-up of control over the activities of individuals in the private sector is in marked contrast to the special treatment accorded to public development.
As I said in the address in reply to the Gracious Speech on 1st November when we heard that this Bill was to be laid before us this year:
"One of the great injustices is that, while present legislation, particularly that introduced by this Government, strictly controls most of the activities of private citizens, public bodies often seem to have quite a different set of rules for themselves. They give themselves planning permission to build houses, roads and bridges when it suits their purposes, and it is a very hard uphill job, especially in these days, for public opinion to divert a public authority from its chosen path."—[OFFICIAL RHPORT, 1st November, 1967; Vol. 753, c. 199.]
A notorious example is the fact that if a statutory undertaking is refused the right to develop on its operational land it has been claiming full compensation from the local planning authority for the extra cost of alternative building. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) has fought hard and long arid with some well-deserved success in the now notorious case of the Abingdon gasholder. I hope that if he should be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to deal with this aspect of the Bill more fully.
I regret that the Bill makes no attempt at all to place a curb on the planning licence of statutory bodies such as the gas boards which are not subject to local planning authorities. Many local authorities, including the Greater London Council, have made recommendations about the privileged position enjoyed by statutory undertakers in this field of development control. The White Paper stated in paragraph 28 that methods of controlling development by statutory undertakers were being examined but the Bill effects no change in the law in these respects. I. hope that the Minister of State in reply to the debate will tell the House what conclusions have been reached by the Minister and his Department—if any —as a result of this examination.
1386
Finally, I refer to two major matters which are not dealt with in this Bill although they should have been—compensation and planning blight. As the Minister said, compensation is dealt with merely incidentally in the Bill. I think that this is a pity. No one can doubt that there would be far fewer appeals against proposals compulsorily to acquire land, or against proposals which would ultimately involve the acquisition of land, if people believed that the compensation would be fair and, above all, that there would be a quick settlement and prompt payment of what is due to them. I think that the Government's proposals for reforming planning procedure will be found to be inadequate by themselves. They should be accompanied by further proposals to allay the growing dissatisfaction and anger in the public's mind about compensation for compulsory purchase.
We on this side believe that the time has come for a fairly drastic reappraisal of the procedures for the assessment of compensation contained in the Land Compensation Act, 1961 and in the Housing (Slum Clearance Compensation) Act, 1965, and in the method of settling disputes over payment. The Minister has helped with a Circular to local authorities telling them that they must explain to people who are affected what their rights are and their right to have professional aid. This is a help, but clearly it is not enough. This matter must be speeded up. I understand that we can expect some legislation before long on the slum clearance side. I hope that this is true.
It is not simply compensation in respect of slum clearance which needs to be considered. It is disappointing that the Government have been unable to do anything about the compensation that should be paid to traders displaced by development schemes. Redevelopment cannot be accounted a success and, indeed, is perhaps bound to encounter unnecessary opposition from time to time, unless every effort is made to provide satisfactorily for established local interests and to ease the disturbance that they are caused.
As we all acknowledge, planning blight is an exceptionally difficult problem. It sounds like some sort of disease. "Planning blight" can perhaps be defined as any injury suffered by a property

1387
owner such as loss of value, or inability to sell or mortgage his property, as a result of any action by a planning authority or other public body exercising planning power.
It arises—most of us have constituents who have suffered hardships because of it—usually when there is some plan for a new motorway or an airport or other such project. As soon as a proposal is published in any form that shows some lines on a map indicating, for example, that there is to be a new ring road, many householders over quite a wide area suffer a fall in the value of their property. As long as they continue to live in it, that does not matter: it adjusts itself, perhaps, over a period of time. But in the worst cases they find it virtually unsaleable. Consequently, a man may be quite unable to change his job or to move. When the development takes place, property values sometimes rise. However, in the interim period, which may last for many years, very grave cases of hardship arise.
In these circumstances, the House should consider how and when the authority making the development proposal should be called upon to purchase, bearing in mind that it can better afford to wait upon events than an individual owner, that it can often find temporary tenants, and that in due course the value of its purchase will frequently rise. While some blight is unavoidable when plans are made for the future, and although there is sometimes difficulty in determining the respective rights of vendor and purchaser in these matters, further effort should be made to minimise the hardship and loss caused to individuals.
I know that the proposals of Part 8 of the 1962 Act were better than those in the 1947 Act, but they do not go far enough. The mistake that the Government have made is in assuming, as they apparently do, that the 1962 provisions are basically adequate. I will give examples. Under Section 138 of the 1962 Act, when is land "allocated" for the functions of a local authority? When is land "indicated" on a development plan for road works? When can a council be said to have resolved to include land in the limits of a highway?
Equally, the present arrangements for showing certain highway routes diagram-
1388
matically lead to many difficulties, both for local authorities and for landowners. Moreover, some of the provisions in the Bill—for example, those for the provision of structure plans in a diagrammatic form—are likely to increase uncertainties at that stage and so make the problem of planning blight rather more difficult.
Mr. E. Rowlands: Clause 28 begins to tackle this problem.
Mr. Rippon: There are some provisions in the Bill which assume its existence, but they do not touch the major difficulties that arise under the principal Act. They are, like the compensation proposals to which the Minister referred, merely incidental. I hope that we shall be able to take the opportunity to resolve some of the difficulties which experience has shown arise under Part 8 of the 1962 Act.
We welcome much that is in the Bill and hope that we shall have very fruitful discussions on it. It is a weakness that it has missed too many opportunities to resolve the matters that are of the most concern to the public and the individual citizen. Therefore, although I hope that we shall be able to make some progress in resolving some of these issues, I can assure the Minister that everybody inside and outside the House who is deeply concerned to fortify and improve the process of town and country planning has been looking forward to the Bill, knows that it will fulfil a necessary purpose, and we seek only to extend its benefit and value.
5.26 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Willey: I have no intention of disturbing the harmony that reigns between the two Front Benches. In fact, I have never heard the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) being so agreeable.
As the House may know, I have had a hand in the preparation of both the Countryside Bill and this Bill. Naturally enough, I think, it is a good Bill, and, if I have any criticism to make, it will be very muted. Both Bills are complementary and both are substantially derivative.
The Countryside Bill owes much to the Countryside in 1970 Conference. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said,

1389
this Bill owes a great deal to the Planning Advisory Group. I know that civil servants enjoy an anonymity in the House which they find generally comforting, but it is; right to say in discussing this Bill that we owe an enormous amount to Mr. Idwal Pugh, who was Chairman of the Group and who got the agreement on which the Bill is based.
I need not deal with the general purposes of the Bill—the structure plan and the delegation of decisions to inspectors. In reply to the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham, I thought very hard about tribunals, but I was finally convinced that the solution which is proposed in the Bill is the best one.
My right hon. Friend stressed four points about the Bill. I can simplify the matter by saying that there are two considerations essential to the measures we are discussing. The first, as has been stressed time after time, is the need for wider participation of the public in the processes of planning. The other is the need for speedier decisions, as otherwise development itself is prejudiced. It is important, not only during our discussions on the Bill but all the time, that these two considerations are borne in mind. Participation must not unnecessarily impair efficiency. Equally, those conducting the processes of planning should not unnecessarily sacrifice participation. This is why the Annex to the White Paper is of critical importance.
Equally, to turn to appeals, it is important that we take a balanced view of the somewhat startling figures which have been given about appeals. We have been told that only 3½ per cent. of all planning permission go to appeal. We have been told that 97 per cent. of all cases that go to appeal result in the upholding of the inspector's recommendation. We must be a little hesitant in passing judgment on these figures, because they may be, not, perhaps, a massive tribute to the system of planning, but, rather, an indication that the system is a little too monolithic. Indeed, we can assume that Professor G. D. H. Cole would have said that this revealed that there were not sufficient checks against "a dangerous agglomerative tendency ". We should encourage the checks and feel a little disappointed, I think, that there are not more of them. However, allowing for
1390
all that, I regard the Bill as right because, after all, delay itself is not only prejudicial to development but can be very prejudicial to individuals, too.
It is important to bear in mind that of greater significance than the legislation itself, perhaps, is the administration which carries on the legislation. The need for participation as well as for efficiency should all the time be borne in mind by the planners.
The Bill follows the White Paper, but the White Paper left two questions unanswered. The first was the question of development by statutory undertakers. This is not provided for in the Bill, but I was delighted to hear what my right hon. Friend said. I emphasise that we are concerned here with a limited problem. Generally, statutory undertakers are subject to development control. I stress also that, if we make the statutory undertakers subject to planning requirements, we shall have to pay in one way or another, as taxpayers, ratepayers or consumers. Nevertheless, allowing for this, I think the course my right hon. Friend is following is right. It follows the pattern, as the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) knows, which was charted in the difficult negotiations and discussions about the Abingdon gasholder and other cases. I join in paying tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the part he played. In my view, when we set the precedent by experience and hard bargaining, it is better to follow it in legislation.
The second question has had a good deal of attention. I refer to the difficulty of cases which raise wide issues of more than local significance, high-lighted, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, by Stansted, and, I may add, to a lesser degree by such cases as Bacton and Pegwell Bay. When I was at the Ministry, we thought of three wise men coming to help us to get our decisions right. The language is now less picturesque, and the three wise men have become the Planning Inquiry Commission.
This is an extremely difficult problem, much more difficult than appears superficially and much more difficult than has been generally admitted so far. It is easy to say that we should take the advice of wise counsellors, but these

1391
exceptional cases almost invariably contain a political element, that is, an element of Government responsibility. As the White Paper says, there may be issues of national or regional policy, and this is incorporated in Clause 49.
It will be extremely difficult to isolate the policy element from the question on which the Commission is asked to advise. On the question of policy, I have always taken the view that the Government should be responsible and be clearly seen to be responsible. There is always a danger in divorcing power from responsibility. I still feel that it might, perhaps, have been better to be rather more pragmatic about it, to deal with cases ad hoc and then to build on experience. It was clear from such cases as Stansted that we had to have another way of dealing with these questions. However, the Government have gone the whole hog in setting up the Commission.
I am sure that the Government will find it difficult not to refer cases to the Commission once we have provided for it in the Bill. The Minister spoke of not more than a handful of cases a year. I think that it will turn out to be far more. We are likely to follow the pattern of the Prices and Incomes Board, and the Commission will, before long, establish a fairly wide practice. It is important, therefore, to have a Commission properly manned and staffed, capable of doing the job, and holding the high respect which it ought to attain in order to conduct a job such as this. However, I do not for a moment take issue with the Government about this. They have committed themselves to a Commission. The important thing now is to make a thorough and good job of it.
There are many other points which, no doubt, will be adequately, if not tediously, discussed in Standing Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned compulsory purchase. There are the inevitable provisions regarding compulsory purchase. I can only repeat what I have said previously. In my view, it is high time we had a committee or commission of inquiry to review generally the provisions regarding compulsory purchase. I am aware of the proposals made by the Chartered Land Society's committee. I shall not discuss their merits because, as the hon. Member
1392
for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) knows, I have repeatedly said that it would be far better for everyone if we allowed an inquiring body to conduct an impartial review of compulsory purchase.
From the Government's point of view, there would be risks in it. Some of the matters on which the right hon. and learned Gentleman touched are matters about which he would be less enthusiastic if he were in office. But this is a subject which demands more than consolidation now. It demands a review.
I am sure that the provision about time-limited planning permissions is right, and, for my part, I regard the five-year period as right. I am not so happy about the element of retrospection. The time-limited planning permission, however, is only a partial approach to the problem which we have in the back of our minds the whole time. If we relied upon that alone, we should have half-hearted and second-rate planning. Moreover, we should find it very costly to those who provide the public services. They would provide the public services and then inadequate use would be made of them for far too long because the development did not follow.
I absolutely agree when the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that supply should match demand. I have always conceded that this is crucial in relation to the price of land. It is not only crucial to planning; it is crucial to land prices as well. We must do something more constructive about it, and, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman likes it or not, we now have the Land Commission. One of the two objectives in setting up the Land Commission was to secure that the right land is available at the right time.
I am a little worried about this. I am not worried by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I am worried about some of my colleagues. I had much more vigorous opposition from some of my colleagues in the Government than I ever had from Her Majesty's Official Opposition. But we have the Land Commission now, and I have a question or two to ask about it. What use are we making of it? Are we now determined to see that the Land Commission plays its part in bringing land forward for development, particularly private development? If

1393
we are concerned about development overall—this is why I mentioned the public services—we must recognise that private development has a substantial part to play in the overall picture. Clearly, if planning is to be effective, we must be able to ensure that the suitable land is there for development at the right time.
We now have the machinery to ensure this. More than that, if we are talking, as we are today, in a planning context, every planner knows that in many cases one has to have the land there in advance of development. Again, the Land Commission ought to ensure this. This is not only a question of open land. I was delighted when I found that the chairman of the Land Commission shared the view I have expressed about the twilight areas. It is not only a question of urban land. As I have constantly argued, the Land Commission has an equal part to play in the countryside in trying to avoid pepperpot development, concentrating development, and saving the countryside.
I welcome the Bill. It brings up to date the Silkin legislation of 20 years ago. But we ought not to expect too much from this legislation alone. The pattern of the Bill is of disengagement, of devolution. It is not a complete solution because we are not providing that the planning authorities will be able to bear the weight of that devolution. We are still waiting for Godot—the Royal Commission. The Government are right to go ahead with this, quite a lot can be done meanwhile but we must recognise that this is just another field in which we must face up to the reorganisation of local government.
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman said, and as the White Paper says, the new planning processes must take account of the evolving regional policies. I agree that these policies are evolving too slowly, too hesitantly—in fact, in some cases without observable evolvement at all. At the same time, there is a good deal of improvisation. The South-East was mentioned, and a good deal has been done there against real difficulties.
But fundamentally we face the basic problem. We must get the planning authorities right in order to carry out the job of planning. Things are little better in central government. In 1964, to face the brave new world, to pro-
1394
vide a fresh impetus, new Ministries were set up. There was the Ministry of Land and Natural Resources and the Department of Economic Affairs. The Ministry of Land and Natural Resources was dissolved, and the Department of Economic Affairs is not playing the role we hoped that it would when we set it up in 1964. We must recognise this, because the processes of decision-making and policy formulation are crucial and vital.
We must get these things right. It is not good enough to say that we are back to where we began. We are talking about planning, and basically planning in its widest sense is an expression of the will to shape our own destiny; in this country in particular to make the fullest use of our very limited resources. The plain truth we must all face is that we are still not good enough planners.
5.42 p.m.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The Minister was good enough to refer to me as one of the very few survivors of those who contributed to the discussion on the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. I realise that his remark is open to two interpretations. It might be a tribute to my perseverance, but it might be an implied reflection that I am past my Parliamentary prime. I decided that the first is the more probable interpretation, not only because it is more agreeable and fits in better with the right hon. Gentleman's nature, but for the practical reason that he and I entered Parliament on the same day.
I well remember the speech of Lord Silkin, as he now is, which lasted two hours and 11 minutes, on the Second Reading of that Act. Inevitably, with the complexities of that Measure, it came to be said of Lord Silkin, in adaptation of Robert Browning's famous phrase, that only Lewis Silkin had known what the Bill was intended to mean, and he had unfortunately forgotten.
During the many years I have been concerned with these questions, I have been struck with the somewhat melancholy and inescapable paradox that whereas the principle of town and country planning is simple the law seeking to give effect to it is very complex. In principle, faced as we are with the conflict of land use in this small and crowded

1395
island, we seek to achieve the highest common factor of what is at once socially and aesthetically desirable and economically practical. But in seeking to translate those simple principles into practice we have filled the Statute Book with brain-teasing complexities.
Every fresh effort that I can recall to place town and country planning Measures on the Statute Book has been made in good faith and with beneficent intention, but even after all these years, none has suceeded in producing a really satisfactory and viable system. The first system tried was under the 1932 Act, which was not long enough in operation for us to know how it would have worked out. Of the 1947 Act it was fashionable in circles concerned with these matters to say that its financial provisions were mistaken, because of the effort to levy betterment at 100 per cent., but that the planning control and development plan provisions were a success.
I think that that is only a half-truth. The system of planning of land use by development plan and the control of development was unexceptionable in theory but the mechanics have creaked considerably in practice, because of two main, inter-related difficulties. The first was the insufficiency of accurate statistical information on which a prognosis could be based, the indispensable foundation of any form of planning, whether of land use or anything else. The second was the too-slow procedure for the evolution of development plans, so that in practice the planning of land use for the future under the 1947 Act was too often guided by conditions that were already past when the plan came into operation. For example, post-war town planning was based on the assumption that there would be a falling, or, at best, static population. Nature decreed otherwise; it falsified the assumption and with it most of the contents of the first development plans under the 1947 Act.
The mechanics of development plans failed signally to approximate to the contemplated parliamentary timetable, which was that there would be rapid development plans and quinquennial reviews. All this has been honoured more in the breach than in the observance, because right from the start the timetable has
1396
fallen behind. It is against that background of experience that we need to judge the measures now put forward, the changes and innovations by which it is sought to improve the procedures.
I accept the Minister's four tests and the two tests of the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey). Curiously enough, I had written down three tests, but they amount to much the same thing—whether the measures will make planning more effective, speedier and fair and democratic.
Applying those tests to the main provisions of the Bill in Part I, one sees that they are clearly designed to make the planning of land use speedier and more effective, and consequently better able to reflect contemporary needs. They are an effort to get away from the sort of planning which, in the economic sphere, was described in a previous Parliament as looking up one's trains in last year's Bradshaw. Those parts of the Bill should undoubtedly make for an improvement.
However, I have a reservation on the third test concerning the democratic participation. There are provisions in the Bill for the promulgation of information which I welcome. I know that their aim is participation on a democratic basis. My reservation is that the new method separates the main broad sweep of town planning—the structure plan—from the local plan, which is the one which will have direct and immediate effect on the individual property rights of citizens. The proposed structure plan will be so drawn as to set out the principles, without spelling out their effect on individual property owners. Therefore, there will be less incentive for individual property owners to participate at that stage, certainly less incentive for them to instruct experienced town planners, surveyors and the like to give their consideration to the plan.
At the stage when the local plan is formulated and spells out the effect of the structure plan on individual properties, the structure plan will already have been approved; and it will be too late to direct criticism at the matters of general principle with which it is concerned. So we may, I fear, get in practice the position that, at the stage where individual citizens have the right to influence town planning by representation and participation in inquiries into

1397
the structure plans, they may not avail themselves of the opportunity because of lack of incentive; and, at the stage where they would be prepared to contribute—in the consideration of local plans—they will not have the opportunity because questions of principle will by then have been decided. If this did come about, it would lead, contrary to the intention of the Bill, to less democratic participation and less contribution by the citizen and, to that extent, to a greater bureaucratisation of this important aspect of our national life.
In the same way I give a welcome, but not wholly unqualified, to the other two main attempts in the Bill to streamline town planning procedures and make them more contemporary and relevant to the solution of our problems. First, there is the planning inquiry commission proposed in Part VI. The right hon. Member for Sunderland, North said that in his day at the Ministry they were thinking in terms of three wise men. That put me in mind of Philip Guedalla's remark that committees tend to be composed of three wise men and a statutory woman. The right hon. Gentleman's three wise men in this case have now become a planning inquiry commission.
In so far as the principal purpose is to produce a broad-based objective, uncommitted, simultaneous consideration of alternative sites for important projects of kind use, I wholly applaud it because it is a course which I have long advocated. But I would be less than frank if I did not say that the warmth of my welcome is somewhat cooled by the failure to extend this procedure to the Stansted type of case. As I see it, the Stansted type of case is doubly excluded, for the reasons I gave in an intervention—because special development orders under Section 14 of the 1962 Act are not included and because the British Airports Authority does not come within the definition of a statutory undertaker in Section 221 of the Act.
The other main omission is the failure to deal with the compensation points which arose in the Abingdon gasholder case. As I understand it from the Minister, however, there is to be a new Clause, which we have not yet seen but which may repair that omission, or at any rate to some extent.
1398
I welcome the extension of powers of inspectors to decide certain matters, but I add the caveat that it would be unfortunate if this meant that all the best and most experienced inspectors were put on to the very small cases simply because there they will have to make a judgment, and were withdrawn from consideration of the large and complex cases where they will continue to have the duty of report and recommendation.
I endorse what my right hon. and learned Friend said about the inspectors. I have always taken the view that it would be better if they were carried on some central panel outside the Ministry, and I renew the plea that at an appropriate time—and I realise that the present is probably not appropriate—the emoluments and status of these gentlemen doing this important work should be increased.
I have three points of criticism to make in conclusion. The first is in regard to the enforcement notice procedure. Part II of the Bill continues the present procedure, save for the abolition of the four-year limitation for breaches after 20th December, 1963. I doubt the wisdom both of continuing the general procedure and of making this specific change. In regard to the limitation period, I do not sentimentalise about people who are benefiting from these breaches of the law, but the basic consideration here is one of practicality.
Prescriptive right has always over the years been a necessary ingredient to introduce certainty into the title to property and the conveyance of property. I suggest that a 12-year period would be appropriate—the same as the period for prescription by what is known as adverse possession or, more popularly, squatter's rights prescription. That period should, I think, combine a sufficient deterrent to the evader with a reasonable certainty in land transactions.
The general procedure of enforcement notices used to be split between the magistrates' courts and the Minister, and is now wholly the Minister's. These sort of cases raise in themselves matters of planning judgment as well as questions of law and disputed fact and these are difficult to be judged by people who are not trained in them. When they come to be reviewed in the Ministry, there is the disadvantage that the witnesses have not

1399
been seen. There is a case for considering whether this jurisdiction should not go to the county court, with technical assessors sitting with the judge for the aspects of planning judgment.
My second point of criticism concerns Clauses 52 to 55. I think that there is no case in equity for automatic lapse of planning permissions after five years. It assumes, wrongly, that all delayed implementation of planning permissions is due to the developer, and this is not so. For example, in London, planning permissions have been held up by the Control of Offices and Industrial Development Act, 1965, the Building Control Act, 1966, the squeeze and freeze and so on. Under the present law, a condition can be imposed limiting duration in proper cases and that is enough. I do not think that this new proposal is good, and it should be removed or altered.
My last point of criticism concerns Part V and the treatment of listed buildings. The effect is to put an automatic building preservation order on every building which is listed under Section 32 of the 1962 Act. However well intentioned this may be, it is probably wrong and inequitable, at any rate under present procedure for listing under the 1962 Act, which gives no appeal or right of representation to an owner whose property is listed. The first he knows about it is the receipt of a note of its inclusion in the list under Section 32(4) of the Act. To introduce this automatic building preservation order together with the minimum compensation provisions of Clauses 44 and 45 is unjust. I yield to no one in my desire that we should preserve our building of architectural and historic interest. We should not do it on the basis of perpetrating an inequity upon those who own them.
This Bill, like every other town and country Measure that I have known, is something of a curate's egg—it is good in parts and less good in others. There is a duty upon Parliament to seek to improve it in the remaining stages, and a duty on the Minister, which I hope he will discharge, to be receptive to suggestions made with that end in view.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: I am particularly pleased that
1400
I should have the opportunity of catching your eye, Sir, at this moment because the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) first whetted my appetite for planning procedure. He may well recall attending a public inquiry at Erith representing an objector. It was from that inquiry that I first started to take a more active interest in these matters.
There are one or two general observations which it is necessary to make about this Bill. I agree with the observations of the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) on the possible effects of a structure plan related to diagrammatic maps. The difficulty is that it will in my opinion, and the opinion of many town planners to whom I have spoken, have a tendency to increase planning blight rather than decrease it. This is a matter of which the Minister must take account. If he could define some manner in which the diagrammatic plans could be related, perhaps to an Ordnance Survey map, rather than just as lines on an imaginary piece of paper, then it might cut down planning blight. At the moment it will have the reverse effect.
I was pleased to hear the Minister refer to the slowness and care with which he will introduce these new procedures, giving powers to local planning authorities. He will need to exercise great care, because there is a desperate shortage of planning staff throughout the country. It would be quite wrong to give these powers to a local planning authority if it did not have the qualified staff to operate them properly. On this question of planning staff and officers, I should be grateful if the Minister could say a few words about the implication and interpretation he is putting on Clause 51 where it says that a local authority may indemnify a planning officer if that planning officer believed that the act complained of had been done in good faith for it. This is a Clause which is causing some concern among local planning officers, and if it could be cleared up it would be most useful.
The other point that concerns me is that part of the Bill dealing with the keeping of a planning register by a local planning authority. Where there are several thousand small planning applications going through, and one has to keep

1401
a register, it will be necessary to have a number of registers in order to have not only the planning permission but the outline plan and the drawings in the register as well. I would have thought that a much better way of dealing with this would be to confer upon local authorities the simple power to produce and show plans to people who inquire at their offices.
At the moment they do not have this power and if they show a plan to a member of the public they would, as I understand it, be acting without the sanction of the law and could be subject to certain civil action. If my suggestion could be adopted it might be a much simpler way of ensuring access by the general public to planning applications, instead of the elaborate procedure of registers and all the rest.
So far the debate has dealt with the technicians', the barristers' and the planners' attitude to town and country planning. I want to look at it from the other end, the attitude of the public. What does the ordinary man in the street expect from a new town and country planning Measure? I have listed three points which I believe the general public expect, and are entitled to receive. First, any planning legislation needs to ensure that there should be full and early disclosure of plans—all types of plans—and there must be greater participation and public awareness of what is happening.
Secondly, local planning authorities must take proper and impartial views in considering the representations that they receive from the general public. Thirdly, and this is not really dealt with in the Bill but it was touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham, there is the paying of compensation. The one thing that brings planning into complete disrepute in the eyes of the general public is the scandalous system of compensation which has existed even before 1947. No one has dealt with this adequately.
There must be fair and prompt payment of adequate compensation. This can be exercised as a compulsory power only when the public interest has been clearly shown to override the private interest. This Bill aims to meet two of the three basic requirements that I have listed. I give a welcome to those pro-
1402
visions in the Bill providing for greater public participation. I have doubts as to how this will work in practice. I was delighted to hear the Minister announce that my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Skeffington) will head a Commission to inquire into this public participation.
All I know from my own experience under the existing legislation, is that it is very difficult to get public participation, and the Regulations issued by various Ministers have not done a great deal to reassure me. I can recall attempting to appear at a public inquiry into a very large development taking place in my constituency, the Thamesmead development, and the difficulties that I had there.
There were particularly unfortunate things taking place in respect of the unauthorised delivery by the Minister to the Greater London Council of the objections that had been sent to the Minister, in his impartial capacity, by objectors. This was something that had been applied from time immemorial, as a matter of custom and practice, and was not supported or debarred by any legislation.
I thought it pretty rotten that an ordinary citizen, objecting to a plan by a massive authority, could have his objection sent to the local planning authority, so that it could review it and have all its legal brains deal with it, but the poor ordinary objector did not even receive the courtesy of having the written submissions by the planning authority sent to him. The objections were being sent to the planning authority but it was thought unnecessary to show the same degree of impartiality towards the objector by sending him the planning authority's written submissions.
I was horrified to find that even my Ministers were continuing this sort of procedure, which is grossly unjust and improper. I hope that the Minister with ensure, when we have public participation, that it will be the fullest possible, and that there will be adequate and public disclosure. In addition, I hope that when he makes the Regulations that will arise under this Measure, he will iron out some of these injustices and stupidities that have been allowed to go on for too long.

1403
I have found that "local public inquiry" does not always mean what a layman might consider it to mean. It can often mean, as I have found in the case of the Thamesmead local public inquiry, that it is held 13 miles away, across heavy London traffic. This meant that any local person involved in the scheme had to spend an hour and a half to two hours, travelling across London to reach this local public inquiry. I said at the inquiry that I thought that it was scandalous, and I consider that the Minister's decision to hold it at County Hall was scandalous.
I want to say a few words about the fair and prompt payment of compensation. I regret that the Bill does not deal with this most important matter, and I hope that, before long, another Bill will be presented by the Government to put compensation on a proper basis.
Everyone realises that, if progress is to be made, the public interest has to take precedence over private interests. If we are to have hospitals, schools, new housing estates, roads and bridges, that principle must be accepted. What is in dispute is that progress should be at the expense of the ordinary citizen and the dispossesed. There are people in my constituency in that position, as I am sure there are in those of other hon. Members. A man of 50 may be buying a house, only to find that it is to be acquired compulsorily. He will be paid fair market compensation, but, unless he wants to live in a council house, he will have to try to get another mortgage, because he will not be able to find another house in his locality for, say, £2,000. He has to take out another mortgage late in life, because he has not received adequate compensation for his first house.
Fair compensation should be replacement value of the property of which he is dispossessed as a result of a proposed redevelopment. I have a file of examples where there have been gross injustices in the payment of adequate compensation because it has not been based on replacement value rather than market value.
I hope that the Bill and the fact that we are now to have greater public participation will have the effect of bringing
1404
the planners down to earth from their ivory towers, and that they will become aware of what their wonderful schemes mean when translated into reality at grass roots level in areas where demolition and dispossession are proposed. It is not progress if it is to be done on the basis of disruption and hardship to existing occupiers.
In my constituency, the proposals for Thamesmead involve a massive development with 60,000 people moving in. Roads have to be built which will necessitate a flyover. Rather than put it across open space land, which according to the planners would involve it passing over a 12th century ruined abbey, which they say would be sacrilege, they intend to knock down 25 homes of ordinary citizens. After all, the flyover could afford some protection for the ancient ruin if it was built over it. The ruin would still be available for people to see, and there would be no further deterioration of the stones. I join with local people in protesting about the present plan, because in my opinion that is far more sacrilegious.
I am particularly pleased about the provision in the Bill dealing with enforcement notices and doing away with the limitation of time. I welcome the extra powers which are to be conferred on local authorities in respect of stop notices. Once a development has taken place and existed for a number of years, it becomes an established fact. An example which comes to my mind is that of a monstrous wall which has been built and which completely dominates a quiet residential close in my constituency. My fear is that the builder, on whom an enforcement notice has been served, will sell the houses which he is currently developing on the hill above the retaining wall and transfer responsibility for the notice to the new occupiers. If local authorities had power to serve stop notices, action could have been taken immediately and my constituents would not have been put at risk.
I join in the general welcome to the Bill. It is a step forward in the right direction. However, I am sure that a great many hon. Members will not be satisfied until it has been followed by a Measure dealing with the great bone of contention which is the proper payment of adequate compensation.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: The House was glad to hear the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) give the ordinary citizen's point of view, especially on questions of public participation and compensation. However, if he will forgive me, I will not comment on what he said.
I was not in the Chamber when the Minister referred to statutory undertakings, but he has been kind enough to tell me what he said about them, and I want to say how welcome his words are to those of us who went through the battle of Abingdon last year. It is a very necessary change in the law, and I am glad that Clauses will be moved at a later stage.
As I understand it, they will refer to the position of statutory undertakings, including those acting under Orders or Private Acts of Parliament. This was very important in the case of Abingdon, which I will deal with in a moment. Secondly, they will provide that the compensation should be shared fifty-fifty, and presumably that involves some amendment to Section 171 of the 1962 Act. I give a rather guarded welcome to that provision, because the local authority associations have different points of view. A very expensive settlement for the Berkshire County Council and Abingdon was arived at on that basis.
However, before coming to that, I ought publicly to thank the Minister and his right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for their intervention in the battle with the Southern Gas Board and their own colleagues at the Ministry of Power against the proposal to erect a monster gas holder. Had they not intervened, a settlement would have been much more difficult. Abingdon and Berkshire County Council have had to pay two-fifths of what they might have been liable for had the right hon. Gentleman not intervened. It is only fair that I should say that. This happened in the.summer of last year.
As regards the general position of the law on nationalised undertakings and statutory bodies, the Minister was right to say that the climate of opinion has changed and that the present law is outmoded. We know that they have services to perform to the community, but they should not have too privileged a position,
1406
especially where the private citizen is concerned.
The present position is somewhat clumsy in that they can only be subject to planning in certain cases, where they act under a Private Act of Parliament or an Order, if the Minister confirms an Article 4 Direction under the 1962 Act. That is a very clumsy procedure, and it is what had to happen in the Abingdon case, where the Minister had to intervene and confirm the Order made by the Berkshire County Council. I hope that that cumbrous procedure will be abolished by the proposed Amendments.
The facts of the case are well known to the House, and I have discussed them before. The point arose because of the Oxford Gas Order of 1930 which, with the 1962 Act, permitted the Southern Gas Board to use operational land for any purpose it wished. It proposed to build a gas holder 128 ft. high and 126 ft. wide. Under Section 171 of the 1962 Act, the Southern Gas Board demanded £250,000 compensation if planning permission was refused.
Abingdon is a relatively small town. I mention that because it may be that the proposal of a fifty-fifty sharing is rather too inflexible, in the case of small local authorities. It is a matter which ought to be discussed in Committee, though one should be grateful for what concessions are made. However, the fact remains that local authorities still might be liable for considerable sums, even taking into account the reduction of 50 per cent. which the Minister has just announced. It was a costly victory for a small town and for the county ratepayers and, as I said, it amounted to £110,000, two-fifths of what might otherwise have been paid.
The Town Clerk of Abingdon has written an excellent article on this case in the Local Government Chronicle of 27th January. In that article he makes die point, first of all, that any legislation must include those bodies which act under Orders. Also, he queries whether the fifty-fifty formula is equitable in all cases and whether it will not be too rigid. It is known in Abingdon as the "Freeson Formula"—with no disrespect to the Parliamentary Secretary, but it was he who established this formula in the negotiations which took place. That formula could be too rigid. It may be that in principle—this point has been

1407
made in The Times—there should be some payment for saving amenities. While not disagreeing with that principle one might find oneself, in certain cases, with too inflexible a system. The local authority associations feel that Abingdon's case should not be a precedent so far as the payment of compensation is concerned and that they should never be liable for compensation.
There are two other points arising out of this Abingdon case. As planning legislation exists at the moment the Minister can call in the application and he can, therefore, make the local planning authority liable for compensation even if it is not responsible for the decision which gives rise to it. This is a point made by the Town Clerk of Abingdon in the article I referred to. The Minister can call in the application under the present Act, can then make the decision, and then compensation would have to be paid by the local planning authority to the statutory undertaking although it has not made the decision. I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman sees the point. It could be very unfair, and he ought to look at the wording of the 1962 legislation in that respect, as indeed I am sure he will.
In conclusion, the way the Southern Gas Board behaved in this case was really quite frightening, in that any public body could behave in such a threatening way towards a small local authority. I was very glad indeed to have the support of the hon. and learned Gentleman's right hon. Friend in this matter. Had the right hon Gentleman not intervened Berkshire County Council would probably have had to pay the £250,000 under the present legislation. So a certain amount of good came out of this case.
I certainly welcome these proposals, with certain reservations about whether the fifty-fifty idea could be too rigid.
6.23 p.m.
Mr. E. Rowlands: I hope the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) will forgive me if I do not follow him altogether, although I should like to, because Abingdon is a very historic city, and by good fortune I myself have lived there. I am sure that the gasholder would have destroyed the historical amenities of the town.
1408
I think that already a conscensus is emerging, both on the parts of the Bill most people agree with and also on the criticisms. The general principles of any planning legislation must provide a square deal for the citizen, and any new planning legislation ought to provide a better deal for the citizen under the planning. Let us take the example which the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) raised, planning blight. It has become something of a modern nightmare. One cannot exaggerate the hardship which it can cause.
To take one illustration, there is a person in my constituency at this moment who is in very deep distress along with a number of residents. A Cardiff architect landed himself a fine new job in Durham, and agreed to sell his house and to exchange the contracts on the day that the county discussed planning proposals in the area; overnight the contract was broken and the sale was called off. He lost his opportunity for a fine promotion, and he and many other residents in the area now find themselves prisoners in their own homes. I feel that this sort of hardship caused in these cases makes "planning" a dirty word.
I am pleased that this Bill, by Clause 28, begins to tackle this. However, I think it is far too restrictive. Surely it would have been possible to include provision that the individual should be able to serve a purchase notice and as soon as the structure plan is proposed, and not, as Clause 28 suggests, as soon as the plan is in force. I think that would go some way to helping us over the difficult problem of planning blight and the effect it has on individuals.
It should not be thought that people are against planning or against progress. I always find it surprising how remarkably willing people are to accept even the destruction of their own homes in order to give way to progress as long as the conditions in which they give way to progress are fair and reasonable.
We have had mention of compensation, and I should like to add my voice to the strong call made this afternoon to have a real and thorough review of the compensation terms, particularly for those people who live in very old properties. In these cases they get compensation which is only a fraction of the

1409
mortgage they are trying to pay off. I feel we cannot leave that injustice standing very much longer.
Equally important as compensation and the financial provisions in any planning legislation is, as everybody has mentioned, the need to ensure the confidence and co-operation of the community, of individuals and groups, representative organisations, residents' associations. People must know what is going on. I think that that is the key phrase. They must know what is going on in the planning, department, know what is to happen to their properties in their area, and know, indeed as quickly as possible. I fear that all too often local planning authorities hide behind a veil of secrecy. We must lift the veil of secrecy, and make sure that the planning authority is compelled to publicise in detail its plans affecting the community as a whole and the individual in particular.
Clause 3 attempts to impose this principle, but I find it a little ambiguous and confusing, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will clarify the wording when he winds up the debate. I am not quite certain whether the local planning authority is now to be compelled to publicise its plans and involve the public in both the structure plan and the local plan before it itself approves the plans. I am not certain, but subsection (2) seems to suggest that copies should be made available of the structure plan not later than the submission of the plan to the Minister. Surely, they should be made available the moment the plan is drafted, before, indeed, the planning authority itself has given final approval—otherwise what does citizen participation mean? It surely should mean that before the final decision is taken by the planning authority the people of the community could be given advance notice so that discussions can go on in the community about the plan from the very earliest possible moment.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDermot): May I intervene to clear up that point? It may help forward the debate. Subsection (1) and subsection (2) of clause 3 deals with two different stages. Subsection (1) deals with publicity during the formulation stage, before the authority finds itself committed to the plan. Subsection (2) deals with the stage
1410
where it has provisionally, as it were, made its decision, and then the subsection requires that not later than the submission of the plan to the Minister the local planning authority must formally deposit the plan to give people a chance to make formal objections.
Mr. Rowlands: I thank the Minister for clearing up that point. I should have thought we might put into the subsection the words "draft structure plan", because it is a little confusing as it is. I gratefully accept my hon. and learned Friend's explanation.
We should go further than merely compel local authorities to publicise their draft or structure plans. There is a £80 million redevelopment scheme for Cardiff, the largest which any local planning authority has embarked upon, and it is not only the plan in general but the financial provisions attached to the plan which are of interest. The contracts and agreements made between a local planning authority and, say, a major property development company are equally important in shaping the priorities and deciding how the city centre should be developed.
I should like to see provision made in the Bill for publicity, advance notice and information to be given to the public about say contract or heads of agreement which a local authority proposes and arranges with a major property company. Next week, I shall be going to Cardiff and enjoying a nice buffet lunch party at which we shall celebrate an agreement between the city authority and a major property company. The agreement was made in complete secrecy behind closed doors. It was made without the public appreciating or understanding what was involved. People not on the council who might have been able to contribute to the discussion on the agreement from outside have not had the opportunity of scrutinising the proposals. The citizens have not had the chance to scrutinise one of the most important decisions which Cardiff will take for generations. Such scrutiny should be possible and local authorities should be compelled to allow it. The planning of the community's future environment must not be a cloak and dagger operation. It is the community's money and assets, which are being used.

1411
Today, we have discussed almost entirely the problems and questions of publicity relating to the great matters— Stansted and major redevelopments of our towns and city centres. But publicity and advance notice of planning applications which affect individual citizens should include not only great matters of structure and local plans but individual planning applications—for example, applications to build garages which affect neighbours' light or a petrol filling station or restaurant in a residential area which affects perhaps not individual properties but streets and districts. A great deal of anguish, bitterness and anger is caused because people do not find out about these things until it is too late.
There is no provision in the Bill at this simple level for the majority of residents and people locally who find themselves involved with planning. I should not have thought that it was too difficult to devise provisions to cover this. Why not make it the legal responsibility of an applicant submitting an application for a garage or addition to his house to notify the neighbours who might be involved, thus devolving the responsibility properly to the individual, and avoiding placing administrative burdens on the local authority? When a planning decision involves a restaurant in a residential area or a petrol-filling station, the local planning authority should have the legal responsibility of advertising the application on or near the site where the development is to take place. I do not see the terrible difficulties which I have heard people say there are in doing this.
So far my remarks have suggested a certain lack of fairness in the way in which the local authorities sometimes behave in relation to individual citizens. No doubt it is the experience of large numbers of people that local planning authorities occasionally ride roughshod over the individual's interests and opinions. I should like to quote one illustration to prove this point which was brought to my notice very recently. The residents of an area on the fringe of a city were desperately worried about a proposal to build some houses on an open space which affected their property. Last March, like any decent residents' association would do, the residents' association
1412
wrote to the city council requesting an opportunity to make representations. On 9th March the clerk of the county council replied:
"The application will not be before the county planning committee at their meeting on 17th March and as the next meeting will not take place until 20th April… "—
and so on. Relieved by this assurance, the association prepared to fight another day, but to its utter astonishment and contrary to the assurance given in writing by the council, the council received and approved a planning application on 17th March and the local residents have had no recourse or opportunity to reply. The council had a clear moral obligation in this case. I believe that it should have had a legal obligation to notify residents of this sort of change of plan. We should outlaw this sort of behaviour.
When we see this sort of thing taking place and the planning problems facing individuals, I agree with much of the criticism made about the provision that objections to local plans should remain more or less entirely the responsibility of the local authority. We could at least provide that on all occasions the inspector should be appointed by the Minister and not by the local authority. But why should we not compromise on an issue which will be contentious in Committee and agree that the local inspector should submit his report to the local authority, which would then resolve on each objection, and that only when the local authority refuses to accept the inspector's report should the matter go to the Minister? This would provide the necessary remedy required by any individual who is faced by the fact that the people judging his objections prepared the plan in the first place.
Mr. Costain: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to objections on one particular planning appeal, or a section of the appeal?
Mr. Rowlands: I am referring to the local plan. I gather that objections to the local plan will be heard by a local inspector who will report on his conclusions to the local authority which drew up the plan in the first place. I suggest that the local authority should resolve on each of them but that only when the local authority rejects the inspector's report should the matter go to the Minister. This could be a very reasonable

1413
compromise. I believe that the Minister will make a rod for his own back if he pursues this part of the Bill. He will rue the day when he agreed to give such power to planning authorities against the rights of the citizen.
Generally speaking, I have concentrated on aspects of the Bill which have not been discussed. We all agree that the main section of the Bill—the structure plan—has many merits. Our sole criterion on which to judge whether the Bill is a good Bill will be the way in which it operates and works in practice and the way in which it helps to create a better environment and to redevelop our town and city centres in a better fashion. But the Bill will fail, as the last one failed, to create a better environment for our citizens and communities in the towns and cities if the Minister does not recognise the real forces which shape our towns and cities. These are not the formal planning procedures.
The real force is described in an excellent study recently published by Mr. Oliver Marriott, Financial Editor of The Times Business News called "The Property Boom ". As he shows, the real force in planning, is not planning procedures but the property developer. The property developer who in the past has developed our towns and cities is solely concerned with making the maximum profit from a town centre. He has been backed by the financial might of the insurance companies and he has employed architects whose function was not to do with design but to hoodwink the local planning authority to approve plans. On top of this the developer has had an all too eager ally in the local authority itself, desperate to increase rateable value in town centres and anxious to keep up with the Jones's in the neighbouring towns.
Despite all our wonderful planning systems and provisions, what has been the result? Not the provision of the community amenities such as concert halls, theatres, homes in the centres of our towns and so on. We have had a rash of shopping centres, half of them languishing empty or under-used for years. There is London's Elephant and Castle, not far from here; Birmingham's Bull Ring; Doncaster, Margate, Manchester, Shrewsbury and Ipswich. I have
1414
walked round them all. I have done a special study of this aspect. All these towns have been struck down by what Marriott in his book calls "white elephantitis"—empty shopping centres. These property developers have changed our environment, not the planning legislation under which we have been operating in the last 20 years.
Can we be certain if we pass this Bill that the citizens of our towns and cities will have a better deal and will be provided with a better environment than the property developer, or the combination of the property developer and the local authority, has given us so far? These cases are an indictment of our planning system. They are a catalogue of waste. This is waste in a more frightening form than one can imagine. This is not the failure of a business man who made too many nuts and bolts or pins and needles and could not sell them. In these cases it is the failure of people wasting land in the hearts of our towns and cities.
Will this Bill ensure that these mistakes will not happen again? Unless the Minister is prepared, ironically contrary to the spirit of the Bill, to reassert the central authority and establish criteria for estimating what the community really requires this Bill will fail just as the last one failed.
6.42 p.m.
Mr. Walter Clegg: It was always a pleasure in the Standing Committee on the Leasehold Reform Bill to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands), and it is a pleasure to follow him today. His speech was absolutely excellent. He made his points with feeling, and some were good practical points. If I do not follow him immediately I am sure he will forgive me. Many of the things on which he touched I will be touching upon later.
Like everyone else who has spoken today, I give a general welcome to the provisions of the Bill. However, it must be clear to the Minister of State already that there will be a fruitful ground for Amendments. From what hon. Members have said today, these will be forthcoming in great numbers.
The emphasis this afternoon has been on the failure of previous planning legislation in two main respects. First, its failure to make available enough land

1415
for building houses at the right time and in the right place. I have seen much of this happening in my own constituency. I have seen planning authorities putting land on to the market for building or giving the permission which will bring it on to the market in small packets—a few acres here and there. This has kept up the price of land, because the planning has not been sufficiently bold and the planners have underestimated the demand for houses. In particular, they have under-estimated the demand in the places that people choose to want to build. I hope that this new legislation will help to bring about a more speedy release of land in sufficiently large quantities to help to stabilise the price. It seems clear to me that had we had more land available the Land Commission may not have become necessary. The Land Commission Act, as it was put over to us—I think genuinely believed by hon. Gentlemen opposite— was that this would help to bring down the price of land to the man to whom it mattered—the house buyer.
I felt at the time, and still do, that the bringing forward of land in that way would be more potent, but I can only tell the House my own experience within my own constituency and immediately outside from talking to people there. At the moment the vendor is merely adding the price of the levy to the sale price. The builders are willing to pay that, because they in turn pass it on to the ultimate buyer of the completed house. So the Treasury is doing all right out of the betterment levy. It is getting its 40 per cent., but in reality the tendency is that land prices are rising because of the Land Commission. This is contrary to the intention that the Government had for the Land Commission. However, in fairness to ourselves, we said this in Committee on many occasions. We were told that the Land Commission would have the power to drag land forward on to the market and if it saw these malpractices going on a builder could say, "Will you step in and buy it for me? "
These operations are on such a big scale that even the ultimate target of £70 million, which it has, will not be sufficient to enable the Land Commission to intervene to stabilise the market, let alone bring down the price of land. My per-
1416
sonal hope is that these new procedures will help to bring land forward on to the market in sufficient quantities and at the right time. But it depends on the boldness of the planners. Without boldness we shall just fail in all that we try to do.
There is another aspect of planning which I hope these procedures will help. Planning in the past has been too negative; It has not been positive. For example, we know that in the country as a whole there is a tremendous demand for caravan sites. We also know that the planners as a whole dislike them because of the damage that they do to visual amenities. I have seen some of the coastline of this country, and the damage done by caravans is appalling. I am happy to say that the Lancashire coastline is pretty well free of them. However, in parts of North Wales and parts of the South, almost irreparable damage has been done. Nevertheless, there is a demand. But how has the old planning procedure left the demand to be met? It has left the developer to smell out possible sites and have a bang at putting them up for permission in the hope that he will get it. If he gets it, it is well worth while financially.
In place of this negative attitude, I would prefer the planning authorities to say that the people of this country want caravan sites of two kinds. They want some permanent ones—perhaps to solve the gipsy problem in some parts of the country—and they want transient caravan sites so that people on holiday can find places to put their caravans at night. Therefore, the planning authorities should be looking and saying, "Here is a site which will be good for this because it is sheltered by woodland or it is in a vale". I am certain that there are many sites today that active planners could find for themselves to include in their plans so that people can take advantage of them.
So far I have been talking about the quantitative side of planning. I was glad that the hon. Member for Cardiff, North touched on the qualitative side, and in this connection I should like to quote from the P.A.G. Report:
"While the town maps may present a reasonably clear picture of land use, they do not convey any impression of how the land will in fact be developed or redeveloped, or what other action may be taken in the area

1417
to change its character or to improve the environment."
The hon. Gentleman was right when he spoke about dull town centres. Once the shopping community has left, they are dead. They are like empty canyons. There is no life or community about them. One sees great office blocks, very often unoccupied, and shops that are dead once the lights have gone out. There may be an isolated cinema, but that is all there is to the centre of many towns.
Mr. E. Rowlands: One must not forget the empty shops.
Mr. Clegg: No. It is a good job that the Government occupy some of these offices. They have kept some people from going bankrupt by taking leases on them.
The contribution so far made by the planning generation to the future is quite appalling. The heritage that we are handing on, compared with what we inherited from some of the better periods of English architecture, is pretty grim. I hope that when we get these action plans the local planners will have more influence on what they want so that it will not be left -to the developer to say what he wants. We must take a more positive line. I think that this is the Government's attitude, and this is perhaps one of the brighter aspects of the Bill. These measures will, however, cost more money. It may take longer in some towns to get what we really want, to wait until we can afford to pay for it, but in some cases this may be well worth while.
The provisions about enforcement and abolition of the four-year rule come at a time when members of my profession are scared to death by the pronouncements in the Court of Appeal about delays in bringing forward actions for trial. people are looking at their insurance policies to make sure that they are covered. I fail to see why, when the State insists that its citizens should comply with a limitation period, as they have to do under the Limitation Acts on questions of tort or contract, and when, under the doctrine of laches, unnecessary delay means that one loses one's action, it should seek to rid itself of the same burden. It strikes me as unfair. I think that four years is too short, and I would go some way to meet my right hon. and
1418
learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) who suggested possibly 12 years. This needs to be reconsidered. It is not that we want to encourage people to use land wrongly, but, as a practical conveyancer, it fills me with horror that there is to be no end to it.
I find it difficult to decide whether I agree with the appeal procedure. I was swayed by two things. First, I want people to be satisfied that they have had justice. Secondly, I wonder whether the title "inspector" is the right one. I have had practical experience of appearing before inspectors. At all times I have found them courteous, full of integrity and tremendously able, and they always give each party a fair right of hearing. I have heard complaints from the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) about some of the procedure, but, generally, I have found the inspectors a good tribunal before whom to appear. Although one may disagree with their findings, one would not feel one had had a raw deal.
What worries me—and I think that it has worried everyone—is that these inspectors are the servants of the Executive. In Committee I should like to find some way of divorcing them from it. I do not think that they can be as independent as a high court judge, but there may be some way of giving them the independence which will make people trust them more when they appear before them. They are trustworthy now, but justice has to be seen to be done, and my proposal would convince people that they were independent of the Executive.
I think that "inspector" is all right as a term, but I do not think that it conveys a judicial function. I have thought of one expression which might fit the bill, although I hesitate to add to existing officialese. He might be called a "judicial inspector" to show that he has a judicial as well as an administrative function.
I turn, now, to Part IV of the Bill, which deals with compulsory acquisition. I can add little to what has been said so movingly from both sides of the House about the difficulty of small people, and even those who are quite wealthy, in dealing with the issue of acquisition. I am worried about the 15-year notice which a local authority can serve. This is not

1419
a long time, especially if during that time the owner of the land wants substantially to alter the building on it, or to knock it down and rebuild. Because of die high cost of alterations, it might not be possible for the job to be done in this time and enable him to get his money back. If he is not able to get his money back, and get a reasonable profit out of it, he will not redevelop.
There is one other aspect of die planning blight which I do not think has been stressed. When an area is blighted, it begins to look seedy and goes downhill very fast. The owners of the property do not care to maintain it properly. It looks tatty, and the tattier it looks, the worse it is for the community, and the worse it is for compensation when the owner eventually gets it. This is another matter which we might perhaps consider in Committee.
I should like to say something about the duration of planning permission. On the face of it, I can see why the Minister has put this provision into the Bill. He wants to make sure that land is not sterilised, and that plans are not frustrated by developers holding on to the land for too long, but there are other aspects to this problem. It may not be the fault of the person who is holding the land. It may be due to something outside his control.
We know that some builders hold land in stock. They buy ahead of requirements so that they can get a long flow of work. This is good planning, and five years with outline permission is not an over-long way ahead to buy, because if builders can hold land in stock they can afford to buy expensive machines to do the work. I am thinking of expensive cranes, and so on, which would be uneconomical to buy unless they had a good run of work. By buying these expensive machines, they reduce the cost of development. I think that this period of five years ought to be reconsidered.
I would like to see a right of appeal written into the Bill. At the moment there does not seem to be any. An unscrupulous local authority could do considerable damage through its rights under this Clause to cancel planning permission. I think that a right of appeal to the judicial inspector would safeguard the rights of those who have bought land
1420
and paid a good price for it on the basis that planning permission would last not for five years, but virtually for ever. We have to look after the rights of those people.
Those are some points that will arise. One could literally talk on the Bill—and on almost every Clause—for the whole night, but I do not propose to do that. I end as I began, by saying that I generally welcome the Bill. I think that it will be a better Bill when it has been through Committee. I hope so.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. A. H. Macdonald: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg). Earlier in our proceedings two right hon. Gentlemen were congratulating each other on having entered Parliament on the same day. I understand that that was some time ago. The hon. Member for North Fylde and I also entered Parliament on the same day, although much more recently. It is a pleasure for me to be able to agree heartily with what the hon. Member said about the need for local authorities to provide caravan sites.
Perhaps, however, I may venture to disagree with the hon. Member's criticisms about the proposal that there shall be no time limit to the enforcement procedure. In my experience the danger that we have to face is of somebody putting an old tin can in a field, leaving it there and then claiming to have deemed planning permission for a sheet metal works. It is quite possible for things to go on unobtrusively and then, before anybody knows where he is, for the situation to have got out of control.
I welcome the Bill, but before dealing with the points that I wish to make in respect of it I want to comment on some remarks on the question of compensation and planning blight which has been referred to by several hon. Members. The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) referred to it, and I agree that it is a very serious and difficult problem. I understood him to intimate, however, that he might introduce new Clauses or Amendments in Committee designed to solve the problem by increasing the compensation payable. In my view, in that kind of situation there would be a real danger that a local planning authority would be tempted to hold

1421
up the publication of its development plan.
This is a danger that we must guard against. In my view development plans should be published at the earliest opportunity, and I would hate to see authorities held up because of the fear that they would be faced with immediate large demands for compensation.
That leads me on to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands), who also talked about compensation. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-lord wanted to increase compensation by basing it on replacement values, and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North wanted the immediate serving of purchase notices in respect of properties as soon as development plans are published. I can see some disastrous consequences following from those suggestions.
They would inhibit local authorities from putting forward development plans, and there is a real possibility that development might stop. I realise that a problem exists here, and we are right I o look carefully into the ways of solving it, but we shall not solve it by approaching it on the basis that all local authorities have bottomless purses out of which they can pour unlimited and increasing quantities of compensation when development plans are put forward.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sure that my hon. Friend is not suggesting that local authorities should be encouraged to propose development plans which merely bring about pain and suffering to ratepayers without any consideration of their feelings. Perhaps he will clarify his argument.
Mr. Macdonald: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for intervening. If I gave that impression I must correct it. It is proper for us to be solicitous of the rights of individual citizens. But I am putting the other point of view, which nobody has put forward so far, namely, that local authorities do not have bottomless purses. I am saying that it would have a deleterious effect on rates if we tried to solve this difficult problem simply by
1422
increasing the amount of compensation payable.
I heartily welcome the Bill, and have only a few small criticisms of its provisions. I welcome Part I. Some criticism of local authorities has been voiced in the debate, and I want to put the opposite view. I should declare an interest in the matter because I am a member of a local authority. It seems to me only just and proper that local authorities should be in a position to determine their own local plans, and that citizens should have ample opportunity to be made aware of those plans before they have become fixed, and should be able to make representations.
The Bill provides proper opportunities for those representations to be made, and I deprecate the assumption that seems to be creeping in that in everything they do local authorities must be supervised by the Big Brother of Central Government. It is right that Central Government should supervise the structure plans but it would be a mistake to allow them to probe into every nook and cranny of every local plan. In my view the Bill has struck the right balance from that point of view.
I also give a sincere welcome to Part II. Local authorities and residents' associations will bless the day when that Part becomes law. The present enforcement procedure is a mockery. On many occasions a development takes place which appears to be contrary to planning regulations, and local citizens and ratepayers protest. The local authority asks the developer to stop. He takes no notice. The authority serves an enforcement notice. If the developer is an unscrupulous man—I do not suggest that they all are—he can wait until the last moment and then submit a planning application. A cunning man can spin things out by putting in insufficent or inadequate plans.
Exentually, the application is turned down. The developer then appeals and, as we have heard this evening, an appeal by inquiry can take as much as nine months. The man can spin out the process further by appealing for a postponement on the ground that he is not ready, and so on. Eventually, let us hope, his appeal is turned down—although there is always a possibility that in a moment of aberration the Minister will allow it.

1423
But even then we are not at the end of the matter. We are back to the enforcement notice, and the offender can appeal against that. All this is going on while the development is there. The ratepayers protest, and they cannot understand why the local authority does not take action. The council, the concept of town planning and the whole process of law is brought into disrepute.
I welcome the suggestion of a stop notice which will bring an end to that ridiculous rigmarole.
Mr. Rippon: We are listening to the hon. Member with much interest, and I agree that there is great force in what he says. Does he agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), however, that there should be some limitation period of, perhaps, 12 years? Surely it is not right that citizens, including subsequent purchasers, should be exposed for ever to the possibility of enforcement proceedings?
Mr. Macdonald: I noted that remark in the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith). It seems to me, however, that even after a long period when some development is found by a local authority to have been unauthorised there is nothing to stop the developer or owner of the property from submitting a planning appeal. This is quite a usual procedure. It is possible—although I concede that there is something in the point raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman— that this will go some way towards dealing with the difficulty.
My right hon. Friend might suspect that this panegyric of mine is leading up to some criticism. I hope that he does not think that my welcome of the Bill is insincere. I do welcome it, but have one or two criticisms of Part III of the Bill and Clause 51. One of the basic concepts of the Bill is the need for speed, because planning procedures are long and cumbersome and delay much-needed housing and factory development while money is locked up fruitlessly. I recognise the force of the argument for more speed, but we must decide whether the price asked is too great. I submit that it is possible that, in Part III and Clause 51, the price is too great.
1424
Clause 51 permissively allows local authorities to delegate to their officers the duty of determining applications. I see that this will be faster and I have often suspected—although I am a member of a town planning committee myself— that decisions by officers might be more rational. But they would not be more democratic. Undoubtedly, ordinary citizens want planning applications affecting their area determined by their elected representatives and not by council officers, however wise. Perhaps we might consider inserting in Committee some proviso to allow a request that an application which would otherwise be determined by an officer should be determined by the committee. That would have to be done before the officer had decided, of course, but some such arrangement would be desirable.
The same consideration applies to Part III. This proposal is that, in a number of cases, the determination of an appeal shall be taken by the inspector and not the Minister. I can see that speed is an argument here too, and can see the common sense of a decision being taken by someone who has heard the arguments, but is this a democratic procedure? We are saying that the decisions of the elected local authority can be overthrown by an appointed inspector, presumably a civil servant.
I know that, at present, the phrase "determined by the Minister" is a euphemism, but it does preserve a faint and tenuous thread of contact with the democratic procedure which would be entirely snapped if the inspector determined these cases. Could we not introduce another proviso, under which appellants or the local authority could, before the inspector's determination, request that the appeal be determined by the Minister instead? That also can be discussed in more detail in Committee.
I should be grateful if the Minister would consider whether the conduct of inquiries by an inspector will be subject to the activities of the Parliamentary Commissioner. The Minister's conduct of inquiries is so subject—not in the sense of a court of appeal, of course, but so far as his conduct of the inquiry goes. Is the inspector similarly subject?
Something which is not in the Bill but which I would like in it was raised by

1425
my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North. It must have astonished anyone who has ever served on a town planning committee that there is no statutory duty to notify people in an area of an application affecting the area. The first they know of it is when development begins, and when they ring the town hall, they are told that it is too late, that planning permission has been given and there is nothing they can do. This is very frustrating.
One instance in my constituency concerned two semi-detached houses. Planning permission was given for development at the rear and to one side, and to get access it was necessary to demolish one of the houses. I was amazed to find that there was no statutory duty on anyone to notify the man living in the other half that half his house would be torn down. The local authority in fact notified him, but only as an act of charity and common sense and I would prefer it to be obligatory.
My proposal would be for a notice board on every site for which there had been a planning application simply bearing the letters PAITH, which would stand for "Planning Application In Town Hall". I am not wedded to that—some one else has suggested DEOTS, standing for "Development Expected On This Site"—but it should be a simple message about which people could inquire, and not a close typescript—
Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when an application goes to appeal at the moment this is the procedure, that a board is put up outside the property and the local residents thereby informed of their rights?
Mr. Macdonald: I am grateful for that. That is the procedure, but the wording on the notice is normally a typescript which cannot be read by passers-by. This also can be discussed further in Committee. I am aware that there is a large number—about 400,000 —of planning applications, but this is not an objection to my proposal, because local ratepayers would probably consider this expenditure fully justified.
The principle behind my suggestion relates to the fact that we are a much-regulated nation. I approve of that, because public affairs should be regu-
1426
lated, but an essential precondition is that the ordinary citizen should know in advance of any regulations and have a reasonable chance to express his view. It is on that basis that I make this suggestion.
7.24 p.m.
Mr. Frederick Silvester: The hon. Member for Chisle-hurst (Mr. Macdonald) spoke about compensation in cases of planning blight. I prefer the view of the hon. Members for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) and Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). It may be true that the local authority does not have a bottomless purse, but it has a duty to ensure that those personally affected by its plans and suggested plans are not harmed. A compensating factor is that a local authority which is forced to take property affected by a blight, should it decide to change its plans, can always sell the property back, perhaps at a profit. Thus there is no unreasonable burden on the local authority.
There seems to be most agreement tonight on the points which are least the concern of private Members and individuals in a town. That is to say, we all approve the provisions on the broad issues like the structure plan, but we are increasingly concerned that the Bill does not cover the small matters adequately. There are two aspects of this. The details of redevelopment which a local authority wishes to carry out in the general plan will be covered by the local plans and will thus be subject to a great deal of public notice, but these plans will impinge on most people only as they creep towards their own houses.
We should be concerned with two important matters. One is the planning blight and the other is the question of the need for comprehensive development at all. The White Paper describes the action areas as requiring
"… development, redevelopment, improvement or a mixture … in the ensuing ten years."
Does the Minister feel that local authorities have enough powers, not for comprehensive development which requires them to buy the property, but to include in the local plans schemes for compulsory improvement requiring residents to improve property without total

1427
redevelopment? Local authorities could do more along these lines.
The second matter in which I am particularly interested—because, in my brief term as a Member of Parliament, it keeps cropping up, as I am sure it does for others—is the rights of third parties in planning applications. The local authority does not have the same interests, necessarily, as the person affected. In a case in my constituency at the moment, the local authority has notified someone concerned largely because she came to me. If she had not approached me or a councillor, she would have known nothing about it. The authority was happy to proceed.
The case concerns the use of oxy-acetylene cutting equipment next to someone's back window, which can be disturbing. The property is a redevelopment area anyway, and it is all coming down, so there is no need for the authority to take action. For the people in the house, however, it is an immediate problem and one in which they seem to have no power. They would have known nothing of the application, which is going through at the moment.
The suggestion has been made that we should place on an applicant the obligation to inform his neighbours and to attach to his application evidence that he has done so. This is the very minimum that we could require. It is a pity that it is not in the bill, but perhaps it will be.
The advantage of raising matters on the bill of this kind is that it is an attempt to get rid of some of the problems which are "bugging" planning and of certain injustices.
One which might be considered and on which I would like the Minister's view is as follows. I understand the present position is that if a local authority makes a planning decision and changes it, the person involved can appeal. In the case I have in mind the local authority changed its mind and varied planning permission. The person concerned won his appeal, but there is no means whereby such a person can obtain compensation from the local authority.
He cannot do so by going to the Minister because the Minister will refer him back to the local authority. He will
1428
tell the person concerned that he can get compensation for loss sustained provided the local authority makes a case, through him, to the district auditor. The trouble is that the local authority will then be acting as judge in its own cause. It would be interesting to know whether the Minister finds that this has cropped up in more cases than the one which has come to my notice and, if it is therefore of general interest, whether it is possible to do something about it in the Bill.
Where through inadequacies the local authority has used planning procedures without complete wisdom and a person has suffered loss as a result, he should be able to claim compensation from either the Minister or some other source and not necessarily have to rely on the good offices of the council.
Mr. Macdonald: A very similar case arose recently in the authority of which I am a member. The difficulty I see, and which I should like the hon. Member to deal with, is that if compensation were payable how would any local authority ever dare to refuse a planning permission when it believed that it would be faced with a claim for money?
Mr. Silvester: In this case the local authority did not refuse outright. I understand that in the situation suggested by the hon. Member the authority would be liable to pay money, to give some sort of compensation. In some cases an authority is liable to pay compensation for not granting planning permission. In this case the authority made a decision and varied it. The person concerned was forced to make changes as a result of the variations. Since he had started work on the first planning permission and his loss arose through the variation, he should have had some means of redress. This is not a very large matter but it should be dealt with.
The points I have raised are largely concerned with matters which are not in the Bill but which I should like to see dealt with in the Bill. They might encourage the Minister in Committee to introduce new Clauses referring to them.
7.29 p.m.
Mr. Roland Moyle: The speech of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) has encouraged us to believe that the impression we formed when he made his maiden

1429
speech that he would be a welcome contributor to our debates was not misjudged. Like him, I join in giving a general welcome to this Bill. In doing so, I apologise to the hon. Member for saying that I do not want to follow him in his arguments, because I want to make a fairly brief intervention and to draw attention to a particular problem. It has already been given some airing by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) and my lion. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald). That is the question of publicity about public inquiries under the planning procedure.
Before doing so I would be failing in my duty if I did not reinforce what has been said by hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House about their concern over planning blight. I draw attention particularly to an obnoxious form of it which exists at present. We have a multiplying number of potential motorways in London. Every time there is the possibility of one of these motorways being constructed, the Greater London Council declares what is known as a "corridor of opportunity". This may bear only the very roughest relationship to the line of the motorway when eventually it is built. It may cover a much wider area than the actual surface of the motorway. Nevertheless, even though the motorway has in no way been agreed in line by the council, a corridor of opportunity is drawn on the map right across the face of London.
Within those corridors development is rigidly controlled. If a potential purchaser of a house finds that the house on which he has set his eyes is within one of the corridors of opportunity, he tends to turn away from it. Such corridors of opportunity may be laid down and later the G.L.C. may decide, as it has done, that another site for the motorway is better than the original one. This business of planning blight may go on for many years. Although from the point of view of the Greater London Council these corridors may be corridors of opportunity from the point of view of the unfortunate residents within them they can rapidly become corridors of despair.
The social problems which arise from any form of planning blight have already been drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and
1430
Local Government during this debate. I do not propose to go into that here save to say that they have not been exaggerated in any degree. The Minister ought to keep a very close watch on this unfortunate development in London and see what he can do to control it and limit the rather profligate way in which the conception of corridors of opportunity is being used. I am glad to have the opportunity of intervening in this debate because my main point follows the line of one of the Minister's main themes. He said that he wanted the public to be closely associated with planning authority and not made to believe, as they have been in the past, that they are planning fodder and that people are more planned against than planning.
We are to have a new procedure for planning appeals. It will be much shorter and streamlined and will save a great deal of money. I therefore hope that hon. and right hon. Members opposite will not accuse me of wishing to increase the rate of growth in the bureaucracy and the expenditure of public funds when I put forward the suggestion that if we are to save a certain amount of public time and money by this more streamlined procedure we might reclaim some of it by filling a gap in the Bill and ensuring that public inquiries on planning matters shall have much fuller publicity than they have at present.
The point has been made that public inquiries, particularly in regard to individual cases, the bread and butter of day to day planning, do not receive full publicity. I draw particular attention to what one might call the medium-sized problem. The Abingdon gasholder and Stansted generate their own heat and attract public attention, but there are medium-sized problems, particularly those connected with the preservation of buildings of historical and architectural importance which are quasi-political problems and problems of public taste. The general public develop very powerful views about these issues, yet we often find that public inquiries held to settle the issues pass completely unnoticed, especially in larger towns and cities which are developing a certain amount of anonymity.
To illustrate what I have in mind I must draw on experience in my constituency. There there is a row of Georgian

1431
hotels which is very much cherished by the people who live near. Some years ago the L.C.C. was asked to place a preservation order upon those hotels. A public inquiry was duly held and there is no doubt that the local preservation society was represented and made a good case. The inspector sent his report to the Minister and only at that stage in the proceedings did the public in the area wake up to what could happen to those buildings which they so cherished. A petition bearing about 4,000 signatures was collected, but this was too late and none of this was contained in the report which the inspector made to the then Minister of Housing and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Leeds. North-East (Sir K. Joseph). The right hon. Gentleman then refused to confirm the preservation order.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, is not now present. He rather despaired about the particular example he quoted. I busied myself about this matter and, after the election I am glad to say, because of the change of regime and the appearance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) as the Minister, then my right hon. Friend the present Minister and his noble Friend, we made considerable progress. We discovered some new evidence. Now I have every confidence that a preservation order will be placed on the row of hotels and they will survive for many years to give pleasure to everyone who sees them.
There are two conclusions to be drawn from this. The community of which I speak possesses among its ranks much higher professional levels of articulation and awareness than is the normal run. It is a community swarming with journalists, public relations officers, solicitors, barristers, and what-have-you. Yet, until the matter was decided, the fact that there was a public inquiry about those properties completely escaped everyone's notice. Something should be done to improve publicity in these cases. At the moment the requirement is for a notice to be placed in the London Gazette and on one occasion in one or more local newspaper circulating in the area. That is not sufficient. A much greater degree of publicity should be mobilised on these occasions.
1432
Local authorities ought to keep a list of preservation and amenity societies in their areas and should write to them to tell them that this sort of public inquiry is to take place. There should be notices in all the local newspapers for at least three successive weeks. This would not be an unreasonable demand to make on these occasions. Notices should not be in the very dreary, wordy format of those which now appear in the newspapers. Local authorities often have public relations departments. Perhaps someone could look at the problem of devising advertisements in better type and that sort of thing so that they could be more attractive.
If we can mobilise the public to take an interest in these questions even when a decision goes against the public they will realise that they have had an opportunity of a full say in the matter and they will be much more satisfied than if they wake up one morning to find some cherished possession or amenity is to go to the architectural equivalent of the knacker's yard because they have not had an opportunity to state their objections. In this way the public would not feel that they are planning fodder. They would feel that they have a part to play especially in those issues of public taste which to an ever-increasing degree are exciting the public in these days.
7.40 p.m.
Mr. Evelyn King: The Bill covers so large a canvas that it is almost impossible to debate it unless one restricts oneself to painting one's own square. I therefore hope that the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) will forgive me if I merely say that I agree with him for the most part and then move on to my square.
The Bill is generally welcomed. In so far as I seek to criticise anything, it is only because what little time one has is better spent in criticism than in praise. I am delighted that there is so much cross-bench support for the Bill and that we are not mainly divided on party lines. My own chief cause for congratulating the Minister is on his efforts to speed up decisions on appeal. Delays have occurred in my constituency which have caused a monstrous denial of justice, decisions in appeals having taken anything from 12–14 months.

1433
My attitude to the Bill—and indeed, going further back, to planning as a whole—has always been one of welcome and enthusiasm for what I would call strategic planning, by which I mean the larger issues that fall to be decided. I have always been critical, and I shall continue to be critical, of what I would call the tactical side of planning. Here I have particularly in mind the small man, especially the small man in the countryside, who has a grievance and who is faced with legislation which he does not understand and which he frequently resents, sometimes with good cause.
I do not share the view of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends that inspectors appointed by the Ministry should have any substantial judicial function. The whole function of a judge is, and must be, to interpret the law. The function of an inspector is quite different. An inspector hearing an appeal has no statute law to look to and, often, not much precedent to look to. He is interpreting a policy. Therefore, the concept of making the inspector a judicial functionary is unworkable. If the concept were to be worked, the Minister would lose control of planning. I take the view that this is something that the Minister,should not do.
I want to ask some questions about these inspectors, because there is to be a substantial change of procedure, in that the Minister will not now directly control their decisions. I would like the Minister to tell me, first, how the inspectors will now be controlled. For example, will the Ministry issue circulars giving guidance to the inspectors? Most important of all, perhaps, are the decisions of the inspectors to be capable of being questioned in the House? If the inspectors are to implement a policy, it should clearly fall to the House of Commons to know just what policy they are implementing. I believe that one should regard these inspectors as implementing a policy and not as judicial functionaries.
I turn to the proposed Amendment of the four-year rule. This proposal is not only disastrous but also unworkable, which is perhaps even worse than being disastrous. Stretching back over centuries, in almost every law there is a limitation as to time—usually seven years. This limitation was not imposed merely
1434
because somebody thought that it was a good thing to do. It was imposed because this was the only way in which law could be made workable. There must be some limit in time beyond which one cannot possibly go back.
I would take it further. If the rule is amended as proposed, the conveyancing of property will be made a risky operation. House buying will become difficult and hazardous if no one can be sure that the house to be purchased has permission to be a place of residence. Sometimes a house is divided into a flat upstairs and a sweet shop below. People buy in good faith. Are hon. Members opposite seriously suggesting that for 10, 15, 20 or 30 years afterwards anyone can say that there is no planning consent for the shop and that it must be taken away? Business transactions will be made impossible. It would be quite another matter if it were argued that the four years should be extended to five years. I ask the Minister to reconsider this matter, because it is an unwise proposal and in practice it will be found to be unworkable.
That leads me to my main point. I want to take up the question of the small man in the countryside. I am doing this deliberately because I cannot discuss the whole of the Bill. I take the view—I am here speaking only of small and minor improvements, not of vast development plans, on which quite different issues arise—that the assumption should always be that a man seeking to alter his house, to add a garage to it, or to make a small change such as knocking out a window or erecting a bathroom, should have the right to do so unless it interferes with his neighbour's enjoyment. I do net take the contrary view which is taken by some people, that everyone should be stopped from doing anything unless there is some reason why he should do it.
Prima facie, going back to the four-year rule, there cannot be much wrong with anything which has been done if for four solid years no one has objected and no official has even noticed it. Most local authorities and most officials do the best they can, but we must also remember that almost all departments in local authorities seek wherever possible to increase their sphere of influence. This is certainly true of planning authorities. I

1435
do not speak altogether without know-ledge. For a Short while I was chairman of a planning authority in a big city, and I have had other experience of this in the Ministry. For three years it fell to me, in the main, to give verdicts on the appeals which came to the Ministry.
In most local planning authorities there are two contrary desires. First, it will almost always be said that they are short of staff and they must have more. Secondly, it will also almost always be found that they will seek to extend their work, although they say that they have not sufficient staff. This is a never-ending process.
Because of this desire to extend, my experience is that local planning officers are increasingly looking for tiny contraventions of detail which are far better ignored. One of the odd things about the whole of planning law is that in many ways there is no sphere of Operations in which greater authoritarianism exists. Whatever the theory is, in practice when a small man has made a small alteration it is not merely a matter of what the law is; it is a matter of whether a particular planning officer desires to enforce the rule, which he probably has a right to enforce, or whether he does not. This varies widely from authority to authority and from planning officer to planning officer.
I remember well that I went to a planning authority seeking information about a change which clearly required planning consent. The planning officer said to me, "It is too small. I do not want to hear about it. Do not let me see it". That was a very wise reply. I wish more planning officers would take the same view. The published statistics show that there are enormous variations from one county to another.
Change of use is one of the most difficult of all subjects. This morning a secretary was typing in my house 300 yards from here. Was that an office? I do not think so. What would be the position if two secretaries, or three, or four, were typing there? At what point does it be-come an office? It would be perfectly within the competence of a planning officer then to say that I was changing the use of the house and required consent.
1436
Let me cite the example of farms in Dorset which have disused farm buildings. There are many such farms in Dorset. One year the farmer might want to make use of a barn for residential accommodation for gipsies who are helping with the harvest in the summer. Next it may house motor cars. A third year, he may use it for mixing fertiliser, or let it to someone else for some other semi-industrial purpose. At any point, the planning officer can say that it is a change of use, and a planning application may or may not be accepted.
There is a great danger of making the really valuable parts of planning—I return here to what I call Strategic planning—desperately unpopular because of the resentment aroused in the mind of the small man whose liberty is interfered with in a way which does not seem sensible to him, and does not seem sensible to many other people, either.
It is no good my saying that unless, at the same time, I suggest ways in which matters can be remedied. There are ways. First, I should like the Minister to revise the rules regarding what is called permitted development. I should like development to be permitted much more freely in the small matters which I have sought to describe, removing them altogether from the requirement to obtain permission, at least unless a neighbour objects. Second, I hope that there will be strong resistance to increases in the planning staff of local authorities. That is one of the surest ways of seeing that the staff who are there do the valuable and important job which it is their function to do. Third, now that he is handing over greater power to inspectors, I hope that the Minister will give them guidance on the lines of the decisions they ought to take, and I hope that he will bring out in this connection some of the points which I have made.
As I said at the outset, one of the difficulties in speaking to this Bill is that it is so wide that one inevitably has to cover only a tiny fraction. I have dealt with one fraction critically because it raises a matter on which I happen to feel deeply. There is too much needless and petty persecution. But I regard the Bill as a whole as of great value. It will certainly have my co-operation and

1437
support, and I wish the Minister well with it.
7.51 p.m.
Mr. Tudor Watkins: In one way, I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King). I well remember the time when he was at the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, a long time ago, when we had Lord Silkin's Measure. I am very pleased now that there is not the same Opposition to planning as there was then. The Opposition at that time may have come because of the development Charge. I am very glad that the same approach has not been adopted in today's debate.
I join the hon. Gentleman in what he said about inspectors. One of his hon. Friends said that we ought to have a judicial inspector. I hope that this never comes. In Wales, we always have a suspicion of anything to do with courts of law, policemen, lawyers or solicitors. I hope, therefore, that the inspectors will remain inspectors. It will be much better if they do.
I welcome the Bill, and I much appreciated what the Minister had to say in introducing it. I was glad to hear the Opposition Front Bench spokesman as well, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon). He and my right hon. Friend agreed on so many points. The Minister explained the Bill in a simple manner. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardio, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) said that he hoped that the Bill would be better than the last one. with respect to him, if he knows about the effects of the Industrial Revolution in South Wales, he ought gladly to welcome anything done with regard to planning. A great deal of ribbon development, also, went on before the last war, but now, I am glad to say, planning has slopped that.
We are considering here not just planning but town and country planning, and I hope that I may be regarded as a small man from the countryside who can say something about planning in the countryside. Experience over the last 20 years has shown how vital it is to have plans to shape our towns and villages and that they should be properly carried out. This is the whole object of planning. I notice that in the White Paper there is a reference to the growth of population and
1438
traffic. Figures were given for England and Wales, and I know something about the expected growth of population and traffic in Wales itself. I am glad to se the Secretary of State for Wales and the Under-Secretary of State here when am speaking—never mind about the others—because I have a point to put to them on this matter. It is important that they should have regard not only; to an increasing population but also to depopulation in the areas about which they know so much.
As has been said several times, ordinary Citizens regard planning as some thing of a frustration. I have never thought that, but, as a chairman of a planning committee, I know that people feel that way. The chairman of a planning committee comes in for a lot o criticism, and the unfortunate planning officer gets it worse still. Nevertheless in the country generally today, planning is regarded as an essential function of the local authorities.
Now, the question of structure plans Is it intended that the action areas will be selected in advance of local government reorganisation in Wales? Reorganisation has been mentioned on both side of the House, but no one has ventured to say that reorganisation has actually started in Wales and legislation will be with us within the next eighteen month or two years. We want to know before hand, not wait for the reorganisation in England, whether the action areas will come into effect. In my view, the; should.
In the action areas, there should be co-ordination with the Mid-Wales Indus trial Development Association, the Rural Development Board and the New Town Corporation. Incidentally, I am glad that a former Member of the House has this week been appointed as the first chair man of the New Town Corporation. Mr Emrys Roberts, Q.C., who used to sit on the Liberal Bench, a Welsh-speaking Welshman, will be an admirable man to be consulted and to advise on planning matters in Mid-Wales.
The structure plans should not be con fined to counties. They should have a larger basis. It is quite easy to have; structure plan, even for a county, but in Mid-Wales—we are not sure what will happen, whether three counties will be amalgamated—there will be a larger basis

1439
for a structure plan. In this way, other counties which have similar social Problems will know something of what is going on.
It is essential that all plans are financially realistic. The proposal in the Bill for the transfer of responsibility to local decision is welcome. I do not agree with those of my hon. Friends who have said that they do not like the appointment of inspectors. I do. I am sure that it will be a great advance in the matter of devolution itself. However, I have one query. At present, there is a variety of planning methods. In Breconshire, where I live, there is delegation of planning to the district Councils. The neighbouring county, Radnorshire, does not do that. But everyone says that where there is delegation a better job is done. For one thing, the public come into it right from the start, from the application itself. When there is not that kind of delegation, the ordinary Citizen does not have a look-in.
I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales, whatever he does about planning locally, will ensure that there is uniformity in all the new areas under the reoganisation scheme. This is vital. I hope, also, that the expansion of towns in Mid-Wales will come into the business of structure plans. In this connection, I am glad that, since the Rhayader scheme, there has been co-operation between the authorities concerned and the Roads Division over the expansion plans. I do not know why there is a difference between the Roads Division in Wales and those concerned with planning.
For some years now, under the last Government and under this, when a planning application affects a trunk road, a direction comes from the Ministry of Transport, as it used to be—now the Welsh Roads Division—to say that no attempt must be made to develop at all. In one area, from Cross Gates to the Montgomeryshire border, over 20 applications to develop have been turned down by direction of the Road Division in Cardiff. It cannot be local planning if there are directions from above. If the applicant can afford it, he automatically appeals, and I do not like that aspect of the matter.
Since we have had a Welsh Department and Secretary of State for Wales, there
1440
has been a great speeding up of decisions. The number of appeals has been reduced, perhaps because people have greater confidence than when that part of the administration was in Whitehall. In 1964 there were 782 appeals and in 1966 there were 746. The number of decisions in 1964 was 413 and in 1966 it was 503. At the end of 1966 there were 435 appeals requiring to be decided upon. I hope that impetus will be given to shortening the time taken for appeals in the future.
I am glad that local inspectors will be appointed. As a Welsh-speaking Welsh-man, I hope that if an inspector must decide a local inquiry in a locality where the larger proportion of the people speak Welsh we may have an assurance that he will speak Welsh. It is not a laughing matter, because if my mother gave evidence at a local inquiry she would not be able to do so in English. Therefore, the inspector must be able to understand Welsh, and that is why I seek the assurance—although I do not suppose that my mother would go, because she is 92!
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes): Wherever this is possible we shall arrange for a Welsh-speaking inspector to be present. If that is not possible, we shall ensure the Services of an interpreter are provided.
Mr. Watkins: I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend for that assurance. I shall sleep better tonight for having it.
I agree that we should not have judicial inspectors, and I pay tribute to the inspectors we have. I do not believe that a single hon. Member for a Welsh constituency, except perhaps those in the Ministries, has read so many inspectors' reports as I have. They cover all sorts of subjects. The inspectors are very fair and the conduct of the inquiry is very good. But some Q.C.s are rather intolerant if there is an ethical principle involved, such as having motor racing circuits in use on Sundays. They should be more tolerant, but that is my only criticism.
I am very glad that the Minister suggested the appointment of a commission to be presided over by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. As chairman of a planning committee, I find that people do not know enough about what is going

1441
on in planning. We must be careful, because every procedure we add means a delay to applicants. I find that if there is a dispute involving third parties the best thing is to get them on the site at the beginning and negotiate. The decision is then made right away.
The Bill says that the planning authorities must satisfy the Minister that there are safeguards for the ordinary Citizen to be heard and to be present at the sites. I went to Sochi on the Black Sea about four years ago, and saw some-thing of planning arrangements in the Soviet Union. There was a large housing development scheme there which involved the planting of trees and so on. The Russians had three ways of Consulting the Citizen. Elected councillors— I would not want to query how they were eiected—had a chance to take the model and details of the scheme back to the electorate; the trade union representative took them to his branch; and the Communist Party representative also played a part, although I should not like planning decisions to be made by political parties in this country. They had three bites at the cherry, but I do not know how long they spent in making the final decision. All three representatives were making suggestions about planting more trees and so on, and that greatly commended itself to me.
I am very glad that important principles are incorporated in the Bill. I hive been greatly impressed by what has been said in the debate about compensation. What the Bill says about enforcement will satisfy a great deal of public opinion, for some people deliberately disregard planning decisions or do not wait for them but go ahead and build a garage, shed or something of that kind.
I am also very pleased that there will be a planning inquiry commission. Will it cover England and Wales, or will there be a separate one for Wales? This is important for us, because we should get as much devolution as we can in the Principality.
We must have a realisation among our planning staffs that the country wants the nation to be proud of its planning generally. We must recruit the best staff possible, and I am sure that we shall. Parliament should be vigilant once the Bill becomes law, when I hope that the
1442
devolution of which I have spoken and the quicker procedures will immediately work satisfactorily.
8.7 p.m.
Mr. David Mitchell: Many parts of the Bill will receive widespread support on both sides of the House. But it seems to me that there are two omissions, and one of them is very serious as it concerns my constituency.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have already mentioned the lack of a need for statutory notification of one's neighbours when one is putting in a planning application that will affect them. I know that one does not purchase the view when one purchases a house, but in practice one hears astonishing cases of the serious effect on people of a planning application of which they did not know anything until the day the foundations were being dug and they saw something growing up quite close to them. Had they known and put in an objection, planning consent might well not have been given.
I still do not see why the military authorities should not have to comply with normal planning consent procedure when they want to do something which is not of military importance. If it concerns the defence of the country, that is quite different. But where houses are being built for Service men to live in it would be right and proper for the military authorities to have to go through the same planning procedures as individuals in the same circumstances.
Mr. Robert Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware of the Circular 100 procedure, by which those exempt from having to get planning permission are meant to consult, and the Minister of Housing and Local Government is meant to hold the ring? The Bill does not seem to do anything to improve that procedure?
Mr. Mitchell: In practice, consultation may mean one thing to a Minister and a very different thing to those concerned. I have an instance in mind where a fortnight was given as the time for objection to a planning proposal by military authorities. I do not believe that that is the fair consultation which we have in mind.

1443
The main purpose of my rising tonight is because there seems to be a major Omission in this Bill in conection with the loss of compensation for compulsory purchase in an expanded town. I appreciate that in some measure this is slightly specialised, but I urge the Minister to consider the case that I am about to put to him very carefully and to extend the Bill to cover the matters to which I will draw his attention.
In my constituency we have Basing-stoke and Andover as expanded towns taking London overspill and doing a task of major importance. This necessarily involves a considerable amount of compulsory purchase and the basis of compensation, when compulsory purchase takes place, is on what would have been the value if the town had not been expanded. I can see that in the case of a new town this is perfectly fair and reason-able, that when one comes to open land one does not want the farmer to get the value for that land which, by its designation as a new town, has suddenly quadrupled or more in value. One does not want the farmer to get an unsolicited bonus.
What happens with an expanded town is a very different and much more serious matter. It results in grave injustice, particularly to "over-shop" people who are driven out of business and especially the householder who is given, in compensation, a sum with which it is totally impossible for him to rehouse himself and his family in the town. In Basingstoke we have the disadvantage to which I have previously drawn attention in this House, of a particularly tough district valuer. It would be wrong for me to go into this now——
Mr. MacDermot: Like any other district valuer the valuer to which the hon. Member is referring is subject to appeal to the Lands Tribunal and to Single out one official and say that he is particularly tough, when he is only applying the law, is I suggest, most unfair.
Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks, but this is not essential to the argument that I am about to put. Since he has made that point I would point out that of nearly 50 per cent. of the cases which have gone to
1444
appeal, the district valuer concerned has not been agreed with by the tribunal.
I am particularly concerned with the small man who cannot afford to go before the tribunal. I have case after case in my constituency, in Basingstoke, where the professional adviser to the constituents says: "I do not believe that you are getting fair play but I cannot recommend you to go to appeal because the total sum involved is £2,000 or £2,500, for you to get £300 to £500. It is not worth the risk of losing it on appeal." I cannot say that those professional advisers are wrong.
Mr. MacDermot: Or that they are right.
Mr. Mitchell: To take up that point, all I can say is that where the case has gone to the Lands Tribunal, the district valuer of Basingstoke has been found wrong in about 50 per cent. of the cases. This gives me some cause for concern as to whether the small cases to which I have referred are getting a fair deal. My argument tonight is quite simply that the law is unfair, regardless of how it may be administered by a district valuer in one town or another. What happens is that if one gives sufficient compensation to enable a man to purchase another house, were the town not an expanded town, it would not mean that he would have to move away from that district to some other part of the country to buy a replacement property.
My case is simply that for someone who has bought a house, particularly an elderly person, to be told that they have to go is bad enough, but to be told that the compensation which they will receive will only be sufficient for them to buy an alternative house if they move out of the area where values are inflated by town expansion is a most dreadful thing. It means that a man has to uproot himself from his family, his friends and neighbours. I have a case of someone who is going blind who had to move to an area where they were not familiar with the layout, where no one knew them and it meant serious personal hardship.
We have had one disastrous and terribly unhappy constituency case where a man committed suicide. We have other cases of elderly smallholders and people of this sort who are being driven

1445
almost desperate trying to discover in what, and how they are to live in their old age I have a couple, Mr. and Mrs. Elston, living in Basingstoke, who are being compensated. They have tried to find an equivalent property but cannot do so anywhere in the neighbourhood.
They are having to live in a Caravan now, instead of spending their old age in a well situated bungalow with rather nice views over the countryside. The hardship here is very serious and I beg the Minister to recognise that it is genuine and calls for consideration. I hope that, since Basingstoke is to some extent further advanced than other towns in seeing the practical application of compensation, he will look at this. I would be very ready to see him and give him concrete examples if these will help.
I have a Suggestion to make. It will rot cost a lot of money but it would be fair. I can see the answer that the Minister would give if I were to suggest that the extra compensation should be paid just like that. He would say that it was wrong that a man should be getting the extra value, inflated value by reason of town development and that when he died his estate would inherit this extra money. I accept that, but it would be possible, in a case of this sort, to give an interest-free loan to make up the difference, so that a person can continue to live for the rest of his life, and his widow when he dies, in the district where they had previously lived.
That would enable him to go on living as he had done, without the hardships and terrible personal problems which we are now finding. It would not cost very much. Indeed, since the basis on which expanded towns are financed is that the local authorities buy cheap, on the values before expansion and sell and lease properties at high values, as a result of town expansion, the local authority would have quite sufficient funds to do what I am suggesting. In this way one would get the Fairness that the Minister seeks and increases in personal wealth would not be created as a result of town expansion. It would be particularly fair to the smaller householder and older people who are suffering hardship to a degree which I do not believe has yet been widely recognised in this House or the country. I beg the Minister to
1446
consider this plea in the course of examining the Bill.
8.18 p.m.
Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: I would like to join hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House in the overall approval which they have given to this Bill. It will certainly ease planning application procedure and it introduces a new concept of planning. I want to refer briefly to one or two deficiencies. First, there is the question of the lack of Publicity given to ordinary individual planning applications. This need not be a very great problem, because in many cases a new application for a development would clearly not affect anyone at all. It could be very much up to the local authority to decide what application should be given publicity and the kind of steps which have been discussed could be taken to give that publicity.
I am somewhat concerned about the appointment of inspectors for the review of local plans. The Bill says:
"… the local planning authority may…cause a local inquiry or other hearing to be held by a person appointed by them …"
I find this quite iniquitous. Some other process could have been adopted for the selection of inspectors rather than appointment by the body whose local planning is under review by the inspector. I feel that justice should more evidently be seen to be done here.
However, my great pleasure in the Bill is that, for the first time, it enables planning authorities to look at wider issues than merely the physical aspects of planning and land use. The great problem at present is that local authorities are con-fined by existing legislation and are not able to look at the more general features of an area such as population, traffic and long-term economic growth. Often, they are forced into making decisions which are to the detriment of the area.
My constituency lies in a tourist area, with beautiful mountain and seaside scenery, and its amenities give rise to problems in planning applications. Clearly it is necessary to conserve the natural amenities. However, one finds very often that projects are refused planning permission which would be greatly to the advantage of the development of tourism in the area.

1447
Recently the Caernarvonshire County Council saw fit to turn down proposals for a motel at Penmaenmawr at the edge of the Snowdonia National Park. The argument was that the view from the main road was affected. In my opinion, however, the effect would have been only marginal, since there is already some industry, a camping site and housing in the area. A motel would have been of tremendous advantage to that part of North Wales.
An even worse case occurred in the town of Llandudno which, as hon. Members will know, is somewhat removed from the North Wales coast, being on a promontory. At the end of the promontory is the Great Orme. Recently, planning application was sought for the installation of a cable car on the Great Orme. The proposal had the full support of the Llandudno Urban District Council, the Llandudno Town Improvement Association and the Hotels and Restaurants Association. It was turned down and, in the refusal, the application for a cable car was described as one for a "chair lift". That, in my opinion, indicates that the right kind of attention was not given to the details of the proposal.
A short time ago, I was in Southern Italy, where I looked at the development of agriculture, tourism and industry in the Mezzogiorno. The important feature there is that a single developing Organisation, the Cassa per il Mezzogiorno has been responsible overall for economic planning, physical planning and capital investment in the area.
Under the Bill, although county authorities will have more liberty to take economic factors and the general needs of an area into account, nonetheless they are responsible for fairly small areas, and economic planning has to be carried on over much wider areas than those for which they have responsibility. Very soon some amalgamation of the counties in Wales will occur. I hope that in North Wales one county will take the place of the present five. That will make more sense in terms of economic planning and the deployment of resources than do existing county areas.
In the final resort, economic planning in Wales is carried out by the Regional Economic Planning Council. I hope that
1448
we shall be told the extent to which planning authorities will be involved in the overall plans of regional planning bodies. According to Clause l(3,e), planning authorities will be expected to look at "such other matters as may be prescribed or as the Minister may in a particular case direct." This is the point at which there can be co-ordination between the work of the Economic Planning Councils and the more detailed work which the planning authorities are to carry out. Nonetheless, we shall still have a Situation where there is a divorce between overall economic planning and physical land use planning. In my opinion, both functions should be carried out by the same body.
In the recent White Paper on Local Government in Wales, I had hoped to find recommendations for an elected Council in the Principality. I still have hopes that it will come in the foreseeable future. An elected regional Council could undertake the two functions of the general direction of economic policy in Wales and the general control of town and country planning; in other words. the functions being performed in Southern Italy by a Single body deciding that one area will be for tourism and one for industrial development, etc. It would make sense if the regional body was responsible for bringing out the kinds of structure plans which, under the Bill, will be in the hands of county councils
I hope that the Minister will tell us that there is to be close co-operation between Economic Planning Councils and county planning authorities or that he views this as an interim Measure and foresees, after the findings of the Royal Commission in England are known, a different pattern for the future, where there will be close co-ordination between economic and physical planning.
8.26 p.m.
Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe): During a Session in which we are having a number of Bills of a controversial and doctrinaire nature which do much to affect our economy, it is a breath of fresh air to have a Bill before us which on the whole will help the economy. On these occasions, one sees the House at its best. We have listened to some very interesting speeches, with hon. Members putting forward their own views of the Situation.

1449
I must declare an interest, because I am a builder and an estate developer. My brother's name is mentioned in a book about the property boom. He was also the chairman of a new town corporation. In addition, I have had the usual constituency problems, and I think that I can say that I see them from all aspects. In this, as in so many other things in life, the more one can see of the case the less do the colours come out black and white, and instead there is a number of shades of grey.
But there is one thing not to be for-gotten. I have said this before and I want to make the point again because:it is so true about any planning approval and about the whole process of planning. For every person to get a house for himself is the most important thing in his life. Having got the house for himself it appears to be a matter of very great concern to him that nobody gets a house which spoils his view. That is one of the problems of how to adjudicate on planning approval. This Bill makes some effort towards solving that problem, but it has a weakness about which I want to speak.
I took careful note of what my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) said, because I approach the problem very much in the way he does, that planning basically is right. Planning is necessary. My group operates in all parts of the world and in some where planning is not always worked, and one sees the advantages of planning. The basic weakness about our planning approach it that it is negative. It is not positive. Even this Bill does not say that the planning authority should be told that the population of this country is growing, that the number of newly marrieds is increasing, and that it is necessary for all local authorities in all areas to make Provision for different—and initial—housing.
I should like to see the basis of each planning authority being, not so much a ration, but an indication of what its share is of the total land available. In other words, there should be a bonus, even if it is only a pat on the back from the Minister for the local authority because it got private land for planning. One of the problems about the price of land is simply that the land we have is artificially controlled. As with all artificially controlled commodities, its extrinsic value
1450
increases. Therefore, we must counter-act that, not by means of a Land Commission, which only puts up the price of land, but in a way which encourages local authorities to make more land available. So in the first place I say that we ought to have proposals which encourage more release of land. We must have re-lease of land quicker.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) has some constituency points which he wants to bring up, and so I shall be as brief as I possibly can at this late hour, but there are one or two points I want to put to the Minister, and I hope he will take them as practical.
A point in the Bill I take exception to is that the proposals for planning approval are to last only for five years and then are automatically cancelled. I have talked about this with many builders. Some of them like it. Some of them like it because they think it will release land, that it will stop landowners holding on to their land. On that, I go along with them. That is good. For really good development of large estates five years is indeed a very short time. My own group at one time virtually produced a new town, and we built our own railway Station to develop that land, but it takes time to carry out a comprehensive scheme of that sort. It takes about two years to excite the railway people enough even to consider building a railway Station. If one knows that at the end of five years all one's efforts will have been of no avail because then the chopper comes down, one cannot plan properly a really comprehensive scheme.
I would suggest to the Minister that the right time for this, as has been suggested by other hon. Members, is probably 12 years, because that gives sufficient time for development and yet it is a short enough time to stop anybody from hanging on to his land for appreciation of its value. I know of one estate in the North of England—it is known to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon)— where there has been planning permission from time immemorial, and the family who own it sell parts of it only when they want cash. That cannot be good planning for that sort of estate. If the Minister cannot accept 12 years, which I suggest would be the right period, the

1451
next best thing for him to do is to make an Amendment to the Bill to allow extending the short, five-year period. Where a developer says "This is a long-term scheme and I cannot do it in five years". the Minister should be able to say, "Take another five years".
Mr. MacDermot: It is already there in the Bill.
Mr. Costain: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman. I had not appreciated that. That meets that point.
Another important point which gives me a good deal of concern is one which has been discussed by hon. Members on both sides, the question of Clause 52. I think it was the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) who made the point that if somebody put an old tin can on a site and left it there long enough it would become an authorised building site. That part of the argument is extremely good. Those things should be stopped. But it is so much like all Socialists' proposals. In order to catch the bad boy, they produce an extraordinary net which pulls in everybody and costs the country millions of pounds.
If this proposal goes through in its present form, it will cost every house purchaser serious sums of money. Before a person can get a mortgage, the building society must be absolutely certain of title. No director of a building society will grant a mortgage, rightly, unless the security is good. Nobody disagrees with that. Who will give a clearance that the building is clean, if I may use that word? The conveyancing solicitor—and I have met a group of them—will not say to a client, "This is all right". He will say, "As far as my inquiries go, I think that it is all right, but I cannot guarantee it. The right thing for you to do, Mr. Purchaser, is to take out an insurance policy".
Mr. Macdonald indicated dissent.
Mr. Costain: The hon. Gentleman does not agree. Will he say why my argument is wrong?
Mr. Macdonald: Surely what happens is that the purchaser's solicitor makes inquiries at the town hall to discover what planning permissions exist. What will stop him doing that in future, just as he does it now?
Mr. Costain: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if the town hall says that it is all right the Bill will not apply? As I read it, the property is never clear of every possible problem. If the Minister of State says that I have read the Bill incorrectly, I should be grateful if he would say so, because this is a matter which is causing extreme concern. How will any director of a building society lend money on a property the title of which is in doubt? He would be guilty of carelessness if he did so. I cannot believe that the Minister realised that.
I come now to the question of Starts and completions. There is some doubt in my mind as to what constitutes a Start under the Bill. If a trench is dug on a 1,000 acre estate, is that a start under the Bill? In other parts of the world the matter is dealt with by sections.
The other problem about which we have heard a great deal from hon. Members on both sides today is planning blight. The correct expression is "planning shadow": it is the shadow of development to come. My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde put forward an argument, with which I did not agree, about the length of time. The longer the time, the greater the disadvantage which can accrue to the owner. The hon. Member for Chislehurst said that the local authority's purse is not bottomless. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) gave a very good example of an owner whose pocket was far from bottomless and whose whole life and future happiness depended on obtaining a house to replace the house already occupied. Surely the hon. Gentleman does not suggest that development should take place over the bare bones of somebody like that. This is the problem which we face.
My hon. Friend put forward the very logical idea that in a case of that sort, when property is compulsorily purchased and the owner-occupier—and it should only be the owner-occupier—cannot get equivalent accommodation, he should have an interest-free loan. That might cause some complication after his death. Possibly another way to deal with this would be to give him almost a grace and favour residence for his lifetime. However, I am sure that the Minister must be appraised of the Situation. He has had this point put to him from both sides.

1453
I started by saying that the problem was getting people in residence there to know what is about to be built so that they have an opportunity to complain or to appeal. The hon. Member for Chislehurst made the Suggestion that they should put boards up with some extra-ordinary letters on the top. From my own experience I can say that boards of that sort are generally looked upon as church bazaars. The best way to make people realise what is happening is to send a load of bricks. The moment anybody sees a load of bricks on a site, the whole road goes into instant action. That is better than any notice. They can read bricks but they do not always read notices.
I remember in my very early days when we were having difficulty selling houses —believe it or not, there was a time when it was difficult to sell houses—the one thing to do was to get people to buy a plot of land to build houses and deliver bricks, because if they got instant action they knew something was happening. There was no need to go through any complicated procedure.
The problem was raised about the right of the individual. The hon. Member for Basingstoke said that development could spoil their view. People cannot buy views. If we all had views we would have to have our own private islands. However, it is essential that people should have every opportunity of satisfying themselves that the development that is taking place is development that they can reason-ably expect. If someone buys a house in an undeveloped road he cannot expect that for all time nobody else will live in that road.
I have a constituency case which is a sort of miniature Stansted. It concerns Lydd airport where they are putting down a new concrete runway for greater safety. The local parish Council is very upset. I have had correspondence with it and members of the parish Council have been to see me because they felt they were not consulted. A local parish Council is not a planning authority. Although it is the nearest to the problem, it is the least able to deal with it from a local authority point of view. I was interested to see that one of my hon. Friends was introducing a Private Member's Bill which would cover this point. There ought to be; some Obligation that local parish Coun-
1454
cils, or any non-planning authority for that matter, should have the opportunity of discussing this problem. They should have the minutes of those meetings read and appreciated by the members of the planning committee. That would give some indication at least that their ideas and thoughts were properly appreciated. That would do a great deal.
The question of planning and planning authorities is the old story that people are aggrieved. They always are when anybody builds. But the great thing one has to show is that there has been an dement of justice in the decision. That is why I welcome my hon. Friend's Suggestion that there should be a new name for inspector—for example, ad-judicator. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) looking rather worried, so with those few remarks I will give way.
8.39 p.m.
Mr. Peter M. Jackson: I hope that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his argument. Like every other hon. Member who has spoken, I welcome this Bill. I welcome the White Paper which preceded it, in particular the acknowledgment in paragraph 4 to the fact,
"… there has been inadequate participation by the individual Citizen in the planning process and insufficient regard to his interests."
The further point was made,
"… the System has been better as a negative control on undesirable development than as a positive Stimulus to the creation of a good environment."
I agree with that, but I must add one note of regret. I do not see that the Bill before us will bring about any positive Stimulus to the creation of a good environment. I think that in its nature it will still be negative. Nevertheless, I welcome the Statement in the White Paper—and it was reiterated this after-noon by the Minister—that people must be able to participate fully in the planning process, and their rights must be safeguarded. It is on this question that I would like to address the House.
I draw the Minister's attention to planning procedures abroad. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Tudor Watkins) suggested that we might usefully look at the Situation in the Soviet

1455
Union. I suggest that we should consider the Situation in the United States of America. I do not set myself up as an authority on planning procedures, but I know a little about them in Southern California, and perhaps I might give the House a little information about what happens there.
The point made in paragraph 10 of the White Paper is recognised by the city planners in Los Angeles. There is a great desire on the part of the planning department to involve the man and woman in the street in the planning process. It has sent out a document setting out certain aims, in which it says:
"… every Citizen in Southern California will be involved in the review of the suggested goals and policies …
The program will be announced and explained via various news media and posters, and local discussion points called 'Centers for Choice' will be established at convenient locations throughout the metropolis.
Information relating to the Goals Program will be provided by exhibits, literature and subsequent official reports, while a group of Citizen volunteers will be organized and trained in the program to provide information and assistance to visitors in the Centres of Choice'. Citizens who are interested will be encouraged to submit their opinions in relation to goals and planning."
I am sure that some hon. Members will not be familiar with the term "goals". It is a sociological term, and one which has been imported from the United States. The reference to goals means the desire of members of the local Community with regard to education, transport Systems, amenity areas, and so on.
The planning department has produced an excellent brief setting out various areas of the problem. It has been prepared as a discussion pamphlet and circulated widely throughout the County of Los Angeles, and the City. It is available in libraries and other public places, and has been sent to many local voluntary organisations, such as the Y.W.C.A., the League for Women Voters, and so on. It has been widely discussed, and the results of these discussions have been fed into the planning process.
We do not consult people enough. I had hoped to give two examples, but in view of the time I shall restrict myself to one, to show why I think that this is important. There are two areas of plan-
1456
ning which are giving rise to a great deal of concern. First, there is the whole problem of high density living. Those who read the architectural Journals know that a recent issue of the Architectural Review carried an article devoted to the problem of high density living.
I am not very happy about some of the conclusions drawn in it. This area is ripe for examination. If we accept high density living, we minimise to a great extent the problems of travelling to work. I do not see any examples of any planners getting down to the grass roots and Consulting the individual about whether he would like to live in the suburbs, in a low density area and spend an hour or an hour and a half travelling to work each day, or whether he would prefer a shorter journey, which would mean living in a high density area. This planning process which is taking place in Los Angeles will give planners an indication of the kind of Community preferences that exist.
The other problem concerns the Provision of amenity areas on the one hand and gardens or—as I shall call them, emotively—postage stamps on the other. Planners presume that the Community in general wants gardens. That is not my impression. I agree that people want a feeling of spaciousness, but this does not necessarily mean that they want gardens. If we have more gardens we have fewer public open Spaces. I suggest that this is a matter for public examination. These are the questions which should be put to the committee which I was de-lighted to hear the Minister announce.
I know that the Minister is aware of the existence of civic societies. The civic amenity movement is now ten years old. In my constituency, which is a rural one. I have the good fortune to have five civic societies. We have them in small communities of no more than 4,000 people. These societies are appropriate bodies for consultation, and I hope that when my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary undertakes his inquiry he will have extensive consultations with the Civic Trust and individual civic societies to see whether they can be brought into the decision-making process.
I speak feelingly on this point because I have had some experience of it. I could spell out in detail the relationship that one of my civic societies has with

1457
its local authority. I do not wish to name the authority, but it seems to regard the civic society as a group of busybodies, which is regrettable. The intellectual life and the effort which goes into the work of this society is much greater than that which has gone into electing the group of councillors who now make the decisions, yet the councillors set themselves up as representing the Community on a minority vote, and claim that it is right for them to ignore the views of the society.
I hope that we shall be able to find a rôle for our civic societies to play. I understand that they are co-opted on to various committees in some Councils, and I hope that they will be co-opted on to planning committees and housing committees.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) referred to the question of planning procedure. I do not need to spell out the new procedure, We are to have a structural map which is to be published in diagrammatic form. Both hon. Members expressed some disquiet about this procedure, and I echo all that they have said.
I have suggested to my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that this matter should be reconsidered. I am specially concerned about it because I represent a constituency which contains part of the Peak District National Park. If the structural plan appears in diagrammatic form certain areas of the Park and a certain part of the green belt around Sheffield could be eroded. I am anxious that the new structural plan should appear on an Ordnance Survey map. I wrote to my hon. Friend when I read the terms of the Bill and made this point to him, and in reply he said:
" The disadvantage of this is that it would tend to impart an air of precision to the whole plan."
I cannot follow this. Either our green belts, national parks and S.S.H.I.s are sacrosanct or they are not. This answer suggested that the planners and the Minister were prepared to see some erosion of these features and other areas which should be designated. I hope that the Government will maintain some flexibility of mind here. I greatly welcome Part V. I want to see many
1458
Amendments and I hope that I am selected as a member of the Committee since it is there that we will deal with these matters.
8.56 p.m.
Mr. Jasper More: I would add my brief welcome to the Bill, expressing only my concern that it may add further work, during the present local government reorganisation to the Shoulders of our planning staffs. I am a member of my county planning authority and one is always concerned with the difficulties of the staffs, particularly if they have to adopt these new procedures. I welcome the procedures and the attempt to give more Publicity to planning applications because nothing could give greater satisfaction to the public.
As a lover of all ancient buildings, I welcome Part V. But our misfortune is that we have so many that we are not sufficiently selective. I appreciate here the feelings of the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) about the case in his constituency. In spite of everything in this Part, however, there are still gaps. For example, there is nothing to prevent people not keeping buildings in repair, perhaps because they cannot afford or do not want to. I had the traumatic experience recently of seeing the owner of a fine, although not large, Jacobean house built by an ancestor of mine of the same name in 1607 being given by the local planning authority permission for demolition. That may be right, because the country may have too many, but it shows that we have not yet completed a code for our historic buildings.
I welcome Part VI and the Planning Inquiry Commission proposals. How far could these be retrospective, in view of certain difficult cases which we face in my county?
I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) about the real problems, particularly in the cities. He was good enough to quote from a book called "The Property Boom" by Oliver Marriott. I was glad of this, first, because I thought it was a very good book, and, second, because the author happens to be my godson. That book brought home the fact that three classes of people have been involved in these developments—developers who

1459
know their business, developers who do not know their business and the local authorities, hardly any of which knows its business. The result has been some ghastly consequences.
The hon. Member mentioned my county capital, Shrewsbury, which is a case history of how not to deal with an ancient historic town. This has been the Joint achievement of two local authorities, the county Council, to which I belong, and the borough Council, to which I do not. They have been substantially aided by British Railways, which built a large building for its head offices and then decided to have the head offices in Chester; that building remains empty. The Minister's predecessor took into his protective custody five of our historic cities some years ago as a special case study. If the right hon. Gentleman is short of work in his Ministry, I would ask him to consider a sixth candidate, namely, Shrewsbury.
With these few halting words, I add my welcome to the Bill, which will ease the path of the planners of this country.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Julius Silverman: Like other hon. Members, I welcome the Bill, which streamlines planning procedure. I welcome the Provision for the new structure plan, which will provide flexibility and a positive approach. It will lay down what a Council should try to do with its plan instead of the old zoning procedure which usually decided only what may not be done instead of what should be done. Although this is so, my local authority has expressed anxiety about its effect on its present plans. I should like the Minister's assurance on this.
Would it hold up present plans? I gather that, in the first place, the structure plan will be applied to only a few local authorities, but can present planning and development go on side by side with its preparation, with the new local plans proceeding after the structure plan is completed? There is a plan in Birmingham for the next few years involving 30,000 houses and schools, factories and other buildings around about. How will this be affected?
I should also like to raise the question, which others have mentioned, of com-
1460
pensation. There is no new provision in the Bill. I hope that we will hear from the Minister that compensation will be reviewed. Already the review of compensation for unfit houses is proceeding, but this is not enough. There are two large road schemes in my constituency affecting thousands of houses and not only the present occupiers but the people affected by planning blights are in a serious position. A person whose house is to be taken over by the local authority or the Ministry generally does not do badly, although his problem is that he may not be able to afford a replacement of his house.
One of the problems frequently put to me is that of a man who owns a house within the immediate vicinity of a road scheme but will still be faced with the giant viaduct, the roar of traffic, per-haps less than 100 yards from his property, the value of which deteriorates. If he wants to move, he may not get the price for his house which will enable him to afford a replacement. The same applies to a shopkeeper who, when there is clearance or a transport scheme, finds that, although his shop may remain, his customers and his livelihood disappear. He also wants his claim for compensation considered. I have been in communication with the Minister of State about this. He said that it was one of the incidents of business. Sometimes things happen which are good for business and sometimes they are bad for business. That argument is of little assistance to me when I am dealing with constituents whose livelihood is not only diminished but may be taken away entirely by this development.
People who benefit from the activities of the Community obtain the benefit of betterment, or at any rate 60 per cent. of it, even after the levy has been taken. It seems wrong that in this sort of gamble some should benefit and some should lose. I believe that more than 40 per cent. should be taken for betterment. If that amount is increased it should be possible to divert a portion of the increased levy to assist people who suffer from development schemes. Governments have funked this issue in the past. I know that it is a difficult and complicated matter. It is not easy to assess the loss that a person suffers from development blight. The Minister tells

1461
us that we are dealing with these matters as human problems making provisions for decent civilised living and leisure which will affect ordinary people. These are also important human problems affecting ordinary people which I hope the Minister will consider and which, if I am appointed to the Committee, I shall raise at that stage.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: Up to this stage of the debate we have had exceptionally well-informed and constructive speeches which have set an extremely high Standard for the Minister of State and me to follow. We have even heard about how town planning works in Southern California. To try to pretend that I have as much experience as those who have already spoken, I had better declare an interest. Apart from being engaged in this sort of business professionally, I am a director of a building society, a housing society and a property development Company.
What has emerged from the debate is that this is a Bill of lost opportunities. It has not really tackled the main problem. The need for reform of planning law is undisputed not only because, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) said, it has become so complex, but because the machinery is creaking. The need is urgent, but, like so many actions by this Government, the Programme and timing of this reform is bad.
It is bad in two respects. First, we ought not to have been asked to consider the reform of town planning law before we have before us the reform of local government structure. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Tudor Watkins) said that they are well advanced in Wales on this. Apparently in Wales they can get on with it, but in England, I agree with the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who said that we must get the planning authorities right or this Bill will not work. However, since the Government chose to postpone local government reform by appointing the Royal Commission, we must do the best we can with the Bill that is before us.
As the Minister said, he is forced to undertake ad hoc grouping. That is all
1462
right as a pilot scheme, but I make the same proviso as was made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) that the Bill should intelligently anticipate the Report of the Royal Commission and it should not install built-in barriers to the development of a System of planning based on democratic regional government, which I think we can confidently expect will come out of the Report of the Royal Commission.
The second reason why I say that this is bad timing for this Bill is that we ought not to be asked to consider the reform of planning law in isolation from the reform of the law relating to compensation. This has been said again and again by hon. and right hon. Members in this debate. It has been referred to again by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman). It was developed very thoroughly by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved). Compensation is not merely incidental to planning. It was suggested by the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North that we should have a Commission to review planning law. If that would delay reform of that law I would not wish to have a Commission. I should have thought that the House now knows how to reform it after the many debates we have had on this subject.
The modern conception of town and country planning gives the planning authority such immense power to take or break that the whole planning System can continue to work in a democracy only if the Community compensates the individual for the sacrifice which he makes for the Community as a whole. We need, not only the reform of the general law of compensation, but also action in relation to special cases such as those referred to so movingly by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell)—the hardships which arise from the present law of compensation.
I said that there is an urgent need for reform of planning law, but the Government have to some extent in the Bill misinterpreted that need and have therefore lost some great opportunities. The need for reform does not arise from legal obstructions to planning authorities. There may, perhaps, be one or two items of procedure which hamper efficient

1463
administration of planning, but I do not have constituents, not even town Clerks, saying to me, "What a pity that we cannot get on with the development of our city centre because of the planning System. What a pity it is that we cannot develop our roads. We are obstructed by planning. What a pity it is that we cannot house the people. It is all to do with planning". I do not get complaints such as that.
What I do get from constituents, and what I am sure that every right hon. and hon. Member gets, is a bitter set of complaints, first about what I would call the enterprise-shattering slowness of the process of planning applications and planning appeals; secondly, about the terrible blight, which many hon. Members have mentioned, which descends upon property the moment that anyone talks of development anywhere near it; thirdly, about the irrecoverable damage to property by adjacent development, whether it is actual or expected development; and, fourthly, about the Stagnation of considerable areas of land by our present planning system. This was well put by my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), who gave experiences from his own constituency, and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain).
These are the sorts of complaints which I find that the public are making about the planning system. Heaven forbid that we should legislate by reference to our postbags. The postal majorities are probably the vocal minorities. However, these are the sorts of things in the present planning system that are worrying the people we meet. I am left with no doubt that this is the impact which the planning system is having at present. Those are the points which people associate with planning—its slowness, the blight, the damage by development anywhere near property, and the Stagnation of land so that it is not brought forward for development.
I may be told by the Minister of State that the Bill was never intended to deal with that, that I must be content for the present with the compass of the Bill as it is drafted, and that the Bill deals with important matters other than those which have an immediate impact and effect upon the public. I accept that,
1464
but the Bill as a whole must be judged against public opinion as it is shown in those complaints about planning frustrations, planning blight, and planning damage.
Part I of the Bill makes an effort to set out a new procedure for deciding how our towns and countryside should be planned for the future—the structure plans, the local plans and the action areas. From this side of the House, we welcome the new process of planning in that form. As my hon. Friends the Members for North Fylde and for Folkestone and Hythe said, we hope that it will produce positive rather than negative planning in future, and, as the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies) said, we hope that planning authorities will be able as a result to look at the wider issues of planning. But the public must be given confidence in the new system, and I fear that there will be no confidence unless at least three amendments are made to Part I.
First, we must ensure that there is real opportunity for public participation at the formative stages of plans. The Minister of State intervened on this matter and said that it was intended that there should be this public participation in the formulation stages of plans, but in the relevant Clauses—I am thinking of Clauses 3(1,b) and 4(8,b)—it is not clear enough yet to give the public the confidence that that will happen. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East doubted that, under this scheme, we should have participation from the public. The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford put some practical points about it, and the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) questioned the timing of the preparation of plans and the participation of the public. Undoubtedly, it is the wish of those who have spoken in the debate that we should ensure and make plain in the Bill itself that this is the intention, that we want the public in at the early stage to help to build the future of our towns and countryside.
Another amendment required in Part I —unles it is made, we shall not gain the confidence of the public for the new process—is to Clause 6, dealing with the person who is to hold the inquiry upon a local plan. The public will not be satisfied if the inquirer is an official of the

1465
Council or if he is appointed by the Council and it is not seen that he is an independent person. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham said, he will be acting in a quasi judicial capacity, and he should be free and apart from the local authority which will be concerned in the inquiry itself as a party. Incidentally, on this point— I do not know whether the Minister of State can clear it up tonight—we shall want to know what the Jurisdiction of the Parliamentary Commissioner will be in connection with this type of official. Perhaps we can either explore that now or deal with it in Committee.
Those are two of the amendments to Part I which, if we make them properly, may gain the confidence of the public in the System. The third is that it must be recognised that the structure plans, the action areas and the local plans will blight properties, and Provision should be made for purchase notice procedure. There is some Provision for this in Clause 28, but it should be made much clearer. We must give recognition to the fact that this process of planning will cause blight and we must provide for compensation for it.
In the whole of Part I, we are presented with two supposed conflicts, conflicts which always arise in a discussion of planning. One is a conflict between secrecy in the formulation of plans, so as not to devalue property too early, and early and full publicity, with the resulting blight which may occur. The other conflict is between speed in planning and protection of individual interests. I do not believe that these need be matters of conflict. I believe that we can devise reforms in planning law to meet both extremes.
If I had to choose between publicity and blight I should plump for publicity every time, certainly after today's debate, when it has been extraordinary how many hon. Members have asked for greater publicity. I made a note that the hon. Members for The High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) and Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle), my hon. Friends for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) and Basingstoke, and the hon. Members for Conway and Cardiff, North all asked for greater publicity. My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) even said that the best way to
1466
get it was to drop bricks on the site. There must be publicity, and we must realise that if we are to have it we shall cause blight. Therefore, we must make full provision for those who suffer from that publicity.
I am sure that there can be both speed of planning and protection of individual interests. There is certainly no protection for the individual in the present length of time taken in reaching planing decisions. There is no protection for him when his application is sitting in the tray at the town hall or the Minister's pending tray in Whitehall. That is where the delay occurs now, and if we can cut it out we shall not be cutting out any of the individual's rights or infringing the liberty of the subject.
From the very title of Part II, Enforcement of Planning Control, we see that to a great extent it must be in favour of authority against the individual. But the abolition of the four years' rule is folly. My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Mr. Evelyn King) said that it was disastrous. I hope that the Minister of State will listen to the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, who put the conveyancing point. I do not know that I go all the way with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East who would assimilate it to the squatter's title of 12 years, but I would make it six years, similar to the limitation in contract. Four years may be not enough but some limitation period is necessary to make planning administratively possible. There will be chaos inside and outside the planning authorities if there is no limitation period.
I am also a little doubtful about appeals to the Minister against enforcement notices. This is a new form, and I wonder whether it will work satisfactorily. I am more than doubtful about the stop notices. But these are matters to which we shall return in Committee.
Part III deals with appeals, and here we come directly to the cause of exaspera-tion—what I would call the Minister's pending tray—between the inquiry and the decision. It has been a cause not only of exasperation but of suspicion and distrust of the whole planning System. One goes before an inspector, pours out one's soul —or, at least, facts and legal arguments

1467
—to him, and for six months nothing hap-pens about the matter. Then the Minister perhaps comes out with a decision other than the inspector's. It is true that that happens in only a few cases, but there is always the feeling that something may have happened behind the scenes in that six months. The Bill tries to tackle this by giving the inspector a right of final decision in some cases. But I do not think that we can judge this part of the Bill until we know a lot more about the prescribed cases. We shall have to thrash out the question of the right cases in which the inspector can give the final decision.
This part of the Bill creates a rather ironical Situation. It was interestingly probed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South. In the past some of us have advocated that for many types of appeal there should be some form of independent tribunal, and they should not go before the Minister. They could be decided, even perhaps by the ordinary courts. I know that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor would not agree with me, because he said "keep the law out of it altogether". The answer. as he said, has been that these are political decisions, not judicial decisions, and they must, we have been told, remain with the Minister.
The Bill discards that theory but it retains a sort of ministerial iudge—what my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde called a judicial inspector. In this one surely gets the worst of both worlds. There is a Government official trying a judicial case, and it seems a mixture un-likely to work, however trustworthy and able the present inspectors are, and we all agree that they are the most able men. We must consider, and again this is a matter upon which to deliberate in Committee, the transfer of this appeal Jurisdiction, possibly to some form of panel or something like the Lands Tribunal or even, it has been suggested, to the county courts. At least we must ensure that the inspectors. given this power of judicial decision, do have qualifications for judging.
In Part IV dealing, with the acquisition and disposal of land, the Government appear to say that planning can be made more efficient by cutting out some of the
1468
rights of the individual. Government can always be made more efficient by becoming a dictatorship, but this is not what we want in planning law. Part IV first dangerously extends the occasions of compulsory purchase, secondly applies a confiscatory form to acquisition by any local authority and thirdly gives with one hand an apparent extension of relief for blight, but with, the other hand it takes back more than it has given.
I find Part IV almost wholly objectionable and merely fanning the blaze of indignation which there is against the present planning law. Let me give an example of how I think part of Part IV works. A local authority thinks that it needs one's property
" in the interests of the proper planning of an area."
That is all that it need say, it need give no other purpose. It can then make a compulsory purchase order without any previous warning to the owner.
It announces the compulsory purchase order in that part of the local paper which is never read, and if it cannot find the owner it can give notice by sticking the notice on a conspicuous part of the property. It can then get the compulsory purchase order confirmed by the Minister. All this can be done in a matter of four to five weeks. The local authority can then enter, at short notice, and proceed after certain other notices, which can incidentally be stuck on the property, in the same way as the first one, to convey the property to itself by general vesting declaration. True it will take about three months to get that general vesting declaration through, but the owner of the property is not helped by that, because all he can do after the compulsory purchase order is made is to stand back helplessly and watch the machine grind on.
This process is unnecessary to planning and it is not a humane way of doing things. I see absolutely no need what-ever to lift out of the Land Commission Act the general vesting declaration and give it to local authorities. This is the wrong way to go to work.
Part V deals with buildings of architectural and historic interest. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), I welcome the reforms, but we shall have to look again in Committee

1469
at the automatic preservation order which is put on property by listing it, without any possibility of the owner making representations at that stage. There should be representations at the listing stage; the automatic preservation order will have unfortunate effects.
We welcome Part VI, with its planning inquiry commission. It seems to be a sound scheme. As the right hon. Member for Sunderland, North pointed out, government should be seen to be responsible in this type of scheme and as I read the Bill, the Minister remains responsible. The commission reports to the Minister, and he can be questioned about the inquiry in the House.
Clause 51 is a doubtful one. It is a sad reflection on local councillors, but persons concerned with planning applications whom I have questioned about the Clause seem to prefer to abide by the official's decision rather than go before the councillors in committee. It may work well, but there may be the odd case where there is an officious official, and the right of the applicant to go to the committee ought to be preserved.
The rest of the Bill contains many other useful miscellaneous reforms, and no doubt we shall add a lot more during later stages. In particular, the Minister his informed us that he intends to bring in a new Clause relating to statutory undertakers. I would call that a triumph for my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). The House was grateful to him for his speech today, in which he briefed us on how to examine the new Clause when it comes before us. I was particularly impressed with what he said about difficulties which might arise if the 50/50 principle is rigid. Small local authorities will be put in great difficulty if they have to meet such large sums as 50 per cent. of the compensation.
I come back to the comment which I made at the beginning. This is a Bill of lost opportunities. It could have been much more valuable. Until we have had a good go at amending it, it will not restore public confidence in planning. There is a lot to be done beyond what is included in it. Ostensibly, it is a Bill to improve planning procedure—apart from a few vicious sidekicks at compulsory acquisition and enforcement of planning. But I do not think that the Gov-
1470
ernment have been bold enough. The Bill is a dipping of the toe in the water before taking the plunge. I would have preferred to see the plunge taken by, for example, laying down firm timetables for both sides in the planning procedure. I would have liked to see the Bill dispel all the mystery and mystique about planning and ensure that justice is seen to be done so that the public knows what is happening and will participate in it knowing that those injured by planning for the benefit of the Community will be properly and promptly compensated.
9.34 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDermot): I should like to thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the general welcome they have given to this Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) managed to temper his enthusiasm by preserving his critical faculties in most of what he had to say, but I gathered that he also in general welcomed the Bill. I have been asked a great number of points and I have very little time left, so I hope the House will forgive me if I do not succeed in answering them all, but I have certainly taken on board the questions put to me, and I am looking forward to what obviously will be a most interesting, stimulating, and very well-informed Committee on the Bill. I will without further ado proceed to try to answer as many of the questions as I can.
First, the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), in stating his welcome to the Bill, did express a reservation whether it would be relevant to the substantial reorganisation of local government. Indeed, his hon. Friend the Member for Crosby went further and said that we ought to have held up the Bill till the reorganisation took place. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said in opening, we considered this carefully, but thought it right to bring forward the Bill—and I think it has generally been agreed that that was right —but it has had an important influence on the form of the Bill. As hon. Members will have seen, the new System is extremely flexible in its structure, and it is so for the obvious reason that we want to try to set up a broad framework which

1471
can be adapted to whatever type of local government structure will emerge from the local government reforms to which people generally are looking forward. That is why so much of the detail has deliberately been left to Regulations. I hope I shall satisfy hon. Members on a number of points of the general way in which the new System will work, and that it is more constructive, more positive, than may, perhaps, appear from a bare reading of the Bill itself.
One point about which a number of hon. Members asked me was the question of co-ordination of land use planning with the work of the economic planning Councils. Of course, we envisage that in the formulation of the new structure plans there will be the closest consultation between the planning authorities and the economic planning Councils—again, at the formative stage, which is where it matters. Of course, one of the main purposes of this new type of structure plan, as opposed to local plans, is to arrive at a structure plan which will deal with the broad movement and changes which are anticipated, looking ahead to the future, to increase of development, to investment policy, population changes, and changes in transport, which are bound to affect land use planning; without considering these no really sensible and flexible land use planning System can be devised.
I wish briefly to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Aston (Mr. Julius Silverman) that I can give him the assurance which he asked for, that the phasing in of the new System will not hold up planning under the present system, and I repeat the request, that if any authority is still in doubt about its Position and will approach our Ministry, we will seek to give it all the informal advice we can the stage comes for more formal consultation.
I turn to one of the major questions which has exercised a number of hon. Members, and it has, indeed, provoked comment outside the House, and that is the question of local planning authorities settling their own local plans without the need for confirmation by the Minister. We are not dealing here with any question of an appeal system, of appeals against refusal of planning permission. The question is, who should settle the local
1472
plan? One of the main objects of the Bill is to get some real devolution, to avoid our Ministry being cluttered with a mass of local detail. We believe that this is the way to speed up the planning process, and to enable us to reduce staff in the Ministry or release them for more useful and important work, and to make a reality of local responsibility in local matters. It is impossible, we believe, for us to achieve this if we are to give way on this point about the local authorities settling their own plans.
People who talk loosely in terms of making the local authorities judges in their own cause, though they may not realise it to be so, are, in fact, challenging the whole principle of the Bill. If we were to accede to their criticism we would be back in square one. If our Ministry was to be àble to decide upon objections, even in the way suggested by my hon. Friend, with a sort of filter stage first by local authorities, and then objections going to the Ministry, the Ministry could not decide on them rationally without going into the whole detail of the plan. We would have to study the local authority's plan, what the objections to it are, what its purposes are, and then judge; and then we should be back where we are now. Our Ministry would have to be equipped with the officials and experts to go into that mass of detail; that is what we want to get rid of.
People who express fears about this base their fears and judgment on the practice of the less good authorities they know. But we do not propose to confer this power at once on all and sundry. Local authorities, like ourselves, vary enormously. I suppose that some of us are better than others of us. We propose to introduce this new system only in those areas where local authorities have suitable scope, size, staffs, and area and the willingness which has been emphasised in the debate to consult the public. We propose to give these powers only to those local authorities which we believe will operate them responsibly. This is what we all want—more responsibility and more responsible attitudes at local authority level. I know of only one way to make people responsible, and that is to give them the responsibility and to expose their actions to Publicity and public criticism and to enable people who have an interest in

1473
these matters to participate in them, to be consulted, and to make their representations. This is the framework of what we propose.
May I briefly remind the House of the safeguards. First, there is the safeguard of the selection of authorities to which the Bill will apply. Secondly, the first stage will be the approval of the structure plan. The local authority will then' be operating within the framework of the approved structure plan and must conform with its principles.
Thirdly, there is public participation in the formative stages. May I say how delighted I was to hear the almost unanimous agreement in the House on this issue. I believe that the Press has a very important role to play. In the article to which the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) referred, the role of the Oxford Mail in the Abingdon case was rightly and highly praised. It is through the local Press that both sides of the argument can be put, that the local authority can present its case, and the people who have criticisms of the plans can put their case. This is one way to arouse public interest and public participation. We shall have representatives of the Press and of the local Press on the Committee of which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be the chairman and which has been generally welcomed. I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham for his generous remarks on that subject.
The fourth safeguard is that the whole of the normal statutory procedure will apply for the deposit of plans, objections, hearings, inquiries by an independent inspector and publication of his report. We propose by regulations to require the local planning authority to resolve separately on each recommendation made by the inspector and, if it disagrees with the recommendation, to give its reasons, and then will come the adoption of the plan by the Council.
The fear behind all that has been said on the question of inspectors for inquiries into local plans is that the local authorities will appoint a local stooge as the inspector. I take it that that is the fear—that the inspector will not be genuinely independent. If it is not, then I do not know what the fear is.
Mr. Rippon: The fear is not that the inspector will not be genuinely independent, but that the public will have the anxiety that there has not been a really fair hearing unless we devise a way of having a panel of inspectors independently nominated.
Mr. MacDermot: We do not want, and we do not believe that it is practicable or desirable, to try to maintain a central panel of inspectors from our Ministry, bearing in mind that it must cover the whole country. There will be an enormous variety of local plans. Some of them will be very big, important plans for town centre redevelopments. Others will be small plans dealing with the expansion and development of perhaps a village.
We shall, by Regulation, first, lay down the professional qualifications required for these inspectors. We will ensure that they are genuinely independent, that they do not have any connection, either past or present, with the local authority, and that they will not be members or officials. We will also retain the power of call-in. My right hon. Friends will also have the power to appoint one of our own Departmental inspectors, if they think there is good reason to do it, or nominate someone else to be the inspector.
Inquiries will be subject to the procedures we will lay down, and the whole of the activities of the inspectors will be subject to the Council on Tribunals and the supervisory Jurisdiction of the courts. This is how we propose to Start off. As far as the Bill is concerned, this is absolutely flexible. If what is proposed does not work we have the power if the Bill is enacted as it is, to introduce a System of a central panel of inspectors managed from the Ministry. As far as the Legislation is concerned, it is quite open and we can do whatever is necessary. But I suggest we should Start off in the way we have advocated. We will have an opportunity for gaining experience from the early stages.
Mr. Costain Mr. Costain rose—
Mr. MacDermot: I cannot give way. I have so many other points to cover, I feel in duty bound to try to answer as many as I can.
Turning to the delegation of planning appeals to our inspectorate, this generally

1475
has been welcomed. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Macdonald) that this will be subject to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, 1967, referred to in Clause 22(2). It has been suggested that we should try to make the inspectorate more independent of the Ministry. Some have suggested tribunals. We considered these matters. Tribunals would be much more expensive in terms of scarce personnel, apart from their supporting staff; the cost would be 25 to 50 per cent. more than the present system, and this is a serious factor.
Another point I should make to the House is that although inspectors are quasi judicial, they are only quasi judicial. They are performing an administrative function, because it is through the procedure of this System of appeals that the Minister's policy is implemented. It is a difficult rôle, but the system works very harmoniously in the Ministry and has done so under all Administrations. We are careful to see that, on the one hand, there is a system for giving guidance to the inspectors about the policy they are expected to apply, but, on the other hand, that they are left completely independent in the actual handling of particular cases with no interference from officials, Ministers, or anyone else. We want to maintain this system. The further one removes them from the Ministry and gives them some quasi independent Status, the more difficult it becomes for them to have that proper rapport with the Minister and with the Department on policy.
I leave it there, but we can return to it in Committee.
Concerning delegation to local officers, I think generally that has been welcomed. I have not been asked any specific question on that that I can recall.
I turn now to enforcement—the four-year rule. This has been much criticised and I will certainly study carefully all that has been said on this with my right hon. Friends. I will tell the House the problem with which we are trying to deal. It may be that other people have better solutions to propose; I do not know. The problem is concerned with user rather than development in the sense of putting up some building. The prob-
1476
lem is created by the person who carries on, without authority, surreptitiously and on a small scale, some user which, after it had been going for the requisite period of time—at present four years—and in that way secures the freedom from planning control, then proceeds to intensify the user in a way that is most obnoxious to his neighbours and detrimental to good planning. One knows of examples of this—the person who Starts dismantling a few old abandoned cars behind a hedge or in a wood and turns it into a full-blown scrap metal business after the four years are up. It may be a garage which is originally used for light repairs, or light engineering, but which later turns into a car repair business. Desultory and minor use of land for caravans turns into use of the land as a full-scale caravan site. We do not feel that a Solution to this problem is to be found in merely extending the period, nor, at the end of the day will it make its Solution any easier, because the crucial date on which one has to decide the use is that much further back in time. I appreciate that there are problems here. The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) raised them, particularly those for purchasers to whom such land is being conveyed. But, having stated the problem, may I suggest that we discuss the Solution further in Committee.
I turn, next, to the question of planning blight. I do not think that hon. Members have fully appreciated or given credit for the extent to which, in the Bill, we have moved in favour of the person who may be subject to blight. There is much argument about whether the new system of structure plans will increase planning blight or reduce it. I believe the answer is that it will do both. In some cases it will increase it, while in others it will reduce it. Which way the balance will tip is hard to predict. Because structure plans are more general, and do not have the precision about detailed land use which present plans have, a proposal may have a more widespread effect because the area of uncertainty will be greater. To this extent it may increase blight, but, equally, there will not be a lot of the blight caused by detailed precise identification on the plan; for example, if a primary school is not to be built for years, but the siting of it is stated now

1477
on the land use plan that causes blight. That kind of blighting will not take place in future at the structure plan stage. It will not be until the stage of the local plan is reached that this kind of blighting will occur. We decided that it was right and fair to attach the rights which are given under the existing law at the structure plan stage, and this we have done.
We have also given the planning authority the right of 15-year counter notice. The hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) expressed anxiety about the period not being very long. We appreciate this, but there would not be much point in making it too long. Appreciating this difficulty, we have extended the cases in which a local authority has power to grant a mortgage when it has served a 15-year counter notice. We have done this to help the landowner.
Mr. E. Rowlands: Will the structure plan stage be when the structure plan has been approved by the Ministry, or perhaps by the planning authority?
Mr. MacDermot: I remember the point raised by my hon. Friend. It is at the point where it has been confirmed. It is difficult to say that people should have power to serve notice on a local authority to acquire land in respect of a plan which has not been confirmed.
What I think hon. Members have not noticed is that in Clause 31(1) we are proposing, in these blight cases, that the purchase price may include compensation for severance and disturbance, as well as the actual value of the land. This meets an important part of the complaints about the inadequacy of the compensation in such cases. Many hon. Members raised the much wider question of the law of compensation for compulsory purchase. We cannot deal with this in a Measure of this kind.
A number of hon. Members referred to the thoroughly documented papers produced by the Chartered Land Societies. We have received this in the Ministry, and are studying it with great care. It has enormous implications for virtually all Government Departments and local authorities. Hon. Members and the societies themselves will realise that it is not a matter on which I can suddenly give a snap answer. We are studying it
1478
with care, and our deliberations upon it are bound to take some time. I have also received a deputation from a property owners' Organisation dealing with very similar matters, and I have had representations from other quarters.
I turn quickly to the question of historic buildings. I thank hon. Members for the general welcome given to the provisions covering them. I want to deal with the point raised about there being no appeal against listing. This is a practical consideration. There are 100,000 listed buildings, and the process of listing is not over. We would bring the procedure to a full stop if we were suddenly to allow appeals. Instead of this, we have given a right of appeal at the time when the restriction is felt, namely, when a person has been refused permission either to demolish or to alter one of his buildings. One of the grounds on which he can appeal is that the building should never have been listed. We feel that this provides a measure of real protection. Anybody who feels that a certain building ought not to have been listed at the time he receives the notice can make representations immediately, and in some cases this has led to a removal from the list. There is no need for a person to wait until the formal appeal.
I am grateful for the general welcome given to the proposal to set up planning inquiry commissions. One or two hon. Members said that they had not followed the explanation. The proposal is to have ad hoc commissions—a different commission in relation to each case which is thought to deserve treatment under this procedure. We do not envisage a permanent body. Each commission will need to be tailor-made to the problems with which it will be concerned. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Airports Authority is a statutory undertaker and would have to apply for planning permission in the ordinary way. If we had another Stansted it would be subject to this procedure. We can argue about that later. Planning inquiry commissions in Wales will be appointed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.
A number of criticisms were made about the time limit on planning permission. The purpose is to avoid clogging up the planning machine and to help meet the point made by the hon. Member

1479
for Folkestone and Hythe, namely, the need to bring into better balance the supply of land and the demand for it. The planning officer for Cornwall has pointed out that on the coastal sector of Cornwall alone there are over 2,000 outstanding unused planning permissions for residential development. How can there be rational planning unless a time limit is imposed in respect of planning permissions? If this were not done we should be perpetually saddled with this problem.
There are plenty of safeguards. The period is flexible. A planning authority can grant a longer or a shorter period, and there is a right of appeal against any condition that is imposed. If, for reasons beyond a person's control, a permission expires without development taking place he can put in an application for fresh planning permission and if he has a good case it will be granted. In some cases—where, for instance, a big development is to take place— a longer period than five years might be justified and would be granted from the outset.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) on his success. Today seems to be a red letter day for him. He seems to have scored a double, according to the evening newspaper.
Another point concerns third party rights. This, again, is something that we must defer to the Committee stage. There is a real problem here. It is a question how to decide when an ordinary planning application should be notified to other people who might be concerned. It is not practicable to try to lay down a rigid procedure which will apply to all cases. There must be common sense in administration.
I cannot claim any paternity for the Bill. I took over at a late stage. But I look forward with great interest to our discussions in Committee. I think that it is a good Bill, and I hope that it will emerge an even better one.
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).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Varley.]

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING [MONEY]
Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
Motion made, and Queston proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law relating to town and country planning, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) any sums required by any Minister for the payment of grants for assisting establishments engaged in promoting or assisting research relating to, and education with respect to, the planning and design of the physical environment;

(b) any other expenses of a Minister under that Act;

(c) any sums which by virtue of any Provision of that Act are payable by any Minister by way of contribution under section 2 of the Town Development Act 1952 towards expenses incurred by a local authority in pro-viding buildings and other works for social, cultural or recreational purposes in connection with development to which that section applies; and

(d) any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any enactment other than that Act and other than the said Act of 1952. —[Mr. Harold Lever.]

10.2 p.m.
Mr. Robert Cooke: I would like to ask one brief question arising out of this Money Resolution. The Minister made a helpful Statement earlier in which he said that he proposed to add to the Bill a Clause to deal with development by statutory undertakers without planning permission. I want an assurance that the Money Resolution is not so tightly drawn that it will not allow the Minister to make an adequate addition to the Bill of the new Clause. The present procedure, under Circular 100 of 1951, is not entirely satisfactory, as was said during the previous debate. Not even the Ombudsman can touch the difficulties which arise.
The Minister has assured us that statutory undertakers will be brought within the scope of the Bill, but he has not

1481
defined those statutory undertakers entirely satisfactorily——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot discuss the merits of the Clause which may be added in Committee, but he may ask whether the Money Resolution will be wide enough to include a discussion of it.
Mr. Cooke: I was hoping for an assurance from the Government that the Money Resolution is not drawn so tightly that the Minister could not properly deal with the question of such bodies as the Post Office, which was not mentioned in today's debate, and particularly the development of railway land not by the railways them-selves but under Railway Sites, the holding Company. I hope that we can have further assurances on this point, because the question of this Clause being added has come up only today and it must have been thought that the Bill was all right without it. We need a little more assurance on that matter now.
10.5 p.m.
Mr. Graham Page: Perhaps it would be convenient if I put my questions before the Minister of State answers. Money Resolutions are always difficult to understand. I think that I understand three-quarters of this one, but not the other quarter. I understand that paragraph (a) deals with Clause 71, that paragraph (b) is the normal common form, expenses of the Minister, and that paragraph (c) relates to Clause 72. But is paragraph (d) intended to cover any extension which we may wish to make to the existing provisions of the Bill concerning blight, purchase notices and that part of the subject?
We may wish in Committee to extend the existing provisions, and I hope that
1482
the Money Resolution will cover any Amendments of that sort, not only in Amendments in Part IV but also in connection with historic buildings, Clauses 35 and 36, the former dealing with purchase notices and the latter with compensation for refusal of consent to alterations and so on. I hope that it will cover not just what is in the Bill but any reasonable Amendments or extensions which we may desire on those subjects.
10.6 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Niall MacDermot): The answer to both hon. Members is yes. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Robert Cooke) will find that it is paragraph (d), about which his hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) spoke, which gives the power to discuss the new Clauses which we propose to introduce. The point of paragraph (d) is that there will be some increase in expenditure by local authorities as a result of the Bill, which may lead to an increase in Government grants under other enactments than the Bill itself and the Town Development Act which are dealt with by the earlier paragraphs.
Any increases in the local authorities' general administration expenses or any compensation paid, for example, under stop notices or under the new proposals which we will bring forward dealing with the statutory undertakers cases will increase the relevant expenditure for the purposes of rate support grant under the Local Government Act of 1966 and, accordingly, are covered in this way by the Money Resolution.

WAYS AND MEANS

  Export Rebates
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That it is expedient—

  (a) to terminate export rebates, and to make further Provision as respects cases in which export rebates remain payable,

  (b) to enable the Treasury by order to reintroduce export rebates either generally, or in respect of goods consigned to or exported for use in specified countries or territories, or by reference to specified kinds of transactions, and to vary or revoke any such order,

  (c) to prescribe the matters which may be dealt with by any such Treasury order, but that, subject to paragraph (b) above, any Provision about export rebates must apply in the same way to all descriptions of goods.— [Mr. Harold Lever,]

  10.7 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Harold Lever): I ought to explain that this Resolution replaces a somewhat similar Resolution which this House agreed to on 19th December, 1967. That Resolution concerned the abolition of the export rebate. A Bill to give effect to that Resolution was presented accordingly, but that Bill has now been withdrawn. The present Resolution Covers the same ground as the earlier Resolution, but it also provides that the Treasury shall have power to reintroduce export rebates either generally or in respect of goods consigned to or exported for use in specific countries or territories.
  If the House passes the Resolution, a new Bill will be introduced and the effect of the Bill will be that the export rebate will be ended on 3Ist March next with protection for those exporters who had contracts agreed before devaluation, but the Bill will also contain provisions— this is the point of difference from the previous Resolution and Bill—for the re-introduction of the export rebate by Treasury Order.
  I ought to tell House that the reason for the extension of the terms of the Bill by including this additional power is that since we published the Bill which has now been withdrawn there has been a great deal of discussion in many countries relating to future development of world trade. Of course it is our hope —this has been expressed by the Prime Minister and others—that no measures
  1484
  will be taken by anyone that would threaten the free flow of world trade, but there has been a great deal of public discussion about protectionist pressures in America and elsewhere.
  When we recall the outstanding rôle of the United States in the post-war world in helping to restore the world economy and the liberalisation of world trade, much to the general advantage, I think it would be premature and pessimistic indeed to assume that America of all countries would give momentum to any move towards protectionism. Certainly so far as America is concerned we know of nothing beyond the very general reference in the President's State of the Union Message. On the other hand, we think it right in this Situation, while completing our already expressed intention that the rebate must end on 3Ist March, that the Government ought to be in a position, if they feel compelled to do so, to restore the rebate without the complications of a new act of Parliament but relying upon the affirmative Resolution procedure.
  I emphasise that we are not in the least anxious to have to reintroduce the export rebate. Exporters should note that the extension of the Bill giving this power to bring back the export rebate by a Treasury Order in no way changes the Government's announced intention of ending the rebate at the end of March in the manner we have already made known. The Government will not even consider bringing in the export rebate except in the context of measures of protectionism by others and then they would only actually reintroduce the rebate under this power if this were inevitable.
  I hope that this makes clear to the House the necessity for withdrawing the old Bill and introducing the new Bill with this extra power. I hope that the House will approve accordingly.
  10.11 p.m.
  Mr. Terence Higgins: I know that many of my hon. Friends are anxious to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in the subsequent debate on industrial training, but we would be failing in our duty as an Opposition if we did not bring to the attention of the House the remark-ably short notice with which this Resolution has been brought to the Floor and stress the unusual changes which appear

  1485
  to have taken place in the Government's policy.
  We have, alas, become used over recent years to the Government pushing through measures at short notice and also to the vacillation which only too frequently is to be found in their policies. It is extra-ordinary that the Financial Secretary on this particular issue should go right against what appears to have been said on previous occasions.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the statement he laid before the House on 20th November, pointed out that it was proposed to eliminate the export rebate. He said:
  "The export rebate, now costing just under £100 million a year, will be abolished, since it will no longer be necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 952.]
  Now the Financial Secretary says that the whole matter may be under further discussion, which will depend on other factors which apparently the Government completely failed to anticipate on 20th November and that the Bill which they introduced is to have its Title changed, apparently new Clauses added and so on.
  Therefore I want to ask some questions of the Financial Secretary, because we deserve an explanation on one or two points he has raised. The first is whether we would have been told about this before it was on the Order Paper had it not been for a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday. He asked the Prime Minister:
  "What attitude does the Prime Minister pro-pose lo take with the President towards the imposition of export incentives in the United States which will affect our trade?"
  The Prime Minister replied:
  "I think that the biggest cause for anxiety, as I think that the Leader of the Opposition will agree, is the proposal about border taxes coupled with export rebates. We have already informed the United States Government of our very strong feelings in this matter."
  and he went on to say
  "The right hon. Gentleman will understand that, if measures of this kind are taken which might have a very bad effect on spiralling world trade downwards, we should have to reserve our Position entirely about the withdrawal of the export rebate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th January 1968; Vol. 757, c. 1092.]
  Thus suddenly, in the twinkling of an eye,
  1486
  there is a complete reversal of what the Government previously said. If my right hon. Friend had not asked that question— which was the last question of the day —when would the House have been told about the matter? Would this Motion have appeared on the Order Paper without comment at one day's notice? My second question is: if the Prime Minister could answer this question off-the-cuff yesterday, why were we not told about it days or even weeks before, because clearly the Government had been reconsidering the question but gave very little notice before the matter was brought before the House?
  My third question is this: as I understand it, the purpose of the Resolution is to enable the Government to change the Long Title and to introduce a new Clause or Clauses so that the withdrawal of the export rebate can be cancelled, if they wish, by Statutory Instrument. Is this correct? I understand from what the Financial Secretary said that it is. Further, when does the hon. Gentleman now propose to bring forward a quite different Bill for Second Reading? Should not we be told tonight what the new Clause, or Clauses, will be in the amended Bill which apparently the Resolution is designed to cover?
  I think that it is important, though I want to be as brief as I possibly can be—
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Higgins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his encouragement. I think that it is important to stress that the sums involved, as I understand it, are about £200 million—£100 million for the export rebate and £100 million for the Selective Employment Tax, if some alteration is made on that as well.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Resolution does not cover the Selective Employment Tax.
  Mr. Higgins: At any rate, it is £100 million for the export rebate, compared with the total cuts of about £500 million. It is a very large proportion of the total and the Government propose to take powers to stop the cut by Statutory Instrument rather than to adhere to their original decision. The Financial Secretary said that there was no question of

  1487
  the United States going protectionist. Yet the only reason we were originally given for the export rebate being with-drawn was that its Operation was likely to stimulate protectionist tendencies in the United States and elsewhere. It would therefore seem some arrangement was made with the United States on this matter, and that the Government have subsequently changed their minds. Was any such arrangement made; and, if so, what were the terms of that arrangement?
  It surely is ludicrous to suppose that, if protectionist elements were likely to be stimulated in the previous Situation, the proposal, which the Financial Secretary is now considering, of going completely in reverse will not now stimulate those protectionist elements. We need to have a clear indication of what under-standing, if any, was reached with the United States Government and, indeed, what their position is likely to be now.
  I want to say a few words about two other groups. First, what does the Financial Secretary think the impact of this new and amended Resolution and the proposed amended Bill will be on exporters? Clearly, many of them were in a difficult position after devaluation when they found that quotes which they had given on the basis of the export rebate had to be altered. Then they find themselves in the position where they have lost Orders over the last ten weeks or so because they thought that they would not get the export rebate in future. Finally, they now suddenly find that the Government are considering altering the whole Situation.
  This policy of vacillation creates an enormous feeling of uncertainty amongst exporters. It is not any good the Financial Secretary telling us, "We have to take the extra powers, but in fact we shall never use them and exporters can work on the previous basis." Clearly, the Government would not propose to take the extra powers if there is not a possibility of their putting them into Operation and altering the position as to the export rebate. This means a difference of about 2 per cent. on the turnover of exports: it is a 2 per cent. incentive on turnover, but a very much higher percentage of profits.
  1488
  I will defer the many other matters which could be raised now to the future occasion, whenever that may be, when the Government decide to bring forward the amended Bill.
  Two final questions. If the Government had originally intended to consider the impact which their proposals might or might not have on a general move to protectionism, why did they not include in the original Bill a Clause of the kind which they now propose? It shows a remarkable lack of foresight or a remarkably naive approach to the whole question. Second, if this is merely a bargaining counter for the Prime Minister on his visit to Washington and he proposes to say that we could reintroduce the export rebate if there were any general move towards protectionism, why could not the Bill itself be delayed till a later date, and then withdrawn completely, if necessary, so that the export rebate would remain as it has been hitherto and a decision deferred until the position has been clarified.
  The Government have been remarkably short-sighted on this matter. This is a most peculiar way of bringing the matter to the Floor of the House at short notice, and we are entitled to a better explanation that we have had so far.
  10.21 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I shall not detain the House for more than a minute. It is a tragedy that two such important matters as this and the Prayer to follow should come before us in so short a time. But the present question is a serious one for an enormous amount of British trade. The Financial Secretary's naive attitude is not justified. He knows the position much better than that. He cannot confuse the American attitude towards Europe and the world in trade and everything else, for economic reasons which I shall not detail, with a natural protectionist attitude. He must not be so naive——
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to the subject of the Resolution.
  Mr. Hirst: I thought that I was dealing with it, Sir. I was commenting exactly on the Financial Secretary's speech in moving it and following the speech which my hon. Friend the Member for

  1489
  Worthing (Mr. Higgins) has just made. My hon. Friend stressed the effect that there is and will be on exporters, who do not know where they are. It would be better in the present context, as the matter has arisen now under the Resolution, if the rebate had been carried on until the Position was clarified.
  This is a serious matter, but I shall not detain the House now as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak on another question. But we are custodians in the House of many things, and our trade, particularly our export trade, is one such. The Financial Secretary must think again.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Lever: If I may have the leave of the House, I wish to reply to the points which have been raised.
  It has been suggested that uncertainty is created in the minds of exporters. The only people who can create uncertainty in the minds of exporters are the orators on the benches opposite. What I have said was perfectly clear to exporters. The export rebate is to be abolished with effect from 31st March, while, at the same time, protection is given in respect of export contracts entered into before devaluation. Nothing has changed so far as exporters are concerned compared with the Position existing under the previous Ways and Means Resolution, approved, if I recall aright, without discussion by the House.
  The new Bill, if the House is so minded. will re-enact every provision in the old Bill. The only difference will be that one Clause will be added, namely, a Clause permitting the Government, by Treasury Order under the affirmative Resolution procedure, to bring back the rebate if they think it is necessary. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why was it not in the first Bill?"] The position is perfectly clear. When the first Bill was proposed, no one envisaged any possibility that it would be in our interest to bring back the export rebate scheme. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why was it not thought possible then?"] We do not think that it is in our interest to bring it back now, if it can be avoided. We would regard the bringing back of the export rebate scheme as desirable only if, contrary to our expectations and our desire, events moved in a protectionist direction elsewhere. It is right that, when
  1490
  abolishing a rebate, we should make it known that we intend to put ourselves in such a position that any protectionist tendency would not necessarily leave this Government in the same position as it was under the last Bill, before these protectionist ideas were freely mooted.
  Mr. Higgins: The only reason we have been given why it would be abolished in the first place was that it might en-courage protectionist elements. The hon. Gentleman clearly thought of that before. Why was not the Clause in the original Bill?
  Mr. Lever: The hon. Gentleman is failing to analyse logically the course of events. We determined to abolish the export rebate because we thought that the clear intention to do so from next March would discourage protectionist pressures from arising in various countries, including the United States of America. Unhappily, after this declaration of our intention protectionist pressures arose in various parts of the world and there was a good deal of discussion in the world about various suggestions which were in the air. Nothing very specific has been announced by anybody, and we are hopeful that nothing of a character that would threaten the freedom and liberalisation of world trade will occur. On the other hand, the Situation has changed since we originally announced the abolition of the export rebate as a permanent factor. There has been some talk of other countries possibly engaging in some form of protectionist measure that might compel us to reintroduce the export rebate scheme.
  In these circumstances, we thought it right to take back the old Bill and reintroduce it with the additional Clause of which I have already told the House. The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the Government, in discussing and considering the changes in affairs which go on from day to day, should let him know about them. He and his right hon. and hon. Friends must bear in mind that at present they are the Opposition and do not occupy the Government's position. The Government considered the matter, and as soon as their decision was reached on it they decided to bring this Ways and Means Resolution before the House in the ordinary way. If the House sees fit to pass it, I hope to bring in the Bill

  1491
  this very night, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to read it tomorrow. There will be no difficulty; it will be the same as the old Bill, having everything in it that the old Bill had, but with one simple Clause enabling us, by Treasury Order, to reintroduce the Bill.
  I emphasise again that despite the clouding of counsel of hon. Members opposite which greatly disappoints me— they are much below the form I would have expected of them on a matter of such importance to our commerce— there is no ground for doubt or con-fusion in the minds of exporters. The export rebate is to be abolished from 3 1st March next, as already announced, with the safeguards already announced to cover contracts entered into before devaluation. That is how the matter stood under the old Bill; that is how it will stand under the new Bill; and that is the basis on which exporters will work, if they take notice of the Government's Statement and the terms of the Bill, and not the words of a somewhat fractious and trouble-making Opposition.
  My final point is that complaints about bringing this late to the House are quite unjustified, because the House will have ample opportunity to consider the Bill when it comes before it. The Bill will have to pass through all the usual stages. It will be under the scrutiny of hon. Members opposite, and I hope that by the time it is presented they will resume the somewhat more constructive spirit I would have expected from them on this kind of subject.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,

  EXPORT REBATES
  That it is expedient—

  (a) to terminate export rebates, and to make further Provision as respects cases in which export rebates remain payable,

  (b) to enable the Treasury by order to reintroduce export rebates either generally, or in respect of goods consigned to or exported for use in specified countries or territories, or by reference to specified kinds of transactions, and to vary or revoke any such order,

  (c) to prescribe the matters which may be dealt with by any such Treasury order, but that, subject to paragraph (b) above, any Provision about export rebates must apply in the same way to all descriptions of goods.

  SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS
  Resolution [19th December] relating thereto read;
  Bill ordered to be brought in by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Anthony Crosland, Mr. Ray Gunter, Mr. John Diamond, and Mr. Harold Lever, upon the said Resolution and upon the Ways and Means Resolution come to this day.

  REVENUE (No. 2)
  Bill to reduce the amount of certain payments under the Selective Employment Payments Act 1966 with exceptions for development areas, and to amend the law about Export Rebates, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 73.]

  INDUSTRIAL TRAINING (AGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE AND FORESTRY)
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [29th January]:
  That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Industrial Training Levy (Agricultural, Horticultural and Forestry) Order 1967 (S.I., 1967, No. 1747), dated 23rd November 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be annulled.—[Mr. Joint Wills.]
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Speaker: Apparently the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who was addressing the House on the last occasion, is not here.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I want to exhort the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to tell us at the close of this debate that he will be withdrawing the Order which the Prayer seeks to annul and not to give an undertaking that he will kill it for all time. There are two overriding reasons for this. The first is the inadequacy of the discussion which has taken place. I do not want to attribute blame to any-body or to enter into a discussion on the authenticity of the excuses given concerning foot-and-mouth. However, the

  1493
  fact that the Training Board thought it necessary to write to us making excuses for not having adequate discussion surely substantiates the case that adequate discussion has not taken place.
  The second ground on which I press the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw the Order is that unless he is prepared to tell us tonight what will be in the Annual Price Review we are unable to judge what the financial effect will be on the agriculture industry. The Minister his impaled himself on one of two horns of a dilemma. If he says that the Price Review will recoup the agricultural Community for the extra costs which will be put on them by this Measure, why do it in that way? Why not cut out all the administration of assessing and collecting the levy and then repaying it and making additional payments in the Price Review just by the Government paying the cost of these proposals?
  On the other hand. if the Government do not intend that this money should be recouped in the Price Review, let them say so clearly so that the House can work on the assumption that this Measure will increase the under-recoupment of the agricultural industry. But it is wrong that the House should be left in doubt as to whether this is yet another burden to fall on the agricultural Community.
  The Chairman of the Devon branch of the N.F.U., the largest branch in the United Kingdom, is very concerned about what the effect of this Order may be on the proficiency testing scheme run by the Young Farmers' Clubs. There is a considerable body of opinion which thinks that any extra money which the Government can make available for purposes of this kind would be better channelled through the Young Farmers' Clubs into the existing proficiency-testing scheme to expand it rather than be channelled into this rather novel body—novel in the sense that it proposes to consume such a large Proportion of the money it raises in winding its own clock.
  Although there are many other points which I should like to make, I will stop so that my hon. Friends can speak.
  10.35 p.m.
  Mr. Angus Maude: It seems clear that the Order should be rejected, for two main reasons.
  1494
  First, the amount of the levy proposed represents an undue burden on farmers. Secondly, it cannot conceivably be necessary.
  The Parliamentary Secretary comes from the Ministry of Labour and not the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I am not sure whether he knows exactly the bureaucratic burden financially which is put on farmers today. It is possible for a farmer with 500 acres or less to be levied to the extent of many hundreds of £s to maintain marketing bodies and other institutions, the results of many of which individual farmers feel fall far short of value for the money that they pay. This levy represents one additional burden.
  I am aware that it has been suggested that the National Executive of the National Farmers Union supports it. That may be. Large bureaucratic institutions like the headquarters of the N.F.U. generally support the proposals of other large bureaucratic institutions. All the committee men get together and vote for the committee of another board. But it is not the view of individual farmers and most of the county branches, and the amount of consultation that has taken place has neither been adequate nor suggested that farmers generally are in favour of the scheme.
  It is clear that an undue Proportion of the cost of this manoeuvre will go on administration. The most significant and alarming feature came when the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) said that we had to have a levy of £6 a head because this Board would maintain 100,000 files. That is the reason for having an Industrial Training Board and a levy. It is a very good bureaucratic reason, but it is not one which appeals to farmers.
  Mr. Bert Hazell: In making the Statement that I did, I made it clear that, of the levy to be imposed, 50 per cent. would be returned to farmers as direct grants for the training of their employees, another 25 per cent. would go towards the salaries of local and national field training officers who would fill in the gaps of training where it was impossible for a farmer to supply it on his own holding, and only 25 per cent——
  Mr. Maude Mr. Maude rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time.
  Mr. Maude Mr. Maude rose—
  Mr. Hazell: Only 25 per cent. of the levy——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I under-stood the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) to have given way. His giving way permits of a short interjection by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), but not a lengthy one.
  Mr. Hazell: Only 25 per cent. on administration costs.
  Mr. Maude: There is no need for the hon. Gentleman to make his speech again. I heard it on Monday, and I took an opportunity to read it again this morning. The one serious argument which he adduced for the Provision of 25 per cent. of the levy for administrative costs was the maintenance of 100,000 files. That will confirm the average farmer's worst suspicions as to the motives of those who introduced the whole Organisation.
  It cannot conceivably be necessary. No one who knows anything of the arrangements, machinery and Organisation of agricultural education and training can believe that it is necessary to set up an Organisation as expensive as this to improve it. When one reaches a Situation in which the Government, in one of their economy drives, are removing grant and causing the closing down of Studley College in my constituency, largely because they cannot get enough people to fill vacancies in existing farm Institutes offering training courses, it is obvious that there is no shortage of adequate training facilities. It really is scandalous that the Government should propose setting up, with an enormous amount of expense, an Organisation of this kind in order to add to them.
  Finally, anyone would think, to listen to the advocates of this phantasmagoria, that this was an inefficient industry which stood in need of a great increase in its productivity through the training of its workers. It is one of the most efficient industries in the country. The increase in its productivity since the war has been fantastic. It is the envy of
  1496
  every agricultural industry in the world, and if the manufacturing industries of this country had increased the productivity of their labour at the same rate as the British agricultural industry has increased its productivity we should have no balance of payments difficulties at all. It is really ludicrous to suggest a levy on farmers, many of whom have a very small labour force, highly trained and skilled, in order to improve the productivity of the most productive labour force in the world.
  10.41 p.m.
  Mr. Elysfan Morgan: Hon. Gentlemen opposite have exhibited a self-righteous fury against the levy which is the subject of this Prayer. It is on occasions such as this that we realise the full force and truth of Edmund Burke's dictum, "To tax and please is not given to man." It is not the displeasure shown by the Opposition but its intensity and its timing which is difficult to under-stand. The Board was set up by Order in August, 1966, and it was formed as a result of a request made by certain bodies representative of various sections of the agricultural industry.
  Mr. David Gibson-Watt: Would the hon. Member say whether the National Farmers' Union in Wales supported this?
  Mr. Morgan: I shall be dealing with that.
  The Board was set up under the Industrial Training Act, 1964, an Act which was passed by the party opposite when in Government. Section 4 of that Act makes it perfectly clear that the raising of a levy in order to finance the Board is a mandatory matter. I think that this answers the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). Section 4(1) reads:
  " For the purpose of raising money towards meeting its expenses on industrial training board shall from time to time impose, in accordance with an order made by the Minister (in this section referred to as a levy order), a levy on employers in the industry, other than such (if any) as may be exempted by the levy order of the industrial training order."
  The party opposite must have been aware of the legislation it had itself passed. If there was a defect, in so far that it encompassed the agricultural industry, that party, and it alone, is responsible for it. This is a case of

  1497
  "Physician, heal thyself." In any event, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite knew that the levy would inevitably follow the setting up of the Board. When the Board was created, as I said, by Order in August, 1966, the party opposite did not see fit to pray against it. It is clear, therefore, that hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot object to the establishment of a board, or, indeed, to a levy as such. The only possible, logical objection, therefore, which they can have is to the amount of the levy.
  Since the amount of the levy is indeterminate at present I submit that there are no grounds for the objection of the party opposite. As I understand the speech of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, the exact amount of the levy is not yet known. The fury of hon. Gentlemen opposite is without logical foundation. I expect, however, that these hon. Gentlemen have been exhorted by their divisional associations to show how competent an Opposition they are, and that their excellence is to be measured by the number of hours of negative obstruction that they carry out. In addition, they have tried to show that the National Farmers' Union, the body representative of the vast bulk of the British Farmers had not really consulted its grass root members in this connection.
  It is rather difficult for them to plead this, and they are merely trying to make bricks, not only without straw, but without mud and water also. The National Farmers' Union on 13th April, 1965, wrote to the Minister of Labour, in requesting the establishment of a board, in the following terms:
  "I am sure that with the close co-operation between the industry any your Department, the Board for Agriculture will successfully resolve these problems and will play a very considerable part in enabling the industry to make a major contribution to the nation's economy."
  Following the establishment of the Board, full details of its structure and its Operation were circulated to 7,000 members of the labour committees of the various county branches of the Union. It was also explained to the members of the Union at large that the levy was likely to be between £4 and £14. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have prayed in aid the objection of the National Farmers' Union of Wales. May I congratulate
  1498
  them on the new-found interest that they take in Welsh agriculture?
  I was very interested to hear the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. John Wells) read out a telegram on Monday night, that he had presumably received from one of the agents of the Conservative Party in Wales, telling him of the objection of the Union. As far as I can remember, the Farmers' Union of Wales has objected formally to this since mid-1966. Why it was necessary to send a telegram to indicate such stale Information to the hon. Gentleman I cannot think. In any event this kind of material does not assist their case. After all 83 per cent. of Welsh farms are under the 600 Standard man day per annum limit and therefore are not likely to be caught by the provisions of the levy at all. One cannot plead on the one hand, that the Welsh farm is traditionally a family farm, not employing anyone at all, and at the same time say that this levy would be a crippling imposition upon its finances.
  Mr. John Wells: The telegram that I received came from a substantial farmer of my acquaintance. Secondly, there are many farms in Wales where the son is a farmworker but is still an employed person for the purposes of this Order.
  Mr. Morgan: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman does not dispute my figures, that 83 per cent. of farms in Wales are below the commercial limit that is set out in various Acts. Therefore it means that four-fifths of Welsh farms and more, do not employ anyone at all.
  However hollow the opposition's case might be, I should like to ask two questions of my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and is permitted, with the leave of the House, to speak again. First, I should like to know whether the definition of "employee" in the Order could encompass the rather remote but nevertheless possible case of a farmer's wife who, for tax purposes, is entered as a full-time employee. Such cases must be very few, but there are some such cases. I am sure it would not be the intention of the farmer concerned that she should be sent off for any industrial training.

  1499
  Secondly, I should like to have the assurance of my hon. Friend that these training facilities will be provided in Wales within a reasonable distance of the employees concerned so that they can have the full benefit of the training schemes envisaged by the Order.
  Having said that, I conclude by stressing once again that I am of the opinion that the benefits of this Board far out-weigh the disadvantages. Not one word has been spoken by any hon. Gentlemen opposite who have taken part in the de-bate, either on Monday night or this evening, concerning the hundreds of thousands of pounds that will be repaid to farmers by the industrial training grants. How can they pretend to take a fair, balanced, constructive view of this Situation without even condescending to mention that vital fact?
  Mr. Maude: Has not the hon. Gentleman yet grasped that the real objection which farmers and we find to this is that it would be better to leave the money in the farmers' hands without taking 25 per cent. away to keep 100,000 files?
  Mr. Morgan: Obviously any Board that is set up has to be financed. It was the view of hon. Gentlemen opposite when they passed the Bill that the bulk of that finance should come from farmers them-selves. How they can turn round like a cup in water and take this attitude now, I do not know.
  I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that one of the finest assets which agriculture can have, and the most substantial earnest for the future, is the skill of those who are employed in this great industry. The Opposition have chosen wholly to ignore this factor. By so doing they have shown an attitude of petulance, short-sightedness and destructive criticism. It may be that they have succeeded in part in stinging a few farmers into a panic stampede against this Board, but I suggest that farmers, by their character and experience, are people who are used to looking at things in the very long term. They are people who are hard headed and practical and who know a mischief -making partisan political campaign when they see one.
  10.54 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Kimball: Before the hon. Member for Cardigan
  1500
  (Mr. Elystan Morgan) took up so much of the time of the House at this late hour with his endless platitudes, I think he might have read the Order. Had he done so he would have seen in Section 3(3) that the sum which the farmers will have to pay is £6 a head for every man in their employ at the moment.
  I hope that we shall vote against this Prayer tonight. I welcome the opportunity to vote against it for the reasons that it is too elaborate a scheme and it is too expensive for an industry which is being depressed by the complete failure of the present Minister of Agriculture to re-think policies and support price policies in line with the changed economic Position in which the industry finds itself today — [Interruption.] The original scheme was introduced by the Conservative Party, but at that time there was confidence in the industry. The price of lamb was rising, the tillage acreage was increasing, and the use of fertilisers was increasing. All the classic signs of a thriving farming industry were there.
  We have an adequate scheme at the moment. There is the Apprenticeship Council, which sends people round to all the schools in the counties to look for suitable boys to bring into the agriculture industry and give them proper training. These boys are apprenticed to farms which agree to accept them. Many of these farms could pay these boys at the apprenticeship rate, but certainly in Lincolnshire there are no apprentices who are paid anything other than the rate for farm workers, rather than the cut rate for apprentices. These boys go on day release to the farm institute, and after three years on day release are eligible to take the City & Guilds examination, which allows them to do a further year at the farm institute and become fully qualified farm workers.
  The failure of the old scheme—and my party must accept some of the blame for this—is due to the fact that they did not think it out further. We hear references to a farming ladder, but, if there is a farm apprenticeship scheme, with day-release, and then a year's course at the farm institute, there must be a realistic smallholding scheme.
  When my party was in power, county Councils were refused loan sanction to reorganise their smallholdings. I think that this is a serious problem. If we are

  1501
  to have a farm ladder, there must be a realistic smallholding scheme so that farmers can go into smallholdings. If they do not make a success of them, they can be moved out, but the county Councils must have larger and larger smallholdings to enable them to move the successful farmers up the county ladder. Without a proper smallholding scheme, the farming ladder is not complete.
  1t would be wrong if, by voting against this Order, we appeared to be voting against further agricultural education. In voting against the Order we are voting against a scheme which is inept and in-appropriate at the moment. Many farmers fear that the figure in the Order, of £6 per man will, like all Government figures, increase. It will be £6 this year, £12 next year, and £18 in the last year of the present Government, which will cost the industry a further £6 million.
  What many of them object to is that the £6 per head which they will have to pay will not be of any benefit to them, because in the Board's Organisation the £6 will pay only the trainers who will train the other people who will train the people who are to come into the scheme. This is Socialism and bureaucracy gone mad.
  I shall not deal with the publicity stunt —it is nothing more than that—of the crash courses to turn dairy farmers into arable farmers. Here is another bit of real Socialist nonsense. We know about the business of producing unsuitable crops in unsuitable areas so that the taxpayer has to pay a great deal more. This is the sort of thing in which the Agricultural Training Board should not get involved.
  The core of the matter is the fundamental problem that very few intelligent young men are" Coming into farming today. They are too intelligent to settle in agriculture because they see that under the present Administration they will not receive a proper reward for their hard work.
  I would like the scheme to be held in abeyance for five years so that further consultations can take place. It is nothing more than a day-dream of the civil servants in Whitehall. It has been dreamed up to avoid the issue of paying farmers the proper price for what they produce. If the industry received the proper reward for what, it produces, it would be able
  1502
  to recruit the kind of intelligent young man that it deserves.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Tony Gardner: I am very glad that Mr. Speaker has allowed us a little more time for the discussion of this Prayer because what we are doing tonight amounts to consideration of a motion of confidence in the industry. Hon. Members opposite—and I share the view with them—are continually saying that the agricultural worker in 1968 has to be a highly skilled worker, with capabilities in his trade at least equal to those of his opposite number in industry. What we seek is a Training Board to allow to the farm worker the same kind of training which is available in other industries. We are discussing whether or not all the difficulties which hon. Members opposite—
  Mr. Peter Mills: Has the hon. Gentleman never heard of day-release schemes in agriculture?
  Mr. Gardner: I was about to speak of 'difficulties in providing training in agriculture and it is those which lead to the reasons for the setting up of a Board which has the kind of functions that this Board has. It is easy to provide training in, say, engineering, simply by going the Walking distance necessary to reach the local technical College, but as recently as last Monday evening we heard about what training for one or two chaps on the lonely farm can entail. It is for that reason that we have this arrangement now being discussed.
  Before becoming an hon. Member of this House I worked in an Organisation involved in discussions on the setting up of other industrial training schemes, and precisely the same argument as we are hearing tonight came then from the small businessman in respect of other training boards and that is one of the reasons why we have the levy. If one does not have a levy, then quite frankly I do not think that the training will be done. While speaking of costs, I would say that a great deal has been made of the point. We are asking for 2s. 7d. a week, or a sum equal to 0·1 per cent. of the turnover of the agricultural industry. Some of the programmes which the Board has put forward are magnificent, and I hope it will not be argued that this industry cannot afford 0·1 per cent.

  1503
  of its total turnover in order to help provide farm workers with the sort of skill they need in the modern age.
  It will be agreed that it is relatively easy to provide training where workers are grouped together in a large town, but it is precisely because we want to cater for the problem, to which the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) referred, of such people as the lonely farmer at Upper Chagford—or was it Lower Chagford? We all fully understand his point, whatever the name of the place. The training cannot be on the farm, and we want far more training officers and advisers for the agricultural scheme.
  I am sorry that some hon. Members opposite appear to have chosen this debate for an attack on the leadership of the National Farmers' Union. That leadership, one presumes, was elected by democratic machinery, and in respect of all farmers. My complaint is not about their part in drawing up this scheme, but when the massed hordes of red guards are about to march on Westminster, with pitchforks at the ready, they seem to be suffering from a severe attack of cold feet. I am very sorry that they have this attack of cold feet.
  Mr. Paul Hawkins: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the comments on the Prayer dated 29th January from the National Farmers' Union in which it calls upon the Government to undertake the early revocation of this Order and says that it has led to an unprecedented wave of hostility through-out the industry?
  Mr. Gardner: This is exactly what I was saying. These men deal with others in the industry and knew what was needed but are now climbing down under pressure. I am sorry that they had to, and I do not criticise them for trying to co-operate with the Government and others in a sensible training scheme. One of the valid issues raised by hon. Members opposite is that there have been many setbacks, such as foot-and-mouth disease, which made it difficult for the farming Community and the Board to deploy their case. I believe that there is a case for delay. I would ask the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) to consider my hon. Friend's
  1504
  comments in column 1050 on the representation to the Minister, because I would support him in urging my right hon. Friend to listen to what the Board said.
  Finally, I ask hon. Members to consider that, although some comments tonight have been reasonable ones about the scheme's detailed Operation, some of those on Monday were broad attacks not on the Board's literature or the details of the scheme but on the imposition of any levy. The hon. Member for Torrington, for instance, said:
  "The imposition of another levy on agricultural employers is another burden when this great industry is already carrying burdens that are far too heavy. The levy is bitterly resented…."
  He went on:
  "I do not believe that many small farmers can bear the burden, and I think the time has come when farmers generally will say,' No. No more.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 1042, 1043.]
  Hon. Members opposite and some of my hon. Friends interested in agriculture are pressing the Government for greater support for farming in changes which will enable the industry to meet more of the food import bill. The industry has a good production record and we are trying to make it even better. We are therefore pressing now for great consideration from my right hon. Friend. I ask hon. Gentlemen, is this the time to make the case which they did on Monday and again tonight, when we are asking the taxpayer and the consumer for more support for British farming? I have some sympathy with this point of view, but is it really politic to deploy the case that the industry is faced with a levy of 0·1 per cent. on its turnover? People might think that the farmers are demanding more all the time. It cannot be said of agriculture, that, when faced with a moderate imposition for training its own people for the future, it is not prepared to pay its share.
  11.9 p.m.
  Mr. David Gibson-Watt: I was disappointed in the speech of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan), who I had always considered knew something about agriculture and was closely connected with it. Did he consult those of his constituents who are farmers or either of the two unions to which he referred, and did his speech truly reflect their opinions? In spite of

  1505
  the figures which he gave and in spite of the Order, it seemed to me, on reading it—which he clearly had not—that the levy will fall largely on the smaller farmer and will favour the larger one. That is bad, since farmers bear many other levies, including Selective Employment Tax. This also bears on forestry and horticulture, which cannot be recompensed in any agricultural Price Review.
  The N.F.U. leadership has been mentioned, and I will not avoid this issue. I have been a member of the union and proud of it for a long time, but on this issue they have made a mistake and have failed to consult county branches and their members adequately. In these consultations, other matters like foot-and-mouth disease may have engaged their attention, but the advice which they have given the Government on this occasion has been bad advice, which is one reason why the Minister has been here tonight —[An HON. MEMBER: "Where?"]—for a short time, one of the agricultural Ministers, rather like one of the visitors to Alice in Wonderland's tea table, showed his ears from behind the Speaker's chair.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour is reasonable and sensible, and must realise that there is a good deal of feeling on this matter. Would he consult the Minister of Agriculture, who I do not believe honestly favours the Order, and then come back to the House? On matters like this, the House would certainly be generous to the Minister. I ask him to reconsider the Order.
  11.13 p.m.
  Mr. Richard Body: One starting point for any debate on agriculture, whether relating to this levy or wider issues, is that farm gate prices are no better than 10 years ago and, indeed, have tended to fall, whereas the price of food in the shops has risen by at least a third. There is intense feeling about this levy, that farmers and particularly horticultural growers will gain very little from this training scheme——
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Body: The hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but he must realise that the owner or manager of the average horticultural enterprise is a highly-trained man, with diplomas and an academic education supported by practical experience, but there may be, supporting him, a number of what are euphemistically called semi-skilled, but what others might call unskilled, people. That is the kind of team engaged in most of these enterprises, and it is pointless to expect such an owner to pay this levy to train people who will not benefit from it. There is intense feeling in all sections of the industry. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to think again about this, since other-wise there will be great ill-feeling through-out the industry. It wants training but has many misgivings about this Board.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. John Nott: My feelings against this levy have been strengthened and not diminished by the very strange speech of the Parliamentary Secretary on 29th January.
  Had he been supporting the abolition of this levy he could not really have made out a better case. He used the strange argument that we ought not to comment on or make judgments about the internal democracy of the N.F.U. That seemed to me to come very strangely from a Government and from a Minister who has made it his special task to interfere constantly in everything the unions have been concerned about, in particular with their freely entered into contracts.
  The Parliamentary Secretary quoted figures which demonstrated clearly to us that this levy and this Board is a bureaucratic monster, whereby 25 per cent. of the total amount Coming in from the levy. will be spent on administration. I cannot believe it is in the interests of the Government or the farmers to support this kind of Situation.
  We know that agriculture has increased its productivity at a very fast rate. The young farmers' movement performs a valuable function and B.O.C.M., N.A.A.S., Ferguson and a whole series of manufacturers and suppliers provide advice to farmers on how they can improve their productivity. There does not seem to be any reason whatsoever for this type of levy. It is complete economic rubbish and it is being imposed because

  1507
  of some theoretic abstraction that training "is a good thing", rather like the Battle of Hastings was a good thing in "1066 and all that".
  What does the Parliamentary Secretary feel about horticulture? What is the Position of a horticulturist who employs a large number of people for his particularly intensive type of work? How does one train a flower picker to pick flowers more competently? This is a repetitive function, and in a large number of respects there is absolutely no training that can be carried out whatsoever.
  I am bound to say that I am very disappointed that our Front Bench have not advised my hon. Friends to vote on this matter as a party. At least I am glad that some of my hon. Friends and myself will be opposing this Order in the Division Lobby tonight.
  11.18 p.m.
  Earl of Dalkeifh: I am strongly inclined to support my hon. Friends so far as this Order affects agriculture, from what I have heard so far. But my concern is with forestry. I think that forestry requires certain assurances and answers to a few specific questions.
  Is it necessary and sensible that forestry should be included in this Order in this way? It might seem that the answer should be "Yes", but in practice are we quite so sure about it? Should we not consider allowing the forestry industry the opportunity to organise its own training of the sort envisaged in the Order in the way it has been doing extremely efficiently in the past, particularly so far as the Forestry Commission and the Scottish Woodland Owners' Association are concerned?
  Are we going to get a better answer, having regard to the need to produce tailor-made types of training schemes to suit regional variations? Will this lead to a lack of cohesion in the industry and result in dividing the private sector from the State sector in forestry? Will the Foresty Commission go on having its own special courses, or what is to be done?
  I want a certain amount of information about this, bearing in mind that it is vital to a growing industry like this one that
  1508
  there should be a solid marriage between the State and the private sectors. On the question of money, the forestry industry is a small industry in relation to agriculture, and I should like assurance that the forestry industry will get its fair whack from what is paid in. Can the Minister assure us that their interests will be safeguarded?
  11.20 p.m.
  Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I shall be very brief. I oppose the Order wholeheartedly. I think that it was a mistake for the Government to introduce it. The original Order of 1966 was also a mistake. My reasons for opposing the Order are, first, that I think that the Government will waste a very great deal of money. This is what farmers object to. They do not object to paying out money on something worth while, but this is not worth while and the money they pay out will be wasted. As many of my hon. Friends have said, there are very adequate and good training facilities available throughout the country. There is no reason at this moment of time for this levy to be raised on the industry. Particularly as it will be wasted, it is utterly wrong for the Government to impose it.
  I beg the Parliamentary Secretary, particularly in view of the words he used on Monday evening, to ask his right hon. and hon. Friends, particularly the Minister of Agriculture—I am sorry that neither the Minister nor one of his Parliamentary Secretaries is present—to with-draw the Order. There is a tremendous hostility throughout the country to the Order. Hon. Members opposite obviously have no idea of what the feelings of farmers throughout the country, including farmers in their own constituencies, are. They cannot know that throughout the country there is a feeling of hostility to this proposal. I do not want the position to arise when the Government are fighting head-on with the farmers. That is not the right way to go about things.
  I therefore beg the Parliamentary Secretary to take the opportunity before Saturday to withdraw the Order, to think about it again, and to return to the House —as my hon. Friends have said, we should be generous—with a new and re-constituted scheme later on in the year when the Government have had more

  1509
  time to think about it—more time to work it out with farmers. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to carry on with this now.
  11.21 p.m.
  Mr. John Farr: At this stage there is little that I can add to what has already been very eloquently said by my colleagues. I want to make a very specific and very brief point. If this top-heavy, bureaucratic Training Board is imposed on agriculture, to my certain knowledge it will be terribly unfair to some individuals. I believe that the Board is being imposed upon the industry in a very bureaucratic and totalitarian manner. I know full well that many farmers will have to pay their £6 per head to begin with but will receive no return. If an industrial training officer, or whatever he is called, comes to their farm and Starts to give advice, they will not have time for him. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary at least to respect the opinions which have been expressed very forcibly and take the scheme back and re-think it.
  11.23 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley): With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply at least to the specific questions which have been put to me, although it would be wrong for me to try to make a second speech. I want to say at the outset that we are most conscious of the views of the House and of the need to respect them. If I did not agree with another word which has been said by hon. Members opposite during the two evenings over which this debate has stretched, I certainly agreed with the Statement of the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) that without the co-operation of the industry the Board cannot work. I certainly subscribe to that sentiment.
  It is, I hope, the earnest endeavour of all who have spoken in the debate and supported the idea of the Board—that is, 70 per cent. of the participants in the debate—that the Board and the industry should work together.
  I will try to answer some specific questions. I shall deal first with the question that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude) raised about what he described as the undue burden on far-
  1510
  mers. I think that the House should get clear how great that "undue burden" is. For the 95 per cent. of the farming Community, who employ fewer than 5 employees, the maximum gross amount they will pay in any one week, assuming that they do no training and receive no grant, will be 12s. Since the levy is deductable against taxes, their net payment, the net "undue burden", could not be more than 10s. a week and is probably less. For the 46,000 farmers who employ only one employee, the net "undue burden", again assuming that they do no training and receive no grant, will be about 1s. 6d. a week. It is important that those figures be kept in perspective.
  It is equally important that we deny the allegation that there is no need for a training revolution in agriculture. I emphasise to hon. Members opposite with the due humility which must come from an urban Member like me, that my advice on training is given to me, basic-ally, specifically and properly by the Agricultural Training Board. That is what it was set up to do. To describe its activities, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) did, as Socialist nonsense—he used that phrase about the Board, not about the Government—is to show a total misunderstanding of the composition of the Board. There sit on the Board nominees of the National Farmers' Union, and if they include Socialist practitioners or Socialist theorists, I am sure that some of my right hon. and hon. Friends would be very heartened and relieved to hear it.
  The advice which the Agricultural Training Board gives to me, and the advice on which I am in honour bound to operate, is that training throughout agriculture, with some notable and honourable exceptions, is inadequate. In-deed, the hon. Member for Gainsborough seemed to give the game away when he talked about Colleges of further education and agricultural Colleges which, to his certain knowledge, had places still un-occupied. The object of a board, the object of a levy and the object of a grant to encourage more training is to make sure that those places do not re-main unoccupied. The simple object of the grant and levy scheme is to offer a financial inducement for more training and to make sure that the dilemma or problem which the hon. Gentleman out-lined ceases to have effect.

  1511
  I am advised that, even where there are further education courses available through Colleges of agriculture or Colleges of further education, almost invariably the backing-up arrangements, the arrangements for adequate practical training once the short further education courses have been completed, are either not made or are not well made. Very often, the subsequent backing-up courses are more geared to the needs of the specific employer than to the training needs of employees. The advice which the Training Board gives to my right hon. Friend and to me is that to remedy this kind of deficiency the provisions of the Industrial Training Act should be applied and an inducement to do more training in the form of grant should be brought in.
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins Mr. Scott-Hopkins rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: I want to answer specific questions. Two detailed points were put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Elystan Morgan). First, he asked specifically about farm wives. Under Article 2(1,k) of the Levy Order, two conditions have to be fulfilled before someone described as a full-time employee is subject to the levy system. First, he or she must work for more than 40 hours a week. I have no doubt that a great many farm wives do that. Second, he or she must be subject to a contract of employment. I suspect that very few farm wives are employed on that basis. Therefore, my hon. Friend has our assurance that, almost invariably, farm wives will not be covered by the Order.
  Equally, my hon. Friend has our assurance that training will be carried on reasonably near to farms. Indeed, whenever it is possible, training will be carried out on the farms themselves. This is one of the matters about which hon. Members opposite make a fundamental mistake when they say that training is adequate. They are not thinking of the sort of training which I am advised needs to be done. They are not thinking of the sort of training which a number of distinguished agricultural experts, speak
  ing for, to and in the National Agricultural Advisory Service, the County Stockmen's Club and many other Organisation say should be done on the farm and could be encouraged on the farm by a grant and levy system.
  It is because it should be done on the farm, and should be encouraged on the farm by the grant, that 47 training advisers are to be appointed. The great cost—I admit it is a great cost—of the 47 training advisers is necessary because the training should and can be done in the localities, as my hon. Friend suggested.
  I have been asked to withdraw the Order, and specifically, I have been asked to withdraw it in the light of the last Paragraph of my speech on Monday evening. Although the application for financial assistance had been recently received, and it was a matter on which neither my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture nor I could properly comment, I felt that I had an Obligation to tell the House that it had been made. I also have an Obligation to tell the House that I can give no assurance that that application will be met with an affirmative answer. There is no reason to assume that the Government can make the money available. In that Situation the Board must rely on its own sources of finance.
  Mr. John Wells: On a point of order. As extra time was given tonight and as there are still about 15 hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, will you rule, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we should be given further time tomorrow?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I am of the opinion that the matter has been adequately discussed. Many hon. Members have taken part in the debate on Monday night and tonight.
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. WO (Statutory Instruments, &c. (procedure)
  The House divided: Ayes 35, Noes 125.

  Division No. 37.]

  AYES

  [11.30 p.m.

  Baker, W. H. K.

  Body, Richard

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Clegg, Walter

  Davidson,James(Aberdeeruhire,W.)

  Bitten, John

  Cooke, Robert

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

  Farr, John

  Kitson, Timothy

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Foster, Sir John

  Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Gibson-Watt David

  Maude, Angus

  Silvester, Frederick

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Maxwelt-Hyslop,R. J.

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Hawkins, Paul

  Monro, Hector

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Higgins, Terence L.

  More, Jasper

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Kimball, Marcus

  Nicholis, Sir Harmar

  Mr. Peter Mills and Mr. John Wells

  King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

  Nott, John

  NOES

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Hamling, William

  Murray, Albert

  Archer, Peter

  Hannan, William

  Norwood, Christopher

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Harper, Joseph

  Oakes, Gordon

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Ogden, Eric

  Beaney, Alan

  Haseldine, Norman

  O'Malley, Brian

  Bence, Cyril

  Hattersley, Roy

  Orme, Stanley

  Benn, Rt. Hn Anthony Wedgwood

  Hazell, Bert

  Oswald, Thomas

  Bishop, E. S.

  Horner, John

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

  Blackburn, F.

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Palmer, Arthur

  Booth, Albert

  Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Bradley, Tom

  Hoy, James

  Pavitt, Laurence

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

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Pentland, Norman

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hunter, Adam

  Richard, Ivor

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

  Hynd, John

  Robert Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Carmichael, Neil

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Robinson, W. 0. J. (Walth'stow, E.)

  Coe, Denis

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Ross Paul

  Concannon, J. D.

  Judd, Frank

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Conlan, Bernard

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Rowlands, E. (Carditf, N.)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Lawson, George

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Silvernan, Julius (Aston)

  Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretlord)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Slater, Joseph

  Davies, Harold (Leek)

  Loughlin, Charles

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Swingler, Stephen

  Dickens, James

  McBride, Neil

  Tinn, James

  Doig, Peter

  McCann, John

  Tuck, Raphael

  Dunnett, Jack

  Macdonald, A. H

  Urwin, T. W.

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  McGuire, Michael

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

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

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, c

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Eadie, Alex

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Wallace, George

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  MacPherson, Malcolm

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Ellis, John

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Wellbeloved, James

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Ford, Ben

  Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

  Witkins, W. A.

  Forrester, John

  Manuel, Archie

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Fowler, Gerry

  Marks, Kenneth

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Marquand, David

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Gardner, Tony

  Mendelson, J. J.

  Woof, Robert

  Garrett, W. E.

  Millan, Bruce

  Yates, Victor

  Gregory, Arnold

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

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

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Mr. Ernest Armstrong and Mr. Eric G. Varley.

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  GIBRALTAR
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McBride.]
  11.40 p.m.
  Sir Cyril Black: I am glad to have the opportunity of raising the subject of the future of Gibraltar. I want to be as short as possible so that whoever replies for the Government has time to tell us about the Government's intentions.
  I raised this matter in an Adjournment debate on 18th June, 1965—that is, almost exactly 2½ years ago—but since then there have been many developments in the Situation and the circumstances have materially changed, un-
  1514
  fortunately for the worse. The value of this debate is twofold. First, it gives an opportunity for the House to reassure the people of Gibraltar of our continuing concern for them and with them in the difficult circumstances in which they find themselves. They can take encouragement from the fact that this House has turned aside from other matters for a short time. They are not the forgotten people as far as die British people are concerned, and we want that message to go back to Gibraltar.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: Hear, hear.
  Sir C. Black: Secondly, the debate gives an opportunity for the Government

  1515
  to make a Statement and to give us up-to-date information on the present Position in Gibraltar and to tell us their intentions in the light of the intolerable Position in many respects in which the people of Gibraltar find themselves. I want to express the unbounded admiration which I am sure all hon. Members and our nation feel for the people of Gibraltar in the circumstances in which they are placed.
  I have visited the territory on two occasions. I have met many people there with whom I have talked, and no one can go there without being impressed by the loyalty of the population—loyalty to the British Crown and loyalty to the British flag. In peace and in war, they have been steadfast. In war, they have displayed fortitude and in peace resolution and restraint.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Hear, hear.
  Sir C. Black: The serious harassment of Gibraltar began in 1964—about four years ago. The Spanish campaign against the people of the territory in 1964 took the following forms. Vehicular traffic across the frontier was brought almost to a standstill. Goods formerly purchased from Spain were withheld and had to be obtained elsewhere, and Spanish workers in Gibraltar, some of whom had lived all their lives in Spain, were denied the use of passports and passes. In 1966, further and more onerous restrictions were imposed. Vehicular traffic across the frontier stopped completely; all imports by land were cut off.
  More recently still, there have been three further developments of a serious character. Perhaps we can be given some information tonight on these developments. First, aircraft landing and taking off from Gibraltar have been subjected to wholly unreasonable restrictions. It is suggested that on some occasions these restrictions have even imperilled the aircraft involved. Secondly, Spanish warships, so it is said, have been moored just off the Rock, and I think that the House would like to know whether any actual infringement of territorial waters has taken place. Thirdly and most recent of all, within the past few days, apparently the United States of America has been threatened by the Spanish Government that, if United States ships
  1516
  use the port of Gibraltar, they will be barred for that reason from Spanish ports.
  These are unprecedented acts in time of peace. What does Spain hope to achieve from these measures? Unfortunately, the objects of Spain have now been made only too clear. There was a time when various pretexts were given for the harassment that was taking place. They were pretexts which were obviously not the real reason for the Spanish campaign. But at least Spain has now come out into the open, and it has been made clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding that what she is seeking is neither more nor less than the transfer of sovereignty from this country to herself, and, of course, this is something which the British Parliament and people can never contemplate in any circumstances.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Hear, hear.
  Sir C. Black: Our title to Gibraltar is beyond any reasonable ground of dispute. We are there by right of treaty. We are there by right of 250 years of unchallenged and undisputed possession. What is more important, we are there by the will of the people of Gibraltar themselves. For many years past, self-determination has been accepted among enlightened nations as the proper rule to be applied in regard to the sovereignty of nations and of peoples.
  The principle of self-determination was enshrined in the Constitution of the old League of Nations, and it is enshrined in the Constitution of the United Nations that the will of the people democratically expressed in a territory should be the final arbiter as to the sovereignty of those people and the kind of Government to which they should be subject.
  The recent referendum in Gibraltar has made clear, if the matter was not clear prior to it, that, overwhelmingly, the people of Gibraltar wish to enjoy the continued benefits of the British connection, and they wish the British flag to continue to fly above the Rock.
  As President Wilson put it,
  "People and provinces are not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were chattels or pawns in a game."
  But that is just what the Spanish Government are asking that we should do. They

  1517
  are asking that we should make the territory and the people of Gibraltar pawns in a game. That is something that the British people can never do, except at the cost of the dishonour of this nation —a dishonour which the people would never be willing to assume.
  What is the strategy of Her Majesty's Government in these circumstances? I venture to think that it is not at all clear. So far, there has been little but words. while the position has continued to deteriorate. We have always seemed to be one jump behind. The initiative in this war of nerves seems always to be with the other side. We are not defenceless in this issue. We have many weapons in our armoury, if we care to unsheath them and use them.
  I do not wish this evening to specify or to advocate any particular actions that we might take, because I do not wish to inflame further the deep feelings which have already been stirred, and which have, for the present time, put an end to the long and historic friendship between the Spanish people and our own people, but I believe that the time has surely come, if it be not overdue, for some action of a positive, definite and constructive kind to be taken by our Government. Everyone in this House and in this country desires a resumption of friendly relations with the Spanish Government and the Spanish people, but just as it takes two to make a quarrel, so it takes two to make a friendship, and we have for a long time past been holding out the hand of friendship to Spain, but there has, unfortunately, been no reciprocation from that side. Therefore I want to ask this evening what the Government intend to do.
  I am, of course, only a back bencher among Members who sit on this side of the House, but I think I know the mind and the purpose of the Leaders of the Opposition parties sufficiently to be able to say that any reasonable, constructive action which the Government may wish to take in this matter is assured of Support from all parts of and all parties in this House.
  It really is a tragedy that two territories, such as Gibraltar and Spain, where the populations of both are overwhelmingly Christian, and owe, indeed, a common allegiance to the same
  1518
  Christian Church, should be in these conditions of harassment on the part of Gibraltar by Spain, and of misunderstanding, lack of co-operation, and of mistrust and ill will, which at present disfigure the relationships between the two territories and the two peoples. What are the Government plans for ending this tragedy and bringing back peace where discord at present holds sway?
  11.53 p.m.
  Sir Frederic Bennett: I shall not presume upon the Minister's time more than to say one word in support of what, if I may say so, has been the best speech here yet on the subject of Gibraltar, a speech for which, I am sure, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) received support from both sides of the House. I hope that the Minister will take the opportunity to answer the very pertinent questions my hon. Friend put to him, and that he will deal also with the positive side of Gibraltars future, and its constitutional future. After the referendum we were told there would be constitutional talks early this year. In spite of repeated Questions, we have not yet managed to get any definite information about that, and I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to say a word about that, apart from questions of defence, and will also have something positive to say about Gibraltar's future.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I intervene very briefly to express the hope that the Minister will manage to squeeze into his speech a little publicity for the tourist facilities which Gibraltar can now pro-vide. It is often overlooked, in the surveys of where one can have holidays abroad. To go for holidays there is a positive step which the people of this country can take to support Gibraltar and have thoroughly enjoyable and inexpensive holidays, too.
  11.55 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomas):
  There is no need for me to do other than underline what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has just said. Gibraltar does offer a most attractive Situation for those who want their holidays in the sunshine and in the Sterling area. It has tremendous advantages, as, of course, has Malta.

  1519
  We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black) for bringing to our attention the subject of Gibraltar, on which there is no division, certainly not on party lines, between us. I believe that the House is united, as is the country, in a determination that there are two basic principles in connection with Gibraltar, which we cannot and will not betray. First there is the principle that the interests of the people themselves must be paramount. Second, that the people of Gibraltar should have the right, freely to express their wishes as to the future. This they have done in no uncertain manner.
  My noble Friend Lord Caradon, speaking at the United Nations recently on the subject of Gibraltar, said:
  "We have maintained, and constantly stated that to hand over this small, proud, united Community of free men, against their will, bound forever to a régime which has done so much in an endeavour to harm them, would be an intolerable injustice. We believe that their interests must be taken into account in determining their future. and not merely after their fate has been settled."
  On this matter I join the hon. Member in sending a message to the people of Gibraltar, and Lord Caradon's words express the determination of Her Majesty's Government in this respect. We remain ready, as always, to resolve the differences between us by discussion, as befits two members of the United Nations, but we certainly could not enter upon such discussions solely on the basis of the recent General Assembly Resolution. The hon. Gentleman has raised several matters of importance.
  The hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) raised the matter of the Constitution. I am pleased to tell the House that my noble Friend Lord Shepherd, the Minister of State, is going to Gibraltar within the next day or two to begin discussions that will lead to constitutional talks. None of us would want to muddy the waters, to make any difficulties for my noble Friend. I have a tremendous confidence, as have the Government, that Lord Shepherd will be able to get the mind of the Gibraltar people and to find out what they think of their future.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly asked questions about the future of the people of Gibraltar. The object of my noble Friend's visit, in addition to taking stock
  1520
  of the whole Situation in Gibraltar, will be to talk over informally with representatives of the people there what they have in mind and to discuss the timing and arrangements for later discussions. I hope and believe that these talks can be very fruitful.
  The hon. Member for Wimbledon referred to three difficulties: the difficulty of aircraft landing and taking off; infringement of territorial waters; and the question of ships of the United States of America.
  Referring, first, to the question of aircraft landing and the prohibited area, on 6th September we filed with the International Civil Aviation Organisation Council in Montreal a memorial stating our case over the prohibited area and setting in motion the appropriate procedure for the settlement of disputes under Article 84 of the Chicago Convention. Spain has been required to file a counter-memorial by 1st February— tomorrow.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: By now.
  Mr. Thomas: By now. Flights to Gibraltar continue normally, but on a number of occasions the prohibited area has affected the regularity. It is causing Problems for flights at Gibraltar— Problems which did not exist before—and this means that passengers on flights to Gibraltar face a certain irregularity. However, the flights are going normally to Gibraltar.
  The question of the delimitation of territorial waters at Gibraltar has a long and complicated history, as the hon. Gentleman knows. Agreement has never been reached between Britain and Spain on this question. In 1966 it was one of the issues which we offered to submit for adjudication to the International Court of Justice, but Spain refused the offer. In December last we made clear to the Spanish Government our view that, under international law, the correct way to divide the waters, where the coasts of two States adjoin and where agreement has not been reached between those States, is by means of the median line. On a small number of occasions in recent months Spanish naval vessels have anchored slightly on the Gibraltar side of the median line, but they have not infringed local regulations or interfered with shipping. On each occasion the

  1521
  Spanish ships have been informed that they were anchored in our territorial waters. We have registered the point.
  The third question to which the hon. Gentleman referred related to ships of the United States of America. We welcome the use of Gibraltar by our N.A.T.O. allies. This continues, as in the past. The Spanish Government are reported to have protested to the American Government about the recent visit to Gibraltar of units of the American Sixth Fleet. It is well known that the American Navy uses Gibraltar, and has done for many years. The fuss that the Spanish Government are making over the recent visit of the American Sixth Fleet there-fore seems quite without justification. It is not for me to comment on threats made by Spain to the United States of America. I have no doubt that she is well able to look after herself.
  I echo what the hon. Gentleman said about goodwill for the people of Gibraltar. I would not like to exaggerate the effect on their economy of the niggling provocations—
  Mr. Dan Jones: My hon. Friend referred to three points raised by the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Sir C. Black). There is another point to which I think he should refer, namely, the fact that both countries live under the same Christian Church. I know something about this problem, having been there, and having been to Spain as well. I have reason to believe that the point made by the hon. Gentleman about the influence
  1522
  of the Christian Church has not been taken up by Her Majesty's Government. I could expand on this at great length, but time is short. Do the Government consider that it would be, first, ethical, and, secondly, effective, to seek the aid of the Christian Church to bring this unfortunate conflict to a reasonable end?
  Mr. Thomas: I presume that my hon. Friend is suggesting that the Government should approach His Holiness the Pope. It is an interesting Suggestion, which I will ensure is duly considered. My hon. Friend has made a fair point.
  Mr. Jones: I have already approached the Pope's representative in this country, and I am able to tell the House quite authoritatively that such an approach would be welcomed.
  Mr. Thomas: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I have a high regard for the Apostolic Delegate, as I know others have, and I am very interested in the in-formation which my hon. Friend has given to the House.
  The people of Gibraltar are succeeding in their economy. They have managed to balance their budget for 1968 without the need for financial assistance. We have made it clear to them that we are deter-mined to sustain them, and the world might as well understand that fact.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Twelve o'clock.

SCOTLAND
  Breath Tests
  Breath Tests
  Afforestation (Chipwood)
  Afforestation (Chipwood)
  Roads
  Roads
  The Borders (Edinburgh University Report)
  The Borders (Edinburgh University Report)
  The Highlands (Local Authority Expenditure)
  The Highlands (Local Authority Expenditure)
  Highland Agriculture (Balance of Payments)
  Highland Agriculture (Balance of Payments)
  Potato Growers (Guaranteed Price)
  Potato Growers (Guaranteed Price)
  Productive Trades
  Productive Trades
  Clyde Shipping Services
  Clyde Shipping Services
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Storm Damage
  Storm Damage
  Prescription Charges (Revenue)
  Prescription Charges (Revenue)
  Child Adoption (Age Limit)
  Child Adoption (Age Limit)
  Stranraer-Dumfries Railway Line
  Stranraer-Dumfries Railway Line
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Town Maps
  Town Maps
  Salmon Fishing (Rights)
  Salmon Fishing (Rights)
  School-Leaving Age
  School-Leaving Age
  Crime
  Crime
  Multi-Storey Flats
  Multi-Storey Flats
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Council Houses (Sale)
  Scottish Lawyers (International Conferences)
  Scottish Lawyers (International Conferences)
  Housing
  Housing
  Education (Expenditure)
  Education (Expenditure)
  Homeless Families
  Homeless Families
  Emigration
  Emigration
  Scottish Land Court (Legal Aid)
  Scottish Land Court (Legal Aid)
  Scottish Agriculture
  Scottish Agriculture
  Economic Policy (Statistical Information)
  Economic Policy (Statistical Information)
  Forestry Commission (Compulsory Acquisition)
  Forestry Commission (Compulsory Acquisition)
  Transport Services (Taxation)
  Transport Services (Taxation)
  Deaf Children (Schools)
  Deaf Children (Schools)
  Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation
  Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Expenditure)
  Local Authority Investment Programmes
  Local Authority Investment Programmes
  Hospital Building Programme
  Hospital Building Programme
  School-building Programme
  School-building Programme
  Industrial Activity (North-East Scotland)
  Industrial Activity (North-East Scotland)
  Hill and Upland Areas (Food Production)
  Hill and Upland Areas (Food Production)
  Comprehensive Education (Glasgow)
  Comprehensive Education (Glasgow)
  Rating
  Rating
  Flood Prevention (Glasgow)
  Flood Prevention (Glasgow)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Ayrshire Hearing Aid Clinic (Waiting Time)
  Ayrshire Hearing Aid Clinic (Waiting Time)
  Road Accidents (Aberdeen)
  Road Accidents (Aberdeen)
  Housing Management (Report)
  Housing Management (Report)
  Scottish Tourist Board
  Scottish Tourist Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Government Offices and Agencies (Scotland)
  Government Offices and Agencies (Scotland)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Aluminium-Using Industries (North-East)
  Aluminium-Using Industries (North-East)
  Advance Factory, Sunderland
  Advance Factory, Sunderland
  Exports and Imports (Overseas Sterling Area)
  Exports and Imports (Overseas Sterling Area)
  Investment Grants (Newspaper Society)
  Investment Grants (Newspaper Society)
  Commonwealth Preference
  Commonwealth Preference
  Machine Tool Industry (Investment Grants and Allowances)
  Machine Tool Industry (Investment Grants and Allowances)
  Gross National Product (Scotland)
  Gross National Product (Scotland)
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  New Jobs (Scotland)
  New Jobs (Scotland)
  New Factories, Scotland
  New Factories, Scotland
  Goods (Misleading Labelling)
  Goods (Misleading Labelling)
  National Exhibition Centre
  National Exhibition Centre
  Knitwear (Imports)
  Knitwear (Imports)
  British Embassies (Scottish Products)
  British Embassies (Scottish Products)
AVIATION
  Third London Airport
  Third London Airport
  Abbotsinch Airport
  Abbotsinch Airport
  Turnhouse Airport
  Turnhouse Airport
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
  Tiger Class Cruisers
  Tiger Class Cruisers
  R.A.F. Installations (Gan)
  R.A.F. Installations (Gan)
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Defence Budget
  Defence Budget
  Armed Services (Recruitment and Re-engagement)
  Armed Services (Recruitment and Re-engagement)
  Royal Navy (Civilian Staff)
  Royal Navy (Civilian Staff)
  All Arms Training Area, Sennybridge (Sheep Grazing)
  All Arms Training Area, Sennybridge (Sheep Grazing)
  Aircraft Carriers (Modernising, Refitting and Repairing Costs)
  Aircraft Carriers (Modernising, Refitting and Repairing Costs)
  Magnesium Alloys
  Magnesium Alloys
  H.M.S. "Matapan"
  H.M.S. "Matapan"
  Hong Kong Garrison
  Hong Kong Garrison
  Royal Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth (Floating Dock)
  Royal Naval Dockyard, Portsmouth (Floating Dock)
  Royal Navy (Mediterranean)
  Royal Navy (Mediterranean)
  Campaign Medals
  Campaign Medals
  Defence Expenditure (Scotland)
  Defence Expenditure (Scotland)
  Nuclear Base, Holy Loch
  Nuclear Base, Holy Loch
  Beira (Naval Patrol)
  Beira (Naval Patrol)
  Defence Operational Analysis Establishment (Studies)
  Defence Operational Analysis Establishment (Studies)
  Simonstown (Naval Support)
  Simonstown (Naval Support)
  Head of Defence Sales (Staff)
  Head of Defence Sales (Staff)
  Pressurised Water Reactors
  Pressurised Water Reactors
  Defence Research
  Defence Research
  Anglo-French Projects Board (Membership)
  Anglo-French Projects Board (Membership)
  Defence Studies (Universities)
  Defence Studies (Universities)
TRANSPORT
  Transport Bill
  Transport Bill
  Road Accidents (Mud)
  Road Accidents (Mud)
  Ice-Cream Vending Vans (Chimes)
  Ice-Cream Vending Vans (Chimes)
  Abnormal Loads Charge (Aberdeen)
  Abnormal Loads Charge (Aberdeen)
  London Transport (Organisation and Control)
  London Transport (Organisation and Control)
ROADS
  "D" Ring Road
  "D" Ring Road
  New Road Bridge (Sunderland)
  New Road Bridge (Sunderland)
  New Construction (Northern Region)
  New Construction (Northern Region)
  Yorkshire and Humberside Region
  Yorkshire and Humberside Region
RAILWAYS
  Closures (Scotland)
  Closures (Scotland)
PORTS
  Port of Liverpool
  Port of Liverpool
  Port of London
  Port of London
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Food Imports
  Food Imports
  Ware Potatoes (Price)
  Ware Potatoes (Price)
  Stock Rearing (Antibiotics)
  Stock Rearing (Antibiotics)
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Compensation Taxation)
  Foot-and-Mouth Disease (Compensation Taxation)
  Northern Ireland Farmers (Production Costs)
  Northern Ireland Farmers (Production Costs)
  Agricultural Support (Cost)
  Agricultural Support (Cost)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Building Regulations Advisory Committee (Hardboard)
  Building Regulations Advisory Committee (Hardboard)
  Northampton (New Town Designation)
  Northampton (New Town Designation)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  South-East Asia (Commonwealth Conference)
  South-East Asia (Commonwealth Conference)
  Land Commission Levy (Revenue)
  Land Commission Levy (Revenue)
HOUSING
  Dwellings (Lack of Certain Amenities)
  Dwellings (Lack of Certain Amenities)
  Beira (Naval Patrol)
  Beira (Naval Patrol)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Primary and Secondary Schools, Derbyshire (Free Milk)
  Primary and Secondary Schools, Derbyshire (Free Milk)
  Comprehensive Secondary Education (Derbyshire)
  Comprehensive Secondary Education (Derbyshire)
  National Theatre (Cost)
  National Theatre (Cost)
  New Concert Hall, Glasgow
  New Concert Hall, Glasgow
  Opera House, Edinburgh
  Opera House, Edinburgh
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Major Disasters (Voluntary Organisations)
  Major Disasters (Voluntary Organisations)
  London Airport (Cats)
  London Airport (Cats)
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Oil Heaters (Safety Requirements)
  Oil Heaters (Safety Requirements)
  Licensing Act, 1961 (Wales)
  Licensing Act, 1961 (Wales)
  Immigration Officer (Scottish Case)
  Immigration Officer (Scottish Case)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  National Economic Development Council (Government Paper)
  National Economic Development Council (Government Paper)
  Bread, Petrol, Tea and Cigarette Prices (Scotland)
  Bread, Petrol, Tea and Cigarette Prices (Scotland)
  COMMERCIAL ATTACHES (TRAINING)
  COMMERCIAL ATTACHES (TRAINING)
  U.S.S. "PUEBLO" (STATEMENT)
  U.S.S. "PUEBLO" (STATEMENT)
  OVERSEAS COUNTRIES (MINISTERIAL UNDERTAKINGS)
  OVERSEAS COUNTRIES (MINISTERIAL UNDERTAKINGS)
  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
  PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
MINISTRY OF LABOUR
  Retrained Men (Trade Unions)
  Retrained Men (Trade Unions)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  School-leavers
  School-leavers
  Government Training Centres
  Government Training Centres
  Remploy Factory, Hull
  Remploy Factory, Hull
  Training Allowances
  Training Allowances
  Skilled Operatives (Retraining)
  Skilled Operatives (Retraining)
  Redundant Scottish Miners (Retraining)
  Redundant Scottish Miners (Retraining)
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  St. Andrew's House (Accommodation Cost)
  St. Andrew's House (Accommodation Cost)
  Official Cars (Cost)
  Official Cars (Cost)
  Government Offices, Scotland (Cost)
  Government Offices, Scotland (Cost)
TECHNOLOGY
  Magnesium Alloys
  Magnesium Alloys
  Beagle Pup Aircraft
  Beagle Pup Aircraft
  Slough Trading Estate (Report)
  Slough Trading Estate (Report)
  Research Establishments and Industry (Rationalisation)
  Research Establishments and Industry (Rationalisation)
  Photo-Detection (Research)
  Photo-Detection (Research)
  Chiefs of Staff Military Committee (Departmental Personnel)
  Chiefs of Staff Military Committee (Departmental Personnel)
  Aberdeen Shipbuilding Industry (Devaluation)
  Aberdeen Shipbuilding Industry (Devaluation)
  Microcircuitry (Technical Information)
  Microcircuitry (Technical Information)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Health and Welfare Services
  Health and Welfare Services
  Homeless Families
  Homeless Families
HOSPITALS
  Amenity and Private Beds
  Amenity and Private Beds
  Patients (Admissions and Lengths of Stay)
  Patients (Admissions and Lengths of Stay)
  Geriatric Patients (Waiting Lists)
  Geriatric Patients (Waiting Lists)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid
  Aid
POST OFFICE
  Disciplinary Measures and Procedures
  Disciplinary Measures and Procedures
  Postal Deliveries
  Postal Deliveries
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Storm Damage (Midlothian)
  Storm Damage (Midlothian)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Colliery Closures
  Colliery Closures
  Shipbuilding Industry (Steel Prices)
  Shipbuilding Industry (Steel Prices)
COAL
  Power Station Supplies (Cost)
  Power Station Supplies (Cost)
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Disabled Persons (Registration)
  Disabled Persons (Registration)
  Old People
  Old People
  Retirement Pensions and Supplementary Benefits (Purchasing Power)
  Retirement Pensions and Supplementary Benefits (Purchasing Power)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  H.M. Stationery Office (Scotland)
  H.M. Stationery Office (Scotland)
  Social Security (Cmnd. 3515)
  Social Security (Cmnd. 3515)
  Income Tax (Mortgage Interest)
  Income Tax (Mortgage Interest)
  Olympic Games (Joint Televising Facilities)
  Olympic Games (Joint Televising Facilities)

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

LORD RAVENSDALE
Nicholas, Lord Ravensdale, having succeeded to the title on the death of his kinswoman, Mary Irene, Baroness Ravensdale, of Ravensdale in the County of Derby, by virtue of a Special Remainder contained in Letters Patent dated November 2, 1911—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Asquith of Yarnbury and the Lord Beaumont of Whitley.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE
Thomas Johnston Taylor, Esquire, having been created Baron Taylor of Gryfe, of Bridge of Weir in the County of Renfrew, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Beswick and the Lord Tayside.

STANSTED AIRPORT RUNWAYS
2.28 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, before they decided on the realignment of the proposed runways at Stansted Airport, the Guild of Air Pilots and the British Air Line Pilots Association were consulted or given an opportunity of expressing misgivings on possible difficulties and dangers of operation from an increased liability of a cross-wind component as compared to the alignment of the runway on the original plan.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Government have not yet finally decided on
772
the alignment of the runways at Stansted, and will not do so until consultations now taking place with local authorities and other bodies are concluded. The pilots' associations were not consulted before these proposals were put to the local authorities but they now have an opportunity of making their views known. The Guild of Air Pilots and Navigators are in fact now in correspondence with the President of the Board of Trade on this matter.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, in view of the fact that these very representative and authoritative bodies have felt it necessary to make their views known in the public Press, would it not have been better for Her Majesty's Government to have consulted with them before going as far as they have gone? And is this not typical of the lack of consultation which has characterised the whole of this deplorable Stansted decision?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think there is some misunderstanding here. In the first place, the two pilots' associations have not made their views known in the Press. One of them—and I should have thought the more authoritative of them—has not made any representations at all. As for the letter to which the noble Lord is referring, that which appeared in The Times, I must say that the criticism would have been valid if the assumptions had been accurate. The writer of the letter appeared to assume that the new runways would be North-South, which they are not, and that the prevailing strong winds would be West-East, which they are not; otherwise his criticism would have been acceptable.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, pursuing this matter a little further, while I do not contest the merits or demerits of their misgivings, surely to have to write a letter to The Times as the Guild of Air Pilots did, protesting about the supposed possible dangers, illustrates a lack of willingness on the part of the Government to take into consultation all bodies at the earliest possible stage. Had consultation taken place much earlier, might not things have been different at Stansted?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I really think that the noble Lord is being unfair in this particular instance. As he

773
and I know, both the Guild and the Air Line Pilots' Association make most valuable and acceptable contributions on all matters concerned with air safety, and they are consulted on these matters. But in this particular case, and on this particular point, there was no question of safety involved. Moreover, the announcement about the possibility of realigning these runways was made public, and Press conferences were held, for the precise purpose of giving people who were interested, an opportunity of making their views known.

THE DECIMAL SYSTEM
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the advisability of postponing the change-over to the decimal system in order to eliminate a great deal of unnecessary expenditure both in the public and private sector over the next three years.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Government have no intention of postponing the change-over to a decimal currency system. Decimalisation is now well advanced; two out of the preparatory five years are over and a great deal of capital has already been expended. Because of the real economic benefits which will accrue it is the view of the Government that it is in the best interests of the country as a whole to proceed with decimalisation as planned.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for a much fuller Answer than I expected to get, I would ask whether the Government would not agree, that in the present state of the national finances this change has become rather an irrelevancy for the time being.
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. Far from being an irrelevancy, it is expected that when the change-over has taken place it will be of real help towards the expansion of our export trade.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government are
774
to be congratulated on keeping to this course, which may be of tremendous help to the future efficiency of this country?
LORD BESWICK: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.

PERSIAN GULF DEFENCE AND RULERS' OFFER
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the reports that the Rulers of the Trucial Oman States have offered to contribute some £25 million towards the cost of Great Britain retaining a military force in the Persian Gulf are correct; whether it is correct that they have refused such offers; and, if so, whether, having regard to the military, political, economic and social importance of the area, they will reconsider their decision.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, such offers were made, in general terms, by certain Rulers; no figure was mentioned. Her Majesty's Government are deeply grateful, but we have concluded, after careful consideration, that once our forces are redeployed in Europe it would not be practicable after 1971, without overstraining our national resources, to give a continuing military presence in the Gulf the backing in men and material it would need, even with financial contributions from the Rulers. This conclusion does not affect the continuing desire and readiness of Her Majesty's Government to help the Government of the Gulf States in other ways.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, which will be received with much greater satisfaction than was the Statement by his right honourable friend on the same subject on television. But may I also ask him whether there is in contemplation any early withdrawal of the Trucial Oman Scouts, or any disbandment of that force at all?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, as the noble Viscount knows, the question of

775
the withdrawal of our forces from the Gulf is a matter of the late months of 1971. So far as detailed disposal and deployment of the Trucial Oman Scouts is concerned, I cannot give him an answer at the moment; I think I should ask the noble Viscount to wait until the publication of the Defence White Paper. If the information is not contained in that, then, of course, I will find out and let the noble Viscount know the answer to his question.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it not the case that our premature withdrawal from the Gulf is put forward for economic reasons, and that the presence of our troops there, if they could be kept a little longer, would be of great benefit to world peace? And, since we have been trying for ten years, without success, to get the Germans to make a better contribution towards our forces in the Rhineland, why cannot we accept the offer of States in the Gulf to make a contribution towards their own defence? Do we look upon them, the Arabs in the Gulf, as a kind of inferior race who ought not to be asked to make this contribution? And ought we not to do our best to keep our troops there for a little longer, if it can be made economically possible?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, I think the noble Earl is unfair, to say the least, in accusing this Government of regarding the Arabs in the Trucial States, or anywhere else, as being an inferior race. Certainly this is not our attitude or our policy. So far as the substance of his question is concerned, I think the point is that, whatever the reasons for our withdrawal from the Gulf—and I take issue with the rather tendentious use of the word "premature", because we are not withdrawing until 1971, and it is now 1968 I do not regard that as a precipitate withdrawal—even with the contributions so generously offered by those who offered them in the Gulf States, it would not be feasible for us to maintain troops there and the logistic support necessary to sustain them. This would not, in our view, be a sensible deployment of our resources after 1971.

BROADCASTING OF HOUSE OF LORDS PROCEEDINGS
2.37 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I remind your Lordships briefly of the arrangements which the House has agreed for the closed-circuit broadcasting experiments next week and the week after. During the coming weekend the Broadcasting authorities will be installing their equipment in the House, and on Monday they will rehearse—that is to say, they will have a "dry" run on their own—while the House is sitting. The results of this rehearsal will not, however, be seen by the House. From Tuesday to Thursday your Lordships' proceedings will be continuously televised, and during this period it will be possible for Peers to watch live television relays of the proceedings in the Moses Room, while they will be able to hear a live sound relay in the Queen's Ante-room.
It is perhaps worth while reminding your Lordships that during the course of these experiments a certain amount of inconvenience from bulky cameras and rather bright lighting is inevitable. However, as your Lordships will remember, the Committee have pointed out in their Report that in any subsequent televising of proceedings of the House, miniaturised remote-control cameras would be used, and that this would obviate the problems of large cameras and bright lighting, and indeed the presence of camera-men in the Chamber. Since one of the principal purposes of the experiments is to provide the Broadcasting authorities with as representative a sample of the proceedings of the House as possible, I am sure that it is unnecessary to remind your Lordships that it is important that the television cameras are not focused on empty Benches while the Moses Room is full of your Lordships looking at the screens. Unfortunately, it would not be possible for your Lordships to be in both places at the same time. I am sure that your Lordships will be able to stagger your viewing of the proceedings during this first week in order to avoid this difficulty, particularly on Tuesday, the first day of continuous broadcasting, when the maximum self-control is demanded of us all.

777
In the week beginning the 12th February there will be play-backs of edited television and radio programmes, starting at 4 p.m. on Tuesday, 13th, Wednesday, 14th, and Thursday, 15th February. The edited television programmes can be seen in the Moses Room and the radio programmes heard in the Queen's Anteroom. In case any visitors from another place come down to hear the proceedings, I should mention that arrangements have been made for Members of another place to see and to hear the experiments in their own part of the Palace. A summary of these plans will be circulated with to-day's Minutes.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for preparing us for this ordeal to come, pleasant for some, perhaps less pleasant for others. I can assure the noble Lord that we on these Benches will do our best to "stagger" as best we can.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I make a final appeal to the Leader of the House to put a stop to all this nonsense? It can do no good at all; it can do nothing but damage to this House; it is absolute rubbish, and the Government should withdraw it now.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, before coming to a conclusion, would it not be better first to look at this closed-circuit television? I would remind the House that this will be closed-circuit and not open to the public.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, will first-aid be made available?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before your Lordships get completely out of hand in advance of the broadcast, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, that what is now about to happen is by a decision of your Lordships and it is no use appealing to me. I think we all await with great interest this broadcast, and as it gets nearer we approach it with a sort of horrified fascination. The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, is much more familiar with this sort of experience and therefore it is rather "old hat" so far as he is concerned. May I say to my noble friend Lord Mitchison that he will be able to receive all the assistance he requires, but he does not often need much. I should like to thank
778
the noble Lord, the Leader of the Liberal Party in this House, for what he said.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING) BILL [H.L.]
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Shops (Sunday Trading) Bill. As your Lordships have already given the Bill a First Reading, I feel that a word of explanation is required. At the time this Bill was drawn up I was unable to get the help of Parliamentary draftsmen because they were so busy. Through the good offices of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to whom I am very grateful, after the Bill was introduced into your Lordships' House Parliamentary draftsmen examined the Bill and we had further consultations with the Home Office. It has become clear that the Bill in its present form would require a good deal of amendment. Again through the good offices of Lord Stonham, I have been offered the assistance of Parliamentary draftsmen to draft a revised Bill. I hope, therefore, in two or three weeks' time to ask your Lordships leave to introduce a revised Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw this Bill.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES AND ECONOMIC POLICY
2.44 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORDrose to call attention to the White Paper (Cmnd. 3437) on the Economic and Financial Objectives of the Nationalised Industries and the implications which this has on the policies of Her Majesty's Government; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. The starting point of this debate is the While Paper published by the Government last November (Cmnd. 3437) of their thoughts about the running of the nationalised irdustries. The premise which I am making in my speech is that a large number of these State corporations are likely to continue in existence irrespective of Government. This does not imply that I approve of the new entry to the sacred herd. In fact,

779
I consider them to be a suspect lot and due for the Government's slaughter policy. But this is not the occasion to pursue that argument. My premise is that the total sector of the nationalised industries is such a large and important sector of the national economy that all Governments, irrespective of Party, are bound to regard their success as a matter of first concern as, indeed, we did when we were in Government.
In regard to the size of the nationalised sector, there are now 14 nationalised industries, with 3 more in the pipe-line in the new Transport Bill. They employ about 8 per cent. of the total national labour force. They invest annually about £1,700 million, over 60 per cent. of which comes from the taxpayer. This annual investment is equal to the total annual investment of the private sector of manufacturing industry. The net capital assets of the existing nationalised industries are about £12,000 million, so that there is no doubt about the immense importance of this sector to the national economy.
The performance of these industries over the past twenty years is that they have written off capital to the tune of some £2,289 million, including the amounts provided for in the current Transport Bill. Their accumulated trading loss until the end of 1966 was £796 million, making a total of just over £3,000 million on that side, against which the nationalised industries have paid to the Exchequer £1,952 million by way of interest and £192 million by way of taxes, making a total of £2,144 million. So that there is a total deficit over the twenty years of £942 million. Of course, these gross overall figures cover a wide range of differing performance, but the figures are enough to pose the question: nationalised industries, asset or liability to the national economy in our struggle to adapt ourselves to the 20th century? The fair answer to that question, in an uncontroversial debate, is that some of them have very far to go to make themselves assets to the economy. This is the measure of the challenge of Government, either the noble Lord opposite who are the progenitors of these industries, or indeed future Conservative Governments in tackling the problem of making these large industries an asset to the nation.
780
I suggest that there are five factors which are clearly essential to success. The first, and by far the most important, is the major policy objective for these industries: is the nationalised industry to be run for political and social ends, or is it to be run for economic ends? I turn to paragraph 14 of the White Paper, which describes what I regard as a disturbing trend. It reads as follows:
"Indeed it"—
that is the Government—
"must take a wider view than that of the industry itself, since the Government's objective is to secure the maximum social return on the capital invested, while the industry's concern is properly with the financial return."
I find this double theme running through the document—the hands are Esau's and the voice is Jacob's. If I compare this with the White Paper of 1961, Cmnd. 1337, in which the Conservative Government first defined their ideas of running these industries. I find a very distinct change of emphasis. If I may quote what I feel is the relevant point of paragraph 2, it says:
"First, the task of government is to ensure that the industries are organised and administered efficiently and economically to carry out their responsibilities, and that they are thus enabled to make the maximum contribution towards the economic wellbeing of the community itself as a whole. Second, although the industries have obligations of a national and non-commercial kind, they are not, and ought not, to be regarded as a social service absolved from economic and commercial justification."
Then, as your Lordships will remember, the White Paper went on to define the idea of financial targets which were set with the specific idea of giving financial discipline to these individual industries, and at the same time giving them a maximum independence of Government to get on with their respective jobs. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, replies he will clarify this point, because as I read this Paper I find what I regard as a dangerous change in the general emphasis on the objectives of these industries.
My own view is that the less Government interference, the more efficiently and productively these industries will run. Conversely, the more Government interference, either for political or for social motives, the less efficient and productive they become: and for two reasons. In addition to the direct loss from pursuing

781
uncommercial objectives, there is an indirect loss by weakening the keeness of commercial spirit in the industry itself. One sees this at its most serious, of course, in the present condition of the railways. In my judgment, the nationalised industries can serve the nation best if they are run with the maximum industrial efficiency to produce their goods and services at competitive prices and make a sufficient surplus to keep their demands for capital to a reasonable minimum. By thus strengthening the national economy and the nation's export-earning; power, they will help to make the whole community better off.
In this context, a nationalised industry has to overcome a natural in-built disadvantage. It bears no trading risk. It is insulated by the Exchequer from the ultimate sanctions of the market. At this moment in time we are all very conscious that we as a nation are not so insulated, and, indeed, that the penalty for failing to pay our way on our national trading account is that we shall have to work harder for some time to come for less reward in order to pay off our debts. All private business, of course, lives with this risk. In crude terms, they either make the business pay or they "go bust". In effect, every private business is to that extent bearing its share of the nation's trading risk. But as nationalised industries are insulated from this risk, in my judgment the only safe policy to ensure that they are assets and not liabilities to the economy is to limit their social and political objectives to the minimum, both in size and in time. When Government finds it necessary, for some overwhelming national reason, to take action in this field it should, in my judgment, bring a specific proposition before Parliament—for instance, the Coal Industry Act—to meet the special strain of rapid contraction. If I may say so, I think the social provisions are much sounder than the industrial ones.
With regard to price levels, my belief is that it is best if Government leave nationalised industries to settle their own price levels; but, if, at a time of emergency, it is necessary to take action then it should be action right across the board for all nationalised industries; and, indeed, for the whole private sector as well. If that is done, I think, it is fair and
782
acceptable. In general, however, I am sure that the best way to ensure that the nationalised industries' price levels are right is to provide by one means or another that there is competition in their fields. We can see that working best in the fuel industries, where there is very stiff competition. I believe that the consumer's best friend is competition, and I hope that the rumours that have been heard of a possible merger between the electricity and the gas industries are completely wrong. I am sure that such a merger would be quite disastrous.
My concluding point on the objective for nationalised industries is that the record of the past twenty years shows that those which have done best were those which were the least interfered with. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, when he comes to reply, will be able to tell me that I have drawn an incorrect inference from the White Paper, Cmnd. 3437, and that the economic objective for these industries will be priority No. 1 and will be maintained.
My second point for success is undoubtedly management. For this purpose, I would put the Chairman of the Board as the key figure. We have seen over these years that a man with the right qualities, of the top calibre in industry, a man of vision and courage, is able to define the right policies, to get the right men under him in the right places to carry them out; and, by his leadership, to inspire the whole of the vast army of employees that he leads. This, of course, is not achieved overnight; it takes some years to achieve it. But we have seen examples of this, and I am sure that this is the high road to success. Of course, not only does the right calibre of chairman get the right results within his industry, but usually he seems to get the best relationship as well with his sponsoring Minister. Perhaps good examples of that are the two Air Corporations in the 1950s, when B.O.A.C. had a succession of chairmen and wilted and was in all kinds of trouble—quite a bit of it, of course, was inherited which did not make it too easy—but B.E.A. under a strong chairman thrived. In passing, let me say how glad I am to see that B.O.A.C. to-day—and also Sir Giles Guthrie, whom we appointed in 1963—is doing so well.

783
The conditions of employment for the Board chairman must be such as to attract the kind of top calibre man needed to fill this role; not, let me say, that I think all chairmen should come from outside these industries; I am sure it would be healthy for them if more came from inside. But the first condition, undoubtedly, is the salary and pension which is to be paid. The Government must be prepared to pay the market rate, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, and his colleagues, on paying the right rate for steel. But I regret their timidity in the rest of the field.
There are three specific points on this. The first is, of course, that it is unfair to the present chairmen to pay them less than the market rate. Secondly, it will undoubtedly be a serious handicap to finding adequate successors when the time comes, unless the market rate is paid. Thirdly, as the present rates of salary are fixed, there is undoubtedly a serious restriction in the salary levels for the top executives on whom so much depends.
Let me say in passing that a good example of the wrong approach to appointing chairmen was undoubtedly the recent Dutch auction in appointing the Chairman of British Rail. It could have done nothing but harm to the tone of management. I am bound to say that it seemed laughable to me to boggle at paying an extra £5,000 a year, when the Treasury are pouring out £150 million for the deficit.
My next point refers to the question of pensions. I am sure that chairmen ought to have an adequate pension level, comparable with the kind of "top hat" pensions which are paid in private industry. Noble Lords must have been astonished to learn—I certainly was—that when Sir Stanley Raymond made his enforced departure from British Railways, his total pension after a good many years of service was under £3,000, especially as he apparently established an additional claim to danger money in his parting cri de coeur, "I never could understand women". In any event, I think the previous record confirms the insecurity of the chairmanship of these industries, and it makes my point that the hazards for continuity of service
784
necessitate that pensions should be on a generous scale.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, will my noble friend forgive me for one moment if I ask him what he thinks about pensions for Members of Parliament? I was a Member of Parliament for 34 years without a pause. What is my pension? Naueht!
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, but fortunately his present earning capacity is so great that I do not think he need worry about a pension for a long time.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord also, as he has just mentioned Sir Stanley Raymond and his comment that he never could understand women, this question? If he was so stupid that he never could understand women, does the noble Lord not think that he might not have been equally stupid in his job?
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I should not have thought that it was a direct qualification for running a railway. Apart from the objections of the noble Baroness, I know the Treasury objections to paying higher salaries and pensions—particularly, for example, the implications on other salary levels—but I would suggest that the experience of the last twenty years has shown that it is a grave handicap to the management of these huge industries to underpay the chairmen. When Government have had the courage to pay the market rate (twice under a Consevative Government and once under a Labour Government) it has been no more than a nine-days' wonder and everybody has accepted it as the commonsense thing to do.
The second condition for attracting the right kind of chairman, I suggest, is that he has the prospect of reasonable freedom to get on with running the industry that he is taking on. Undoubtedly the prospect of pressure and interference from Members of Parliament and Ministers deters numbers of high-grade industrialists from considering such a job. That brings me to the third point which I feel is vital for success, and that is the right relationship between the chairman of a nationalised industry and the sponsoring Minister, and vice versa.

785
When I read this Paper it occurred to me that it would be most illuminating to read a similar paper written by the chairman of a nationalised industry defining his idea of what should be the relationship between Ministers and chairmen of nationalised Boards. Fortunately, into my hands within a very few days came this admirable paper by the Chairman of the Electricity Board, Sir Ronald Edwards, giving just such a commentary—his Stamp Lecture. Sir Ronald, as noble Lords will know, has been Vice-Chairman and Chairman of the Electricity Council for the last ten years, and I think, by common consent, has given brilliant leadership to the electricity industry. He therefore, in my judgment, speaks with very great authority.
Now there is a major dilemma here, and we must face it squarely. There is a divided responsibility for these industries. Ministers, on the one hand, have their statutory responsibilities laid down in Acts of Parliament, and those responsibilities they must discharge to Parliament. On the other hand, Boards have their responsibility in managing and running their industries, and Ministers are entitled to expect chairmen to give them every reasonable co-operation. Indeed, in his paper Sir Ronald Edwards recognises that fact. But Sir Ronald observes a trend towards a greater intervention in nationalised industries, and in his paper, which I am sure noble Lords have read, he warns most cogently against it.
I am sure Sir Ronald is right. The record shows that these industries will do best if Ministers limit their interest to the broad strategy of the industries and, having picked the right men to run them, then leave them alone to get on with the job. No business can succeed unless the management defines its policy and consistently follows it over a period of years. It takes time for those policies to pay off, even if they are the right ones. Ministerial interventions inevitably change either the emphasis or the direction of policy, or both, and the result, of course, is a loss of confidence, a loss of impetus and, if continued, a loss of morale as well. So my point here is that Ministers should limit their activity to defining the general strategy.
There is just one further field in which I feel Ministers should particularly re-
786
strain their activity, and that is the field of labour relations. Experience over the years has shown that it is fatal for a sponsoring Minister to intervene and take a direct hand in disputes between his Board and trade unions. First the sponsoring Minister gets involved, and then the Prime Minister gets involved. We have seen all this happen again and again, so that there is now a well-worn track from the N.U.R. headquarters to 10 Downing Street, where these things have gone on time and time again. In my judgment, there is nothing more damaging to the authority of a Board than to have these basic management matters settled over its head. It is bound to be de-moralising to the authority and spirit of the Board, and can but do damage to the service provided at the end. I exclude, of course, the Minister of Labour's specific conciliatory functions, which may be, and are from time to time, used in any dispute.
When in Government we had our troubles in this field, too—I freely admit it—and I know only too well the intense political pressures which are put upon a Minister when there is a threatened railway stoppage. But I believe that the public is learning about these things and would support a Government which firmly refused to be implicated and referred the dispute back to the Board of the nationalined industry concerned, for them to settle. This is delicate and controversial ground, perhaps, but what is incontrovertible is that those nationalised industries which have settled their own labour affairs over the years have got far better labour relationships and I think probably higher standards of service to the public as well. I am quite sure that they get far better results if they can avoid all this public drama.
My fourth point concerns the raising of new capital. At present, some £800 million per annum is being provided by the Treasury out of tax revenues. This system of financing new capital out of tax revenues was introduced by us in 1956 or 1957 following a very learned and helpful Report by the noble Viscount, Lord Radcliffe, and his Committee, which had examined the whole problem of raising the large and increasing sums of money needed to finance the new capital for these industries. The burden of their recommendation was that the

787
sums required were so large that the market could no longer absorb them in a reasonably managed way. Therefore the Conservative Government of the day adopted that recommendation and brought to an end the previous system of going to the market and raising money on fixed-interest, dated stock.
The present system works well mechanically, but I suggest to noble Lords that there are serious objections to it and the time has come to take another look at it. First of all, it is objectionable in principle to compel our people to provide the investment needed, because it exceeds what they can save voluntarily. This must in the long run be injurious to incentive on account of the very much increased direct taxation that there must be; and it must also be injurious to thrift, which is equally important. I suppose that if this was taken in terms of the standard rate of income tax it would be more than 3s. in the pound, although I do not say that if it was changed it would all come off there; it might come off other places as well.
Secondly, this arbitrary method of capital allocation undoubtedly runs the risk of misusing our scarce capital resources; of using them not to the best advantage in terms of increasing national productivity. I take the figures from the last Annual Report on the Nationalised Industries, which gave a net return on them of only just over 4 per cent. compared with the net return on the 300 largest industrial companies of just on 12 per cent. This makes my point that we must ask ourselves the question: Are we allocating by this method the very scarce capital resources of this country in the best way in order to get the maximum increased production and productivity?
Thirdly, my Lords, because of the present system, the nationalised industries do not have to face, as private industry does, the disciplines of the market. However difficult the Treasury may be, I am quite sure that the disciplines of the market are a great deal tougher. It is 12 years since the Radcliffe Committee reported. In the interval, financial targets have been set up for these industries and they have shown us that self-financing of the nationalised industries has been possible and on very much larger scale
788
than any of us previously had thought possible. I suggest that the time has now come to look at this problem again to see whether the nationalised industries should not earn a net return nearer to private industry—for even electricity, the strongest of the lot, earns only about 7 per cent. net return—and thus by slowly raising financial targets increase the prospects of self-financing to the point where the profitable nationalised industries could go to the market for their fresh capital. In passing, let me remind noble Lords that the oil industry—the nearest competitor to the nationalised industries in the field of fuel—raises its capital almost entirely by self-financing with sums comparable to those raised in the nationalised industries. I make the point that this deserves fresh thought, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will be forthcoming on this and will undertake that the Government take a look at it. I believe the point deserves consideration.
The final point I should like to put before the House is the relationship between nationalised industries and Parliament and public opinion. The original Statutes setting up nationalised industries—and here I should congratulate in particular the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, for his part in some of them—very firmly excluded matters of day-to-day management from ministerial or Parliamentary scrutiny. This was undoubtedly a wise provision, but unfortunately over the years the pressure of critical public opinion—and one must accept that there is a large section of public opinion in all Parties who will "shoot" at nationalised industries—has eroded this constitutional safeguard. Therefore, it is now possible to set down on the Order Paper in another place Parliamentary Questions on a very wide range of management matters.
This, I am sure, is wrong. In some cases it has a most disturbing effect on the management and staff of the industry concerned—and here again the railways suffer particularly. I suggest that the original statutory position is the right one, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, will be able to say something forthcoming about the possibility of reasserting that position. It is there on the Statute book. I recognise that this will not be easy, for Members of

789
Parliament are very tenacious in hanging on to rights that they have achieved. Therefore, something must be given in exchange. I am firmly in favour of public accountability, both to Parliament and to the nation; and, therefore, in order to do that, I would suggest that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries (which, on the whole, has proved to be a most useful piece of machinery both to Parliament and to the industries) should be somewhat expanded and should be strengthened with professional staff. It could thus be put into a position of annually examining specific points in the nationalised industries in a wide enough range of subjects to keep Parliament fully informed on both their performance and their prospects. I do not suggest a continuous audit—that would be obviously most disturbing to them—but enough to give Parliament the assurance it needs.
I observe that the Government have moved to strengthen the Prices and Incomes Board with professional staff for the specific purpose of examining the problems of nationalised industries. I would suggest that this is a mistaken approach, and that the right approach, I am sure, is to strengthen the relationship to Parliament. It is to Parliament and to the Ministers that the nationalised industries are accountable. Anything we can do to strengthen that relationship—which is what ray suggestion would do—would at the same time make it possible to define more clearly the independence of the Boards so that they could be left more free in order to run their own businesses as they think best. Let me say in conclusion that the nationalised industries are clearly a field in which the Government can make an immediate contribution to the national economy. I hope that my thoughts may help them on the way. I beg to move for Papers.
3.15 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that we are all most grateful to the noble Lord for moving this Motion in such an agreeable and constructive way. I should like to offer my thanks to him and also congratulate him. I thought it would be most convenient for the House if I dealt, at this stage, with what I might call the Whitehall thinking behind the White Paper (Cmnd. 3437). If I deal
790
now with this narrower aspect, that is to say, the financial aspect of the problem with which the noble Lord has dealt, then, with leave, it may be that I could offer comments at the end of the debate on other interesting matters raised by the noble Lord, together with anything I might usefully say on the other speeches, to which I look forward.
Before I come on to the current official doctrine behind the White Paper, a few words about the earlier background might be in place. Various reasons have been advanced through the years for bringing an industry or service under public ownership. One primary argument concerned the need to bring monopoly, or near-monopoly, under effective public control. It was Karl Marx who first showed that, as the tools of trade become more sophisticated and more expensive, and as industry became more heavily capitalised, the trend towards mergers and monopolies was inevitable. In this, if not in other matters, the analysis of Marx has been proven correct. The consequential argument was that, given the economic justification for monopoly, the public needed to be protected from private exploitation; and public ownership was the answer.
But it was clear to many, and has become clearer to all, that public ownership, like patriotism, was not enough. While there would be no question of the consumer being milched for the benefit of private capital, there was still the possibility of sloth and inefficiency. If the consumer was really to be protected then special devices or techniques were needed to look after his interests. In other words, having set up the Board as the champion of the public interest we then had to ensure that the champion himself was sufficiently energetic.
I used to argue that maximum efficiency really meant a fair deal as between what I called the two sides of industry; namely, producers and consumers. If we had adequate and equal representation of these two sides on the policy-making Boards then a decision which satisfied them both would necessarily mean maximum efficiency. But representative Boards in that sense were ruled out, and what we actually got in the ensuing legislation were Minister-appointed Boards, and Minister-appointed Consumer Councils attached to them. Then, in an attempt to

791
satisfy the producer element, there was a statutory obligation placed upon the Boards to consult their employees. I occasionally make the claim that it was an Amendment which I drafted to the 1946 Civil Aviation Bill which, for the first time, gave workers in a British industry the legal right to be consulted on matters affecting the operational efficiency of their industry. This form of words was subsequently adopted for all Acts of nationalisation.
No one can claim that the early hopes which we had, idealistic hopes if you like, were realised. The effort to ensure economic efficiency and social responsibility has subsequently taken various forms. The right of Parliament to debate reports was one form, and dates were eventually set aside for this purpose. Then there was the development of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries—I hope to say a further word about that later in the debate—and very useful this Select Committee has become. The 1961 White Paper, as I understand it, was a further attempt to impose constructive economic discipline on the public Boards. Financial targets were set for each of them. The 1961 targets were criticised because they lacked obvious economic justification, and, in any case, it was suggested that it was too easy for industries to meet their targets simply by putting up prices against the consumer. The 1967 White Paper, which we now have before us, takes account of these criticisms and brings into the picture the Prices and Incomes Board as a still further development.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said, as I understood him, with respect to the financial targets, that there was still too great a gap between the return which capital invested in the public sector was expected to make and that shown by the private sector. I think that to some extent the noble Lord was not giving the full picture, because 4·2 per cent., which is the actual figure of return on the capital employed in the public sector, is the average for the whole of the public sector; and if one excludes British Rail—which for this purpose I think it reasonable to do—which is in deficit, then the return is about 6 per cent. I agree that it is still only about half the private sector rate,
792
but, as the noble Lord will agree, in no country is the return on capital invested in the public utilities expected to come up to that invested in other commercial enterprises. In any case, in the White Paper which we are discussing all new investment will be expected, indeed will be required, to earn 8 per cent. or more.
My Lords, it has been said that though one of these two White Papers was produced by a Conservative Administration and the other under a Labour Government, it would be impossible to distinguish their respective political pedigrees. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, implied, though he did not say in terms, that on this question of the control of the public sector the two sides of this House and all the major Parties are now coming much closer together. One other explanation, however, of the similarity in the terminology of these two White Papers is, I suspect, that in recent years there has developed in Whitehall a much more sophisticated professional body of knowledge about public industry and about the techniques necessary for ensuring efficiency within them. In any event, I say that the second White Paper follows naturally from the first; although it does, of course, in certain respects, as the noble Lord said, make a very definite change of emphasis.
The 1961 White Paper set out financial objectives in the light of which decisions on investment and pricing were to be made. Now in the revised doctrine the objectives are claimed to be economically justifiable only to the extent that they reflect sound investment and pricing policies. This, surely, is the better way round, and I hope that the noble Lord does not criticise that change of emphasis. But to say that there should be a sound pricing policy is one thing; to define one is, of course, another and a more difficult problem. There is to-day an understandable public demand that in the public sector, which directly or indirectly they control, the Government should restrain price increases. The Government accept their responsibility and, for good measure, decided last September to get an independent check upon the validity of proposed price increases by the nationalised industries by referring them to the Prices and Incomes Board. Naturally, I cannot anticipate the findings

793
of the Board, but clearly, part of the increase now under review is needed to offset increased operating costs; although to some extent the public sector, as with the private sector, is expected, and indeed must, absorb this increase through increased productivity and efficiency.
In addition, in common with all other industry, they are faced with increased costs for the goods and services which they have to buy. Once again, to some extent these can be absorbed by improved purchasing techniques, and proposals in the recent Maxwell Report on public purchasing are relevant to the nationalised industries. But when increases in labour and material costs cannot be absorbed, the basic tenet of the White Paper is that consumers should pay prices which fully cover the true cost of what they consume. If they do not, then, as the noble Lord said, we as a nation shall devote more resources to the production of those services than we should and shall have to cut back on things for which people are prepared to pay the full economic price; and the result would be a distortion of the whole economy.
The White Paper also emphasises the important question of relative prices between competing nationalised industries and between those industries when in competition with the private sector. So far as possible the nationalised industries are to charge their consumers the costs specifically attributable to the provision of services which they demand. Where a lot of spare capacity exists in the industry, so that the cost of providing extra goods or services is low, consumers will be charged a low price. Conversely, when the cost of extra services is high, as in the case of peak electricity, then prices should be high. Relative prices should encourage customers to use spare capacity and to refrain from using congested capacity. All this of course refers mainly to operating costs, but the capital requirements of nationalised industries, as the noble Lord said, form a very high proportion of their total cost. Unless the present consumer pays a price related to total costs he is encouraged to demand more of the under-priced goods and services; and consequently more capital needs to be invested to meet this demand. This again means a misallocation of our national resources.
794
However, my Lords, we should not exaggerate the extent to which the present consumer is asked to pay for capital costs. The Economist claimed the other day that the Government had decided to finance the whole of nationalised industry investment out of the industries' revenue. This is quite wrong. For some years now the average level of self-financing by these industries has been just below 50 per cent.—lower than the average for private industries. For the next year or so it is likely to be even lower, and the figures, more accurate figures, will be put in the National Loans Fund White Paper which should be available in a few weeks' time.
There have been some reductions in capital programmes as a part of measures which accompanied devaluation, but we cannot inflict serious damage on our industrial infrastructure by pursuing too far the possibility of dealing with financial demands; and I hope that nothing which the noble Lord said in his speech means that the Party opposite wish us to curb or crib further these essential public industries which form the basis of so much of our other industrial activities. But of course there are other possibilities of raising finance. The Government could allow the industries to borrow on the market again, as they did before 1956. But if their borrowing took the previous form of Government guaranteed stock issues, all that would happen would be some diversion of funds from Government stocks to Nationalised Board's stocks. No new source of borrowing would be opened up, and the total amount of public sector borrowing from the market would remain unchanged. It is possible that new forms of security could be devised which would tap new sources of funds, but most of the schemes which have been discussed so far are, I understand, ruled out for various practical reasons.
Another possibility would be to allow the industries to borrow overseas. This possibility has been under study within the Government for some time. Here again there are a good many difficulties, and it will be some tune before we are able to announce the results of this study. This leaves us with only the present arrangements under which the industries borrow from the Government—or in

795
future, from the National Loans Fund. Big increases on the scale of Government borrowing would have the effect of driving up interest rates, which, apart from other considerations, would make both private and local authority housing more costly to provide. For the rest, therefore, the choice is to raise prices or to increase taxation; and in the main the emphasis here has been put upon the value to the economy of raising finance through the price instrument.
What is the objection to price rises in the nationalised sector? Mainly, of course, the argument is that they are inflationary—that is, that they set off a chain-reaction, leading to further demands for wage increases, and to price increases by manufacturers who depend on the power, and so on, produced by the nationalised industries. But it is not at all clear that such increases are more inflationary than the corresponding tax increases would be if the alternative method of raising capital was used.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, suggests—and this I thought was his main criticism of the White Paper—that the new White Paper puts undue emphasis upon social returns and to this extent sets back the progress achieved under the previous White Paper. With respect, I think that he has exaggerated this. I am bound to comment, incidentally, that the noble Lord who sits next to him occupied a good deal of my time on the Civil Aviation Bill recently in demanding that in that Bill we should make provision for implementing precisely this aspect of the White Paper which the noble Lord now criticises. There are four references in the White Paper to social costs and benefits. Although the noble Lord mentioned one of these, he must surely agree that if we are to assess their impact as a whole we have to look at them in the context of the whole policy. The White Paper says:
"The economic value of investments cannot always be measured by reference to the financial return to the industry concerned. Many investments also produce social costs and benefits which can in principle be valued in financial terms and which when taken into account will provide a good economic justification for them."
This seems to me incontrovertible as a statement of principle.
796
The problems that are then presented are practical ones. How does one measure what I understand economists call the "externalities"? And having measured them, what does one do next? These are not new problems; nor are they peculiar to the nationalised industries. All Governments have to take account of broader economic and social obligations than are shown in a profit-and-loss account. For example, there are balance-of-payments considerations; the encouragement of the efficient use of labour; and there is regional policy, which is so important at the present time. This Government and previous Governments have used fiscal instruments either to bring home to particular enterprises the social costs which they impose on the community, or to encourage them to take action which will bring benefit to the community. Subsidised factory estates in development areas are, of course, another example which springs to mind in this context.
But the fiscal instruments which are appropriate to private enterprise are not always appropriate to nationalised industries, which have different capital structures, attract different tax treatment in consequence, and (with a few exceptions) are not eligible for incentives like investment grants or regional employment premia. So from time to time more direct action by the Government may be appropriate—always with the purpose of maximising the total social return to the whole community, even if the return to the nationalised undertaking would be lower unless covered by a subsidy or some other adjustment.
An obvious and recent example of this was the one which the noble Lord himself mentioned; namely, the Government's request to the Central Electricity Generating Board to use more coal. Even though the cost to the C.E.G.B. would be higher, the cost to the community as a whole is less than that of alternative fuels. This is a case where social and financial returns varied, and the Government decided to intervene. It is also a case where the Government decided to make a cash payment to the C.E.G.B. to make up the difference, and a cash payment out of general taxation to cover the difference, rather than adjusting electricity prices. In other words, here again was a choice between

797
direct taxation and increasing prices to the consumer, and in this case considered on its merits, the choice was to make the payment by general taxation and not by an adjustment of prices. This would amount to taxing the electricity consumer to meet the social costs of the rundown in the coal industry. This is absolutely in line with what the White Paper says in paragraph 37:
"Where there are significant social or wider economic costs and benefits which ought to be taken into account in the industries' investment and pricing, these will be reflected in the Government's policy for the industry: and if this means that the industry has to act against its own commercial interests, the Government will accept responsibility".
Here is something which I should have thought was not only in the framework laid down in the White Paper, but in the interests of the national economy as a whole, and did not detract from the profit incentive which was placed before the nationalised industry concerned.
The White Paper goes on to say that this may mean an adjustment in the financial target for the industry—that is, asking it to earn less, thus forgoing a financial return to the taxpayer—or it may mean a cash payment; that is, making the general taxpayer pay directly. There is no hard-and-fast rule for determining which method is best; it will depend on the circumstances. In some cases the social obligation is so small that one can safely ignore it and not attempt to give a specific subsidy—which means of course that other consumers have to pay a subsidy in their prices. Two examples there are rural electrification and the provision of telephone kiosks; both genuine social services, but neither of them having serious impact on the finances of the industries concerned.
My Lords, it really is important not to over-stress this question of social return. In practice, there are not many cases where social costs and financial costs diverge widely. It was, I suggest, absolutely right to set out in the White Paper the Government's policy for handling these cases, and I am glad to be able to assure the noble Lord that this does not imply any dramatic change of policy. I look forward to what is said in the remainder of the debate on some of the other interesting matters which the noble Lord has raised, and I hope that I shall
798
have an opportunity of commenting on them later.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell me whether the policy of the Government and the noble Lord who has just spoken is that the profit motive is ruled out; and that nobody should toy with anything so disgraceful?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. On the contrary, it means that the profit motive will be there. The profit motive will be a most important motive. The difference between the noble Lord's thinking and that of us on this side of the House is that the profits so made will be used for the benefit of the industry and for the benefit of the consumer.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: It is going to "soak" the taxpayer; that is all.
3.40 p.m.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has invited us this afternoon to discuss the problems of the control of the nationalised industries. Those are problems that have been with us now for quite a long time, and they remain with us to this day. The industry with which I have had personal concern is the transport industry, and that, especially the railway section of it, is, I suppose, the biggest problem child of the lot. Various men, including myself, have made attempts to solve the problem which that industry sets, and yet the problem is certainly still with us. I think, in parenthesis, it is fair to remark that every railway system in Europe this side of the Iron Curtain is in financial difficulties. Well, one should perhaps except the French railways. So long as I have known the French railways they have always run at a deficit, and, so far as it is possible to make out from their accounts what that is, it is larger than anybody else's. But the French are proud of their railways, and with justice, and they do not seem to worry very much about the deficit; but that is not a thinking that would be acceptable, certainly in this country.
Now the Minister is presenting us with another confident attempt to solve this problem. After a barrage of White Papers, she has presented a Bill which

799
is now in front of Parliament, though not yet in front of this House, and it is not, of course, our job to discuss it today. But I hope it is fair just to say one thing. Some men have said that transport should be taken out of politics. That is silly. Of course you cannot take it out of politics. Transport affects the everyday life of every man and woman in the country, for every day in the year, and we cannot take it out of Party politics. But I think it is fair to say that the problems of the industry are very difficult, very complicated, and to a large extent very technical, and therefore they are not suitable—forgive me for saying this—for Party political pillow fights, as they have been used sometimes, even in your Lordships' House.
Paragraph 2 of the White Paper (and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, referred to this) sets out the statutory duties of the nationalised industries. The words have changed very little over the years. They are words that were probably drafted by Herbert Morrison or Cyril Hurcomb or somebody like that, and have changed very little over the years. The financial objectives were sharpened up in 1961, and that was a good step and was certainly taken as such by myself and my colleagues in the transport industry at the time. It is clear from these words that the intention was to set these industries up as independent corporations; they should be given certain objectives and certain rules to follow, but then they should be free to manage their industries themselves, without interference from Government through the Minister.
That was on excellent principle, but it has never been implemented. Interference by the Government started in the very early days—the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, would, I am sure, confirm this—and it has gone on ever since, and has reached an all-time high under the present Minister. But one must be fair about this. It is all very well, but these industries are essential industries. What they do has great political content, and it is only fair to understand that the Government and the Minister are under very heavy pressure. It sounds all right in the paper to say that the chairman should stand up on his feet and quote the Act and tell the Minister to "go to hell", but it does not really work out very well
800
to do that, especially in an industry in which the financial situation is a bit wobbly. After all, would the chairman of a board of a private enterprise industry behave like that to his chief bank manager? I think he would be unwise to do so. This is a matter which was discussed at considerable length between the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, and myself in days gone by, and, whatever recollection he may have of those years, I hope he has felt after them that he and I worked together and did our best loyally to support each other and do our best for the industry.
This leads me on to say a word about the appointments to the Boards of these industries, particularly the key appointment (as I believe Lord Nugent of Guildford called it) of the chairman. The Minister makes these appointments, and the Minister has a perfect right to appoint whoever he thinks most suitable, to appoint the man with whom he believes he can work. If the Minister takes over an industry which has at its head somebody with whom the Minister does not think he can work, the Minister is perfectly entitled to make a change, and nobody should "belly-ache" about it. He is perfectly entitled to do it. But, my Lords, there is a right and a wrong way to do these things; there is a decent and not-so-decent way of doing these things. I am bound to say that I agree with the thought expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that—shall I say?—the way in which the matter was handled recently in regard to the chairmanship of British Railways was not a brilliant example. Frankly, if this kind of thing goes on, in my view it will become impossible to get men to take these jobs.
Lord Nugent of Guildford said that the Government should pay the salary suitable to the job. I agree with that, but I do not think it is the whole business; I do not think that salary alone will do it. If any man were to come to me and say, "I have been offered the chair of the so-and-so industry"—the railways, if you like—"I have been offered the chair of the Railways Board. Do you think I should take it?", I would say, "Well, it is a challenge. If you think you are up to it, certainly take it. But before you finally make up your mind on the subject I suggest you satisfy yourself on two matters. First of all, are you satisfied

801
that you have the hide of a rhinoceros?—because you will certainly need it. Secondly, are you satisfied that your own private means are such that you can face the prospect of resignation or the sack at short notice with relative equanimity?—because I believe that that also is quite important."
Having made those remarks about the appointment of chairmen, I would ask all your Lordships to join with me in wishing the best of fortune to Mr. Johnson, the new Chairman of British Railways. When that appointment was announced there was some very sharp criticism—for example, in a journal I read every week and enjoy greatly, and also in another place. Apart from the fact that it seems to me to be rather mean to criticise an appointment before the chap has had a chance to show what he is worth., I should like to tell your Lordships, from my own knowledge of Mr. Johnson, that the Minister has now appointed a man who is a born leader and who will have the loyalty and support of every man and officer in British Railways. What is wrong with British Railways, my Lords? Demoralised. That is what is the matter with them: demoralised; and surely, therefore, to appoint a leader of this sort must be worth something—that quality must be worth something—in addition to commercial and financial genius.
The White Paper goes on to speak about investment, and I have no particular quarrel with the paragraphs on that subject. To my mind they are a little pedagogic. The control of investment is of course the Minister's job, and in presenting their case the nationalised industries must support it with the most sophisticated methods of appraisal. That is perfectly right. But there has been a tendency to go a little further than that. I almost smelt it (if I may use the expression) in one or two remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. There has been a tendency to go from there to saying that the Minister needs to have with him a Civil Service staff who are themselves authorities in management and are capable of reviewing and passing judgment on the technical opinions expressed in the proposal. I have the greatest respect for our Civil Service; indeed, I think we have the best Civil Service in the world, and they are
802
often most unfairly criticised. But I am not in favour of giving the Civil Service a share in authority—in management. After all, they cannot be expected to accept responsibility for the results, and authority without responsibility is the historical privilege of another and much older profession.
At this point I should like to draw attention to another Government Paper, Cmnd. 3439, which is called Railway Policy. This deals with the financial problems of the railways and also with organisation, and it seems to me to be an excellent Paper. If the Minister had limited her Bill to this Paper I think she would have found it sailing through Parliament with very little opposition. The paragraphs dealing with the financial aspects of the railways seem to me to be very good, and the paragraphs dealing with organisation are excellent. They will involve a certain reorganisation for the railways, and here I should like to make another point—indeed to make a personal plea. A book has been published recently called I Tried to Run a Railway. It is a very amusing book; it should not have been written, of course, but that is beside the point. In that book the author quotes a friend as saying "When we reorganise we bleed". My Lords, I can assure you from my personal knowledge that that is a perfectly true statement, and that when the railways reorganise they bleed—they bleed from the Marylebone Road right down to the furthest country station, the smallest goodsyard and the most remote signal box.
I would make a plea to your Lordships, and through you to the leaders of our great political Parties, that when this Bill is dealt with, when the reorganisation—whatever it is—has been ordered, thereafter our political leaders should accept a self-denying ordinance and not demand further reorganisation of the railways for a period of at least ten years, but should allow them to get on with the job.
I should now like to turn to a mater which is hardly mentioned in the White Paper, but I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, made reference to it. These industries do not consist just of machines. Their problems are not to be solved merely by a slide-rule. They are largely human problems, and it is about the human side of the

803
industry and the industrial relations side that I should like to say two words. The first indeed has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and that refers to industrial relations in these industries. I believe very strongly that these industries in the field of industrial relations should be treated exactly the same as any other industry. In particular, if they get into difficulties and the Government think they ought to intervene, all right—let them intervene, through the Minister of Labour and nobody else; and certainly not the Prime Minister. Once the unions get it into their heads that the Chairman and his Board have no real authority in this matter, why should they bother to try to reach a settlement until they get round that green baize table in Downing Street? And that is not, in fact, the best place to settle these arguments.
There is another matter to which I should like to refer. I flatter myself, perhaps wrongly, that I have a few good friends in the railway trade unions, and I do not want to lose those friendships by anything I say this afternoon. But I feel bound to speak my mind on this subject. I think that the time has come when somebody should get together the heads of the railway trade unions, and maybe also those of the other transport union and the engineering union, and should then say to them: "Gentlemen, it is really time that you reorganised your-selves on more sensible lines. It is really time that you should bring your thinking into tune with modern conditions". Who should do this? The Minister of Labour, of course—he is just the chap.
My Lords, I should like next to refer to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. When I joined the Transport Commission I found an opinion on record by my distinguished predecessor saying that he disagreed quite strongly with the creation of such a Committee. I do not think I have ever disagreed with the noble Lord, Lord Hurcomb, on any other point, but I certainly disagreed on this one. Of course I had not the length of experience of the noble Lord in the matter, but I had some, because I had had some experience in Germany, and I said that I would welcome the appointment of such a Committee. My experience showed me that my advice
804
was wise—at least that is how it seemed to me. Parliament has been called a "watch-dog", and it is through a Committee of this sort that, in my view, it can best exercise its functions; and I think it would be good if these Committees were to conduct their investigations more often.
Of course it is well to remember that when the Select Committee is sitting the Chairman and his Board have no time to do their own jobs. Their whole time is taken up in preparing for the Committee and for their questions. Therefore it will be necessary for the Committee to confine its investigation on each occasion to a narrow field. But I think that if it did that it could investigate each industry considerably more often than it does at present.
I have come to an end, my Lords. I have no peroration for you; I really almost have no conclusion to offer you. I have spelt out a certain number of thoughts which have occurred to me from thinking over my own experience. If there is one thing which emerges from my remarks, perhaps, more than another it is the reminder I have tried to give that the problems of these industries are also human problems, and that they will not be solved if this is forgotten, in particular that Parliament, Government, Ministers—all should know that they are dealing with men and women who are not all fools and who, though certainly they should be criticised and blamed if they are wrong, should also be praised if they are right and every now and then given a bit of encouragement.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him one question? Does he think that the House as a whole would accept the Reports of the kind of Committee he clearly has in mind, because that would be important?
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, I do not know whether I have said something that was not clear. I was talking about the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. I think that that Committee should be a Joint Committee of both Houses. Subject to that, I feel that the House would welcome the Reports of that Committee, as I certainly should.
4.2 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will extend to me the consideration and patience which is traditionally extended to somebody who addresses your Lordships' House for the first time. I have been encouraged to intervene in this debate in part by the generosity which I have seen your Lordships extend to those who have spoken for the first time on previous occasions, and partly because the greater part of my working life has been spent in trade union organisation and trade union representation in the Post Office, which over the last years has been more and more treated as a nationalised industry and which no doubt before long will have the legal status of one. I am tempted to say that the only break in my working life was spent with another nationalised service—the Army. The history of the way in which nationalisation superseded private enterprise in that field, extending, as it did, through the whole period of the Tudors and the Stuarts, would take us too far from to-day's debate.
To-day we are debating a White Paper which carries us a valuable stage along the path of discussion of the complex but very important question of the control of this country's nationalised industries. The White Paper gives a more flexible, a more discriminating, guidance than these industries have previously had to the bases upon which they should conduct their policies. I think that nobody can deny or overlook their vital importance in promoting national growth, national wealth and social progress. But if they are to make that contribution in the most advantageous way they must have stimulus and guidance in a way which they have not hitherto had, because it appears that throughout their history there has been a degree of uncertainty about what was required of them, about what was to be the criteria by which their success was to be judged.
Was the criterion in the end to be a financial one, of profit and loss or of meeting a financial target, or was it to be that of the social benefit which the industry could bring to the nation as a whole? The pursuit of these two aims, the attempt to meet these two criteria, which have often conflicted, has constituted a problem for many of the nation-
806
alised industries throughout their existence. I believe we should agree that neither criterion by itself is sufficient. The financial criterion, no matter how refined, how sophisticated, how subject to adjustment and modification, is in the end too narrow. The social criterion is at the same time too vague.
The White Paper brings out more clearly than anything previously authoritatively written on these industries that there must in the end be a balance between these two criteria. There must be a balance between the meeting of a financial target and the test of long-term social benefit. But it is easy to say that. Anyone who reads the White Paper and tries to put to himself the practical problems which arise year by year for a nationalised industry will be inclined, I think, to believe that there are many points upon which the White Paper does not, and of its nature cannot, give sufficiently clear guidance in individual cases.
I find myself in very substantial agreement with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, on the subject of Parliamentary questioning and of what happens on the Order Paper in another place. I am one of those who believe most firmly that the interventions of Ministers in the day-to-day affairs of nationalised industries ought to be limited, explicit and public. There must clearly always be an area of consultation, of good relations, of understanding, but in so far as the Minister imposes his will upon a nationalised industry that, I suggest, should be an explicit and public act. I should like to put forward the constructive suggestion that it might perhaps be worth the drawing up by the sponsoring Ministry, in consultation with each industry, of a directive, running for one, two or three years, according to circumstances, which would interpret in the light of that industry and of the national need the particular principles which this White Paper sets out. I believe that such a directive, more detailed, more specific than a White Paper can be, but certainly not too detailed, certainly not opening the way to day-to-day interference, could provide a standard by which both those inside a nationalised industry and those outside it could judge its performance.

807
This White Paper contains a great deal of meat. It is tempting to pick up many of the points to which reference is made. I should like, if I may, to mention three points which seem to me to be of great significance. The first is the relationship of nationalised industries to regional planning. It may well be that in the long run one of the most important things that the present Administration will be seen to have done will be its emphasis on regional policies and its effort to halt the trend to the greater concentration of the activities of this country in the Midlands and the South-East. If Scotland, the North, Wales and other parts of the country which have been the subject of these regional policies are to flourish, the nationalised industries have a part to play, not only in terms of what they might do in manufacturing and in providing direct employment, but also in what the transport services, the telephone and postal services and the other services might do to provide the framework of essential services without which the parts of the United Kingdom which are the subject of the Government's regional policies cannot fully develop.
Here there might well be a conflict between the financial criteria and the social considerations. It would indeed be a strange thing if at the present time, when all Parties are increasingly prepared to accept the concept of economic planning—which, after all, is the concept that social considerations must come into broad industrial decisions and that the financial test is not necessarily the determining one—we were in the nationalised industries to put an excessive emphasis on the financial target, to the detriment of the maintenance and even the development of social services and of the infrastructure, in Scotland, in Wales, in the North of England, and in the other parts of the country which have been less economically active over the past decade.
The second point I should like to make relates to the co-ordination of purchasing policies in the nationalised industries. As has already been said, the investment programmes of the nationalised industries are vast. It is unavoidable that they should be. They must be vast because they are concerned with expensive essential services. But if these investment programmes, present and in pros-
808
pect, are so large, there is the particular necessity emphasised, or mentioned at any rate, in the White Paper, to keep them under a continuing appraisal, not only financially but technically as well. And there is a good deal of scope, I venture to suggest, for the nationalised industries themselves to consider how far they can co-ordinate their purchasing policies, how far they can standardise upon the very wide range of items which they themselves require, and by that kind of standardisation, by making available the advantages of large scale manufacture, not only pursue a policy beneficial to themselves but to other industries as well and to the national interest.
Lastly, the White Paper refers to the position of those who work in the nationalised industries. It is in the field of making the maximum use of the human resources available to them that the nationalised industries could perhaps set a very valuable example. There is a reference in the White Paper to the importance of developing further consultation and participation of workers and staff at all levels, and this is of immense importance. But the using to the maximum advantage of human resources goes a little beyond, a great deal beyond, having good collective machinery and using that machinery well. It is a question, too, of the industries assessing the individual human material at their disposal and seeing that the individual human beings who serve those industries have the fullest opportunity of developing their talents and reaching positions of responsibility as high as they can bear.
We have had in the last few years in this country great developments in educational opportunities, but there are many men who have served for ten, fifteen, twenty or twenty-five years in nationalised industries, who came to those industries before the public educational development had taken place, men of great potential which has never fully been realised; and the more our nationalised industries, as many of them to their great credit have already done, can develop comprehensive internal schemes of training and advancement, the more they will enhance the use of the human capital which this country has, and the more, too, they will remove some at any rate of the sources of frustration in those industries.

809
I suppose that for some years there will always be some element of controversy about the nationalised industries in this country, particularly about the issue of how far, if at all, the boundary of nationalisation and public ownership should extend. Some of the controversy which has surrounded the nationalised industries in the past would now, I think, in the view of all of us, be seen to have had some elements that were unfair. We have, I believe, on all sides of political life, a duty to make our consideration of the nationalised industries penetrating, critical, but fair and objective. I do not think that the nationalised industries would expect those who share the general viewpoint of those on these Benches to see them always through rose-coloured spectacles. I think they would equally be entitled to expect that those who share the general viewpoint of noble Lords on the Benches opposite would not always see them through dark glasses.
Certainly whatever controversy there may be about the frontier of nationalisation, whatever skirmishing there may be left, there are great areas of our economy where, without any serious challenge, without any serious doubt, public ownership and nationalisation is now the accepted pattern, and it is in the interests of all of us, and above all in the interests of the future of our country, that those areas should be areas of growth, areas in which there is the stimulus of new ideas, areas in which science and technology are most fully brought to bear upon our problems, and areas in which the individuals concerned can feel that their talents are put to the fullest use. It is in the interests of all of us and in the interests of the country, and I believe that this White Paper sets us not the whole of the way, but a number of valuable steps along the road to finding the way so to administer and control these industries that they may live up to those expectations.
4.18 p.m.
VISCOUNT MILLS: My Lords, it is my privilege, because I follow the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, to congratulate him on his maiden speech. But it is also my pleasure to do so because I have listened to a very able, well-balanced speech; and although I do not entirely agree with all the inferences he drew, it
810
was a real pleasure to listen to him and I hope we shall often hear him speak again in your Lordships' House.
We are invited by the Motion put down by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, to consider the implications on the policies of Her Majesty's Government of the White Paper which was issued by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in November, 1967. I am influenced in my thinking on the subject by two main things. First, as Minister of Power in 1957 and onwards I had some concern with the nationalised industries, coal, electricity and gas, and also with the unnationalised industry, the oil industry. Then I am influenced to a very great extent by the views expressed b} my friend Professor Sir Ronald Edwards, whom I appointed to the Electricity Council and who, I think everyone agrees, has done a magnificent job as Chairman of that Council. As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, told us, he has put down some of his views on the problems of the nationalised industries, their duties, their responsibilities and their relations with Government, in the Stamp Memorial Lecture which he gave as a commentary before the University of London on November 9 last. It is the fact, as he states, that the post-war Statutes which set up the nationalised industries gave them the minimum duty of breaking even, taking one year with another, and there was no further guidance.
I apologise to your Lordships if, in the course of this speech and, I must say, following the lead of the White Paper, I state some obvious things which, in my earlier business experience, I used to term "business for boys". I used to believe, and still do, that adequate profits were necessary to the wellbeing and the progress of any business and to all those concerned with it; that without adequate profits any business was bound to decline and wither away. I also used to believe and still do, that one of the responsibilities of management was to provide and train its own succession.
But those responsible for the nationalisation Statutes after the war—that is, the post-war Socialist Government—did not seem to like the word "profit". I assume they believed that men would give of their utmost, would work hard and do their best, because they were working in industries which they were

811
told they now owned. The responsibility was laid upon the Minister to appoint the members of the Boards at what then were most inadequate salaries, which in effect meant that he received recommendations from his Department which, in my view, were generally not based on convincing experience and careful analysis of the qualifications required.
We Conservatives, who were distrustful of, and opposed to, the ill-considered nationalisation Statutes, nevertheless decided to do our best to help the industries to work. It is interesting to remember the words of the late Sir Winston Churchill who, in his own inimitable way, said:
"We abhor the fallacy, for such it is, of nationalisation for nationalisation's sake. But where we are preserving it, as in the coalmines, the railways, air traffic, gas and electricity, we have done, and are doing, our utmost to make a success of it, even though this may somewhat mar the symmetry of Party recrimination."
As Sir Ronald Edwards in his commentary, which has already been referred to, points out, until the White Paper, The Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries, was issued in 1961, the attitudes of the industries and within individual industries towards working profits varied considerably. The attitudes were coloured in part by the background of the chairmen themselves. It was also my experience that, whatever the attitude might be, the ability to make profits depended largely upon the competence of the Boards concerned. Generally speaking, profit-consciousness did not rank high in the thinking, either in the Ministries or in the nationalised industries. I myself was satisfied that in the great public services—coal, electricity, gas, transport—a measure of control and direction was necessary. But I was also convinced that not only should they be required to make profits, but that they should be required to show an adequate return on the capital employed in them.
I am not unaware of the great difficulties with which those industries have had to contend, nor of the criticisms which they have had to face, which were of a different order and magnitude from those which beset private industry. I also knew of the lack of clear definition in the original Statutes as to their duties, particularly on this question of making
812
profits. I therefore welcomed the White Paper of 1961 which set out profit targets for the nationalised industries. For this, the Treasury must take the credit. Those proposals did much to improve the outlook of the industries and of all those engaged in them. Under private industry the nature and scale of the investments are based on the need to make profits, avoid bankruptcy and accept the discipline of the market.
The concept of the nationalised industry was fashioned in the days of the laissez-faire State, when Government control of industry was unknown. In private industry, the pricing of the product, at any rate until the advent of this present Government, was based on the business judgment of men responsible for making profits. But in nationalised industry the Government are involved as well as the management. That, perhaps, is quite inevitable. As Sir Ronald Edwards expressed it:
"Management does not have the freedom to optimise its own performance in pursuit of a single objective, or even in pursuit of a number of stable and compatible ones."
Let us examine the part played by the White Paper in endeavouring to define more clearly the economic and financial obligations of the nationalised industries. If, in the light of nearly twenty years of experience, it has clarified them it is to be welcomed. If it could lead back to woolliness in financial objectives and to their real purpose being lost sight of, it would be a retrograde step. But, my Lords, this is just what I fear is the effect of the White Paper that we are now debating. I gave credit to the Treasury for the 1961 White Paper. But while this latest White Paper is issued in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I wonder how many Departments played a part in preparing it, how many Ministries were involved, and how many civil servants were called to examine it. I will not embarrass the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, by asking him to tell me how many Ministries or how many civil servants were concerned with this White Paper, but the White Paper itself might well be a compromise of a number of opposing views.
In paragraph 5 of the White Paper the Government's objectives for industry are stated as:
"to increase the productivity of both labour and capital employed; to raise the rate of

813
new capital formation to ensure that new equipment is as technologically advanced as possible and is effectively deployed; to increase the profitability of new investment; and to obtain the maximum return in terms of the production of goods and services."
I am sure that industry would not quarrel with that. There is nothing new in that statement. These have been the objectives of industry ever since I have been concerned in industry, and that is why I was tempted to say that a good deal in the White Paper was just "business for boys". But the White Paper goes on to say:
"The nationalised industries have a vital role to play in the attainment of these objectives as well as in the development of the Government's wider social and economic policies."
How is the management of the nationalised industries to construe this statement? Does it not lead back to woolliness in financial objectives and to their real purpose being lost sight of?
I realise that in the White Paper there is a growing readiness to accept the distinction between commercial and social services, but I question whether the right way to deal with the problem is to make adjustments through the charges made by the nationalised industries. Such solutions can easily provide an alibi for bad management; they can destroy the stimulus provided by insistence on a proper return on capital being required from the nationalised industries, as is the case in private industry. Such a practice can lead to the industries' pleading social conditions when such a plea is not justified. It could also enable Ministers to pursue policies which have not been fully discussed.
If the Government wish certain classes of consumers to be favoured, for whatever reason—to make an industry more competitive, or to encourage supplies of goods and services to certain areas or consumers who cannot afford them—would it not be wiser to make direct grants, rather than to require the industries to lower prices in particular cases? I believe that the profit spur does not appeal to many Socialists as really necessary. For my part, I know it to be essential to the wellbeing of the nationalised industries and to all those engaged in them.
Although the White Paper recognises that the circumstances of the industries are very diverse, and says that this will
814
be taken into account in formulating detailed policies for the sectors concerned, nevertheless the White Paper seems to me to be an attempt to lay down some general conditions, however inappropriate some of them may be, which might be applied to any nationalised industry. For example, paragraphs 13 and 14 of the White Paper seem to have been largely influenced by conditions concerned with transport, but it could easily be held that the use of exemptions and preferences in respect of other industries would be appropriate under these clauses.
To sum up, my view is that the White Paper could have real implications on policies of Her Majesty's Government. It contemplates using the working of the nationalised industries as an instrument of Government policies. It obscures what should be the clear financial and economic objectives for those industries which should ensure that all engaged in them can clearly see the paths which they are following and be encouraged to reach the targets set. The post-war Statutes setting up the nationalised industries resulted in confusion which could have been avoided, so far as proper commercial guidance to the industries was concerned. But I suggest to your Lordships that this White Paper, which I am glad the noble Lord has put down for debate, has made confusion worse confounded.
4.37 p.m.
LORD BEECHING: My Lords, may I follow the noble Viscount, Lord Mills, by adding my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, on the excellent and constructive nature of his maiden speech. The White Paper which has given rise to this debate is a most extraordinary document. It expounds elementary economic principles with admirable clarity, and with an air of discovery that almost persuades us that it is saying something new. It never boggles at platitudes. For example, the section headed "Investment", on page 4, starts with the sentence:
"Investment is fundamental to economic growth and largely determines the way in which industries develop."
That is a very modest statement of the obvious. But the section on "Prices", on page 8, starts with the sentence:
"The use of correct methods of investment appraisal will only be effective if the nationalised industries also adopt, within the context of

815
national prices and incomes policy, pricing policies relevant to their economic circumstances.'
That, I think, could fairly be described as platitudinous gobbledegook.
It is not my purpose to ridicule the White Paper. Indeed, it reminds me so much of the sort of report that an earnest but not very imaginative newly fledged graduate might have written that I think it would be unkind to appear to ridicule it at all. But it is presented by Her Majesty's Government as a serious contribution to thought on a very important and difficult subject. As such, its main merit is the devotion of its whole last paragraph, headed "Conclusion", to a description of its own triviality. It declares an avoidance of the main problem—the basic relationship between Government and nationalised industries—and admits to a not surprising inability to produce a solution to the dependent problem of setting financial targets. It produces no solution better than, "It all depends".
This failure of the White Paper to produce any real basis for a debate is the best reason of all for having one, for we are faced with a chronic problem of great importance and difficulty. The nationalised industries are a major element in the national economy, and I think we must all recognise, whether with satisfaction or dismay, that they will remain so. It is therefore of paramount importance that they should be managed well, which means, in the case of most of them, that they must be run very much better than they have been in the past. But this will not be brought about, nor will it be materially assisted, by a vague indication of new financial targets, any more than it was by the old arbitrarily precise ones. Indeed, even the least suspicious of people may see the purpose of the change as a removal of embarrassing precision and, in particular, removal of an obstacle to the arbitrary restrictions of the rise in electricity prices. It restores freedom to move the goal to catch the ball after the game has been interfered with.
The efficiency with which the nationalised industries are run must of course depend upon the quality of their managements, but it depends even more upon the relationship between them and the
816
Government. Advocates of nationalisation all see it as the most direct and obvious way of enabling the Government to superimpose on the undertakings considerations other than those which would influence them if they were purely commercial enterprises. What they do not agree about is the purposes to be served by this interference.
Once an industry is nationalised, however, any Government is bound to interfere, partly because it will want to, and partly because it will be pressed into doing so by factions among its own supporters, with a diversity of objectives in mind. As a result, any nationalised industry is in great danger of becoming a political shuttlecock, buffeted about by policy changes of a magnitude and frequency to which it cannot possibly adapt itself because of its own inherent inertia. It will be lucky, too, if within this fluctuating framework of policy it does not find itself subjected to pressures and directives which are so incompatible, one with another, and so restricting in toto, that it is utterly impossible for the undertaking to discharge all its statutory duties within the resulting straitjacket, and pay its way as well.
The fixing of financial targets in circumstances such as these is likely to prove either futile or inflationary—futile because they are so demanding, in relation to the liberty left to the undertaking in the situation in which it finds itself, and so restricting that it cannot possibly meet them; inflationary because it meets them by exercising its freedom to raise prices, and includes in those prices the cost of all sorts of services provided uneconomically. The effects of this treatment are most obvious in the case of those industries which are very heavily pressed by competition and struggling financially. Because they are struggling, they receive even more than a fair share of Government intervention, and because they are interfered with so much they can never pursue any plan for their own salvation to a conclusion.
Sensible Members of all Parties realise that this is a silly situation which ought to be brought to an end. They realise that, even if doubts remain about the denationalisation of some industries—and that would be one way out of the impasse, were it possible—it is quite obvious that the problem of controlling

817
large nationalised undertakings in some sensible manner is going to remain. Also, even though Parties are very ready to push the hapless undertakings about when they are in power, they must realise that, viewed in retrospect, their own actions have often been damaging rather than beneficial, and that, in any case, the Opposition will have its own destructive turn in due course. But foolish as all this seems, and is seen to be, successive Governments are driven by Party antagonism and Back-Bench extremism to a perpetuation of this form of folly.
The industries deserve far better treatment than they have had in the past, or are getting now. The management is being abominably maltreated and frustrated. The people of the country are being given a flagrant example of industrial misdirection at its worst. Leaving aside the question as to which, if any, particular policy is right, it is still certain that it cannot be right to pursue incompatible objectives simultaneously, or to veer from one policy to another with a rapidity to which the undertakings cannot possibly conform.
My Lords, the problem is how to stop this nonsense—and it really is nonsense, because once the impossibility of denationalisation has been accepted, as it must be in many cases, the issues which truly divide the Parties are small. They both want to run the industries so as to give the people of the country the best possible value for money. They divide mainly because they fail to distinguish between commercial considerations and economic considerations. Bearing in mind that the basic reason for nationalisation is to enable the Government to override purely commercial considerations in some respects, it is absurd to suppose that a stable policy framework for a nationalised industry can be established if it does not include provision for economically sound social benefits which the undertaking is capable of providing, even though it may not by itself be capable of recouping the cost through its charges. On the other hand, it is equally absurd to suggest that anything which the undertaking is capable of providing should be provided regardless of cost, just because it would be nice to have it. But, in fact, the two Parties are often seen to adopt one or other of these absurd postures.
818
Between sensible men the important questions are, first: "Is the social benefit worth its cost?"; and, second: "How should the cost be levied to make it fall in approximately the right place?" These questions do, it is true, leave some room for differing judgments of the value and incidence of benefits, but not so wide that rational men could not be expected to reach some acceptable compromise. It is the absence of any serious attempt to quantify benefits and costs that, in most cases, prevents any reconciliation of views, and hence prevents that stabilisation of policy which the industries most certainly deserve. In my view, we shall stabilise the policy framework within which particular nationalised industries are expected to work only if we provide strong, influential and reasonably objective bodies of men which will absorb much of the factional pressure from Parliament on the Ministers responsible for the various undertakings, and will, if necessary, moderate any over-readiness of the Ministers to modify policy or give directives to the Boards.
These bodies might well be special Committees composed of Members drawn from both Houses of Parliament and rendered as non-partisan as possible by a balanced representation of the Parties. They would have a professional type of job to do, and would fill their buffering and stabilising role by assuming a responsibility for ensuring that policies and directives were such as to give the public good value for money; and by periodic monitoring of the undertakings' performance to ensure that policies were being implemented effectively and that budgeted performance was being achieved. I myself see separate bodies for each of the industries, not one large Select Committee for Nationalised Industries; and such a Committee should be seen not as a means of increasing Parliamentary control over an undertaking in detail, but rather as a means of coalescing the many conflicting demands into a coherent, realistic and stable policy framework within which the Board of the undertaking could manage with confidence.
It may be argued that this proposal would give rise to difficulties. And so it might. But the present situation is

819
worse than difficult; it is inexcusably destructive. It is obvious, my Lords, that we must find some way of shielding the nationalised undertakings from alternative waves of Party prejudice, and we should not be deterred from doing so merely because it is difficult to establish bodies of reasonable men.
4.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT WATKINSON: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, and I think with most other noble Lords, that all is not well with the nationalised industries. The problem the noble Lord faced very honestly—as did the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, before him—is the immense difficulty of arriving at a solution that is politically viable as well as practical from a managerial point of view. I think this is the sadness—and I use that word advisedly—and the frustration of the whole concept of nationalisation; because there is no doubt at all that those early planners who conceived this way of running large sectors of the economy were moved by very sincere and very honourable motives. They really did think that men and women would work better and more fruitfully if they worked for a national goal, for the nation, rather than for the profit motive; and I think we must not forget these things when we try to see what we can do to make the nationalised industries more efficient. They sprung from very honourable motives.
The trouble was that the early pioneers, I think, did not believe in the profit motive; and they did not know much about management practice or the whole concept of private enterprise. The result—this is a view, I think, from the ministerial side of the problem as opposed, perhaps, to the noble Lord's views from the managerial side, but I think I might carry him with me when I express it—is that, in my view, successive Ministers responsible for nationalised industries have been presented with a practically impossible task; and I think this is true whatever political Party they have represented. I think an almost impossible task has been placed, too, on the shoulders of the chairmen of nationalised industries, particularly in their relations with Parliament and with the Minister; and I think
820
we might perhaps make a little more progress if for a moment we turn aside and try to look at this concept as a management proposition.
Quite frankly, my Lords, if we do this we see that it is about as up to date as the brontosaurus. Let me give your Lordships one or two practical examples of what I mean. I tried very hard, with Sir Brian Robertson, as he then was (the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, as he is now), to bring some semblance of business management to the railways, and I would never wish to have a better colleague with whom to try to do an impossible task. But it was an impossible task, and we were defeated time and time again, as I imagine the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, and his ministerial colleagues were after my time, when we tried to bring some sense into what after all was really a very big business which had got into a bad way. And why had it got into a bad way? We all realise now, with the benefit of hindsight, that if only, after the war, expert management had been brought to bear on modernising the railways, instead of arguing about the pros and cons of nationalisation, denationalistion and all the rest, we might to-day have a railway system which was efficient and, indeed, might be in sight of breaking even.
It was the diversion of effort, skill and all the rest, into arguments about theories of management rather than getting on with the job that presented such an impossible task to those who managed and those who were supposed to represent the public interest. Therefore I would say (as an Irishman, if you like) that the failure of the railways was certainly a failure of management, but it was not a failure of the managers. They were merely trying to operate a quite unworkable system. This dragged heavily at the loyalty of trade union leaders, of chairmen and their colleagues and of Ministers. I think we have to face the fact that if a major industry like the railways is in serious trouble, if it is threatened by labour unrest or if it wants to put up its prices, it is utterly unrealistic to say that if there is a Minister sponsoring that industry he can shed the whole burden on to the chairman of the industry. It is utterly impossible. He could not live with his colleagues or with the House of Commons if he did. The only other comment I would make is this. How can you

821
run a big business if you have to meet your shareholders once a week, which is what a Minister has to do if he is looking after a nationalised industry, every time he goes down to the House of Commons? That, perhaps, is enough about that.
Turning to the airlines for a moment, which are very important, we are still the centre of the world's airline network and we still have to go on exporting, more than ever we hope, aerospace products. I have a very great respect for Lord Douglas of Kirtieside—he did a wonderful job with B.E.A.—but I give this example of the sort of problems which Parliament, in its wisdom or lack of wisdom, put on the shoulders of chairmen of nationalised industries and their sponsoring Ministers. The noble Lord will know something about this, because he is an old political adversary but also an old political friend. When B.E.A. were trying to decide on their next aircraft all their planning, all their own particular route justification, suggested quite clearly that the concept of what became the Trident airliner was absolutely right for B.E.A. At that time, other experts in my Ministry and in what was then the Ministry of Supply took a quite different view. They took the view that a quite different configuration would meet enough of B.E.A.'s requirements and get B.E.A. along its profitable road, but would also give a much bigger opportunity for an aircraft which might sell around the world. In the end, Lord Douglas, quite properly and quite constitutionally, said to me that if I as Minister were willing to give him a public, written directive to buy an aircraft of my choice, and not his, he would accept it. Not surprisingly, he did not get the directive. But what an impossible management task to place on the shoulders either of Lord Douglas or of the Minister at that time.
May I give just one other example? Turning to B.O.A.C., I do not think anybody in this House would now deny that B.O.A.C. picked the right aircraft when they picked the VC 10. If you do not believe it, you have only to look at the passenger lists, and all over the world passengers are saying, "Can I not fly in a VC 10?", as opposed to other commercial jets. Yet what a tragedy! At a critical stage in aircraft development, when more export sales were a definite
822
possibility, the chairman of B.O.A.C. had, quite rightly, to give more priority to getting his airline out of the red and into the black than to sponsoring that particular aircraft at a time when it could have made a lot more sales. I am not saying he was wrong. Indeed, as I understand it he was under a directive from the Minister to get his airline out of the red and into the black. I am not blaming him or anyone else: I am merely saying that these requirements, put upon a man who is trying to manage a very complex anti competitive industry, and put upon a Minister who has some rather undefined responsibility for him, is not a good way to run a business—and that is what these things are. I will not trouble your Lordships further with reminiscences. We can all add to the long tale of differences.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for a moment? The Chairman of B.O.A.C. did write down the VC 10 publicly.
VISCOUNT WATKINSON: That may well be. I do not disagree with the noble Lord. I told him at the time—and I think I wrote a letter to The Times to the same effect—that I thought he was utterly wrong so to do. I am trying to give a balanced view and report to the House. I am not saying that the decision was right; I am merely trying to expose the incredible difficulties of operating in a sphere such as this under the kind of pressure which Parliament puts upon us.
Therefore I want to suggest one or two ways in which I think we could make some progress out of this mess. I think they will shock some noble Lords; but there it is. First, I think we should look again at the possibility of denationalising some sector of the nationalised industries. This cannot any longer be a large sector. I do not think there are many areas where you could raise private capital to replace public investment. But where you could, you should, because I think this is an impossible task to place upon Parliament. I think the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation may well be a useful body to look at this area and at those industries or parts of industries which could be returned—not really to private ownership, but to a dependence on private capital and the profit motive. That would be the first thing I would

823
suggest: to hive off what you can. It probably will not be very much.
But what are we to do with the sector of nationally-owned industries which have a possibility, anyway, of breaking-even or of making a profit? I must say that in my view I think they should be firmly divorced from political control, even through the back door. I think they should not have to present an annual report to Parliament, and I think they should not have a Minister directly responsible for them. I think their control should revert to the Treasury which holds the ultimate responsibility for their capital and for their profits and losses. Treasury interest could be secured by a certain number of directly Government-nominated directors on each board—but not the majority of the board. Once that is done—although, possibly, the first chairman would have to be selected by the Government—thereafter they should do what all the big industries do: train their own successors, bring them up and see them into the job.
But how are we to secure the public interest? I think they should present annual reports, have annual general meetings, and I think a very interesting proposition might be (if the Treasury were willing) to nominate people from the learned and technical societies such as the Society of Mechanical and Electrical Engineers to be their representatives at the annual general meeting, to go along and cross-question the Board and see that it is doing its duty. Of course, in the charter under which they act they would certainly be subject to the Treasury putting in a receiver if, over a reasonable period of years, they failed to make a profit. If this happened they would fall under my third example, to which I would turn now.
In the case of the nationally-owned industries which show little or no signs of making a profit, for very logical reasons—and perhaps the railways and the coal industry are two examples—I believe we should sweep away this quite false concept of a working relationship between the Minister and the House of Commons, or your Lordships' House, and a chairman who is supposed to act according to his commercial judgment. It is a quite unworkable situation. We should
824
face the logic of it. In these industries we should first divorce from them their ancilliary industries. I do not see why the railways or the Coal Board, to take two examples, should have a lot of side industries in which they are engaged. They should be slimmed down to their main business and Parliament should have a Minister for Coal and a Minister for Railways for which they are directly responsible. A Minister can stand up in Parliament and answer for his own actions and for those of his Ministry: and everybody will know exactly where they stand. I am not sure that I would volunteer to be such a Minister but none the less I think this brings matters to a proper crunch and gives reasonable compromise between the good management principles, which we really must have, in what is now a very large sector of our total economy, and Parliamentary accountability. There must be some chance for those men who, as Lord Robertson of Oakridge said, have been and are getting no thanks and taking all the risks. Why should they do so unless they have a fair run for their money? At least, Part 2 of my scheme should give some chance of giving them a run for their money. In my view, they deserve it. If they do not get this chance, these men will become unrecruitable.
These are not, perhaps, suggestions that will be very agreeable to either side of this House. I do not expect the Government to welcome them because, in a way, this is to say that the whole concept of nationalisation is proving to be more and more unsuitable for Britain in the second half of the 20th century. I believe that Britain has a future in the second half of this century only if we rely on private enterprise and the profit motive. If we do not, we shall suffer even more indignities and hardships before we decide what is the truth, and that that is the only way we can run our country. But that is another matter on which I will not delay your Lordships now.
May I say one or two words at the end? When you have been in charge of a nationalised industry you have a great affection for it. I will always have a great affection for the railways. It is therefore a great sadness for me to see the quite lamentable state into which they are lapsing—in morale, in management,

825
in almost everything. One must hope that anything one says in your Lordships' House may, at least, lead the Government to have another look at this. If anything that I have said can do anything to make this sector of the economy a little more attractive to the trade unions who work in it, to the managers who give their lives to it, and even to the unfortunate Ministers who get stuck with it, I shall feel well repaid.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, it is a very pleasant privilege to congratulate my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith. I am sure that his speech was the first of many we can hope to look forward to. It was a serious objective speech, enabling us to look on national problems and conditions devoid of any emotions. My speech is going to be a short one dealing with specialised subjects. Before I tackle these I should like to express a measure of congratulation to whoever wrote this White Paper. I confess that I expected many more platitudes mixed with statistics relevant and irrelevant; but instead we have what I can describe as a serious attempt at an objective thesis; and as such it should be respected.
There are many on both sides of this House who are connected with industry, sitting in positions of power and responsibility for many thousands of men. There is much in this White Paper from which we can all learn. In paragraph 37 on page 14 there is a sentence which stands out. I will quote:
"Nationalised industries, which command much greater resources than all but the very largest private undertakings, should expect to be numbered among the most progressive and efficient concerns in the country."
I do not think that anyone can disagree with that, especially as we are told that the net assets are now valued at some £12,000 million and that their annual rate of interest is equal to the whole of that for the private manufacturing industry; that is, £1,700 million per annum. As to the last part of the sentence that I have just quoted, the words "progressive" and "efficient" rarely leave the conscious mind of any top-rank industrialist. We can never become sufficiently progressive or efficient in our own minds if we are doing our duties as executives in industry.
826
My Lords, for me to attempt a catalogue of the merits and demerits of the many departments in each of the nationalised industries would be unwise; but the spirit moves me to ask whether there is hope of art enthusiastic liaison between the research departments of the nationalised industries; or are they becoming cocoons in order to satisfy a pattern which could become a dangerous trend? The result of research often leads to a patent, and here again I should like to ask the question: is there an organisation, available or contemplated, to deal with patents emerging from the results of combined research? I do not mean a collection of patent agents, but trained, experienced men who know their way about in one of the most dense of industrial jungles, the efficient exploitation of patents. Those of us who have experience in the patent world will know exactly what it means, especially when you are up against the German patent office. It is not good enough to have people who cannot stand toe to toe with the Japanese, the Germans and the Americans. They have an exceedingly efficient intelligence system, and no sooner is the ink dry on the specification than you find one of those boys on your doorstep. Each one is a very experienced expert in his own field, especially in getting licences. This is followed up by an improved patent.
The nationalised industries have an opportunity to go much further than most industrial organisations in this sphere. It would be a tragedy if such an opportunity were lost through any protective jealousies which could be generated between one nationalised industry and another. Many of us are aware of the type of jealousy to which I refer: you see it very often in senior common rooms. We have scientists and men of academic distinction on research work, and jealousy may often be a natural consequence, unless it is discouraged. If such an attitude exists it must be destroyed, if the country is to reap the benefits which can emerge from an investment of £12,000 million.
My Lords, I have only touched on the subject this afternoon as it is relevant in a debate on a review of the economic and financial objectives of the nationalised industries. At an early opportunity I hope to be permitted to initiate a debate on this question of patent exploitation

827
and the need for the co-ordination of research not only in the nationalised industries but in all industry and our universities. Unnecessary duplication and fragmentation in this field could easily lead to a greater disaster than we can envisage. Each of us is a shareholder in the nation's wealth. Whether we have a large or a small share is of less importance than our right to expect maximum efficiency throughout our industries, whether or not they are nationalised.
5.14 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, the point I should like to make this afternoon may perhaps seem to your Lordships a minor one after the important speeches which we have heard from noble Lords who have such an enormous breadth and depth of experience on the question of the nationalised industries. Among them I would class the remarkable maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith. As one who has just gone through the ordeal of making a maiden speech I was filled with admiration.
I hope, my Lords, that you will agree that the point I am raising is one of considerable public interest. The situation which I should like to draw to the attention of your Lordships is the temptation which always seems to exist in large, nationalised, centralised or socialised bodies to indulge in "empire building"; in particular, to indulge in ancillary trading ventures in such a way as to compete very unfairly with private traders.
This sometimes arises through the enthusiasm of experts within an industry; for instance, in the National Coal Board, where it is necessary, and indeed extremely desirable, that there should be experts dealing with tree transplantation and growing trees for use on opencast sites. It may happen that the experts are very keen on their job and suggest that there should be a great expansion and that more should be done for the general public. Or it may come from a laudable desire to spread the burden of overheads and reduce losses or increase profits. The first example I should like to bring to the attention of your Lordships relates to the National Coal Board, who have circulated local authorities with an offer to
828
transplant semi-mature trees for landscaping "at cost price", in their words, which amounts to 50 per cent. or less of the price that the members of the private organisation, The Association of Tree Transplanters, can offer.
We all know that tree transplanting is, in general, an important amenity and something we should all like to see improved and extended to enhance the quality of our countryside and urban landscape. It should be encouraged so far as possible. We also would agree that it is a very good thing that the National Coal Board should take on the responsibility of landscaping their opencast sites. But surely it is unjust that, by the simple expedient of not charging their full overheads, they should undercut the most important sector of the private market.
The legal department of the National Coal Board justifies this on the grounds that it facilitates their making coal cheaper and therefore it is intro tires. I think that a specious argument. Most private tree transplanters have small businesses, for as yet it is not a large industry, and surely they are entitled to seek protection from this juggernaut which will rob them of 95 per cent. of their market and may easily, and probably will, ruin their businesses. Although these businesses are small, there is a lot of capital involved, largely in the plantations of private landowners who are growing trees on contract with the Association. The Association has vainly sought the assurance of the National Coal Board, first, that they will confine their semi-mature tree transplanting to a role incidental to the getting of coal, and, secondly, that they will not grow and sell semi-mature trees for transplanting in the private sector.
There is another example which is slightly outside the purview of this debate, but I hope your Lordships will admit it as being an example of the tendency about which I am talking. The British Broadcasting Corporation recently unilaterally revoked an agreement with the Periodical Proprietors' Association on the subject of the Listener magazine. It was a definite agreement as to what percentage of the Listener should be devoted to broadcasing, so that the Listener could use to the maximum the resources of the B.B.C. for promotion

829
purposes. The result of this unilateral renunciation has been that there is at the moment no generally agreed limit to the degree to which the Listener can encroach upon the field of general political and cultural weeklies.
My Lords, as someone who has been involved in the past, I want as much as anyone to see an increase in the number of good magazines in this country, and I think that the Listener is a good magazine. But that it should be able to compete with private enterprise by selling at 9d. as a result of getting a cash grant of, I am reliably informed, over £40,000 a year from the B.B.C., in addition to being the only commodity of any kind which is advertised on B.B.C., seems to me to be absolutely wrong. In addition (and here I must confess my interest as a book publisher), the B.B.C. has also announced its intention of going more deeply into the business of book publishing. It may be—and I hope it is—that the book publishing will be entirely incidental to broadcasting, but the point I am making, I must insist again, is not one of individual instances but of a general tendency.
There are two things which the Government could say about this—possibly there are more, but I think that these are the two main ones. First of all, they could say that these cases were either infra vires or ultra vires, that this is a matter of fact and that if there is a dispute it ought to be left to the courts to decide. Secondly, they could argue that these are matters which fall in the field of day-to-day administration and are not matters of public interest. I submit that, if put forward, these would be short-sighted views. To start with, the determination of fact can be a very costly business. In both the cases I have mentioned there is counsel's opinion that these actions are ultra vires, but I have no doubt that with little difficulty counsel's opinion could be obtained to say exactly the opposite and the matter could be decided only at great expense in the courts. But there is no doubt that, whatever the legal situation, when Parliament drafted these Charters and Statutes the clear intention was that these bodies should stick to certain fields and should not unfairly undercut private industry in ancillary fields.
Nationalisation and centralisation are regarded by some people with great sus-
830
picion.I am delighted that in this debate we have not been looking at the nationalised industries with rose-coloured spectacles from one set of Benches and with dark spectacles from the other, as one noble Lord had feared. But such suspicion is not lulled by encroachments of this kind; nor is it lulled, to take another example of what I feel is a most unfortunate case, by Sir Giles Guthrie's recent remarks to the Air Transport Licensing Board on January 16. On that occasion, after referring to two of the independent airlines as "very, very small fry" and "not likely to be in the big league" and to their proposals as "paltry", he went on:
"Looking at their proposals with the cold eye of a merchant banker, and knowing as I do rather more about the finances of some of the independents than is public property, I must say that I for one would not be happy at the prospect of putting my money into their business."
This seems to me to be an improper remark and one that tends to increase suspicion. Sometimes this suspicion is right and sometimes it is wrong. The Liberal Party, in its time, has supported nationalisation, and in its time has nationalised. It has also refused various forms of nationalisation. But I would suggest to the Government—and I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, whether he would be good enough to reply to this point—that they could disperse a great deal of suspicion and engender a great deal of good will by issuing a general directive to the nationalised industries and similar bodies, ruling that a matter of public interest is involved and laying down broad principles to be followed while engaging in these ancillary trading facilities.
5.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords. I do not think it is necessary to tell your Lordships that personally I am not in favour of nationalisation. Nevertheless, I realise that nationalisation has come to stay and that it must be made to work. I would go along with my noble friend Lord Watkinson in the remarks which he made about one of the potent factors in the introduction of nationalisation—the idealistic theory that when working for the common good, and for the community as a whole, men and women would work very much better, much harder and more intelligently than when

831
they were working for the profit of their bosses. That has been proved to be wrong. In practice, we have found that people do not work harder and more intelligently and with any greater enthusiasm when they work for the community as represented by the nationalised industries. There are just as many strikes, and less of the spirit of service among the people who work in them.
The first industry to be nationalised, apart from the Post Office and some old industries, was the coal industry. As has been stated this afternoon, that was an almost impossible task. An enormous number of companies, which had been competing one against another, were suddenly thrown together, when they had no desire to merge and on top of that all sorts of other industries, such as coke ovens, brickworks, bakeries and boot factories, were lumped in with them, for all of which the National Coal Board became responsible. It really was an impossible task. Again I would agree with my noble friend Lord Watkinson that it could be but beneficial to the efficient working of these industries if they were hived off. When I was involved in the Ministry of Fuel and Power we sought on every possible occasion to see whether it was possible to hive off some of the Coal Board's ancillary undertakings, but always we came up against some potent objection, generally from the unions, who could not bear to see any part of the empire which they had created in the nationalised industry being broken off.
Again, in another capacity I have striven with Minister after Minister to persuade them to release from nationalisation the heavy haulage group in the British Road Industry, represented by what used to be Pickford's. There again I never met with any success, for a different reason. Minister after Minister would tell me that that was the only part of the nationalised industry which regularly made a profit, and a part that made £4 million a year could not possibly be released, otherwise the balance sheet would be that much more in the red.
The National Coal Board is only now finding its feet again, and for two reasons: first, because of the efforts which we took when we were in Government to respond to the appeals which we received from every level of the in-
832
dustry, from the Chairman of the Board down to the branches of the unions, to do something to relieve the industry from the terrific demand on coal which was then rampant throughout the country and to enable them to have some slack they could use in order to reorganise the industry from top to bottom. In response to that appeal, we succeeded in persuading a great many users of fuel to go over to oil and we relieved the pressure of the demand upon coal production, which resulted in the Coal Board being able to adopt several schemes of reorganisation. The second reason that I would offer is the ability and the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Robens. He has proved to be an exceedingly successful leader of that industry and has done a wonderful job of work. I would agree with my noble friend Lord Robertson of Oakridge that one of the principal ingredients of success in the nationalised industries is having someone at the top who has such power of spirit and leadership.
The most successful of the nationalised industries, I should say, is the gas industry. I would again offer two reasons for that success. First of all, it was the last of the fuel and power industries to be nationalised, and in nationalising that industry I think the Government were already beginning to learn from the mistakes that they had introduced into earlier nationalisation Bills. Secondly, it was left largely as it had been under private enterprise. Very little change took place, and the personnel in the industry were largely the same people who had been running it when it was in private hands. Those two factors together, I think, resulted in the industry proving to be probably more successful than any of the other fuel and power industries.
The least successful of the nationalised industries, I should say, is the railways. This is so disappointing, knowing the efforts which have been made at all levels—at ministerial level as well as at board level—as has been pointed out this afternoon, to try to achieve the impossible. The result certainly has been that the efficiency of the service has deteriorated. The work is being perpetually interrupted by labour disputes. The industry is eternally subjected to modernisation, which never seems to achieve anything permanently, and as soon as it

833
does something it is out of date. When there are no strikes, the trains generally run late; the passenger facilities are dirty, and the goods facilities are utterly unreliable. One can hardly claim, in these circumstances, that the system is working successfully.
LORD ROBERTSON OF OAKRIDGE: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would allow me to intervene for a moment. When he says that modernisation never seems to achieve anything of any use, I think he would agree that the electrification of the lines North from Euston is now paying hand over fist and has achieved something.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: I agree that that is an exception. I think my remarks were rather sweeping. However, it has taken a long time for that modernisation to come into operation. That really is my point: the fact that modernisation takes so long that by the time it is achieved it is almost out of date.
What is the answer to these exceedingly difficult problems? The nationalisation of industry has for many years been one of the principal targets of trade unionism, and the nationalised industries have now become something of a sacred cow to the trade unions. They are exceedingly loth to admit of the introduction of any changes into the system for fear that they will lead to a break-up of the nationalised system. The question of modernisation in the docks is a case in point, as to which, as your Lordships are aware, great difficulties have been experienced. There is indeed a great tension throughout these industries. The declining industries, which have less to offer in the way of further employment than the others, present a very real problem. The responsibility of the trade unions for the efficient operation of the industries, which really they have brought into creation, is something which I do not believe has been fully recognised as yet, but I very much hope that it will be.
For my part, I am convinced that the only real solution is and must be a financial one. We have to get back to the profit motive. I believe this is so not only with the boards of the industry themselves, but throughout the whole system. We must introduce a system of checks in the form of cutting one's coat according to one's cloth, and a system of balances, which I would represent as being finan-
834
cial incentives. Any nationalised industry labours under exceedingly difficult re-relationships. As has been pointed out this afternoon, the industries are not autonomous; the Minister has policy control, and the Minister has responsibility to Parliament.
One of the principal things lacking in the nationalised industries are shareholders—and I think this is a point which my noble friend Lord Watkinson was making. One recognises that one cannot suddenly introduce shareholders into nationalised industries. But my noble friend Lord Watkinson suggested a representative body who could be classed as share holders, and I should like to offer an alternative suggestion to that which may be able to be worked in with it. I believe that what is really wanted is something in the nature of an annual general meeting, which will cause the chairman of the Board to have to put his thoughts together and make them public, and will, enable questions to be put to the chairman and his colleagues to justify their policies, the work they are doing and the way they are carrying it out.
The question is: who is to be in the body of the hall, and who is to ask the chairman questions? In addition to the representative shareholders proposed by my noble friend, I should like to offer as a suggestion the consumer councils. Most of these industries have a considerable number of representatives on the consumer councils—and I have never thought that they had a very fair show in their relationship with the industry. I do not think we have ever used them as fully as we could use them, and I do not think they have been enabled to play a full part. But if they could be treated as shareholders, if the annual report could be presented to them and they could have the opportunity of criticising, questioning and making constructive proposals to the chairman of the Board, then I think that something might possibly be achieved.
I recognise that the success of the nationalised industries is vital to the economy of our country. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford in his opening speech, they invest as much capital annually as is invested by the whole of private enterprise, and all the commerce and industry of our country depend upon their

835
efficiency. By and large, I think it must be admitted that to-day they are not efficient; and if they fail further in their efficiency I suggest that the economic survival of this country will be in peril. I think it is not unfair to put it as high as that. But if the nationalised industries will really subject themselves to a critical reappraisal of their responsibilities, and if they introduce, even at this late hour, a far higher degree of efficiency than we have seen in the past, then there will be great opportunities to our country to win through successfully.
5.40 p.m.
LORD GRANVILLE OF EYE: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount who has just spoken will forgive me if I do not follow him immediately into some of the controversial aspects which he outlined, or referred to, on the profit motive. I think that this debate has been very constructive and very helpful. Perhaps the tone was set by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who spoke for the Opposition in what was a very able and constructive review of the financial and economic policies of the Government's White Paper. I should like to pay my tribute to my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith on a very able maiden speech. I am sure that, with his great and considerable experience of his industry, we all learnt a great deal from it, and certainly we look forward to hearing him speak in future debates.
One advantage which I suppose your Lordships' House has is this. I have listened this afternoon to many noble Lords who have personal experience of running these so-called nationalised industries, which is a great advantage, as they were naturally able to give us the benefit of their important experience. I suppose that when the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, was referring to shareholders in relation to these nationalisation debates in both Houses, he implied that we are in a sense, if they are annual events, somewhat in the position of shareholders acting on behalf of the nation and the country.
I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Beswick on his up-to-date survey of the economic and financial objectives in the White Paper. I think it is a very good White Paper compared
836
to some of the others we have had. I thought that in parts it was a little like Professor Galbraith's book on the organisation and management of industry in the United States of America, in the cooperative State. But, in any event, we have certainly come a long way since the days of 1947, when presumably it was the policy of the Government to appoint the directors who had been previously running these great industries, to tell them to get on with the job, and to leave them to it.
However, I felt that we are in some danger in these debates, and in our attitude to these industries, of looking at them, both in the public and in the so-called private sectors, as though they are almost in private or separate worlds. I feel that we do not want this mentality to grow up. We do not want a kind of Hadrian's Wall dividing the national sector from the private sector, and all that that means; or, in the terms of yesterday's debate on self-government for Wales, we certainly do not want an industrial mentality which envisages industrial self-government and this thinking in each sector in these great industries. I believe that the more co-operation we can get in these days between the two sectors of industry, the better for the country and for industry as a whole. We are in this battle of survival together. If we are going to safeguard our standard of life, the more co-operation we can get, the better it will certainly be.
But behind this White Paper, which sets out the Government's policy very clearly, everything depends on what is going to happen in what I think the noble Lord referred to as the modernisation of some aspects of these great national businesses. It is one thing to write 15 pages of an economic report; it is another thing to get great industries, responsible in their annual investment for 50 per cent. of the national economy, efficient and modern with the proper incentives. A great deal must be done to provide the right incentives for this varied list of these great industries, and to provide the efficiency which is absolutely vital in any industry, in any country, if it is to succeed. What it really means is that in these great national businesses, perhaps as never before, we must find the right staff and the right management. It means that the Government have to face up to

837
this question of the difference in incentives between the private and the national sectors of business if we are going to attract the right staff and the right top management.
In these national businesses we shall have to face the fact that in the private sector it is possible to get extensive fringe benefits. So many senior executives look at fringe benefits as never before, and at superannuation. These are the things they can get in the private sector; and when young men come down from universities or from training colleges, or after they have trained the hard way in industry, one of the first things they look at are the fringe benefits, including superannuation, which industry can offer. And I think it will involve in these industries the question of the status symbol. That is what we are really talking about when we speak of incentives in industry.
My noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith referred to the number of loyal people inside the existing great nationalised industries who have given long years of service and are waiting their opportunity to get progress and promotion, neither of which they will be able to get unless we can get into these industries adequate training courses and an opportunity for them to attend them. These courses are very important. I remember discussing this subject with the late Lord Morrison of Lambeth, many years ago. I said that I thought we needed far more training colleges, such as that at Henley, than we have.
I know that we are doing a great deal inside the nationalised industries—and other countries think that we are, and are setting a good example—but more must be done if we are to give these people full training techniques and an opportunity to acquire the status of top management. If we can create the right conditions and opportunities in these nationalised businesses, they will attract the young people who every year are going to join industry. So I should like to see a greater exchange between both sectors of industry, and not see the mentality growing up in which they are almost operating as separate worlds.
I do not know, but I cannot help thinking, having listened to noble Lords opposite whose great experience has been in industry, that profit is not the only yard-
838
stick in so-called private enterprise. These are the days of the takeover, of large-scale industrial units, and of bids. The units are not getting smaller in any country; they are getting bigger and bigger and in this situation, in my view, the profit motive alone is playing a less important part than it has ever played before. Even in the private sector of industry, in the federations and trade organisations, the old spirit of competition, of "The Devil take the hindmost," of competition in labour costs and so on, is fading out. To-day firms, including competing firms, openly exchange with each other information on costing, labour relations, employment of the right materials and techniques of productivity. This is common ground to-day, and the old bitter spur and fight of competition is becoming blurred; it is fading. There is far more co-operation growing up than ever before in the firms, in the companies and in the trades which are to-day active in what is called the private sector of industry.
I do not want to see these two worlds—H. G. Wells's "Two Worlds"—in industry. I should like to see a great of this information exchanged with the nationalised concerns. I should also like to see an exchange of personnel—of staff and of top management, as well as of technicians. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, refer to the recent appointment of the head of British Rail. He is a professional, and I believe that one of the things the Government must look at in the appointments to some of these Boards is to give the people underneath the training facilities and incentives to gel to a position in the top management of their own industry. One cannot run an industry with amateurs to-day; they must be professionals. And that applies to the railways, to the power industry and to many other nationalised industries.
Some reference was made by the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, to private enterprise and shareholders' meetings. I think that to-day most of the large private industries are director-controlled to a far greater extent than they used to be. I do not know whether 51 per cent. of I.C.I. shareholders can turn up for an annual meeting or can get to the directors if they want to, but to-day in this country, and perhaps even more in the United

839
States of America, the large private industries are director-controlled. We must live in a controlled and planned economy. We see it in America, on the Continent, in the great industrial countries, and now in this country, and I believe that eventually the Party opposite will abandon its old slogan of years ago, "Set the people free!". Private enterprise is outmoded and irrelevant.
Take the aviation industry. A great deal is said about private enterprise in that connection. Both here and in the United States of America the Government and the aviation industry are identified as never before, and this is even true in the airlines, to which reference has been made. Even the independent airlines cannot be absolutely free or belong to "pure private enterprise", as one so often hears stated. They depend upon Government tax, Government regulators, Government subsidies of airports; left, right and centre they depend upon Government help and initiative in a Government-planned economy.
I also believe that we must not be afraid to look at some of the techniques of the nationalised industries from wherever they have come. In the United States of America, in the old days it was the "executive suite" which was responsible for running the great industries such as General Motors and Fords. But to-day there has been something of a change, and personal leadership is a factor in all industry which matters as never before—I believe it is referred to as conning tower and computers and personal assistants, rather than executive suite. These and all management techniques must be looked at by the nationalised industries because the running of these great concerns in the national interest depends upon efficiency and upon incentive.
My Lords, the Government review in the White Paper, and the thinking behind it, are, I believe, a step in the right direction. If it is followed up with proper incentives it can be exciting, and a rewarding challenge to all those people who are engaged in these great national industries. I believe that if we face this task with good will and determination we can make those industries succeed as never before.
5.56 p.m.
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, may I first add my word of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for opening this debate and for doing it in such a thoughtful and unemotional style. We are all the more indebted to him for that because one of the troubles about our nationalised industries is that too much emotion and too little thought went into their engendering in the first instance. A little "family planning" might not have been out of place. I could never share that emotion. I could certainly never get worked up enough to join the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, in singing "The Red Flag" when the Bill to nationalise coal was passed.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord knows what Mr. Tomlinson said when he heard them singing it? He said. "You will alter your tune".
LORD TANGLEY: My Lords, I do not know which tune was to be altered, whether it was the policy of nationalisation or the tune of "The Red Flag". But the point I am making is that I find it exceedingly difficult to sing either tune with any enthusiasm, as indeed I think the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, does. This may be, perhaps, in the eyes of Party zealots a rather Laodicean attitude, but I feel that way about it, and that is perhaps why I have followed a somewhat empirical course so far as nationalisation is concerned.
I am part author of one scheme—Cable and Wireless. With the noble Lord, Lord Reith, I visited all the Dominion capitals in an antediluvian aircraft which survived the flight only by 48 hours. In the course of that flight we devised the scheme for Cable and Wireless, and subsequently I represented the British Government at the Commonwealth Communications Conference when the scheme was perfected and accepted. In one way or another I have tried to help in some of the other nationalised industries, and in one capacity or another I have found it my duty to oppose other schemes. So to-day I still find myself neither hot nor cold, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, just cool on this subject.
The truth of the matter is that I cannot find nationalisation as being either good

841
or bad in itself, and I judge each scheme simply as a possible means of reaching a desired end. If that end can best be reached by nationalisation, then so be it. But if not, let none of us be misled by the glamour of the word. Nationalisation by itself solves no economic problems. The elimination of profits and shareholders does not bring a new heaven and a new earth. All the old problems remain, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, and other noble Lords have reminded us, on top of the unsolved economic problems there are added very serious political problems which in no instance have yet been fully solved.
So it seems to me that the basic question we ought always to bear in mind in approaching any proposal for a nationalisation scheme, and also in considering the organisation of any existing scheme, is: What is its end? What is its purpose? In a word, what is it for? It seems to me, and I think experience proves it, that it is a principle of all good organisation that one should ask and answer the right questions in the right order, first "why" and then "how". When one does that one gets a satisfactory system. When one's questions are muddled one gets a muddled and an unsatisfactory system.
May I illustrate this very shortly by contrasting two schemes with which I have been personally concerned? One is Cable and Wireless, to which I have already referred. There we had a perfectly clear objective. It was to maintain the union of cable communications and wireless communications in the same hand. Before the war that had been achieved by a loose federation of companies. That federation was falling apart before our eyes. The only solution was to dismantle this company union and put it together under Government control both at home and overseas. That was the "why". The "how" was complicated. It involved nationalisation Bills in no fewer than five countries, but it was carefully adapted to the end in view, and it worked.
The other scheme I should like to refer to is London Transport, which is about to disappear. There the "why" was muddled and the "how" could never be right. I recall this process vividly, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord
842
Hurcomb, who with me must be one of the few survivors of those actively concerned with the stars of this business, will recall it, too. Here was the muddle. The then Minister of Transport, Mr. Herbert Morrison, wanted a bit of "Socialism in our time". The unions liked the idea of a monopoly which would be more amenable to pressure than a number of competing organisations. The Underground group of companies, including the London General Omnibus Company, had had growing difficulty in earning dividends, and under the leadership of their Chairman, Lord Ashfield, and the Managing Director, Frank Pick, had unsuccessfully tried to organise a monopoly under private ownership. So they joined in the promotion of the Board as soon as the compensation terms for their shareholders had been settled.
Your Lordships may be amused to hear a little rhyme made up by one of the many counsel engaged at that time. I noticed the noble and learned Viscount Lord Simonds here this afternoon; he may remember it, or would do if he were still here, because he was one of that team of counsel, though he was not the author. Here is the rhyme:
"Now give three cheers for Ashfield and three for Mr. Pick,
Who manna bring to hungry souls and comfort to the sick.
They've found us what we long have sought and never yet enjoyed
A reasonable return upon the capital employed."
And so the Board came into being with an obligation to provide services everywhere, with no defence against wage demands and under statutory obligation to pay fixed interest on its stock, whether earned or not. This was a hopeless task with which a succession of most able men have struggled, and it is not their fault if they have failed to do the impossible.
Now, I believe, the undertaking is to be handed over to the Greater London Council. I am sure your Lordships will forgive me if I show a little paternal feeling towards the Greater London Council, and I am glad that they are to be relieved of the burden of servicing, I believe it is, £400 million of stock. But it is not being written off. These words are used much too loosely and too lightly. The taxpayer is going to continue to provide that reasonable return on the capital, whether it is lost or whether it is

843
not, whether it is employed or whether it is perpetually unemployed.
My Lords, I am sure I have said enough to illustrate the need to be clear about objectives. What ought they to be? I would concede that there may be a number, but the primary one must be efficient management. If you do not have that you cannot have anything else. That means that a good service must be given to consumers at reasonable prices, and at the same time a proper return earned on the investment. That is vital to our economy; and, after all, our economy is only another name for our national life. But I accept that a nationalised industry may properly be required to do things for social reasons rather than for purely economic or commercial reasons. That is why, I suppose, most of the nationalisation Acts reserved to the Minister the power to give general directions to the managers.
I suggest to your Lordships that three things follow from this situation. The first is that you must get good men, not only at the top but down the line also. The second is that there must be a clear chain of authority and responsibility. And the third is that there must be a clear demarcation of responsibilities. I support, and I am not going to repeat, what has been said about remuneration, pensions and so forth. I know that we have been very lucky in the past to attract able public spirited people at cut prices. But that will not go on for ever, particularly when you consider the treatment that some of these great public servants have received. The day is past when you can treat the head of a nationalised industry as a sort of hybrid, a lusus natureœ, a sport of Nature, part business executive and part civil servant. There is no such animal in existence, and to set your scale of remuneration in the hope of attracting him is to live in a dream world.
That brings me to my second point. Having got your management you must let them manage for a reasonable time. There cannot be efficient operation if your top management is constantly interfered with by people in politics. No one can deal effectively with difficult economic problems if he has to be perpetually looking over his shoulder to see
844
how his actions fit in with the predilections of the moment of his political masters. The French, the Italians and the Germans understand this; we do not.
We criticise our railways, and as a long suffering Southern Region commuter I certainly do—although I may say that things are improving very fast indeed now. But we are lucky to have any railway system working at all. For many years now management have been working under one system while yet another is being devised from above. Government has never let management settle down. My Lords, this is an absolutely impossible situation, and it must stop. I listened with tremendous interest and respect to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, this afternoon. The thing that struck me almost more than anything was the masterly under-statement and restraint in what they said about the treatment they had received.
I say therefore, and it must be common ground. I suppose, that management must be allowed to manage. But I also accept that a nationalised industry may properly be required to do things for social rather than purely commercial or economic reasons. For example, the closure of the coalmines may, in my humble opinion, be properly slowed down because of the social questions involved. An airline may be required to use aircraft other than those it would find economical to run. The noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, gave some examples of that. A railway may be kept open where it is not financially justified. These things, I concede, may quite properly happen. But when we consider them, I beg your Lordships to realise and remember that we are on very dangerous ground indeed.
Economics and social need do not always conflict to anything like the extent that we may suppose. What do often conflict are economics on the one hand and the politicial convenience of some Minister on the other hand, and that is not necessarily the same thing at all. This brings me to the nub of the problem, which has been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, in his admirable maiden speech, the noble

845
Lord, Lord Beeching, and the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson. What is of cardinal importance, I suggest, is that Ministers should openly take the responsibility for any decision that social need should take precedence over economics. These decisions should be expressed as general directions to the industry concerned, and the Minister should be openly responsible to Parliament for each and every direction so given.
I shall be told that that is not practical politics. I shall never forget the throw-away line of the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, when he said that Lord Douglas of Kirtleside had asked him for a direction that he take an aircraft that he did not want. The throw-away line was "Of course he did not get it". It may be that we shall seriously have to consider the remedies for these pressures that have been put before us by the noble Viscount and others; but while the situation is as it is, under the Acts as they are, then I suggest that that throwaway line has to be thrown away and that Ministers have to face up to their responsibilities in Parliament.
Huddles behind the scenes will not do, fireside chats between Ministers and heads of nationalised industries will not do. They lead to a dispersal of responsibility and authority which is subversive of all accountability. At the end of the day, when the taxpayer is forced to take on yet another burden, everyone can turn round and say, "Please, sir, it wasn't me; it was him". That may do for an immature schoolboy; it will not do for grown-up Ministers or managements. For let us remember this, that every decision to let social need take precedence over economics is a form of concealed taxation. It means either that the consumer pays or that the nation gets a lower return, or no return, or a negative return on the investment. As things are to-day, these decisions are taken in secret, their effects are not quantified, and Parliament knows little, if anything, of what is going on. After a few years, Parliament sees the cumulative effect in a Bill to unload another few hundred millions on to the back of the taxpayer, and then it is too late to do anything about it but heave a sigh, pass the Bill, and hope that the next one will not come along too soon.
846
I have tried to concentrate on what seem to me to be the vital points, and I want to mention only one more. I earnestly hope that there will be no attempt to restrict the competition of one nationalised industry with another. This is something we shall have to look out for when we begin the mammoth task of cleaning up the Transport Bill. Competition is the soul of efficiency, and I frankly rejoice when I see the noble Lord, Lord Robens, and Sir Ronald Edwards slugging it out in public. The danger about restricting competition is an insidious one. One sometimes hears a whisper, "Does it make sense for gas, and electricity to open competitive showrooms and to advertise against each other?" If that attitude had prevailed 25 years ago in regard to the gas industry—I know what I am speaking about here—there would have been no gas industry to-day at all. It seemed to be dying on its feet. One of the astonishing things has been the come-back of gas, not only here but in other countries It is entirely due to its vigorous and unrestricted response to the fierce competition it has received from electricity and oil. Long may they all flourish!
We now have had a quite long experience of nationalisation, some of it happy, some of it unhappy. I hope for a long and prosperous future for those industries. We must all be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for giving us this opportunity of laying before your Lordships the fruits of our experience.
6.15 p.m.
LORD AMPTHILL: My Lords, like all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for putting his Motion on the Order Paper to-day. The noble Lord, Lord Beeching, made some most amusing criticisms of the White Paper, with many of which I agreed. But one thing the White Paper has done is to produce this most interesting, informative and, I think, helpful debate. Speaking as I do from these Benches, your Lordships; will not be surprised to learn that I am not a fervent believer in nationalisation as such, and so long as I have a vote in this place I shall use it against any further extension of the principle. May I say, in passing, that my opposition to nationalisation is not swayed by the fact that I lost the

847
best secretary I ever had to the Coal Board. She went to live in Lancashire and was therefore of no further assistance to me. To-day, I do not intend to enter into a discussion on the merits or demerits of nationalisation. I have a number of quotations I could use—what Socialist Ministers said in earlier days of nationalisation. They are quite entertaining to read now, but I do not intend to waste the time of the House. In the few remarks I am going to make I hope to keep politics and personalities out of it.
My sole purpose in speaking to-day is to draw attention to what I believe to be the most important fact stated in the White Paper; namely, that the nationalised industries employ 1,881,000 men and women. If the Government proceed with their plans for further nationalisation this could well reach two million or more before we are much older. This, the White Paper tells us, is 8 per cent. of the working population of these Islands. The White Paper also tells us that the nationalised assets are worth nearly £12,000 million, and that the annual investment is running at £1,700 million, over half of which is financed by the Exchequer, which of course means the taxpayer. But to me the most important of these figures is that of the number of people employed in the industries.
These huge figures are useful, too, to remind us of what vast responsibilities are carried by all those concerned with, or who have been concerned with, the management of the nationalised industries. Whether they are managements themselves, trade unions, Ministers or the officials of the sponsoring Departments, they have all had, and have, a large responsibility. But I must come back to what to me is the most significant figure; namely, these two million men and women in the nationalised industries to-day. These are the people upon whose daily work in the mines, power houses, railways and elsewhere, we depend to achieve the economic and financial objectives, the social objectives and all the rest of it, as set out in this White Paper or in any other White Paper.
Obviously, these people expect, and deserve, the best possible working conditions, which includes many things, not only wages and salaries. I do not intend
848
to discuss them in detail. There are many noble Lords here to-night who know as well as I do what these things mean, and I do not wish to waste your Lordships' time "teaching my grandmother to suck eggs". There is a vital need, in dealing with these enormous numbers of personnel, for first-class communication in all these industries. I use the word "communication" in the sense that it is largely used in industry to-day—the word has been used in debates in this House, and your Lordships will understand what I mean—namely, the need to let these people know, clearly and unequivocally, the aims and purposes of the enterprise for which they are working. The sheer numbers of these people, their geographical spread all over the country and the diversity of their operations, make good communication in the nationalised industries unusually difficult for the managements and the trade unions concerned.
Private industry faces the same problem. It is becoming more acute every day, with mergers and amalgamations and with all the difficulties involved in size. We can no longer rely on the old-fashioned conception of the "gaffer" who went round his work place, who knew all the chaps and girls by their Christian names and everything about them. That is no longer possible in these large industries; it is certainly not possible in the nationalised industries. The people who work like to see the "gaffer"; they occasionally like to see their boss.
A number of the managements of the nationalised industries do their best in this respect. But the managements of nationalised industries have imposed on them a handicap which is not imposed on private industry. Managements of nationalised industries constantly have Ministers and officials in Whitehall breathing down their necks. This matter has been discussed in great detail to-night, and I do not want to go into it in detail, but would emphasise the effect of such activities on the way in which managements are able to communicate with their own people. The policy of all Governments, to quote the White Paper, is to treat the nationalised industries as commercial bodies and to leave their running to the Boards. But how often does one hear, in response to a

849
Parliamentary Question, that this is not a matter for the Government but for the nationalised Board concerned? The fact is that the managements of nationalised industries are troubled by this constant pressure from Ministers and officials in Whitehall, and it creates difficulties for them. I could not work under that sort of system and I think that Ministers and officials in Whitehall should take special care not to come between the managements of nationalised industries and their people. To put it crudely, they should take particular care not to foul the lines of communication, and in all their words and actions to make it easy for managements of nationalised industries to pass down the line unequivocal, clear and unambiguous directives.
Good communication in industry is the prime responsibility of the management concerned. The unions concerned have also a large part to play, and they can do so only if they are in step with management. There is a responsibility lying upon both sides, management and trade unions, to keep in step right down the line, not only in the head office in London but right down to the people on the factory floor. All this is well-understood by senior management and senior trade union officials, but I am not so sure that it is equally well understood right down the line, and I feel fairly certain in my own mind that it is not well understood in Whitehall. From my long connection with industry, and more particularly with the Industrial Society, I am well aware of what is being done to improve communications in many industries, including the nationalised industries. I will not trouble your Lordships with the details, but I am also well aware that much remains to be done in this respect. This means training and education. Government, sponsoring Departments, managements and trade unions alike—all have their part to play. Good communication is an art rather than a precise science. It needs close attention to detail, great understanding of people and knowledge of what makes them "tick". I will not go into the subject at length as so many of your Lordships have far more experience in this matter than I.
We can spend millions on equipping the nationalised industries with the most advanced technological equipment, and indeed we have done so and are con-
850
tinuing to do so. But, in the end, it is people that count, whatever may be their job, and however sophisticated the equipment which they operate. It is not sufficient to give these two million people the tools and hope that they will get on with the job. We must make it possible for them to take a real pride in their work. Then we shall get the results which we all desire. Men or women cannot do their best unless they are able to take a real pride in a job well done. All the criticisms which people level—and I criticise as much as anybody else—the "cracks" about British Railways, the National Coal Board and so on, make it difficult for the men and women to feel that they are doing a good job; it is not very helpful to them. Skilful use of good communication alone can ensure this and avoid the demoralisation to which one noble Lord referred: I think he really meant low morale. In a short speech it is difficult to do justice to the subject of human relations and communications, and I have left unsaid much that could be said and needs to be said. I conclude by saying that, in this technological age, people are still important—very important; much more important than pushbuttons.
6.30 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure we shall all agree with the closing words of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill. Apart from the Government contribution to this debate, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will feel that the debate which he stimulated has rewarded him for the care which he took in the preparation of what he had to say to us at the outset.
I should like to join with all those who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith on his maiden speech. It was informed, well-reasoned, and persuasive, and he spoke with special authority as one who has been connected with a body of workers who have done as much constructive thinking on worker participation in public industry as any other organisation in the country. We all look forward to hearing from him on this and other subjects in the future. The noble Lord stressed, in particular, the importance of procurement. He will probably have noticed in the recent White

851
Paper on Public Purchasing and Industrial Efficiency, that the Government made clear the valuable function which the procurement of the nationalised industries could perform as part of the total leverage effect which public purchasing has over manufacturing industry in the private economy. One practical way in which we are now trying to use this leverage is by making progress towards greater standardisation.
In general—and, of course, I exclude the noble Lord, Lord Beeching—there was a welcome for this White Paper. The noble Viscount, Lord Mills, had certain reservations. He asked about the number of Departments which helped compose the document, but, as he will know from his experience, all interested Departments in Whitehall are asked to comment on a Government document and this was no exception. The noble Viscount had doubts about the confusion between the commercial objections of public enterprise and the social aspects, in the second of these White Papers. I hope that I went some way, at any rate, to removing the confusion from the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. Certainly, I stress again to the noble Viscount, and to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that the Government's objective is to hold a sensible balance between national and commercial interests. Across the greater part of the field with which we are concerned, there is little or no divergence between the two—I gave some examples of where there is a divergence—but there is a very clear assessment as to where the responsibility lies for meeting the cost of a non-commercial activity.
The noble Lord, Lord Beeching, suggested that in such cases it will always be possible to agree between reasonable men, but this in fact is what the White Paper says. Of course it will be possible, and the White Paper says this; but the noble Lord seems to think that because it says this, and other sensible things, it comes under criticism as being obvious. The fact of the matter is that most of the truest things in this world are fairly obvious. One of the criticisms which has been made before about the public sector is that the obvious elementary economic principles to which the noble Lord referred have not been
852
applied. This was a criticism which had been made in the past, but now in this White Paper it is spelled out for all concerned, just how those economic principles should be applied.
The noble Lord, Lord Beeching, went on, after his very weighty complaints, to state what we should do. He said that all we had to do was to decide: Is the social benefit worth its cost, and how is it to be assessed? There can be nothing more obvious than that; indeed, nothing could be more simple than that. But I would not pour scorn upon the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, because he said that. It is elementary to me, but nevertheless I thought it was worth saying, and although I repeated the words in the White Paper it was none the worse for that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, said that probably (he was making no Party point and, indeed, he bracketed us all together) we, the political masters, had not understood the managerial problems when we undertook this task of bringing certain industries under public control. It is possible that we had a lot to learn, and I think we have learned. But if understanding organisation and management problems is to be judged by results, then the previous managers of the coal industry, for example, or the railway industry fell somewhat short of an absolute and perfect understanding of what was required.
The noble Viscount went on to say that the real problem was one of modernising industry, but I believe that he was to some extent begging the question. That was not the only problem with which we were faced. It was not simply a technological question of modernising industry. Where the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, went wrong in my judgment—when he had control of some of our national affairs—was in considering it simply as a technological question. It was not simply a technological question; there were social and political problems as well—and I put it to the noble Viscount that in the case of transport integration of road and rail involved political questions. With respect, I thought the noble Viscount, Lord Brent-ford, was possibly judging this subject from a political point of view more than from a purely economic one, when he

853
spoke about his efforts to bring one of the big road haulage firms back into the private sector. The noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, made some rather novel proposals about administrative changes in our constitutional affairs, and I can only say that to-morrow I shall read carefully in Hansard what he had to say.
I was particularly interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, had to say about some of these affairs. If I may say so to him—and I say it to him with real affection as well as with respect—I feel that his speech was so typically generous that it made me, and possibly some others who have indulged in political rhetoric on these matters, feel very humble. I was particularly interested to hear his favourable views on the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries. I personally am sure he was right, but it was good to hear him say it from his point of view. One ought to say that to some extent the high standard which the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries has set in no small measure is due to the very able Chairmen which it has enjoyed; not least, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and another colleague of ours in this Howe, the noble Lord, Lord Aldington.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, made the interesting point that it might be possible for a Select Committee to concentrate on a narrower field of any particular industry, when it pursued some of its other investigations. It is an interesting thought, but I am not sure that the Committee can do a really satisfactory job f it restricts itself in this way. But one of the interesting ideas which has emerged recently, is that the Committee should look, not only at an industry in depth, but at a particular aspect of all the nationalised industries. At the present time it is considering the question of the Ministerial responsibility for all these industries, about which we have had so much to say in this House to-day.
I should have thought, too, that the subject of training was another which the Select Committee might also look into. I agree with what was said by my noble friend Lord Granville of Eye about the importance of training. I think he would agree—as, I think, would my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith, who also re-
854
ferred to this—that in the field of training the nationalised industries, or most of them, at any rate, are second to none, and some of the work which they have done in this field might well be of use outside. If a Select Committee is looking around for another subject, it could be useful for industry as a whole if the Committee went into this aspect of the nationalised industries' affairs.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked some questions about alleged unfair competition of public industries with private enterprise. He apparently seemed to think that now the Listener has become more readable it is being unfairly competitive. I understand what he had in mind. I am informed that the Periodical Proprietors' Association has made representations to the Postmaster-General in the terms of Clause 20, subsection (2), of the B.B.C. Charter, submitting that the B.B.C. are acting in breach of the Charter and asking him to call upon the B.B.C. to observe its terms. To some extent then, this matter is sub judice and your Lordships will understand that I do not wish to comment on it further.
As another example of unfair competition, the noble Lord made complaint of the National Coal Board's tree-transplanting unit. I am sorry he raised this matter, because I must say that I thought this was an example of public spiritedness on the part of the National Coal Board, and certainly what they have done has, I understand, met with the approval of the Civic Trust, who have encouraged local authorities to plant more trees. They are able to plant more because they are able to plant them more cheaply by using this machine which the National Coal Board has at its disposal; and as this means that the machine is being used more fully, the N.C.B. is able to spread its charges. The noble Lord wants a directive sent to the industries on this matter, but I should have thought that the Command Paper itself, in paragraph 18, gives him what he wants; namely, an insistence that there should be a proper pricing policy which rules out uneconomic cross-subsidisation of minor activities by major ones.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, spoke, as did, I think, other noble Lords, about the gas industry and the remarkable way in which the old image which

855
it had has been transformed. It is certainly one of the most successful of the public industries; it has the least publicity; probably the least industrial troubles; and I also think I am entitled to call attention to the fact that there is less talk about the need for these great industrial tycoons to go into the gas industry. I am not at all sure that there is not a relationship between these facts.
I often used to discuss with the late Sir John Stephenson the fact that the gas industry, for which he was responsible, and the air transport industry, on the Board of one of whose corporations he also sat, were entirely different so far as their labour relations were concerned. I was most interested to hear him say how, from his experience, he felt that the decent, honourable, probably rather slow tempo in the gas industry, with its great tradition of personal relationships and of son following father in the industry, had a good deal to do with it. Once one starts bringing in these great men of genius who turn things upside down, then invariably one gets labour troubles.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, was the first to speak of the relationship between Ministers and Board chairmen. There were others who also dealt with this very fascinating area of human affairs. I must say that it is an area into which I move very warily indeed. There have been unsatisfactory episodes. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, was exaggerating when he spoke about "abominable maltreatment". I do not think that really helped. I think it is unprofitable, too, to allocate blame as between personalities. Here again, I come back to the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. I should have thought that if anyone had a grievance it would be he, but no one would have any inkling from his attitude that he had any complaint to make.
In case the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, had made an issue of this, I had come armed with an extract from the autobiography of Sir Miles Thomas; but as the noble Viscount was so good and fair-minded on this, I do not propose to quote it. But I think he will agree with me that at any rate no political Party point can be made about this. To some extent, I think we are all to
856
blame. But one generalisation which might be made is that the relationship between Minister and chairman tends to be the most equable and satisfying when the industry concerned is sure of its place in the economy. If, as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, described it, it is a wobbly industry; if it is a contracting industry; if too much publicity is focused upon it; if redundancy is more talked about than career prospects; then there is more likelihood of friction between the Minister and the chairman. I am inclined to think that the root trouble of the undoubted difficulties of which the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, spoke has nothing whatever to do with public enterprise as such. It was the result of the inevitable pains of a technological revolution.
To those who say that the sponsoring Minister and his Department should keep out of the affairs of a nationalised industry, that the Minister should in effect mind his own business, I think I can do no better than quote from the same Stamp Memoral Lecture by Sir Ronald Edwards to which so much generous tribute has rightly been paid. Admittedly, I must make it quite clear that he was in fact being a devil's advocate when he said this, but he put as clearly as anyone could the absolute inevitability in a modern economy for a Minister to intervene (if one likes to use the word) in the affairs of the industry for which he is responsible. As he says:
"… Ministers have the duty of appointing and judging Board members. They must be able to form an impression of the skill and efficiency with which the industries are being run, and they must be able to get to know not merely the most senior people but the group below them".
He goes on:
"… some of the growth in the paper work now required and the 'intervention' that flows from it are associated with the struggle to stimulate, direct, and control the economy generally, e.g. national and regional planning, prices and incomes policy".
Then he says:
"… the demand for and supply of capital should be put right by a change in the rate of interest or discount; short-term fluctuations in the supply of resources requires administrative action. This, of course, is a euphemism for capital-rationing."
He goes on to say that the Government, the Minister and the Department must therefore know enough of the investment plans of different industries to

857
be able to judge which can stand the largest temporary deferment, so that the aggregate disadvantage is minimised. I hope I am not quoting Sir Ronald unfairly, but, as other noble Lords have said, he has had much experience of this. I do not think that he himself is unduly borne down by ministerial intervention. He carries it very calmly. Certainly he carries the admiration of us all for his custodianship of the industry for which he is responsible.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said that the calibre of the chairman is important; and, of course, it is. But how do we measure the calibre of a chairman? And, probably even more controversial, how do we attract the individual whom we want? Money is certainly important, and several noble Lords have this afternoon stressed the importance of money. But I refuse to believe that it is all-important. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, in this. There was a review of salary structures in the nationalised industries in 1964, under the last Administration, and there has been considerable discussion since. Current salaries vary. The span now seems to extend from £11,000 per annum for the smaller nationalised industries to the chairman of the Steel Corporation with £16,000—although, strangely enough, his deputy is paid rather more.
Of course, none of these sums is excessive in modern terms. But are those much-publicised tycoons who draw higher salaries from £40,000 to £50,000 really the people we need to run these public services? Do these highly-paid men really add to the quality of our life? It certainly does not seem to satisfy them. I read an interesting account this week of one chairman with £90,000 a year bemoaning his fate because of the heavy taxation he has to meet. There are able people willing to serve their country for less. The Chief of Air Staff gets pay and allowances of less than £7,000 a year. The responsibility he has to carry is as great as any man in industry has to bear; and he carries it with as much distinction and as much ability. So does the Chancellor of the Exchequer with his £8,500 a year; and so does the Head of the Civil Service with his £9,200.
We tend to stress this business of salaries too much. I think with humility
858
that we might even have a little to learn on this matter from the five typists of Surbiton who were prepared to give rather more work for no more money. Recently there has been the development of the doctrine of head-room. It is said it is not the top men who are so concerned with more money but the fellows under them Of course, there is something in this. But I advance the personal view that other considerations do count. If the prestige of these public bodies can be improved: if we can, as we must, eliminate these public quarrels; if we can give better security; if we can pay more attention to pension entitlement; then I think we might achieve the quality of direction we need.
Incidentally there was a very interesting article in the Financial Times this morning which, no doubt, most noble Lords, have read, in which the theme is developed that over a given size it is less likely that an industrial organisation can be run efficiently from a single office. When you get over a certain size, as I read the article, it was suggested that these great men of genius, the men who run flings by hunch and from absolutely undiluted energy, are less suitable for the job. When we get to the size which most of these nationalised industries are already, new techniques, new management systems and team work are much the more important qualities needed.
I am rather sorry that the issue of the chairman has been raised but that nothing was said of the role of the chief executive. I should have liked to hear the argument as between having one great man as undisputed chairman, and the older style of a chairman and a chief executive. I am not sure that we have not slid too easily into this situation of the combined position of chairman and chief executive. If one can get the right combination with two individuals, I should have thought there was much to be said for having two separate positions.
Tribute has been paid earlier this afternoon to the great success which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Kirtleside, had at B.E.A. The real secret there was the admirable combination between the man who was the chairman, a first-rate chairman, and the first-rate chief executive who served with him. I think that is a model which might usefully be

859
studied. To have only one top position not only deprives the Minister of an additional source of information and guidance when he has to make decisions in relation to a corporation, but tends, on occasion, to inflate the influence of the chairman. And if he has at his disposal the professional techniques of modern publicity, this danger of inflation, or of over-inflation, is increased. Good teamwork between the chairman and the chief executive can be more important than the I.Q. or energy of the individual genius.
I agree absolutely with what was said in the closing words of the last speech to which we listened, and that of my noble friend Lord Delacourt-Smith, that proper communication all the way down, joint consultation with the staff at all levels, is a potential we have not tapped nearly sufficiently. My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate about an absolutely vital sector of our economic affairs. There have been no Party points made, although there have been one or two side-swipes at nationalisation. But in the main we all agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, who said that nationalisation and the nationalised industries are here to stay and it is up to all of us to see what we can do to snipe at them less and to help them more.
6.56 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank noble Lords on all sides for making such an interesting debate on this Motion which I moved? For my part, I listened to nearly all the speeches and found them of enormous value, and I cannot help feeling that they will be of great help to the Government and to the nationalised industries. I should like particularly to join my congratulations to those of other noble Lords on the excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith. His great authority in industrial affairs made his speech of special interest and, with others, I look forward with much pleasure to hearing him often again.
The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, answers my critcisms and queries in such a disarming manner that it is very difficult for me to find fault at all. I could not help feeling, seeing the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, sitting alongside him, whose
860
manner was of the same kind, that the mantle now seems to have descended on Lord Beswick—which is most unfair. I thank the noble Lord for taking so much trouble in his busy life to study the subject and for making two such interesting speeches. And I thank him particularly for his very full exposition of the Government objectives for the nationalised industries. I think noble Lords on all sides regard this as the vital aspect. His exposition will certainly clarify the picture a great deal. For myself, I gladly accept his assurance that the Government do not intend any dramatic change of emphasis. I hope he will recognise that the White Paper could so have been read.
The fact that my noble friend Lord Mills weighed in with some fairly strong strictures about the White Paper on this particular aspect gives weight to the criticisms we made. But on this, time alone will show what will happen. I must hope that the Government will live up to what the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has said and that in the main these industries will be allowed to follow, so far as possible, commercial objectives. I thought that, in this context, if I may say so, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tangley, was exceptionally interesting because of his great personal experience in setting up two of these nationalised industries—Cable and Wireless and London Transport—one, as he explained, for the right motives; and one for the wrong ones. We could not help thinking at the end of his speech that he might with Shakespeare have said:
"There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so".
We really got into a difficult field in deciding what are the right objectives.
The speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, was particularly interesting to me because I think he was to some extent following the same theme as I was: the necessity to stabilise (I think that was the word he used) those nationalised industries that are particularly implicated in the political field, and prone to political upheavals. I am certain he is right. His thought of a series of Parliamentary Committees to review each nationalised industry was, in principle, the same as mine. My thought was of expanding the Select

861
Committee on Nationalised Industries which then, with professional staff, could examine particular aspects of nationalised industries—which is possibly the same point as was made by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick—right across the board. Machinery like that might be sufficient to give Parliament a sense of confidence that it knew what was happening, both in performance and in prospects, in these industries, and might help us thereby to get them into calmer waters.
I think that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, of separate committees would be impracticable in political terms, but there is something in this thought, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, may pursue it with his colleagues. I am sure that this debate has brought out that this is the major problem, especially in relation to industries with a contracting trend. There is no doubt about it; just to keep altering the structure will not get us anywhere.
I thought that my noble friend Lord Watkinson gave a most vivid description of a Minister's dilemma in dealing with this, in that there are certain political situations where he cannot avoid intervening, however little he may wish to. My noble friend's idea that we might eventually be driven to making these contracting industries—railways and coal—the direct responsibility of a specific Minister may well prove in the end to be the answer. Not only noble Lords opposite but we on this side of your Lordships' House may well find it impossible to preserve a really commercial structure in industries where the trend is to contract rapidly, and where it is virtually impossible to have major developments of other kinds in other lines, as would happen in private industry. If I may say so to my noble friend, I considered that a very interesting thought, as was his other thought, that the remainder
862
might be put under the Treasury and so eliminate the sponsoring Minister. That idea also seemed to me worth further consideration.
Finally, on the point with which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, finished, relating to chairmen, I do not make any point about their individual merits, and I am sure that in public life there are many people whose individual merits may be greater and who have far less money. The practical point I was trying to make—it is one which other noble Lords made—is that the Government now, and we in the future, must often draw chairmen from the market of industrial and commercial life; and if we are to be sure that we shall have the choice of the best, we have to pay the market rate, or somewhere near it. But I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that money is not the only thing. I should think that the relationship with the Government is equally important.
My Lords, perhaps this debate has helped to ventilate these subjects. We have heard very interesting views from both sides of your Lordships' House which will be helpful to noble Lord; opposite and to ourselves; and perhaps these industries may be helped to play an even better part in future in the affairs of the nation. I ask permission to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911, and read 1a.
House adjourned at three minutes past seven o'clock.