Sitting of 22 July 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CROSBY CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

    Access to Public Buildings (Disabled People)
    1. Mr. G. Campbellasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what further steps he is now taking to encourage provision to be made for assisting the disabled in the design and construction of public buildings.
    The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. Robert Mellish): I am considering revising and republishing the pamphlet "Access to Public Buildings for the Disabled" which was issued in
    2
    1965. In addition, at the invitation of the Central Council for the Disabled, I have recently nominated a member of my staff to help in the work of the Council's Accessibility Panel. I am reviewing further ways in which my Ministry could help.
    Mr. Campbell: I am glad to hear of the Minister's interest in this. Has he accepted the British Standards Institution's Code of Practice No. 96 on access to buildings for the disabled, and is he stipulating that it should be observed in the design and construction of buildings for which he is responsible?
    Mr. Mellish: Yes. The liaison between ourselves and the Central Council is, as I have just said, very close indeed. My Department has set an example in our own design work, and there is close collaboration between my Ministry, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, and the Ministry of Health. I accept from the hon. Gentleman the implication that we have to do much more for the needs of the disabled.

    Construction Industry (Metrication)
    Mr. Lubbockasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what machinery exists for liaison between his Ministry, the Ministries of Housing and Local Government, Technology, and Education and Science for the implementation of metrication in the construction industry; what representations he has received from the industry on the rate

    3
    of progress being made; and if he will list the practical experts with day-to-day knowledge of the production and financial problems who are being consulted.
    Mr. Mellish: Metrication in the construction industry is a very large subject and a number of committees exist through which Departments exchange information and co-ordinate their decisions. I understand that progress so far is satisfactory, but if the hon. Member has any particular point in mind I should be glad to look into it. As regards consultation with the industry, I have set up a special working party of my National Consultative Council to identify and consider any specific difficulties that may arise.
    Mr. Lubbock: Is the Minister aware that for metrication to work in the construction industry the change-over has to be made at the same time in various other industries, such as engineering, furniture, the manufacture of washing machines, cookers, and so on, in order that these will fit into houses designed for the metric units? Has he seen the proposal by the building industry for a metrication board to co-ordinate all these fields?
    Mr. Mellish: Yes. The hon. Member must clearly understand that the construction industry has set the lead here. One industry had to take the initiative, and this industry has done it. In consultation with my own machinery we have ensured that the difficulties arising from their leadership are known and understood and that Government Departments will back them up. The consultation is very good indeed.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Has the Minister noticed that in the second last line of the Question practical experts are referred to? Scotland has a high proportion of such practical experts but does not get a high proportion of the work involved. Will my right hon. Friend look into this with a view to seeing that Scotland gets fair play?
    Mr. Mellish: I do not know the nationality of the experts but, as far as I know, those we have are as good as one can possibly get, and I have no doubt that there are some Scots among them.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Since the Standing Committee on Metrication positively recommended the setting up of a metrication board many weeks ago, why the
    4
    delay, especially as I understand it will cost virtually nothing?
    Mr. Mellish: The metrication board is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology. I said in reply to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) that the construction industry took the lead. It follows from what they are doing that a number of things will have to fall into a pattern, if that lead is to become worthwhile. Arising from that, I have set up machinery following the implications of this lead. I take the hon. Gentleman's point about the metrication board and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be saying something about that.

    Approved Contractors
    Mr. G. Campbellasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what are the considerations which have caused the removal of construction firms, without their knowledge, from his Department's approved lists.
    Mr. Mellish: Any firm wishing to be added to my Ministry's list of approved contractors will be asked to present details of work recently done, and to submit to technical inspection and financial viability.
    Construction firms are removed from my Ministry's lists of approved contractors only when confidence is lost in them on grounds of unreliability, bad performance or financial instability. In these cases the firm will have been informed.
    Mr. Campbell: Why have some firms which have been dropped from the list not been informed? This would obviate misunderstandings about their capabilities and about the type of work involved.
    Mr. Mellish: My experience of my contracts division is that it has a very honourable record. I think the hon. Gentleman has in mind a particular firm. I will not go into detail, except to say that I understand it remains on our list for general surfacing work but has not been included in the small specialist list for contracts for airfield paving work which is highly specialised. I have today written to the hon. Gentleman about it.

    Import Substitution
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress he has made since sterling devaluation, eight months ago, in imports

    5
    substitution, by British produced building and construction materials; and what is his estimate of the value of such imported materials saved by British substitution, pro rata to a full year, since devaluation.
    Mr. Mellish: For many years my Department has encouraged the use of home-produced materials whenever it was practicable and economic. The Construction Materials Group of the E.D.C.s for Building and Civil Engineering has considered the hon. Member's suggestion made in his Question to me on 11th March, and the building centres have volunteered to draw particular attention to new British building materials in their monthly list of new materials. The Construction Materials Group is also drawing the attention of architects to the need to pay close attention to competitive British materials in specifications.
    No statistics are available to provide a meaningful estimate of import savings.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, since the Prime Minister's statement on 16th January last, which laid heavy emphasis on import substitution, much greater urgency ought to have been imparted to this substitution programme? Cannot he translate into statistical reality by the beginning of next year the economies effected in this programme to date?
    Mr. Mellish: The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that he over-simplifies everything. It is not like this, or as simple as he suggests. First of all, one has to get the agreement of the professions involved; for example, the architects. One has to take into consideration our trading partners in E.F.T.A. It is not something which is done overnight. We are trying to get the good-will of the industry. I think that we have it, but time will tell. If it is a matter of providing information about how much we have been able to save, I will engage some more civil servants to get the information.

    Housing (Building Materials)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Minister of Public Building and Works in relation to 1969, how many houses in the aggregation he has advised producers of building materials, notably bricks, to budget for; what increase this represents in 1968, per centum and ad valorem; and what further steps he plans to take in 1969 to
    6
    encourage the use of British-produced building materials.
    Mr. Mellish: The Forecasting Committee of the E.D.C.s for Building and Civil Engineering estimated that the number of houses started in Great Britain in 1969 will be between 415,000 and 420,000. The Government think that this is a reasonable estimate for planning purposes. It represents practically no percentage change on the number of houses likely to be started in 1968, although there may be a marginal increase in the cost, owing to rising standards. I shall continue to urge designers and contractors to use British-produced materials where these are competitive with imported materials.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is this not a splendid opportunity comparable to the saving in imported foodstuffs, for example, to save in imports for the building and construction industries, notably with timber, and cannot the right hon. Gentleman do something more substantial than he has done already without resort to the bureaucracy?
    Mr. Mellish: I do not know what all that means. Hardwood, for example, is giving way to such finishes as linoleum, vinyl, and where appropriate, asphalt. Chipboard is being used increasingly as a substitute for solid timber in flooring. The whole emphasis of the industry is moving away from that which we have to import to substitutes which are already available in this country but it does not happen overnight, and the industry must be given a chance to work it out.

    Caernarvon Castle (Investiture of Prince of Wales)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is his estimate of the total expenditure to be incurred at Caernarvon Castle for the investiture of the Prince of Wales; what alternations are to be made at the castle; what temporary buildings are to b6 erected; and at what cost.
    Mr. Mellish: I expect the net cost of the work for which I am responsible to be about £55,000.
    No alterations will be made to the castle itself, nor will any temporary buildings be erected inside the castle.
    Mr. Hughes: Is this in addition to the £200,000 about which we have heard already? Would it not be far better to put the money into a housing scheme or schools rather than spend it on temporary buildings intended for something which will last only a couple of hours?
    Mr. Mellish: That is a very unfair criticism. The £55,000 to which I have referred is part of the global sum already given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, and my hon. Friend should recognise that it is almost impossible to estimate how much money will come into Wales as a result of the hundreds of thousands of people who will wish to see this very remarkable ceremony. In our whole design with regard to Caernarvon Castle, we have in mind that it will probably be viewed by something like 400 million people throughout the world. I think that it is a very worthwhile ceremony.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Long answers mean fewer Questions.
    Mr. Frederic Harris: Is the Minister aware that this type of Question so often put down by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and many of his hon. Friends causes great offence to the Royal Family and the public in general, who find these comments unacceptable?
    Mr. Mellish: In fairness to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), he has every right to question any expenditure. He has a viewpoint which he has always had the courage to express. However, in this matter, I think that we shall get wonderful value for the money involved. I might mention, too, that some of the chairs that we shall make will be sold at a profit.

    Buckingham Palace Area (Pedestrians)
    Sir R. Russellasked the Minister of Public Building and Works how the arrangements for enabling pedestrians, especially sightseers, to cross the road in the neighbourhood of Buckingham Palace are working; and if there have been any accidents in recent months.
    Mr. Mellish: Considering the crowds that assemble in this area, particularly at the time of the Changing of the Guard,
    8
    the arrangements are working reasonably satisfactorily. Three pedestrians were slightly injured in accidents there during the first six months of this year.
    Sir R. Russell: May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and the assurance that it has given. However, is he aware that there is often a lot of confusion between pedestrians and motorists as to who has the right of way, there being no pedestrian crossings? Will he bear that in mind?
    Mr. Mellish: I am on record as saying that I am trying to avoid pedestrian crossings and traffic signals anywhere in the vicinity of the parks. I have made a statement today that, starting from next Sunday, that part of the Mall from Horse Guards Approach Road to Queen Victoria Memorial Gardens, will be closed to vehicles between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. on Sundays, and will be made a pedestrian precinct.
    Mr. Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the Metropolitan Police are very good on these occasions in controlling the movement of vehicular and pedestrian traffic at these points so that there is a continuous flow all the time, despite the congregation of considerable crowds?
    Mr. Mellish: I think that that is fair.

    Government Office Accommodation
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has made of the area of Government office requirements in 1969; and how this compares with 1965.
    Mr. Mellish: Something over 40 million sq. ft. in 1969, compared with about 35 million sq. ft. in 1965.
    Mr. Costain: Is not this a very large increase? Has the Minister no control over other Government Departments? Is he satisfied that the accommodation is satisfactory, anyway?
    Mr. Mellish: That is the whole point. The conditions in which many of our civil servants live can only be described as conditions of squalor. That has been the position for years, and we are trying to improve conditions, some of which would not be tolerated under our own Acts of Parliament. It is the policy of

    9
    the Government that there should be no net increase in the total number of civil servants this year.
    Mr. Costainasked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will give the percentage saving represented by the rents which his Department pays for office space in the provinces compared with rents for similar accommodation in London.
    Mr. Mellish: The average rent of office accommodation held on lease by my Department is about 60 per cent. lower in the provinces than in London. For new hirings the difference is nearer 70 per cent.
    Mr. Costain: Does not this information show the necessity to get more Government Departments out of London? Would the right hon. Gentleman make an announcement about how he intends to do this?
    Mr. Mellish: We have an extremely good reoord on that, compared with the record of the previous Government. During the last five years, something like 9,000 Government office jobs have been dispersed from London. On present plans, the figure will increase by another 15,000. In this time, offices employing over 5,000 staff on new Government work have been opened outside London, and that figure will go up to 10,000.

    Mann Committee's Reports
    Mr. Danceasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he has now completed his discussions with the trade unions on the Mann Committee Report; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellish: There have been three Reports by the Mann Committee. Discussions with the trade unions on the 1st Report, which dealt mainly with the methods of executing maintenance and minor works by contract, were concluded some time ago.
    Discussions with the trade unions on the 2nd Report have just commenced, and are continuing. None have yet taken place on the 3rd Report.
    I am unable to make a statement at this stage of the discussions.
    Mr. Dance: There seems to have been an awful lot of delay here. Can the Minister say what proportion of the maintenance work of his Deparament will in future be continually done by direct labour?
    Mr. Mellish: As a matter of fact, the proportions of maintenance work done by direct labour and contract labour are about 40 per cent. and 60 per cent. respectively. This concerns the whole Department and many thousands of staff. As I see my job, it is first to improve management, because direct labour cannot be complained about unless management is right. I am also having discussions with the trade unions.

    Selective Employment Tax
    Mr. Huntasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a statement on his policy regarding the refund to contractors engaged on public sector contracts of the Selective Employment Tax as from September, 1968.
    Mr. Speedasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from builders regarding the refund of Selective Employment Tax to those contractors who engaged in a public contract after 4th May, 1966, but before the introduction of Supplementary Condition No. 62 in CCC/Wks/1 in November, 1967 and new Clause 31 in the Royal Institute of British Architects Form of Contract in October, 1967 and whose contracts will continue after 2nd September, 1968; and what replies he has sent.
    Mr. Mellish: I have received representations from many sources that concessions should be made on construction contracts for the public sector where those contracts did not include provisions to enable contractors to reclaim the extra cost of the increased rate of Selective Employment Tax which will become operative in September next. The Government have considered this request but have decided not to grant it, since this is a change in an existing tax and not the introduction of a new one.
    Mr. Hunt: Is the Minister aware that that Answer will be deplored throughout the country, particularly in the building industry? Is he further aware that

    11
    it will completely undermine the construction industry's faith in the fixed-price contract system? Why has he capitulated to the Treasury in this cowardly way?
    Mr. Mellish: Whatever else I am, I am not a coward. I understand the feelings of some of those involved. The truth is that for local authorities to have been able to apply this ex gratia payment legislation would have been necessary. The number of those having contracts with my Department is very small indeed. I very much hope that there will be no hardship.
    Mr. Speed: Does the Minister recall that on 17th June he said:
    "I want to see justice done."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th June, 1968; Vol. 766, c. 685.]
    How does he reconcile this completely unhappy reply with that statement?
    Mr. Mellish: I was then talking about the very few people involved having contracts with my Ministry. When one talks about this as a principle, one puts it right across all Government Departments and, therefore, the numbers involved are much more difficult and complex. As I explained, legislation would have to be introduced to enable local authorities to operate such a refund. It is for these reasons that the principle of this had to be denied.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the Minister aware that this is utterly mean, shabby and confidence destroying for the industry—all the more so because the Government themselves accepted the fluctuation principle in CCC/Wks/1 and the R.I.B.A. form of contract?
    Mr. Mellish: The hon. Member must not over-state this. The number of contracts involved is infinitesimal compared with the major number. This was a collective Government decision, for the reasons that I have given.

    Building Licences
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many projects of between £50,000 and £99,999 in value were refused a building licence between 11th August, 1966, and 31st March, 1968; what was the value of those projects; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellish: There were 48 such projects with a total value of £3½ million, as stated in the Annex to my Report presented to the House on 22nd May, 1968. Such projects are, of course, now exempt from building control as a result of Statutory Instrument, 1968, No. 781, also laid before Parliament on 22nd May, 1968.
    Mr. Fortescue: In view of the extremely small number of licences which had to be refused during two years of economic crisis, how can the Minister possibly justify continuing with these controls over the next few years when, as all his colleagues tell us, we shall have a period of economic recovery?
    Mr. Mellish: I give this assurance. At this moment of time those applying for licences are being treated extremely generously. I am considering this issue very carefully. The moment the opportunity is there I shall ensure that the controls are removed.

    Contractors (Serial Tendering)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a statement on his policy regarding the use of serial contracting by public sector building owners so as to keep together specialist design and construction teams at the conclusion of one-off jobs.
    Mr. Mellish: I have always attached considerable importance to the recommendations of the Banwell Committee that aim at better continuity of work for contractors. Serial tendering is one way of achieving this. All public sector clients are being encouraged to make use of serial procedures where these are appropriate. Five experimental serial programmes have been organised within my own Department. These should provide useful experience which will be made available as widely as possible.
    Mr. Allason: Does the Minister agree that this form of contracting is extremely useful, particularly in very expensive projects such as hospital building? Is he in consultation with the Minister of Health to ensure that what he likes to do the Minister of Health likes to do as well?
    Mr. Mellish: Yes. It is my objective for my Ministry to set the example as to contracting procedures and for other

    13
    Government Departments to follow. Our knowledge on this, particularly the experience to which I have just referred, is one that other Government Departments will willingly follow.
    Mr. Costain: The Minister has indicated that he appreciates the value of this, but does he realise that the Question is directed to design and construction teams? Is it not a great advantage that these teams should be kept together so that early mistakes can be corrected in future designs?
    Mr. Mellish: I accept that. Forty per cent. of my Department's major works programme was let by term, negotiated or extension contracts. I take the point about the continuity of the design teams.

    Cement (Surcharge)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether, in the light of the announcement of a 14½ per cent. increase in the pre-tax profit by Tunnel Portland Cement for 1967–68, he will now remove the special 2s. per ton surcharge on cement authorised in 1967.
    Mr. MellishI refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave him on 27th May, 1968. As a result of the statement by my right hon. Friend on the fuel oil surcharge, the Cement Makers Federation has reiterated its undertaking to remove the 2s. surcharge as soon as all the extra costs have been recovered.—[Vol. 765, c. 1212.]
    Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this company, which accounts for only 14 per cent. of cement manufactured, has recently announced profits of £2,600,000? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that profits of this order do not require an unearned bonus of a 2s. per cent. surcharge? Is it not high time that this temporary arrangement was seen to be temporary and removed?
    Mr. Mellish: The N.B.P.I. investigated this company and its claims for increases and agreed same. I have an assurance from the company that the moment that it is practicable so to do this surcharge will be removed. I very much hope that we shall be hearing more about that within the next three months.

    British Standard Time
    Mr. Eyreasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what studies he has initiated into the effect on productivity in the building industry of the introduction of British Standard Time; and what have been the findings of those studies.
    Mr. Waddingtonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what esimate he has made of the loss in productivity on building sites as a result of the introduction of British Standard Time; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellish: None, Sir.
    Mr. Eyre: Does this mean that no account has been taken of the difficulties of site working in darkness? If as a result of this local builders and their operatives change their working hours, will not they add to the peak hour traffic load of office workers? How will this help productivity?
    Mr. Mellish: On the one hand, I am constantly being asked by hon. Members opposite to stop sending out questionaires and forms to the building industry; and I am trying to comply with their request. On the other hand, I am being asked for more information about this. The only way to get it is by asking the building industry for it. No one in the industry is complaining to me. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman keeps complaining.
    Mr. Waddington: Does not the Minister agree that the greater proportion of accidents in the building industry takes place in the early hours of the morning in winter? Is not he concerned that the introduction of British Standard Time will result in an increase in the accident rate?
    Mr. Mellish: British Standard Time was not introduced as an arbitrary decision on the part of the Government. There were discussions with industries. The matter was debated on the Floor of the House. The majority of those involved favoured it. There is to be a three-year experimental period. At the end of that time I assume that there will be some statistics to justify either its continuation or its abolition. It is too early yet.
    Mr. Heffer: What consultations did my right hon. Friend have with the Home Secretary? Does not he realise that there will be an increased cost of building as a result of the introduction of artificial light?
    Mr. Mellish: At the time that British Standard Time was being discussed there was consultation between the Ministers responsible for all Departments concerned and, in my case, consultations with industry as a whole. Even in Scotland there was a majority in favour of this —only a very small majority, but nevertheless a majority. [Interruption.] Because there seem to have been more complaints about the effect of this on Scotland made by hon. Members opposite than there have been complaints about any other region.

    Construction Industry (Output)
    Mr. Woodnuttasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what was the total value of output on new work by contractors in Great Britain in 1967; what is the approximate annual value of licensable work under the Building Control Act 1966; what was the value of work for which licences were refused from the commencement of controls until 31st March, 1968; and upon what criteria those licences were refused.
    Mr. Mellish: £2,906 million, £170 million and £19·2 million. My Report to the House on 22nd May, 1968, contained a statement of the criteria upon which building licence applications are considered. Rather than take up the time of the House, I would refer the hon. Member to the Report.
    Mr. Woodnutt: In view of the very small proportion of work done subject to licence and the small amount refused, and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has already indicated to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Gar-ston (Mr. Fortescue) that he will reconsider this whole question, will he go further and decide that this is a lot of nonsense and, as the unemployment rate in the construction industry is higher than it has ever been at this time of the year, will he not abolish the licensing system?
    Mr. Mellish: The industry is not complaining to me that I am causing it
    16
    any hardships. I repeat that when the time is opportune these controls will be withdrawn.
    Mr. Chichester-CIark: In view of these interesting figures, can the Minister estimate what was the immediate impact on the balance of payments of these measures as forecast by the Prime Minister in July 1966?
    Mr. Mellish: Not without notice.
    Mr. Woodnuttasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimates he has made of the probable level of output in the construction industry in 1969 and 1970; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mellish: I expect ouput on new work in 1969 and 1970 to increase by between 4 and 5 per cent. each year.
    Mr. Woodnutt: Is not that rather small increase another reason for cutting out licences? The Minister is trying to meet us on this question and he says that he will look at it, but does he not appreciate that he must work hard to increase the throughput of the industry? In this day and age, we could be aiming at something like a 10 per cent. increase?
    Mr. Mellish: Yes, but one must not underrate what these figures mean. Year after year, at constant prices, there has been an increase in output. Last year, there was an all-time record for the industry. Now we are looking for a 4 per cent. increase on that; next year, we hope to have a 4 per cent. increase on what we hope to achieve this year, and so on. It is a very creditable record.
    Mr. Roebuck: I welcome the information which my right hon. Friend has given the House, but could he do more to persuade small building firms to co-operate together in the purchase of expensive machinery, which could then be shared among them in the same way as small farmers share expensive machinery, in order to increase productivity still more?
    Mr. Mellish: Small builders do present a problem, I agree. I have a later Question about them, and at this stage I merely tell my hon. Friend that we have

    17
    a procedure now by which we discuss with the industry the problems of large, medium and small builders. If that proposition is put to me, I shall gladly consider it.

    Industrialised Building Methods
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now make a statement on his policy regarding competition between public and private enterprise in the system building sector.
    Mr. Mellish: I welcome the development of industrialised building methods and consider that competition between one system and another stimulates technological advance. In my view, there is room for systems sponsored both by contractors and by clients in the public sector.
    Mr. Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that considerable concern is felt by private enterprise school-building systems sponsors that they are in danger of being squeezed out of business?
    Mr. Mellish: I have not heard that. Private enterprise systems in the building industry are widely supported in high-rise work. One of the troubles here -I know something of this from my housing days—is that there are so many systems in low-rise work, and competition between them all is not very lucrative for some.

    Small Builders (Finance)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what special arrangements he is making to make available finance to small builders unable to obtain overdrafts.
    Mr. Mellish: None, Sir.
    Mr. Allason: The small builder has an essential part to play in the construction industry, especially for repairs or alterations. If they cannot secure finance, how can the Minister expect them to continue in business? If he wants them to continue in business, will he go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and do something about it?
    Mr. Mellish: In my view, the small builder today has a greater future than he has had for a very long time, owing
    18
    to this Government's proposals for the improvement of older houses which give him a vast reservoir of work which I hope he will be able to undertake. It must be done via the local authority machine — that is all-important—but I hope that the local authorities will organise it properly for him and that all questions of that kind will be taken up with the local authorities.
    My final word on the small builder is this. Let us not have it said that small builders are suddenly going bankrupt in large numbers. There have always been small builders who went bankrupt.
    Mr. Barnett: Does not my right hon. Friend find this question rather odd, bearing in mind that small builders have not gone bankrupt only recently but they have as a sector of industry always been top of the annual list of bankruptcies?
    Mr. Mellish: That is what I have tried to say. The industry is very much a jungle, and the small and weak animals often get devoured.
    Mr. Costain: Does not the Minister realise that work for local authorities which do not pay quickly is most difficult work for small builders? This is a question of finance, not bankruptcy.
    Mr. Mellish: Speaking to one of the larger animals in the industry, I accept that as a fair point from the hon. Gentleman. My views about payments by local authorities are well known. Some of them are quite disgraceful, and it is about time they made themselves better clients.

    Hampton Court Palace (Picture Postcards)
    Sir Knox Cunninghamasked the Minister of Public Building and Works why picture postcards depicting King William III are not available to the public at Hampton Court Palace; and if he will ensure that supplies of such cards for sale are again provided.
    Mr. Mellish: This card was withdrawn in 1966 because there was little demand for it. Because of the limits of space, only the most popular items can be offered for sale.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: Will the right hon. Gentleman personally reconsider this matter and reach his decision not solely on a commercial basis but to honour the

    19
    glorious pious and immortal memory of a great historical figure, King William III, Prince of Orange?
    Mr. Mellish: I am advised that the most popular card at Hampton Court is that of Henry VIII and his wives, all six of them. I can only say that we are in this as a commercial business and no notions of love or hate for William III come into it. We were selling only 700 cards of William III a year, and, since there are nearly 550,000 visitors a year to Hampton Court, this shows that he is not very popular this side of the water.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is my rieht hon. Friend aware that when King William III occupied Hampton Court he never paid any rent? Will he ask King William's family to pay the debts they owe the country?
    Mr. Mellish: If I remember the story of King William, he was dominated by his wife Mary. That may have been part of the trouble.
    Mr. Lubbock: Will the Minister publish a postcard showing a picture of His Holiness the Pope?
    Mr. Mellish: That has nothing to do with Hampton Court Palace. That is the point. I should publish any picture postcard which we thought we could sell. I should even be prepared to publish one of the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, North (Sir Knox Cunningham) if I thought we could sell it.
    Mr. Chichester-Clark: Would it not be better to encourage a preoccupation with the deeds of King William III rather than with the marital proclivities of Henry VIII?
    Mr. Mellish: But the public are not like that. They like to see a picture of Henry and all his wives together. They are not interested in William III. I cannot help that.
    Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for the Minister to concentrate on the King and leave out the wives?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.

    Ancient Monuments (Publicity)
    Mr. Arnold Shawasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what is the machinery for liaison with the
    20
    Board of Trade in publicity for ancient monuments for the furtherance of tourism in Great Britain.
    Mr. Mellish: There is normal interdepartmental liaison on matters relating to tourism and the presentation of ancient monuments. In addition, we work closely with the British Travel Association, which is responsible for general tourist advertising overseas.
    Mr. Shaw: In view of the wealth of ancient monuments within the purview of his Ministry and their potential for tourism, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that everything is being done in the matter of consultation?
    Mr. Mellish: If I thought that there were weaknesses, I should set about making improvements, but I am advised that my commercial manager, who is on the British Travel Association committee, liaises with the British Travel Association all the time, and there has been no complaint on that score. Last year there was an all-time record number of visitors to ancient monuments—over 10 million in all—and our income was nearly £750,000. It was an all-time record.

    Tower of London (Statuettes)
    Mr. Arnold Shawasked the Minister of Public Building and Works what public response there has been to the sale of statuettes at the Tower of London.
    Mr. Mellish: About 5,000 of each of the armoured figures have been sold since they were introduced in August and November last year.
    Mr. Shaw: That will give a good deal of satisfaction, but, in view of the level of sales, will my right hon. Friend think of widening the range of such statuettes? I am sure that such a move would be popular.
    Mr. Mellish: I am obliged for that suggestion. As my hon. Friend probably knows, this scheme is in its infancy. It is going extremely well, and large numbers are being sold. By the way, the statuettes are in Henry VIII armour. I hope that we shall be able to venture into other fields.
    Mr. Heffer: Would my right hon. Friend consider extending the range to include statuettes of some hon. or right
    21
    hon. Members? Perhaps a statuette of the hon. and learned Member for Antrim, North (Sir Knox Cunningham) might sell well as showing an ancient monument.
    Mr. Mellish: I have an idea that if we did that we should not sell any statuettes at all.

    Palace of Westminster (Members' Rooms)
    Mr. Wellbelovedasked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether necessary works during the coming Summer Recess will result in disturbance to Members' rooms.
    Mr. Mellish: I am sorry to say that it will. The works programme for this Recess includes the replacement of the existing annunciators by closed-circuit television sets, and the considerable extension of this service, as recommended in the Fourteenth Report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), Session 1966–67. The wiring for this installation is inevitably extensive and will affect a great number of rooms.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, although we congratulate him on trying to improve facilities in the desk rooms, most hon. Members will not be satisfied until adequate provision has been made for proper office accommodation for all who wish to have it?
    Mr. Mellish: Yes, Sir, and hereby hangs another tale. What we must do is put up another new building across the road in Bridge Street, and one day the House will give me permission so to do.
    Mr. Goodhew: What is the cost of installing these closed-circuit television sets in all the desk rooms?
    Mr. Mellish: I cannot answer off the cuff, but it is considerable. The hon. Gentleman must understand that I was given an instruction by a Select Committee of the House comprising Members of all parties. I have to take the instructions of the House in this matter.

  TECHNOLOGY

    Industrial Expansion Act
    Mr. Barnettasked the Minister of Technology if he will make a statement on the work of his Department arising from the Industrial Expansion Act.
    The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): Under the industrial investment scheme provisions of the Act, the House approved the Computers Merger Scheme on 21st June, 1968. I am now considering with industry a number of individual and general projects which may in due course call for action under these provisions.
    I shall soon be completing the agreement to purchase the assets of the Beagle Aircraft Company. The arrangements for financial support for the production of Concorde are under discussion with the firms concerned. The increased finance for the National Research Development Corporation and the Shipbuilding Industry Board will, of course, be used to support the future activities of these organisations.
    Mr. Barnett: Now that the I.R.C. is working so much more effectively, does my right hon. Friend consider that perhaps some of the schemes he originally envisaged introducing under the Industrial Expansion Act will not be necessary? In other words, does he think that he will need the Act quite as much as was first thought?
    Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend has another Question on the Order Paper about the I.R.C. There is no overlap here. In the case of the computer merger we put in £10 million in research and development, which the I.R.C. was not in a position to do. I do not visualise any difficulty between the two provisions.

    George Kent and Cambridge Instruments (Takeover)
    Mr. Barnettasked the Minister of Technology whether he is satisfied with the operation of the machinery for cooperation between his Department, the Department for Economic Affairs and the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation as regards the assistance given to George Kent in their successful takeover bid for Cambridge Instruments; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Benn: Yes, Sir. The Corporation kept my Department and the Department of Economic Affairs in touch with the situation as it developed. The arrangements by which close relations are maintained with the Corporation worked well.
    Mr. Barnett: Is not the position becoming a little absurd in view of the large number of Departments involved in such cases—presumably in this case my hon. Friend's Department, the D.E.A. and the Board of Trade? Would my right hon. Friend consider having discussions with his colleagues with a view to bringing all matters of this sort under the auspices of one Department and one Minister?
    Mr. Benn: Questions of the machinery of Government are for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. There was no difficulty in this case because I am the sponsoring Minister for the electronics industry and the Department of Economic Affairs is concerned with the I.R.C.

    300 GeV Nuclear Accelerator
    Mr. Fortescueasked the Minister of Technology what studies he has made of the implications for British nuclear technology of the decision to withdraw British participation from the proposed CERN 300 GeV nuclear accelerator.
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalien): The decision not to participate was taken only after the most thorough examination of all relevant factors, including the industrial implications of the project.
    Mr. Fortescue: Does the Minister agree that without a healthy foundation of fundamental research applied research cannot exist at all, and that ultimately the whole work of his Department depends on full participation by British scientists in fundamental research on a European or even a world scale?
    Mr. Mallalieu: Fundamental research is vitally important, but it is a question of priorities.
    Mr. Brooks: The way in which the Government announced the decision left many of us with a feeling of deep disquiet. Will he ensure that a much fuller statement of the implications of the decision is published as soon as possible?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I was not aware of the disquiet. It seemed to me that my right hon. Friend's announcement was fairly complete, but I shall bring my hon. Friend's point of view to his notice.
    Mr. Lubbock: Does the Minister recall that in the White Paper is was stated that British industry had been remarkably unsuccessful in obtaining contracts for C.E.R.N., and that if we spent £44 million in our contribution to this project we should have that much less to spend on other advanced technologies, the rewards for which are much higher?
    Mr. Mallalieu: That is undoubtedly correct.
    Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend assure the Germans and other Europeans that there is no sense of absolute finality about our decision?
    Mr. Mallalieu: I think that there is finality about this decision, but that does not mean that we do not want to go on collaborating on other projects.
    Mr. David Price: Does the Minister agree that basic research lends itself more favourably to international cooperation than does development work in which there are commercial pay-offs and which lends itself to a good deal more political argy-bargy, for understandable reasons, than does fundamental research?
    Mr. Mallalieu: That is a somewhat philosophical question, but I should think that it is correct.

    A300 Airbus
    Mr. Onslowasked the Minister of Technology if he will now make a further statement on the A300 Airbus project.
    Mr. Benn: A report by officials of the three Governments has now been submitted in preparation for the international Ministerial meeting planned for the end of the month.
    Mr. Onslow: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that if the airbus is to keep to its programme of certification by 1972 and entry into service the following year metal must be cut and orders must be placed by the end of this year? Does he see any real prospect of that happening?
    Mr. Benn: The object of a project definition stage is to give an opportunity for partners and firms to look at these projects very carefully. As has been

    25
    made clear by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General and myself, our interest in aircraft which we build or in which we participate is that there should be a good economic return on them. That is why the project definition stage takes place, and that is why there is to be the meeting at the end of this month.
    Mr. Rankin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a few weeks ago we were assured that this project was proceeding? Is that still the case? Are there now other thoughts about the future prospects for the airbus?
    Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend will recall that what we said was that the project definition stage was proceeding, but we have always said that the object of that stage was to allow the partners involved to decide whether or not the aircraft was a proposition in which they should invest and advance with us. That has always been the reason for the project definition.

    Scientists Appointment Service
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Technology if he is satisfied with the co-operation of British industry with the grant-aided Scientists Appointment Service, designed to attract British scientists back from North America; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Benn: This Service has been operating in its present form for only three months, and it is too early yet to assess its results. However, the initial response from industry has been quite encouraging.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of a rather disquieting report of the Royal Institute of Chemistry quoted in the Sheffield Morning Telegraph of 10th July that 200 top-rank British scientists are trying to return from America and that industry has shown an interest in only four? Can he jolt his industrial friends on this?
    Mr. Benn: It has always been the case that large numbers of people in the United States, both British residents there and Americans, would like to work in this country, and the brain drain has always been seen, at least in part, as a problem of British industry's absorbing good people and using them fully.
    Mr. David Price: Is the Minister aware that some evidence has come to me that the Scientists Appointment Service is not necessarily asking the right questions of British scientists in America in order to get the marriage of their talents to British industry? I should like an opportunity to talk to him about this.
    Mr. Benn: I have no doubt that there can be an improvement in techniques, but the Service has been going for only about 12 weeks. Its object is to improve the prospects of bringing people home. If the hon. Gentleman has any suggestions, I should be very grateful to hear them.

    Concorde Aircraft
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Technology what is the forecast price for Concorde upon which airlines have based their decisions to place options; and if he has now calculated what revision of the price has been necessitated by the delays in the 001 programme.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Airlines took out their options at different times, and based their decisions on different prices. The likely selling price is continually reviewed in the light of all relevant changes in circumstances.
    Mr. Brooks: Is my hon. Friend aware that that has not begun to answer the Question, which asked for a specific price to justify an £800 million investment in research and development? Does he agree that the record of Anglo-French co-operation in this venture, not to mention the A.F.V.G. and the recent escalation in cost of the airbus on the part of the French, suggests that bilateral cooperation in this respect is rather misguided?
    Mr. Mallalieu: It is not possible to give a direct answer to the Question other than the Answer I have given because the prices are very widespread. We are watching the escalation in costs with our French colleagues with extreme care.
    Mr. Fortescue: Is work on the next two pre-production models of Concorde up to schedule, or is it still lagging behind?
    Mr. Mallalieu: We have authorised production work to proceed.

    TSR2 Aircraft
    Mr. Brooksasked the Minister of Technology how much had been paid to the contractors responsible for the TSR2 by 6th April, 1965; what calculation was at that time available regarding further payments, including cancellation charges; and what was, in the event, the actual total of these outstanding payments.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: At the time of cancellation, payments to TSR2 contractors amounted to £125 million. Further payments, including cancellation charges, were then estimated at £70 million. Since cancellation such further payments have amounted to £53½ million. The final total is expected to fall well within the original estimate.
    Mr. Brooks: We are dealing with figures of rather large dimensions and there still appears to be a substantial discrepancy. In order to clear the air once and for all on this, will my hon. Friend consider publishing a full and accurate document indicating the reasons for the discrepancy?
    Mr. Mallalieu: The discrepancy between the estimate and the actual payments so far made is due in part to the fact that some of the sub-contractors concerned have not yet put in their claims. Others have put in claims that were manifestly too high.
    Mr. Onslow: When the hon. Gentleman tells us that £248 million has been spent on the TSR2 and we have no aircraft to show for it, will he add the cancellation costs of the F111?
    Mr. Mallalieu: That would be an entirely different question, but I shall certainly look at the amount of money we should have had to spend if this cancellation had not taken place.

    Shipyards
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Minister of Technology what further consideration he has given to the deteriorating situation of the shipyards outside development areas; and if he will propose measures for assisting their survival, especially in districts of high unemployment.
    Mr. Benn: I shall be writing shortly to my hon. Friend about the suggestion he made at a recent meeting for further help for yards outside development areas.

    Departmental Staff (Engineers, Technologists and Scientists)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Technology how many qualified engineers, technologists and scientists are employed in his departments; and what percentage each of these represents of total staff.
    Mr. Benn: The Ministry of Technology employs a total of approximately 4,200 qualified scientists, engineers and technologists. This represents 12 per cent. of the total civilian staff directly employed. I regret that separate figures of each category are not available.
    Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the work of his Department—its coverage and so on—has greatly expanded during the last two or three years, and can he assure us that the supply of staff along the lines that I have indicated in the Question has expanded nearly correspondingly?
    Mr. Benn: There has been an expansion of the work of my Department, but my hon. Friend should not suppose that it is our intention greatly to increase the number of qualified scientists and engineers that we employ. There has been a rundown in the Atomic Energy Authority, there is a reduction at Farn-borough and Malvern, and we are trying to hold the civil establishments stable. The object is in part to get more research done in industry.

    Mallory Batteries Limited
    Mr. Pavittasked the Minister of Technology how long his negotiations with Mallory Batteries Limited have now lasted; what action he now proposes to take to secure the implementation of Report No. 64 of the National Board for Prices and Incomes; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Benn: As I informed my hon. Friend on 1st July negotiations with Mallory Batteries Limited began on 13th May. When these are concluded, which I expect to be soon, I shall report to the House.—[Vol. 767, c.169.]
    Mr. Pavitt: Is it not disgusting that with the biggest rise in any commodity the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board is being ignored? Does my right hon. Friend recall that the request was that the firm should withdraw "pending" negotiations, not "during" negotiations? Is he aware that it has an international monopoly and that the National Health Service has no alternative supply of these important commodities?
    Mr. Benn: I think that the appropriate adjective to apply is "complicated" rather than "disgusting". There are a number of practical problems, including distributors' stocks, investment, development and the difference between domestic and export prices. In the discussions with the firm, which have been very full, we have approached a solution which I shall announce in the House as soon as I can.
    Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the subject on the Adjournment.

    Industry (Graduate Recruits)
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Technology what plans he has to assist co-operation between industry and higher educational establishments in order to ensure that the professionally qualified recruits in industry will normally be graduates.
    Mr. Benn: An increasing proportion of chartered engineers in industry are graduates and I am supporting the requirements of the Council of Engineering Institutions that after 1973 all candidates will be of degree standard.
    Mr. Rankin: Is not the present tendency for the numbers of those who leave school at 15 and 16 to increase, and does it not seem that in the near future industry at graduate level and my right hon. Friend's Department may be starved of these recruits? What steps is he taking to fend off that tendency?
    Mr. Benn: I am well aware, as everyone who has studied this is, that the shift away from the sciences in the schools and the shift from industry of university graduates poses potential dangers for industries. But the Science Research Council this year, by its policy of post-
    30
    graduate awards, is hoping to produce far more people for industry, and by this means and a number of other means we are hoping to ensure that the demand is met.
    Mr. David Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman in those considerations not underestimate the importance of the alternative ladder to chartered engineer status—that is, coming up through the works on O.N.C. and H.N.C.? Would he not agree that, however mature we are in our degree examination, there must always be the alternative route kept open to potential chartered engineers?
    Mr. Benn: I think the point is very well understood by the C.E.I.

    HUMAN RIGHTS
    Mr. Huntasked the Attorney-General whether he will take steps by legislation or otherwise to allow alleged infringements of individual human rights to be brought before the Court of Appeal in accordance with Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): The human rights specified in the Convention are already accorded under the existing law and practice in this country and remedies against infringements are already available, so that it is unnecessary to make provision for the kind of appeal suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Hunt: Is it not a fact that there is no court in this country specifically empowered to adjudicate on violations of human rights? Are the Government not, therefore, in this way in contempt of the European Convention, and would not Human Rights Year be a very appropriate time to put this right?
    The Attorney-General: No, Sir; I do not think so. I am satisfied that the existing United Kingdom law conforms with the obligations imposed by the Convention and that the rights listed in the Convention are covered by remedies enforceable in our own courts.
    Sir P. Rawlinson: Leaving aside the solution proposed by my hon. Friend, is the Attorney-General satisfied that all decisions taken which can affect the citizen are justiciable—in other words, can

    31
    go to a court in this country—or is there not a field in which there should be a much closer review of decisions, particularly administrative decisions?
    The Attorney-General: The Government have instituted the Parliamentary Commissioner as an important advance in the protection of the rights of the individual citizen.

  EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY

    National Board for Prices and Incomes (Temporary Secretarial Staff)
    Mr. Onslowasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will refer to the National Board for Prices and Incomes the increase of approximately 8 per cent. over the past 12 months in the average weekly cost of temporary secretarial staff employed by the Board.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): The National Board for Prices and Incomes obtains temporary secretarial staff from employment agencies; and the question of charges made by such agencies, and the salaries paid by them to the staff they provide, has already been referred to the Board.
    Mr. Onslow: While the Board is meditating on the points involved, would the hon. Gentleman ask it to tell him, and, so, the House, whether there has been a corresponding increase in the productivity of the staff?
    Mr. Walker: I advise the hon. Gentleman to await the Board's Report, when no doubt it will make a relevant comment.
    Mr. Barnett: How much of the Department's time has been wasted by the typically childish Question by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow).

    Pharmaceutical Products (Prices)
    Mr. Pavittasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what machinery exists for consultation between her Department and the Ministry of Health to restrain increases in the prices of pharmaceutical products.
    Mr. Harold Walker: Full use is made of the normal machinery for consultation between Departments.
    Mr. Pavitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that there have been very large increases recently which are excused by the pharmaceutical industry on the plea that the Ministry of Health has granted them? Is he aware that a 10 per cent. increase in the price of insulin has passed through? Is there some way in which he can bring prices down?
    Mr. Walker: The price of insulin is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, and I understand that my hon. Friend has a Question on the Order Paper to him. My hon. Friend will know that there is in existence a voluntary price regulation scheme, which is under consideration by my right hon. Friend in the light of the Sainsbury Committee's Report, and on which negotiations will shortly be taking place.
    Mr. R. Carr: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that the increase in price was vetted and, therefore, thought to be correct?
    Mr. Walker: Indeed, Sir. Any price increases on pharmaceutical products prescribed by pharmacists are subjected to the voluntary price regulation scheme, which obliges the companies concerned to submit their price increases for consideration by my right hon. Friend, who has to be satisfied that the increases are necessary and justified, and also has to take into consideration the Government's prices policy.

    Chairman of Hambro's Bank (Remuneration)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity if she will make a statement on the outcome of her investigations into the increase in remuneration of the Chairman of Hambro's Bank from £20,866 to £25,145 a year in the last 12 months, in addition to share dividends.
    Mr. Harold Walker: Mr. Hambro has given my Department information about the recent increase in his remuneration. In view of my right hon. Friend's recent decision to refer the whole question of top salaries to the National Board for

    33
    Prices and Incomes, it is not proposed to pursue his individual case any further.
    Mr. Allaun: Yes, but if no real action is taken on the general case, does it not mean that Mr. Hambro's little increase has been quietly buried, and how will the bus men react to that?
    Mr. Walker: No, Sir; Mr. Hambro's increase has not been quietly buried but will be taken into account by the Board in reaching its conclusions. I advise my hon. Friend to await the outcome of the Board's Report.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether this question would ever have been raised if Mr. Hambro's company had given a subscription to the Labour Party instead of the Tories?
    Mr. Walker: I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that when a Question was originally asked referring to Mr. Hambro we were unaware of the contribution made to Conservative Party funds, and it would not have made the slightest difference to whom the contribution had been made.
    Mr. Sandys: Tell that to the Marines.

    Council House Rents (Investigation)
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity what was the cost of the recent investigation of council house rents.
    Mr. Harold Walker: I regret the information is not available. The cost of the investigation cannot be separated from the cost of other work on which the Board was simultaneously engaged without a disproportionate expenditure of time.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the cost of the whole project was, and what purpose was achieved by the inquiry?
    Mr. Walker: The answer to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question is that the achievement was the Report of the N.B.P.I., which was subsequently acted upon, giving a great deal of satisfaction to many thousands of council house tenants. With regard to the first part of his question, the staff of the Board are engaged simultaneously on a number of issues, and the issues on which they
    34
    are employed cannot be segregated without a considerable expenditure in time.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is it not the case that, but for the Report, Tory councils all over the country would have raised rents even higher than they have done at the moment?
    Mr. Walker: Of course.
    Mr. R. Carr: How can the hon. Gentleman justify not being able to give this cost in view of the fact that the National Board for Prices and Incomes is constantly telling the people it inquires into that they should have proper project costing systems?
    Mr. Walker: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had heard the first time when I said that the staff of the Board were engaged concurrently on a number of references. Of course, it would be possible to segregate and cost the times involved as separate references, but we do not feel that that is justified and that it would probably cost almost as much as the Report itself cost to produce.
    Mr. Ridsdale: On a point of order. In view of the Minister's unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

WEST END (DEMONSTRATIONS)
Mr. Hoggasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he would make a statement about the disorderly events in the West End yesterday afternoon.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): In accordance with arrangements settled in advance between the organisers and the police, a meeting took place in Trafalgar Square yesterday and was followed by a march to Speakers' Corner via Grosvenor Square. Although there was some disturbance in Grosvenor Square, the main proceedings were orderly throughout.
When the main party of about 3,000 to 4,000 marchers left Grosvenor Square, about 500 stayed behind with the evident intention of making trouble. This group headed towards Hyde Park Corner and on the way set fire to some rubbish and did other damage to property. Disorderly groups subsequently reformed and moved

35
through Berkeley Square towards Piccadilly Circus and Trafalgar Square. The last of these mobs was eventually dispersed by the police about 8.30 last night.
A number of police officers and civilians received injuries requiring medical aid, but none was detained in hospital. A total of 49 arrests were made and those concerned will be brought before the courts as soon as possible.
The House will, I am sure, agree that the police once more showed exemplary patience in dealing with a comparatively small number of hooligans. The purpose of these people is to attach themselves to peaceful demonstrations in order to force clashes with the police, damage property and make a complete nuisance of themselves. I have discussed this situation with the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis and have left him in no doubt that he will have my full support in measures to combat mob violence and keep the streets and public places clear for peaceful enjoyment by ordinary citizens.
Mr. Hogg: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Home Secretary for the information which he has given us. I am also quite sure that the whole House will endorse his praise of the police and his condemnation of what I accept was a disorderly minority of what was basically an orderly demonstration.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these repeated breaches of the peace by an exhibitionist fringe are endangering the whole right of peaceful demonstration? Will he possibly consider that marches are one thing and meetings in Trafalgar Square and at Hyde Park Corner are another, and that if this sort of thing goes on he may have to limit demonstrations to meetings where they can do no damage?
Mr. Callaghan: It is clear that this kind of thing, taking place continuously, is bound to cause the kind of question which the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts to me. But I think that he and the House will take it that I should be very reluctant to interfere with these demonstrations.
In my view, the police and the courts now have adequate powers to ensure that such demonstrations are peaceful. I re-
36
mind the House, for example, that assault on a police officer in the execution of his duty can lead on summary conviction to six months imprisonment or nine months on a second or subsequent conviction, or a fine of £100, or both; or on indictment the punishment can be as much as two years' imprisonment or a fine. I believe that the powers exist and, therefore, I would not feel it proper to interfere with peaceful demonstrations.
Mr. Hogg: I accept a great part of what the right hon. Gentleman has said. He has pointed out that much more serious penalties are available to the courts on indictment. Can he ensure that those powers are used and that those who break the law in future are not allowed to get off with a mere police court sentence?
Mr. Callaghan: No, I cannot ensure that the powers are used. I can point out what they are, because I think that it is in the interests of every one of us that the right of peaceful demonstration should be preserved. To me, that is the cardinal principle which should be followed. I am pointing out that there are adequate powers to deal with those who deliberately set out to provoke breaches of the peace.
Mr. Wyatt: Is it not disgraceful that thousands of our fellow citizens should spend Sunday demonstrating outside the American Embassy instead of outside the Russian Embassy at a time when the Russians are trying to crush freedom in Czechoslovakia by threats of force?
Mr. Callaghan: As the authority concerned for the police, I am sure that the Commissioner would be very willing to extend peaceful protection to any march which wants to take place in any direction in London during the next few months.
Mr. Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public have had just about enough of seeing policemen injured, property destroyed and foreign embassies insulted, and that everyone will welcome the fact that he has asked the police to consider further measures? May we take it that he will make a statement to the House about those measures in due course?
Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that there is any need for further measures. The Commissioner of Police fully understands what his responsibilities are and where they begin and end, and I am satisfied that he will carry them out.
Mr. Tinn: But does not my right hon. Friend think that perhaps the time is coming when he should consider, before permission is granted for such demonstrations, whether the organisers should be required to deposit a substantial sum of money as partial indemnity of the public against the cost of these disturbances?
Mr. Callaghan: I have taken part in a considerable number of demonstrations myself—[An HON. MEMBER: "On Sunday?"] On Sunday. I was proud to march with 2,000 agricultural workers, and there was no trouble of any sort. But no one can prevent a group of troublemakers from attaching themselves to a demonstration, and it would be very hard on the organisers of a peaceful demonstration if they were to become responsible financially for the misdemeanours of others.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that after the Grosvenor Square demonstrations in March I tabled certain Questions suggesting a strengthening of the law and the right hon. Gentleman replied that it was then premature? In view of the last shameful episode and the possibility of repetition, does he now agree that it is urgently necessary to strengthen the law so as to maintain order, protect people and property, and preserve the rule of law and the high reputation of our country?
Mr. Callaghan: My answer to all those questions is "No." I think that the powers exist. They must be used.
Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that quite a number of people who oppose American policy in Vietnam are strongly opposed to the violence and hooliganism which occurred yesterday?
Mr. Callaghan: Yes, I am. I draw a very clear distinction as does the Commissioner of Police, between the organisers of this demonstration and those who attached themselves to it for
38
the purpose of making trouble and creating mischief.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not the purpose of this minority of troublemakers to try to provoke the authorities and the police into repressive action leading to the loss of our liberties and the right of peaceful demonstration? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men such as this are planning violence on a really big scale for October? Is this being kept in mind, and if so, are precautions being taken?
Mr. Callaghan: I believe that it is the hope of some of those engaged in these demonstrations to provoke a situation in which the right to demonstrate might have to be interfered with. This is why we must be careful and—I accept what the hon. Gentleman says—to beware of falling into such a trap. I know, and the Commissioner knows, of other demonstrations which are being planned.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there is a very large section of the community who would wish to give every possible support they can to the police who, weekend after weekend, are subjected to these appalling outrages. Will he consider consulting the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police to see whether there is some way in which some voluntary effort might be recruited to support the police in their efforts?
Mr. Callaghan: I do not think that the police would want that, and I doubt whether, on reflection, the House would wish it. In my view, the police in these circumstances behave in a manner which is unequalled in any other part of the world, both in their wisdom and in their tolerance in handling these kinds of demonstrations. I am sure that it is best to leave it to them.
Mr. Shinwell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although I would be the last to condone the hooliganism which was exhibited yesterday, or at any time when these demonstrations occur, I believe that some provocative speeches have been made by right hon. Gentlemen opposite which have some effect on the behaviour of these people?
Mr. Callaghan: I am not sure that those who go to these demonstrations for

39
the purpose of provoking violence care very much about the nature of any of the speeches that are made.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many police officers were injured yesterday, and how many demonstrators?
Mr. Callaghan: There were only minor injuries. Thirty police officers and nine members of the public suffered minor injuries as far as I know.
Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware of what happened in Paris, when demonstrators were successful in provoking stronger action by the police and the consequences of that stronger action? Have not we every reason to be exceedingly grateful and to congratulate ourselves on the result of the police restraint here?
Mr. Callaghan: I am glad to accept that, and will pass on to the Commissioner what my hon. and learned Friend has said.
Sir C. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman permitted to send a recommendation to magistrates throughout the country—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I do not know, I am asking. Is the right hon. Gentleman permitted to send a recommendation, or at any rate to let magistrates know what penalties are available for those who are convicted?
Mr. Callaghan: I must be very careful here. The right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) rescued me on a previous occasion. There are people coming before the courts now as I speak, and I do not think that I should be accused of influencing the course of justice in any way.
Mr. Hogg: Although the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right in saying that he must not circularise magistrates, he can indicate to those in the employment of the Commissioner of Police what kind of charges ought to be preferred, and whether they should be proceeded against summarily or on indictment. Can he give an assurance that he will at least indicate that where an offence is capable of either treatment the question of indictment will not be overlooked?
Mr. Callaghan: The question of indictment or summary conviction is con-
40
stantly under review. I maintain close contact with the Commissioner of Police on these matters.
Mr. Thorpe: Notwithstanding the importance of that, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to leave these matters to the Attorney-General, who is a qualified lawyer, and to nobody else?
Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir. I am very deferential in the presence of all qualified lawyers.

URBAN PROGRAMMES (GOVERNMENT AID)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): I apologise to the House for a second statement.
The Government have now completed the first stage of their study of urban areas facing acute social problems in the fields of education, housing, health and welfare. Many of these areas include concentrations of immigrants.
The study shows that large and expanding programmes are already having an impact in each of the main social services concerned and that in education and housing in particular, and in areas of immigrant settlement, priorities have been established within existing policies to increase the flow of aid to particular areas of special need.
Nevertheless, there remain areas of severe social deprivation in a number of our cities and towns—often scattered in relatively small pockets. They require special help to meet their social needs and to bring their physical services to an adequate level.
The Government propose to initiate an urban programme to help tackle the social problems of the communities concerned. Action will be required on a number of fronts and the programme must necessarily be a continuing one. I propose to open discussions with the local authority associations and seek their co-operation in working out the basis on which help can most effectively be provided. Corresponding discussions in Scotland would be carried out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
But I can inform the House that the Government are prepared to introduce

41
legislation at the earliest opportunity to provide a new specific grant, in addition to the existing rate support grant to assist this programme. Under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, grants are already payable in respect of expenditure on staff in areas of immigrant settlement.
The new grant will be payable to other areas, including any in Scotland, that meet the necessary conditions, and in respect of any item of expenditure falling within the programme. Its percentage rate will be a matter for discussion with the local authority associations. Subject to Parliament passing the necessary legislation, the new grant will be payable retrospectively on expenditure incurred under the programme in the present financial year. The extra cost of this new and additional aid has been set against general economies made in the course of the normal processes of managing the expenditure programmes.
Meanwhile, to ensure an early start in launching the programme, the Government are prepared to sanction expenditure of some £20 to £25 million over the next four years, starting forthwith. They propose to select a number of local authorities where it is already clear that urgent needs exist and to settle direct with them projects which could proceed with least delay. In the first year, it is expected that these projects will be mainly in the field of nursery education and child care and will cover the provision of buildings, staff, equipment and. other items of expenditure.
The purpose of this programme is to supplement the Government's other social and legislative measures to ensure as far as we can that all our citizens have an equal opportunity in life.
Mr. Hogg: I am sure that the House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that statement before we separate for the Recess. Will he note that when statements of this kind are contemplated it would be convenient if they were in the hands of the Opposition before they were actually delivered? We shall, naturally, want to digest this statement rather more fully than I have been able to, but, in the meantime, may I welcome the fact that the statement contains, not a direct relationship to race, but to an equal opportunity in life for all our citizens?
42
Will the right hon. Gentleman also accept that if this is to have its optimum effect where we hope it will he will have to satisfy the country that he has adequate control over inflow into the country as regards possible abuse, terms of entry, and orderly settlement where reception can be possible? Does he recognise that much of the present unrest is due to disquiet about those matters?
Mr. Callaghan: I am sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not get the statement first. As always in the last week of the Session, a number of statements will be made during the next few days, and under the guidance of the Lord Privy Seal I thought it best to isolate this one this afternoon to give the House the earliest opportunity of hearing it.
As regards the separate but related question of immigration—and it is separate, although obvious related—I agree that there must be continued control over the inflow of immigrants. At present, a rigid control is exercised which allows newcomers to the country to enter on condition that their entry here aids our economy in one form or another. Of course, we have arriving the dependants of those who have already been here for some time, but that is another problem.
The Commonwealth Immigrants Act of March, 1968, enabled us to clear up some of the abuses. I can assure the House that the police and others concerned are very vigilant in this matter.
Mrs. Renée Short: I warmly welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about the money to be spent on nursery projects during the first year of this aid. Are all the towns mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his Birmingham speech, likely to get some help from the aid that he has promised? If so, on what sort of basis is the aid to be given?
Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In the early stage, what the Government feel is the best way of tackling the problem is to define needs rather than areas. Once we establish the criteria of need local authorities will soon identify themselves and the areas to which they apply. One of the matters that I shall discuss with the local authority associations is how to define all major needs.

43
The local authorities now enjoying Section 11 help will continue to enjoy it, and I hope to expand the definition of Section 11 when I bring legislation before the House, after I have discussed the matter with the local authorities.
Sir D. Renton: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but did I understand him to say that the money allocated to the immigrant areas would not be at the expense of areas receiving large numbers under the Town Development Act? Bearing in mind that contained large-scale net increases of immigrants will merely mean that we shall have to have a still further allocation— perhaps next year—will he take very seriously the request made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) to watch and do something about the question of a large-scale increase?
Mr. Callaghan: On the question of the relationship between areas, it will not be necessary to make any specific reduction in the programme of expenditure of one local authority to pay for the programme of another local authority. As I said in my statement—the right hon. Gentleman was quite correct—the general control of public expenditure and the savings that the Chancellor has been able to make in his continuing review are enabling us to improve on this programme in the years ahead. That is a gain. The control of immigrants is a matter with which the House and the country is very much concerned, and one to which I shall continue to give my attention.
Mr. Whitaker: Will my right hon. Friend reiterate the fact that many urban areas have inherited grave and serious social problems irrespective of immigration, and resist any classical politically motivated attempts to make immigrants the scapegoats for this purpose?
Mr. Callaghan: It is for this reason that the statement I have made covers areas of need where there is social deprivation among any citizens and not merely those who are coloured or those who are immigrants. I have had the figures got out. I hope that it will not be regarded as too much of a party point if I say that they show a tremendous increase.
44
The expenditure on health and welfare, child care, housing and education in 1963–64 in the areas that now receive Section 11 help was £450 million. For the year 1968–69 that £450 million, in the case of those areas alone, has increased to £860 million. There has been a tremendous improvement.
Mr. Heath: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we welcome the statement which he has made? May I say how wise I think he is that this should extend to deprived areas as a whole and not be tied particularly to the problems of immigrant areas? I believe that this in itself will help to maintain reasonable relations, if not to improve the relations which now exist.
Will the right hon. Gentleman, in observing the number of immigrants—on which he has said that he is keeping a very close watch—consider whether it is not necessary to take stronger powers for the better regulation of the flow of those coming into this country as dependants and the continued entry of those that he believes are required for our economy? This in itself would reduce some fears and tensions. The help that he will give to deprived areas will not be most effective unless these fears are removed by better control and regulation, and the reduction of the numbers coming in.
Mr. Callaghan: It was the basis of the original plan put forward by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his Birmingham speech, that expenditure must be on the basis of need. He said then that the immigration problem is only one factor—although an important factor —in the assessment of social need. I am certain that that is the right approach, and I am grateful to the Opposition for saying that they agree.
Although immigration is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, I watch the inflow of those to whom work vouchers are given and I know that their numbers are closely related to the economic needs of the country. Whatever may have been the case in the past, I do not believe that it can be argued now that large numbers of people are arriving here who are not going to contribute materially, either through a professional occupation or a skilled occupation of one sort or another.

45
We get into much greater difficulties over the flow of the dependants of those who arrived in the unregulated years. Although I am considering, and have considered, the use of such things as entry certificates, quotas and the rest— because I recognise that this is a very important problem and that great sensitivities are involved—I would not at this stage like to say that there are proposals which will reduce the flow of dependants, but a natural decrease will take place because the number of voucher holders arriving is now that much smaller.
Mr. Pavitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the day spent by his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary in my constituency last Monday—and my constituency has the highest number of immigrants of any in the country—was greatly appreciated? Will he regard as a matter of urgency the problem of the September opening of schools, the need for more personnel, and the important problems that he was able to discuss with my education officer?
Mr. Callaghan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Under-Secretary of State has visited about 15 areas during the course of the Government's consideration of this study of the urban areas, and what he has been able to discuss with the local authorities has added materially to our information. It is for this reason, and the recommendations that he brought back, that we believe that in the first place, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, provision should be made in nursery education and child care in the first year.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement—which we shall want to study in full—is to be welcomed to the extent that it seeks to provide equality of opportunity for all our citizens and to give local authorities financial assistance to achieve this?
May I ask two questions? First, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the £20 million to £25 million vote to which he has referred will be sufficient to assist local authorities in starting projects urgently needed in the confident expectation of retrospective payment? Secondly, since he has mentioned his projected talks with the A.M.C. and the
46
C.C.A., does not he think that that is an added reason why we should move quickly in setting up an all-party committee of the House to discuss the racial matter and so remove some of the controversy from party politics?
Mr. Callaghan: The £20 million to £25 million spread over four years is intended to be devoted not only to revenue, but capital projects. I have made a detailed list of such projects which, I believe, could be started relatively quickly which would aid these areas.
The question whether it will be sufficient or not is a matter to be discussed. It must be considered against the general background of Government expenditure, but on the basis of the information that I have been given it will make a substantial impact in the areas of greatest need.
As for the question of an all-party committee, I am at this moment ready to submit proposed terms of reference to the parties concerned, and I hope for the cooperation of everyone in setting it up.
Mr. English: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the areas concerned will appreciate the aid offered by his proposals? But does not he also think that in respect of education, at least, it would be simpler and cheaper if he accepted the proposal turned down by Her Majesty's Opposition when in power and, I understand, by the Front Bench here, to restrict the immigration of non-English-speaking people, irrespective of the colour of their skins?
Mr. Callaghan: The restriction on aliens, as distinct from Commonwealth citizens, if that is what my hon. Friend refers to—
Mr. English: Non-Engling-speaking.
Mr. Callaghan: Well, that includes many aliens, anyway—[Laughter.] I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not qualifying for reference to the Race Relations Board.
The aliens who come here do so, on the whole, for a relatively short period, and, therefore, do not use the educational services which we are discussing. The disabilities which we are trying to remove under education are those which were pinpointed by Plowden—poor schools, overcrowded schools and children in

47
trouble—and the criteria of need which chat Committee established.
Sir E. Boyle: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the discussions with the local authority associations will cover both the additional projects which can be approved over the next four years and also the level of financial aid which will be given by the Government? Is he aware that, from the point of view of an authority like Birmingham, with severe needs, the level of financial aid which can be made available is important as well as the quantity of extra projects which may be approved by the Government?
Mr. Callaghan: The answer to both questions is, "Yes, Sir."
Miss Lestor: While, of course, being very interested in and pleased about this announcement of help for immigrant areas, may I ask my right hon. Friend what plans he has or has discussed for the very real problem of the number of non-English-speaking children, coming, particularly to my constituency, who will be leaving school within the next few years with an inadequate education, especially so far as this relates to speaking English, because this will be the main problem which we will all have to face, in terms of employment, in the near future?
Mr. Callaghan: Yes. That would, I think, qualify under Section 11 as it is drawn now, but the question of adult education for such people is one of the matters which I would want to discuss with local authorities, to see what help they needed under this programme.
Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the very important housing effort in Birmingham depends not only on finance but also on the necessary land being made available?
Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that what he has said about nursery schools will be received with considerable satisfaction generally? When does he expect the consequences of these measures to be felt in the constituencies, and what arrangements are particularly likely in reference to the rather complicated situation in London
48
in respect of the I.L.E.A. and the London boroughs?
Mr. Callaghan: I could not answer my hon. Friend's query about the I.L.E.A. and the London boroughs at the moment, but I would hope to see projects started in the current year, if, as I understand, Parliament were willing to give retrospective sanction to such expenditure as may be incurred. In other words, subject to the Queen's Speech, which I obviously cannot foresee, I hope that legislation might be introduced early next Session.
Mr. Tilney: Since there are areas of old immigration, such as Merseyside, which have been much more successful in integration than other areas, will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that such areas will not be penalised because of their success?
Mr. Callaghan: I emphasise again that the approach is on the basis of need and not of area or even of whether the immigration is new or old. Where these areas exist, we should try to pinpoint them, and then they will identify themselves—whether they are old areas, where integration has gone well, or new areas, where it has hardly started.
Mr. Orme: On the subject of the extra aid for day nurseries, the area which I represent does not have a large immigrant population, but has a large special area problem such as my right hon. Friend mentioned. Is it not a little ironic that, in that area, day nurseries are now being closed, yet my right hon. Friend is proposing extra grants? What measures will he take to see that these facilities which he proposes are used by the local authorities concerned?
Mr. Callaghan: There is, of course, a distinction between day nurseries and nursery schools, but I would ask my hon. Friend to leave this over for us to have discussions with the local authorities during the Recess, when, perhaps, I can report further later.
Mr. Sandys: While welcoming measures to help local authorities with special difficulties, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the acute overcrowding in certain areas, he does not consider it to be reasonable that

49
immigrants who wish to bring in dependants should be required to satisfy the immigration authorities that there is adequate accommodation available in the area concerned?
Mr. Callaghan: This is a problem which needs, and is under, consideration, but I know of no way, so far, in which it can be successfully solved.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister].

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [28TH ALLOTTED DAY],considered.
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]

  NIGERIA
  4.7 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): This is a short debate, on a subject on which all of us feel deeply concerned, and I am sure that many hon. Members will be seeking to speak. It would, I understand, be convenient, and will meet the point made by the Leader of the Opposition at Business Question Time on Thursday, if I were to open with a short account of the report which Lord Hunt and his colleagues have made to the Government on the relief situation in Nigeria. I will try to make it as brief and dispassionate as the gravity of the issue and its harrowing nature allows. With permission, I will then be glad to deal, at the end of the debate, with the other aspects of the Nigerian problem which will, no doubt, be raised.
  Lord Hunt and his colleagues—Sir Colin Thornley, of The Save the Children Fund, Mr. Hodgson, of the British Red Cross, and Dr. Evans, the medical expert —left London after a rapid and intensive briefing on 5th July, which was three days after I had announced to the House their acceptance of their urgent task. The first of Lord Hunt's recommendations was received in London within 36 hours of his arrival in Nigeria, and he continued to send recommendations throughout his visit. I can assure the House that no time has been lost in taking up those recommendations, many of which were acted on by us well before Lord Hunt and his colleagues returned to this country. Lord Hunt and Sir Colin Thornley arrived back on Friday evening. I and my officials had a long conference with them on Saturday and they reported their findings to the Prime Minister today.
  During the course of the mission's stay in Nigeria, Lord Hunt and his

  51
  colleagues were able to visit the main areas of distress in the Mid-Western State, in the Enugu area and in the South-Eastern State. They had full and useful discussion with General Gowon and other members of the Federal Government. They had detailed discussions with the Commissioner for Rehabilitation who, during the period of Lord Hunt's visit, was given additional responsibility by the Nigerian Government to deal with problems of relief. Lord Hunt and his team had a full exchange of views with representatives of the International Red Cross and other relief organisations
  I think that it is not too much to say that their presence and activities in Lagos acted as a catalyst and an encouragement to others, inside and outside Nigeria, to come to grips even more earnestly with this daunting problem. From this point of view, in particular, their mission was well-timed and worth while.
  The first question which the House will ask, and which Lord Hunt and his team set out to answer, was: what was the real degree of need in Nigeria? Lord Hunt is now in no doubt that the human need for relief is great and requires international effort to be solved. Although estimates of people in dire distress resulting from the war, along the perimeter of the fighting line on the Federal side, must be treated with reserve, Lord Hunt considered that 1 million would not be an unrealistically high figure. In the South-Eastern State there is, he reports, very severe and pitiable distress. Malnutrition and starvation are rife, with a high death rate, which is running, possibly, at 200 or 300 a day.
  In general, Lord Hunt has reported, his mission was much impressed by the assistance given by the Federal Nigerian Army in the forward areas in providing emergency relief within their means. For example, in Onitsha, the Army was running relief for 3,500 refugees, who appeared to be in good health and morale. He observed that a spirit of vindictiveness was notable by its absence among responsible people whom his team met.
  The second question which Lord Hunt sought to answer was: given this degree of need, what are the priorities?
  52
  Lord Hunt has defined to us the most pressing needs as follows: first, food and medical supplies; secondly, doctors and relief workers; and thirdly, transport. In trying to meet some of the most urgent needs, we have already used or firmly committed about one-half of the £250,000 allocated by the Government for relief aid in Nigeria. There was an earlier provision of £20,000, made some weeks ago. That was given direct to the British Red Cross, which immediately purchased and despatched medical and food supplies which have reached Nigeria.
  The third question which arises is: how can this help be best organised and how can these priorities be most quickly fulfilled? It was immediately obvious to Lord Hunt that the only chance of achieving an effective distribution of aid throughout the areas of need—that is, on both sides of the fighting line—was to channel it through the co-ordinating machinery of the International Red Cross. This is a cardinal recommendation which we think is of general application in order to avoid duplication and misunderstanding, and the Government certainly propose themselves to follow it.
  The International Red Cross has accepted this obligation and it has been recognised by the Federal Government and by other donor Governments as the proper channel for the administration of all international relief work in Nigeria. I remind the House that U Thant, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has since endorsed that recommendation on behalf of the United Nations.
  I should like to tell the House exactly what we have done and are doing. A Hercules aircraft of the R.A.F. Support Command flew to Lagos on 12th July with a load of food supplies provided partly from Government stocks and partly by charitable organisations in this country. I want to emphasise that this load consisted entirely of supplies which we had been advised by Lord Hunt were urgently needed. This is important not only in underlining the degree of urgency under which we have sought to operate;, but because, until Lord Hunt arrived and was able to assess the needs on the spot, some of the supplies being rushed out were not appropriate and were leading to waste of precious resources.

  53
  A further load was transported to Lagos by an R.A.F. Britannia on 18th July. Its cargo consisted of specialised medical supplies of types, again, which Lord Hunt had identified as being of special urgency. These are being distributed under the auspices of the International Red Cross. Some of these supplies are already being used by a British medical team organised by the Save the Children Fund which was flown out to Nigeria and is installed at Awgu, situated between Enugu and the edge of the territory controlled by Colonel Ojukwu. More food and medicines are being assembled for transportation by the R.A.F. this week.
  Lord Hunt found that the primary need was for skilled personnel to administer relief. At his request, three medical teams—recruited by the Save the Children Fund—were flown from London to Lagos on 12th and 18th July to join other teams already operating under the auspices of the International Red Cross. Another two teams can be made available at short notice as soon as the International Red Cross asks for them. The Government have underwritten the cost of supplying these teams from our grant of £250,000, but the Save the Children Fund has generously agreed to finance as large a share as possible of the cost from its own resources.
  It is clear from Lord Hunt's report that the provision of transport for the distribution of supplies is of major importance. Twenty 3-ton trucks and five Landrovers, all of them four-wheel-drive vehicles, were released from Army stocks and shipped from Dover on 12th July on a vessel specially diverted by the Elder Dempster line. This vessel is expected to arrive in Lagos later this week. Lord Hunt has since recommended the purchase and despatch of other vehicles, mainly lorries, which have already been ordered and which will reach Nigeria during the next few weeks. Oxfam has generously volunteered to pay for 25 of these vehicles. On Lord Hunt's recommendation, the Government have also purchased six field ambulances which are being shipped from Liverpool this week.
  I wish at this point to pay tribute to British firms established in Nigeria who, in co-operation with Lord Hunt's mission, have also undertaken to provide vehicles,
  54
  drivers and maintenance teams locally. As a result of this invaluable initiative, a fleet of about 50 vehicles has been assembled, some of which will operate from the main supply centres to the main distribution centres, while others will operate from there within the disaster areas and along agreed corridors as and when these may be established. Other vehicles are intended for the movement of goods from Calabar to the distressed areas in the South East and Lord Hunt was informed that ships are moving many tons of relief goods from Lagos along the coast to Calabar.
  One of the chief needs identified by Lord Hunt in connection with this transport operation was the need for self-contained chains of transport carrying relief supplies to the main refugee areas. We are ascertaining through the Red Cross how the installation and maintenance of these essential transport links can most effectively be brought about.
  Lord Hunt has come to the conclusion that the Government's contribution of £250,000 is adequate for the present, together with other donations which are being received from other Governments and from private agencies all over the world. The immediate concern—and I should like to emphasise that to the House—is not inadequate money, but the need to build up an adequate distribution organisation. The Federal Government are co-operating energetically in this and the Rehabilitation Commission, which is charged with overall responsibility for relief operations, is working closely with the International Red Cross.
  Lord Hunt also expressed firmly the view that the land route is the most effective way by which adequate relief supplies can quickly be brought to those who are suffering inside the Ibo area. General Gowon confirmed to him the willingness of the Federal Government to open a relief corridor from Enugu to Awgu and then to an agreed point on the Okigwi road, where Colonel Ojukwu's authorities could take over. The suitability of this road was checked by members of Lord Hunt's team. Sir Colin Thornley himself drove down the road without difficulty or obstruction in a relatively short time.
  I emphasise to the House again that the desirability of this mercy corridor from Enugu has been endorsed by the

  55
  International Red Cross, by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and, most recently, by the Organisation for African Unity. The supplies are already in transit from Lagos to Enugu and can start to flow to those who need them the moment Colonel Ojukwu says the word.
  A suggestion has also been made in discussions about what is the best way to get relief supplies—a suggestion to the Press by Colonel Ojukwu of a demilitarised zone and corridor around Port Harcourt, through which supplies could go after delivery by sea. Not only would this proposal—and I do not know whether it has been formally put forward by Colonel Ojukwu—raise obvious political and military difficulties, but the sea channels to Port Harcourt were blocked during the fighting and are still uncertain and dangerous to navigation.
  Lord Hunt also pressed for a temporary emergency air lift to shift the stockpiles which have accumulated at Fernando Po. Colonel Gowon confirmed to Lord Hunt that he would seriously consider the possibility of direct flights to a neutralised airstrip in Biafra if the International Red Cross were able to make arrangements with Colonel Ojukwu by which the I.R.C. assumed full control of this. I have just heard—a short time ago—that the I.R.C. has now asked the Biafrans for the use of an air strip under the control of the International Red Cross for use day and night.
  The Biafrans have not so far replied, but the International Red Cross says that even if daylight flights only can be arranged it will still insist that the air strip should be under its complete control. I very much hope that this offer, which seems to unlock what has been a particularly difficult door, will be accepted swiftly by Colonel Ojukwu on behalf of the people who are suffering in the territories which he controls.
  It was our hope and intention that Lord Hunt would have paid a visit to the areas controlled by Colonel Ojukwu. Unfortunately, we were informed in writing by a representative of Colonel Ojukwu before Lord Hunt set off for Nigeria that such a visit would serve no useful purpose. We persisted in our endeavours in this direction and there were subsequent indications that this attitude might be modified, but, unfor-
  56
  tunately, no confirmation of that was received before Lord Hunt had to return home at the weekend.
  Despite this, Mr. Hodgson, Deputy Director-General of the British Red Cross and a member of Lord Hunt's team, went to Fernando Po, where he waited for several days in the hope of being able to fly into the Ibo heartland to make an assessment of the need there and the best means by which help could be given to meet it. Mr. Hodgson was offered full travel facilities by the International Red Cross, but I regret that, for reasons outside his control, he was unable to complete his journey.
  Lord Hunt has authorised me to say that even now he would be willing to visit the areas controlled by Colonel Ojukwu on receipt of assurances that such a visit would be welcome and that he would receive the necessary co-operation.
  Her Majesty's Government, the whole House and, I am sure, the country are greatly indebted to Lord Hunt and his colleagues for the thorough, efficient and dedicated work which they put in during their visit to Nigeria, work which was free from any suggestion of political involvement or bias. Their work and recommendations have not only helped us to use the British grant in the most effective ways, but have also inspired others to co-operate in establishing channels of relief more commensurate with the appalling needs of the situation in Nigeria.
  The results of Lord Hunt's investigations are being put at the disposal of the voluntary agencies here and I am making them available to other interested Governments who are concerned that their own contributions should be as effective as possible. Sir Colin Thornley and Mr. Hodgson have arranged to visit Geneva to discuss Lord Hunt's impressions with the I.R.C. and to further co-operation in that connection.
  The House will have noted, in addition, the appointment by the I.R.C. of Mr. Lindt, a distinguished Swiss diplomat and a former United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, to direct from Geneva the operations for relief in Nigeria. The appointment of Mr. Lindt, with that of Mr. Hitz, as the International Red Cross Head of Mission in Lagos, is

  57
  an important step forward in the machinery of the I.R.C. for tackling this appallingly urgent problem. Sir Colin Thornley and Mr. Hodgson will go to Geneva as soon as Mr. Lindt has returned from his present visit to Lagos so that they can confer together.
  I promised at the outset that I would be as brief as possible and confine my remarks to Lord Hunt's report. It may be for the convenience of the House, however, if I add briefly a comment about what I regard as a significant, hopeful and helpful development over the weekend regarding peace talks. The House will be aware that at its meeting in Niamey, Niger, on 18th July, the Consultative Committee on Nigeria of the O.A.U. reviewed developments in the Nigerian civil war which it discussed with both General Gowon and Colonel Ojukwu.
  The Committee asked the Federal Government to implement without delay their decision to establish a mercy corridor for the transportation of food and medical supplies to the affected areas and appealed to the secessionists to co-operate by accepting relief supplies transported through this emergency corridor.
  The O.A.U. also thanked Governments and organisations which had given assistance for the relief of civilian suffering and appealed to other Governments and organisations to ensure the continuation of this humanitarian assistance. Most important, the Committee issued a special communique in which it announced that the Federal Government and Colonel Ojukwu had each agreed to initiate forthwith preliminary talks in Niamey under the chairmanship of President Diori, and had also agreed to resume peace negotiations in Addis Ababa as soon as possible under the auspices of the O.A.U.
  Hon. Members will welcome these hopeful developments as warmly as I do and will wish them every success. They make an encouraging prelude to what otherwise is a very solemn debate indeed today. I am personally anxious, as are all hon. Members, to say nothing in this debate that might make these crucial discussions more difficult.
  4.25 p.m.
  Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Opposition have
  58
  selected this subject for a part of one of their Supply days because we thought that the whole House would be anxious to debate the situation in Nigeria before we rise for the Summer Recess.
  We are grateful to the Commonwealth Secretary for complying with the suggestion that he should open the debate. In so doing, he has disentangled some of the confusing facts in this situation. This confusion has made it difficult for us to know what to believe and what was the right thing to do.
  It must be recognised that the war in Nigeria is a civil war of extreme violence and passion and that the influence of outsiders on this situation is marginal. Nevertheless, we in Britain feel that we have an obligation to give any help that we possibly can to a Commonwealth country —help in two ways, either to mitigate the suffering that arises from the war or to assist in bringing about peace, if that is within our power.
  There will be general agreement on the priorities which the right hon. Gentleman outlined: first, the organisation of relief of the starving on both sides of the fighting line; secondly, the establishment of a cease-fire; and, thirdly, a political settlement. The right hon. Gentleman rightly concentrated his account today on Lord Hunt's mission, the possibility of helping the suffering and those who are starving and who, in many cases, are dying.
  I wish to associate my hon. Friends with the tribute the right hon. Gentleman paid to Lord Hunt and his colleagues. In very difficult circumstances they did work of real value. It is a horrifying thought that the Commonwealth Secretary had to say that, in Lord Hunt's opinion, I million people are in need and that 200 to 300 people are dying each day. It is difficult to think of these circumstances as a reality—but it is a reality and this is what is happening in another country of the world at this moment. It is clear, therefore, that problems of these dimensions cannot be dealt with except by international action.
  I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that an advance has been made in several ways. The first is in the mobilisation of the necessary supplies and food; in establishing what are the real needs in terms of food and medical supplies and in providing the transport which,

  59
  if the routes are open, can be used to get these supplies to the right places. The second is in co-ordinating the relief programmes of the various private agencies. This is an important matter and extremely necessary after the experience of the first few weeks. The third and most important, as the right hon. Gentleman emphasised, is the acceptance of the International Red Cross as the instrument of distribution.
  Her Majesty's Government have, as the right hon. Gentleman said, made contributions which are right and which, I believe, have been prompt; for example, the Hercules and Brittania with the kinds of food selected by Lord Hunt as essential, the three medical teams from the Save the Children Fund, which has shown great generosity, not only in this respecst but by way of sums made available, the 20 3-ton lorries, field trucks and ambulances which have been made available and the £250,000 which Lord Hunt formed the view was probably adequate for the present, since the need is for the orderly distribution of supplies rather than for more supplies at present. I have no doubt, however, that Her Majesty's Government would produce more money if that were found to be necessary at a future date.
  Missing so far is a sense of urgency on the side of the combatants in Nigeria. We were glad, therefore, to hear of Lord Hunt's remarks about the Federal Government's activities in assisting humane action. I hope that Colonel Ojukwu will in future be less intransigent and will dismiss, by his actions, the suspicion that starving people have been used for political leverage, because this suspicion has become widespread abroad.
  From the information given by the Commonwealth Secretary, it seems that the leaders of both sides are now applying their minds more seriously to the routes by which food may be brought in and the means by which relief on this scale can be brought to the sufferers. Quite clearly, this problem will take a long time to solve. Therefore, a land corridor which will bear the weight of the traffics over months, if not years, is an absolute necessity. I hope that that is now broadly agreed by both sides.
  But if lives ares to be saved—and, I repeat, it is said that 200 or 300 people
  60
  are dying each day—it is obvious that there should be an airlift. A question on which I am not quite clear, and perhaps the Commonwealth Secretary will help to clear it up in his reply, is why food is not now arriving for the hungry on the Federal side of the line, where, we are given to understand, a good many thousands of people are in a very bad way.
  What are the real difficulties left in designating an airstrip in Ibo territory? I should have thought that certification of food by the Red Cross ought to be able to eradicate the Ibos' fear of poison. I should have thought, too, that an airstrip could be designated under the complete control of the International Red Cross. I am glad that the International Red Cross has asked for this control by day and by night. If the airport is not used at night, the Red Cross must control it at night. This should remove the complementary fear on the Federal side that the airstrip might be used for the importation of arms if it was not being used for the importation of food.
  There are possibly two hopeful developments there. At any rate, these two matters ought to be capable of solution. U.N.I.C.E.F. has been and is operating through the Red Cross, and that, too, is good. Therefore, in this field of relief I think that the Commonwealth Secretary had some hopeful things to say if we can only get the essential co-operation of the leaders of the two competent forces.
  The second priority is the cease-fire, and it is profoundly to be hoped that the initiative taken by the Organisation for African Unity will succeed. It is possible here that the previous suggestion of a Commonwealth force, either to observe or to police, so that the Ibos might feel that they were protected from the danger of massacre might come into the picture again, and I should like to hear from the right hon. Gentleman whether, in his opinion, such a force can be mobilised in a reasonable time and what steps are being taken to see what its membership might be. I believe it to be a suggestion of practical value, particularly looking at it from the Ibos' side.
  We hope, therefore, that the two sides will get together rapidly at Addis Ababa, and it is good to know that this meeting place has been agreed. I do not know that it is profitable today to go very far

  61
  into the issue that is central to the dispute, which is notoriously difficult—the right of a territory to secede from a federal structure. I think that it is apparent that in the last resort it is a matter which can only be agreed by the Nigerians. The comments of others at this time might be harmful, and, at best, would be useless. The two sides should get round the table and try to settle the matter for themselves. We must not look forward to the penalty of failure, but if there were failure the Nigerian troops undoubtedly would invade the Ibo heartland, and then the war would start again.
  A relevant question, perhaps less urgent today than it was when we last talked about the matter but one which is genuinely exercising many minds, particuuarly in this country, is whether Her Majesty's Government are right, in these circumstances, to continue to ship to Lagos even the 12 per cent. of the arms which the Federal Government use. We on this side have hesitated to advocate that action should be taken on this matter now, not because the Federal Government could not easily acquire the arms elsewhere—of course they could, and in a very short time—but because the Federal Government holds the key, first, to the organisation of the relief of the hungry; secondly, to the possibility of a cease-fire; and, thirdly, to the nature of the ultimate peace settlement. There is some evidence that General Gowon is influenced by the counsels coming from Her Majesty's Government and the British people.
  We have to realise—and must weigh this consideration against other considerations that we may have, and give it sufficient weight—that if the arms to the Nigerian Government were withdrawn, any influence which Her Majesty's Government wield today would be totally gone. We must, therefore, ask ourselves whether so to act would serve the Ibos or, indeed, anyone else in Nigeria. There are two situations possible in the future in which the Government might decide that they would have to withdraw arms. One is if the war began again, with the invasion of the heart of the Ibo land, and the other is if there should be any evidence emerging from the peace talks in Addis Ababa that the temporary suspension of arms might make a contribution to the success of the peace talks.
  I do not think that we can tell this in advance, but should that come about
  62
  it might be a circumstance in which arms might be withdrawn. But for the reasons I have given, this could be a very serious step to take. The House should be very careful before it makes up its mind what, in these circumstances, is best for the Ibos and best for the whole Nigerian nation.
  I believe that, on balance, we are bound to conclude that the real way in which Her Majesty's Government can assist is to use all our authority with the Federal Government for the restraints that are necessary to obtain an agreed political settlement. That, I think, the right hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, and in that purpose we wish him good fortune.
  4.37 p.m.
  Mr. James Griffiths: I am sure that the whole House will wish to thank my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary not only for his statement, but for the hard work he has put in to try to bring about a settlement in Nigeria. I congratulate the Government on their wisdom in sending to Nigeria a mission led by Lord Hunt, and I join in paying tribute to it.
  I also want to pay tribute to our voluntary agencies who, at all times, in circumstances like these, immediately go to work and try to do what they can. Their work is often very difficult, but I pay tribute to them all; the voluntary agencies, the World Council of Churches and the Catholic Church—and we have learned what the Pope himself has done. They all work in difficult circumstances and with limited resources. It is, therefore, essential that their efforts should be co-ordinated so that there will be an avoidance of waste. I therefore wholeheartedly welcome my right hon. Friend's acceptance of the recommendation of the Hunt mission that all this work should be co-ordinated through the International Red Cross. I am sure that all the voluntary agencies would be glad to co-operate fully in that respect.
  The events in Nigeria make a terrible story—1 million people in very dire straits, and 300 dying every day. This, in a Commonwealth country. The House and the whole country is deeply moved.
  I appreciate, as do all those who knew something of Nigeria, that the best thing for relief is to get a corridor of

  63
  mercy—a land route. We know that to provide the route, to repair the roads damaged by war and to provide the transport will all take time, but assuming that there is agreement on all sides that a land route should be provided as quickly as possible to transport food, medical supplies and other help to these suffering people, can the Commonwealth Secretary tell us first how long it will take?
  Mr. Thomson: I must answer my right hon. Friend immediately on that crucial point. I understand that some of the supplies are already moving across to the proposed corridor of mercy. I understand that some of these supplies could go into Biafra this week if there were willingness to receive them.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am very glad to hear that.
  I add my voice to that of both right hon. Gentlemen in a plea to Colonel Ojukwu. I have a deep regard for the Ibo people and I understand the circumstances, however wrong we think them I add my word to that of the two right hon. Gentlemen in urging Colonel Ojukwu to co-operate in every possible way, urgently, at once, with the Federal Government and particularly with the International Red Cross, to get supplies quickly to the stricken people. If he now refuses this he will lose a great deal of the sympathy he has evoked from people in this country, including myself.
  While accepting what my right hon. Friend said, I hope that he will give support to the idea of an airlift. This is so desperately urgent that we should press for it in every way so that the quickest means may be adopted to bring relief. The events of the last weekend have transformed the situation. My right hon. Friend knows my view. My view was that immediately this became a civil war the Government should have stopped supplies of arms. One of the dangers in this African situation when troubles of this kind arise is that rival Powers step in with arms help. This is very dangerous.
  For the moment, I shall not argue that view. I am profoundly glad, as I am sure we all are, that through the agency of the Organisation for African Unity the two sides are to be brought together. I am very glad about the news in the Press
  64
  and on the radio today. I believe that it is now possible that they can settle an agenda for the meeting to be held in Addis Ababa. The first thing I am sure they will do is to get a cease-fire. I congratulate Colonel Gowon on agreeing to meet the representatives of the Organisation for African Unity, for there are "hawks" on his side—I have met some —who believed that the way to settle this was to carry on the war and wipe the other side out.
  I hope that it is not too late to reach agreement and that the tragedy and bitterness aroused has not gone so deep as to prevent the emergence in some form of a united Nigeria. I am sure that if the war were to continue to the bitter end any hope of a united Nigeria in any form would be out for generations. The bitterness and the hatred would be so deep. All of us who have met people from both sides know how deep and bitter it is. Sometimes we have been shocked by the bitterness shown by young students to each other in this country. All of us who know Nigeria are deeply disturbed about this.
  I hope that there will be a cease-fire, but a political settlement will take a long time. One of the essential things before they begin to discuss a political settlement is a long cooling-off period. I am glad that the Organisation for African Unity has taken this matter up and that a settlement by Africans themselves seems possible. I am glad that this Organisation is developing, for it can enable Africans themselves to solve these problems. If they can solve them themselves that will be better than rival Powers outside coming in.
  I therefore express the fervent hope that there will be a cease-fire and a period during which no attempt will be made to decide the future of Nigeria. I put it to a representative of Biafra here, "Are you prepared to say that you do not exclude in the future a united Nigeria?" He answered, "Yes, with one proviso and that proviso is vitally important. Having regard to the experience of the last two or three years I shall never be prepared"—did he use the word "never"?; at least, he said "now"—"to accept that the security of my people, the Ibos, can be entrusted to anyone but a force of our own. "This will be one of the problems. That is

  65
  why I join with the right hon. Gentleman in saying that I hope the Organisation for African Unity will be prepared to co-operate with my right hon. Friend and with other countries in the Commonwealth to have a Commonwealth peace force there.
  It will not have a job for two or three months; unfortunately, it may be required for some time. I hope that the Government will give every possible help they can to it. I am grateful for what my right hon. Friend has done, for what the Hunt mission has done and the recommendations it made. I hope that they will be carried out quickly. I end by again expressing the fervent hope that the talks now taking place in Niger, and which are to take place in Addis Ababa, will result in a cease-fire and that Nigeria will begin to climb the very difficult road back to unity. This is our hope and prayer. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will do everything possible to help this course.
  4.47 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: I am sure that the whole House will re-echo the good wishes expressed by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire Sir Alec Douglas-Home) and by the Secretary of State for the success of the conference now under O.A.U. in Niger and later, we hope, in Addis Ababa. As some of us on this side of the House have said, this must remain the main hope for a settlement of this problem.
  I cannot express quite the same optimism as seemed to be expressed by the Secretary of State. I think that the whole House and the Government are guilty of having acted too slowly on what has been a major and growing world tragedy in Nigeria especially in that part of it called Biafra. The report we had this afternoon referred hardly at all to what is happening in Biafra, but to what is happening in Federal Nigeria proper. I shall address myself to this problem and also to the problem to which the Secretary of State referred, whether we should now go on with the policy of giving arms when peace talks are actually under way.
  It is a sad and sorry tale that as early as April the International Red Cross was
  66
  appealing for emergency relief for those suffering from starvation and malnutrition in Biafra. Since then, it is a fair judgment to say that almost no foodstuffs or medical supplies have gone into Biafra in spite of our activities. Only supplies from the Vatican, 400 tons, from the International Red Cross, 160 tons, from the World Federation of Churches, 100 tons have got through, with great difficulty, at great peril to the lives of individual pilots and at great cost.
  We talk about the great influence which we have with Lagos. Article 23 of the Fourth Red Cross Convention of 1949, to which Federal Nigeria is a party, provides that it is improper to stop the breaking of a blockade in favour of food and medical supplies for women and children. It is remarkable that this Article of the Convention has not been brought to the attention of the Government in Lagos. What happened to the two Hercules we managed to get off? What happened to the goods from the Red Cross which were going from Lagos and which were then taken off the S.S. "Jaja" and replaced by ammunition? To talk in a spirit of optimism about what is happening would be a great illusion and would be building illusion in the House and in the country.
  I turn to one hopeful sign, of the International Red Cross attempting to set up aid inside Biafra, where the greatest agony is being endured. In Nigeria, there are surplus foodstuffs and it is a matter of seeing that foodstuffs are available. In Biafra, there is a desperate shortage, and this is an important distinction. Let us hope, therefore, that everything will be done to make it possible for the Red Cross to set up a demilitarised airstrip and that both sides will agree to this. I hope that the Government will be able to afford aircraft, as we on this side suggested, for such a relief operation from the stores built up outside Federal territory.
  I turn to the more difficult problem of arms supply. I suggest that there is a strong case for halting deliveries of arms from this country while the peace talks which have been started by the O.A.U. are in progress. I know that we have an obligation to co-Commonwealth Powers, but when the point has been reached that it is quite clear that an overwhelming victory has been won, the moral principle

  67
  comes into play, and the main objective must surely be to avoid what, in technical terms, is known as over-kill, to avoid the massacre or the final destruction of a people. When genocide is threatened, legal obligations, and so forth, fall into a different perspective.
  Other countries have thought fit to break their commitment. Belgium and Czechoslovakia, earlier this year, stopped the provision of arms. Holland is a country with interests in Nigeria not unlike ours from a purely commercial point of view. Holland, with Royal Dutch Shell, Philips Lamps, Unilever N.V., Heineken Breweries and other international firms, probably has almost as large a stake as we have, certainly second to ours.
  Yet it must be known to the Government that on 9th June of this year the Dutch Government, on humanitarian grounds, stopped all shipments of arms to Nigeria, breaking contracts to ship to Nigeria by 1st July 16 million rounds of small arms ammunition and 5,000 fragmentation rounds for 105 howitzers.
  Threats were made against the Dutch Government and Dutch nationals in Nigeria, which I am happy to say, have in no way been fulfilled. In spite of our special historical obligation, whilst these talks are going on Her Majesty's Government should give immediate and urgent consideration to the suspension of further arms shipments.
  I must now raise a new point which I have attempted to check today with the Ministry of Defence, but have failed so to do. I think that the House was somewhat surprised when, a few days ago it appeared in the Dutch Press and was then accepted here after a certain amount of denial, that shipments were going on of Saracen armoured personnel carriers to Nigeria. I ask the Minister to confirm or deny my information that a large consignment of Saladin armoured cars is awaiting shipment to Nigeria from Army depots in this country.
  The armoured personnel carrier, which is a tracked carrier, can at least be said to be of great use in progressing across dangerous and difficult territory, but, at this time, to ship large numbers of lethal armoured cars would be against the interests of the country and certainly against the interests of humanity, and I
  68
  hope that a statement will be made before the conclusion of the debate. I have endeavoured to find out the truth of what I have said from the Department and have failed to do so.
  I will give the information I have in detail to the Minister, so that it can be checked. On 15th July a friend of mine, having seen a picture in a Dutch newspaper of a shipment of British military vehicles, asked the War Office for a check on number plates for identification purposes. He was referred to Chil-well, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is the vehicle organisation section of the War Department at Nottingham. There the following conversation took place:
  "I spoke to a civilian clerk in that section who asked where the vehicles were being disposed of to. I replied that they were being shipped overseas, to Nigeria. To this he replied that he would go and look it up. After a few moments he came back to say, 'They're not amongst the big consignment of Saladins that are waiting to go now.' When asked a further question, he realised that I was not speaking from an internal telephone, as he must, at first, have assumed."
  With some knowledge of the way in which unpleasant news has the habit of escaping from military departments, this has all the ring of accuracy. I hope, therefore, that it will be cleared up.
  In the name of humanity, it would be foolish to ship instruments of war which would convert corridors of mercy into avenues of massacre. From the point of view of statesmanship, it would be a major folly to complicate further the business of the Organisation for African Unity in the desperate and difficult negotiation taking place in the Niger and later in Addis Ababa. Surely the time has come for this country, in what has been a chain of political, administrative and often moral errors, now to say that enough is enough.
  5.0 p.m.
  Mr. James Johnson: This has been a very sombre debate. I will not detain the House long, because although we have been affected by the sombre note while listening to previous speakers, I am heartened by the events of the past weekend. I see a gleam of sunshine in the O.A.U. meetings at Niamey.

  69
  This is essentially an internecine dispute to be settled by Africans themselves. I am always careful when discussing African affairs, particularly those of a sovereign State and a sister nation in the Commonwealth. I bear in mind, too, that the leader of the Federal forces, General Gowon, is what is termed in American parlance a "dove" and has held back his battalion commanders in the field. If anyone can make for a merciful ending to this bitter, bloody internecine dispute, it is General Gowon.
  I no more wish than the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) to see corridors of mercy become avenues of massacre. I want more corridors of mercy. I will return to that in a moment, because I believe that we can have one if we can get the two sides to accept the fairly clear and simple conditions for this corridor. We have now for the first time a Mission which has supplied an authentic firsthand account of what is happening, and I pay my tribute to Lord Hunt and his colleagues.
  Each morning, I receive letters and missives about the civil war from many places, not least a publicity firm in Geneva. One knows that in any war, especially a civil war, the first casualty is truth. Therefore, it behoves us to be careful about accepting evidence unless we know that it is factual and honest.
  I have listened with great care to the account of Lord Hunt's Mission about millions being in desperate straits and 300 dying daily, and I shall make my comments purely in the context of saving lives.
  Mr. Bernard Braine: This figure has been bandied about several times. For the sake of clarity, could it be explained? As I understand it, this is the figure of deaths in one province and not over the affected area as a whole. Would the Commonwealth Secretary confirm that that is so?
  Mr. Johnson: I welcome that intervention, because I have heard figures from other reputable quarters, and we have all read figures in responsible newspapers like The Times and the Sunday Telegraph giving first-hand accounts of situation. This figure seems a very small total.
  Mr. George Thomson: It is a reference to the situation found by Lord Hunt in the South-Eastern State. He put forward the figure with all possible reserve. One can only make an estimate of this kind of grisly total.
  Mr. Johnson: Before the Mission, my evidence from inside the territory was that the figure was higher. My evidence has come from journalists and others who have come out of the territory east of the Niger. I understand that the area is occupied by Federal forces and is now pacified and stabilised. Many thousands of Ibo peasant farmers are returning to their villages. That is the position which is certified and confirmed by reputable observers.
  However, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), I am terrified by the fact that though Ibo peasants may be returning, the people who should be in the capital of Enugu are not returning. I refer to politicians, lawyers, army officers and doctors—in other words, the elite of the people who administer and govern the Ibos, whether there be eight million, 10 million or more, as some suggest. Whether or not they are all in Biafra behind the elite who are with Colonel Ojukwu, these leaders are being herded and beleaguered in the Ibo heartland— which is bush. All their cities are occupied by National forces. They have lost their sea gateway via Port Harcourt. There is no access for them other than by parachuting food supplies and by the odd aircraft landing. To my mind, this is too costly a method of getting in food and medical supplies.
  I have said before what is now confirmed by the Hunt Mission, that it is possible quite easily to get within a few miles of the Ibo eastern lines from Enugu via Awgu and then to the no man's land. That can be done. It is no use anyone denying that it is not possible to get in hundreds of thousands of tons of food by a land corridor, given the co-operation of the Ibo people and Colonel Ojukwu.
  I would add my plea to Colonel Ojukwu and his colleagues to allow the International Red Cross to do this. It would help many suffering people and, beyond that, would give us hope for the future following the Niamey Conference and after the Addis Ababa talks.

  71
  After this, a cooling-off period is required, whether or not Commonwealth forces are there, to enable these wonderful people, the Ibo, the Yuruba and the Hausa to work together to re-build a peaceful society. Do not let us forget that Nigeria is the largest and possibly the most gifted of all the African states. I have always felt that it is the one African State which could lead the African people against any outside evil influence, whether or not it shelters behind apartheid. It is the only nation which could lead a future African continent.
  Turning to the supply of arms, there are of course many "hawks" in the Western forces. There are those who argue that, if the aim is to save the lives of thousands of future gifted citizens who are now dying in their early youth from starvation, the way to do it is to end the war, because that would mean early pacification and the ability to go in and save lives. This is the view taken by some in the West.
  Let us not forget today to thank General Gowon. Whether we call him a dove or not, he is holding out against these malign influences, be they Moslem, whether they are Hausa, or whether they are those people who dislike the Ibo because of their past activities. These are the factors with which General Gowon is contending. We should recognise this and pay him tribute for his efforts.
  I believe that the British Government have played a not insignificant part in influencing General Gowon in this connection. I believe that this is partly due to our constitutional links and to the fact that we have known as students and otherwise here many of those who are now in power in the Federal Government. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the influence which he personally has brought to bear and which has possibly succeeded in holding back some of the worst excesses which might have happened.
  Further, I believe that the fact that we have helped them with arms has played a not inconsiderable part in our being able to be on the inside, so to speak. We are able to play what part we can play as old Commonwealth colleagues and additionally as allies in this internecine
  72
  dispute in Nigeria. I say this advisedly. I go further and say that it helped us in some small part to get the Kampala talks going and also to get the visit of the Hunt Commission accepted. All these are positive factors. They have all been leading on to a mellowing and lessening of the tension in Nigeria, to the Kampala talks, and so on.
  I now feel—not much safer—but definitely clearer in my mind about the possibilities. Now that the O.A.U. has got the Niamey Conference going, and now that the two sides have said that they will meet in Addis, I believe that there is hope at this stage. Without hope we would all perish. I hope and believe that it is possible to have a settlement, because I believe that these fine people in West Africa deserve no better— certainly they deserve no worse—than a settlement leading to a future which will give something to these young people who are suffering such terrible agonies in Eastern Nigeria.
  5.12 p.m.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: One factor which has been common to every speech which has been made in this debate so far is that no right hon. or hon. Member has shown any wish or intention to interfere in the political tragedy of Nigeria. The motive of the Opposition in initiating this debate and of every right hon. and hon. Member in taking part in it is to try to do something practical on humanitarian grounds to avert a tragedy which is taking place at the moment and which could in a matter of days, or perhaps weeks, reach monumental proportions.
  I should perhaps declare an interest— not a commercial one, but one which might be thought to render me politically prejudiced on one side as opposed to another. I had the privilege for some years to act as an economic consultant to the Eastern Region Government in Enugu. I hope the House will accept, having heard the few remarks which I intend to make, that this in no way influences the view that I hold of the present situation.
  I think that this debate is exclusively based upon humanitarian considerations. The concern of the House is as the representatives of a country which for many years has had close links with Nigeria

  73
  and which has a very close friendship with the people of all tribes and of all regions in Nigeria who at the moment are involved in one of the most brutal of civil wars, a war which has seen the death of thousands in war and which will probably see the death of many thousands more through starvation.
  Indeed, I think that politically the best we can do at the moment is to keep out these issues and hope that the O.A.U., which is now seized of the matter, will have success in the initial talks at Niamey and later in the talks at Addis Adaba.
  Last week my colleagues and I contacted the Prime Minister of Canada and asked him whether he would use his influence to achieve three objectives which I think are still essential. The first is; a ceasefire. The second is a recognition by both sides that the Red Cross should have exclusive rights of transit and entry. The third is, if not a halt by all nations to the supply of arms—the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs indicated on 12th June the difficulties, which I recognise—none the less that both sides should declare that they will cease from importing arms from now on. Perhaps this is very difficult to achieve.
  I think that very reasonable proposals were contained in a letter published in The Times on 2nd July and signed by many people who are entitled to be listened to. I would like at this stage to pay a tribute on behalf of my colleagues to the work of Lord Hunt and say that I think that Britain is very fortunate that it can call on people of the calibre of Lord Hunt to give public service.
  The terror is that it will not be only those who will die from starvation but those who will live to suffer from its after effects and those who will, for example, as those who are medically qualified will know better than I, suffer from some of the diseases of malnutrition such as—kwashiokor. This may well cause defects of the brain and of the liver which will be with them for the rest of their lives.
  If we are to try to get an acceptance by both sides of the priority of getting supplies of food and drugs into these areas, we must try for a moment to
  74
  understand the psychology of the Biafrans, who at the moment appear to be resisting the inflow of Red Cross supplies, either through the "avenue of mercy" or through any Federally-assisted supply line. The Biafrans, rightly or wrongly, but I think that we must recognise the psychology, are frightened of an invasion of the heartland of Biafra. They are frightened of a resulting massacre. As 30,000 Ibos were massacred in Northern Nigeria, and as 2 million Ibo refugees have been received in Eastern Nigeria, one cannot say that those fears are wholly groundless. The Biafrans are frightened that there will ultimately be complete subjection by the Federal authorities. All those fears may be thought groundless, but we must recognise that they exist. Only if we can do something to ameliorate those fears can we move forward on the other matters which have been raised.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) who made a very powerful case, about Britain's position in the supply of arms. We are told that Britain is supplying only 15 per cent. of the arms to Nigeria. I am informed that that 15 per cent. represents value and not quantity. Therefore, in so far as that 15 per cent. represents small arms, it is perhaps true to say that of those who have been killed the ratio of British arms is probably as high as 80 per cent. I have also received representations by telegram about the imminent despatch of Saladin cars which it is feared are about to be shipped to Nigeria.
  If Her Majesty's Government claim that this continued shipment gives us a special influence—I confess that it is a very strange way to retain friends and influence people, particularly for a Labour Government—I would ask: what assurances have they sought and have they received on those matters which at the moment are of paramount concern to the Biafran people?
  On 12th June, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) put forward the concept—he repeated it again today—that there might be an international force, which might possibly be a Commonwealth force, to safeguard the position of the Biafrans. General Gowon

  75
  has given a sympathetic response to that, and it may well be a matter on which Her Majesty's Government can give us more information.
  What undertakings have the Government sought about the possibility of a cease-fire, which would mean that the refugees who are at present concentrated in the Ibo heartland were safe from further military incursions? If Her Majesty's Government say that they have the right to continue to supply arms in the present quantity because doing so gives them influence, we, by the same token, are entitled to expect that that special influence will produce positive results on the question of a further invasion and the possibility of a massacre, both of which the Biafrans fear and both of which the Federal authorities are at pains to discount. I suggest, therefore, that we ought to be able to secure positive guarantees on those matters.
  I shall not comment on the question of the rights of Biafra save to add a word to what the Foreign Secretary said on 12th June, in a carefully reasoned speech in which, I thought, he showed that he had as much compassion and humanity on this issue as has every other right hon. and hon. Member. I hope that it will never be thought that we are expressing an opinion on what the future federation or pattern in Nigeria should be. We are the last people to lay down the law about federations, having strewn federations about the world, many of which have had subsequently to be dismembered and the penultimate of which led in part to U.D.I. in Central Africa.
  I re-echo the appeal made by the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) and the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, that the main object at this moment must be to send supplies through to people who are starving, wherever they be. Any leader, whether Federal or Biafran, who unreasonably fails to grant transit to the Red Cross for bringing in these supplies will invite the hostility of the world. I very much hope that the land route from Awgu will be accepted by the Biafrans. General Gowon has made a significant statement in regard to the possibility of an airlift, an internationalised Red Cross airlift, and I hope that that will be supported.
  76
  I tentatively put forward the suggestion that, if there is an element of suspicion about loading of supplies at Fernando Po, there might, perhaps, be neutral observers provided by Nigeria, from both Biafra and the Federation. All these are matters to be gone into, but if there is good will on this issue, I believe that the humanitarian problem can be tackled. We shall not succeed, however, until the very real suspicions and fears on the part of Biafrans, some of which, I accept, are groundless, are removed.
  On the latter question, I say only that people do not go into civil war unless they feel, rightly or wrongly, that they have real grievances. It is, therefore, a matter of psychology; we must try to understand what it is that prevents Colonel Ojukwu at present from allowing the mercy missions to go through. I hope that we can overcome his objections so that the best thing can be done for his people.
  I am convinced that it is wrong for this country to continue to supply arms. It may be said that we had some influence at Kampala, in the Hunt mission, in getting talks going in London and in assisting the Secretary General of the Commonwealth Secretariat, but I regard that as hardly compensation for the very high price of a continued supply of arms which are being used to kill people in the field and civilians in their villages. I hope, therefore, that the British Government will cease the supply of arms in the new situation. Now that the O.A.U. itself is to call on all nations to stop the supply of arms we must give a lead in this respect. At the very beginning, perhaps, there may be have been some justification, but in the situation of a civil war, it is one of the most amoral acts of any Government since the Second World War. I regard it as a disgrace to this country, and I hope that we shall stop supplying arms at once.
  I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his efforts. I hope that the O.A.U. will be successful. But I implore the Government to recognise that, if we have any special influence, it must be used to remove the doubts in the minds of Biafrans who, perhaps reasonably, perhaps unreasonably, are holding up the possibility of a settlement, on the limited

  77
  front of getting supplies moving, through very real fears which we must try to remove.
  5.25 p.m.
  Mr. Michael Barnes: I entirely agree with everything said by the Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), particularly in his demand that this country stop supplying arms and in what he said about the need for relief. The question of relief has preoccupied the minds of most hon. Members who have taken part in the debate so far. Last week, the Prime Minister used a graphic phrase about getting food into the bellies of starving babies. Clearly, this must be the first priority. But the British Government will agree, I am sure, that the priority need is to get the food equally to people on both sides. We have heard a good deal from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about relief for the Federal-held territories, but, alas, there is still little to report about relief for Biafra.
  We cannot entirely separate the question of the supply of arms from the question of relief. If we are trying to send relief to everyone who is suffering, as we should be, our ability to get relief to one side is severely restricted by our policy of supplying arms to the other. I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman made his point about the 15 per cent. of Federal arms which are British. There has been a good deal of misunderstanding here. The right hon. Gentleman was right to point out that the 15 per cent. is in money terms, and, since the war is primarily an infantry war fought on the ground, these are just the weapons which we are supplying from this country—rifles, machine guns, armoured personnel carriers and, perhaps, armoured cars. We should remember that.
  The Government should not be surprised that, because of their policy of supplying arms, they met with a "No" from Biafra when it was suggested that Lord Hunt should go to Biafra to talk about official British Government aid which the British Government want to supply. I am sure that many hon. Members feel that it was disappointing that Lord Hunt did not, in fact, go to Biafra. The Biafrans would have been willing to see Lord Hunt if he had been able to talk about wider matters, if he had
  78
  been able to talk about possible airlifts, possible corridors and the sort of inspection which would be involved. But, because Lord Hunt appeared to be able, and to be briefed, only to talk about the official British £250,000 worth of aid, the Biafrans were not ready to receive him.
  Mr. George Thomson: I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. Lord Hunt wanted to go to Iboland in order to discuss precisely those matters. He was not at all inhibited by his terms of reference.
  Mr. Barnes: Then it may be that there is not sufficient understanding in London of the Biafran attitude to negotiations of this kind at any given time. I shall have something to say about that in a moment. Whatever the Biafrans may have said about their readiness to receive Lord Hunt, they have certainly made clear that they were willing to receive voluntary supplies from Oxfam and the Red Cross if they could get them. It is here that I feel that the efforts of the British Government to get the supplies moving have proved so disappointing. There is now a tremendous stock-pile of food at Fernando Po. The director of Oxfam told me the other day that it is approaching 3,500 tons. There is also a very large stock-pile of food at Lagos. All the experts who have got into Biafra, like Mr. Kirkley, the director of Oxfam, have stressed the need for immediate relief, because this is the time of year when food is at its shortest supply in that part of the country, and also when it is most costly. In a month or so more food will be available, for the harvests will have come. That is why the air lift was so crucial two or three weeks ago, when it was in the news, and why it will continue to be so crucial for another three or four weeks.
  Therefore, the British Government must accept, if they want to aid the situation and relieve the starvation on both sides, that they will be able to relieve starvation in Federal-held territories with their official supplies through Lord Hunt and through Lagos, but that with the present stalemate the best chance of getting relief into Biafran-held territory is to channel it through the voluntary organisations, to make it possible for organisations like Oxfam and the Red Cross to get it in.
  Mr. John P. Mackintosh: How?
  Mr. Barnes: I shall say how it can be done. Let us come to the question of the Hercules aircraft, on which two or three weeks ago Oxfam had an option from a company. It was available to ferry between 60 and 80 tons of food a day, by daylight, from Fernando Po direct into Biafra. There were air strips on which it could have landed. The only thing that made it impossible for Oxfam to get that food in was that the Federal Government were not willing to give safe passage by day to the aircraft.
  Mr. Mackintosh: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that in the Northern Province of Benue, a traditional supplier of food to the Ibo heartland, there is a great deal of food which needs only to be run in by truck, and which the northerners are desperate to sell to their traditional markets. This would only require agreement between the two frontline commanders. Our problem is to bring those commanders together and get them to allow the passage of trucks down perfectly good roads. It is not a question of aircraft, and it could be done now.
  Mr. Barnes: My hon. Friend knows the country well, and I am sure that he is right. But a great deal of food available in Nigeria and parts of Biafra is basically carbohydrates. The great need at present is for protein. People on both sides are dying through lack of it, and this may not be quite such an easy matter.
  On the question of the Oxfam aircraft, at one time it appeared that the British Government were trying to get the agreement of the Federal Government to allow the aircraft to fly by day, but about three weeks ago the news came through that this permission was not forthcoming. The Federal Government said that if the aircraft flew they would treat this as violation of their air space, and it would be shot down.
  Judging from the Answers Ministers have subsequently given when questioned about this, I am not convinced that it was ever seriously put by the British Government to the Federal Government that they should allow safe passage to the Oxfam Hercules. I hope that my right hon. Friend will deal with this. I think that part of the difficulty was that the British Government were not too well-informed
  80
  about the air strips where the aircraft could land. At one time my right hon. Friend referred to grass air strips. There are several tarmac airstrips in Biafra, one of which is longer than the air strips at Enugu and Port Harcourt, and could take very large aircraft. This lack of communication with the Biafran side is very serious.
  Last Tuesday my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. John Lee) put a Question to my right hon. Friend asking if he would make a further statement on the progress of British initiative to achieve a peaceful settlement to the conflict in Nigeria. My right hon. Friend replied:
  "I have nothing to add at present to my statement to the House on 2nd July. It appears from Colonel Ojukwu's public statements that he is not yet prepared to take up the opportunity which I am convinced exists for meaningful contacts between the two sides about a return to the negotiating table."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July 1968; Vol. 768, c.200.]
  On Monday the Biafrans handed in to the Commonwealth Secretariat a letter indicating that they were prepared to resume peace talks immediately anywhere. I am informed by the Biafran Office in London that a copy of that letter was sent to Lord Shepherd, but on Tuesday my right hon. Friend gave Answers which seemed to show that the British Government's assessment of the Biafran negotiating position on any given point was based on what Colonel Ojukwu had said three or four weeks ago at a public rally in Biafra for internal consumption.
  On the same day it was clear from Answers to Questions which I put that the British Government were not aware of two Biafran suggestions for alternative corridors—a water corridor up the river Niger to Oguta or a land corridor from Port Harcourt. On Monday Dr. Okigbo, one of the Biafran leaders, was in London. He gave a Press conference and made those two alternatives plain, but somehow this information had not got through to the British Government. The Biafran Office is manned by Mr. Kogbara who took part in the peace talks at Kampala and, I believe, has now gone to Niamey and will go to Addis Ababa. There are people in London, or passing through, with whom the British Government could maintain contact and get much better information

  81
  of what the Biafrans would accept and are prepared to do at any time. It is a great pity that diplomatic protocol should appear to be a barrier to meaningful contacts of this kind. Before my right hon. Friend labels Colonel Ojukwu as intransigent I wish he would take more pains to find out what has been said at any given time.
  But the question of relief and the need for it is really only a symptom of the war, and the main need must remain a cease-fire. A very serious military situation now exists between Nigeria and Biafra. It is quite clear, as it has been for some time, that there is a big buildup of arms and military equipment going on on the Federal Government side. It is justified by the Federal Government in the following terms, and I have also heard it justified by some hon. Members in the same way. The argument is that the quickest way to save starving Biafrans is for the remaining Biafran towns to be taken as quickly as possible by Federal troops so that the war can be won. Then, the argument goes, Oxfam, the International Red Cross, and other relief can go in. A more sophisticated version of the argument is that the best way to get the land corridor from Enugu working is for it to be opened up by force so that relief can go through.
  Such an argument totally underestimates the determination, rightly or wrongly, of the people remaining in the Biafran-held area to fight to the last man and the last bullet, and the death-roll if such a military solution were added to the colossal starvation figures. I was glad that a correction was made on the 200 or 300 which my right hon. Friend mentioned in his statement. It was not a figure for the whole country but just for the south-east part.
  Mr. George Thomson: I am as fallible as anybody else. I was very fallible over the grass air-strips, and I admit my fallibility. But I did not mislead the House about the 200 or 300. I said that they were in the south-eastern region.
  Mr. Barnes: My right hon. Friend misunderstands me. I was about to make the point that there had been reports from the Red Cross that 3,000 people a day are dying from starvation in Biafra. I was merely referring back
  82
  to the correction that was made. I understood my right hon. Friend's opening statement originally in the sense in which he meant it. I was just making the point that I was glad that the correction had been made.
  If such a military solution were to be resorted to at this point in time, added to the colossal figures of people dying from starvation, there would be many more who would die as a result of the fighting. One must remember that the fighting would be most severe in and around the remaining Biafra towns— towns like Aba—where there are already many hundreds of refugees concentrated. So a final military solution to this tragic problem must at all costs be averted. It is something to which Britain ought to be applying her influence—such as it is at the present time—to avert.
  What appears to be happening is that, as the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) said—and the point was made by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) —at a time when this build-up is going on on the Federal side and when we should be restraining them, Saracens and perhaps Saladins are going from this country. If I cared more about the niceties of Parliamentary procedure and the integrity of answers given to Parliamentary Questions, I suppose I should ask for some explanation of the Answer that I got to a Question last week when I was told that the Saracens in this shipment were not armoured fighting vehicles. If the words "armoured fighting vehicles" mean anything, that is what they are, because they can carry machine guns and are armoured and are ideal for fighting in the terrain in which the war is being waged.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I have listened with the greatest respect to everything that my hon. Friend has said. But if it is right that a final military solution is the worst alternative that faces Nigeria and the final military solution is in the hands of the Nigerian Federal regime, how does my hon. Friend think it will help towards avoiding that final military solution if we throw our influence against their régime by withdrawing the supplies of British arms?
  Mr. Barnes: Deciding to stop arms would have been a difficult decision to

  83
  make whenever it was taken. The importance about it would have been its timing. Many of us believe that in months past there have been several points in time when a decision to stop supplying arms could have been the catalyst which would have brought about a cease fire and the cessation of arms supplies from many other countries. It is not an easy matter. But the policy of supplying arms is, I believe, basically wrong. If the situation is to be put right, I agree with my hon. Friend that the timing of the decision to change the policy is important.
  Mr. Frank Judd: Could my hon. Friend demonstrate that the timing would be right now?
  Mr. Barnes: It depends on the extent to which one believes that in this country we are still in a position to exercise any influence over the Nigerian Federal Government. This is the question. For many weeks I have been extremely doubtful whether we have this influence and whether we ever had it. A much more logical explanation of British policy —there are many inconsistencies in British policy—on this matter is that it is totally committed to the Nigerian Federal Government's point of view. If this is the case, I appeal to my right hon. Friend to say so. It would be more honest to spell it out. I also believe that if this is the policy and he said so, he and his right hon. Friends would not have been involved in so many of the semantics, apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in which they have been involved as a result of following this basically illogical policy.
  If that is not the policy—it seems as if it is, but I sincerely hope that it is not —and if the policy now is genuinely to try to meet the great humanitarian need which exists on both sides of the fighting lines, I would appeal to my right hon. Friend to go out to Lagos and use all the influence that he has there, on the one hand, to restrain the Federal Government from a final military solution, and, on the other hand, to get the relief supplies moving in.
  On the question of relief—I come back to the point which has occupied the minds of so many hon. Members in this debate—I believe that it has been a
  84
  game of shadow boxing. It is a pity that there has not been someone there to act as, perhaps, the chairman of an international relief committee or someone who could have said "Federal Government, you will not accept this way of doing it. How would it be if you had observers on Fernando Po? Would you agree to the Biafrans having observers? "There should have been someone there able to put another proposition whenever an objection was raised. This is what is needed to ensure that the relief gets through.
  I appeal to my right hon. Friend to use all the influence that he has in these matters on the relief side and especially in restraining the Federal Government from a major military offensive, which seems very much in the offing.
  5.46 p.m.
  Sir Charles Taylor: I have the privilege of knowing Nigeria, at any rate the Northern territories, fairly well, because I have been there a number of times. A few years ago a company with which I was then connected sponsored a nutritional conference at Ibadan at the request of a dedicated Irish doctor, Dr. Collis. To show that it was not a commercial enterprise, all my company's competitors and anybody else who could contribute useful advice were invited to attend. Addressing the conference were a number of distinguished medical men and nurses, who were distressed then at the starvation in northern Nigeria. So starvation in Nigeria is by no means new.
  At that time the starvation was the result of lack of education on the part of the average Nigerian about food values, lack of money and lack of getting the story over that the children needed more protein. Everybody did what they could. In spite of this, the hospital at Ibadan, in the words of Dr. Collis, was every morning like a casualty clearing station with swollen, pot-bellied children with tiny little arms and tiny little legs dying of starvation, and there were, of course, many hundreds more dying in their own homes because there was no room in Ibadan hospital for them. This was due to ignorance and a lack of education about the type of food that was necessary. So the problem existed in a very big way before the civil

  85
  war started, but, of course, the civil war has exacerbated the position.
  It was with that experience that I had the temerity to write to the Prime Minister and make certain suggestions to him. I go only briefly into the suggestions that I put before him. One was that, through other circumstances which may appear to be rather fantastic but were not perhaps as fantastic or stupid as they may have sounded, I thought that Colonel Ojukwu would be prepared to receive a delegation of two or three people who might be acceptable to him for special reasons to talk about the problems of opening up the line of communication for the supply of food. As yet, I have not had a reply from the Prime Minister, but I hope that the suggestions which I sent to him in the middle of last week will be considered, because they were made seriously and with great sincerity and without any desire for commercial gain or advantage.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: There has been a remarkable pattern about this debate. There has been complete unanimity between the two Front Bench speakers. Yet, with one exception, every back bench speaker has taken a different view. I grow a little uneasy and uncertain about the correctness of views when I see such unanimity between the two Front Bench spokesmen.
  I do not take any pleasure in saying what I propose to say. Until the British Government stops the sale of arms to Nigeria, there is blood on its hands. This is not the intention, but it is the result. This weekend I spoke to a Biafran lady in Manchester who has seven children of whom she has not heard for 12 months because communications are broken. She told me what she thinks about things. Let us put ourselves in her position. She sees the photographs in the newspapers of the starving children. Her children are probably starving. Then she is told that the British Government are supplying arms to the other side. What is her natural reaction? One can imagine what the Biaf-rans are feeling in their own country.
  The supplying of arms to one side invalidates us as peace-makers and discredits our attempts to get aid through. If we stop the supply of arms, we shall be in a better position to do both things. Everybody in the House profoundly hopes that the peace talks in Addis Ababa will
  86
  succeed. As one who is not an adherent of either side, I appeal to the leaders on both sides for a cease fire. If the talks succeed, the Federal Government do not need our arms. If the talks do not succeed, it is all the more vital that we should not send British arms to add to the carnage. If the threatened penetration of the Ibo heartland takes place, one of the main instruments will be British Ferret vehicles.
  I listened with great care to the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser). We probably disagree on everything, and yet I could not disagree with a single word of his speech on this issue. If his reference to Salad ins is correct, there will be serious trouble from both sides of the House, and, in my view, deservedly so.
  The Nigerian war provides the classic case for a ban on the sale of arms abroad. My right hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker) has devoted a great deal of his life to this question. He will never find a better illustration for his case than the one we are dealing with today. One by one, the other Governments, to their credit, have said "No" unilaterally—the Belgians, the Czechs, and now the Dutch. The Russians are doing the same as we are doing: they are selling arms. But I understand from a contact that Lord Brockway has made that they would agree to stop selling arms if we stopped our arms deliveries immediately.
  I have heard from a very high quarter that perhaps we could deal with the Russians but that the Portuguese might cheat. I do not accept that we could not stop them from cheating. The Portuguese are far more susceptible to British pressure than some of the other Governments with which we are dealing. We should know in Lancashire, because goods made in Portugal by sweated labour are coming into our country. Stopping their import is just one way in which we could exercise pressure on Portugal. There are many ways in which we could bring Portugal to heel if it cheated in this respect.
  The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) thought that we had influence by maintaining our supply of arms. He mentioned 12 per cent. The figures of 15

  87
  and 25 per cent. have been mentioned. We are not supplying planes, but, apart from that, we are supplying the overwhelming majority of the arms going to the Federal Government. The right hon. Gentleman's argument about influence might have been justified if we had stopped the tragedy from happening. But it has happened. We have failed to have any influence. The starvation is taking place; the massacres have taken place. How can we say that by supplying arms we have maintained our influence?
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Why does my hon. Friend think that the Federal Government forces stopped at the outskirts of the Ibo heartland? Why should not they have pressed on, as they had the military might to do?
  Mr. Allaun: Not because Britain was supplying arms.
  Mr. Lyon: What evidence does my hon. Friend have for saying that?
  Mr. Allaun: What evidence does my hon. Friend have for his assertion? We are supplying arms to one side. Presumably they are useful to them, or they would not have received them. If we stop the supply of arms and get the other nations to do the same—and we are not in a position to get the supply of arms stopped jointly unless we do it individually—surely we shall be in a position to bring pressure on both sides, particularly on the Federal Government, who are in the attacking position. That seems logical to me.
  Pope Paul has recently said that the Roman Catholic Church—I speak as a non-Catholic—has managed to make 30 deliveries of food by air. That is greatly to its credit. It does not seem greatly to our credit that, according to the Minister, we have managed to make only one delivery by Hercules or that we have not yet found a way of delivering supplies of food and medical materials.
  I understand the British Government's position. They are opposed to the Bal-kanisation of the African States, and so am I. I do not think that splintering is helpful in any country or continent. But Englishman who has been out there for many years who says that the bitterness I have recently seen a letter from an
  88
  is now so great that it is impossible to expect, or even hope for, a return to the previous position and, in particular, that the Biafrans, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) said, will refuse any policing by security troops provided by the Federal Government. Who can blame them? They fear that it would lead to massacres, and it would be wrong for us to force them to rely on them.
  Mr. Mackintosh: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that the bitterness extends to the minorities in Biafra? They are bitterly opposed to a Biafran solution, and one can meet their representatives here to check on the strength of their opposition. One must, therefore, be careful in using this term. The bitterness exists within Biafra as well as outside it.
  Mr. Allaun: I appreciate that among the 12 million to 14 million people in Biafra there is a minority of non-Ibos. I appreciate the fears of the minority within the minority. I am not suggesting that the security forces should be armed Ibos, but it would be wrong to expect, as a term for peace, that we put Federal troops in the Ibo heartland. That is my point.
  I think that if we have some responsibility for the Vietnamese war, we have a far greater responsibility for the Nigerian civil war, because we are involved in sending arms there, whereas we are not, thank goodness, sending arms to Vietnam.
  The Government have been appealed to by back benchers on both sides. I have been a member of two all-party deputations to the Minister. Our appeals have been rejected, just as the speeches made this afternoon have been rejected. Presumably the advice given by civil servants is accepted. That advice does not seem to have produced very good results so far, and it is time that the elected Members of this House were listened to far more carefully in this terrible situation.
  I conclude by appealing to the Government to take action on four matters. First, there should be a public call for a cease-fire. It is remarkable that the British Government have not yet made a public call for a cease-fire. Secondly, we should unilaterally and immediately stop supplying arms to the Federal Government. Thirdly, we should call on the

  89
  four other Governments who are supplying arms to stop doing so immediately. Lastly, we should press Gowon to provide security for the air transportation of food and medicine under the supervision of the International Red Cross.
  This afternoon my right hon. Friend said that he hoped that Colonel Ojukwu would agree to the supply of food by road. I do, too, but there is far greater force in the British Government appealing to Gowon to allow air supplies to go in now, because this can produce quicker results. Those are four suggestions which the Government should adopt to relieve the present tragic situation.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. John Tilney: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun). In his mind, and he believes in the mind of Colonel Ojukwu, arms and food are muddled up, but it must be remembered that on quite a number of aeroplanes carrying food to the Biafrans, arms were also carried, and there therefore seems to be some logic in the argument of the Federal Government that at least those shipments should be inspected.
  I am on record, as long ago as the beginning of last August, as urging the Government to put an embargo on arms to both sides. Had we done so, possibly tens of thousands of lives might have been saved, but the situation is very different now that the Federals are poised for victory. I agree that while the discussions go on the shipment of arms might be stopped, but let us imagine what will happen if Ojukwu is intransigent. Friendly though I have been to many Ibos in the past, he may well be recalcitrant. But this war must be ended and food must be taken in whatever politics the leaders of the Ibo happen to want to play. If the talks do not succeed, we must continue shipping arms.
  I ask the hon. Member for Salford, East to remember what happened to the arms from the other countries which put on an embargo. The Dutch and the Swedes have kept their word, but I am told that France has continued to consign arms to that country, and so have Belgium and Czechoslovakia, possibly to both sides. I am told that there is no
  90
  control whatsoever over the supply of second-hand arms, and these are often as lethal as those which have just been made.
  I detected a somewhat pro-Ibo feeling in the hon. Gentleman's speech. He seems to think that they alone have suffered, and that their cause is completely right. I have many Ibo friends. Only about three weeks ago, I had lunch with a Member of Parliament from the Eastern region of Nigeria. Three days before seccession he argued in the House of Assembly at Enugu against that action. He was an Efik from Calabar, and shortly after that he found himself in detention. Along with three hundred other Efiks he was taken out and he saw most of the people with him machine-gunned to death. He was lucky The bullets kept low, and he and one other man escaped. This is the horror of civil war. A war is bad enough but civil war is much worse. It is the worst of all kinds of war, and it is no good arguing that one side is better than the other. Let us forget what has happened and concentrate on the present and on the future.
  When one of my Federal friends heard that we were going to debate Nigeria, which he said rightly was an independent member of the Commonwealth, he commented that he hoped when they returned to Parliamentary government we would have no objection if every three weeks or so they discussed race relations in Great Britain. But, as I see it, we have every right to argue whether arms should go to Nigeria from this country, or whether people and aid should be sent there.
  I believe that the supply of arms should be controlled, and they will have to be controlled in future by a Commonwealth force. If the Commonwealth is to mean anything, I hope that under the Secretary General we shall establish some form of Commonwealth force to which, in the end, the Ibos can look for protection. It may, however, be years before they really feel that they can live in freedom without the fear of being massacred.
  I hope that the force to which I have just referred will be the prototype of something very much greater. I believe that the Ibos hate Britain to such an extent that they would not like a British

  91
  contingent there, but there is certainly no reason why such a contingent should not be on the Federal side. I hope that Britons will be allowed to volunteer for such a force. I think that it should be about two brigades strong, so that it will not threaten anybody. Its duty would be to protect the International Red Cross which would be the agent for distributing food. It could also be used to protect the Ibo people.
  I now come to the question of foodstuffs. There has been much talk about airlifts. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many airstrips remain to the Ibo people, shut in as they are in a territory no bigger than the West and North Ridings of Yorkshire—a people more numerous than the whole population of Scotland, entirely surrounded by Federal territory. Have they a spare airstrip to offer to the International Red Cross? If so, that airstrip should be demilitarised. If the Biafrans continue to send arms in the Federals will have every right to bomb that airstrip. Therefore, any airfield under the control of the Red Cross must be demilitarised so that it will not be bombed either by day or by night.
  I want to make one suggestion to the Minister. There are many river fleets owned by West African companies. In the past they have travelled up the Niger and Benue right up as far as Yola and Gardua in the Cameroons and have brought back thousands of tons of groundnuts and other feedingstuffs. In large measure these fleets are still available to go on routes from places like Burutu Sapele and Warri across the Niger. Why should not they be painted white with red crosses and work irrespective of Bailey bridges or roads which have been blown up? They should be able to get across, although I am told that there may still be pockets of Ibo resistance west of the Niger. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that. Colonel Ojukwu should be in control, even of his outlying units. It is up to him to tell those West of the Niger to let the food cargo fleet go through.
  We must have crash action in feedingstuffs for the people on both sides whom we know so well. This mission
  92
  of mercy could be undertaken by the Commonwealth. It is not a short-term project. Colonel Ojukwu may think that because he has been recognised by the Governments of Zambia, Tanganyika, Gabon and the Ivory Coast he can rely on them for protection, but where are their legions of spare soldiers to help him in his hour of need? I hope that he will accept the reality of the situation and appreciate that in this tiny enclave in which millions of his people live he could not hope to thrive even if he got independence.
  The Ibos must trade; they depend on Nigeria, and there must be some form of association between the two. I hope that Colonel Ojukwu will see sense, and that the Niger, at present dividing two peoples who have traded with each other for so many years will, very soon, once again unite those peoples, both of whom have been so friendly to Britain.
  6.13 p.m.
  Mr. Joha P. Mackintosh: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Waver-tree (Mr. Tilney) with his deep knowledge of Nigeria and the situation there. I deeply respect the feelings of hon. Members who have spoken, and share them. None of us, with our own children looking at us across the Sunday breakfast table and seeing the sort of picture of a starving Ibo child that we saw on the front page of the Sunday Times yesterday could feel anything but horror and alarm.
  Nevertheless, although we have these deep feelings we must realise that this is fundamentally a Nigerian problem. I am amazed at the impression of some of my hon. Friends who seem to think that a single word from the British Government would end the tribal hatreds that have existed in Nigeria for generations and which have caused them to fight each other in the past, not with machine guns or Saracens, but, almost as horribly, with machets and sharpened agricultural implements. This was done in the riots in Kano, during the Tiv riots and the massacres at Ibadan a few years ago. We know how these feelings have generated. Those who have watched the situation in Nigeria have seen this thing building up over the years, with the Ibos and their rivals struggling with

  93
  each other and amongst each other on the question whether Nigeria shall be organised on a non-tribal basis or in tribal units.
  We must be fair; when the Ibo leadership discovered a major oilfield in the area that they could claim they realised that they had the economic resources to go for a state organised on a tribal basis, the only difficult factor being that 5 million non-Ibos live in the oil-bearing area and the ports which an Ibo State would need.
  Mr. James Griffiths: My hon. Friend will appreciate that after independence, when the Federal Government was formed, the Ibos from the East joined it. It was those in the West who offered opposition.
  Mr. Mackintosh: My right hon. Friend will know that at that time when the Federation was formed the most ardent Federalists in Nigeria were the Ibos, because they lived in a poverty-stricken area which needed Federal funds. It was only when the oil was discovered and the financial situation in the Eastern region was transformed that the leadership there felt that the situation had changed. That was not the sole cause of their desire to secede, but it offered a way out of the long-term frictions that had reached their climax in the pogroms in the North in 1966.
  I am sorry to go over this history but it is necessary for my hon. Friends who say that if we had done this or that we could have easily got a cease-fire. Such a simple decision to have a cease-fire was rejected by both sides in Nigeria because they wanted to know on what terms the cease-fire would come about. The Biafrans want to know whether they will be recognised as an independent territory. The West wonder what would be left for them in a Northern-dominated Nigeria. Those who live in the North are wondering whether that territory would be better as one or three states. It must be remembered that there are 47 separate linguistic groups in Nigeria. Many of the Nigerians, on both sides, have asked whether human rights and the future freedom of the people in this part of Africa will be better safeguarded with a small number of chauvinistic tribal groupings, each with a minority within its borders—
  94
  because they could not construct any state without a minority—or a large Federation trying, somehow, to reconcile and meet these points.
  All this may still be a long way from helping the dying and starving people in the East of Nigeria but if those of us trying to mediate in this country try to get the Biafrans and members of the Federal Government in London to meet to talk about the situation we find that they are not very bothered about starving children—and I am not accusing them of callousness. They are concerned with a deeper matter—the basic question of the terms on which the war can be brought to a conclusion. Some hon. Members imagine that it needs only the British Government to say, "No more weapons: it is all over", for the war to end. They are mistaken. A great deal of damage could still be done. It would not help if simply to cut off the supply of arms but this is also a point on which one must look at the historical background.
  I believe it was right that the British Government should have trained and equipped the Nigerian Army originally. I take off my hat to General Sir Welby Everard who trained the Nigerian Army —then a small force of 10,000 men—on a non-tribal basis. They were brought up to be Nigerians and not members of this or that group. Nothing upset me more than to hear of the treatment of Colonel Nzeogwu, the original army leader of the army coup in the North because he was an Ibo who was basically not for tribalism. He was murdered after his eyes had been gouged out by the Biafrans —or rather his fellow Ibos. The officers in the army originally had the idea of unity and detribalisation in Nigeria, but then after the pro-Ibo régime of General Ironsi, the army broke up into its tribal segments. The position of the British Government was correct up to the point at which they trained the army and supplied it with equipment and munitions, because it was a force for stability and order in Nigeria.
  The question arises, first, could we have altered matters by stopping the supply of arms, and, second, would this have produced the kind of essential detribalised unitary state in Nigeria which would have been the best guarantee of human liberty? I take the point that it is not our place to determine wh at

  95
  goes on inside Nigeria—this would be far too paternalistic and old-fashioned an attitude—but we must say what the British Government should do about this. Although we do not have the tremendous influence which some Government Members have suggested—and, I think, which has been over-estimated by some of my hon. Friends—if the Nigerians on both sides wanted to get food into the East tomorrow, they could do so. The province of Benue is full of food, and it cannot sell its harvest. This does not require the Red Cross or 'planes or anything but the officers on two fronts on each side to agree and to allow food to pass through their lines.
  This is a war of elites and the Ibo elites around Colonel Ojukwu know that, if the Federal Government win, they and their families will be stripped of everything. This was done in peacetime, when the Action Group elite lost in a peacetime coup in the Western Region; they and their connections and their families and their villages were stripped of everything. The university appointments, the Government contracts and every job changed hands. This is what the Ibo elite will have to face if Colonel Ojukwu loses. We must try to inject flexibility into the situation by means of the tiny amount of influence which we have.
  The British Government's stand has left them with some talking points with the Federal Government, but we should not over-estimate them. If we push it too far, we will be told to take our arms and chase ourselves. After all, they have enough to finish the job.
  Mr. Barnes: But for months past, this policy has been emphasised and, if we expressed doubts about supplying arms, we were told that it was because we were maintaining this influence. My hon. Friend should not be surprised, therefore, if some of us accepted this and and are now worried.
  Mr. Mackintosh: I agree, and I said that some Members of the Government over-estimate their influence, but they are listened to, up to a point, by the Federal Government.
  There is an Ibo élite in contol in Biafra. This is not a guerrilla war of peoples but a war of elites for certain key posts of influence and power. We
  96
  must try to persuade the Federal Government that if they win or a cease-fire comes on terms which mean victory in practice, that they will so arrange those terms that they do not mean a crushing humilitation for the Ibo élite. Second, we must persuade them that there should not be trials. That is not our business, but if we were Colonel Ojukwu, would we have a cease-fire when we knew what it would mean—the firing squad? I have read that Colonel Ojukwu has taken physical action and has shot people whom he regarded as traitors, but who were loyal to the Federal Government. One can understand the pressure on the Federal Government not to let these people down if they win.
  Therefore, there is a critical problem of trying to get the Federal Government, somehow, to ease its terms, to give some security to an élite which, basically, it would like "rubbed out". This is a major difficulty. We cannot do a great deal about it and it is a mistake to indulge in hyperbole about the British Government having the power to alter totally the face of Ibo—Yoruba—Hausa relations which have had their difficulties and tensions in ways that we in Europe, with our generations of French and German and other wars, have no right to criticise, for hundreds of years. We can help, but cannot do all that much. I hope we use our influence on these points that may ease the way towards a ceasefire.
  6.24 p.m.
  Mr. Bernard Braine: The whole House will agree that this has been a thoughtful, constructive and, at times, moving debate. It was much helped at the outset by the Commonwealth Secretary's factual statement. He did a great deal to clarify what has hitherto been a most confusing situation. The debate has also reflected, in every speech, I think, the grave disquiet felt in all quarters of the House and throughout the country. But it still leaves unanswered a number of important questions.
  The hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) has just made a most interesting speech, and one of the truest things he said was that we should not deceive ourselves. Words spoken here, however well chosen, may express our horror at what has been happening and our frustration at not being

  97
  able to bring succour to the afflicted as swiftly and on the scale which we would wish, but they do not in themselves solve the problem. Indeed, if we accept Lord Hunt's estimate, then since the debate began a few hours ago hundreds of people in the war-stricken areas, including many children, will have died of hunger, and many tens of thousands more will perish in the next few weeks.
  This is the harsh, grim reality. This tragic situation is all the more distressing to as because it is happening in a country which we, above all others, helped to create, where, until recently, high hopes for a great and prosperous future reposed, and where, in the Christian missions, in the schools and in commerce, so many of our own people are still playing a constructive and honourable rôle long after the endng of the colonial phase. It is natural enough that we should all feel deeply moved by the agony of Nigeria and be impatient to do something about it.
  But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home) said, this is a civil war in a country which we no longer control. We can help by persuading both sides to come to terms and by offering relief, but in the last resort an end to the conflict can come only in one of two ways—either the Federal Army completely crushes the Ibo rebels, with all the dire consequences that must flow from that, or there is a negotiated settlement.
  Our impatience is all the more understandable because the movement of relief supplies, which my right hon. Friend said was the first priority, seems to have been hampered less by physical transportation difficulties—great though these are—than by political argument between the two sides. On the one hand, Colonel Ojukwu has said that he will accept air lifts provided the food does not come through Federal Nigeria. The idea has even been spread among his people that food from such sources would be poisoned. On the other hand, the Federal Government have refused permission for direct air lifts into the Ibo heartland because they suspect and not without reason, that the same 'planes which are making clandestine flights by night with food and medical supplies have been carrying arms as well. For the Federal Government, therefore,
  98
  logically enough, only a land corridor is permissible.
  As a result, the International Red Cross, Oxfam, the World Council of Churches and a host of other dedicated organisations have been literally standing by for months, frustrated, unable to do the job which they are equipped and eager to do. For them, as for the watching world, it has been a heartbreaking experience.
  The House will have noted with satisfaction what the Commonwealth Secretary said about the Government's response to the recommendations of the Hunt Mission. I join with all who have paid tribute to the splendid work of Lord Hunt and his colleagues. Even so, a number of serious questions still remain unanswered.
  Whatever the reason, the sad fact is that Lord Hunt was unable to enter the Ibo heartland. That was not his fault and we must all commend his readiness to go there if Colonel Ojukwu permits him to do so. This is exactly what we would expect of a man of Lord Hunt's calibre. But has the House been told the whole story of the scale and horror of the famine situation? Lord Hunt considered, on the basis of the best estimates which he had been able to make in the areas which he visited, that one million people are at risk. Does this include the people in the Ibo heartland? He estimated that 200 to 300 are dying each day in the South-Eastern State—an area, I take it, in fact, to the north-east of Calabar. How many people are dying elsewhere? Surely the figures are likely to be very much greater than 200 or 300 a day?
  On 8th July the Commonwealth Secretary replied to a Private Notice Question which I had asked him. As to the scale of the famine he said:
  "I have just had a direct report this morning to say that most of the relief organisations are agreed that the situation around Ikot Ekpene, which is on the Federal side of the line, is now desperate and as bad as, if not worse than, anything in rebel-occupied territory."
  I believe that that area is in the South-Eastern State or in that locality. He continued:
  "It is important to the House to be aware that human need is not simply in the Ibo-held territories, but also on the other side of the fighting line."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th July, 1968; Vol. 767, c. 40.]

  99
  It is important for us to know, when we are considering what help can be brought to bear on the situation, what is the total scale of the problem—not the problem only in one part of the war-stricken area but in the whole of South-Eastern Nigeria.
  I agree entirely with the Commonwealth Secretary that the best chance of an effective distribution of aid is through the International Red Cross in order, if I may use his words, to avoid duplication and misunderstanding. That is a very wise decision, but we still do not know where such distribution is to take place. In the Federal-held areas? In the Ibo heartland when the proposed road corridor is driven through?
  But what about the situation now in the Ibo heartland, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) referred in his most eloquent and moving speech? I beg the Commonwealth Secretary to consider the agonising dilemma which faces the voluntary organisations. A few hours before this debate I was advised that a further 1,000 tons of high-protein food is being sent today to Fernando Po to add to the already quite sizeable stockpile which the International Red Cross has assembled there. At this moment not more than ten tons of this food is being moved by night flights. I am not talking here about other clandestine flights but about what appear to be approved flights under Red Cross auspices each night. These are making a negligible contribution to the problem. I am told from informed sources that if permission were given for day flights, at least 100 tons could be sent in every day and that this would probably meet the most immediate needs. In short, the food is there but day flights are forbidden and night flights are inadequate. I invite the Commonwealth Secretary to state what advice he will give to the voluntary organisations in a situation of that kind.
  What is the position about the Federal Government permitting direct Red Cross flights into the Ibo heartland from Fernando Po, landing at Calabar and then taking off after inspection? What has happened to the suggestion which I made about a fortnight ago that one way of getting around the mutual suspicion
  100
  would be to grant safe conducts to observers from both sides to accompany every aircraft flying into the Ibo heartland? The Commonwealth Secretary said today that General Gowon has promised that airlifts will be permitted into the Ibo heartland. I was delighted to hear that, and the whole House must have been too. But according to The Times on 19th July, Colonel Ojukwu has said that he would be prepared to set aside an airport for the exclusive use of relief aircraft and would agree to inspection of cargo by representatives of the Biafran, Nigerian, and International Red Cross to show that no arms were included. That is not unreasonable. What is being done about this proposal? What are the obstacles in the way of supplies being flown in now to the people who need them?
  What the Commonwealth Secretary told us this afternoon about political developments is enormously encouraging. A week ago it did not seem possible that General Gowon and Colonel Ojukwu would be prepared to go to the conference table. It is heartening in the extreme that they have taken part in the preliminary talks at Niamey organised by the O.A.U. and that it seems likely that they will go on to further talks at Addis Ababa. Here is the beginning of real hope. For Colonel Ojukwu may now be made to see by other African leaders that bargaining over famine relief in the hope of securing further diplomatic recognition is not only heartless but impracticable. It is heartless because, although he accuses his enemies—I do not say with any lack of sincerity on his part; he may genuinely believe it—of genocide, to the outside world his own actions are suspiciously like suicide for a large part of his people. It is impracticable because secession on a tribal basis is not likely to find much favour with the O.A.U. because it constitutes a threat to the viability of almost every State in Africa.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), who knows more about Nigeria than do most of us, that there is very little point about going over the causes of this terrible conflict. It is easy enough to be wise after the event and to argue that, as colonial administrators, we should have left behind us a different Nigeria, one

  101
  with 12 or more States based on the country's many ethnic groups and not one of three huge regions, each dominate by a major tribe and the whole dominated by the Muslim North. For that is to ignore what the Nigerian leaders themselves wanted before independence and what they were prepared to accept. One recalls British misgivings at the time. But to have created a different structure would have delayed independence, and the Nigerian leaders were not prepared to wait. With the wind of change olowing as vigorously as it did through Africa in the late 1950's, who is to say that they were wrong?
  Equally, it is futile to argue that the conflict began with the bloody coup of the Ibo officers in January, 1966, which preceded the massacre of Ibos in the North six months later. For that is to ignore the long history of tribal rivalry and suspicion which British rule may have contained but which it certainly did not eradicate, and which, after all, is common enough elsewhere in Africa.
  What matters now is that the Federal leaders seem determined not to repeat the errors of the past. The abolition of the regions and the creation of 12 or more smaller States does not change the ethnic facts but it gives the minority tribes a bigger share in local administration and it should remove the fear about domination by the Muslim North. Credit should be given to General Gowon for the restraint which he has been exercising in these last stages of the fighting. He now controls the main centres of what used to be the eastern region and also Enugu, the Ibo capital, and he must know that further military advances would drive these brave, vigorous and imaginative people, the Ibos, into the bush and that the guerrilla fighting would be long and bitter and would call for a permanent army of occupation. That would be costly in the extreme and it might even be fatal, as several hon. Members have reminded the House, to the hopes of those who believe that a united Nigeria has a great destiny to fulfil in Africa.
  Nigeria needs to win back the Ibos. She needs their skills and enterprise if she is to tackle her problems effectively and fulfil her destiny. What matters now is the possibility of a new start for Nigeria, and the extent to which we in
  102
  Britain can contribute to its success by helping to bind up the wounds of her people and to rebuild their shattered economy.
  As regards our making a contribution to the bringing of peace to Nigeria, may I make it plain that we support the Government's readiness to contribute to a joint observer force as part of a pacification programme. It is possible that a proposal of that kind will emerge from the talks in Addis Ababa. It is not too early to ask, therefore, what is being done about the preparation of a British contribution to such a force. We recognise that there are some questions which cannot be answered here and now—the size and the composition of the force, the functions which it will be called upon to perform and who is to command it; all those are matters which lie in the future which will have to be agreed between the two sides and will then have to be loyally supported by the contributing powers.
  But the thought which I leave with the right hon. Gentleman is that such a force cannot be created overnight. Its mobilisation and movement into the affected areas will take time. Yet we already know that the situation is urgent, that if lives are to be saved and the work of rehabilitation is to begin, not a moment must be lost once the political decision is taken. I therefore urge the right hon. Gentleman to say what preliminary steps the Government have taken to earmark and prepare a British contingent, with all its necessary services—particularly communications equipment, transport aircraft and so on— so that it can move like lightning if and when the call comes.
  This debate takes place after many weeks of anxious questioning about the situation in Nigeria. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stafford and Stone said, the voluntary organisations have been battling with unanswerable problems for months past. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Opposition have exercised the utmost restraint in pressing him on these matters. However, I beg him not to misunderstand our attitude. Our purpose has been to avoid making difficulties for the Government while they were negotiating with the Federal authorities, first about the efforts of the voluntary organisations, secondly about the Hunt Mission, and

  103
  thirdly, because we do not wish to precipitate a situation where the hawks on the Federal side are encouraged to call for an all-out military effort to crush the Ibos. The Government have known throughout that they would have our full support if they offered transport aircraft, vehicles and so on, to move stocks of food known to exist in Federal Nigeria or Fernando Po. We have recognised the need to help the Federal Government to bring hostilities to an end in a constructive and honourable way, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire made plain we have reservations about the continued supply of arms. Hitherto the Government's case for continuing arms supplies to the Federal forces has been that by this means they can preserve some influence in the situation; that a ban on British arms would not stop arms coming in from elsewhere, and that even if it did the war would continue with bayonet and machete, as long as the will to end it by negotiation was lacking on both sides. Indeed, with stocks of munitions dwindling, the temptation to finish off the war by an all-out military effort might well be irresistible.
  There is a great deal in this argument, but the Government's case that they were supplying arms to preserve their influence is from now on going to be brought very severely to the test. Neither we nor the nation could condone the continued supply of arms if large scale fighting were to break out again or if it were suggested in the talks in Addis Ababa that a temporary ban would help. This subject has touched the consciences of all hon. Members. I do not think that any useful purpose is served in our not facing the moral issue. If there were an invasion of the Ibo heartland with the inevitability of mass slaughter added to the present mass starvation it would be difficult, perhaps impossible, for any British Government to continue sending arms.
  Mr. Frank Allaun: Would it not be too late then?
  Mr. Braine: I am not convinced as yet that the Government's policy in this matter is wrong. The onus is on the Commonwealth Secretary to show that the policy of Her Majesty's Government
  104
  has resulted in British influence being exerted in a useful way. But in my view the point has now arrived when this nettle must be grasped. Only yesterday a distinguished Nigerian Christian leader told me, sadly—if there was bitterness in his heart he kept it to himself—"Our people have always looked to the British Government for fair treatment, but we see that in this quarrel they have chosen to take sides. We have looked to them for conciliation; instead, they have chosen to provide our enemies with arms. Is it so unreasonable that we should refuse to accept aid from the British Government?". I thought that that was unfair, but it was certainly sincere and honest. One cannot brush it aside.
  I am not criticising Her Majesty's Government for the stand they have taken so far. My hon. Friends understand their dilemma, but the Commonwealth relationship has no meaning at all unless in a situation of difficulty of this kind we do not seek a reconciliation of differences. There must come a point when supplying arms to one beligerent makes the solution difficult if not impossible. It is our earnest hope that this point has not been reached, that the talks in Addis Ababa will bring a peaceful settlement and that peace will soon return to Nigeria. But there is no immediate guarantee of that and, in the meantime, hunger takes its toll and people die. The Government have moved quickly in response to the recommendations of Lord Hunt. That is good and the Government are to be commended. But we now need an assurance that the relief programme now being mounted will meet the real needs in all Nigeria. I invite the Commonwealth Secretary to give us that assurance.
  6.46 p.m.
  Mr. George Thomson: With permission, I will reply to the points made in what has been a very good debate in which hon. Members have shown themselves to be gravely concerned with the situation in Nigeria. I confess that of all the international problems with which I have had to deal, both before becoming Commonwealth Secretary and since being in office, I have found this the most agonising, and I therefore echo some of the words uttered by the hon. Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) about the nature of the problem we face.

  105
  It is not the scale of the war that appals. It is the scale of human suffering.The Times remarked today that
  "… it is an indication of the small scale of the war militarily that all the prisoners of war in Biafra can be accommodated in one dormitory."
  Would that all the prisoners of want—all the prisoners of malnutrition and starvation in this terrible war—could be housed in one hospital ward.
  The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Hugh Fraser) expressed fears of genocide. It is important to try to get this matter in perspective. My view is that these fears are exaggerated and that it is unjust to talk of genocide in connection with this conflict. The military casualties have been bloody but limited, marred by terrible atrocities. The civilian suffering, on the other hand, has been massive and has affected Ibo and non-Ibo. It is to them that our conscience has been directed. Sir Colin Thornley has told me that near Awgu large numbers of Ibos who have been living in secessionist areas are returning to their homes in Federal-held territory. This does not fit in with allegations of genocide.
  None of us can read the harrowing accounts of human suffering on both sides without wishing to do all that we can to assist all Nigerians to find a way to live at peace with each other and concentrate on binding the wounds of the suffering. The whole House will agree with these aims and the necessity, whatever our differences, to address our minds to the question of how best we can achieve them. In particular, we all agree that we should like to see the discussions initiated by the O.A.U. lead to a ceasefire. Her Majesty's Government have tried to help in every way they could to promote talks and Mr. Arnold Smith, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, has worked indefatigably, and will go on doing so, to this end. The best outcome would be, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) pointed out, if Africa's own inter-Governmental organisation could bring about a solution to one of Africa's most tragic conflicts and a conflict which has immense dangers for the Continent of Africa as a whole.
  The main criticism during this debate of our policy has been over the difficult
  106
  question of the sending of arms to Nigeria. I emphasise again that the arms we send form only about 15 per cent. of Nigerian supplies, and in our view their cessation would not affect the continuation of the war.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) cast some doubt on whether this figure of 15 per cent. was meaningful and said that his calculation was that 80 per cent. of the infantry weapons and ammunition that were causing the casualties were coming from us. I remind the House, first of all, only that it is not so long ago that the anxiety of this House was that we might be providing bombers and those sort of weapons of war, and that we have deliberately limited the arms to the more conventional types of weapon that we have provided over a long period. With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I thought that, with his record of advocacy of the use of force in some other parts of Africa, his expression of abhorrence of force in this case was not quite as convincing as it might otherwise have been.
  Mr. Thorpe: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a difference between the use of force against civilians and the use of force against a railway line in a desert.
  Mr. Thomson: What I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman is that his figure of 80 per cent. is not remotely accurate. The proportion of infantry weapons and ammunition we have supplied is calculated by our defence experts to be a great deal less than half of what is going there. I do not wish to minimise the amount, but I trust that the right hon. Gentleman's figure of 80 per cent. will not gain wide credence.
  The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stafford and Stone asked about Saladins. I should like now to give him and the House the facts as I know them. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is not the case that there are large numbers of Saladins awaiting shipment to Nigeria, as he seemed to fear. The position is that we have always said that we would supply the Nigerian Government with reasonable quantities of arms of a conventional type. In accordance with this policy, there have been supplies of armoured cars to Nigeria since before the civil war broke out. We have been careful
  107
  not to add to the armoured car strength since the civil war began, but some months ago a small number of replacements were authorised. It may very well be that it is to those that the right hon. Gentleman's information related. I assure the House that no more have been authorised nor, indeed, have any more been requested by the Nigerian Federal Government.
  The practical question in this difficulty is that put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): whether unilateral suspension of arms would help to end the fighting and make the relief supplies flow more easily. I can only say, after the most earnest heart-searching on the matter, that all the evidence at the moment seems to me to be to the contrary. Indeed, in the light of the tense situation that now exists in Nigeria, with the very natural sensitivity about the national sovereignty of a new and developing country, I wonder whether the Hunt mission which we have all welcomed, would ever have been able to do the magnificent work it has achieved if we had followed the urgent demand of some hon. Gentlemen to stop sending arms when they asked us to do so.
  I was asked about our influence in Nigeria. I do not want to exaggerate our influence—Nigeria is a proud and sovereign independent country—but it is worth remembering this about the the Nigerian Federal Government. There has been recently, although they are on the edge of a military victory, virtual cease-fire—an act of considerable self-restraint. There has been an acceptance or a willingness to have an external international observer force. There has been a readiness to see that the relief supplies go in by land, and now by air. Can anyone doubt that if at this period of time we had followed the advice of those who urged on us unilateral suspension, these achievements of restraint would not have been at peril? This is the real issue.
  But I should like to put to my hon. Friends, whose anxieties I understand perfectly, one or two general points about the supply of arms. I think that some of them start from the unspoken, though perfectly honourable proposition,
  108
  that Britain should not engage in arms trade with anyone. It is worth emphasising that in any case our arms trade is very carefully controlled and individually licensed.
  But I should like to ask the House and my hon. Friends to examine what the proposition would mean. It would mean that amongst our friends in the world only those who had an arms industry would have a right to national defence. It would mean that to make arms was all right, but to buy them was all wrong. If it is urged simply as a national policy, it means that it is wrong for Britain to help her friends to defend themselves, but all right for Britain's friends—if they remained friendly to us in those circumstances—to get other people to provide them with the necessary defence.
  A more limited argument is that it is wrong to provide arms in a civil war situation. A civil war against secession is an agony through which a number of countries have passed. The historic example is the United States, and in those circumstances those of the British Left were very strongly behind the Federal Government of that country in its fight against secession. But more recently in Africa the Congo passed through this tragedy, and I am genuinely puzzled that some of those who argue that Biafra should have the right to secede are those who argued so passionately that it would be a crime if Katanga were allowed to secede.
  I do not want to minimise Ibo fears or to ignore Ibo grievances, but I would ask the House whether, if it was right to resist the attempt of sinister outside forces to break up the Congo, it is not also right to help the Government of Nigeria to resist similar attempts against the unity of their country. It is right to remember that we in this country—and particularly those on the political Left— supported the United Nations action in the Congo, and that we helped to pay for United Nations soldiers to go there to fight against secession.
  Finally, there are those who argue that it is hypocrisy and humbug to send arms and relief supplies to the same people at the same time. I find this a very puzzling argument. If I may say so to my hon. Friends, whose sincerity I acknowledge, I became involved in politics during the Spanish civil war, when the

  109
  British Government of the day supported non-intervention and the Left supported the Spanish Republican Government. But no Socialist ever suggested in those days that there was any inconsistency in gathering money both to strengthen the Republican Army and to succour the victims of war, whatever side they came from.
  Of course, the supply of arms must always be watched anxiously to ensure that it is consistent with our policies, and in this case our policies are to see an end to the fighting and to bring maximum help to the suffering.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary last month laid down very carefully the circumstances which would require a revision of our arms policy. I do not wish to repeat them just two minutes before the debate is due to end, but those conditions still stand, and are worth examining closely. We believe that none of the circumstances that my right hon. Friend mentioned has come to pass. The Federal Government have responded with great restraint in the search for peace.
  The hon. Member for Essex, South-East asked some questions about the airlift. First of all, our advice to voluntary societies is to follow the advice of the International Red Cross, backed by Lord Hunt's mission and the Federal Government, to co-ordinate efforts through the International Red Cross and the efforts, particularly, to accumulate stocks at Fernando Po. The hon. Gentleman quoted Colonel Ojukwu as being prepared to see an airstrip in Biafra under International Red Cross control. If that is so, I profoundly hope that the Colonel will quickly give the answer to the International Red Cross, which is now in communication with him.
  Her Majesty's Government have been criticised by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Barnes) and others for having a biased attitude towards Biafra's claim to secession. I only have to say that at the end of the day it is the people of Nigeria who must decide how they can live at peace with each other. I do not think that there is anything unreasonable or dishonourable in Britain, the creator of the original Nigerian union, hoping passionately that the
  110
  people there will find that way of living with each other.
  Whatever differences we may have in this House on this question, whatever differences of opinion there may be about what is the wisest British policy, I am sure that at this point in time we will all hope that at these meetings now under the patronage of the Organisation of African Unity, all the Nigerians will find a way of living at peace one with another.
  Mr. Alan Fitch (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  ELY OUSE-ESSEX WATER BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. H. P. G. Channon: I beg to move, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.
  I understand that the scope of the debate on this Motion is very narrow, almost as tight as that on Third Reading. Therefore I propose to confine myself to the factual content of the Bill itself and to outline the case for the Bill. Should any detailed questions arise during the debate I hope that there will be an opportunity for them to be answered.
  The Bill is promoted jointly by the Great Ouse and Essex River Authorities. The purpose is to transfer water from the area of the Great Ouse Authority to the Essex Authority to deal with a serious deficiency of water which might occur in South Essex if these proposals are not implemented. The Bill proposes the extraction from the Ely-Ouse Pond near Denver Sluice of water to be taken in a variety of journeys ending in Hanningfield and Abberton reservoirs. If any hon. Member has a detailed point to make about the variety of journeys, I shall be able to answer.
  An extra 24 million gallons of water a day in Essex would be achieved without the need for constructing further reservoirs. The House might ask whether this is desirable or necessary. I suggest that it is necessary. The population of

  111
  Essex is very nearly 2 million. It is an extremely dry part of the country, although I find that difficult to believe this summer. In many summers there are already restrictions on the use of water in some of these areas. In the past there have been periods of considerable drought, particularly from 1933 to 1935 and as recently as 1965 and these could occur again.
  At the moment the demand for water in this area exceeds the reliable yield and we can concern ourselves only with the reliable yield and not gamble on what might be an unreliable yield. By 1978 the deficiency is expected to be 24 million gallons a day. By 1971 there will be a considerable deficiency, 20 million gallons a day, part of which will be met by local schemes other than that put forward by the Bill. Even so, if an urgent start cannot be made on the work outlined in the Bill during this summer, there is great risk that there will not be an adequate supply by 1971 and a serious situation could arise.
  I understand that there is no objection in general terms to the scheme but two petitions have been lodged—by Norfolk County Council and King's Lynn Borough Council—in which it was requested that a Clause should be added to the Bill to require the promoters to come to Parliament again if at any time it was necessary to move more water from the Great Ouse basin to the Essex River Authority.
  The great fears of Norfolk, I understand, relate largely to the possible cost of water in the county. Some people are particularly concerned about the underground tunnel from Blackdyke Farm to Kennett, which could carry 175 million gallons a day, although the limit in the Bill is 100 million gallons a day maximum, or 17,500 million gallons in any 18-month period. I understand it is feared that considerably more could be sent through.
  There is also a pilot scheme for ground water extraction going on in the Great Ouse area at the moment. It is feared that the tunnel and other works could be used not only for the transfer to the Essex authority of surface water from the Ely Ouse River but also for the transfer of ground water. I refer hon.
  112
  Members who have studied the petitioners' case to paragraph 20:
  "It would be unreasonable and unjust to the inhabitants of your petitioners' county if the supply to them were restricted to more costly water and they were thereby prevented from using less costly water drawn from sources in their own county and diverted to users in Essex ".
  I appreciate the very understandable fears of Norfolk County Council, but in reply to its case I point out that evidence was submitted to the Select Committee that in discharge of its statutory responsibilities the Great Ouse River Board would have to have regard to local needs. In addition, the Water Resources Board, and in the last resort the Minister, would have to ensure that there was no undue financial burden placed on local inhabitants in the export of water.
  I understand that the Bill has the full support of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and also of the Water Resources Board. If at any future date such a proposal as is feared by Norfolk County Council be made to divert local water to Essex in the interests of national water policy, a Ministerial decision would be required. I understand that an undertaking has been given that before such a decision there would have to be a public inquiry and Norfolk County Council would have full opportunity of making its case at such an inquiry where the usual procedure would be gone through. Perhaps that assurance could be repeated by the Parliamentary Secretary from the Government Front Bench today.
  The Select Committee decided, rightly or wrongly, not to accept the contentions of Norfolk County Council and King's Lynn Council and accepted the Bill virtually as presented on Second Reading. I ask the House to consider the Bill now and to pass it into law before the Summer Recess. I remind the House that the Water Resources Board's Report on Water Supplies in South-East England says clearly that by 1971 in the Essex River Authority area for all purposes there will be a deficiency of 20 million gallons a day and by 1981 a deficiency of 60 million gallons a day. The Board considers it essential to have a scheme of this sort.
  It is also essential that if possible the work should start this summer. Otherwise there is a real risk of that even by

  113
  1971 there may be a deficiency of nearly 10 million gallons a day for the urgent needs of South Essex. Particularly is this true if we should have a dry winter at that time.
  The Bill has passed another place. It has received a Second Reading and been fully considered by a Committee in the normal way and received its approbation. It has the support of the Government and the Water Resources Board and meets the serious and critical needs for water resources in Essex without infringing the liberties or pockets of those in other parts of the country, I hope. If there is any danger the Minister has given an undertaking that there would be an inquiry before a situation deleterious to them could possibly arise. In these circumstances, and in view of the urgency of starting work as soon as possible, I hope that tonight the House will feel inclined to consider the Bill and allow it to proceed to the Statute Book before the Summer Recess.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) quite rightly has risen to argue in favour of his constituents' need for more water. Representing as he does a seat in thirsty Essex, I well appreciate his anxiety to see the Bill passed by the House. I have no intention of seeking to divide the House against it. On the contrary, I recognise Essex's need for water and the duty that falls upon those parts of the country that have water supplies in surplus to help in providing the water needed by those to the south of us.
  I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned the Minister's undertaking that a public inquiry would be held before any application to increase the amount of water to be taken from the Ely Ouse is agreed to. I hope that the Minister will confirm that this is the case, and that, in the event of there being an application for more water to be taken than is allowed for in the Bill, he will not place those who then object in the invidious position of having to show why Essex should not take the water. I hope rather that he will say that the River Board of Essex will have to come and show cause at a public hearing why it should have the water and that it is needed.
  114
  I have four points to make in what I suspect will be a comparatively short debate. The first is that I should have thought it better if the Board had had to come back to Parliament and not simply go to a public hearing in order to increase their volume of water, and I ask the Minister to deal with that point.
  My second point concerns the disturbance that is inevitable in my own constituency of Bury St. Edmunds during the course of construction of the considerable capital works that will be needed for this programme. The Minister will know that there is to be constructed a 72-inch internal diameter pipe between Kennett and Kirtling Green, and beyond that a 66-inch pipe between Wixoe and Great Sampford. By no means the whole length of this pipe lies through my constituency, but a good deal of it does, and it is in respect of those portions which affect West Suffolk that I am making these representations.
  In order to do this work, a swath of land 150 feet wide will be taken from the farmers through whose land the pipes will go, and during the period of construction this 150 feet swath of land for many miles will be out of cultivation. Even when the pipes have been laid and the water is flowing—and I emphasise that I want to see that water flowing— there will still be a 40-feet swath of land taken out of cultivation. My own estimate, which is confirmed by the Clerk to the Essex Water Board is that something like 110 acres will go out of cultivation in the course of contraction and afterwards. I appreciate that pipes cannot be laid without land being taken, and the amount of land in question is not so considerable. I am also well aware that farmers are to get compensation, which I think is 10s. 6d. per yard run. There is no quarrel between the National Farmers' Union, certainly not the Bury St. Edmunds Branch, and the Water Board over the compensation which, on the whole, is probably adequate, but I hope that the Minister will appreciate that in addition to the simple loss of land, which no one wishes to see, there is bound to be a great deal of disturbance in the course of construction.
  I am raising this matter so that my constituents may know now, before the lorries start churning up their land and before they find it difficult to drive along

  115
  their lanes. It is inevitable that during the construction months they will have to put up with a good deal of noise, a good deal of disturbance, a good deal of mud, and they may not like it. I refer to this point in advance, so that it is made clear to them, and they will have no ground to object if they suffer later from such inconveniences.
  The county planners of no less than four counties have been brought into the matter, and they have laid down fairly sensible rules which the Water Board has agreed to accept. Perhaps I could say in passing that, having myself met the Clerk to the Essex River Authority, I am most impressed by the care with which he has dealt with objections. He has met fully each point and his public relations, particularly with local farmers, have been throughout most excellent.
  For all that, there are one or two minor matters which I put under the heading of amenity and disturbance on which I wish the Minister to comment. The pumping station at Kennett is a matter that concerns both the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and myself. There is concern among my constituents as to whether this substantial building will be an attractive feature of our landscape or whether, as so often has been the case in the past, an ugly and unattractive building is to be put up. There are to be planning obligations on the Water Board in respect of elevations, landscaping, tree planning, etc., but I hope that the Minister will give an assurance that the capital works programmes that are carried out in the lovely countryside of West Suffolk conform as far as possible to the contour and charm of the area. I will not deal with the matter of the tunnel. My hon. Friend may wish to make that. Neither will I deal with the pipelines and other amenities. I content myself with asking the Minister to confirm that the amenity aspects will be thoroughly enforced on the Water Board.
  My third point is a crucial one to the farming community in the southern part of my constituency, and conceivably in the northern part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Kirk). Modern and advanced farmers in this area are using
  116
  more and more spray irrigation. This is a heavy water use, and many of them are fortunate in that they are already licensed abstracters by right. In other words, they have their own source of water on their own premises.
  Section 58 of the Water Resources Act, 1963, deals with the charging schemes that may be laid down by water boards in matters of this kind. It was under Section 58 that the Ministry prepared and sent out the memorandum of advice laying down how charging is to be organised, paragraph 13 of which says that the cost of any major work of bringing water into a river authority can be, and indeed should be, charged to the users. In other words, those who benefit ought to pay.
  The only beneficiaries of this scheme are the two statutory undertakers, the public water boards. Any benefit that the farmers in the southern portion of my constituency may get are entirely fringe ones. They will not get any more water. They have plenty already, and they are concerned about the possibility of being charged additionally to finance the capital works programme of this board, although at present they have all the water that they require from their own licensed sources. It is that to which objection is taken.
  I have had a meeting with the authority's clerk on this point. The authority maintains quite rightly that the Ely Ouse scheme will halt the deterioration in the existing supplies of water in the chalk aquafer in the southern part of Suffolk. However, the local branch of the National Farmers' Union has put the following point in reply, and I hope that the Minister will comment on it. It says:
  "Since agricultural abstractors in the Stour Valley have in fact been denied new licences for at least six years now, they should not and cannot be held responsible for any deterioration that may have taken place in the chalk, and therefore they ought not to have to pay for a scheme which augments the present deficiency "—
  that is to say, which augments a situation that they themselves have had no part in creating.
  The point of principle here is simply that farmers in my part of the Stour Valley are licensed water abstractors, and they will find themselves paying for water that they do not want but which will be used by industrial and domestic consumers

  117
  elsewhere. I do not claim that the charges here should be universal. There should be some way in which the farming community in the area is let off at least some of the very high capital charges. If it is not, it will not be encouraged to go ahead with spray irrigation.
  We are confronted with a Bill which in itself is perfectly sound, with the few minor exceptions which I have indicated. However, once again it is tinkering with the problem. Furthermore, it leaves water users throughout East Anglia with the feeling that, instead of the main job of providing water for our eastern counties being tackled fully and in the round, it is being dealt with piecemeal —here a reservoir, there a reservoir, here a little piped scheme and there a tunnel —when, instead, the water resources of East Anglia should be considered as a whole.
  If the Minister were to go to the people of our Eastern Counties with a programme which looked forward to the utilisation of the Wash and the integration of water supplies in the whole area—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. I am afraid that we cannot deal with what the Bill does not do.
  Mr. Griffiths: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for pointing that out. I was about to say merely that the Minister would not have come across the difficulty that he has had with this scheme and several others which my hon. Friends could mention if he had tackled the problem as a whole. That is my comment, and I hope that that at least is within the terms of order.
  I conclude on behalf of my constituents by saying simply that we are concerned that this scheme may make more likely the deprivation of farmers in the Great Bradley area of land needed for a storage reservoir there. We are concerned about possible effects on our amenities. Above all, we are concerned about the lack of a general policy involving the Wash.
  I do not wish to prevent this Bill passing. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West is right when he says that Essex needs the water. By all means let Essex have the water, but let it not be at an expense which is too great for
  118
  some of my constituents to bear. Above all, let it not happen without at least a sideways glance at the larger and more fruitful scheme which the Government should be considering.
  7.26 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Hawkins: I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) said about Essex's need for water, nor do I oppose its getting this Bill, which seems to be sensible as it is diverting water which otherwise would run to waste into the Wash. This is a matter to which we ought to be turning our attention, and I hope that my hon. Friend and hon. Members representing other constituencies in Essex will join in urging any Minister who may have this problem on his desk as a matter of urgency to continue studying the wider aspects to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) addressed himself just now.
  I also agree with everything which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds said. As for the pipeline to which he referred, as a practical man who has had to deal with problems of compensation in respect of pipelines, I hope that in this case they will be dealt with in the way in which the Gas Board has approached similar cases in the past. That Board has had very good relations with the farming community. It has dealt with matters in a sensible and practical manner by meeting people on the spot, which is the only way.
  The proposed pipeline involving a swathe of land 150 feet wide will cause many problems to farmers. It will cut through roads and disturb buildings by cutting them off for a time. There is no doubt that the huge vehicles of contractors working across the land will cause considerable inconvenience, upset drainage and result in serious permanent damage to the land unless the work is done very carefully.
  I have been involved in this scheme for a very long time. I am a member of the Norfolk County Council and was involved personally in this objection to the Bill which was aimed at securing some safeguard for what we thought were the rights of Norfolk ratepayers who, at one time or another, will want this water.

  119
  Practically all the channels referred to appear on a very good map which the authorities have produced for our help. Very large parts of the relief channel between Denver Sluice and the Wash and the cut-off channel run through my constituency and very close to my home. Both those channels were initiated following the floods in 1953 and they were undertaken by the former Conservative Government at a cost of many millions of pounds. For many years ahead they have safeguarded the rich and productive Fen area from flooding. In fact, of course, it is carrying out Vermuyden's plan of 1600.
  From this relief channel and from the cut-off channel, Essex will pipe and tunnel back water which would otherwise run to waste. I applaud it for doing so, but I am sorry that King's Lynn did not think it advisable to abstract the water flowing past it before Essex got hold of it.
  I wish to explain the reasons why we want some assurances. In addition to piping the water from the channels, the Bill provides for a far bigger capacity tunnel than that of the amount of water which could be taken from the channels. Undoubtedly, as has been said in evidence, the promoters' idea is that, if in the chalk reservoirs of Norfolk sufficient water can be found from the study and exploration now going on—strangely enough, this water is referred to as "ground water", although it comes from underground—it will be taken from the underground reservoir, on which many towns in South Norfolk rely at present, and will be pumped into the relief channels or in some way diverted down the same route into Essex.
  The purposes of Norfolk County Council trying to get safeguards written into the Bill were twofold. First, the County Council was concerned that there might not be sufficient water left for its own development. Anybody who has studied the plans of the Economic Council for the Eastern Region will know that there are large schemes for the development of industry and population movements into that area. We in Norfolk were worried that there might not be sufficient water left for our own use if too much water was diverted from the underground reservoir.
  120
  Secondly, we thought that the cost should be at least as little as it is costing Essex. We hope that we will be able to have it cheaper. We understand that the Minister has given assurances that an inquiry will be held before any extra water is diverted. We are glad to hear this. We hope that the Minister will repeat this assurance tonight.
  Those are the two fears of the Norfolk County Council. They were not accepted by the Committee of the House. I nevertheless draw them to the Minister's attention. Norfolk County Council and Norfolk are not dog in the manger. We do not wish to see water run to waste. We know how valuable it is. Practically the whole of my area, although not thickly populated, is under water restrictions every summer, and I believe that certain areas are at present under water restrictions, which is ridiculous in view of the weather we have had in the last few weeks.
  Fears are held by farmers over a wide area. The so-called ground water, which I would rather refer to as underground water, comes from an area which is very light land. If the water table is so lowered as to damage the crops growing on this light land, as can happen in a very dry spring, we hope that the Mini-try of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food—I am sorry that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to that Ministry has now left the Chamber, but I hope that the Minister who is present will draw his attention to this point—will watch these bores very carefully and ensure that not too much water is extracted and that damage is not done to crops on this light land.
  I ask the Ministers concerned to give assurances to the County Council and to fanners so that their fears may be put at rest. In particular, I ask for an assurance that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will carefully watch the harmful effects to crops.
  I do not wish to oppose this scheme. I wish it good luck. I hope that it proceeds rapidly. I hope that the farmers through whose land these tunnels and pipes will pass do not suffer too much hardship from the dislocation of their farming work. I certainly hope that the whole question of water supplies for Eastern England is urgently and carefully

  121
  examined as a whole, and in particular the Wash Barrage Scheme.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Kirk: I suppose it is inevitable that a debate of this kind will tend to turn on constituency points. As the hon. Member whose constituency is possibly more affected by this scheme than almost any other, perhaps I should follow in the tradition set by those who have preceded me. I agree wholeheartedly with the more general point made by my hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) that piecemeal schemes of this type would not be necessary if there had been better planning by Governments of all political colours. However, I know that I must not go too deep into that argument.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be out of order to enter upon a discussion of what other schemes might have been put forward. We can discuss only what is in the Bill.
  Mr. Kirk: I had anticipated you on that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I knew that if I went further into the point I should be out of order. I was merely supporting the point which my hon. Friends had made.
  With the exception of a few small disturbances in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds, the major disturbance involved in this scheme all takes place in my constituency—a very large part of it within the parish of Steeple Bumpstead, where I have the honour to live. Therefore, I have a close interest in this. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) spoke eloquently in favour of the Bill, as befits an inhabitant of the more industrial and more populated part of Essex which will benefit from the scheme and which will have none of the disadvantages which will arise from it.
  As one who represents an area which will have virtually all the disadvantages perhaps I might also support the Bill to the full. I have a feeling that what has not been overlooked by the farmers in my area is that any increase in water supply to the Stour and Colne Valleys,
  122
  in whatever part of the valleys it takes place, is bound to assist them. The water situation in Essex at the moment is very bad. By 1971, unless this scheme goes through, it will have become desperate, and by the later part of the 1970's it will have become impossible.
  Not only is there restriction on the use of water throughout the whole of my constituency. There is even restriction on building throughout the whole of my constituency because of the shortage of water. Unless the Bill goes through, life will gradually grind in this aspect to some sort of a halt. Therefore, failing any other scheme, this scheme becomes absolutely vital for all parts of the community.
  I quite see the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds that farmers are naturally worried that they may not get their fair share. However, the farmers to whom I have talked in my division take the view that any general increase is bound to benefit them, because if the supply of water runs down in the way in which it looks like doing over the next five or 10 years, not only in Essex, but on the other side of the Stour as well in my hon. Friend's constituency, they will all suffer together.
  It is true that the disturbance involved in these works will be very considerable. It will involve a large number of my constituents between the right bank of the Stour and Great Sampford. They will be faced with a long period when a large part of their land will be unusable and a period afterwards when a rather smaller part of their land will be virtually sterile. I hope that the Minister will impress upon the authorities concerned the need for adequate consultation and the need—this is much more important than compensation—for adequate consultation at every stage. Many of these schemes have run into endless difficulties, not because anybody opposed them, but because people were not consulted. The farmers who land lies along the line should be told precisely what is involved from the start and should be kept informed all the way through. I hope that the Essex authorities will do this. Knowing them, I am certain that they will.
  I quite understand the reservations felt by some people in Norfolk and which my hon. Friend has given expression to. I understand the anxieties of some of the

  123
  farmers I represent, particularly those in the Steeple Bumstead area, where much land has already suffered great upheaval because of flood prevention works. Nevertheless, I am certain that the Bill is in the general interests, not only of Essex, but of East Anglia as a whole, and I hope that the House will wish it on its way tonight.
  7.40 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I think that it might help the House if I were to intervene at this point and put the Government's view on the Bill. It is not for me to reply to the debate as it is a Private Bill, not a Government Measure, but I congratulate those who have brought the Bill forward. It is the product of a remarkable piece of collaboration between these two authorities which have come together to work out a solution to common problems, making an extremely interesting experiment in the movement of water. The scheme has the great advantage that it will, to a large extent, use existing watercourses, which will have a good deal of effect in avoiding damage to agricultural land such as might arise from other schemes.
  I have no hesitation in advising the House that, in my view, the Bill should be approved. It has been through a Select Committee, before which everyone had a chance to have his say. It was fully considered by the Select Committee, and at this stage I suggest that we should pass it as soon as we can.
  The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) adopted, if I may say so, a thoroughly public-spirited attitude in recognising that the worries which he and his constituents have should be seen in the perspective of the wider problems involved, and all the points which he raised were constructive. He asked why, if there were to be a further use of water, the matter would be done not by a Private Bill but directly through a public inquiry. The answer is that the powers under the Water Resources Act would be used. The reason why the same procedure was not adopted for the present purpose is that there were certain gaps in that Act, gaps which the House put right this year. That is the reason, no doubt, why the promoters
  124
  thought it best to come to the House on this occasion.
  If the groundwater pilot scheme which is now going on in the Great Ouse basin is successful and it is desired to develop and use it permanently for supply, it will be necessary to obtain licences and orders for the works required, and this will mean that anyone who objects will be heard. My right hon. Friend intends that, if there are objections, he will call in the application for determination by him and a public inquiry for the purpose will be held. The burden of proof in any application of that sort will in the first place be on the people wishing to use the water, but, equally, there will be a responsibility on the objectors to make out their objections and not be merely obstructive. That assurance can readily be given.
  The hon. Gentleman asked also about the pumping station at Kennett. Here also the matter starts in local government. It would be for the local planning authority to approve the application. Planning permission would have to be given. The planning authority would discuss with the Essex River Authority whether the design was suitable and whether it would detract from amenities.
  Next, the hon. Gentleman asked what fanners who had licences of right would have to pay to meet the cost. I am in a difficulty here—I am sorry not to be helpful—but the Ely Ouse-Essex charging schemes are at present sub judice, and I cannot comment on them for that reason.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I understand that difficulty. Would the hon. Gentleman kindly undertake that, when the matter is no longer sub judice, he will reply to a Question so that we have the matter clear?
  Mr. MacColl: Once the schemes are no longer sub judice, I shall be bursting to answer any Question the hon. Gentleman cares to put down, but it will have to be when the final decision has been taken.
  Responsibility for the works and for avoidance of too much disturbance by them is primarily one for the river authorities. They will be operating under the Bill, not under our directions, but they will have heard and studied the proceedings both here and at earlier

  125
  stages, and, no doubt, as publicly responsible bodies, they will take fully into account the great importance of doing all that can be done by consultation and of doing as much as possible to avoid damage.
  Now, the question of the water table. The pilot scheme is designed to study the water table and see what the effect upon it is. I am certain that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will watch the interests of the industry for which he is responsible.
  Those are, I think, the main points on which I can help the House. No doubt, if others are raised, another hon. Member, on behalf of the promoters, will be able to assist.
  7.46 p.m.
  Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I am concerned partly because some of the borings lie in my constituency and have some effect, perhaps indirectly, upon water users in my constituency, particularly the farmers. I echo the feelings expressed by other Norfolk Members in that, although we realise that Essex must have this water, we have residual anxiety about the future in Norfolk. It is clear that development in Essex cannot go forward at all unless water moves south from Norfolk, and to that extent the scheme under the Bill seems most imaginative, and I hope that it will be successful. Nevertheless, I have in mind longer-term developments in the future, developments which may be substantial in my constituency and adjoining constituencies. We have town expansion schemes going forward, with industry coming in from other parts of the country, all of which makes a considerable new demand for water in addition to that needed for agriculture.
  There has already been emphasis on the high water demand in this area of light land, where, in most years, we frequently approach conditions of near drought. Irrigation is, therefore, greatly used, but it is rationed under statutory powers now. Farmers in my constituency, therefore, are a little anxious about the future of the water table. I was glad to hear the Minister say that the water table will be watched, though I am not sure which Minister is responsible for the level of the water table as such, whether Housing and Local Government or Agriculture.
  Mr. MacColl: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will be better at watching water tables than I should be.
  Mr. Hill: But the hon. Gentleman's Ministry may well be the principal remover of water. I am concerned, therefore, that the two Ministers should share sufficient powers of liaison to ensure that the water table is not lowered in the future so as to inflict damage upon agriculture and upon the urban developments to which I have referred.
  In the past 10 days we have received an important Report from the agricultural Neddy, putting forward great possibilities of substantial agricultural expansion. If, as I hope, the Government wish to see that Report implemented it follows that agricultural demand for water will greatly increase. All root and horticultural crops, and the livestock expansion to which the Report refers, will be heavy water consumers. Broadly speaking, in nine years out of 10 it pays farmers to irrigate, not merely to get increased crops but to ensure that their cropping and planting programme is not checked through lack of rain.
  Therefore, I was relieved when the Minister said that on future extensions of the scheme it will be open to those concerned to object and to have the advantage of a public hearing. I hope that this will be a sufficient administrative safeguard, though it cannot meet the danger of there being a cumulative demand for water which may exceed the supply available. Therefore, concurrently with the execution of the scheme, it is most important that the Government, and particularly the Water Resources Board, should continue to examine the whole question of future supplies of water for Eastern England and give them a very high priority in their thinking and actions.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow discussion on general policy. We must confine the debate to the contents of the Bill.
  Mr. Hill: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I fear that if the Bill is a success and more and more water is needed it will not afford a sufficient answer, because the demand for water in Eastern

  127
  England has increased and is increasing, and it cannot be diminished.
  7.52 p.m.
  Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: The House owes a great debt to all my hon. Friends who have spoken in the debate. The opinions of East Anglia have been well voiced from this side of the House, although hon. Members opposite have perhaps not been quite so outspoken.
  I have known the Great Ouse River Authority for many years. Some very worthy constituents of mine serve on it, not least Alderman Leonard Childs, for many years chairman of the Authority and the Board which preceded it. The Measure is typical of the imaginative approach which that authority has always had in trying to serve the needs of the people in its area.
  I think that this is the first Bill which involves the major transfer of water from one catchment area to another since the Water Resources Act became law. Therefore, it is only right that considerable concern should have been shown to ensure that the Act was properly implemented in the promotion of the Bill.
  I have studied the entire proceedings before the Select Committee on the Bill. Many of the points which were rightly raised again tonight were fully dealt with in that hearing. I wish particularly to mention the question of the tunnel size. There is no doubt that the tunnel will be larger than the immediate demand for water might indicate, but the Committee was told by Mr. Hetherington, a member of the Council of the Institution of Civil Engineers, a member of the Institute of Water Engineers and a member of the Association of Consulting Engineers, that it is cheaper to build a tunnel of the size proposed, with a diameter of 100 inches —just over 8 feet, than a smaller tunnel.
  Having studied the evidence before the Select Committee, I am satisfied that making the tunnel that size should not be taken as an indication that its maximum capacity will inevitably be used to the detriment of people relying on underground water resources in Norfolk. I am sure that this has been worked out thoroughly scientifically and that many of the fears, with which I fully sympathise, voiced by my hon. Friend the
  128
  Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) are not substantiated by the evidence before the Select Committee.
  I also naturally sympathise with the anxieties which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) expressed about the effect of major works across a farmer's land. Anybody who lives in the fenlands or has seen fen farmers at work knows that now and again considerable earth works must take place, but there is general recognition that they are in the best interests of sound agriculture. We have learnt a great deal since the laying of the natural gas pipeline about the methods which can be adopted in laying pipelines. Although it is a much bigger pipe—72 inches in diameter—that will be laid through part of my hon. Friend's constituency, we are witnessing very big changes in the technology of laying pipelines and we must hope that in the supply of water, just as in the supply of natural gas, modern methods can be employed to minimise difficulties for the farmers and other land owners across whose land the pipeline will run.
  There has naturally been some anxiety by those in Norfolk who have relied on underground water supplies, or foreseen themselves doing so in the future, that if the scheme goes forward their charges will rocket up in line with the capital cost involved. But Essex is carrying the major part of the capital cost of the scheme, and the evidence before the Select Committee shows that the likelihood of deliberately transferring ground water from Norfolk unnecessarily is so remote as virtually to be unrealistic. The matter was probed very deeply, and the evidence of both Mr. Hetherington and Mr. Bissett, the Clerk of the Authority, clearly shows that the likelihood is very remote and that the matter is being dealt with highly scientifically, as is only appropriate in this case.
  That there is a desperate need in Essex, there is no doubt. Perhaps the object lesson to be drawn here is that if one plans a vast expansion of population or industry in a certain area of England and does not first go into the question of the water supplies likely to be necessary, one has only oneself to blame if one suddenly finds everybody running short. There is no question that

  129
  this is about the only scheme which could meet the crying demand from Essex in time. Perhaps if a lot of people had been wiser originally other schemes might have been thought of, but in the time now available there is no doubt that this is the only one that could possibly meet the need likely to arise in the near future.
  For that reason, I hope that the House will give it every possible support.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill, as amended, considered accordingly.
  Standing Order 205 (Notice of Third Reading) suspended; Bill to be read the Third time forthwith.—[The Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

  SOUTH AFRICAN BREWERIES BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.—[Sir S. McAdden.]
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. John Ellis: History to some extent repeats itself. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir S. McAdden) has merely moved the Bill formally. When the Bill was taken before the Unopposed Bills Committee, present at that time were the Chairman, the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Godman Bryant Irvine), the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir B. Craddock), the hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon)—all members of the Opposition—my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and myself.
  On that morning we had had two Bills to consider. I mention the other one in passing—the Durban Navigation and Collieries Bill. Both these company Bills had the same aim, which was to move the registration of these companies from this country to South Africa.
  The first Bill was disposed of very quickly. Only one question was asked: Does the Bill solely relate to the interests
  130
  of this company being solely in South Africa? We received the necessary assurances. I want to make clear that anything that I shall say is in no way critical of the South Africa Government. I cite as evidence the fact that the Durban Navigation and Collieries Bill went through smoothly with that undertaking.
  On this Bill the Parliamentary agents said that it was merely formal and sought to put in order an existing situation in which the South African Breweries Company had done all its business for a considerable time in South Africa, that all its administrative offices were there, an so on.
  I put the same question as before: Were all the activities of the company solely in play in the Republic of South Africa? I got an assurance that this was so. However, I had availed myself of a report of the company for 1967 from the Library, and the first thing that came to my eye was that in 1952, under an agreement with Rhodesian Breweries Ltd., premises of the South African Breweries Company at Ndola were sold to Rhodesian Breweries Ltd., the purchase price being 12,498,863 5s. shares in the company, which, with 701,137 shares issued for cash at par, resulted in South African Breweries Ltd. acquiring an 82½ per cent. holding in Southern Rhodesian Breweries. This is pertinent to our consideration of the Bill.
  The only English director of South African Breweries then in attendance was summoned hastily to give evidence. He made his attitude perfectly clear. It would mislead the House if I said anything else about that. He was a non-executive director, and, therefore, on some of the ramifications of the activities of the company he could not enlighten us much. But is was ascertained that South African Breweries owned a major interest in Southern Rhodesian Breweries. We pursued this line of questioning, and it immediately became apparent that there were many things in the company report that required further investigation.
  We adjourned the Committee to seek advice from the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the Commonwealth Office. We felt it important. We had a sanctions policy. The legislation is very complex. I could not be sure of all
  131
  the ramifications, but it seemed to me that what was in question at that time was the whole question of companies whether registered in this country or whether registered in South Africa and how the sanctions policy affected them. It seemed to me that in this case we were being asked to sanction the removal of a company from this country to South Africa where different laws applied when it was obvious that the company was one with direct interests in Southern Rhodesia, and it may be—it may still be; I maintain it to this day—that if we agreed to that it might be that the future policy of South African breweries might be regarded as giving aid and comfort to the illegal régime in Southern Rhodesia.
  I do not wish to say whether we should have a sanctions policy or not—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting very wide of the consideration of the Bill. The discussion must be confined, as on a Third Reading, to matters in the Bill.
  Mr. Ellis: I bow at once to your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it seems to me that this is the nub of the argument. The House is being asked to give its approval to the transfer of a company to South Africa where it will come under different laws and it is apparent that the company has substantial holdings in Southern Rhodesia. We must probe what these holdings are and what the state of the sanctions policy is in order to ascertain that any action that the House may take tonight will not be in contravention of our existing policy and law. Subject to your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I suggest that we must look at what the sanctions policy is throughout in order to ensure that what we are asked to do is not against that policy.
  When we received the reports from the three Ministries—my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North will be seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I believe that he intends to go into the ramifications of the reports—we considered further what South African Breweries was doing and what its business was. At this stage the
  132
  President of the Company, Dr. Kronje, happened to be in London and was able to appear before us.
  I make clear at this point for guidance one of the matters contained in the statement circulated by the agents of the South African Breweries Bill. It says:
  "The Bill has been approved by the Committee on Unopposed Bills in your honourable House."
  We sought to make plain that we should raise this and challenge it tonight, because we felt it was a matter that ought to be put before the House.
  The statement also says that Rhodesian Breweries Ltd.
  "operates through its own Board of Directors and management and enjoys a wide degree of autonomy ".
  One can make of that statement what one will, but I do not think there is any doubt, having questioned the people concerned and read that statement, that Rhodesian Breweries is under the control of South African Breweries. Indeed, the Report of the company for 1967, the Directors' Report and the Chairman's Review make clear that that is so. The Chairman's review issued on 21st August, 1967, states:
  "The Board is of the opinion that the profitability of the group will improve during the coming year."
  It gives a list of a whole number of subsidiary companies, including Southern Rhodesian Breweries.
  At that point we are referred in the Report of the Company to the Chairman's review of the non-South African activities of the company. It states:
  "Profit increase was mainly accounted for by higher dividends from Zambian co., Northern Breweries Ltd."
  That is another subsidiary of the company. It seems that it has extensive holdings and makes a great deal of profit in Zambia. Many people would find that interesting.
  "There was a slight decline in brewing results and a falling off in property and dividend income of Rhodesian co., Rhodesian Breweries Ltd. Rhodesian Breweries Ltd. during the year entered Bantu Beer and processed food industry by investing R1 million in Heinrich's Chibuku Breweries Ltd. In Zambia, even by over-straining production facilities, Northern Breweries Ltd., was not able to meet the demand for beer in full."
  It seems that Chibuku Breweries is an investment made in Rhodesia and that

  133
  part of its enterprise is a process food division. We asked questions of the president on this aspect of the company's business, and it was said quite frankly that all the money which it was expected would be raised for this company would be raised in Rhodesia but that know-how would be made available to the Rhodesian company. Does this fall within the sanctions policy? Is this giving aid to an illegal régime?
  My hon. Friend and I sought to obtain what information we could. The only thing which we were able to get which gave us, any insight into the ramifications of this company was the company report for 1967. When we questioned the directors who appeared before us, we were told first that this company had all its bus ness operations in South Africa. Then we discovered that there were subsidiaries operating. When we asked what kind of activities were being pursued, we were not given any explanation about the kind of business which this company did. We had to pursue the matter with the knowledge which we were able to gather from this one report and to investigate.
  There are many more items to which I could point in this report, and I intend to refer to a few. We are told:
  "Acquisition of entire issued share capital of Stellenbosch Farmers Wine Trust Ltd. by Monis Wineries Ltd. was completed during financial year. Company still retains its 67 per cent. of equity in Stellenbosch Wine Trust Ltd. as financial climate has not been considered suitable for disposal of sufficient shares in that company to reduce holding to 34 per cent. in compliance with conditons imposed by Minister of Justice when he gave his approval to merger. Twenty-nine new sub. companies were acquired during year, of which major subsidiary was Stellenbosch Wine Trust Ltd. (formerly Monis Wineries Ltd.). One minor property-owning company was disposed of, and six minor wine and spirit subsidiaries in Rhodesia ceased to be subsidiary companies as a result of reduction of Group's indirect percentage of equity capital in Stellenbosch Farmers Wine Trust Ltd.".
  I do not know where the six subsidiary companies have gone to. One knows that the report is only a shortened version of some of the activities of what we can regard as, and what has been proved to be, a holding company, which is a vast enterprise. We are told further:
  "During year Barsab Investment Trust (Proprietary) Ltd. was formed in which Thomas Barlow and Sons Ltd. and company each hold a 50 per cent. interest. It is intention that Barsab Investment Trust (Pty.)
  134
  Ltd. shall be used as a vehicle for investment into activities not directly related to existing activities of either company or Thos. Barlow and Sons Ltd."
  Do we know that this company is an investment company? Will it invest in Rhodesia? Investment has taken place before and I should think it continues to extract profits from that company.
  The Board of Trade or the Commonwealth Office may ask what the position is concerning the subsidiaries of this company in Rhodesia. They are frozen. Would it not be an embarrassment to the Rhodesia régime if the company transferred to South Africa? All these investments could then flow out and be used by the company in South Africa or elsewhere. One could argue in that way. But it would also be true to say that the company would be able to invest as much as it liked in Rhodesia, Zambia or anywhere else.
  We are not satisfied in the Committee about the ramifications of the trade in which this company is engaged. We have been asked to agree to the transfer of this firm from this country. We are told that there are reasons for that. It is said that it labours under the slur from its competitors that it is classed as a foreign company. That has been true for a number of years. We should consider the position concerning the sanctions policy of this country.
  I see that the Commonwealth Office and the Board of Trade are represented in the House tonight. I hope that those representatives will seek to intervene in the debate, because important questions concerning both Departments arise. I hope that we shall have a full account from the Board of Trade about whether it has been able to do what we have not been able to do, namely, to discover the ramifications of this holding company and exactly where its trading interests lie. It is a property company. It is concerned with footwear, paint manufacturing, and so on; the list seems to be endless. It has subsidiaries, not only in South Africa, but well outside South Africa.
  I hope that I have demonstrated that there are matters about which the House should be satisfied. I think that we were right to bring this subject to the Floor of the House because the Bill raises grave problems with which people are concerned about how business operates, how

  135
  companies registered in this country and companies registered in South Africa which may have British nationals within them, as with this company, are affected by the sanctions policy. What policy is the Commonwealth Office pursuing? It seems to me that by agreeing to the Bill the House would allow this company to get rid of any control or obligations which it may have and indulge in unfettered trade with Rhodesia, as it has done in the past. I have demonstrated that it had control of investments through the Chibuku Breweries.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, should he catch you eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will relate his experiences. I believe that there is cause for alarm and that the House would be wrong in agreeing to the Third Reading of the Bill.
  8.20 p.m.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am fortunate indeed to be able to take part in the debate at this early stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) rehearsed many of the problems and difficulties with which we have been confronted in trying to trace the history of this company. All the help that we were able to get came from the copy in the Library of Moodies.
  I want to deal with the effect of the first meeting of the Committee in calling upon the various Departments of State to submit memoranda on the whole issue. We have been very disturbed by the fact that in a matter of this kind there did not appear to be any memoranda from the various Departments. One would have thought that in view of the existing political situation with regard to Southern Rhodesia the Departments concerned would have done a little homework.
  The Bill went through three Government Departments. Presumably their legal advisers saw it, and particularly those in the Board of Trade, because it was this Department which sponsored a Companies Bill—which my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-west, Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) and myself were fortunate enough to be able to discuss in Committee—which amended the 1948 Companies Act. The Bill now before
  136
  us was considered in Committee, yet, having been through the legal department of the Board of Trade, it contained some of the provisions of the 1948 Act which had been repealed by the 1967 Act. That immediately made us suspicious about the amount of attention which had been given to it.
  We then received three memoranda from the Government Departments concerned. Paragraph 2 of the Treasury's Memorandum said:
  "If the effect of this Bill was to allow control of a Rhodesian company to pass from the United Kingdom to South Africa it would be contrary to the sanctions policy, but this is clearly not the case."
  Our comment on that is that formal and legal control of a British registered company will go to South Africa.
  We then received the longest and most amazing memorandum of all, that from the Board of Trade. It was a surprising document, for a variety of reasons, First, it argued ade facto situation. Then it argued ade jure situation. I submit that the argument was wrong on both counts. The Department then argued that it did not matter what happened, or whether this House passed the Bill or not because, if sanctions breaking had been going on, it would go on anyway, and therefore it did not really matter what the House decided one way or the other. That was perhaps the nastiest thing about the memorandum.
  Paragraph 2 says:
  "As the Bill makes clear, the company is administered and operates from South Africa … the major portion of its issued capital is held by shareholders resident in South Africa, and no part of its administration or activities is carried on in the United Kingdom."
  That is true, but many of the company's shareholders are in the United Kingdom. Their shares are quoted on the Stock Exchange in this country, and people would be free to invest in them. If this company went to South Africa and it was used as a vehicle to break sanctions, people in this country would benefit from the breaking of sanctions. My hon. Friend has made it clear that this could have the result of unfreezing moneys which the illegal régime controls at the moment, but equally there could be a free flow of money into Southern Rhodesia via South Africa.

  137
  In paragraph 3 of its memorandum the Board of Trade argues:
  "The legal position of the Rhodesian subsidiary company under the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order 1968, which applies to Rhodesian companies, will remain unchanged by the Bill."
  That is missing the point. The issue here is not what is the legal position of the subsidiary as a Rhodesian company, but the legal position of the parent company. South African Breweries, now registered in this country. I am sure that whoever was responsible for arguing first the practical and then the de jure will get a rocket.
  The Board of Trade goes on to say in paragraph 3:
  "It might at first sight appear that the transfer of the parent company to South African registration might facilitate collaboration between the parent company and its Rhodesian subsidiary, for example by enabling the former to give greater financial help to the latter."
  At first sight that might well be the case! But the memorandum goes on to say:
  "Whether the Bill will have this effect depends on the extent to which the parent company has in the past been inhibited by its liability under United Kingdom law. In view of the facts set out in the Preamble to the Bill, the Board does not consider that the parent company is likely to have been so inhibited or that any Government action in the United Kingdom purporting to control the company would have had or could in the future have, any practical effect on its actions in relation to Rhodesia."
  On the basis of that, because we cannot do anything if they are operating in this way in South Africa, it seems that they should be granted that extra facility of being able to do legally in South Africa what they could not do in this country because it would be illegal. Surely that is not the kind of principle on which legislation can be based? Has something slipped through the machine which means that my hon Friends on the Front Bench are now saddled with something which, in retrospect, they feel they cannot tolerate?
  In Committee I asked a number of questions about the organisation of the company. My hon. Friend talked about the various subsidiaries. I raised a matter in which I have been interested since reading Clive Jenkins on the Insiders, the question of interlocking directorships. I was pleased to see in the memorandum submitted by the agents for
  138
  the promoters of the Bill that reference is made to the fact that there are five Rhodesian and five South African directors on the board of the subsidiary company. According to the answers which I received from the chairman of the company, these five South African directors are executives of the South African company—not necessarily directors or large shareholders, but executives.
  I put the question to him, because he spoke of the autonomy of the company:
  "What would happen if South Rhodesian Breweries did something that you did not like? Would the great autonomy then operate?"
  I must paraphrase his reply because in this Committee we do not keep a record of all the proceedings. He said:
  "Well, we would be able to affect the issue. We would be able to see that the subsidiary did not get out of line."
  That was a reasonable sort of answer, and one which I had suspected that he would make. He was clearly indicating that the Rhodesian subsidiary, for all the talk of its having a wide degree of autonomy, is nevertheless as firmly under the control of the Board in South Africa as I.B.M. in the United Kingdom, for instance, is under the control of I.B.M. America.
  I therefore put one final question to the chairman of the company, and I hope that my hon. Friends will pay careful attention to it. I said:
  "Will you give an undertaking that no further investment will take place in Rhodesia until the illegal régime is replaced by a legitimate Government recognised by Her Majesty's Government?"
  I wrote down the words that I intended to use because I wanted to have a record of what I had asked. The chairman of the company could not give me that undertaking. If he could not give me that undertaking I do not feel that we could pass the Bill even if someone now came forward and said that such an undertaking would be given. I would feel that an undertaking given here tonight in those terms could be changed quite easily if the company went back.
  The chairman said that he could not give that undertaking without reference to his board. The important point is that if that undertaking could not be given at that time without reference to the board what was the board doing in asking us

  139
  to facilitate the passage of a Bill which would enable it to do so?
  Mr. Neil Marten: I have no interest in this company, but the chairman of the company cannot give an undertaking such as that by himself.
  Mr. McNamara: I agree. But the point is that one does not bring a highly contentious issue like that before a Committee of the House without being prepared to answer a question of that nature.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the offence was even greater, in the sense that the Committee had raised this very point at the earlier meeting and the chairman had come along to the later meeting to deal with that point. If he could not have obtained instructions from his board in the interim the matter could have been deferred for a later occasion.
  Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend has made my point. I shall conclude shortly so that we can hear the wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) and many of my other hon. Friends. If I can persuade enough of my hon. Friends to speak we may have a galaxy of speakers.
  I conclude with a statement made by the Commonwealth Secretary in respect of the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) Order in this House last week. He said:
  "The right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir Alec Douglas-Home), who opened the debate for the Opposition, asked about the position of British firms and their directors in Rhodesia. Perhaps I might put the matter on record since it is, I know, of great concern to many business undertakings. The Rhodesian subsidiaries of British registered companies are within the scope of the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order that we are discussing.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th July, 1968; Vol. 768, c. 1204.]
  It is my contention and the contention of my hon. Friends that we are speaking here of legal persons—that the South African Brewery Company is a legal person, and that we are in fact, by transferring this company—if we do it— to South Africa, taking out of the ambit of the authority of this House, however momentarily, the control of an important trading concern in Southern Rhodesia. Therefore, I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to reject the Bill.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The House owes a great deal of gratitude to my hon. Friends who, by their perspicacity and assiduous researches, have been able to show the real nature of this application. I am glad that they have forced a discussion of the matter on the Floor of the House because, within the permitted rules of order, it allows us to probe the attitude of the Board of Trade to this example of sanctions breaking.
  This company was incorporated in this country in 1895. Throughout its history, it has engaged in operations in South Africa and the southern part of Africa. Most of its operations are in, and most of its finance and workers come from, southern Africa. In 1951, management and direction of the company was almost completely controlled from South Africa, yet no move, between then and 1968, was made to transfer its registered office to South Africa. It is true that this is because they were not allowed by South African legislation to do so until 1967, but it is clear from the Memorandum of the supporters of the Bill that they were part of the pressure on the South African Government to introduce enabling legislation to allow this move.
  It is curious to notice that the move in South Africa was made in 1967, a year after sanctions had begun. Why, then, are we troubled with this Bill? Why are we being asked to allow this company to move its registered office to South Africa? The company say, "It is because, in South Africa, we are regarded as a foreign company, and our business interests suffer as a result." But this is a company with a capital of £15 million. This is a substantial organisation in southern Africa and it is said that its trade suffers because it is called a foreign company.
  Or is the real reason that this company recognises that, in fact and in law, whatever the Board of Trade thinks about it, it has been in breach of the original sanctions and is certainly in breach of the present sanctions Order? We cannot allow the argument that, "formally", this may be an English company but its operations are in South Africa. The legal persona is the British company because the registered offices are here. It is in breach of the sanctions Order,

  141
  not only in law but in fact. Why no prosecution has been made of the company I should like to know from my hon. Friend.
  It is not much good the Commonwealth Office saying—I applaud the Government for having said this—"Now we will be tough with Rhodesia and no effort will be spared in our sanctions policy," if a soft underbelly at the Board of Trade says, "Oh, well, if our interference with sanctions busting might upset South Africa, we will not bother, because, although formally the company's offices are in London, actually it is in South Africa." What greater reason for interfering? If it is true—the Government have throughout maintained this policy—that we cannot afford to apply sanctions to South Africa and we therefore accept a big loophole in the policy, what greater reason could there be for closing this little loophole which we can seize upon?
  But no. Far from prosecuting this company, the Government will help it to save a little money. The company could—if we pass the Bill—wind up its operations in this country and start a new company in South Africa, taking over all the assets of the existing company—at some cost, but not, I would have thought, a great cost, to the shareholders. The Board of Trade is so accommodating. It does not want to upset the shareholders in South Agrica by costing them a little of the profits. No, it will allow a Private Bill to go through the Houes of Commons to accommodate this company which, in fact and in law, is breaking sanctions.
  This just is not good enough. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, I hope that she will not be as tardy in her replies as, apparently were the witnesses from the company and certainly as the Board of Trade Memorandum was. Of all the inept language, that Memorandum is a classic. It should go down in the annals of Whitehall as one of the most singlarly inappropriate explanations of Government action ever put forward by a Government Department. It is intolerable that we should be conducting an open economic war with Rhodesia and then find that the Board of Trade is making this kind of accommodation for a company which
  142
  is engaged in this activity. I intend to vote against the Bill.
  Before I sit down—and I believe that this is in order—I want to ask why I am instructed under a two-line Whip to be here to support the Bill. This is a Private Bill, apparently nothing to do with the Government. Why has the Patronage Secretary—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is now out of order and I hope that he will come back into order. He may not discuss a three-line Whip or any other Whip on a private Bill.
  Mr. Lyons: I am obliged to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for bringing me back into order. Having made the point, I can move to the next point.
  The Government's conduct on this Bill is singularly unfortunate. I hope that it was no more than negligence that they did not apprehend the points which were later apprehended by my hon. Friend. I hope that it was negligence and that whoever was negligent will subsequently receive his due reward. If it were more than negligence, if in fact this were known by the Board of Trade, I have very serious doubts about the effectiveness of a sanctions policy applied by that Department.
  8.42 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dun-woody): Both my colleague at the Commonwealth Office and I have listened to several points raised specifically in connection with our Departmental responsibilities. It is my intention to intervene briefly on the purely legal arguments which the Board of Trade has deployed on the Bill and it is the intention of my hon. Friend from the Commonwealth Office to answer points raised in general on the question of the sanctions policy.
  The South African Breweries Bill provides for the transfer to South Africa of the registered offices of the South African Breweries, Ltd. and its wholly owned subsidiary, Ohlsson's Cape Breweries, Limited. Both companies are registered in Great Britain and are owned as to 75 per cent. of their issued capital by residents of South Africa. South African Breweries, Ltd. has 16 directors of whom 13 are

  143
  South African. There is one non-executive director who is a resident of the United Kingdom.
  There is no provision in the Companies Act for the transfer of a company's place of registration overseas. The normal procedure in such cases would be to wind up the company in Great Britain and to raise another company in the overseas country concerned. This procedure is complex and expensive and gives rise to legal difficulties, for instance with existing contracts, which would have to be redrawn. Several hon. Members have made the point that it is only recently that the company has endeavoured to move its registered offices, but it is only recently that South Africa has adopted legislation which would permit the transfer to that country of a company which is able under the legislation of the country of its existing registration, to transfer from that country without winding up.
  The South African Breweries, Ltd. desire to provide for such transfer from Great Britain. As far as the Board of Trade are aware, all the requirements of the Companies Acts necessary to obtain members' approval of the transfer have been complied with. With regard to control of the activities of the Rhodesian subsidiary company, this will effectively remain with the South African directors and the majority shareholders whether the company is registered in Great Britain, is wound up and is re-registered in South Africa or is transferred to South Africa under the provisions of the Bill. The Secretary of the South African Breweries, Ltd. has told the Board of Trade that if the Bill is unsuccessful the company, despite any inconvenience and expense, will be wound up and re-registered in South Africa.
  Some of the points raised in the debate will be dealt with in detail by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that memoranda should have been provided by the Board of Trade, the Commonwealth Office and the Treasury for the Committee stage of the Bill.
  As a Private Bill, it was for the promoters to secure that it was passed through Parliament and there was no obligation on the Department to provide memoranda if the Department did not
  144
  consider that it had an interest in promoting or opposing the Measure. This was the situation when the Bill went into Committee.
  Mr. Ben Whitaker: Would my hon. Friend agree equally that, as a Private Bill, the Government should not enforce the Whip and that there should be an absolutely free vote?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I gladly concur with the opinion of my hon. Friend. This is a Private Bill and any vote that there might be will be a free one.
  The memoranda that were asked for were submitted by the relevant Departments. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North then went into the question of the legal error in the Bill. I believe that he was referring to Clauses 4(2) and 5(2) as first presented. These Clauses related to fees payable for the registration of certain documents on the transfer of the company under the Companies Acts. Under the Companies Act, 1948, a fee of 5s. was payable for the registration of documents, but this was abolished in 1967. These Clauses were unnecessary and, accordingly, were deleted.
  My hon. Friend then said that he was concerned at the fact that we had used ade facto argument in Committee in the first half and ade jure argument in the second. The Board of Trade memorandum was concerned to say three things: first, that the formal transfer of the company to South Africa did not offend against the Government's policy on Rhodesia; secondly, that the transfer made no difference to the actions of the company—these points will be gone into in greater detail when my hon. Friend replies to the debate—and, thirdly, refusing to allow the company to be transferred would have no effect since it would wind up in the United Kingdom and start up again in South Africa. These considerations are partly concerned with the legal position and partly concerned with the company's removal. They are all relevant to the issue.
  We have listened with great attention to the arguments that have been adduced by hon. Members. I hope that I have dealt with the legal interpretations that the Board of Trade had in mind and I assure the House that my hon. Friend will

  145
  further elucidate the matter in relation to the Government's policy on sanctions.
  Mr. Edwin Brooks: Would my hon. Friend qualify a point on which many of us feel anxiety? Arising out of the serious charge made by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon), in which I understood him to be accusing this company of already having infringed Britain's sanctions policy, has the Board of Trade considered this possibility? If not, why not, and if it has, what conclusion has been reached?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: This matter has been considered, but there is no evidence that the Rhodesian subsidiary of this company, when we are talking about South African Breweries itself, infringed the laws of this country.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: If it is true, as the Chairman of the company accepted in cross-examination, that South African Breweries provided spirits to Rhodesian Breweries, is not that a breach of sanction?
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I would be prepared to consider this point, but I was not aware that this evidence had been given by the Chairman of the company. My understanding was that the assets of the Rhodesian company and the investments that it makes itself are financed privately, that moneys are raised in Rhodesia and that there is not any financial assistance from South African Breweries.
  Mr. Ellis: My hon. Friend may be unaware that when asked this question about spirits in connection with the Rhodesian company, the director made it clear that the company was free to buy from wherever it wanted, whether or not the source was the parent company. Perhaps it did buy spirits from the parent company in South Africa; and I think that that is likely.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: I confess that I was not aware of this. I hope that hon. Members will give me an opportunity to investigate the matter because it may appear that, in this instance, the company might have been in breach of some of the later aspects of the legal sanctions policy; but I would prefer my hon. Friend to deal with the matter in greater detail when he replies to the debate and comments on the subject of sanctions.
  8.50 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock): Like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, I want now to reply very briefly to the debate. I cannot help feeling that much of the heat that has been engendered has. been engendered because hon. Members have felt that this was a Government Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is, of course, a Private Bill, for which the Government claim no responsibility at all. But I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) on their diligence in seeking to pounce upon anything which they feel might lead in the end to sanctions breaking. However, I think that they have over-estimated our power over South African Breweries, because it is a company that is registered here. Its presence here is formal, and our power over it is quite formal.
  In general, our policy is to prevent Rhodesian companies from passing out of British control, but experience has shown that the fact that the parent company is registered in London, or is even genuinely owned here, does not necessarily mean that the actions of its Rhodesian subsidiaries can be influenced. In the present instance, effective control has rested in South Africa since 1951. All the company's operations take place there, and the major portion of the capital is held there. The company has no assets in this country at all, and if the Bill were rejected the company would merely take steps to wind up its affairs here and recommence operations in South Africa, although that would cause it certain inconveniences.
  In other words, this Bill is virtually an adoption provision: instead of the company being a child of an English Statute it would, if the Bill were passed, become the child of a South African Statute. Consequently, it would not be subject to our jurisdiction—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to make my point. Consequently, the company would no longer be subject to our jurisdiction in respect of acts committed outside the territorial limits of our jurisdiction. In so far as the company has no assets in the United Kingdom, our present jurisdiction is limited to the power

  147
  to wind it up if it were not to pay a fine imposed for some hypothetical breach of sanctions regulations—
  Mr. Whitaker: Is my hon. Friend saying that these people are guilty of an offence but that there are no assets to sequestrate to enforce the fine?
  Mr. Whitlock: Not at all. It is my hon. Friends who are saying that there might be a breach of sanctions regulations. All I am saying is that under the present regulations our jurisdiction is limited to the power to wind up a company in the event of some hypothetical breach of the sanctions regulations. That is all I am saying.
  Mr. Ellis: I must press this point. We asked for this assurance, about whether it would not indulge in trade with Rhodesia in the future, and we never got a satisfactory answer.
  Mr. Whitlock: We have no evidence at all of the breaking of previous sanctions regulations. The company has not traded in the prohibited sectors so far and we have no evidence of the company investing in Rhodesia. As to any financial aspect of the company's emigration to South Africa, the Treasury consented to control being transferred to South Africa in 1951, since when it has for fiscal purposes been a resident of South Africa. The only practical effect of rejecting this Bill would be to prevent the company taking a particular course in the knowledge that other courses are open to it for the same ends. I hope that my hon. Friends will understand that in full.
  It is suggested that one result of the transfer of South African Breweries registration from London to South Africa would be to enable Rhodesia Breweries to transfer its frozen assets to South Africa. That is likely to be one result of the transfer of registration. My hon. Friends might like to consider the view that it is better for those funds to be made available to individual shareholders, be they British shareholders or South African shareholders, than to allow those funds to be frozen in Rhodesia where they are at present at the disposal of the trustee of blocked funds who could dispose of them in the manner the
  148
  illegal régime will decide to the best advantage of that regime.
  Mr. McNamara: I realise that my hon. Friend has a very difficult part to play here. Is he aware that in the Committee the Chairman of the company said that the actual part of the profits of the Rhodesian concern were infinitesimal and the company would not be bothered about them? But is he also aware that if in fact they are unfrozen there is a vast area in which funds could pour into Southern Rhodesia and through the actual mechanics of the market they could be invested in South Africa? Once the money had arrived in South Africa we would have no control over it.
  Mr. Whitlock: That may be true but the position is very much along those lines now. The whole case is that if this House does not allow this Bill to pass through, the South African Breweries will take steps to ensure that what the Bill seeks to achieve will in any case be achieved by another method.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: I should like to join in the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) to the diligence and assiduity with which my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Ellis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, North—[Laughter.] I must explain that I have not been indulging in the products of South African Breweries. I have been carried away by the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). In paying tribute to my hon. Friends I draw a sharp distinction between the work they have done on this Bill and the cursory examination to which it has been subjected by the Board of Trade.
  Had it not been for the work of my two hon. Friends, this Bill would probably have slipped through the House on the nod, in spite of what we have heard of this disgraceful state of affairs. I shall not vote for the Bill, for two reasons. The first is because it is clear from what has been said by my two hon. Friends that the promoters have been less than frank with the House. It

  149
  may be that their attitude has not amounted to a contempt of this House but to a contumacious attitude to the inquiries which my hon. Friends sought to make on this issue. I draw attention to the fact that the Chairman arrived at one of the Sittings of the Committee and was not briefed on the very important question of what would happen if the Southern Rhodesia elements of this company decided to take certain action not in accord with the wishes of this House.
  The second reason is that I am not satisfied from what my two hon. Friends on the Front Bench have said that we shall not in some way be assisting in breaking sanctions by passing this Bill. It is all very well for them to say that the passage of the Bill will have little effect because there are other avenues in which the promoters can seek their desired end, but this House should not in any way give the semblance of approval, or even assist the passage of a Bill which would give assistance, to the illegal régime in Rhodesia.
  Dr. John Dunwoody: Would not my hon. Friend agree that a most serious effect of passing the Bill would be to create a precedent which this House subsequently would find very difficult to resist?
  Mr. Roebuck: I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend has said. I make this criticism, in conclusion, of my two hon. Friends on the Front Bench. They have been at great pains to tell us that this is not a Government Bill, but we have had no firm expression from them of the Government's attitude towards the Bill. We do not know whether they are neutral, or whether, purely for the sake of administrative or bureaucratic convenience, they are prepared to see the Bill go through. I urge all my hon. Friends to vote against the Measure, even if there are other avenues available to the company, as an expression of disapproval of the illegal régime in Rhodesia and our determination to do nothing whatsoever to give it comfort.
  Question put and negatived.

  PRICES AND INCOMES
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. Terence L. Higgins: I beg to move,
  That the Prices and Incomes (General Considerations) Order 1968 (S.I., 1968, No. 616), dated 16th April 1968, a copy of which was laid before this House on 22nd April, be withdrawn.
  It may well be that in debating the Motion the House will experience a sense of deja vu, a sense of having been here before, since in many respects it is similar to the Prices and Incomes (General Considerations) Order, 1967, which we debated a year ago. The object both of this Order and of the one which preceded it is in essence to change the prices and incomes criteria against which the Government's policy will be enforced in relation to prices and incomes. That is to say, it alters the criteria which need to be taken into account when it is attempted to justify either a price or a wage increase.
  When I look opposite at the Parliamentary Secretary, who, I am glad to learn, is to reply to the debate, I get a sense of nostalgia for the many debates we have had on previous Prices and Incomes Orders, although it is unfortunate that we should have abandoned the procedure which applied to Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966. I do not think it is unfortunate that we lost Part IV, but it is unfortunate that the procedure whereby we debated these matters fairly rapidly after they came into effect has been lost, and now, whether it be on an Order affecting a group of workers or a price, instead of being able to debate it fairly rapidly, have to delay for some considerable time. The House will have noticed that some time has elapsed before we have had an opportunity of debating the Order, which is not concerned with a particular case, but with the criteria which shall apply to all the various cases which may arise under the Government's present Act.
  A number of points need to be made in general terms. We have always maintained that the compulsory prices and incomes policy is undoubtedly ineffective. It is extremely unfair on certain groups, and at certain stages it tends to be counter-productive. It is, therefore, important that, when we come to consider

  151
  the Order and the criteria which it embodies, we should look at it in terms of a long-term prices and incomes policy. That is to say, we should not look at it as a temporary expedient, as we have on former occasions, but in the light of a policy which has continued for some years and which is likely to continue for some time yet, on the Government's own admission.
  The fact of the matter is that the whole charade, which arose originally when the policy was adopted in a compulsory form, that somehow it was something that we would have to endure only for a short time, and where we had the Prime Minister saying on television that there was no question of further legislation, and so on, has been given up. It is stated clearly in the Government's White Paper that it is proposed to take the powers for 18 months and that these criteria shall now apply possibly for that period and may then be renewed.
  It is interesting that the Prime Minister, speaking in a different context on 13th May, said again that they would not be renewed without further legislation. This is very much a case of once bitten twice shy. We do not attach much importance to the Prime Minister's remarks in this respect, because the Government's word has been broken time and time again on whether this policy will or will not be perpetuated. Somehow, they always find a reason for feeling that it is something which ought to be perpetuated time and time again.
  I want to turn from that point and look at the criteria in the light of our experience over the last three and a half years, in which time we have passed from the halcyon days of the Declaration of Intent, where everyone was agreeable with the then First Secretary and the Department of Economic Affairs that a prices and incomes policy was a good thing and that we could all agree on the criteria, to a situation where reaction to the whole subject of a prices and incomes policy has grown increasingly antagonistic.
  Although paragraph 4 of this Order says that there shall be consultation with the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. and that the Government needs to take account of the various interests involved under the prices
  152
  and incomes legislation, as they must, the fact is that there has been very little agreement on this policy which the Government are determined to push through come what may.
  I turn now to the criteria, and I want to look at them in the light of the fact that the policy is likely to continue for some time, and has already. The temporary criteria are obviously not justified and are likely to have adverse effects if they are perpetuated for a considerable length of time. The Order this year extends the scope of the criteria to dividends, reductions in prices, rents, and awards of wages councils and agricultural wages boards. I wish to make some reference to that extension but, before doing that, I want to consider the basic criteria affecting the main areas of incomes and prices.
  It is worth while looking for a moment at the appraisal which one can make of the present policy. I am distressed to find that it is still the case that a number of reputable journals such as the Economist and other sources of information such as the National Institute for Economic and Social Research still feel that it is wrong to oppose a statutory incomes policy. On a previous occasion, the Parliamentary Secretary has called in aid the National Institute's Review of February of this year, arguing that it said that it would be a good thing to have a statutory incomes policy.
  What really happened was strange. The Institute started by saying:
  "If an incomes policy can be devised which is strong enough to reduce the rise in weekly earnings from 6½ to 4½ per cent., there is a strong case for using it."
  The crucial word is "if". The National Institute then went on to carry out a very thorough analysis in which it concluded that the statutory policy had had very little effect over and above that which might be due to natural forces. It even concluded that the statutory policy had had less effect than the policy adopted by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) on a previous occasion, when statutory powers were not invoked, although undoubtedly a strong line was taken in the public sector. Having reached this conclusion, the National Institute went on to say that none the less it felt that a statutory policy was a good thing and that it even ought to be intensified.

  153
  I direct to the Parliamentary Secretary's attention this extraordinary line of thought of the National Institute: first, that it would be a good thing if it could be done; secondly, that it does not work; thirdly, that we ought to have more of it. This is something which needs to be brought out, because it is dangerous that one should have got into the frame of mind where somehow it is fashionable to support a statutory prices and incomes policy.
  On the other hand, the Brookings Report on the British Economy, looking particularly at criteria of the kind embodied in the Order, takes a far less optimistic view than that taken by the National Institute and, indeed, increasingly questions whether, as time passes, this kind of policy and the adoption of the kind of criteria which are embodied in the Order do not in fact have an adverse rather than a favourable effect on the general state of the economy and on the ability of the economy to progress and on the ability of the economy to be conducted on an even keel.
  It is clear that, apart from the question of investment, which tends to be controlled in other ways, the Order is an attempt to extend the powers and the criteria to almost every aspect of our economic life. This is something which we on this side cannot view with favour. We think that it should be opposed.
  The Order alters Schedule II to the 1966 Act, instead of its altering the legislation which was pushed through the House earlier this year. The criteria are, by the Order, incorporated into the parent Act. It is extraordinary that, in relation to a policy which is supposed to be generally comprehensible, which small manufacturers are supposed to understand, and which members of trade unions are supposed to understand, we cannot tell what the position is on any particular price change or wage increase unless we have before us the 1966 Act, the 1967 Act, the 1968 Act, and this Order. This is not a satisfactory way of legislating.
  In Committee this year my hon. Friends stressed very strongly that they thought that it was right and proper that the criteria should be incorporated into the current legislation as part of this year's Act. This has not happened. Therefore, this evening we must debate
  154
  the criteria which will amend the parent Act. There are three main criteria on which I want to concentrate. The first is the quantitative criterion. Under the Order there is to be a 3½ per cent. ceiling, provided that the various qualitative criteria for wage increases are met, but further increases above that 3½ per cent. ceiling are to be allowed in the case of productivity agreements. Secondly, there are the qualitative criteria for wage increases. Thirdly, there are the qualitative criteria for prices. On top of those, there are the various extended criteria to which I have already referred.
  This Order, which it is proposed to incorporate into legislation, is a very unsatisfactory piece of drafting. I am not well versed in the technicalities of these matters, but there seems to be a peculiar situation here; we are writing into a parent Act references to matters outside the scope of the Act itself. It is at least arguable, for example, whether references to family allowances and such matters in the Schedule to the Order ought to be incorporated in legislation which did not originally go anywhere near referring to family allowances. The reference to family allowances arises in connection, for example, with lowest-paid workers, but there was no reference to family allowances in the parent Act. That is a technical point which we should look into and, perhaps, return to on a later occasion.
  There are other paragraphs taken from the White Paper which now form part of the Order which are no more than platitudinous statements of what the Government hope will happen, without any direct reference to the basic criteria in the Order at all. Moreover, in paragraph 20 we have this sentence:
  "The goods and services to which these arrangements"—
  that is, the early warning arrangements—
  "currently apply are listed in Part A of Appendix I, and, as announced in Parliament recently, the Government are in consultation with industry on the addition of further items to this list".
  That is an extraordinary passage in the present context. We are asked to include in a Schedule to an existing Act wording which refers to a recent statement in the House about which the Government may have something to say later. It is bad craftsmanship gone mad,
  155
  and it arises from the extraordinary way in which the Schedule was originally incorporated in the 1966 Act and the amendments made to it subsequently.
  I come now to the criteria. Apparently, we have a nil norm for most sectors of income, but if the qualitative criteria are met one can have up to 3½ per cent., and in the case of what the Prime Minister called copper-bottomed productivity agreements there may be increases allowed above that. What are the qualitative criteria for incomes? They appear on page 7 and can be summarised as the productivity criterion, the mobility criterion, the lowest-paid worker criterion and the "out of line with other workers" or comparability criterion.
  The fundamental point here is that none of these criteria makes any allowance for a change in the demand for a particular kind of labour. The Brook-ings Institute pointed out in its study of the United Kingdom economy that, if one concentrates only upon cost questions, without reference to what happens to changes in demand, one will be unlikely to produce a reasonable distri-tion of economic resources. This may be bad enough in the short run, but if the policy is perpetuated year after year, distortion of this kind, which means that one does not allow for a particular industry wanting more labour in one area and less in another, will have greater and greater adverse effects on the economy.
  Paragraph 32 presents another innovation, relating the question of national bargains to plant bargains. It says:
  "In considering increases settled at national level account must be taken of probable increases at local, company and plant level; conversely, increases in rates settled at the plan level should take account of relevant increases settled at other levels."
  I do not need to ask the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite who have consistently opposed the policy, at any rate in its incomes and wages aspect, "How on earth is anyone at plant level to know what will happen at national level, and how is anyone settling the wage bargain at national level to know what is likely to happen at this or that plant, where a special arrangement about productivity, working hours or whatever it may be is likely to take
  156
  place? "Such a paragraph shows the complete unreality of the Government's policy and shows how they are divorced from the real way in which bargaining takes place throughout the country. That is only one example.
  Similarly, on the question of comparability, paragraph 38 says:
  "The criterion justifying increases on grounds of comparability needs to be applied selectively, and must not be used to spread pay increases into areas of employment where the original justification does not apply."
  What does that mean? Either there is a case for comparability or there is not. We need to know a little more from the Parliamentary Secretary about applying the criterion selectively.
  I turn to what I think are now generally recognised as the two main criteria: the questions of the lowest paid worker and of productivity bargaining. We on this side of the House have always had doubts about whether the answer to our industrial problem is all the time to narrow wage and salary differentials. It has always seemed to us that the right solution to the problem of the lowest paid workers is to get them out of the industries which are lowest paid. This will not necessarily be brought about by the kind of policy the Government advocate.
  The last two lines of page 7 state:
  "It will be necessary to ensure that increases under the low pay criterion are confined to low paid workers."
  One might think that that was a reasonable point of view. One might also think it unnecessary to put that sentence in, but it brings out the point that the Government have never defined what is meant by low paid workers. Quite how we are to interpret this fascinating sentence is likely to remain something of a mystery.
  The whole essence of the Government's policy has been the idea that there must be an increase in productivity, and that the policy is likely to bring it about. We on this side of the House had grave doubts about that, and the Prices and Incomes Order on the Birmingham car delivery drivers, which we debated some time ago, gave us good grounds for those doubts. There was then an agreement whereby a car delivery driver not only delivered a car to the docks but took an imported car from there to its

  157
  destination, or used a season ticket if tha was not possible. As a result of the Government's banging an order on the Birmingham car delivery drivers, productivity went down, and the Government never decided, month in and month out, whether or not it was a genuine productivity agreement, or whether the drivers should have legal action taken against them under the prices and incomes criteria.
  It remains the case that paragraph 34(i) does not spell out any of the complexities, nor does Appendix II, based on the National Board for Prices and Incomes guidelines for productivity agreements, give us a sufficient basis for working out the effects of productivity agreements. It does not take account of the question of demand.
  On page 7, in particular, emphasis is placed on the need to apply the criteria firmly. It is very important to ask, therefore, whether the Government are applying the criteria in the Order to wage levels in the nationalised industries.
  There was a fascinating article in the Economist on 13th July headed "Wrecked at Penzance." It referred to the recent rail dispute.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I am confused about which of the Economist articles the hon. Gentleman accepts and which he rejects. Can he give the dates of those that he finds unacceptable and the dates of those that he finds acceptable so that we shall understand how he is discriminating about these things?
  Mr. Higgins: I am not being the least bit discriminating. I am saying that the Economist on the whole has tended to support a statutory prices and incomes policy. Whenever it does so, the Opposition are under the impression that it is misguided. This has occurred in a number of articles over the last three years. But from time to time in its enthusiasm for the statutory policy the Economist rightly gets very annoyed if the Government themselves do not stick to their policy. There is nothing inconsistent in either the Economist attitude or my attitude. Those who are being inconsistent in this respect are the Government. They bring an Order before us and we debate it, it sets down certain
  158
  criteria, and the Government are not sticking to them. I should have thought that it was a perfectly reasonable attitude for me or the Economist to adopt.
  At all events, in an article on 13th July the Economist says:
  "It is now apparent that both British Rail and ministers were making promises to the nation which they had not got the resolution to keep."
  It goes on
  "even this week, even after the pass had been sold, the Minister of Transport, Mr. Richard Marsh, was telling the Commons that the Government had not intervened in the dispute, that the surrender at Penzance was in accord with the incomes policy, and that it will not involve the Government in eventually handing out even more financial help to the railways. It will be serious if Mr. Marsh, who is really a serious Minister, has anaethetised himself into believing his own canards. Let each of these statements therefore be most specifically contradicted."
  It goes on—it is concerned with the criteria in this matter—to say:
  "Mr. Marsh professes confidence that the unions are anxious to sign a productivity agreement".
  But the fact is that the arrangements have been made without the productivity deal being concluded. If there is one thing that we have been told time and time again it is that the Government policy is that it is no good saying that one is going to have a productivity agreement; it is a question of whether one has actually got it, and if not, one cannot get a wage increase—unless it is a nationalised industry.
  Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman must make clear to the House whether he, on behalf of the Conservative Opposition, is objecting to the policy being broken and punctured or to the policy itself. He cannot be arguing both cases at the same time.
  Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman always makes interventions of this kind and poses questions of the type "Have you stopped beating your wife? I do not accept this. I do not think there is anything inconsistent in my attitude or the attitude of the Economist.
  I quote one short passage more:
  "Last weekend thus spread the impression to the world that the Government does not believe in its own incomes policy (or, as far as Mrs. Castle and Mr. Marsh are concerned, apparently even understand what it is)."

  159
  On this side of the House we have always regarded the statutory policy as one which is in many ways simply a gimmick —I shall return to that in a few moments —whether or not it has any quantitative effect on the economy.
  With regard to prices, there has been no allowance in the criteria in the Order for what happens with regard to demand for particular goods or services. If the policy is to go on year in year out without taking account of changes in demand and consumer preferences, the distortions that one brings into the economy and the ways in which one freezes the pattern of production are likely to be very much greater.
  I refer briefly to what I can only describe as the Government's post-devaluation schizophrenia, the way in which the Government have fallen between saying, on the one hand, "We must let prices rise because this will cut down demand and release resources for export," and, on the other hand "Whatever happens, we must not have any increases in prices because it will affect the cost of living."
  I was amused by a statement of the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity last weekend, when she said that we must not go back to the position we had a little while ago in which we could not keep prices down but incomes went up and then we had a situation in which imports were sucked in. This statement was originally made some years ago by one of my right hon. Friends. This point has finally got over to the Secretary of State, for which I am very grateful. But the Government are still adopting the attitude which came out clearly in an answer which the right hon. Lady gave to a supplementary question a few weeks ago on the question of devaluation. The Government are now saying that if the costs of imports and raw materials have gone up because of devaluation, price increases are justified. But if we ask what the situation is concerning price increases by a domestic producer of the same goods, the right hon. Lady says that in no circumstances could devaluation be allowed to justify a price increase.
  But if we allow imported goods to go up in price and, therefore, the demand for the goods of the domestic producer increases, this surely justifies an increase in
  160
  the price of the goods of the domestic producer. If we do not allow that to happen, in the short run profitability and investment does not go up in import-substitute-producing industries and, therefore, we do not get in the long run either the import substitution effect or the long run reduction in prices which is justified. I therefore hope that the Minister appreciates that account needs to be taken of that point in relation to the producer of import substitutes. But certainly there is no allowance for this in the Order.
  I wish to relate this to the public sector. While there is a series of criteria set out in the Order, there is no clear indication of whether the Government are adopting the same criteria for the nationalised industries. Many of us will have received in the post this morning a notification of the new inland letter service and the changes to be made in postal rates which effectively make a considerable increase in the costs of postal services. Although we are told that the service will not be any worse, we shall have to pay 5d. instead of 4d.—[Interruption.]—and my hon. Friend may well be right in saying, "Thank goodness for that." This amounts to a substantial increase in price quite outside the criteria set down in the White Paper, which limits increases to 3½ per cent.
  The same is true about the extraordinary procedure concerning telephone charges in which the simpler system has been adopted of blanking off the bottom line of the slot machine. But, whether one considers telephone and postal charges or electricity and gas prices, the fact remains that the Government are asking us to adopt a set of criteria for price increases which they do not rigorously apply, despite the fact that they are trying to keep down incomes and are saying that the position is such that they should be firmly applied across the board.
  I wish to say a few words about the quantitative effect of these criteria and to refer particularly to an interesting statement of the Under-Secretary of State during the Third Reading of the Prices and Incomes Bill on 27th June. He said, when referring to the effect which we might expect of the Government's compulsory policy:
  "… during the next 18 months effective demand may be held back by 1, 1½ or 2 per cent. …

  161
  Its outcome will, perhaps, be a reduction of effective demand of about £200 million."
  We accept that that is the hon. Gentleman's view, and, one presumes, the view of the Government, though the Chancellor of the Exchequer has always refused to say what allowance he made in his Budget calculations for the effect of the Prices and Incomes policy. It was therefore interesting to hear that statement, and I shall be fascinated to hear whether the hon. Gentleman repeats it, and whether he can confirm that the Chancellor made that interesting quantitative allowance when he made his Budget judgment. The extraordinary thing is that the hon. Gentleman went on to say:
  "To me and, I believe, to many of my right hon. Friends, this"—
  that is the Statutory incomes policy—
  "is a far more pallatable way of doing it"—
  that is capital aggregate demand—
  "than any of the other measures."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1968; Vol. 767, c. 894–5.]
  which the Government are taking.
  The fact is that not only are we saddled with this prices and incomes policy, but with the other measures, and we on this side of the House have grave doubts about the effectiveness of this policy. We believe that the criteria in this Order, if taken over a long period, will have an adverse, and not a favourable effect on the economy as a whole. Given that that is so, and given that perhaps the policy will seem to work because of the high level of unemployment that we have, none the less the policy is a failure. We believe that it ought to be condemned, and we shall register our opposition in the Lobby this evening.
  9.37 p.m.
  Mr. Trevor Park: The purpose of the Order which is being prayed against is to lay down terms of reference as guidelines for the Prices and Incomes Board when it considers matters referred to it by Government Departments. It is not my wish unduly to take up the time of the House. Many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, and I shall therefore confine myself to Section III of the White Paper which deals with incomes, and I shall hope to show why I believe that this section, whatever one may think of
  162
  other sections, constitutes a totally inadequate and potentially dangerous way of attempting to implement an incomes policy.
  By laying down an arbitrary ceiling of 3½ per cent. on increases in incomes, and by declaring that increases even below that ceiling shall be subject to rigid and inflexible control, the Government are denying both to themselves and to the Prices and Incomes Board any degree of discretion, any quality of adaptability, and any bargaining initiative. One reason why the conciliation facilities of the old Ministry of Labour were so highly regarded on both sides of industry was precisely because that Ministry was able to deploy qualities of that kind. Because its hands were not tied by detailed frameworks of reference, it was able to suggest to the parties to a dispute new lines of approach and new ways of looking at the question in issue.
  In doing so it could very often point the way to a settlement whereby industrial strife could be avoided and both parties could feel that their case had been partly, if not completely met. These are the very facilities which the Department of Employment and Productivity is now throwing away and, instead of acting as a mediator, my right hon. Friend the First Secretary prefers the rôle of a participant. Instead of producing a formula for the settlement of disputes she is now going to take the risk of inflaming and intensifying them by insisting that all agreements shall be consistent with an arbitrary framework which she claims the sole right not only to lay down but to interpret.
  If this policy were carried to its logical conclusion every industrial dispute could become a political one and every strike a strike not against the employer but against the Government. Is that really what the Government want? It might not be their intention but there is no doubt that this will be the effect.
  I want to give one example of my case—the example of the municipal busmen. Last week the municipal busmen and their employers had reached an agreement which was satisfactory to both sides. It was rejected by the Government because the Department took the view that the agreement failed to conform to the criteria laid down in the White

  163
  Paper. As a result we are now confronted with the imminent danger of a national bus strike, with all its consequences in terms of inconvenience to the public and loss of production and wealth to the nation. I profoundly hope that there is still time to prevent that strike taking place, but if it does take place the busmen, their employers and the public generally will be in no doubt what has caused it. The Government will have blocked the agreement, and the Government will get the blame.
  I suggest that where, as in the case of the municipal busmen, there is a group of workers whose basic rates are below £13 a week and whose take-home pay is brought above this only by means of overtime or rest day working, and where the workers have been subject to standstill Orders under the Prices and Incomes Acts not once but three times in the last two years, there is a case for specially favourable treatment under the Government's incomes policy. Instead, the Government choose to make the busmen their major victims.
  Earlier this year, in Liverpool, there took place one of the longest passenger transport strikes that has ever taken place. It was caused by the Government's policy. At the same time that the dispute was taking place increases in wages for dockers and tugboat men involving not the £1 of the busmen's claim but amounts of about £3 10s. a week were agreed upon with their employers. There was no reference to the Prices and Incomes Board in respect of the dockers and tugboat men, and there was no standstill under the Prices and Incomes Acts.
  It is no part of my case to suggest that these increases were not deserved; I believe that they were. But I maintain that after the Prices and Incomes Board had ruled against the municipal busmen's claim on the ground that they were not lower-paid workers the logic of the Government in making no reference in the case of much bigger increases for workers already on higher rates makes no sense whatsoever.
  Its only possible explanation lies in the need for all settlements to conform with such a rigid, contradictory and inconsistent set of criteria that at the end
  164
  of it all those whom we are told are intended to be the chief beneficiaries of the incomes policy are held up and those who are already in a stronger position are given the green light.
  It is for these reasons that I cannot support the Order. If the Government really want the incomes policy to succeed, and if they want to recruit the support of the trade unions to work out some system of priorities in wage bargaining and the distribution of the social product, the best thing that they can do with the White Paper is not to refer it to the Prices and Incomes Board, but to tear it up, and to make a new start on the basis of voluntary discussion and agreement. In the end, this will be a position which the Government will be compelled to accept. I hope that they will have the common sense to accept it now, before the bitterness and the disillusion which has already begun is allowed to extend any further.
  9.46 p.m.
  Mr. John Biffen: We are debating this evening a major instrument of Government economic policy and I know that the Under-Secretary will be anxious to cover the many questions which are sure to arise. I have little to say, but it will be in the form of two questions about two paragraphs in the White Paper, as well as two general philosophical observations with which I will not expect him to agree. I will not feel particularly affronted if he chooses to disregard them, provided he can deal with all the specific questions which will come from both sides of the House.
  The first point about the White Paper which interested me particularly, especially relating it to the now pending series of wage negotiations, was the remark in paragraph 37:
  "Moreover there can be above-ceiling increases for low paid workers under a settlement which, though covering a wider group of workers, is within the ceiling."
  A fair interpretation of that is that the move towards equal pay in the engineering industry between men and women, which we now see accelerating, is, presumably, regarded by the Government as coming within the disciplines of that paragraph.
  It is important that we should know this, because it means that the move

  165
  towards equal pay presumably comes within the category of increases of up to 3½ per cent. Inasmuch as they are redistributed, it will be within that discipline of 3½ per cent., to the advantage of women and the disadvantage of men. In other words, the move towards equal pay will have to be made at the expense of men's rates and earnings within that discipline. I should like confirmation on that point.
  Second, I refer to paragraph 32, which is particularly interesting in relation to the national engineering settlement—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is nowhere near a settlement."]—No, I agree; it is nowhere near a settlement, and it will not facilitate a settlement if we get a specific answer from the Under-Secretary, but all those who will negotiate that settlement will want this question clearly and decisively answered, so that the engineering claim is not subject to last-minute Government intervention, with all the bitterness which that might occasion.
  Paragraph 32 says:
  "Changes in rates or scales may be settled at national, local, firm or plant level, but … the application of the ceiling requires that the overall increases should not exceed the 3½ per cent. ceiling."
  The present national negotiation in the engineering industry clearly foreshadows a series of local plant settlements to follow. Indeed, I am certain that the experience of many hon. Members on both sides would suggest that this is inevitable. Many people would say that it is particularly welcome.
  Have the Government any idea of the extent to which they see the 3½ per cent. being pre-empted by the national negotiations and how much is to be left for application to local settlements? They must know from past experience of engineering awards what are the consequences of a national settlement and what are the local implications. The Undersecretary must make it clear, if only for those who have to conduct national negotiations, the extent to which they feel that the 3½ per cent. has to be reduced to take account of the local settlements which they think will follow from the national agreement, when it is negotiated.
  May I turn to two general philosophic speculations about the White Paper and the policy? The political manipulation of incomes is a highly unpopular system,
  166
  as the Under-Secretary finds whenever it is debated and as he is always reminded by hon. Members behind him. As a result of this, the Government are obliged to engage in what I regard as something not very moral—almost near-bucket-shop salesmanship for this policy.
  Mr. Stanley Henig: Oh.
  Mr. Biffen: I know that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) would not know a bucket shop if he saw one.
  I am thinking in particular of the claim that this policy promotes the interests of lower-paid workers. There is, again, a reference to that in paragraph 8 of the White Paper which says that
  "There must be protection for the poorer sections of the community".
  It is often asserted by the Government that this policy of Government intervention results in relative improvements in pay for those who are at the lower end of the incomes scale. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park) is rightly sceptical of that claim.
  I was particularly interested the other day to read an article which appeared in the Poverty Action Group Magazine by Mr. John Hughes, of Ruskin College, Oxford, who discussed "Low Pay and Incomes Policy". That was the title of his article. I will quote only his conclusions. Doubtless the Under-Secretary is aware of the body of the argument. He concluded:
  "If incomes policy is viewed, as it should be, in its combination with other Government economic policies bearing upon the position of the low paid worker, the balance that results from the last three years in an adverse one for the low paid."
  That is not the judgment of Aims of Industry but of someone from Ruskin College and it is an argument which deserves some attention from the Undersecretary.
  The second point of philosophic observation which I want to make concerns paragraph 43 and the idea that productivity is the one way whereby one can escape from the squirrel's cage of this policy and the disciplines which it involves. Let us for one moment enter the temple of the high priest himself—Mr. Aubrey Jones and the National Board for Prices and Incomes. This becomes a test case. Only recently my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) by dint

  167
  of Questions, discovered that the National Board for Prices and Incomes was paying 8 per cent. more for secretarial hired people than a year ago. Secretarial rates of pay have been referred to the Board. They know all about it. But they are still paying 8 per cent. more. One is troubled by this. There are 40 per cent. more of them employed besides the Board paying 8 per cent. more per employee. Is this policy justified by the productivity of the National Board for Prices and Incomes? How do we judge the Board's productivity? Is it by the number of reports— the mere counting of words? No, it is not such an unskilled exercise as that. I assume that it is the quality of the reports.
  We do not know much about the quality of the P.I.B. reports. Certainly they receive astringent comment from people who are often in a position to judge; namely, those who know a great deal more about the subjects under inquiry than Mr. Aubrey Jones and his staff. However, we have no idea how much work has gone into each report, how much has been paid to the consultants who are hired to produce them, and so on. There is no way in which we can test the productivity of the P.I.B.. although we know that its staff has increased, as has the pay of its staff, on a scale which must make the busmen envious.
  Although I choose this rather piquant example of productivity at work, we know of the difficulties that there are in the service industries to measure productivity and how the so-called arguments for productivity become more difficult to justify particularly for those in low-paid employment—hospitals and so on—compared with those employed in manufacturing industry. This makes one sceptical of the way in which the word "productivity" is tossed around in such specific terms as though it has the language of being watertight, copper-bottomed and stringently tested. The Chancellor must know every qualification of productivity by heart. Hardly a weekend goes by without a Ministerial statement saying that there must be genuine productivity. Where is the genuine productivity in the work of Mr. Aubrey Jones and his staff?
  The opening paragraph of the White Paper says:
  168
  "We now have a real basis for putting our balance of payments into substantial surplus."
  Presumably, a real basis exists because the exchange rate has been altered. The Government have been driven to recognise the price mechanism, but they are unwilling to accept the implications of a price mechanism, which is to allow it to operate freely in the domestic market, which is the one sure way of making certain that devaluation works.
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley Orme: As has been said, this Order writes the White Paper into what one might describe as the folk law of the prices and incomes policies to have been mounted since the original Measure of 1966. This is, in a way, an extremely important item, because it will be used as the background criteria on which the Government will either submit a case to the P.I.B. or hold up a settlement. This is, therefore, the criteria which will cover prices, charges, incomes, rents, rates and all other issues.
  It is surprising to note that, while paragraph 34 of the Instrument contains the criteria by which increases may be allowed—virtually anything could get through this criteria; one could justify almost any case, including those which are at present being stopped—paragraph 27 deals with restraints and is more rigid. It concludes by saying:
  "In addition the Government have decided that for all wage and salary settlements reached on or after 20th March, 1968, which satisfy these criteria and considerations, there will be a ceiling of 3½ per cent."
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood, adjourned.
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on the Motion relating to Prices and Incomes may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour during a period of one and a half hours after Ten o'clock, though opposed.—[Mr. Hattersley.]
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. Orme: In the Act that we passed a short time ago no norm was mentioned at all. In the Second Reading debate on the Prices and Incomes Bill my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity said:
  "… there is no mention in the Bill of the ceiling itself—the famous 3½ per cent.—or of

  169
  the criteria spelt out in the White Paper which set the framework for the whole policy. There is no sinister significance in this—no weakening on any aspect of the policy. In fact, the criteria are already operating. In accordance with normal practice I have already used my power under Section 4 of the 1966 Act … ". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st May, 1968; Vol. 765, c. 313.]
  That is pretty clear. Many people felt when the criteria did not appear in the Bill that the Government had dropped them between the issue of the White Paper and the presentation of the Bill, but this is not so. Some people believed that, but I never did. I have always considered the 3½ per cent. to be included.
  On the aspect of which claims can be allowed, everyone on this side knows that daily and weekly in industry settlements are being made in all types of industry, and because of the vastness of the subject and the impossibility of setting up all the paraphernalia and machinery one cannot follow all that is going on in the industrial life of our present complicated mixed economy. In consequence, thousands, indeed millions, of workers go on unheeded and unimpeded by this policy, but when the Government think it suitable from their point of view to put the brake on any increase, they implement the policy. As has been said, they have done that in relation to the municipal busmen.
  They started in the same way in relation to the railwaymen, which was in itself an extremely interesting case. The hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) raised this case, but he did not say that at the time when it was referred to in the House and many of us on this side were pressing for a settlement we got no support from that side of the House in relation to the lower paid workers in the railway industry. In fact, hon. Members on this side below the Gangway were very much lone voices in fighting for a settlement.
  It is interesting to read in connection with the railwaymen's settlement what is said in the paragraph 37 of the White Paper:
  "It will be necessary to ensure that increases under the low paid criterion are confined to low paid workers."
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) pointed out so pertinently in the House, a hole was blown in that one. Further, a settlement
  170
  was arrived at without the copper-bottomed productivity agreement about which we have heard so much, although it is assumed that an agreement will be arrived at by 2nd September. There is no guarantee of that. In consequence, that breaches the policy in relation to the lower paid worker, the norm granted to the higher-paid worker and the productivity basis. This sort of thing makes nonsense. Paragraph 34 is gobbledegook. It does not make sense.
  The Government are trying to base the case relating to municipal busmen on a productivity agreement. A constituent wrote to me a week or two ago drawing my attention to a £1 a week rise which was agreed last December for provincial busmen and was frozen until 26th July. I received a reply from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary today in which he draws attention to the fact that not only has the rise been frozen until 26th July but that it is extended until the end of the year.
  The basis for this is apparently that the productivity agreement cannot be reached, and although the employers and the unions agreed on the settlement last December, they cannot find ways and means of paying the increase. This is absolutely ironic. I have never known a case before in which employers and unions agreed and the amount could not be paid. The chairman of the transport committee of my local authority, who is not a member of the Labour Party, said last weekend that he was prepared to go to prison to see that the busmen of Salford are paid the increase.
  This becomes a political issue. It is no longer an industrial issue. As so many of us said on Second Reading, we find the Government are at the centre of every price increase and every wage increase whether it is settled amicably or not. This is a ludicrous position. What effect does this have upon the economy? What effect will it have in future? We have the railway agreement and the busmen's issue and an interlude when Mr. Hambro gets an increase as chairman of one of the national banks. All these issues are before us and we find that the Department of Employment and Productivity is not just playing its rôle as mediator but actually coming down into the market place of negotiations. That is a pretty rough place. I would not

  171
  doubt that my right hon. Friend can take care of herself, but will this achieve the economic objective which the Government want and the working people demand? I do not think it will. All this talk of a threat of statutory powers is complete nonsensical rubbish. If the municipal busmen, in contradiction of this Order, take industrial action, what are the Labour Government to do about it?
  Mr. James Hamilton: I am following the argument of my hon. Friend closely and agree with many of the statements he has made. Can he tell me how busmen who are prepared to operate a productivity agreement put to them by my right hon. Friend can do so when they have not the buses to operate it?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the problem of the busmen in detail except as it applies to the criteria laid down here.
  Mr. Orme: I recognise the problem and I am trying to keep within the terms of the criteria and the productivity agreement which the Ministry wants to make. In the City of Salford we neither have one-man buses nor are there any on order. How we can implement that part of it, I do not know. I think he sees the point I am making.
  Many of my hon. Friends want to speak on this matter and I do not wish to detain the House. We started the Session with this subject and we end with it. I want to see the end of this approach of the Government. It has been proved by the trade unions and by the people of this country that this policy will not work in the present economy and in the type of society that exists. It is backed by powers which could be used but which many people do not believe ever will be used. Nevertheless, the powers are there, and they are punitive powers. I think it is time that this policy once and for all was dropped. The writing of those criteria into the Prices and Incomes Acts of 1966, 1967 and 1968 will not help to bring a rational economic policy to the country. It will only confuse the issue and add problems that we on this side of the House want to see the back of.
  Mr. Speaker: I remind the House that many hon. Members wish to speak, and that this debate will finish at 11.30 p.m.
  10.11 p.m.
  Mr. David Howell: I will give three reasons picked at random why my hon. Friends and I believe that the Prices and Incomes (General Considerations) Order should be withdrawn.
  The first reason is that it is a bad and peculiar way of legislating. The Schedule comes of a long lineage. It is almost like a slide being put into a projector, shown on a screen and then, as soon as people have seen it, another one being shown. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) spoke of the criteria providing the background against which the policy is supposed to be carried out. It is a changing background, rather like a rifle range, where the characters are constantly moving across the scene. It produces not clarity of thought but muddled understanding of what it is all about.
  The people of this country would not so much mind a coherent and firm line of economic strategy, but they detest this muddled and constantly changing framework, which is made of elastic rather than of steel, within which they are supposed to act. That is my first reason for believing that this is a bad way of bringing about the aims which the Government seek to achieve. It is an extremely poor and dangerous way of legislating.
  The second reason why I support so strongly our proposal that the Order be withdrawn is that it is based on out-of-date economics. The right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity said in Committee on the Prices and Incomes Bill this year that all advanced thinking was on the side of the kind of ecenomics contained in the criteria. When one reads the criteria it is hard to understand what that advanced thinking must involve—the thinking perhaps of people who are advanced in age, but not, I am afraid, advanced in the understanding of economics. As hon. Members have pointed out, the White Paper is riddled with economic fallacies. There is a query about the famous first paragraph of which my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) has already quoted the first

  173
  line, but there is an even bigger query on the third line.
  We are told that these criteria will give us an opportunity for the economy to sustain a faster rate of growth and a higher level of employment than was possible before devaluation. That is a pretty bizarre claim in the light of present trends.
  However, that is only one aspect. Throughout, there is the "must" of the kind of macro-economics of Cambridge in the late 1950s, whence, I suspect, much of this thinking comes, in which it is suggested that the economy must be managed by a transfer of resources from home consumption to producing goods for export and import saving. There is the belief throughout that the economy can be moved round as if it comprised a series of blocks and they were being pushed here and there by magic hands in Whitehall. However, that is not how a modern economy operates, and that kind of approach will not produce results.
  Then there is the tedious and almost hilarious contradiction over prices and the insistence that unjustifiable price increases will be prevented. We have the introduction of this curious concept of the "justified" price, that some prices are justified and some are not. We have the complete dismissal of the fact that any housewife faced with price increases engineered by Government tax increases and following from devaluation will not accept that price increases of such an amount will be justfiable and that anything above will not be. These are consequential increases and forces acting on each other which put up prices or reduce the quality of goods while maintaining their price right across the economy. The Government are living in a fool's paradise if they imagine that they can hold a price to a "justified" level of increase and that everything above that will be stopped. There again, the economics are out of date or even non-operative.
  There is very much of this attitude and belief that the economy can be pushed around like coloured liquids in a child's chemistry set. That may have been the view of economics eight or nine years ago, but, since then, there has been a vast increase in the knowledge of how the economy works and important developments in the technique of economic management.
  174
  Above all, it ignores splendidly and heroically the whole question of the public sector and Government spending. It seems to believe that the aims of holding down wages and prices can be achieved against the background of a growth of public expenditure which is chaotic. I think that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury must be the last man in the land to believe that public expenditure is under control and on target. It is not and, as long as it is not, the arguments in the White Paper will not work.
  Perhaps most important of all, there is the fundamental fallacy and what might almost be termed the obsession about wages. However, any comparison of wages and hourly earnings in this country with those in other countries is an unfavourable one. Wage levels in this country are not excessive, and our problems will not be solved by hitting wages. In fact, it is not an economic proposition but a political obsession of an undesirable kind.
  My third reason for objecting to the Order is that it is so hypocritical. It is dressed up in the proposition that it is something to do with social justice, yet it has been shown time and time again that there is very little social justice in it. We read in paragraph 48 a desperate attempt to pretend that the legislation should apply not merely to workers in firms employing over 100 men but to everyone. How is it proposed to include everyone?
  We have heard the proposition put forward about proposed settlements which might be significant and that these are the ones to be covered. But, I ask, significant to whom? Who is to report whom? Who is to register that this kind of claim for certain people or firms employing under 100 should be reported? It is left in thin air. For the vast majority of workpeople—18 million out of 24 million; that is, all except the 6 million in firms employing over 100— there is a vagueness as to their position under the policy. This is one good reason why there is litle justification for the claim that this stands on a basis of social justice.
  Secondly, it makes great play of the restraint on dividends, which hon. Members opposite think is a valuable part of the policy. It did not need the arguments which were advanced in Committee

  175
  to show that dividend restraint is a very hollow thing. It has its effects, and will have its effects, in distorting the capital market and in driving people to other ways of organising their affairs, but as a device for achieving social justice it does not get off the ground.
  There are the other mentions in the criteria about the whole field of wage restraint, where again hon. Members opposite think that a great blow is being struck for social justice. However, the main effect of rent restraint is in its application to council house tenants. That would be tolerable if it were still a fact, which it is not, that the poorer section of the community live in council houses. That was a wonderful and no doubt justified belief of the 1950s. It is no longer so. There is evidence to show that the end result of restraining rises in council house rents is that the ratepayers pay; and the ratepayers include many people with lower incomes than those living in council houses. So there is no social justice there, either.
  It may seem odd that I am worried because there is no justice in the Order. In fact I am not worried. It does not surprise me. I am not even sure that I am full of regret, because many of us on this side do not believe that this obsession with equality of treatment— with sameness of condition—is a legitimate or attainable aim of Government. What we fear are the consequences when a Government perform this hypocritical role, when they promise what they cannot provide, when they use language about ideals which they are not attaining by their actions. We do not care if the Government destroy themselves by pushing through this silly Order, but if in doing so they erode and weaken our institutions, if they bring our politicians and the House into disrepute, we cannot stand back.
  10.17 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Edelman: It was rather unseemly of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) to accuse the Government of hypocrisy in the matter of the wages and incomes policy. If ever there were a case of hypocrisy, it is in the attitude of hon. Members opposite, because, whereas they want to enjoy the benefits of a wages
  176
  and incomes policy, they are not prepared to accept the responsibility.
  It is clear that those hon. Members opposite who accept the principle of a wages and incomes policy, as I do, though not necessarily wholly in the form presented by the Government, must equally be prepared to accept that criteria are an inevitable concomitant of such a policy. Merely to dismiss these general considerations as if they are irrelevant to the theme of a wages and incomes policy is to seek to have the best of both worlds in a profoundly hypocritical form.
  I say that it is necessary to have criteria, but if criteria are to be effective they must be precise. Nothing can be more disastrous than imprecision in the criteria which are related to a policy of this kind.
  The question on which I shall concentrate tonight is: what is a low-paid worker? There is no guidance in the White Paper which is worthy of acceptance. Paragraph 34 provides:
  "for increases in the following circumstances … (iii) where there is general recognition that existing wage and salary levels are too low to maintain a reasonable standard of living".
  It was on that vague and indeterminate statement that the National Board for Prices and Incomes came to its conclusions about the municipal busmen. What was the ruling of the Prices and Incomes Board? It said that the busmen were not low-paid workers because their average earnings were £20 9s. 6d. for conductors and £22 5s. 9d. for drivers. But those earnings are achieved by busmen only by working disgracefully long hours.
  The basic rate for a top bus driver is £12 17s. a week. The balance comes from overtime, from working rest days— and working rest days, be it noted, in a way which has been condemned and against which it has been sought to legislate through the Transport Bill. Plainly, the so-called 40-hour week for busmen is a complete illusion. The earnings which busmen have achieved have been achieved by what one can only call sweated labour. They can bring themselves up to the figures given by the Prices and Incomes Boad only by working fantastically long hours.
  Moreover—these figures may surprise the House—20 per cent. of the platform

  177
  staff among municipal busmen are today working up to 60 hours a week. It is a disgrace to a country such as ours in modern rimes that men have to work up to 60 hours a week in order to escape from the arbitrary category of low-paid workers laid down by the Prices and Incomes Board, following the criteria in the White Paper.
  In addition, municipal bus workers—I give this in further illustration of the way the criteria operate—have to work 8½ hours extra a week in order to earn the national average for all industry.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we cannot discuss the problem of the busmen in detail on this Order, which raises the question of criteria.
  Mr. Edelman: With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I am arguing that, in order to establish what is a low-paid worker, it is important to examine the way in which a worker's earnings are achieved. In the case of the bus worker, only through such an analysis can one examine and judge the criteria laid down in the White Paper. I respect your Ruling, but I hope that you will allow me to pursue the illustration for a moment or two. I think that it will add to the instruction of those who are concerned to consider the value of the White Paper.
  Bus workers work almost the longest hours for about the lowest hourly pay. That being so, as they work for the lowest hourly pay, the Prices and Incomes Board must have been wrong in rejecting their claim on the basis that they are not low-paid workers.
  I come now to another criterion for assessing whether an increase should be allowed. This is paragraph 34(ii):
  "where it is essential in the national interest to secure a change in the distribution of manpower (or to prevent a change which
  178
  would otherwise take place) and a pay increase would be both necessary and effective for this purpose."
  A quarter of the municipal bus undertakings in this country are 20 per cent. short of staff. If it is necessary to raise the wages of such men in order to correct that drift, as envisaged in the White Paper, this, surely, is a striking case in which action should be taken.
  I conclude with this appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, in her absence. In the past few days, I have wondered what the late Ernie Bevin would have said about some of the criteria in the White Paper had he been acting for some of the low-paid workers. We all know the regard in which he held my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I cannot help feeling that, had he been alive today and were he acting as counsel for the busmen or any other low-paid workers, his retort to my right hon. Friend's rejection of the wage claim would be, "I am not having it". There will be many today who will react in the same way to the interpretation of the criteria in the White Paper.
  I said at the beginning that the only sin in determining criteria in a matter of this kind is vagueness. The paragraph dealing with low-paid workers can only have a subjective interpretation, which I believe in the present context of the busmen is completely invalid. There are objective means in which the criteria can be assessed. I suggest that by those objective methods of assessing the busmen's rate of pay the application of the criteria as expressed in the White Paper stands condemned, and I hope that the Minister will be flexible, will think again, and in that way avert a national strike which would be damaging to everyone concerned.
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Emery: I remind the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) that during the debate in Committee on the Prices and Incomes Act on part of the criteria a number of questions were more than once put to the Government on whether the criteria and the Bill were being rushed through in order to catch the busmen. We were given assurances that that was not so. Perhaps they were meant then, but it is interesting that one of the first actions under the new Act is, as the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and a number of other hon. Members suggested in Committee would be the case, that the criteria and the Bill were used against the busmen. Note should be taken of the Government's double-dealing on that.
  I wish to speak particularly about the criteria because I tried very hard to rewrite them. I tried to make quite clear exactly what they meant without all the Government double-talk. It seemed to me that their whole basis was that the Government were saying, as is clearly the real interpretation of paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Order, "There is only a slight chance of our putting our balance of payments into a substantial balance under the present Government and of repaying our debts, and it has been made more difficult by the policy we have pursued in the past".
  The interesting thing about these criteria is that this is the fourth lot the House has had to consider; this is the fourth Order altering the way in which the prices and incomes policy has to operate. On each occasion the Government have said, "This is all that is necessary". The country were assured that once this aspect of the prices and incomes policy was put into operation the whole purpose which the Government had been struggling to achieve for years and years would be brought to success.
  The way in which the Government are pursuing the present prices and incomes policy is like a geometric progression, because at each turn, with more and more controls, it is necessary not to duplicate controls to stop up the holes that they happen to have made in their past policy but to quadruple them. The length and extent of the Government's criteria show that this is a geometric
  180
  progression both in their length and the powers taken.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) gave an illustration of comparability in regard to paragraph 38 of the criteria. He asked what it meant. It means that consideration of arguments for wage increases should not necessarily include the ground of comparability. But it does not say so. This is the point about the document. The Government are not being fair to the workers, the people who are having to bargain or the employers. They mean a great deal more than the words they use in the document. They are implying much greater stringency than the words that they publish. They are suggesting that there shall be a nil norm and that there shall not be comparability.
  Two hon. Members opposite asked for the interpretation of paragraph 34. It means that if one works harder one might get an increase. That is all. What happens about persons who ought not to be producing more and ought not to have greater productivity? How does the man who ought not to be having greater productivity get a wage increase? I refer to the man working on quality and reliability inspections. One does not want him to turn out any greater inspections. If he is doing that, he is not doing the job properly. What about a safety engineer, who ought to be doing only what he can do and what he is set to do in any given time? [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] Hon. Members opposite may laugh about it and say "Rubbish", but they do not know much about industry.
  Mr. Robert Sheldon rose—
  Mr. Emery: Sit down for a moment. Many accusations are made—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get back to our calm and placid debate.
  Mr. Emery: I am only too delighted to do so, Mr. Speaker. If some hon. Members suggest that I have not done a day's work, my first job in life was in a labour gang with a pick and shovel, which is more than can be said of the hon. Gentleman opposite. So perhaps he will be quiet.

  181
  There are a number of jobs in industry where it would be wrong for any cost and works accountant or any other person judging productivity to suggest that that either speed or alteration in working on the part of people ought to increase their work burden. If so—there are many instances—how does that person qualify for a rise? Perhaps it is something about which the Government are not concerned irrespective of how much they put up prices, taxation and the cost of living.
  That is the policy of the criteria. That is what the first four paragraphs of the criteria spell out. It is the Government's intention that prices shall rise but there shall be no equivalent wage increase. That is the Government's policy in the Budget and in the criteria. Let the Minister try to deny that when he defends the criteria. He knows that that is the policy, but he does not want it put in those words. It is for that reason more than any other than I urge hon. Members to oppose these criteria.
  The Government are indulging in another bout of double dealing. They are trying to tell the trade unions and industry generally that they are not working in the way spelled out by the criteria here set out. This is exactly what they have done to the busmen. They say, "We do not want this to catch you, but let us get it through", and the moment the measure is passed it is used to catch people like the busmen.
  The whole basis of the Order is such that in a year's time it will have to be strengthened. We are faced with the fact that by these criteria, and by the penal sanctions which are available to them, the Government are able to control all aspects of wages, prices and investment policy. It is for that reason as much as any other that the country is now in such a sorry state and we are required to deal with this legislation in a mere 90 minutes of debate. Luckily we have been able to get an extra hour to discuss this Order. This is the way in which the Government have arranged their legislation. They can slide this Order through under the provisions of the Act. They can slide these alterations through with the minimum of debate, and without the possibility of amendment by the House. This is wrong, and I ask hon. Members to oppose this Order.
  10.42 p.m.
  Mr. Stanley Henig: I am afraid that I am going to upset my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who, possibly because of alliances on other issues, might have expected more support from me than he will receive. I must, rather unusually, join forces with some of my hon. Friends who normally sit on these benches, and take objection to certain aspects of the Order.
  I am concerned with a slightly different aspect from those which have received most attention this evening, namely, what seems to me to be a differentiation between above the ceiling and below the ceiling settlement of wage increases. I like to think that when the Minister replies he will be able to relieve my anxieties, but I am rather inclined to doubt it.
  Below the 3½ per cent. ceiling certain criteria are laid down. The most important of these is that the workers in question shall be lower paid. We have had arguments about what is a lower-paid worker. I do not intend to take much notice of what has been said from the other side of the House. Most of us on this side know what a lower-paid worker is, and know what sort of wages he receives.
  A lower paid worker may apply for a rise. It is a rise justified only on the basis that he is lower paid in relation to other people, the rise will be limited to 3½ per cent. Somebody else who is able to make a genuine productivity deal—and let us accept that there is such a thing as a genuine productivity deal— may get a rise of much more than 3½ per cent. In other words, as a result of this Order the differential between a lower-paid worker and a higher-paid worker will not be reduced as we on this side want, but will be increased, because it frequently happens that those who are in a position to agree to productivity arrangements are those who, relatively speaking, are already better paid.
  Let me relate that to the municipal busmen.
  Mr. J. B. Symonds: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that those with higher wages should sacrifice the increased rate so that lower-paid men can get more instead of getting an equal amount?
  Mr. Henig: I am arguing that the basic criteria for any incomes policy that I would like to see introduced by the Government would be in favour of a redistribution of incomes, but I am afraid that this policy may, in the way that I have indicated, not do this, but rather, penalise the lowest-paid workers.
  I wanted to take briefly the simple case study of a group of people to whom the incomes policy has already been applied—the municipal busmen. There is not much doubt about the proposition that the municipal busmen are one of the lower-paid groups of workers. For a basic working week a municipal busman earns less than all sorts of other people —and much less than a London busman earns. I am not convinced that it is all that more difficult to drive in London than it is to drive along winding country lanes—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot argue the differential rates between London and provincial busmen.
  Mr. Henig: I accept that, Mr. Speaker—but it may be extraordinarily difficult for a municipal busman to reach any kind of agreement based on increased productivity—because if he is driving his bus the concept of increased productivity must necessarily be different from the concept of increased productivity for certain other professions. One would not want to advocate his driving his bus faster, or over the pavement if there were a traffic jam.
  As for the question of one-man buses, the argument presupposes that one-man buses are available—and in the area that I represent this is not the case. It is a dangerous trend. We have reached a state of affairs when this policy, which sets out ostensibly to help the lower-paid workers, might end up by allowing only those who are not lower-paid to get these extra increases over and above the ceiling.
  Secondly, it is laid down that the workers who are involved in these productivity agreements should not necessarily receive the full fruits of their increased productivity. I want to know exactly how this policy works. Does it mean that we shall measure a particular agreement and say, "This agreement
  184
  will add 7½ per cent. to the productivity of this firm. The workers should take 6½ per cent., leaving 1 per cent. for redistribution round the rest of the country"? That would be fine, but I have a feeling that the workers will say, "Nonsense; that 1 per cent. will go straight into the pockets of our employers". This seems to be a muddle, and I should like my hon. Friend to explain it.
  My basic reservation concerns prices. My great fear is that the introduction of this Statutory Instrument, coming on top of what has already been done, will make the Government responsible for something which, basically, they cannot control. The Government are in a position, through the National Board for Prices and Incomes or any other body, to control the prices of thousands of individual goods sold in the shops, or that the early warning system will operate.
  Occasionally it is my misfortune to be sent out shopping, and in the supermarkets one finds that everything is "2d. Off This Week", or "3d. Off This Week", or that one gets a tube of toothpaste together with a mug. Many of these items have long ceased to have any basic retail price in real terms, as they affect the customer—the housewife—and an increase in the price becomes meaningless. It is certainly something that will not be registered in an office in London, but it will be registered by the housewife. Previously she was justified in blaming the manufacturer for the increase in price. Now the Government are offering a free bonus to their opponents. The housewife is now able to blame the Government for the rise in price, which situation none of us on this side of the House can accept with equanimity.
  I want to take up a hint from the other side of the House about nationalised industries. If the Government are serious about keeping down prices, I would like them to start on that sector which is or should be 100 per cent. responsible to demands from the Government. I am most concerned because, over recent months, it has sometimes seemed to the public, rightly or wrongly, that, far from keeping prices down, the nationalised industries have been leading the race to raise them.

  185
  When we vote on this Order, and despite my observations, I will vote for it, which will, no doubt, surprise certain people. My fundamental objection to the Order is that it is politically misconceived. It is making a dirty word of a prices and incomes policy which we in the Labour movement want to see firmly established to make possible real redistribution of income, and it talks of Government responsibility for things which cannot be done. The political damage of this will be great. However, since the Government have resisted all our blandishments and have gone ahead, I think that the political damage would be far greater if we got it through in the most damaging way possible, with the Government having another wafer-thin majority. That is why I will, personally, support it, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Sccretary—and others of my hon. Friends—will answer some of the points which I raised.
  10.52 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I think that the whole House enjoyed hearing the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mr. Henig) wrestling with his conscience over what he should do in the Lobby tonight. I sympathise with his dilemma on the choice between passing the Order and ruining the Labour Party, since a return to a free market determination is clearly too much for him. I assure him that it is not such a difficult choice as he seems to make out. There is no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Peter Emery) is right and that we are descending into an ever more vicious spiral as a result of this policy.
  The Secretary of State "said in Committee:
  "What we are doing here is not merely continuing existing powers but extending them in a number of very important respects which we have discussed exhaustively duing the proceedings of the Committee. We have the powers branching out in various new fields; we have the extension of the standstill for both prices and incomes; we have the power to secure reduction in prices; we have powers over rents; we have the new compulsory restraint over dividends."—[OFFICIAL REPORT,Standing Committee F, 18th June, 1968; c. 1094.]
  That is the glorious, positive new policy for productivity of which the Government boast so much.
  186
  I would like to compare these pious aspirations with what has happened in the case of the railwaymen. They have been awarded a settlement which, apparently, meets the Government's prices and incomes criteria, yet all that they have given in return for wage increases right up to the ceiling is a vague promise of a productivity bargain to come. Does the Under-Secretary consider that that promise of a productivity agreement comes within the terms of paragraph 34(7), the productivity paragraph, and within the repeated and endless talk by the Government about copper-bottomed productivity deals? No one thinks so.
  One is tempted to remember the debate last week, when the Secretary of State argued so convincingly and vehemently that bargains could not be made enforceable. One sees immediately the Government's dilemma, because every time they come to a major settlement with the railwaymen, the busmen or the engineers, which threatens to go over the limit of the policy, they have in the end to back down because they know that it could not be made enforceable. The prospect of the Labour Party turning out the sort of proposals which Donovan put forward and which my right hon. Friends put forward as the structure of trade union law and at the same time bringing in penal sanctions leading to prison for people acting against the prices and incomes legislation is extraordinary.
  There is another point about the criteria which acts flatly against Donovan —the extraordinary investigation into every detail of the settlement. If there are to be a number of settlements composed of national, regional and plant agreements, all must come within the 3½ per cent. ceiling. Every plant bargain, all the way down the line, must be investigated, reported on and, if necessary, referred to the Board. How on earth can productivity agreements and plant bargains be reached in such circumstances? The policy of Donovan which we considered last week and the policy in the criteria are moving in completely opposite directions.
  I return to the speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster. I wonder whether it is worth selling the Labour Party for this mess of potage. It has been said that it might mean the saving of £200 million a year of total demand. I believe that that figure has been set far too

  187
  high, but, even if it were right, it would be selling the Labour Party for a mess of potage to go through all the heat and hell of this summer, in the by-elections, the public opinion polls, fights with the trade unions and disputes leading hon. Members below the Gangway to joining forces with my hon. Friends in Division after Division, for the saving of £200 million from total demand. The total tax yield this year is about £14,000 million. We are going through all this trouble for £200 million in one year. To those who say that the Tory Party will need an incomes policy, I reply that it is clear that by being slightly more accurate in manipulating total demand we can do without such a policy altogether.
  I believe that wage increases will moderate this year. They will not be as high in total as last year, not because of the policy of the criteria or because of the appalling wrangles which we have had about what is a lower paid worker and what is a productivity bargain—all these details which have been dragged before the House—but because the Chancellor increased taxation to nearly enough to cover his total expenditure. That is why wage increases will be moderated this year.
  It seems extraordinary that for the tiny sum of £200 million a year, which could be saved simply by cutting out a number of civil servants and by cutting out all the nonsense which the Labour Party have introduced, for this mess of potage, the Labour Party are prepared to destroy themselves, to pull themselves to pieces. They are doing it for a policy as insane and as ridiculous as this— against which we shall vote later tonight.
  10.59 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Roy Hattersley): At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) urged the House to consider that we were debating what he described as long-term prices and incomes policy. He concluded that there was some wish, perhaps even some decision, on the part of the Government to mount a statutory incomes policy as a permanent feature of our economic planning.
  Let me say again what I have said from the Dispatch Box on at least three
  188
  occasions, what the Prime Minister has said and what my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State has said—what is our simple intention towards the possibility of an extension of these powers. On my part, there is certainly no enthusiasm for extending prices and incomes policy with its statutory backing —I emphasise, with its statutory backing—after the end of 1969.
  I certainly do not see a statutory prices and incomes policy as a way of bringing about a planned economy or a Socialist society. I certainly do not see it as a system which is in itself desirable. I see it simply as a necessity in the present situation.
  I said to the House at the end of the Second Reading debate, and I say again this evening, that whilst the Government does and must reserve the right to operate whatever policies seem to be necessary today for the extension of the economic improvement that the country has already seen, and whilst it is conceivable that that improvement might necessitate additional items of prices and incomes policy, it is the wish and the hope of the Government that a statutory prices and incomes policy should not be a permanent feature and should not be an extended feature.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew), who 30 seconds ago cried "Keeping the door open", a minute ago cried" That is not the sort of thing you were saying a year ago ".
  Mr. Victor Goodhew (St. Albans): I cried the first time that that is exactly what the hon. Gentleman had been saying. A year ago, and two years ago, we heard Ministers keep saying that they did not intend to do it indefinitely, but we have had them doing it indefinitely.
  Mr. Hattersley: Had the hon. Gentleman been here at the beginning of the debate he would have heard the hon. Member for Worthing say that what I said a moment ago was in absolute distinction to what my right hon. Friends said in 1966, 1967 and 1968, for the hon. Member for Worthing told the House that the Government's word—and I think I quote him verbatim—was broken time and time again.
  As I understand it, the word he claimed was broken is the word, the promise, that

  189
  there should not be and would not be an extension of the statutory prices and incomes policy. If he would do the House the courtesy of looking at column 429 of the Official Report on 13th July, 1967, he will find that his right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) went to some pains to point out to the House that my right hon. Friend the then First Secretary, now the Foreign Secretary, had always avoided saying whether there would or would not need to be an extension of the prices and incomes policy. If he reads the next column he will see that the right hon. Member for Enfield, West goes on to say that no assurance was received from the Prime Minister either. Whatever I may have to say in criticism of the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think it is his habit to pay gratuitous compliments to his opponents. If he was saying, as he was, that both these right hon. Gentlemen had been scrupulous and careful not to give any firm promise, I hope the House will agree that they had been scrupulous and careful in their determination not to give any firm promise.
  The hon. Member for Worthing went on to say that paragraph 4 of the White Paper specified that it was an obligation on the Government to obtain for its prices and incomes policy the maximum amount of agreement with industry. Of course that is right, and of course it has been done.
  The criteria in the White Paper, which after all are the criteria we are discussing this evening, are identical to those which appeared in the White Paper Command 2639—identical in terms of incomes and in terms of prices. That was the original White Paper accepted in April, 1965, agreed with the C.B.I, and agreed with the T.U.C. If one goes on to extend that point, and to examine not only the criteria in the White Paper but the powers in the White Paper, let me put this to the hon. Gentleman. Certainly the T.U.C. want a prices and incomes policy; certainly the C.B.I, want a prices and incomes policy. Both want it to be statutory in part, although they each would choose different parts for the application of statutory powers. In so far as we have got a substantial measure of agreement on the criteria and on the necessity for some statutory powers, we have achieved with both sides of industry substantially greater agreement than
  190
  the Conservative Government achieved for their incomes policy.
  We have not had from them yet whether they would have an incomes policy, but what is certain is that the C.B.I, and the T.U.C. believe there has to be some planning in these matters. We have not heard from the hon. Member for Worthing on this or on the other occasions when I have faced him across the Despatch Box whether he believes in prices and incomes policy or not, and if he does, what he thinks the criteria should be.
  It is no use coming to the House and saying that these criteria are inadequate and do not deserve the support of industry when the hon. Gentleman himself is unwilling or unable to offer the House any alternative criteria which might deserve the total support which he demands.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to say that there was an absence of clarity in the policy. He referred to the 1966, 1967 and 1968 Acts. I suggest that, on reflection, he will agree that the White Paper as it stands is a simple guide both to the criteria in the policy and to the powers in the policy. The White Paper stipulates in paragraph 10 the intentions of the powers. It stipulates the powers which, when the White Paper was printed, we hoped to take by way of a new incomes Measure. A simple paragraph cannot give force to those powers. We believed that it was right that a simply worded White Paper should give a comprehensive account of the policy, and that is what it does. The complications of the 1966, 1967 and 1968 Acts do no more than give statutory force, through the normal Parliamentary processes, with all its details and difficulties, to what is set out simply and clearly in the White Paper.
  Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Paragraph 34 (iv) states the circumstance of there being
  "… widespread recognition that the pay of a certain group of workers has fallen seriously out of line with the level of remuneration for similar work and needs in the national interest to be improved."
  That is clear and understandable. Paragraph 38, however, states:
  "The criterion justifying increases on grounds of comparability needs to be applied selectively, and must not be used to spread pay increases into areas of employment where the original justification does not apply."

  191
  Would my hon. Friend call that simple and clear? I do not understand it.
  Mr. Hattersley:I intend to deal with the criteria one by one. My hon. Friend will agree that the policy as set out in the White Paper is admirably clearer than any policy which was dependent on the examination of the Act. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have suggested that the ordinary man in the street who wanted to understand the prices and incomes policy had to refer to three Acts of Parliament, and that is not so.
  I trust that hon. Gentlemen opposite know the origin of the estimate that a prices and incomes policy would reduce effective demand by 1 per cent. It was estimated that 1 per cent., or about £100 million, would be removed from effective demand. That estimate originally came from the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) when questioned by me on Second Reading of what was then the last Prices and Incomes Bill. I asked him if he regarded the removal of
  per cent. or 2 per cent. of purchasing power as negligible. Earlier in that debate the right hon. Gentleman had said that all that could be expected of the incomes policy criteria as laid down was a reduction in demand of 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. If that is what the right hon. Gentleman regarded as the object of that Measure, then I regard it as the minimum object. I regard the maximum as something more positive, creative and permanent.
  It was surprising to hear the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) ask, in effect, "What does it matter if £200 million is knocked off effective demand?" That shows how much the hon. Gentleman is out of touch with the views of his hon. Friends. Do I gather—the hon. Gentleman appears to be nodding his head—that the hon. Member for Worthing agrees with me?
  Mr. Higgins: No.
  Mr. Hattersley: In any event, it is obvious that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is out of tune with the realities of the economic situation.
  Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman really must not put words into my mouth.
  192
  Will he now answer my second point: are we to understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in making his Budget judgment, included a minimum figure for the effectiveness of the incomes policy of £200 million a year?
  Mr. Hattersley: No. My right hon. Friend made very clear in his Budget what he regarded as the implications of the incomes policy, and it is clearly not possible to say whether he made an estimate as precise as that. But what I say is that the minimum defined for incomes policy was stipulated by his right hon. Friend, not mine. His minimum is very worth while achieving, and if we were ever through this policy to reduce effective demand by £100 million, let alone £200 million, it would be a substantial achievement, and would justify all the pain and sweat that goes into the creation of policy.
  Mr. Sheldon: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the maximum figure of half to one per cent., if it could be achieved from this incomes policy, could still be achieved through any kind of incomes policy where the Government take a view, and in which the ordinary processes of huffing and puffing would achieve this half to one per cent.?
  Mr. Hattersley: My hon. Friend is asking whether I believe a statutory policy to be necessary. The difficulty of allowing interventions, which I like to do on grounds of courtesy, is that I am asked to anticipate points that I intend to make later on. This point is central to all that I have to say.
  The hon. Member for Worthing said that no allowance was made for changes in demand. That was his first criticism. Without examining in detail the wages criteria, would he look at paragraph 34(2) of the White Paper, which states that
  "… where it is essential in the national interest to secure a change in the distribution of manpower … and a pay increase would be both necessary and effective for this purpose …"
  a wage increase would be permissible. That clearly could be done in cases of changes in demand.
  Similarly, when the hon. Gentleman says that comparability as a criterion either exists or does not exist—and this is a point which answers my hon. Friend the Member for Walton (Mr. Heffer)—

  193
  I say to them both that cases are not as simple as that. There are occasions when comparability is the only possible criterion which can determine an appropriate wage level, particularly in the public sector, but there are cases that can be used just as excuses for maintaining the traditional differentials, wage structures and patterns we have always had. In those circumstances the Government would be unable, and unwilling, to allow that criterion to justify a wage increase within or above the normal.
  Then the hon. Gentleman asked me about the lowest paid. He said that the Government had carefully never said how the lowest paid were defined, and asked what this amounted to. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park) said that the Government had described the lowest paid as the chief beneficiaries of the policy. I say to him that I have never made that claim, nor, to my knowledge, has my right hon. Friend or any other member of the Government. What we have claimed is that during, an admittedly stringent pay period, during a time when we expect there to be restraints which will hit wage and salary earners hard, we are attempting to insulate from this admittedly hard policy the lowest paid. That is very different from giving them a preferential position and describing them as the beneficiaries of the policy.
  Mr. Park: If my hon. Friend is now saying that the lowest paid will not be the beneficiaries of the incomes policy he is certainly saying something very different from what has been implied on many occasions, and if the lowest paid are not to be the beneficiaries of the incomes policy, who are the beneficiaries to be?
  Mr. Hattersley: The answer to that is that we all are when we live in a more prosperous and healthy economy. When I used that phrase before I was winding up on the Report stage and referring to wages councils. I used the exact phrase that the lowest paid would be insulated from the admittedly hard policy. That is the sum of what I claim. I do not claim more, and I do not believe that any of my hon. or right hon. Friends have tried to claim more.
  Within the general umbrella of the lowest paid, the hon. Member for
  194
  Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) asked about equal pay for equal work. He asked, were we to say that women moving towards equal pay could obtain it only within the general boundary of a 3½ per cent. increase and therefore at the expense of other workers in an industry. In the short run during this phase of incomes policy, the answer is yes certainly. As we hope that on some occasions the general body of workers will make, within the 3½ per cent., special allowances for the lowest paid, we hope that some bodies of workers will make special allowances for equal pay. That must remain the criteria within the policy while this phase operates. I do not believe that even the most sanguine hon. Members opposite believe that equal pay will be achieved between now and December, 1969. My task tonight is to discuss the criteria which will apply for the next 18 months and during that period there is to be a 3½ per cent. ceiling.
  The hon. Member for Worthing referred, as he always does, to the Long-bridge group of companies and the Order we once debated on that subject and the disputed area of productivity in that agreement. I have never accepted that there was a productivity agreement at Longbridge. What I assert is that the policy of the Government has encouraged rather than deterred productivity bargains. If increases are possible under productivity bargains and not under other agreements, there is bound to be an emphasis towards the former and away from the latter. All the evidence from settlements reported to my Department confirms that commercial companies, unions and employers' associations are thinking and acting in terms of productivity agreements.
  This leads me inevitably to the local agreement. Nothing is new about the idea that increases obtained from local or plant agreements should be aggregated with national agreements in prices and incomes policy. For example, Cmd. Paper 3235, which dealt with policy after June, 1967, said that the criteria must apply to industry, company or plant bargains. It seems eminently reasonable that if we are asking for a 3½ per cent. ceiling it should not allow local negotiations to add 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. to that percentage.

  195
  As to the engineering agreement, I am sure that on reflection the hon. Member for Oswestry, knowing that the agreement is still being considered, will not expect me to make many detailed comments on how it should come out. He will know that most plant bargains, most local agreements concluded on top of and supplementary to an engineering national agreement are concerned with piece rates, payment for results and other things which are to do with performance and might well be considered as increases in productivity because they result in more pay for more work. Certainly when and after the national agreement has been concluded, the local agreement which will follow must be judged against the productivity criteria.
  Mr. Biffen: Precisely because the negotiations are now under way, the view of the Government should be known on this highly critical point? Surely the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will realise that paragraph 32 says:
  "In considering increases settled at national level account must be taken of probable increases at local, company and plant level."
  Is he telling the House that the Government cannot in their own mind assess how much of that 3½ per cent. criteria is likely to be taken up by subsequent local settlements which will follow the national engineering award, and that he is unwilling to disclose that information either to this House or to those engaged in the negotiations?
  Mr. Hattersley: I am certainly not going to say now, using the hon. Gentleman's own words, arbitrarily what is the maximum figure that should be negotiated in national agreements, and it would not be in the interest of industrial relations that I should give such a figure. As a general principle, when those national negotiations are concluded, the 3½ per cent. ceiling must apply to them and any other across the board increases which are related to output and productivity negotiated locally.
  The hon. Gentleman the Member for Worthing suggested, as has been suggested on many previous occasions, that somehow there is an internal conflict within the Government, perhaps an intellectual rather than a personal conflict, about the prices policy. Again, I think on reflection he will realise that the
  196
  Government's policy on prices is clearly set out and absolutely consistent. In paragraph 14 of the Instrument which we are discussing we say clearly and precisely that we anticipate that, as a result of devaluation and other Government measures, there will be price increases during the forthcoming year.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an estimate of the price increases which would flow from his Budget and from other factors. He is the only Chancellor of the Exchequer ever to make such a precise estimate, and no one on this side of the House is pretending that Government policy—taxation policy, the decision to devalue—will not mean an increase in prices. Of course it will. But to my right hon. Friend the fact that there is likely to be an increase in prices because of devaluation and other things is not an argument for letting unnecessary price increases go forward. Indeed, it is probably the strongest argument for making sure that unnecessary price increases are prevented. All my right hon. Friend has ever claimed he would do, or could do, is to subject many price increases to scrutiny, to make sure that those price increases which are unjustified, which are unnecessary, do not go forward at a time when there is admittedly a general price increase and at a time when there has to be some restraint in wages.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said to the House that he chose to deal with the incomes aspect of the White Paper. I wish that he had chosen to deal with some of the other aspects as well, and for this reason. I suspect that he is in general agreement with the rest of the White Paper, and I suspect that when he hears the hon. Gentleman the Member for Worthing say, "What we object to is the wish to extend these criteria to every aspect of our economic life", he agrees with me that it is absolutely appropriate that these criteria and this level of restraint should be applied to prices, should be applied to municipal rents and should be applied to dividends. I hope he also agrees that it is not unreasonable that in those sectors there needs to be a general background of statutory power to make sure that the criteria are applied as justly and as universally as we intend.

  197
  Let me say two things about the use of powers. They are not new, but they are things which the hon. Gentleman opposite either do not hear or choose not to understand. I have said many times that the application of this policy needs the support of the unions. If the unions were to reject en masse the incomes policy, the incomes policy could not work. The statutory powers could not work if scores of trade unions and thousands of trade unionists chose to reject them. Our belief is that most trade unions will accept and have accepted the criteria. They may not agree with the policy, and may not agree with the criteria in the policy, but they believe that they have an obligation to work within it. The statutory backing of the policy is intended not to coerce the majority of trade unions into compliance, but to assure them that if they are agreeing—I leave it open as to their enthusiasm and willingness—to operate the criteria of the policy, they will not have their position prejudiced by that small minority which persistently insists on flouting the policy. The statutory powers are intended for the uncooperative minority rather than the majority who all the evidence suggests have been co-operative and will continue to be.
  An Hon. Member: What about the busmen?
  Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Member for Worthing accused the Government of being obsessed with wages. I believe, as do my right hon. and hon. Friends, in a high wage economy, but we happen to believe in an economy in which high wages are earned. A high wage economy, yes; but one in which wages are related to production rather than one which is simply an instrument of inflation.
  To talk as if there was some inherent hypocrisy in the policy, as the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) did, and that there is some opportunity for small employers and others to flout it is to misunderstand or simply not to know that, each day and each week, my right hon. Friend's Department receives inquiries and applications from small employers who are asking for guidance and assistance in implementing and organising the policy.
  Mr. Emery rose—
  Mr. Hattersley: No—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] No, I am not giving way. Only a few minutes remain to me.
  Some of my hon. Friends asked me, "What about the busmen?" I was specifically asked a question about the busmen which, were it a fact, would be a grievous criticism of the policy. It was suggested that many busmen, anxious and willing to operate a productivity deal, were prevented by technical considerations in the shape of the sheer availability of one-man buses. In other words, the suggestion is that, despite their enthusiasm for the policy and their willingness to operate it, they are not allowed to do so because of these technical factors.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. The opportunities offered to the municipal busmen by my right hon. Friend are very clear and precise: a 10 shilling across the board increase, and an additional 10 shillings on their agreement in principle that they will work one-man buses when they become available. They do not have to do it. They have to agree to do it. When they actually do it, their increases in wages will be very substantial.
  Mr. James Hamilton: This is a very important point. My hon. Friend has said now that they are being offered a 10 shilling increase across the board, and a 10 shilling productivity increase to which they have to agree in principle. Whether or not they can operate it is conjectural, because of the fact that we do not have one-man buses. Nevertheless, if the men agree in principle to work this, they will get £1. Is that it?
  Mr. Hattersley: That is correct, and for those who agree not just in principle but in practice and do operate one-man buses, there are substantial increases available to them which will take them out of any conceivable category of lowest-paid workers.
  Mr. James Tinn: Will my hon. Friend comment on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) about whether, in addition to the low wage aspect of the municipal busmen, they do not come under paragraph 34(ii), which

  199
  provides for a redistribution of resources and of manpower, since, manifestly, the low wages of busmen reflect—
  Mr. William Whitelaw rose in his place and claimed
  to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question put, The Question be now put: —
  The House divided: Ayes 212, Noes 260.

  Division No. 283.]

  AYES

  [11.30 p.m.

  Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

  Goodhart, Philip

  Onslow, Cranley

  Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

  Goodhew, Victor

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Astor, John

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Awdry, Daniel

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

  Grieve, Percy

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Pardoe, John

  Balniel, Lord

  Gurden, Harold

  Peel, John

  Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Percival, Ian

  Batsford, Brian

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Peyton, John

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Bell, Ronald

  Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Bessell, Peter

  Hawkins, Paul

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Biffen, John

  Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

  Prior, J. M. L.

  Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

  Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Pym, Francis

  Black, Sir Cyril

  Heseltine, Michael

  Quennell, Miss J. M.

  Blaker, Peter

  Higgins, Terence L.

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

  Hill, J. E. B.

  Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

  Body, Richard

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Bossom, Sir Clive

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

  Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

  Holland, Philip

  Ridsdale, Julian

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Hordern, Peter

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

  Hornby, Richard

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

  Howell, David (Guildford)

  Royle, Anthony

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Bryan, Paul

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.

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

  Jenkin, PAtrick (Woodford)

  Scott, Nicholas

  Buck, Antony (Colchester)

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Burden, F. A.

  Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)

  Sharples, Richard

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Jopling, Michael

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

  Campbell Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

  Silvester, Frederick

  Carlisle, Mark

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Cary, Sir Robert

  Kimball, Marcus

  Speed, Keith

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Kirk, Peter

  Stainton, Keith

  Clark, Henry

  Kitson, Timothy

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Cooke, Robert

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Stodart, Anthony

  Cooper-Key Sir Neill

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

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

  Costain A. P.

  Lane, David

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Crouch David

  Longden, Gilbert

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Cunningham, Sir Knox

  Loveys, W. H.

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

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Lubbock, Eric

  Teeling, Sir William

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  MacArthur, Ian

  Temple, John M.

  Dance, James

  Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

  Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  McMaster, Stanley

  Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

  d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)

  Maddan, Martin

  van Straubenzee, W. R.

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

  Maginnis, John E.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Digby, Simon Wingfield

  Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

  Vickers, Dame Joan

  Dodds-Parker, Douglas

  Marten, Neil

  Waddington, David

  Doughty Charles

  Maude, Angus

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald

  Wall, Patrick

  du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Mawby, Ray

  Walters, Dennis

  Eden, Sir John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

  Weatherill, Bernard

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

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Webster, David

  Emery, Peter

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Wells, John (Maidstone)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Eyre, Reginald

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Farr, John

  Monro, Hector

  Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  More, Jasper

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Fortescue, Tim

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Woodnutt, Mark

  Foster, Sir John

  Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

  Worsley, Marcus

  Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)

  Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Wright, Esmond

  Giles, Rear-Adm. Morgan

  Murton, Oscar

  Wylie, N. R.

  Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

  Neave, Airey

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Mr. Anthony Grant and

  Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.

  Nott, John

  Mr. Humphrey Atki

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Garrett, W. E.

  Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Alldritt, Walter

  Ginsburg, David

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Allen, Scholefield

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

  Maxwell, Robert

  Anderson, Donald

  Gourlay, Harry

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Archer, Peter

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Millan, Bruce

  Armstrong Ernest

  Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

  Ashley, Jack

  Gregory, Arnold

  Molloy, William

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Morris, John (Aberavon)

  Barnes, Michael

  Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

  Moyle, Roland

  Barnett, Joel

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Murray, Albert

  Baxter, William

  Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.

  Oakes, Gordon

  Bence, Cyril

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  O'Malley, Brian

  Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

  Hamling, William

  Oram, Albert E.

  Binns, John

  Hannan, William

  Orbach, Maurice

  Bishop, E. S.

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Oswald, Thomas

  Blackburn, F.

  Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

  Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth S'tn)

  Blenkinsop, Arthur

  Haseldine, Norman

  Owen, Will (Morpeth)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hattersley, Roy

  Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

  Boston, Terence

  Hazell, Bert

  Paget, R. T.

  Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

  Healey, Rt. Hn. Edward

  Palmer Arthur

  Boyden, James

  Henig, Stanley

  Pannell, Rt. Hn Charles

  Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Parker, John (Dagenham)

  Bradley, Tom,

  Hilton, W. S.

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Bray, Dr. Jeremy

  Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Brooks, Edwin

  Hooley, Frank

  Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Brown, Rt. Hn George (Belper)

  Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

  Pentland, Norman

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

  Hoy, James

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

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

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

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

  Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

  Price, Christopher (Perry Bar)

  Buchan, Norman

  Hunter, Adam

  Randall, Harry

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Hynd, John

  Rankin, John

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

  Rees, Merlyn

  Callaghan Rt. Hn. James

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

  Reynolds, Rt. Hn. G. W.

  Carmichael, Neil

  Janner, Sir Barnett

  Richard, Ivor

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

  Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

  Roberts, Rt. Hn. Coronwy (Caernarvon)

  Coe, Denis

  Johnson, James (K' ston-on-Hull W.)

  Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

  Coleman, Donald

  Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

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

  Concannon J. D.

  Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)

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

  Conlan, Bernard

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rodgers, William (Stockton)

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.)

  Roebuck, Roy

  Crawshaw, Richard

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Crosland Rt. Hn. Anthony

  Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

  Ross, Hn. William

  Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

  Judd, Frank

  Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)

  Cullen, Mrs. Alice

  Kelley, Richard

  Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

  Dalyell Tam

  Kenyon, Clifford

  Sheldon Robert

  Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

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

  Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

  Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

  Lawson, George

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

  Davies Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Davies' Harold (Leek)

  Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)

  Skeffington, Arthur

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lee, John (Reading)

  Slater, Joseph

  Dell, Edmund

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Small, William

  Dempsey, James

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Snow, Julian

  Dewar, Donald

  Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Diamond, Rt. Hn. John

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Steel, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Dobson, Ray

  Loughlin, Charles

  Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Doig, Peter

  Luard, Evan

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Dunn, James A.

  Lubbock, Eric

  Strauss, Rt. Hn. G.R.

  Dunnett, Jack

  Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

  Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Swingler, Stephen

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

  Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

  Symonds, J. B.

  Eadie, Alex

  McBride, Neil

  Taverne, Dick

  Edelman, Maurice

  McCann, John

  Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  MacColl, James

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  MacDermot, Niall

  Tinn, James

  English, Michael

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Tuck, Raphael

  Ennals, David

  McGuire, Michael

  Urwin, T. W

  Ensor, David

  McKay, Mrs. Margaret

  Varley, Eric G.

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

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Waddington, David

  Faulds, Andrew

  Mackie, John

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Foley, Maurice

  Maclennan, Robert

  Wallace, George

  Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)

  McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

  Watkins David (Consett)

  Ford, Ben

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Forrester, John

  Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

  Weitzman, David

  Fowler, Gerry

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

  Wellbeloved, James

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Manuel, Archie

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  Freeson, Reginald

  Marks, Kenneth

  Whitaker, Ben

  Gardner, Tony

  Marquand, David

  202

  203

  White, Mrs. Eirene

  Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

  Woof, Robert

  Whitlock, William

  Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

  Wyatt, Woodrow

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Yates, Victor

  Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

  Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

  Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

  Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Mr. Joseph Harper and

  Mr. Alan Fitch.

  It being after one and half hours after Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your protection of the rights of the House. It seems to me that by a subterfuge the Government have taken away the right of the House to reach a decision on a matter of some importance— whether the Prices and Incomes Order should remain in operation or should be withdrawn. If this can happen tonight it can happen on any subsequent Order debated in the House, which would mean that the Opposition's rights had almost been taken away. Therefore, would you accept a vote on the Motion we have just had before we proceed to further business?
  Mr. Speaker: First of all—
  Mr. Ronald Bell rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Perhaps when I have dealt with the point of order the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) will decide that he does not wish to pursue the point.
  First, I cannot make any political comment. The last thing Mr. Speaker will do in the Chair is to express an opinion of the behaviour of either side of the House politically.
  The position is that the Orders of the Day made provision for this Motion to be taken until half-past eleven. We have passed that time now. It is impossible to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Since the House has impliedly resolved that the matter has not been sufficiently debated, will you, Mr. Speaker, adjourn the debate under the Standing Order?
  Mr. Speaker: The Standing Order to which the hon. and learned Member refers does not bite on this occasion. We now come—
  Mr. Edward Heath: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I
  204
  submit to you that a point of some considerable importance is involved on which, if you cannot give us a decision, at least the Leader of the House can advise the House. What we were originally to discuss was a Prayer, and there has long been a tradition in the House that if the Opposition wished to put down a Prayer to an Order they could do so within the limited praying time. On this occasion the Government refused Her Majesty's Opposition this right. We acquiesced in this because we were assured that time would be given for a debate. When we accepted that arrangement we in no way believed that we should not be given an opportunity of reaching a decision on the matter at issue itself.
  Surely the House is owed an explanation by the Leader of the House as to why Her Majesty's Opposition cannot have that right that we have had ever since the institution of Prayers. If the Leader of the House persists in the conduct of the Government tonight, it means that in future the Opposition can never accept a postponement of a debate on an Order in the form of a Prayer in order to accommodate the Government by having a debate in the time we have been given.
  I must, therefore, give the Leader of the House notice that unless he can assure us that in future we shall have the opportunity of reaching a decision on the matter and unless he gives us this opportunity on the present Order on another occasion, we shall always have to decline to postpone the right to have a Prayer. We shall have to insist upon it.
  The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I hope—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say in reply. We want to hear both sides.
  Mr. Peart: There has been a debate in which the right hon. Gentleman has put his point. I should be only too pleased to discuss it with his colleagues through

  205
  the usual channels. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to have further time, I think it is a perfectly sensible request, and I will certainly look at it.

  HOUSING SUBSIDIES (INTEREST RATES)
  11.48 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. James MacColl): I beg to move,
  That the Housing Subsidies (Representative Rates of interest) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.
  Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take at the same time the next Motion:
  That the Housing Subsidies (Representative Rates of Interest) (Scotland) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.
  which deals with the same point for Scotland.
  Mr. MacColl: These two Orders— [Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. MacColl: This Motion comes up under the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967, and the Housing (Financial Provisions, etc.) (Scotland) Act, 1967, and the Orders are essential for the working of the subsidies scheme because they fix the rate of interest at which subsidy is to be calculated. Similar Orders were laid last year, and they were the first to be made under the new Act. The present Orders follow very much the same pattern. I shall venture to deal with the one for England and Wales, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Scotland, who is to reply to the debate, will deal with any points which arise under the Scottish Order.
  The representative rate is related to the rates of interest paid in the financial year immediately preceding that in which the houses are completed. There are two reasons for this. First, most expenditure on a house is incurred in the year before it is completed. Secondly, local authorities need to know the representative rate for any financial year as early as possible in that year.
  206
  The rates are fixed after consultations with the appropriate bodies, and there are really three groups of house building authorities with whom we are concerned. The first group consists of local authorities. Their rate of interest is fixed after there has been a rather complicated calculation of weighted average on long and short-term borrowing. The figure is reached and finally agreed with the associations.
  The second group consists of the housing associations, and last year my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Public Building and Works said that he would look at the case for having a separate rate of interest for housing associations. We have discussed that and looked at all the available material there is about borrowing rates for the housing associations. We are satisfied—and I think the housing associations themselves are satisfied—that their rates are very much in line with the local authority rates.
  The new towns are financed in a completely different way. They are wholly financed by Government loans which carry interest at the Government's lending rate.
  The two rates of interest for England are 707 per cent. for the local authorities, and 7·13 per cent. for the new towns. These compare with 6·52 and 6 per cent., respectively last year. The House would probably like to have some idea of how these work out. The position is that last year when the rate was 6·52 the average cost of building a house, that is including the site, on the whole cost of which subsidy is paid, was £3,800. The equivalent figures for this year are 7·07 per cent. for the rate of interest, and £3,900 for the average cost. That means that on those average figures the basic subsidy this year will be £108. That is the difference between the 7·07 per cent. and the 4 per cent.
  As for the cost of the new subsidies under the Act as a whole, the original estimate for last year was £11 million, but the outturn was £12 million. The estimate for this year is £27·2 million, which is an increase of £15 million over the outturn for last year. The total cost of all subsidies falling on the Exchequer —the new and the old subsidies—last year was £94 million; this year it is £110 million.

  207
  The Scottish Order is based on the same general principles as that for England and Wales and is acceptable to the representative bodies consulted by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As last year, the Scottish rates are lower than those for England and Wales. Some differences are to be expected, since the source and amount of borrowing are not necessarily the same—for example, Scottish local authorities have been able to borrow a higher percentage of their requirements from the P.W.L.B. at rates of interest lower than the market rates than have authorities in England and Wales. My hon. the Minister of State will answer any detailed Scottish points which may arise.
  11.57 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: The Government bring these draft Orders to the House in the form directed by the parent Act and we have no complaint about the form of the Orders or the necessity for bringing an Order in each year, as the Act directs. If I understand it correctly, the procedure under the Act and this Order is that local authorities apply to the Minister for subsidy approval for the houses and flats which they intend to erect during a period of time; they state the cost of the land and of the buildings; the Minister confirms that those houses and flats will rank for subsidy, and the local authorities add up the cost of all loan-approved houses built in any one year.
  The local authorities then have to borrow money at current rates of interest in order to carry out that building. They then receive from the Exchequer a sum equal to the excess of interest so payable at those current rates over the amount of interest which would have been payable at the rate of 4 per cent., and the so-called current rate of interest is calculated and fixed annually by the Minister by an Order of the sort that we are now discussing. This is done after consultation with the recipient authorities or their representative bodies.
  It is a very complicated calculation, which is discussed with those bodies, and it is not set out in the parent Act in any way. All that the Act says is that
  "The rate shall be such as appears to the Minister … to be representative of the rates of interest paid on loans raised (including any sums borrowed by way of temporary loan) by recipient authorities …"
  208
  The Parliamentary Secretary takes the interest on the loans from various sources, averages them out and puts a weighting on the different types of loan. As I understand it, the interest rates taken for averaging out are those which apply to Public Works Loan Board mortgages; stock issues, negotiable bonds, mortgages on the open market, over-the-counter bonds and mortgages and, finally, temporary loans. I have rather stressed this calculation of interest because it is nowhere laid down in the Act. Although, by the consultations with the recipient authorities it is acceptable for this year, I would not have thought that either for those authorities or, certainly, for us on this side, this year's formula should be regarded as binding.
  For example, the temporary loans are only taken as one-sixtieth of the requirements of the local authorities in house building. I cannot argue on the figures but my impression, through knowledge of some local authorities, is that a much greater amount than that of their house building capital is on temporary loan. We all know that interest rates over this year have been at rates as high as ten per cent., certainly from eight to ten per cent. If that proportion is wrong, or if it is wrong when we apply it in any future year, the rate of interest in the year will be too low and the local authorities will not get the subsidy which they should be getting under the Act.
  The Order would fix the interest rates for 1968–69. It is an indictment of this Government's financial and economic policy to compare this Order with that which it replaces. We have had only one previous Order under the Housing Subsidies Act, 1967, but it set out three years' rates, because the Act was retrospective to 1965. For the year begining 1st April, 1965, the rate for all local authorities and housing associations was 6·19 per cent.; for 1966, it had risen to 6·35 per cent.; for 1967 it was 6·52 per cent.; and now, for 1968, it is up to 7·07 per cent., an increase of nearly one per cent. over those years, the rising interest rates being paid by local authorities.
  For the development corporations and the New Towns Commission, the rate was 6 per cent. until this year, when it leaps to 7·13 per cent. There are only

  209
  these two categories in the Order—all local authorities and housing associations, and the development corporations and the New Towns Commission. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it had been decided not to treat housing associations separately or to give them any different rate from that applying to local authorities generally. Again, I would not like to be bound by that as a precedent. It may be right this year— although I am a little doubtful—but it will not necessarily be right for every future year.
  One sad aspect for the local authorities is that these interest rates—necessary, under the Act—are calculated on last year's figures, and I would have thought that the rate for actual borrowing today is much higher than the 707 per cent. in the Order. So, all through this year, local authorities will have to borrow at a much higher rate—I would have thought at eight to 8½ per cent.— and they will not be getting that full compensation. But that is according to the Act.
  By increasing the rate, the Order will also, of course, increase the contribution from the taxpayer. We have heard by how much the total global subsidies are to be increased. The increase in the subsidies dealt with by the Order is from £12 million last year to £27·2 million this year. For all subsidies the increase is from £94 million last year to £110 million this year.
  As the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, the amount of subsidy depends not only on the interest rate, or the margin between 4 per cent. and the specific interest rate, but also on the cost of the house. He mentioned the increase in the cost of building a house —from £3,800 last year to £3,900 this year. But over the period of three years during which the subsidy has been in operation, the increase has been about £20 in every £100, so that a £4,000 house when the subsidy was started would now cost £4,800. If these increases in prices were not so disastrous to so many people, they would be rather funny set against the Prime Minister's famous Stevenage speech, made in September, 1964, only six months before these housing subsidies started. He said,
  210
  "We shall cheapen the cost of housing by our interest rate policy".
  If we set that against the present Order we see how the Government have failed to carry out their promises made to the electorate in 1964.
  One might think that an increased subsidy of this sort would relieve the ratepayers, but during recent years the increased subsidy has meant no relief whatever to the ratepayers. Four years ago the ratepayer contributed 6s. 8d. to every £1 of subsidy. Now he has to pay £1 for £1. No relief is given to the ratepayer by the increase in subsidies.
  The main point which emerges is that before they are given approval for this increase in subsidy under the Order, the Government ought to give the House a firm assurance that the subsidy will be used to the best advantage and will be properly used for housing those who are in need. Is it true that there are so few local authorities requiring the payment of economic rents, tempered by rebate schemes, that the average council house rent throughout the country is no more than £2 a week? Is it true that only one council tenant in 10 pays even as much as 2s. in the £ of this earnings in rent? May I quote from this morning'sDaily Mirror which wrote:
  "If you live in a council house your rent on average will be £2 a week. It is kept at this artificially low level by the £140 million a year subsidy from rates and taxes,"
  —I presume that that was for Scotland, too—
  "despite the fact that 10 per cent. of council tenants and their wives jointly earn at least £30 a week."
  If that is so, it seems to show that not all local authorities are using the subsidy properly and that the Government ought to make more certain that economic rents are charged for council houses, that councils have proper rebate schemes and that they are subsidising those who are in need of subsidy, not those who are not in need of subsidy. Unless that sort of assurance can be given to the House, an Order such as this, increasing subsidies, is not justified.
  Mr. John Brewis: The present rates of interest which a local authority would have to pay to borrow money from the Public Works Loan Board are approximately 8 per cent., slightly below or slightly above depending on how long the loan is asked for.

  211
  But in the case of local authority borrowing for spending on houses after 16th May this year in Scotland, their subsidy is to be calculated at the rate of 6·78 per cent., which is roughly 6| per cent. Therefore, they are having to borrow at about 1¼ per cent. more than they are actually getting back from the Government.
  It seems to me, therefore, that instead of the rate of interest for housing subsidies being brought down to a notional 4 per cent. this year the effect is going to be that local authorities in fact will be paying 5¼ per cent. To this extent the Scottish Act has not carried out the intentions the Government put before us when the Bill was passing through the Scottish Committee.
  The second point I should like to make concerns the different rate for England and Wales, where it is 7·07 per cent., and Scotland, where it is 6·78 per cent. There is a difference there of well over a quarter of a per cent., and that on a house costing round about £4,000 means that in Scotland something like £16 more will have to come out of the pockets of the ratepayers.
  I should like the Minister of State to say how this has come about, why the Scottish rate of interest is so much lower and whether Scotland will get any compensation for this position.
  My third point is that one of the snags of this system of financing housing is that it really does not pay local authorities to borrow at low rates of interest, because if the notional rate which is in the Order is higher, the local authorities in fact get bigger subsidies. If this is the case and the local authorities get back more in subsidy, it is still costing the Government more in paying out the subsidies. I should have thought a much better system was for local authorities to endeavour to arrange interest at the lowest rates they possibly could.
  I want to ask the Minister of State a question in connection with new towns. I know he will be very pleased with the number of houses which were built by local authorities in Scotland last year. The figures were well up, and indeed we are all pleased that this was so, but certainly some of the other figures are very disappointing.
  212
  I should like to ask him whether this rate of interest, which is higher for the development corporations, has in some way curbed the building of houses in Scotland in the last year. I notice that one or two of the figures for overspill are particularly disappointing. They are way down on 1963, 1964 and 1965. Have the Government in some way put a curb on the building of houses for overspill because of the high rates of interest?
  Another category is the new towns mentioned in the Order. I was not aware that the new town development corporations get their money directly from the Government, but it seems that they have been paying a higher rate of interest than local authorities, and I should like this explained. Has this also curbed the number of houses which are being built in the new towns?
  One notices that the number of houses under construction are going down and down. Comparing, for example, 1967 with 1965, they are down from 4,907 to 3,178. Very much the same thing is true of housing associations. Can the Minister of State give an assurance that the Government, through their economic restraints, are not cutting down on these three very desirable forms of building in Scotland?
  12.15 a.m.
  Mr. John H. Osborn: I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak on the subject of housing, and in debating the Order we have an opportunity to consider how present trends are affecting certain areas. I wish to comment on the effect that they are having on Sheffield.
  There can be no doubt that the high rates of interest are playing havoc with many local authority housing accounts. This Order is based on the 1967 Act and the issue under discussion is non-controversial. Indeed, if the representative rate of interest is to be increased, this will be welcomed by all local authorities. I wish to raise a constituency matter and to deal with the experiences of the housing committee of the City Council of Sheffield.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. It is not in order in discussing this general Order to discuss the housing policy of a particular recipient authority.
  Mr. Osborn: I do not intend to discuss Sheffield's housing policy as such. Like other hon. Members who represent Sheffield constituencies, I wish to be in a position to advise the city council of the current position under various Statutes, including this Order.
  The Parliamentary Secretary said that the average subsidy per house is £108 and that the average building cost per local authority house has risen from £3,800 to £3,900. This is in contrast with the figures I have been given in respect of the position for Sheffield under the 1961 Act. There was an expensive sites subsidy under that Act; and had the level of that subsidy not altered, it has been calculated that Sheffield would have received an aggregate annual subsidy per dwelling under that Act of £63, comprised of a basic subsidy of £24, a special needs subsidy of £16 and a tall buildings expensive sites subsidy of £23. But by amending the basic subsidy, greater assistance would have been given to authorities with greater need. Under the 1967 Act this rose to £74. This is the contrast between the old method of subsidy and the new method.
  This is of considerable interest to local authorities with slum clearance problems, and they consider that they are worse off, certainly under this Order than under the last Act, namely 1961 Act.
  Sheffield has constructed 5,565 houses since the Act came into force on 25th November, 1965. It has a housing debt of about £92 million, of which about £20 million relates to new houses completed. A 4 per cent. interest rate on that total gives a figure of £800,000. If, under the Order, there is a rise to 7·07 per cent., the figure will be £1,414,000. I have discussed this matter with the chairman of my local housing committee and I trust that the Minister will correct these figures, perhaps by letter, if they are wrong.
  It is interesting to note that Section 2(2) of the 1967 Act states:
  "… the amount of the subsidy shall be twice the amount by which the amount of such an instalment calculated at that rate exceeds what the amount of that instalment would have been if calculated at the rate of four per cent. per annum."
  This is a very odd way of going about things, and to the layman it makes calculation difficult. As indicated the
  214
  Parliamentary Secretary nationally the subsidy for all local authorities has risen from £12 million last year to £27.2 million. All subsidies have gone up from £94 million to £110 million. This is to be welcomed and, presumably, allowing for subsidy from rates, the figure is £140 million as was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). It would be useful to hear how that figure is broken down between local authorities. In particular, I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary would break down the figure to show the effect in Sheffield. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) sitting opposite, because he has been looking into these matters, as they affect Sheffield, with me.
  Sheffield, like many other cities, has a slum clearance problem. This weekend, two issues have arisen. The tenants association is very much concerned about the subsidies provided by the Minister of Housing to the local authority, and the headline in the Morning Telegraph is:
  "Housing revenue books in chaos claim tenants."
  There was a meeting over the weekend. This weekend also I spoke to the Conservative leader of the housing committee, and the headlines in this evening'sStar is:
  "Home building by city may have to stop. Sheffield may soon have to stop building houses unless it can get some satisfaction from the Minister of Housing and Local Government over interest rates and subsidies."
  The occasion of this Order seems appropriate for making a plea.
  I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary is aware or has been told that a letter has been sent by the town clerk to Sheffield M.P.s asking for a meeting with the Minister of Housing. I forwarded details also on 18th June, and there has still been no reply. On 28th March a deputation from the Sheffield City Council asked for advice an balancing the housing account, but was unable to see the Minister because it was referred to the Prices and Incomes Board. The Sheffield housing account is now in deficit, but the increased subsidy under the Order will be of advantage to Sheffield even if this subsidy is still too insignificant.

  215
  Following the Report of the Prices and Incomes Board we have been told that if the subsidy is not increased it will be necessary either to increase the charge on the rates—and already the ratepayer is making a pound for pound contribution—or it will be necessary to increase rents. The Prices and Incomes Board has referred to a 7s. 6d. increase and no more in any one year, but can I take it that if the housing subsidy from the Minister by one way or another is not enough this is an invitation by the Government to have a 7s. 6d. increase in rent each year? If this is not so, it means inevitably that local authority housing accounts will continue to run into deficit. I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will raise Sheffield's particular circumstances with the Minister.
  I am well aware that many other local authorities are faced with this same problem. Although the scope of the Order is limited because of the scope of the Act, it would be a very great pity if the subsidy was not in due course made larger. It is my hope that the Minister will later explain the position of Sheffield in particular, but the problem is not confined to the one city. The matter is urgent. Unless the increase in the subsidy is much larger, many local authorities will have to cut back on council housing.
  12.25 a.m.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: I should like to put one or two points on the Scottish Order before the Minister of State, Scotland, replies to the debate. The Scottish grouping of bodies concerned and also the Scottish rates which have been determined as representative are different from those in the Order for England and Wales, but the principle on which the subsidy is applied is the same. I am very much aware of this as I think I am the only hon. Member in the House who was on both Committees, the Committee on the Scottish Bill and the Committee on the Bill in which the English subsidy system was provided for.
  The representatives of the bodies concerned, local authorities and housing associations, have apparently agreed to the rates of interest which have been determined, but I wish to ask the Minister of State about the National Federation
  216
  of Housing Societies. Last year it expressed doubts about being included in the same group as local authorities. The Minister of State acknowledged this. I should be glad if tonight he will say whether the societies still have doubts about this or are satisfied to be included in local authorities, because presumably the term "housing associations" covers housing societies.
  We note that the method of calculation has been accepted by the bodies concerned, but provided that it is to be reviewed from time to time by the Government. Can the Minister tell us the Government's view about the future of the present method? I have armed myself with a copy of the memorandum which was placed in the Library and have followed the calculations on which the present rates were arrived at, but I note that the local authorities do not want to be wedded for ever to this particular form of calculation.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) raised an important point when he referred to the difference between the rates of interest prescribed as representative for England and Wales and those for Scotland, pointing out that higher rates had been adopted for England and Wales. When I saw this I assumed that it was because a greater proportion of loans in Scot-and had been obtained from the Public Works Loan Board and therefore at lower rates of interest than in England and Wales, but we need an assurance from the Minister of State tonight that these rates have been arrived at because there have been lower interest rates in Scotland arising from more use of the Public Works Loan Board or for some other reason.
  Last year the Government stated that local authorities in Scotland preferred not to use the provision in the Scottish Bill for different groups of local authorities to be treated separately and different rates of interest to be determined for them depending upon the rates at which those different types of local authority had borrowed in the previous year. Last year the Minister informed us that local authorities in Scotland preferred to be treated together as one group. Is this still the position? In this Order they have been treated as one group. Do they still prefer that rather than being treated differently as they could be under the Bill?
  12.28 a.m.
  Mr. John Hynd: In view of the lateness of the hour, I do not propose to try to argue on what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) has said about the situation in Sheffield. He explained it fairly clearly. I assure the hon. Member that I was asked by some colleagues to conduct the correspondence with the Minister. I received a reply today in which he says that he is prepared to meet a deputation from the city council when he has considered and decided on the present new rent proposals of the city council. Until he has done so he considers that it is not possible for him to discuss the effect of the interest rates on these proposals.
  I am concerned about the interpretation of the Order in relation to the situation in Sheffield. One would assume from reading the Order that the rate of interest for houses built in 1967–68 would have been 7·07 per cent., but when one turns to the Explanatory Note one finds that this appears not to be the case, and that through the operation of the subsidies the effective borrowing rate is 4 per cent. I find it more difficult to read that into the Order. I have hitherto been under the impression that the 4 per cent. rate effectively applied to new houses since before the Order, and that the difficulty has arisen in older houses which were not covered by the 4 per cent. arrangement.
  I should be grateful if the Minister would explain precisely how these permutations work out, so that the matter can be made clear to the local authorities and those interested. As I say, anyone reading the Order would not come to the conclusion which is suggested in the Explanatory Note, and I hope the Minister will clarify this.
  12.32 a.m.
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Hynd) for dealing with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn). When the Minister has made a decision about the rent structure which is before him now at the request of the Sheffield City Coun-
  218
  cil he will then be able to receive the deputation that the hon. Member for Hallam asked about. I should not like to commend to him a detailed reading of the memorandum, but that is the only way in which he will be able to work out the calculation. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) for even attempting to read and understand the calculation. Suffice it to say that we will not necessarily stick to that calculation next year. It is a method of arriving at a decision agreeable to ourselves and the local authorities, and it is subject to review. One of the best parts of the Act is the flexibility of these formulae.
  May I say in response to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) that the rate for temporary borrowing fluctuates wildly, which is a point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis). His first and third points seemed to answer themselves. This time last year, for example, it was below the rate for more permanent borrowings; at present it is above. In the former case authorities would prefer it to be ignored and in the latter case to be heavily weighted. I quite understand the position. We take the view that it is more a matter of swings and roundabouts, and this is the point the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galloway suggested in his third question to me. It is true that this year many borrowings will be above the rate for last year, but if interest rates fall next year the authorities will benefit from the higher rate for this year.
  Mr. Graham Page: What an optimist.
  Dr. Mabon: The hon. Gentleman must not heckle me like this. I am trying to answer the three questions which he put. I will not dwell for a moment on the assurances which he thought were necessary at the end, but I would commend to the electors of Sheffield a study of his speech.
  I think we all recognise the importance of economic rents, and know the revolutionary rent structure propounded by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Crosby. It is certainly not the only part of the Conservative Party policy which we have heard. I would appreciate it if perhaps next week, if he is not speaking on some other party line, the hon. Member for

  219
  Crosby will tell us if it is the intention of the party opposite to underline the system of effectively bringing down the rate of borrowing to 4 per cent.
  Mr. J. H. Osborn: I thank the hon. Member for giving way. We are coming round to economic rents, and I will put not only the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) before the city council but both those from the Front Bench. I am glad to learn that there has been a letter from his Ministry to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. John Hynd) explaining the position.
  Dr. Mabon: I am glad that the position in Sheffield has been somewhat resolved, and that the electors there will read the speeches which have been made tonight.
  I turn, then, to the questions that I have been asked on one or two Scottish points. The hon. Member for Galloway asked about new towns. New towns in Scotland obtain funds from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and those in England from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, out of issues from the National Loans Fund. I quite agree that overspill completions have been lower than we had hoped. There were 2,863 in 1965, 2,373 in 1966 and 2,557 in 1967. But approvals have been going up substantially, from 1,896 in 1965 to 3,322 in 1967. I take the point that an overspill programme needs great preparation to gain full momentum, and I regret that there was no momentum in the programme when we came to office.
  The Government wish to encourage overspill, and there is a special subsidy for it in the Bill. The new concept of out-county estates is of great importance also in this respect. As for the total figures of completions, bearing in mind that many people who are not technically involved in the overspill programme go to new towns, in 1964 they were 2,608, and in 1967 they were 3,941. Approvals were 3,301 in 1964 and 4,149 in 1967.
  220
  Those figures show the natural progression which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to see.
  As for housing societies, the Federation has accepted with some understandable reluctance the position as it is in the Order. It does not have complete information, and I am sure that it will want to return to the attack with Ministers, if the information that it gets shows that it has a case for such consideration. At the moment, it accepts that the rate for local authorities should apply also to its members, albeit reluctantly. However, the matter is not closed. It is open to the Federation to produce facts.
  I was asked about the difference between the Scottish and English rates. The main reason for the Scottish local authority rate of 6·78 per cent. being lower than the comparable English rate of 707 per cent. lies in the difference between the borrowing patterns in the two countries. Mention has been made of the Public Works Loans Board, but it is worth recording that, in addition, Scottish authorities borrowed a larger proportion of their funds during the earlier part of the financial year when interest rates were low.
  I do not think that there were any other matters raised in the debate. I am extremely glad that the House has received the Order in such a manner, and I hope that I have done justice to the questions asked of me.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Housing Subsidies (Representative Rates of Interest) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 10th July, be approved.

  HOUSING (SCOTLAND)
  Housing Subsidies (Representative Rates of Interest) (Scotland) Order 1968 [draft laid before the House, 10th July],approved.—[Dr. Dickson Mabon.]

  SCOTTISH SPECIAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION
  The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Dr. J. Dickson Mabon): I beg to move.
  That the Scottish Special Housing Association (Limit of Advances) (Scotland) Order 1968, a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.
  The purpose of this Order is quite simple. It is to increase to £170 million the limit of the aggregate amount of advances which may be made by the Secretary of State out of the National Loans Fund to the S.S.H.A. so that it can continue its housing operations.
  The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) will recall that the statutory limit was increased to £145 million in the 1967 Act, with provision for a further increase to a maximum of £170 million. The total of advances made to the end of the financial year 1967–68 was £124 million. Since then advances of about £3·5 million have been made. Having been Under-Secretary of State in 1964, the hon. Member will readily understand that we have already got commitments against which no advances have yet been made of £10·6 million and projects which are on the point of approval add about £2·5 million, bringing the total to about £140·6 million. We are also planning by the end of September to add another 1,000 houses, which will bring us up to, if not a little over, the £145 million allowable under the Act. Bearing in mind that we must take approvals into account as well as actual advances made, it is thought likely that, by that time, we will have exhausted the limit. It was thought necessary, therefore, to put this Order before the House.
  The overspill programme is going well, not just for Glasgow but for Scotland as a whole, as I indicated in the previous debate. Houses for industrial development are going even better.
  12.40 a.m.
  Mr. John Brewis: We all welcome the fine work which the S.S.H.A. is doing. Most of its building is for incoming industry, about two-thirds of which is going on the new towns and only about one-third outside. Virtually all its work is taking place in the central belt. As far as I can see,
  222
  there are only two small burghs in the whole of Scotland which are getting any contribution from the S.S.H.A. and only one county—Berwick, which is getting 10 houses.
  Should not the S.S.H.A. build many more houses in other parts of Scotland? I have in mind, for example, Invergor-don, which we hope will soon become a centre of industry. Industry is going to Campbelltown and Dalbeattie in my constituency, but places outside the central belt are getting very little help. How does a local authority set about getting the help of the Association. It is desirable that the Association should come in and help, as it relieves the ratepayers of the cost of building houses.
  The Minister of State mentioned 1,000 houses. Is this to do with Tweedbank, the Borders development? I suppose we do not know what will happen there for the moment, but if this is not approved by the county council this may well alter the plans. On the multi-storey question, is the hon. Gentleman sure that the constructions which the Association is erecting are thoroughly sound so that there is no risk of a disaster occurring of the type that occurred at Islington a few months ago?
  12.42 a.m.
  Mr. Gordon Campbell: As the Minister of State said, this is not a controversial issue on which we shall spend much time, but we want to take the opportunity of asking the Minister for answers to one or two points. When the Housing (Financial Provisions) Scotland Bill, 1967, was passing through Committee, we discussed Clause 15, under which the Order is being made, at some length. As the Minister of State pointed out, it was foreseen that the total amount would be raised from £145 million to £170 million. The Minister made some prophecies which I am glad to say have come out almost right. On 1st December, 1966—I refer to column 287—the hon. Gentleman said that he expected the limit of £145 million to take us to March, 1968. We are now a little beyond that, but that has worked out reasonably according to the hon. Gentleman's prophecy. The hon. Gentleman also said that he expected that the increased amount of £170 would last for about 1½ to 2 years. Does this mean that there will have to be another Bill

  223
  in about 1½ years' time to cope with the situation then? Does the hon. Gentleman foresee the amount having to be increased further, as he clearly did in December, 1966?
  When at that time we discussed at length what the S.S.H.A. was engaged in and was likely to be engaged in, the Minister said that the main problem then facing the Association was that of finding sites. Has this problem receded since then?
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) said, we agree in the House about the value of the work which the S.S.H.A. is doing, particularly for new and expanding industry, but there is a point of concern in the concentration of its work in certain parts of Central Scotland. In the latest Annual Report of the S.S.H.A. which is available, that is, the one which came out last September, it was said in the foreword that
  "areas in the Highlands, the Central Belt and the Borders will all benefit from this capital investment".
  The Report seemed to foresee activity by the S.S.H.A. in the north of Scotland, in the Highlands as well as in the industrial areas.
  From what I have discovered about approaches to the S.S.H.A. regarding the possibility of its building in the North of Scotland, it seems that the Association cannot embark on such projects unless a considerable number of houses or flats is to be built. Could the Minister comment on that? I do not know what the critical figure is, but it seems that, unless there are, say, 400 or so houses or flats to be built, the S.S.H.A. cannot sensibly or economically go into action somewhere in the North of Scotland far from the Central Belt. If the Minister could tell us something more definite about that, it would help us to see the problem in perspective, particularly in the light of the Association's declared wish to be able to operate in any part of Scotland.
  We note with regret that costs of building have increased, not only interest rates but, with devaluation, the increased costs of materials and so on, together with growing transport costs. This, no doubt, is making the operations of the S.S.H.A. more expensive. Can the Minister tell us whether it is still aiming
  224
  at building 5,000 houses a year in 1970, which is the target which the Association and we have discussed in the past, or is that figure affected by the reductions in housing targets which were announced at the beginning of this year?
  12.47 a.m.
  Dr. Dickson Mabon: I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. G. Campbell) for touching on a point which, in a way, answers a question raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis), namely, the expensiveness and, indeed, the impossibility of the Scottish Special Housing Association building in small packets. I should not like to give the figure off the cuff, but it is obvious that one cannot ask an Association of this kind to take heavy equipment up to build half a dozen or 20 houses. The number must be substantial.
  That is why I was anxious that the local authorities in the North should be willing to join in consortia. For all kinds of reasons, some of which I fully understand, they did not come forward on that line, although there are earnest attempts still being made, based on Aberdeen and Arbroath, to try to get some kind of consortium into being. The formation of consortia is valuable not only for the convenience of the S.S.H.A. but also for the convenience of the large builders, many of whom operate in the Central Belt and will stay there so long as there are no large programmes in the North.
  The small builders are coping reasonably well, but they certainly could not carry out a large programme such as, for example, at Invergordon, with the kind of infrastructure, as it is called, in roads, services and the rest as foreseen in the Alness structure plan described in the Moray Firth Report which the Jack Holmes Group published recently. If that kind of project were to be carried out in the future, it would have to involve the S.S.H.A. as well as other contractors.
  I take the point about the change in the character of the S.S.H.A. It has moved from being a social ambulance unit helping the ratepayers to being a body servicing overspill and economic expansion. But there are severe difficulties about sites.
  We have often been chastised over the S.S.H.A.'s leaving Glasgow, but in 1962

  225
  it built no houses in Glasgow. In 1963 it built 392, and that figure has steadily risen to 1,359 in 1966 and 1,156 in 1967. It must be obvious to anyone who knows Glasgow that the number of houses the S.S.H.A. can build in Glasgow is limited by the acute shortage of sites, which will create a very difficult situation in 1970. That is why Erskine, the fourteenth amendment to the Renfrew Development Plan, was approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State some time ago, after the public inquiry. It will give us about 6,000 houses in the public sector to be built outside the city in that one out-county estate.
  Mr. G. Campbell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman about building away from the Central Belt. He talked about penny packets of 10 or 20 houses. From what I have heard it seems that even if there is a project to build 100 or 150 houses in the North-West of Scotland that is still not enough to be worth while. But if there is a major development at Inver-gordon, as many of us hope, would not there then be definitely a case for a sizeable building programme which would be worth while for the S.S.H.A. to undertake?
  Dr. Mabon: The S.S.H.A. is building in Kelso and one or two other small places. It often does so through agents; although the houses are S.S.H.A. houses they are built by local contractors or agents who may be building nearby.
  Erskine is a case where we have a successful development in preparation for 1970. It takes a great deal of time in planning and site preparation and so on before one starts to erect the first house. In the case of Darnick we are held up by the negotiations prior to the compulsory purchase order which may prove to be necessary. I am not in a position to comment on that. That has already cost us 15 months.
  The 1,000 houses to which I have referred are half last year's figure, and one-fifth the figure the hon. Gentleman mentioned as a target. Those 1,000 houses for economic expansion comprise about three-quarters, if not slightly more, of the total programme. That is the measure of the emphasis on economic expansion. This emphasis will inevitably lead to a decreasing number for overspill and general needs.
  226
  A point was raised about building standards. The Scottish Local Authorities' Special Housing Group has engaged in detailed technical consultations not only about standardisation of components but about building standards, and information is being pooled. The disaster in London, which we all deeply regret, has lessons for others besides the English authorities and builders. The S.S.H.A., as a pioneer of good building in Scotland, will learn these lessons.
  Mr. G. Campbell: Is the target of 5,000 a year unchanged? If the hon. Gentleman cannot tell us now perhaps there is some way of informing us later.
  Dr. Mabon: I am hopeful that the S.S.H.A. will get very close to 5,000, but there are reasons why it may not —and Tweedbank is a good example. We did not think that Invergordon was coming along. If it does, it is a bonus which might offset that. I cannot say anything about that tonight. I would hope that we should get over 4,000 at any rate in 1970.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Scottish Special Housing Association (Limits of Advances) (Scotland) Order 1968. a draft of which was laid before this House on 11th July, be approved.

  SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
  Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the Rural District of Pock-lington [copy laid before the House, 17th July],approved.—[Mr. Elystan Morgan.]

  CIVIL AVIATION BILL [Lords]
  Order read for resuming adjourned Debate on 19th July, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  Question again proposed.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I wish that the undertaking given by the Minister of State to Standing Committee G about a full and proper discussion on Third Reading should be honoured.
  Mr. Speaker: Objection taken.
  Debate further adjourned till this day.

  THEFT BILL [Lords]
  Consideration, as amended, deferred till this day.

  BROCKHILL REMAND CENTRE
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]
  12.55 a.m.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: I do not on principle ask for an Adjournment debate lightly. The reason I asked for this one is that a large group of important and knowledgeable bodies most closely concerned with the problems of girls and women remanded in custody in the Midlands have expressed to me their great and continuing anxiety on the closure of Brock-hill Remand Centre to females.
  The centre caters mainly for young male prisoners, but because four years of experience showed all the officials involved how time-consuming, frustrating and expensive it was to travel up to Manchester or down to London with every woman who was remanded in the Birmingham area a special wing at Brock-hill was opened in May, 1965. At the end of June this year, in spite of many representations to the Home Office, it was closed.
  To say that this has very greatly inconvenienced and very greatly infuriated all concerned is putting it mildly. The first point is the hardship which this causes to defendants through the many hours of travelling that they must now undertake going between Birmingham and Holloway, where I understand most of them will now go.
  Under the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, courts are encouraged to remand on bail where possible for a medical report. Those remanded in custody will, therefore, be the more disturbed, distressed and possibly sensitive individuals, and many of them are first offenders. I question—and I know that the magistrates who are so closely concerned with this also question—the advisability of sending them to Holloway as a good place for them to be cared for on remand.
  It is not only a question of the travelling. When they are placed so far away
  228
  from their homes it is not possible for their parents or their husbands to visit them. I give two examples of the difficulty. They happened last week.
  The first case concerns two women from Nuneaton who were remanded for trial, one aged 30 and the other 31. One had a sick son, and the other four young children. Both women begged to be allowed to stay near Birmingham, but both were sent to Holloway. The first was not and is not able to get news about her son from her husband because he cannot make the journey easily. The second, whose four children are being cared for by various officials, does not get the visits she would have had had she been at Brockhill from the officials to tell her how the children are. It may be said that the women should have thought of their offspring before committing whatever crime landed them in this position, but I cannot believe that the Home Office would take such an inhumane attitude, and in any case it is not the fault of the dependants, who also suffer when their mothers are sent so far away.
  The second case concerns a 19-years-old girl charged with murder. The murder happened in April. Ever since then she has been in custody, and until Brockhill closed she was there. The case came up last week. It was a very distressing case. She stabbed her husband, and he died of the wounds some days later. She had had a horrifying time. The court found that she had done the crime purely in self-defence, and she was acquitted. But after all this period in custody she had to go through this tremendous emotional ordeal of a court case and travel every night and every morn-to and from Shrewsbury, where she was sent—a round trip of 86 miles. She went to the old prison for women at Shrewsbury where she was allocated a suite of rooms, and it was necessary to provide a night officer, a day officer, and a nurse to look after her. In addition, an escorting officer had to be with her on her journeys to and from Shrewsbury. What this travelling party cost the taxpayer in fares I do not know, but what a loss of time for these officers, and how frustrating it must have been for them.
  Every time anyone goes to Holloway from Birmingham, escorts must go with them. This is a tremendous waste of

  229
  public money. Their lawyers, too, must travel to see them if they wish to do so. One might say that this will not cost the taxpayer anything, but it will if the lawyers are retained on a legal aid basis, and in any case it wastes the time of experts.
  The judge at this murder trial had some very harsh things to say about the closure of Brockhill. He also asked what would happen in the winter when there was fog and bad weather? He wanted to know how women would get to the courts on time for the cases to start, and how counsel could talk to their clients and get to them to discuss certain aspects of their cases. The counsel involved said that he would also like to draw the judge's attention to the fact that in future defendants would have to get up at six or seven o'clock to get to the courts on time. That deals with the question of inconvenience to defendants, their escorts, and the officers involved.
  Next, there is the difficulty about preparing reports. Probation officers in London will have to prepare and send reports back to Birmingham even though the defendant may be quite well known to the local probation officer, whose job of writing a report on the person concerned is half done before she starts.
  We must consider, too, the question of after-care. Personal contact with the officer concerned is very important.
  Following the passing of the Criminal Justice Act, under Section 66, Brockhill was designated a place of safety in April last, a place where the violent, uncontrollable types go—the sort of person who cannot be put in a hospital, a children's home, or an ordinary remand home. It is a place to which a girl who causes a lot of difficulty can be sent. I am assured that, in the short time that Brockhill was used as a place of safety for women there was a marked success in dealing with the small numbers of women who went there. Only last Friday a magistrate told me of a girl who would have gone to Brockhill but who, because that was not possible, caused immense trouble. She wrecked the place to which she was sent, and she has since absconded.
  Early in 1967 the first three appointments of consultant forensic psychi-
  230
  atrists were made—one in Durham, one in Leeds, and the third in Birmingham. This imaginative step introduced a new aspect into the problem of the management of mental disorders in offenders. This was done as a result of a report by a working party on the prison medical service in, I think, 1964.
  The Birmingham consultant was doing extremely valuable and important work at Brockhill in improving the level of assessment, diagnosis, management and treatment of those in custody there. There will now be no consultant working with these women. It is true that only a very small number of women had this advantage, but that is no reason for not mourning the fact that none of them now has that advantage.
  As I understand it, the Home Office says that Brockhill can no longer be used for women and girls because of the shortage of nurses. The Statute says that there should be two state registered nurses at Brockhill, and it is said that it is not possible to find these women, but there are three doctors available, and there is a staff of very experienced prison officers. If, therefore, a woman was sick, or was about to be confined, she could be sent to hospital. She would not stay at Brockhill. I understand that one reason why it has not been possible to recruit these nurses is the distance of Brockhill from Birmingham, but the main reason is that women are bored to tears because they have nothing to do there.
  Mr. James Dance: It may be a long way from Birmingham, but it is equidistant from Bromsgrove and Redditch. It is very easy to get these nurses to and fro.
  Mrs. Knight: I am delighted to hear this. I have gone into this very carefully, and I take my hon. Friend's point.
  I recognise that women who are disturbed are liable to do themselves harm when in a remand home. The staff of Brockhill is very anxious that this home should be kept open to women in their care. These are the very people who take responsibility. Boys in Brockhill are catered for quite adequately under the present arrangement of doctors and prison officers. They do not have any nurses, and nobody seems to worry about that.

  231
  Only a small number of women get themselves into trouble in this way—it is true that my sex is a great deal more law-abiding than yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker—but this does not seem to be a good reason for making this small number of women accept unnecessary hazards and difficulties.
  I spoke earlier of the number of people who are concerned about this. There are the police, the probation service, the Magistrates' Association, the Birmingham City Council, the doctors involved with the prisoners, the Birmingham Law Society, the National Council of Women, the Chairman of Worcestershire Quarter Sessions, the Chairman of the Visiting Committee of Brockhill—all of whom have been in touch with me to stress how anxious they are about the closing of Brockhill to women and girls. These are not a bunch of ignoramuses; they know what they are talking about.
  The ideal thing would be for the two nurses to be found, so that Brockhill did not have to close, but these people have been weighing up the difficulties of having the women there with no resident S.R.N.s and the enormous difficulties that would flow from the closure of Brockhill, and on doing this they are further asking stridently that the Home Office should consider weighing up these two courses also, because they believe that if it did so it might, even at this late hour, reverse its decision on Brockhill.
  1.7 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Elystan Morgan): The decision to close the Women's and Girls' Wing at Brockhill Remand Centre has understandably caused deep concern in the Midlands, and I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight)—
  Mr. Dance: On a point of order. As this centre is in my constituency cannot I say a few words, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The hon. Member will appreciate that the usual custom of the House is for the Minister to be called when he rises, especially as, on an Adjournment debate, the time is limited. After the hon. Member who has the Adjournment has spoken it is reasonable to give the Minister the opportunity of replying.
  Mr. Dance: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend spoke very briefly because she knew that this remand home was in my constituency and was going to give me time to say a few words. With due respect, it is a little much to call the Minister to reply before I have had a word to say, when this home is in my constituency.
  Mr. Morgan: Further to that point of order. I believe that I am correct in saying that the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) has not made application for his name to be considered for an Adjournment debate on this matter. I have no objection—it is entirely in your discretion, Mr. Deputy Speaker—to the hon. Member's being called, but I would point out that a number of points have been made by the hon. Lady, in correspondence, and in Written and Oral Questions in the House, previously to this. I have therefore many detailed points to make, which will cover every minute of time available if I am allowed to proceed at this stage.
  Mr. Dance: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Member is addressing those remarks to the Chair, but, if so, he must withdraw them.
  Mr. Dance: Of course, I do not mean to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I do think that the Minister is treating my contsituency in a disgraceful way in not allowing me to say one word about this remand centre, which is in my constituency, and that subject to which my hon. Friend has raised so admirably. I would have said only a very few words, and the way that the Under-Secretary is treating me and my constituents is quite disgraceful.
  Mr. Morgan: I am sure that the House appreciates that this is not in my discretion, and that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have exercised your discretion in calling me. If the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) felt so strongly about the rights and welfare of his constituents in this matter, he could a (least have applied for an Adjournment debate.
  My right hon. Friend shares the concern which has been expressed tonight

  233
  and in letters from individuals and organisations in the Midlands since the closure decision became known. It is, of course, highly regrettable that this wing of a purpose-built establishment, providing first-rate accommodation and medical facilities, should have had to close. Hon. Members will need no assurance from me that the decision was taken only after every endeavour had been made to keep it adequately staffed and every possible alternative had been examined. The investment in buildings and equipment will not be wasted, because the wing has been taken over to provide increased accommodation for the boys at Brockhill remand centre, but it is sad, nevertheless, to have to give up remand places for women and girls in the Midlands which we can ill afford to lose. The main factor—
  Mr. Dance. On a point of order. How is a Member able to raise a point affecting his own constituency in a debate like this? Of course I did not put down my name for an Adjournment debate when I knew that my hon. Friend had done so. Why am I completely stifled and unable to say one word on behalf of my constituents?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can understand the hon. Member's difficulty, but I am sure that he will equally understand the procedure on these Adjournment debates. Time is very limited and the opportunity of raising a matter on the Adjournment is determined by Ballot. When questions are raised, whether affecting the hon. Member's constituency or not, it has always been the custom of the House that the Minister should have adequate time to reply. If the Minister rises, the Chair is bound to call him to answer the case which has been made.
  Mr. Dance: Further to that point of order. I spoke to my hon. Friend and we agreed that she would be reasonable in the time she took, and she was extremely reasonable. Surely a Member speaking on behalf of his constituency— and this remand home is in my constituency—should have been allowed a few minutes to speak.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: All that I can say is that it is a pity that this was not
  234
  arranged with the Minister before the debate began.
  Mr. Morgan: The main factor in the decision to close the wing was the intractable problem created by Brockhill's isolated position, which prevented the recruitment and retention of adequate nursing staff, and the choice was between keeping open the wind with inadequate nursing provision and making alternative arrangements which, while they might have involved some inconvenience for those concerned, would nevertheless ensure that there was proper care at all times for the women and girls on remand. As the Home Secretary said in the House on 4th July, our first concern had to be the proper care of these women and girls. In view of this and of our inability to retain the necessary nursing staff, there was no alternative but to close the wing.
  It may be helpful if I describe the background to the closure. Brockhill was opened in May, 1965, to serve the Midlands. That was as the result of a decision made by the then Home Secretary, Mr. R. A. Butler, in 1961. Brockhill had accommodation for up to 30 women and girls in the special wing provided. The choice of the Brockhill site in 1961 was dictated by the urgent need to provide a remand centre in the Midlands, and, in view of the difficulties of finding sites for prison establishments, the decision to use a site already in the possession of the Prison Commissioners, in the grounds of Hewell Grange borstal, was clearly understandable. With hindsight it may be thought that difficulties might have been foreseen in staffing a centre, holding women and girls who have special needs, 15 miles from Birmingham and Worcester and with inadequate public transport to the nearest towns of Bromsgrove and Redditch, each three miles away. But at the time the decision was taken, Hewell Grange borstal had experienced no difficulty in staffing its matron posts and the recruitment problem at Brockhill has derived from developments which have occurred throughout the country since 1961, in particular the rapid turnover in the employment of women and a widening range of employment opportunities for older married women.
  At virtually no time during the period the women's and girls' wing at Brockhill was open was it possible to maintain

  235
  the full nursing establishment of three state registered nurses and one auxiliary. In December, 1965, there were one senior sister and two part-time auxiliaries in post. A year later there was only one sister and one auxiliary in post—and that for a total of 848 receptions in 1966 and 964 receptions in 1967. To make good the deficiency, qualified staff were provided from other prison service establishments on short-term detachment, with resultant difficulties for them. Clearly this was a position which could not be accepted as a permanent arrangement. In all, seven nursing staff resigned from the prison nursing service while in post at Brockhill.
  It was finally decided by my right hon. Friend in April this year that the wing should be closed at the end of May. There has been criticism of the fact that this decision was taken without advance consultation with those concerned, but the Visiting Committee was informed at the earliest opportunity, as is our practice, and before any public announcement was made. Since three years' experience in this case had proved conclusively that Brockhill's isolated position prevented the maintenance of nursing staff to the required level, there would have been little purpose to be served in discussing in advance with those affected the decision to close the wing. However, my noble Friend, Lord Stonham received a deputation on 21st May following representations against the decision by the Visiting Committee, supported by magistrates and others affected in the West Midlands, and he agreed to postpone the closure until the end of June so that the Visiting Committee might present a resolution, as they had given notice of doing, at the annual conference of Visiting Committees and Boards of Visitors on 12th June.
  Mr. Dance: This is disgraceful.
  Mr. Morgan: We also considered most carefully a number of representations and suggestions from organisations and individuals in the Midlands area, but there could be no question of reversing the decision to close the wing in the absence of a practicable alternative. Indeed, it was only with difficulty that we were able to maintain nursing staff throughout June and then only at a level which fell short of that required by the medical advisers.
  Mr. Dance: On a point of order. This is complete nonsense. We have produced answers to all this. In view of the unsatisfactory answer, I do not know whether I can raise the subject again on the Adjournment, but I should certainly like to do so, because the Minister's answer is making no sense.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member will understand that that is not strictly a point of order. I have no doubt that his point will have been noted.
  Mr. Morgan: I should like to turn for a moment to some of the suggestions which have been made in correspondence with Ministers and in Questions in the House. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove in a Question on 14th June suggested that women and girls on remand from the Midlands should be accommodated in the former women's wing of Winson Green Prison, Birmingham, as was the practice until 1961. It was found on investigation that the accommodation at Winson Green had already been converted for other use and that, quite apart from the question of the cost of re-conversion, it could be made available again for remand purposes only at the expense of adding to the already serious overcrowding in the male cell accommodation at the prison.
  It was also suggested that the Home Office had been unnecessarily rigid in insisting on a full nursing complement at Brockhill in view of the availability of the medical officer in the remand centre and of nearby National Health Service hospital facilities.
  It is quite true that Brockhill was well served as regards cover by a medical officer and support from National Health Service hospitals which could have taken women and girls suffering from acute physical illnesses. But of the comparatively few women and girls remanded in custody a very high proportion— and this was a point not made by the hon. Lady—are mentally or emotionally disturbed, and many of them are remanded in custody specifically for observation.
  Mrs. Knight: I did make this point. I said that these are disturbed, distressed and sensitive individuals. I made this very point.
  Mr. Morgan: I am happy to correct myself on that point. The purpose quite often of the observation is that reports of their mental condition may be given to the courts.
  Since such women and girls might be received at any hour of the day or night, and since crises might equally arise at any hour of the day or night in the condition of those already in custody, the health and indeed the safety of the inmates require that constant trained nursing supervision should be available.
  It has been known for women and girls to do serious harm to themselves or their fellows, and it is not without significance that on some nine occasions seriously disturbed women and girls had to be removed from Brockhill to Holloway or Risley to enable them to receive the necessary care.
  Mr. Dance: Rubbish.
  Mr. Morgan: I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to protect the House, and indeed myself, from the constantly frustrating interjections of the hon. Member.
  Mr. Dance: It is because you are not telling the truth.
  Mr. Morgan: I do not know whether the hon. Member's attitude or conduct is anything to do with the hour of the night, but I am sure the House would wish him to behave in a different way.
  It has also been suggested that an additional deterrent to recruitment at Brockhill was the situation of the hostel for nursing staff one mile from the centre itself and reached by a lonely road through the borstal grounds, and that the provision of transport between the hostel and the centre might have helped to retain nursing staff. The question of providing such transport was considered, as was the possibility of using living accommodation for nurses nearer to the centre, but even if this had been possible it would have done nothing to solve the larger problem for nursing staff of getting to neighbouring towns in their free time.
  Following the closure of Brockhill, revised arrangements have been made for women and girls remanded by courts in the Midlands. Those committed by courts in Radnor, Worcestershire and North Herefordshire now go to Puckle-church, near Bristol. Those from Mont-
  238
  gomery, Shropshire, Staffordshire and South Derbyshire go to Risley, near Manchester, and those from the east and south Midlands to Holloway where there is now a separate remand centre for girls under 21. It has also been possible to arrange for overnight stay accommodation at Shrewsbury prison for women and girls, with their escorts, who may have to appear in court on consecutive days. This will have the effect of reducing the travelling involved, and we are urgently examining the possibility of making similar arrangements elsewhere in the general area.
  It has been represented to us very strongly by magistrates and lawyers that the new arrangements will greatly increase the burden of travelling for prisoners and make it difficult for them to remain in contact with relatives and legal representatives. I would not wish to minimise the problems that undoubtedly will arise in some cases, but although travelling distances will sometimes be greater under the new arrangements, in many cases, particularly where reliance has to be placed on public transport, communications will be easier than they were with Brockhill.
  Finally a word about the future. Although there are no immediate plans to provide alternative remand centre accommodation in the Midlands, the possibility of providing a remand centre for women and girls in the Midlands will be kept under review. For the time being we want to see how the new arrangements work out, but we shall watch the effect of the closure closely and the trend in the number of girls remanded in custody. If an addition to the number of women's and girls' remand centres appears to be justified, priority will be given to the Midlands.
  I ask the House to accept that the decision was taken, reluctantly, in the full knowledge of its effects and after every effort failed to remedy the problem.
  Mr. Dance: Nonsense.
  Mr. Morgan: This is, after all, a balance between the disadvantages now suffered and the very grave danger that would inevitably ensue were the position not to be corrected in this way.
  Mr. Dance: Why will not the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Morgan: Indeed, if any woman had been imperilled or if a death had occurred, I am sure that the hon. Lady —and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, had he brought himself to do this—would have applied with every fervour for an Adjournment debate on that very question and the failure of the Home Office, as would then have been the case, to take proper action in that connection, since the responsibility for the health and
  240
  safety of women and girls in custody falls squarely on the—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past One o'clock.

TECHNOLOGY
  V/STOL Aircraft
  V/STOL Aircraft
  European Launcher Development Organisation
  European Launcher Development Organisation
  Aircraft Manufacturing Projects (Australian Collaboration)
  Aircraft Manufacturing Projects (Australian Collaboration)
  Atomic Weapons Research Establishments (Projects)
  Atomic Weapons Research Establishments (Projects)
  TSR2 Prototype Aircraft
  TSR2 Prototype Aircraft
  A300 Airbus
  A300 Airbus
  Metrication (Committee Report)
  Metrication (Committee Report)
  LANDS TRIBUNAL APPLICATIONS (LEGAL AID)
  LANDS TRIBUNAL APPLICATIONS (LEGAL AID)
  PUBLIC TRUSTEE (FEES)
  PUBLIC TRUSTEE (FEES)
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Building and Civil Engineering (Wage Structure)
  Building and Civil Engineering (Wage Structure)
  National Board for Prices and Incomes
  National Board for Prices and Incomes
  Labour Party (Secretary's Salary)
  Labour Party (Secretary's Salary)
  Municipal Busmen (Pay)
  Municipal Busmen (Pay)
  Prices and Incomes Legislation
  Prices and Incomes Legislation
  Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy
  Productivity, Prices and Incomes Policy
  Unemployment (Bexhill, Hailsham and Rye)
  Unemployment (Bexhill, Hailsham and Rye)
  Booklet, "Dealing with Redundancies"
  Booklet, "Dealing with Redundancies"
  Departmental Offices and Rooms (Social Use)
  Departmental Offices and Rooms (Social Use)
  Company Directors' Salaries
  Company Directors' Salaries
  Unemployment, Mexborough
  Unemployment, Mexborough
  Food, Drink and Tobacco Industry Training Board
  Food, Drink and Tobacco Industry Training Board
  Asbestos Industry (Regulations)
  Asbestos Industry (Regulations)
  MR. S. GALAMAGA
  MR. S. GALAMAGA
  UNDER-SEA WARFARE
  UNDER-SEA WARFARE
  DACHAU CONCENTRATION CAMP (MEMORIAL)
  DACHAU CONCENTRATION CAMP (MEMORIAL)
  CHEMICAL AND MICROBIOLOGICAL WARFARE
  CHEMICAL AND MICROBIOLOGICAL WARFARE
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Medical Appeal Tribunal Decisions
  Medical Appeal Tribunal Decisions
  Prosecutions
  Prosecutions
  Graduated Pensions Scheme
  Graduated Pensions Scheme
  Norfolk (Wage Levels)
  Norfolk (Wage Levels)
  Retirement Pensioners, Birkenhead and Bebington
  Retirement Pensioners, Birkenhead and Bebington
  Supplementary Benefits, Birkenhead
  Supplementary Benefits, Birkenhead
BOARD OF TRADE
  Exports
  Exports
  Company Directors' Salaries
  Company Directors' Salaries
  Jute Manufacturers (Import Quota)
  Jute Manufacturers (Import Quota)
  Libya
  Libya
  Investment Grant Rates
  Investment Grant Rates
AVIATION
  Air Corporations Hotels
  Air Corporations Hotels
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Special Drawing Rights Scheme
  Special Drawing Rights Scheme
  Crimes (Autobiographical Material)
  Crimes (Autobiographical Material)
  Option Mortgage Scheme
  Option Mortgage Scheme
  Industrial Production Index
  Industrial Production Index
  Greater London Council (Travel Allowance)
  Greater London Council (Travel Allowance)
  International Debt (Service)
  International Debt (Service)
  Imported Foods (Contracts)
  Imported Foods (Contracts)
  International Monetary Fund (South African Gold Sales)
  International Monetary Fund (South African Gold Sales)
  Parliamentary Answers (References)
  Parliamentary Answers (References)
  Contracts Preference Scheme (Development Areas)
  Contracts Preference Scheme (Development Areas)
  Child Allowances (Tax Relief)
  Child Allowances (Tax Relief)
  Wife's Earned Income Allowance (Tax Relief)
  Wife's Earned Income Allowance (Tax Relief)
  Surtax (Husband and Wife Assessment)
  Surtax (Husband and Wife Assessment)
  Investment Allowances (Exchequer Cost)
  Investment Allowances (Exchequer Cost)
  Public Schools (Charity Status)
  Public Schools (Charity Status)
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS (WRITTEN ANSWERS)
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS (WRITTEN ANSWERS)
  HOUSE OF COMMONS STATIONERY
  HOUSE OF COMMONS STATIONERY
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Magistrates' Courts (Sittings)
  Magistrates' Courts (Sittings)
SCOTLAND
  Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen (Rates)
  Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dundee and Aberdeen (Rates)
  Commercial Premises (Revaluation)
  Commercial Premises (Revaluation)
  Register of Teachers (Exceptional Admission)
  Register of Teachers (Exceptional Admission)
  Approved Schools
  Approved Schools
  Maladjusted Children (Residential Schools)
  Maladjusted Children (Residential Schools)
  Metric System (Housing Costs)
  Metric System (Housing Costs)
  Police (Recruitment)
  Police (Recruitment)
  Police Forces (Undermanning Allowance)
  Police Forces (Undermanning Allowance)
  Housing
  Housing
  A7-A68 Road Link (Galafoot Bridge)
  A7-A68 Road Link (Galafoot Bridge)
  A68 Road (Improvements)
  A68 Road (Improvements)
  Hawick-Newcastleton Road
  Hawick-Newcastleton Road
  A7 Road, Carlisle-Hawick
  A7 Road, Carlisle-Hawick
  A72 Road, Galashiels-Glasgow
  A72 Road, Galashiels-Glasgow
  A698 Road
  A698 Road
  Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle (Railway Services)
  Edinburgh-Hawick-Carlisle (Railway Services)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Historic Buildings, Northumberland
  Historic Buildings, Northumberland
  Common Land (Registration)
  Common Land (Registration)
  Betterment Levy
  Betterment Levy
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Coal (Extraction of Liquid Fuels)
  Coal (Extraction of Liquid Fuels)
  Electricity (Simultaneous Maximum Demand)
  Electricity (Simultaneous Maximum Demand)
  North Sea Gas (South Wales)
  North Sea Gas (South Wales)
  National Coal Board (Ancillary Goods and Services)
  National Coal Board (Ancillary Goods and Services)
  Fuel Policy (Brookings Institution Report)
  Fuel Policy (Brookings Institution Report)
  Dungeness B and Hinckley Point B Power Stations (Reactor Fuel)
  Dungeness B and Hinckley Point B Power Stations (Reactor Fuel)
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Zambia
  Zambia
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Land Holdings, Devon and Dorset
  Land Holdings, Devon and Dorset
  R.A.F. Ballykelly
  R.A.F. Ballykelly
  Defence Equipment Sales
  Defence Equipment Sales
  Dachau Concentration Camp (Memorial)
  Dachau Concentration Camp (Memorial)
  MINISTERS OF STATE (SALARIES)
  MINISTERS OF STATE (SALARIES)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  North Pennine Rural Development Board
  North Pennine Rural Development Board
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Regional Employment Premium, Scotland (Labour-Saving Machinery)
  Regional Employment Premium, Scotland (Labour-Saving Machinery)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Ballet Companies (Grants)
  Ballet Companies (Grants)
  Residential Special Schools (Additional Duties)
  Residential Special Schools (Additional Duties)
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Priority Areas)
  Primary and Secondary Schools (Priority Areas)
  Further Education (Numbers)
  Further Education (Numbers)
  Hornsey College of Art
  Hornsey College of Art
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Lung Cancer
  Lung Cancer
  Suicides
  Suicides
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Respiratory Tuberculosis and Cancer (Deaths)
  Respiratory Tuberculosis and Cancer (Deaths)
  Nursing Agencies
  Nursing Agencies
  Doctors' Lists
  Doctors' Lists
  Medical and Related Services (Administrative Structure)
  Medical and Related Services (Administrative Structure)
HOSPITALS
  Waiting Lists (Stockport)
  Waiting Lists (Stockport)
  Nursing Staff (Stockport)
  Nursing Staff (Stockport)
  Repair Work (Stockport)
  Repair Work (Stockport)
  Private and Public Wards (Length of Stay)
  Private and Public Wards (Length of Stay)
  Consultants
  Consultants
  Test Results (Waiting Time)
  Test Results (Waiting Time)
  St. Mary's Hospital, Launceston (Physiotherapy)
  St. Mary's Hospital, Launceston (Physiotherapy)
POST OFFICE
  Mail Charges
  Mail Charges
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Optical Beam Communication
  Optical Beam Communication
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  R.A.F. Station Ballykelly
  R.A.F. Station Ballykelly
  Building Operatives
  Building Operatives
  Winterbottom Committee (Report)
  Winterbottom Committee (Report)
  Departmental Direct Labour (Staff)
  Departmental Direct Labour (Staff)
  Construction Firms (Approved List)
  Construction Firms (Approved List)
  Hampshire Monuments (Schedule)
  Hampshire Monuments (Schedule)
TRANSPORT
  Driving Licence (Welsh Language Version)
  Driving Licence (Welsh Language Version)

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

SALMON DISEASE AND OVER-FISHING
2.36 p.m.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: 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—

(1) Whether they are organising or encouraging research into the origins of the present salmon disease in the United Kingdom, with a view to finding a remedy; and

(2) Whether they are co-operating with other nations in the prevention of the over-fishing of salmon in the seas around Greenland and elsewhere.]

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR SCOTLAND (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, a substantial programme of research into salmon disease is being carried out by Departmental laboratories with additional staff and facilities provided for the purpose. The aim is to determine the precise cause and nature of the disease, which, though not yet established, is thought to be viral in origin. Once the cause is known, attention will be turned to possible remedial measures.
As regards the second part of the Question, noble Lords will appreciate that any regulation of a fishery taking place on the high seas or in the coastal waters of other countries depends on securing the agreement of the nations involved. Wide-ranging scientific investigations, in which we have collaborated with other countries, have not yet produced sufficient evidence to persuade nations engaging in these fisheries that they constitute a poten-
658
tial threat to stocks of Atlantic salmon; but at its last meeting the international Commission for the North-West Atlantic Fisheries called on the Governments concerned to consider urgently preventing any increase in the level of high seas fishing for salmon by their nationals.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, apart from rod-and-line fishermen, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware of the very considerable value of the salmon to British rivers and thereby to hotels, the tourist industry, netting men, to employment and wealth generally in Scotland, Lancashire, the West Country and Northern Ireland; and, in view of that whether he is satisfied that the Government are doing enough both on the research side and diplomatically to try to avoid a real calamity in this matter?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the Government are well aware of the importance that is attached to these fisheries. I do not in any way disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Fraser, has said, It is for that reason that we have pressed so very hard—and for what I must say is a regrettably long period—to try to get results in this matter. We are not alone in having an interest. So far as research is concerned, I might mention that this is being undertaken simultaneously not only in England, Scotland and Wales but also in Northern Ireland and in Eire. I can assure noble Lords that it is because of the importance of this to our national interests that we have pressed so hard to try to get results both in determining the nature and cause of the disease and also in the restriction of fishing in the high seas and off other coasts.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for the information that he has, given us on the first part of the Question about the investigations that the Government are making into the cause of the disease. May I ask the noble Lord whether he is satisfied that the research strength and facilities are now adequate for grappling with this difficult task and whether, if they are not adequate, he would consider further strengthening the staff in order to reach firm conclusions on this very important matter?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, that if at any point it appears there is need for additional staff, or, to put it another way, if additional staff can be usefully employed, so much importance do we attach to this problem that we shall certainly not stand in the way of recruiting them. At the moment I do not think any useful purpose will be served by adding to the staff engaged in this work.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, if my noble friend has to appoint additional staff and thereby increase expenditure, would he ask for an assurance that there will be no criticism from the other side?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there could not possibly be any criticism? The very large sums of money spent on finding out about this disease and discovering a cure would yield abundantly over the next ten or twenty years. Salmon is a very rich harvest.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I think all I can say is that I never like to give a guarantee as to who would say that expenditure is reasonable and who would say that it is not.

HOSPITALS: CARE OF ELDERLY PATIENTS
2.39 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to implement the recommendations of the Hospital Boards' Committees concerning the care of elderly patients in certain hospitals; and how soon these steps can be taken.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY or HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the Committees of Inquiry were set up by Hospital Boards and reported to them. The Boards are now considering the findings with the hospital management committees and will consult my right honourable friend the Minister of Health where necessary.
660
The findings of the Inquiries were not made known to the hospital management committees until they had been communicated to Parliament in the White Paper published on July 9, so it is really too early for the management committees and the boards to have completed their consideration.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply. I appreciate the question of time in this matter. Would it be possible for some rather simple recommendation to be put into force, if not at once, then almost at once?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this is a matter for the Regional Hospital Boards. I am sure that if a recommendation is simple and involves no expenditure they will find no reason to delay putting it into force.

SHEEP DIPPING
2.43 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: 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 reimpose compulsory dipping of sheep throughout Great Britain.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Diseases of Animals Act provides for the compulsory dipping of sheep only as a remedy for sheep scab. No case of this disease has occurred in this country since 1952, and there seems no justification for the reintroduction of compulsory dipping.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, may I ask two questions? The first is, what steps are to be taken in respect of diseases caused by ticks, which are louping tickborne fever and tick pyaemia in lambs? Secondly, although dipping is regulated at county level, should it not be national? Lambs are transported over the country for winter keep and are re-sold in the spring. The spring is too cold for dipping, so if they have not been dipped as lambs tick viruses are increased. Ticks may be brought into the houses by dogs, so should not sheep dipping be restored for

661
economic and domestic reasons and to prevent cruelty to animals?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the only notifiable disease is sheep scab. As there has been no case of sheep scab since 1952, there is no longer any necessity to make dipping compulsory. I agree with the noble Lord that dipping also controls external parasites such as lice, and dipping for this is, of course, a matter for the farmer. Good husbandry ought to require that dipping should be continued by the farmers.
LORD BANNERMAN OF KILDONAN: My Lords, would it not be wise to have one statutory dipping in the year to control these other pests and also to prevent the possibility of sheep scab returning to the country. Sheep scab did develop in a particular farm known to myself, through the fact that the sheep were not dipped.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I quite believe that, and that is the reason why there was compulsory dipping. But it was very effective, with the consequence that the disease has practically disappeared from this country. However, in five local areas in Scotland it is still compulsory to dip the sheep. The five local authorities in Scotland are the only local authorities in the whole of the United Kingdom who still consider it necessary to have compulsory dipping.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, if five areas in Scotland find it necessary, surely it should apply to the whole of England. It is no use having dipping in one area and not in another.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should think it would be most unwarranted for us to say what should or should not be done in those five local authority areas in Scotland; and similarly I should think it most unwise to suggest that because they do it in those five areas in Scotland the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom should follow suit.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, may I ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, is aware how bad is the tick menace throughout the country? Is he aware that in districts which are infested by ticks the farmers welcome the dipping of their sheep? Not
662
only do they dip their sheep, but they swim their dogs through the dip as well.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that is excellent. If the farmer dips his sheep that is some indication that he is a good farmer. But, my Lords, I think it is a little hard that when this Government try to do something compulsorily they are criticised, and when we say that it should be left to the initiative of farmers and others we are criticised, too.

ROAD SAFETY AND HEDGES
2.47 p.m.
EARL HOWE: 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 have considered the adverse effects on road safety caused by restriction of highway authorities' expenditure on necessary road maintenance, which is preventing action to cut hedges and grass verges limiting drivers' vision.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, the restriction applies to local authorities' total expenditure on highways, other than grant-aided expenditure on principal road improvements, and it is the responsibility of highway authorities to decide on what items of expenditure the necessary savings should be made. There is no evidence that the restriction is having any generally adverse effect on road safety.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but it does not give me much confidence, nor, I think will it give much confidence to motorists. Is he aware that some local highway authorities are not heeding Government advice on aspects of maintenance to which he has just referred? Further, is the noble Lord aware that there is ample evidence to show that accidents are being caused through the vision of drivers being limited for the reason I have just stated? In the interests of road safety, and rather than waiting for the horse to bolt before closing the door, will the noble Lord convey to the Minister the serious

663
aspect of this matter and the need for some action to be taken on a national scale?
LORD WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, I have no evidence at all that local authorities are ignoring the regulations. The noble Earl may be influenced by a certain accident that occurred, but in the view of Her Majesty's Government there is no particular evidence that this accident was caused by absence of roadside maintenance. There were many other factors in this particular case.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, would he not feel that it is well worth some sort of an effort, some pressure, in order to save a few lives?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, so far as is known, a single jury has expressed an opinion that a life was lost as the result of inadequate roadside maintenance in front of signs. That was an expression of opinion. The accident took place at 2.45 o'clock in the morning after the individual concerned, who tragically died, had driven 200 miles. It may be that the accident was caused by his failing to see a certain element of a certain road sign but there may have been other causes as well.

AREAS OF SPECIAL NEED
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half past three my noble friend Lord Stonham will be making a Statement on the urban programme for areas of special need. May I also take the opportunity to say that dinner will be available this evening from 7 o'clock until 8.30 p.m.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Brown to advance the Committee Stage of the Restrictive Trade Practices Bill from Monday next to Friday next. —(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
DURHAM COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

TRANSPORT BILL
2.52 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill. In so doing, I think I might suggest that it would help the Committee in its consideration of Part IX which deals with regulations for road traffic, if I drew your Lordships' attention to the fact that there are in the Printed Paper Office copies of the text of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967, as it would appear if the Amendments to Part IX were to be carried. In the print additions and substitutions are shown in heavy type and omissions by dots. The purpose of doing things in this way is so that the effect of the provisions of Part IX can be more readily understood.
Part IX has been deliberately drafted by way of Amendments to the 1967 Act, which is an Act consolidating a number of Statutes relating to the regulation of road traffic so that the benefit of this consolidation of the law will not be lost. May I suggest that it will help our discussions when we come to Part IX of the Bill and the rather complex legislation that exists in the traffic sphere if we were also so far as possible to refer to the sections and subsections of the amended text of the Road Traffic Regulation Act. I and my noble friends mean to proceed in this way ourselves, and by adopting this suggestion I think your Lordships may find it easier to follow the flow of

665
the law as it is proposed that it should be if the provisions of this Bill are carried through. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his statement and for his suggestion that we should make use of the provisionally amended version of the 1967 Act. I also thank him for kindly sending me a copy which has enlivened my week-end reading. I am bound to say that it greatly helps this complex process of legislation by reference which we all loath, but it is a very great convenience and I am sure that it will be a convenience to all noble Lords in the proceedings in Committee when we reach Part IX, which I hope we shall reach as speedily as possible.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 96 [Installation and operation of recording equipment in vehicles]:
THE EARL OF SELKIRK THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 241AA:
Page 130, line 8, at end insert—
("Provided that in the case of vehicles which have to keep their engines running for driving ancillary equipment the mechanical equipment for recording information shall be attached to the road-wheel drive of the vehicle.")
The noble Earl said: We now come to Clause 96 which imposes an obligation to put on vehicles which fall under this Part of the Act a recording instrument to record the use of the vehicle, and like everything else in the Bill it is subject to criminal sanctions. So we are here imposing another possible crime. By my Amendment I propose that this recording instrument would not be used in cases where vehicles were using only ancillary equipment. Whether or not the Amendment is necessary depends on what recording is going to be called for.
The words in the clause are very wide, "recording information as to the use of the vehicle", That could mean anything —the weight of the load, whether the roads were rough and whether it went
666
uphill or downhill. And, of course, it probably deals with speed and distance. If the phrase deals only with speed and distance, clearly that has nothing to do with my Amendment. But if it deals with hours, then clearly it might have something to do with my Amendment. I am wondering whether the noble Lord could tell us a little about what really is intended here. The Ministry of Transport have imported the word "tachograph", and I notice that the draftsman, in his wisdom, does not include the word either in the Explanatory Memorandum in the main clauses of the Bill, or, indeed, under the Schedules. I do not really blame him because, so far as I am concerned, I have not heard the word before and I am not a bit clear what it means.
What I can say is this. It has, so far as I can see, a different meaning is the Oxford English Dictionary from that which is generally used by the Ministry of Transport. The Oxford English Dictionary says that it is practically nothing more than a speedometer. I gather that the Ministry of Transport like to give it a wider connotation. It may be that they are right; it may be that they are not. That does not matter. What I should like to know is the extent of the information that is to be recorded. I think it is important that we should know this. The Government have tabled here, as they have elsewhere, very wide powers and we should like to know as fully as we can just what it is that they have in mind. I beg to move.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: It is my job this afternoon to open the batting. For the last day or two that we were on this Bill, we did not make extra good progress. I hope that we shall do a little better to-day. When moving his Amendment, the noble Earl questioned whether it would be necessary or unnecessary. I hope to prove to the noble Earl that the Amendment is unnecessary and I trust that at the end he will be able to withdraw it.
The Amendment would require tachographs, when fitted to vehicles which use their engines to drive ancillary equipment for loading and unloading, to be attached to the road wheel drive, so that when engines are so used the time concerned does not count as driving. The Government accept that this time

667
should not count as driving time, but intend to give effect to this purpose more satisfactorily than would this Amendment. The Government's proposals have the advantage over this Amendment in that they will enable time spent with the engine running but the road wheels motionless—for example, in a traffic jam—to be counted as "driving time", which is clearly right; whereas, if the tachograph had to be operated only by the road wheel drive, it could not show such time as "driving time". I am pleased to give the assurance that tachographs, when fitted to vehicles equipped with engine-driven ancillary machinery, will be required to be capable of distinguishing, when the vehicle is stationary with its engine running, between time spent in operating the ancillary equipment—which does not count as "driving"—and time during which the engine is merely idling, for example, in a lengthy traffic holdup, which does count as "driving time".
It has yet to be decided how exactly tachographs would be constructed to achieve this requirement, whether automatically from the drive to the ancillary equipment or whether by the driver pressing a button on the tachograph whenever he uses the ancillary equipment. Either method is technically possible and would provide a record which could he produced in any proceedings in which it was alleged that a driver had exceeded his permitted hours of driving. The requirements as to the fitting of tachographs to vehicles are in any event to be prescribed in regulations under the provisions of Clause 96(1)(a), and it would be inappropriate to try to deal with such detailed matters in the Bill. All concerned, including the unions, have been sent a copy of the specification for suitable tachographs, towards their being available in adequate numbers when required.
This draft specification, which in due course will be embodied in and re-circulated in the form of draft regulations, already provides for tachographs, when fitted to a vehicle to which engine-operated ancillary equipment is fitted, to be capable of identifying periods during which the engine of a stationary vehicle is being used solely to drive such ancillary equipment. The time during
668
which the ancillary equipment is in use while the vehicle is in motion, as in the case of mobile concrete mixers, counts as driving in any event. The Amendment is therefore unnecessary, and I trust that the noble Earl will withdraw it.
LORD TEVIOT: I feel that I cannot let this clause go by without making a few pungent remarks. The whole idea of having a machine-made snooper sitting in the cab beside him is to a driver complete and utter anathema. The very principle spells mistrust and I cannot help feeling that it sets up a new precedent for interfering with the individual's liberty. The purpose of Clause 6, as your Lordships are well aware, is to reform drivers' hours in the interests of safety. I have previously made my thoughts on Clause 95 well known and I will not repeat myself. Just cutting drivers' hours and installing recording machines might be suitable if drivers were machines and you were dealing with metal fatigue, but drivers are human beings, with quite a different metabolism. Therefore, the idea of thinking that you will solve all your problems by cutting hours and having machines to make drivers adhere to those hours is completely inconsequential and ridiculous.
In an earlier debate, I mentioned that considerable reform could be made by having more intensive medical check-ups, but the Government do not seem to be interested in that. Also, the Government have not queried the safety of a driver of 69 years of age driving the maximum hours. This whole clause has been ill-conceived, is extremely badly constructed and is thoroughly impracticable. Therefore I urge the Government to look at the problem much more realistically and, above all, to remember that they are dealing with human beings and not machines.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, for giving an assurance, as I understand he has, that the tachograph will not be attached to ancillary equipment. Nevertheless, I should like to ask the noble Lord a non-technical question. Just what is the tachograph going to record? Will it record only hours? If it does, it is simply a timepiece. The other question I wish to ask is this. The noble Lord has suggested, quite rightly, that there are technical problems. Is he

669
saying that this device will not be installed until all the technical problems that he has mentioned have been satisfactorily solved?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My information is that what it will record is speed and distance while the engine is running.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: Then it is not recording hours at all. This seems to be important, because the Bill deals entirely with hours, and not with distance or speed. Therefore it seems to me palpably ridiculous to put in an instrument to deal with distance and speed—matters that have nothing to do with this Bill at all.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I apologise to the noble Earl. I should have added that it does record time. It is time, distance and speed.
LORD BELSTEAD: I am not trying to press the noble Lord personally, because he is not personally responsible for the tachograph, but as I understand it he agrees in spirit with the Amendment that in regard to the ancillary equipment, when it is working, it will be not only desirable but absolutely necessary that if the engine is not in any way propelling the machine the tachograph should not clock up. Carefully as we all listened to the noble Lord, we did not get the practical answer which the noble Earl tried to press for: namely, how this is going to be done. The noble Lord mentioned a button. Is this already in production somewhere? Is there a trade name which the noble Lord can give us for a particular tachograph which works like that?
The noble Earl, when he was moving his Amendment, referred to the fact that this would be a criminal offence under Clause 96. Perhaps it would not be out of place to point out that under Clause 69(4)(c) the result might mean loss of an operator's licence and a transport manager's licence, in certain circumstances, and under this clause, by subsection (4), a maximum of £200 fine for permitting this to happen. Perhaps we could at some stage have a little more information about, for instance, the button. It is extremely easy to fiddle about with buttons, and I think everybody deserves a little better explanation than this, bear-
670
ing in mind that tachographs are mentioned in the White Paper, which shortly will be a year old.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I can tell the noble Lord that tachographs are in production and have already been fitted by some firms. I am assured that technically they are not at all difficult. I know that buttons can be a nuisance at times, but these are no more difficult than I have already explained.
LORD BELSTEAD: With respect, does the noble Lord mean tachographs of this sort? I am well aware, as no doubt are other noble Lords, that tachographs are used at the moment. Some go by the vibration of the vehicle. But are these the sort of tachographs to which the noble Earl is referring in his Amendment?
LORD SOMERS: I think I heard the noble Lord say that these instruments would be driven from the engine. Do they then record at the time when the engine is merely idling, but the vehicle standing still?
EARL FORTESCUE: Before we leave this subject, could the noble Lord say what the tachograph will cost and whether one pattern will do for all vehicles?
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: I regret that I am unable to give an answer to that question. However, the answer to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, is Yes.
LORD BOOTHBY: Is not everybody talking a great deal of nonsense at the moment?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: This matter will, of course, come before us in a document at some time. I do not press the matter further now, but I hope that before this provision is brought into operation—it establishes a criminal offence—we shall have a full explanation of what we expect drivers to do. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 241B:
Page 130, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) a vehicle of any class wholly engaged in agricultural, horticultural or forestry operations;").
The noble Duke said: When I put down this Amendment I was hopeful

671
that the Government would accept my Amendment to Clause 95(9) to include forestry with agriculture and thereby exempt it from subsection (1) of Clause 95. I think it might be useful, notwithstanding the fact that my Amendment is obviously defective in the regard in which the noble Lord, Lord Hilton, said he would look at the position of forestry, if we had a short discussion on the Amendment as it stands, on the understanding that I will withdraw it latter.
At the moment, agricultural vehicles are exempted from the provisions of Clause 95(1) under Clause 95(9), provided that they spend less than four hours per day on a public road. I should have thought, therefore, that a tachograph in these vehicles would be of no interest at all, so far as hours are concerned, because the driver's defence, if the tachograph shows too many hours on a particular day, would obviously be that he was not driving on public roads but was driving about a field; and this is very likely. As these machines are somewhat expensive (I gather they are likely to cost in the region of£50, although I am open to correction on that) it would seem to me that this is adding unnecessary cost to any industry whose vehicles are exempt from the provisions of subsection (1) of Clause 95. I should have thought, therefore, that they could be exempt from having tachographs fitted under subsection (2) of this clause.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Hilton of Upton, will say that subsection (2)(b) enables the Minister to do this if he finds it is necessary and reasonable to do so. But I should have thought that it might be better if it were written into the Bill. I am not entirely happy about subsection (2)(b) because it says:
"a vehicle of any class exempted from that subsection by regulations made by the Minister;"
and it is not a vehicle "of any class" that I want exempted. It is only a vehicle engaged in the agriculture and forestry industries that I feel ought to be exempted. I am not sure whether the words "of any class" cover industry. I beg to move.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: The Minister accepts that tachographs would be inappropriate for farm tractors and
672
agricultural machines, and assurances on this point have already been given to the farming industry. And I repeat those assurances this afternoon. They are that regulations under Clause 96(2)(b) (and I noted that the noble Duke said that he is not altogether happy about subsection (2)(b)) will provide for exemptions in appropriate cases of this kind when tachographs are brought into force for other vehicles. Representative organisations will be consulted about these regulations in good time, and there is therefore no need to provide a specific exemption in the Bill itself. Goods vehicles used for agricultural, horticultural or forestry operations are, however, quite a different matter. Since this description includes ordinary lorries, the people driving goods vehicles for long hours during such operations can produce exactly the same dangers to the public as those arising from the driving of any other large goods vehicles for long periods. The limits imposed by Clause 95 on driving and working time for such vehicles must therefore be enforced in precisely the same way; that is, by the use of tachographs. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Duke will be satisfied, and will do as he said and withdraw this Amendment.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I think the noble Lord has slightly missed the point, in that I feel that these machines are unnecessary on agricultural vehicles because under subsection (9) of the previous clause agricultural vehicles are in most cases exempted from subection (1). Therefore it will not do any good to fit tachographs to agricultural vehicles. I agree that the dangers of excessive hours of driving of agricultural vehicles are obviously just as great as those in any other industry if the vehicles are on the road, but under subsection (9) of the previous clause they are exempted when they are not on the road. I should have thought that the chances of tachographs' being of any use in any proceedings which might be brought against a driver, or an operator for allowing excessive hours to be driven, would be absolutely nil, because there will always be the defence that the vehicles were not on the roads for much of the time recorded on these machines. As the tachographs are quite expensive machines and would add to the cost of the industry, I should have

673
thought that they could well be exempted. I should just like a little further explanation from the noble Lord.
LORD STONHAM: I think my noble friend Lord Hilton of Upton made it quite clear that what he is really providing for by the assurances given is that tachographs will not be required to be fitted to these farm vehicles. I do not see how there is any doubt about the matter at all.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: But the noble Lord said, I think, "farmlike tractors and suchlike vehicles". There are also such vehicles as lorries, which spend a large amount of their time not on public roads—for instance, when they are being used for both farming and, particularly, forestry. And when I put this Amendment down I was thinking more particularly of forestry, because I agree that the number of lorries used by farmers is fairly limited. But there certainly are some, and they spend a certain amount of their time not on public roads. I should have thought that to require tachographs to be fitted to them was just adding to the expense involved. Moreover, I gather that to begin with there is going to be a shortage of tachographs, and we might be able to bring the whole of this clause into operation rather sooner if we were able to exempt the class of vehicles used in the agriculture and forestry industry.
I do not feel that I am being unreasonable about this. I am absolutely with the noble Lord in that I should be in favour of requiring these tachographs to be fitted if they would do any good, and if he felt that they would help to enforce the law. I agree that this provision is going to be difficult to enforce, but I cannot see how, in the case of the agricultural industry, due to subsection (9) of Clause 95—of which I might say I thoroughly approve—tachographs will help. This is the point I am trying to get at. I want to ask the noble Lords who have spoken for the Government whether they think that the requirement to fit tachographs really is going to help, or whether they just feel that, in order to keep all lorries on a par, even lorries entirely used in agriculture, they should be fitted with tachographs.
LORD STONHAM: The difficulty about a definition such as "lorries used
674
entirely in agriculture" is that it would include lorries used for market gardening which spend a great deal of their time going to and from cities, and we could not possibly agree that there should be an exemption, so far as the use of tachographs is concerned, for such lorries. There is a difficulty of definition. There is a great appeal in the suggestion that in regard to vehicles which are virtually entirely used on the land, on the farm and on private roads—the use of the word "private" may not be the proper one, but I refer to farm roads and the noble Duke knows what I mean—this requirement should not be necessary; and certainly these are the kind of questions which cause us considerable concern and which we shall discuss with the farming interests. Our difficulty, however, is that if we had in the Bill any overall exemption such as the kind the noble Duke envisages, we should thereby exclude from these provisions a substantial number of lorries which are just as much in need of regulation as are any other lorries on the road. That is our difficulty. All I can say at the moment, without being very hopeful of the outcome, is that I will look at what the noble Duke has said.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to thank the noble Lord for saying that. As I think my noble friend, Lord Selkirk, has down in the next two Amendments a much better definition which probably gets to much the same point as do my Amendments, and as my Amendment is at the moment obviously defective, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.18 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 242:
Page 130, line 16, after ("regulations") to insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Shepherd. I should like your Lordships to consider with it Amendments Nos. 243, 244 and 247. Amendment No. 242 is of course only paving the way for Amendment No. 243, which enables the Minister to make regulations laying down rules for the preservation of tachograph records. Amendment No. 244 deletes subsection (5), the first part of which is no longer necessary because No. 243 makes the preservation

675
of records subject to regulations, instead of being a direct requirement under the Bill. The Amendment also corrects an anomaly arising from the second part of subsection (5) between the penalty for failure to preserve tachograph records and failure to preserve written records. Amendment No. 247 is consequential on No. 243.
Clause 97 was extensively revised by Government Amendments in another place on the Report stage in response to the argument put forward by the Opposition that all matters concerning the keeping and preservation of written records should be the subject of regulations instead of being required directly under the Bill; and two of these Amendments carry the same principle into effect for the preservation of tachograph records. These are matters which the Government accept can best be worked out in consultation with industry, as I indicated to the noble Duke a moment ago, and they can be changed again after consultation with industry if circumstances change. This is the important thing, and therefore they are eminently suitable for regulation.
Amendment No. 244 also has the effect of substituting a maximum penalty of £200 for the offence of failure to preserve these records, and this brings the penalty into line with Clause 97(4) for failure to preserve written records. There are clearly no grounds for distinction between the two cases. The figure of £200 is the standard maximum penalty. I beg to move.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I should like to thank the noble Lord for explaining the purpose of this series of Amendments, which seem to me to be quite acceptable. I am sure he will not be surprised if I make the observation that this part of the regulations and arrangements with regard to drivers' hours seems to be in a rather incomplete state of preparation and, like a good many other parts of the Bill, has been hustled along on to the Statute Book before the Government were really ready with this scheme. I think my observation is given weight by the resistance of the Government to the Amendment which I put down last time, that the appointed day for Clause 96 should precede the appointed day for Clause 95.
676
It is clear that the right kind of tachograph in the right numbers is not yet available, and it is clear that consultation between industry and unions is not complete, nor has agreement been achieved all round. Yet we all know that enforcement is absolutely vital if these new regulations are to be effective, and I again make the observation that the Government should give more time and thought to such very important legislation before they come and lay it before Parliament. There is so much in this Bill, and so much of it has not yet been sufficiently prepared. I am not blaming the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who, heaven knows! has struggled with the complexities of this Bill most successfully in order to try to make them clear to us, but the general observation is a fair one, and I hope the noble Lord will convey to his colleague the point I am making.
LORD STONHAM: I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, for the reasonable tone of his remarks, and I will certainly convey the general sense of them to my right honourable friend, with whom I will be conferring in the near future. But I really cannot agree that this Bill has been, as the noble Lord said, "hustled along on to the Statute Book". It is a mammoth Bill with an enormous amount of detail, but a great deal of parliamentary time has been given to it and it certainly was not the fault of the Government that in another place, despite the great amount of time that was allowed for it, some matters were not considered. I am sure the noble Lord will concede that in your Lordships' House we have considered every point, and are still doing so.
With regard to his "throw away", as it were—his reference to not implementing Clause 95 until we can implement Clause 96—I think this would be retrogressive in the extreme. The Sunday newspapers carried the statement that there were 500 fewer people killed on the roads and 17,000 fewer injured in the first six months of this year. If, somewhere in the world, we had received the dreadful news that by an earthquake or some other catastrophe 500 people had been killed and 17,000 injured it would have been front page news all over the world. There would have been relief

677
schemes set up all over the world and everyone would have been shocked. But we have saved these 500 lives and prevented these 17,000 people from being injured, and that is why I have been so concerned about these safety measures. I am glad noble Lords share that concern, and particularly the noble Duke.
Therefore, while acknowledging these points and the difficulties that have arisen, and trying to overcome them and to get agreement in your Lordships' House, I think we should keep paramount in our minds at all times the great need for added safety measures. Even if it does pinch some toes sometimes I am afraid they will have to be pinched, because the important thing is that we alone of the countries of the world have reversed the trend for increased deaths on the roads we are saving lives and we ought really to co-operate to the full in that way.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 243.
Amendment moved—
Page 130, line 20 at end insert—
("(b) imposing or the owner of any vehicle in which equipment is installed for the purposes of this section duties as to the preservation of any records produced by means of the equipment.")—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 244.
Amendment moved—
Page 130, line 40, leave out subsection (5). (Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 96, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 97 [Written records]:
3.28 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 245:
Page 131, line 6, leave out from ("keep") to end of line 7 and insert (", and employers of employee-drivers to cause to be kept, in such books as may be specified in the regulations records ".
The noble Lord said: I should be grateful if we could take with this Amendment, No. 246, because the two
678
are interrelated and are intended to improve the existing provisions concerning the duties of employers to see that proper written records are kept by their drivers and for providing a defence for them in cases where, despite their having taken all reasonable steps in this direction, such records are not maintained 1): their drivers.
Amendment No. 245 rectifies the situation under Clause 97 as it is drafted in the Bill at the moment, wherein an employer who causes or permits an employee driver to contravene the regulations concerning the keeping of records is liable to a penalty under subsection (4), but no duty is directly imposed on him to cause his employees to keep such records. The Amendment I am proposing imposes such a duty.
Amendment No. 246 is related directly to the duty to be imposed on etnp1Dyers, and subsection (4), as amended, provides a penalty for the contravention by an employer of regulations to he made requiring employers to cause written records to be kept. Since such a contravention is an absolute offence—and we are often concerned about this "absolute offence"—it is desirable that there should be a defence for employers in genuine cases where an employer has made it quite clear to his drivers what is expected of them but they have ignored his instructions. A defence of this kind was sought by Her Majesty's Opposition in another place in Committee and at Report stage, and at the latter stage a Government Amendment was made to provide the defence at present contained in the second part of subsection (4) of Clause 97. The second Amendment revises the wording of the defence, making it more appropriate to the direct duty now to be imposed on employe7s to see that proper records are kept. This Amendment obviously embodies a joint agreement and is another example of the advantages of discussing these matters together. I hope you will approve it. I beg to move.
LORD MERRIVALE: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, especially for Amendment 246, which meets the point which my honourable friend moved in another place? I think it meets it very admirably.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL THE DUKE OF ATHOLL moved Amendment No. 245A:
Page 132, line 3, leave out from ("fit") to end of line 6.
The noble Duke said: This is largely a probing Amendment. I should have thought it was better to leave the traffic commissioners with entire discretion in the light of local circumstances as to what exemptions they should make from the provision that written records should be kept. I agree, however, that it is almost essential that written records should be kept, and I think it is the case now that vehicles covered by Clause 97 have to keep written records. I should like to know why the Government have not given the traffic commissioners complete discretion—as I think they have at the moment—about what exemptions they will make to this provision. I should also like to know what exception they anticipate the traffic commissioners will be able to give under the words which I wish to delete, other than the very obvious one, which I must say I hope never arises; that is, that the person, the employee concerned, cannot write. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: As the noble Duke has made clear, the effect of his Amendment would be to remove from the Bill any guidance at all to the traffic commissioners or licensing authorities on the circumstances in which they should grant a dispensation from any of the provisions of Clause 97, which deals, of course, with obligations on employers and drivers to keep and preserve written records. On the whole, we think the Amendment would be unhelpful to people who are subject to the hours rules, because it would give no guidance to the traffic commissioners or the licensing authority on when they should use their powers to modify or dispense with any of the requirements concerning written records.
Of course, it is true, and I confess we have argued it ourselves on other Amendments, that licensing authorities are reasonable people and are therefore likely to grant dispensation in cases only where insistence on complying with the requirements in full would be wholly impracticable. Nevertheless, we think there is some merit in employers and drivers knowing from the very beginning that traffic commissioners and licensing authorities are going to need strong evidence before a dispensation can be granted. I
680
think there is some inconsistency here, because the words used in the Bill follow a similar provision in subsection (4) of Section 186 of the Road Traffic Act 1960. It has worked for eight years, it has not been found offensive and it has not created difficulties. I think there is an advantage in following that.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for what he has said. I agree that this provision has worked for eight years, but I still wonder whether it is really necessary. However, there is obviously little disagreement on this point, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 246:
Page 132, line 7, leave out subsection (4) and insert:
("(4) Any person who contravenes any regulations made under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200; but the employer of an employee-driver shall not be liable to be convicted under this subsection by reason of contravening any such regulation whereby he is required to cause any records to be kept if he proves to the court that he has given proper instructions to his employees with respect to the keeping of the records and has from time to time taken reasonable steps to secure that those instructions are being carried out.")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 98 [Inspection of records and other documents]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM: I beg to move Amendment No. 247:
Page 132, line 36, leave out from ("by") to ("to") in line 37 and insert ("regulations under section 96 or 97 of this Act").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 99 to 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 [Interpretation, supplementary provisions etc., for Part VI:
3.37 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 247A:
Page 136, line 25, insert (""off duty" in relation to any driver includes any period during which he is enjoying a rest break statutory or otherwise.")
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to clarify a situation regarding rest breaks. Without such a clarification it will be impossible to be certain that these rest breaks will be excluded from the working day. I believe I am right in saying there is insufficient legal precedent to establish the position with any certainty. For instance, after a five-and-a-half hour working period, there will be a half-hour rest period. Could the Minister therefore give a legal clarification of this point? Will this half-hour period be excluded from the working day or not? I beg to move.
LORD LEATHERLAND: The noble Lord has asked for a legal definition, and no doubt he will get it, but from an ordinary layman and motorist's point of view I see grave danger in accepting the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord. Let us assume a lorry driver is driving down from Lincolnshire to Covent Garden, as so many do every morning, and let us assume that 20 miles out of London his time becomes due for a rest break and that he pulls his lorry into a lay-by and proceeds to eat his sandwiches. While he is sitting in the lorry, eating his sandwiches, another lorry collides with him and breaks both his legs. If he is to be defined as being off duty during that half-hour rest break, he probably loses quite a lot of civil rights vis-à-vis the employer. I certainly would invite my noble friend to take that possibility into account before he gives his legal verdict.
LORD STONHAM: I think my noble friend Lord Leatherland has proved that he is no ordinary layman. The example he quoted was no ordinary example, but a very apt one. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, by his Amendment, has attempted to define "off duty" as any period during which a driver is enjoying a rest break, statutory or otherwise. In reply to the noble Lord I must decline to do as he suggests and define this, because we think it is impracticable to lay down hard and fast rules as to what exactly constitutes being on or off duty. To try to define "off duty" would only introduce anomalies and unfairness, as my noble friend has so clearly indicated. The Bill therefore deliberately avoids defining "off duty" and "rest", since these are matters which can best and, indeed, in many cases can only, be deter
682
mined by the courts in disputed cases in the light of the individual circumstances. In any case, it is possible for a person to be on duty while taking a rest break.
A driver might, for instance, have stopped for his half-hour statutory rest break as required under Clause 95(2)(a). During the rest break he must be able to obtain rest and refreshment. He does not have to get out of the vehicle to obtain it, although of course the choice is entirely his, but he could pull into a lay-by and eat his sandwiches, in which case he probably remains responsible for the vehicle and therefore remains on duty. On the other hand, he might leave the vehicle at the depot and spend the half-hour's statutory break in a café; half a mile away. In that case he would be regarded as being off duty. But there can be a variety of factors, which determine whether a driver is on duty or not at a particular time and in particular circumstances. The experience we have had with the 1960 Act suggest; that leaving these matters to be dealt with by the courts on an individual basis, without a definition such as Lord Merrivale Amendment suggests, would result in generally satisfactory solutions. I hope the noble Lord will accept that.
LORD MERRIVALE: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, for his reply so far as it goes. I am grateful t the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, for his few remarks and for the example he gave. I am a little disappointed that it is not possible to define quite accurately whether one is on or off duty and that one has to leave that to the court; for an interpretation. But if that is the way it is and the way it is going to he, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD SOMERS: Before my noble friend withdraws this Amendment, may I ask whether this does not provide a very strong case for the point I pressed before, and that is that these instruments should be on a time basis rather than for speed and distance, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said. Obviously the engine will not be running while it is in the lay-by and therefore that time will not be recorded but if during that time the driver is officially in charge of the vehicle —and I quite agree that he is—surely these instruments should he worked on a time basis rather than by speed and distance.
LORD STONHAM: I think the noble Lord, Lord Somers, is under a misconception. These tachographs do record the time that the engine is running; but if the engine is stopped and the driver is sitting in his cab in a lay-by having a rest break, and, as I said, eating his sandwiches and drinking his flask of tea, the tachograph would not then be recording; it would not be running, and it would take up again only when it resumed running. It would not then show whether or not the driver was in charge of the vehicle although having his rest break. That is why I have said to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, that it would be better not to adopt and rigidly define what is a rest period and when a man is off duty; because there are often times when a man is having his rest break but is on duty, and no machine yet devised has been able to show when that would be. It is very often a matter of the man's own judgment, and that cannot be recorded by machine. He has to keep his records, and good men—most of them are good men—act responsibly to their employers. if such a man was involved in an accident, such as my noble friend has suggested, and was on duty in a stationary vehicle having his rest break, the facts would come out, and whatever compensation was awarded, if it could be affected by the fact of whether or not the man was on duty, would be affected accordingly. I hope that covers the noble Lord's point.
LORD MERRIVALE: May I ask one final point of clarification following what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has just said? I understand that by this Bill, when it becomes an Act, in effect a driver will be able to drive 5½ hours and then will have to stop. When he stops and has to take a rest for 30 minutes, is he at that point on duty or off duty?
LORD STONHAM: Again I do not think I can give a 100 per cent answer. There may be circumstances where, although he would be having a rest which was statutorily obligatory (I can say that at 3.45 o'clock, but whether I shall be able to say it at 11.45 to-night- I do not know) he might well be on duty. It is impossible to say. The noble Lord will be aware that the Bill provides for a working day which has an overall length,
684
a maximum part of which will be spent driving. The answer, therefore, is included in the overall working day.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 247B:
Page 136, line 45, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this Part of this Act a director of a company shall be deemed to be employed by it.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 247B standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Shepherd. This Amendment is necessary because, as Part VI of the Bill stands at present, directors of companies who for the purposes of their companies' business drive vehicles to which the provisions of Part VI apply will in many cases not be subject to those provisions when they clearly ought to be. The reason for this is that a director of a company who has no service contract with his company is not a servant of that company and is not in its employment. It follows, therefore, that such a director is not an "employee-driver" as defined in Clause 94(3)(a), because he would not, when driving a vehicle on his company's business, be driving that vehicle "in the course of his employment", and, secondly, is not an "owner-driver" as defined in Clause 94(3)(b), because he would not in such a situation be driving a vehicle
"for the purposes of a trade or business carried on by him",
since the trade or business would be one carried on by the company of which he is a director.
It is clearly wrong that the provisions of Part VI applicable to employee-drivers and owner-drivers should not apply to all directors of companies, as they would apply if those directors were treated either as employees or owners. It was certainly not intended that directors without service contracts should be excluded from Part VI, and the purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that they are covered by that Part of the Bill. The Amendment is therefore, to that extent, one of a drafting nature intended to remove this defect in Part VI. It is intended to put all directors of a company into the category of persons who are employed by it, so that the provisions of Part VI which are applicable to "employee-drivers" will apply to the directors of the company as they will apply

685
to those who are in fact its employees. I beg to move.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord for that explanation. I wonder whether this Amendment might occasionally produce some rather strange results. Suppose that a director was responsible for entertaining some overseas customers whose good will the firm was particularly anxious to keep, and took them in the evening to a theatre and dinner, driving them in one of the firm's cars, at the end of, let us say, a long day's work. This would make him on duty throughout that time, and if he had been driving for a number of hours during the day he would then be caught by this particular provision. I wonder whether the noble Lord would tell us whether this provision has been thought through, whether it would be entirely practical in the many and varied circumstances in which it might apply?
LORD STONHAM: It is difficult to answer a question like this off the cuff. I take it that the noble Lord is assuming that the person concerned would have been driving for more than four hours, because if he had not then he would not be caught at all by the Bill. The noble Lord's point, I gather, is whether the man, although a director of the firm, who has exceeded the statutory number of hours, either by driving for more than 51-hours in a stint, or for more hours than are to be permitted in the overall driving day, would have committed an offence? The answer is, Yes, because this Amendment makes it clear that, for the purposes of this Bill and of this clause of the Bill, we are treating directors in the same way as we do other employees. I think that is the right thing to do. I do not think that, by reason of a technicality, they should not he subject to the same regulations which the Bill provides in order to ensure that drivers should not be over-fatigued and thereby lessen the safety provisions. But so far as private cars are concerned, none of this would apply because in this ease "driving" means driving a vehicle to which this part of the Bill applies. For example, it would have to be a 30-cwt. box van or something like that the clause would not apply to a private car.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord, and especially for
686
the last bulletin which arrived, which I think clears the position and leaves me quite satisfied.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

AREAS OF SPECIAL NEED: URBAN PROGRAMME
3.52 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice a Statement which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made in another place about an urban programme. I will use his own words.
"The Government have now completed the first stage of their study of urban areas facing acute social problems in the fields of education, housing, health and welfare. Many of these areas include concentrations of immigrants.
"The study shows that large and expanding programmes are already having an impact in each of the main social services concerned and that in education and housing in particular, and in areas of immigrant settlement, priorities have been established within existing policies to increase the flow of aid to particular areas of special need. Nevertheless there remain areas of severe social deprivation in a number of our cities and towns—often scattered in relatively small pockets. They require special help to meet their social needs and to bring their physical services to an adequate level.
"The Government propose to initiate an urban programme to help tackle the social problems of the communities concerned. Action be required on a number of fronts and the programme must necessarily, be a continuing one. I propose to open discussions with the local authority associations and seek their co-operation in working out the basis on which help can most effectively be provided. Corresponding discussions in Scotland would he carried out by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. But I can inform the House that the Government are

687
prepared to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to provide a new specific grant, in addition to the existing Rate Support Grant, to assist this programme. Under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 grants are already payable in respect of expenditure on staff in areas of immigrant settlement. The new grant will be payable to other areas, including any in Scotland, that meet the necessary conditions, and in respect of any item of expenditure falling within the programme. Its percentage rate will be a matter for discussion with the local authority associations. Subject to Parliament passing the necessary legislation, the new grant will be payable retrospectively on expenditure incurred under the programme in the present financial year. The extra cost of this new and additional aid has been set against general economies made in the course of the normal processes of managing the public expenditure programme.
"Meanwhile, to ensure an early start in launching the programme, the Government are prepared to sanction expenditure of some £20 million to £25 million over the next four years, starting forthwith. They propose to select a number of local authorities where it is already clear that urgent needs exist and to settle direct with them projects which could proceed with least delay. In the first year it is expected that these projects will be mainly in the field of nursery education and child-care and will cover the provision of buildings, staff, equipment and other items of expenditure.
"The purpose of this programme is to supplement the Government's other social and legislative measures in order to ensure as far as we can that all our citizens have an equal opportunity in life."
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord for that Statement, and glad of the news in it of this positive approach to areas of social need, an approach which will help coloured immigrants by helping equally all those who share their deprivation. I am sure this is the only right, the only wise, approach to harmonious relations in our towns and cities where social need
688
is greatest and where large numbers of coloured immigrants happen to be. But we should nevertheless like an assurance that the Government are sticking firmly to the policy which they set out in Cmnd. 2739, that it would be wrong to give special treatment to immigrants—wrong, I think, and unwise.
The Statement says at the beginning that the existing policies are designed to increase the flow of aid to particular areas of special need. It just so happens that only last night I was talking to the chairman of a county health and welfare committee, and I believe her experience to be similar to many others: that the question now facing local authorities is what things to cut in order to keep within their budget. Generally speaking, I do not think local authorities are in a situation of receiving increased flows in aid. Nevertheless this particular special grant will be welcome.
The second part of the Statement indicates that the Government are preparing legislation in consultation with local authorities, and that they will award these supplementary grants in accordance with that procedure. It then goes on to say that meanwhile there is going to be an early start, and the Government are sanctioning special expenditure; and that they have selected certain fields in which this grant is going to fall—nursery education and child care.
They say, also, (this is the point that I should be grateful if the noble Lord could clear up) that the amount of this immediate grant to get things going falls at £20 million over the next four years, which is £5 million per annum; this, in area of education, housing, health and welfare, where expenditure is running at between £4,000 million and £5,000 million a year is an increase of 0·1 per cent. I should be grateful to know whether I have my perspective roughly right, because this increase is not really very significant. I presume, therefore, that the increase to be granted under legislation that is coming in will be considerably higher. Would it be right to assume that it would be something like 10 times the amount? If so, it would be very welcome; if less, I doubt whether it would have very much effect.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, I wonder whether I could ask a question. Surely the proposals in the Statement which he

689
has just made, and which has been made in another place, would apply not only to places where there are coloured immigrants but also to cities like Glasgow where there are comparatively few coloured immigrants. Is it not the fact that the Statement does not apply only to places where there are coloured immigrants?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to welcome the Statement and to thank the Minister for making it. Certainly we welcome the principle behind it, that all citizens should be given an equal opportunity in life. May I just ask two questions? First, since education, housing, health and welfare are all involved here, which Ministry is going to be responsible for approving expenditure without unnecessary delay? Secondly, to whom should local authorities, other than those selected by the Government, apply to be considered for assistance and help?
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, before my noble friend replies would he give the House an assurance that the whole of this money which is to be made available will be clearly in addition to, and over and above, the present overall ceiling of local expenditure; and also that it is not tied in any way to any additional rate-borne expenditure?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, further to the last question, may I have an assurance that the school building programme from nurseries to secondary schools is not in any way going to be set back by this new programme and, therefore, that it is a clear addition? Secondly, have the Government published, and, if not, will they publish, the criteria on which these additional grants can be given? I feel that it is very unfair on local authorities not to know exactly the terms on which they can qualify.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Sandford and Lord Byers, for the welcome they have given to this Statement, and to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his comment that it was a wise approach. My Lords, let me say at once to my noble friend Lady Gaitskell that this programme does not apply only to places where there are coloured immigrants. The sole criterion
690
is need, and it will apply to areas where there is need, in some cases where there are very few immigrants at all. This, therefore, answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when he asked for an assurance that we are sticking to the policy of not giving special treatment to immigrants. This is absolutely clear and, I hope, unequivocable.
The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, asked the Government to publish the criteria. I would say to him that, so far as the details are concerned, these are still a matter for discussion with the, local authorities concerned but with regard to "generalities", if I may put it that way, we are trying to cure disabilities in certain places where there is evidence of need. Those disabilities are poor schools overcrowded or segregated housing, children in trouble, persistent unemployment, overloaded social and welfare services. They are the areas. I would also assure him, and assure my noble friend Lord Pargiter, that this is new money, extra money, and that existing programmes are not thereby affected. We are not. as it were, robbing Bournemouth to help Birmingham. There is no question of that. This is new money, and it is additional.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, asked me about education, and so on: which Minister would approve these various expenditures. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be in a large measure coordinating. So far as approval for individual projects is concerned, that will be a matter for Departments, but I would emphasise again that this is new money. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, expressed the view that this was only £20 million to £25 million in four years, and that the total would not be significant. I disagree with him. This is additional to the very large and increasing amount of aid given already to local authority services, and it will be directed particularly to those areas of need (using the word "area" in the sense of a geographical area), and also those services which are worst in those areas and most in need of help.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would my noble friend also reply to the point I raised, of whether this would be tied in any way to additional rate-borne expenditure on the part of the authority, or would it be completely free of that?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the question of the percentage of grant has still to be worked out with the local authorities.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, as no discussions have yet taken place, and no agreement has yet been reached with the local authorities, nobody has the slightest idea how much it is going to cost to achieve this no doubt admirable object. Would it not be wiser of the Government, therefore, to postpone their bogus vote-catching schemes until they have some sort of idea of what legislation and arrangements are going to be carried through?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should hope that that kind of remark would be regarded as uncharacteristic of your Lordships' House. In times of general economic stringency like this, I think it is a considerable achievement to have put aside, by savings or by non-expenditure elsewhere, the sum of £20 million to £25 million to meet what is an acute need, and to do something which I think will present very great dividends in the relief of suffering, and also in the easing of tensions and the prevention of trouble which might otherwise occur. I hope that this will be generally welcomed, not only in this House but throughout the country.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, I welcome very much the idea of special help of this kind, but £20 million to £25 million over four years is really very little. Would it not be better to take one thing like nursery schools, and do it properly? if this total is spread right round, the butter will be so thin that no-one will really know that anything extra has happened.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Viscount, with his experience, must have remembered many times when he could have done a very great deal with £25 million, even over four years. This is a continuing business. This is the money that we are able to provide now, additional to the quite large sums which are already being spent. I think that it will achieve a good deal, particularly when, as we intend, it is applied to those areas with acute need, many of which are not receiving special grant. I think we shall have to see how it works out, but everything that all noble Lords have
692
said will, of course, be taken into account.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the local authority will be able to decide, if they have got X pounds from the Government, how they will spend it? Whether they wish to spend it all on nursery schools, or on housing, or whatever it is, will the decision of how the extra money shall be spent be left to the local authority?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the answer to the noble Baroness is that the local authorities will have to establish a need in particular fields. Then, if they establish that need in relation to one or more particular fields—it may be only nursery education, as the noble Viscount Lord Eccles, suggested, or it may be things like inadequate welfare services —once the discussions have been held, and agreement is reached, the local authority will of course be able to spend the extra grant in the manner they have decided.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, we do not want to look a gift horse in the mouth, but the question I asked the noble Lord was whether I would be right in making the snap calculation that £4 million or £5 million a year is 0·1 per cent. of local authority expenditure in these fields. If he could say, "Yes" or "No", or that it ought to be some other figure, we would know where we were. The second question I asked him was how much more than that figure will be the grant which is made available under the legislation to be introduced. The figure of £20 million to £25 million a year over four years, £4 or £5 million a year, is all that is to be available to keep the thing going. Presumably, some much larger sum is in store under the legislation.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, as to the figure of 20 million to £25 million, the fact that it is between one and the other is an indication that it is not yet absolutely determined. That figure indicates the level of additional expenditure which the Government are prepared to approve. With regard to what follows on that, or what may happen coterminously with it, has yet to be decided. With regard to the noble Lord's point about its being 0·1 per cent. of the total

693
expenditure in these fields at present, I do not think that it is very relevant; neither would I accept that the total of £4,000 million is directly relevant to this expenditure of £5 million, which will be over a more restricted field both geographically and in the areas of the services which will be strengthened.
VISCOUNT STUART OF FINDHORN: My Lords, I suppose that this will be paid out of the already excessive National Debt. Or will it be paid for by the abolition of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and the Scots Guards?

TRANSPORT BILL
4.12 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Schedule 11 agreed to.
Clause 103 [Classification of the Board's waterways]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER)THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER) moved Amendment No. 248:
Page 138, line 21, leave out ("108") and insert ("(Access agreements and orders as respects canals other than commercial waterways and cruising waterways)").
The noble and, learned Lord said: I would ask the Committee to consider Amendment No. 262 with this Amendment No. 248, since Amendment No. 248 is entirely consequential upon No. 262. This matter arises because subsections (2) and (3) of Section 16 of the Countryside Act 1968, which enable access agreements and Orders to be made in respect of canals, do not apply to canals owned or managed by the British Waterways Board. The Board's canals were excluded from the Countryside Act provisions because it was considered that the Transport Bill catered adequately for their recreational and amenity use. The Board are to be given new powers and duties, and Exchequer grant is to be paid to enable them to open up their canals for amenity and recreation. But these powers anon duties do not apply to those of the Board's canals in the remainder category; neither is there financial provision for the Board to exploit them for recreation and amenity. So that they have been missed out on both counts. The Countryside Act does not bite on them, nor is there provision
694
in the Transport Bill for them to be opened up for amenity and recreation.
It was not possible to put this; right by amendment to the Countryside Bill during its passage through Parliament, as until Part VII of the Transport Bill is enacted there is no means of identifying the Board's remainder canals. For this reason it is proposed that the Transport Bill should be amended as proposed in Amendment No. 262 so that the remainder canals would be subject to the access agreement and order provisions of Section 16 of the Countryside Act. I hope I am right in thinking that that Amendment will be welcomed in all parts of the Committee and Amendment No. 248 is entirely consequential upon Amendment No. 262. I beg to move.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his explanation of the purpose of Amendment No. 262, and assure him that it is entirely acceptable to us and seems to be very sensible.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The EARL OF KINNOULL The EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 249:
Page 138, line 38, at end insert—
("Provided that no such definition shall reduce the length or extent of any waterway which the Board are bound to maintain as a commercial or cruising waterway unless the Minister has first made an order having that effect under subsection (3) of this section.")
The noble Earl said: I believe that we are now moving into calmer waters on this Bill, and I hope that we shall have some satisfaction on the Amendments under Part VII. Amendment No. 249 is a small Amendment which deals with subsection (2) of Clause 103, under which a Minister may by order further define the waterways listed under Schedule 12 by publishing a definitive map. The purpose of the Amendment is to place beyond doubt the wording of that subsection so that it cannot be interpreted in future that the publication of this map can supersede the description of the waterways in Schedule 12 and so possibly reduce or even change the network of the waterways listed in that Schedule.
This question was raised in an3ther place, where similar doubts were expressed. The Government spokesman on that occasion gave an assurance that subsection (2) was a contingency power

695
to be used only in the event of disputes, such as terminal points of canals. He also went on to say that it was a very narrow and limited subsection and set out only the exact descriptions in Schedule 12 should they be necessary. Although one welcomes this assurance, my advisers still feel that the Government's good intention may not be interpreted in the future with the present rather loose wording of this subsection. The Amendment is needed to strengthen beyond doubt the Government's intention that the future maps in no way alter or reduce the network of canals in Schedule 12. I would ask the Government to accept this small Amendment, which really is only a clarifying matter. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: This Amendment has something to do with a rather amusing procedure which has been going on for some years in the waterways. I do not suppose that many of your Lordships have made a collection of the admirable little booklets which are issued by the British Waterways Board on the various navigations which it controls, each of which at the end contains a map. I have collected these booklets over the years, and have noted one interesting fact. I always look first at the maps at the end. It is rather like the sort of procedure that takes place in Russia: one does not read what is in the text, but what is between the lines. In this case one reads what is at the end in the map. We have noted throughout the years that whenever the British Waterways Board was contemplating getting rid of a waterway, before it told anybody that it was going to do so, the waterway mysteriously vanished from the maps at the end of the latest cruising booklet. There would be the map with all the canals it intended to keep, but the one which it was intending to get rid of had ceased to be a fact and had vanished off the map. This was very often the first warning one had that such a waterway was to be closed. One also noticed that, if the Waterways Board changed its mind and the waterway was then considered worth retaining, in the next issue of the maps it reappeared. So it was quite obvious that its omission and its reappearance were deliberate. Of course, these maps had no legal force whatever and were purely to illustrate the waterways which the Board considered fit for cruising.
696
But the maps under this Bill will be quite different. They will be an actual part of the legislation and will have some force. Therefore, I consider it very necessary to make quite clear that the omission of any side arms, or anything else, on these maps is not a method of quietly closing parts of a waterway, but is merely a matter of convenience.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot help feeling that behind this Amendment there is some suspicion of the Minister's intention in subsection (2) of the Clause. I can assure the noble Earl that there is no need for anybody to have any such suspicion. This is merely a question of definition. Subsection (2) as drafted says:
The description contained in the said Schedule 12 of any waterway shall be read subject to any order made by the Minister for further defining that waterway by reference to a map."
As we all know, when one is buying land it can no doubt be described in the conveyance, but experience has shown that it is almost essential to have a map properly drawn to scale, so as to show the exact limits.
There is no sinister intention in this. The purpose is simply and solely to enable the Minister, in any case where there is, or could be, some uncertainty, to define more precisely, by reference to a map, what the description of a waterway in Schedule 12 actually means in a particular locality. It is not intended to enable the Minister to alter the lengths described in the Schedule. One could, I suppose, have attached to an already long Bill a vast series of maps with one for every canal, but from a practical point of view that is unnecessary and probably impossible.
I cannot accept the noble Earl's Amendment, because it might well, if interpreted literally, render useless the power to define by reference to a map. How can you resolve an uncertainty as to the precise extent of a scheduled waterway, if you are inhibited from defining it in a way which might appear to alter its length or extent even by a few feet or inches? Indeed, if the uncertainty arises from a difference of opinion about, for instance, the exact end-point of such-and-such a length of canal, then settling

697
the uncertainty by a precise map definition is quite likely to appear to somebody to be making that length a little too short or too long.
I do not follow what "reduce" means. I cannot understand how the Amendment could possibly apply in this respect. It says:
"Provided that no such definition shall reduce the length or extent of any waterway".
But "reduce" from what? "Reduce" means that something is to be smaller than it was before. Presumably, it means "reduce from its original length", but what is the original length? The whole purpose of the map procedure is to define the original length more precisely, and you cannot, without confusion, speak of reducing something at the same time as your are defining it. In the light of that explanation and assurance, I hope the noble Earl will not press this Amendment.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply—
LORD CHORLEY: Before the noble Earl possibly withdraws his Amendment, may I say something? I have had the honour of being a Member of your Lordships' House for, I think, some 22 years, and a reply similar to that which we have just had from the noble and learned Lord has been made several times in every one of those 22 years. First of all, the Government say that there is no reason at all to be suspicious of a promise which has been made, possibly by a Minister here or by a Minister in the other place. But in this set of circumstances there is a great deal of reason for being suspicious, and that is very much borne out by what my noble friend Lord St. Davids has just been saying.
It is not that one is suspicious about the Minister who has given the undertaking or promise. What one is suspicious about is what may happen under another Minister when civil servants, or, as in this case, the people who are running the Waterways Board, are, in effect, left to persuade another Minister that a policy which for a number of years they have been determined to pursue should now be put into force. That is exactly the situation against which we here ought to be protecting
698
the public. But every now and then we persuade a Minister that some words which are rather more positive should, in fact, be put into a Bill, and that is the noble Earl's wish and intention on this occasion.
I had hoped that we might have had from the noble and learned Lord, if not a promise, at any rate an undertaking to look at this again, possibly in the light of a rather better worked-out formula for dealing with the problem. That is always the second part of the answer which I have been hearing over the last 22 years. First of all, it is said that there is no reason to be suspicious about a promise riot being kept, and then it is said that in any case the drafting of a particular part of an Amendment is such that it does not carry into law what the mover is aiming at. That is very often the case, because we have to struggle without the skilled assistance which the Government have in formulating Amendments.
But when the Government are reasonably anxious to help on these occasions, as they sometimes are—I pay them that compliment—then they indicate that they will be prepared to help. I am always looking for that, and I regret very much that we have not had any offer of assistance to help with the drafting of the Amendment on this occasion. If the noble Earl withdraws his Amendment, as he has been asked to do, I hope he will reserve his right to put it down again and possibly have the drafting looked at, so that, at any rate, part of the objection cannot be made against it at the next stage.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for my Amendment. I am naturally disappointed with the reply of the noble and learned Lord, and I think he was perhaps confusing the question. One is not being at all suspicious of the Government or accusing them of anything, however much other people may be suspicious of them. What one is suspicious of is the future interpretation of this subsection. I think the words "further defining" are particularly confusing.
Of course, I do not wish to press this Amendment. But I accept the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that in withdrawing it I reserve the right to

699
look at this again later, and possibly to put an Amendment down at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.28 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 249Z:
Page 139, line 4, leave out from ("section") to end of line 6 and insert and a draft of such order shall be laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament")
The noble Lord said: I should first repair an omission which I should have dealt with earlier, and welcome the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to our deliberations. We have almost assumed a proprietary interest in this Bill which has been going on for so long, and we welcome him to this rather agreeable Part of the Bill, Part VII. In the main, it is going to fulfil the hopes of many people, although I imagine there may be some legal complexities in it and that is why we have pleasure in the company of the noble and learned Lord.
This Amendment provides no problem. Subsection (4) of Clause 103 provides the Minister with the power to make Orders by negative procedure; that is to say, the Orders come before Parliament but can only be prayed against. My Amendment would change the procedure to the affirmative one, so that each House must approve an order by affirmative resolution. Further to what the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was saying on the last Amendment, Governments traditionally resist providing the affirmative procedure —indeed, I myself have often done so in the past—and Oppositions always ask for it. But I certainly would not trouble noble Lords now with an Amendment of this kind if there was not a specific and I think a good reason for asking for an Affirmative Resolution here.
The point is this. The Minister's power under Clause 103 is a very important one. It is concerned with the classification of our waterways. That is the basic philosophy of Part VII of this Bill. The waterways are now to be classified into three classes, as set out under subsection (1): commercial, cruising and "the remainder". There is immense significance in this, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord would agree. Schedule 12 sets out
700
how the Minister's proposals will operate for the initial classification. When this Schedule has been approved by Parliament, either amended or not as the case may be, the range of use for each canal will have been settled on an up-to-date basis; and this, I think, is entirely sensible. But any future change of classification can be made only by the Minister making an order, having followed the procedure laid down in the Schedule. The statutory classification procedure laid down in the Bill takes the place of a mass of ancient Acts of Parliament, mostly Private Acts, which gave authority for the original building and operation of these canals.
The point is that until now a change in navigation rights or use of any of these canals could be made only by a new Private Bill, which of course ensured that the change proposed would be brought before Parliament, that people who were interested would have their opportunity to object and that the whole matter could be and would be threshed out in public if it was wished to do so. The Bill is streamlining the whole of this legislative procedure, and I think rightly doing so; and instead of a Private Bill there is now the Ministerial order. I am sure that I am not exaggerating the situation when I say that there is very great enthusiasm, great interest, in our canals—an interest which amounts to a burning interest in many cases—so that any change of classification would be a matter of considerable interest. Indeed, the Inland Waterways Association regard the ending of navigation rights as exactly the same as the closing of a public highway. I would accept that in principle, though it has not quite the same practical implications.
I entirely agree with the general philosophy here, and I am sure it is a wise one. But I would make the point —and I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be sympathetic to it—that as an order in this context is taking the place of such an important legislative procedure in the past, it probably ought to be one subject to an Affirmative Resolution rather than a Negative one. I hope that the noble and learned Lord may be sympathetic to the Amendment. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: In general, and on the face of it, I should rather dike to oppose this Amendment, but there is a good reason for accepting it. I should describe to your Lordships' Committee why I feel so split-minded about it. In general, I believe it is a bad thing if all Ministerial orders have to be brought to both Houses for an Affirmative Resolution. I believe the Affirmative Resolution procedure should in general be kept for major matters of policy on which Parliament and the people of this country ought to remind themselves from time to time, and that matters like this, which are to be found in very many Acts now on the Statute Book, should go by way of Negative Resolution procedure. But there is a point here, and it is this. As the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said, under existing legislation a waterway can be closed only by a Private Bill, which means that there is an inquiry upstairs at which anybody affected (provided they have the necessary money, which amounts to about £500) can put in an objection. Under the new arrangements there may be a public inquiry, but it is up to the Minister to grant it; there is not the necessity of a public inquiry.
If certain Amendments which will be moved later were accepted and a public inquiry were granted when anybody reasonably interested in the matter asked for one, I think the sensible thing to do would be to say: "Very well—the public are going to hear all about this business anyway; there is going to be a public inquiry. If things are all right, nobody will raise any trouble about it and the matter can go by way of Negative Resolution procedure; it can go through simply by lying on the Table. If, on the other hand, there is a stink ' at the public inquiry"—and public inquiries often do so turn out—"then the local Member of Parliament and several other people will start raising it in Parliament, and the Negative Resolution procedure can then he used to bring the order to a standstill". So the real point is that if we are going to have public inquiries whenever required, I think this Amendment is not necessary: but if the Minister can get away without a public inquiry simply because he does not want to hold one, then I think we ought to support this Amendment.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like briefly to support my noble friend Lord Nugent and also to support, by and large, what the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, said about public inquiries. The prime question on this Amendment, as I see it, is: how many alterations to classifications under Schedule 12 do the Government expect to occur? I believe the answer will be, "very few", in which case the question of an Affirmative Resolution would not be an embarrassment to Parliament. It may well be a necessity as a safeguard to the public interest. The importance of this Affirmative Resolution, as I see it, is in a case where a cruising waterway is being transferred to "the remainder". For those reasons, I would support my noble friend.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have a good deal of sympathy with the view which has been expressed by my noble friend Lord St. Davids. The general question here is. I think, not at all an easy one, though it is an interesting one. Of course, I have no experience of any other Government except this, but as I understand it no one has ever sat down to think out clearly what ought to be the criteria for having an Affirmative Order, as against a Negative Order. It is a thing which one finds, in practice, Ministers are always having to consider. Surely there ought to be some fairly clear grounds for distinguishing between the two. We are, of course, getting more and more subordinate legislation and more and more Affirmative Orders, and these are now taking up quite a considerable amount of the time of both Houses.
I have no experience of another place, of course, but here we deal with them rather funnily, I always think, because they are first carefully considered by a Committee. If the Committee then report of an Order that it raises no question of policy; that it is amply precedented; and that the House can pass it without special attention, then the Order is moved in a speech explaining it all, and some courteous Member of the Opposition thanks the noble Lord who moved it for the clarity of his exposition, and perhaps raises a question. But nobody ever refers to what our own Committee, who have taken such a lot of trouble, says about it. Why, where there is that sort of report, we take up as much time as we do, I do not know; but it is taking

703
up more and more time of both Houses of Parliament.
I should have thought that the distinction to be drawn between an Affirmative Order and a Negative Order should really be this. If (and, of course, there are many such cases) the order is one which the Minister simply has power to make, one on which he does not by Statute have to consult with anybody or to give notice in advance that he is going to make the order, one where there is no provision for objections, then that makes a case for an Affirmative Order. Otherwise, it may mean that the order is never discussed by anybody.
But this is an entirely different kind of case, because here Schedule 13 applies. And Schedule 13, in relation to an order made under Clause 103(3), says that in the case of such orders the Minister
"shall consult with any organisation appearing to him to represent persons operating, or (in relation to a waterway which is to be added) desiring to operate, commercial freight-carrying vessels on the waterway in respect of which the order is to be made ….
"In the case of a proposed order under section 103(3) … adding to or reducing the waterways in Part II … or … removing from Part I without adding to Part II thereof a waterway which is to a substantial extent used by cruising craft, the Minister shall consult with the Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council, consultation in a case within paragraph (b) above being limited to the effect of the proposed order on such use as is mentioned in that paragraph.….
"In the case of a proposed order under section 103(3) … in respect of any waterway the Minister shall … publish in the London Gazette (or, if the waterway is situated in Scotland, the Edinburgh Gazette), in a national newspaper and in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area in which the waterway is situated; and … cause to he displayed in one or more places adjacent to the waterway, a notice containing a statement … of the general effect of the proposed order; and … that objections to the order can be made to him within such time (not being less than twenty-eight days) and in such manner as is specified in the notice; and shall consider any such objection which is duly made and not withdrawn; and, if he has caused an inquiry to be held in connection with the proposed order, the report of the person holding it."
By all means let us make it subject to Parliament; but if, on top of all that is said in Schedule 13, it is to be subject to Parliamentary control, I should have thought that it was almost a classic example of an obvious case for a Negative Order. Added on top of all that,
704
really an Affirmative Order would be gilding the lily. My noble friend Lord St. Davids says that there may not be an inquiry; that this is left to the Minister's discretion. There are later Amendments which would seek in substance to provide that if it was a reasonable objection, which had some backing, the Minister should always have an inquiry. I have a great deal of sympathy with that. One does not want, on the one hand, to have complete ministerial discretion about holding an inquiry. On the other hand, one does not want an inquiry simply because some proposal is made which has no real backing from people interested in waterways.
It may be that when we come to that Amendment we may together be able to arrive at some wording which would express the position in that way. But on this Amendment I submit that it would be painting the lily to have an Affirmative Order requirement added to all these consultations with everybody concerned, all the notices, the publications, the provisions for objections and an inquiry. Parliamentary control on top of that, yes; but I should have thought that it was an obvious case for a Negative Order rather than an Affirmative Order. I hope that on reconsideration the noble Lord may also take that view.
LORD CONESFORD: I find myself in general agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids. I, too, have sometimes thought about what is the exact philosophy that decides between the Negative and the Affirmative Resolution procedure. I have come to the tentative conclusion that it makes rather more difference in another place than here. The importance difference, I think, in another place is that in the case of an Affirmative Resolution the Government have to find the time. That can make rather an important difference. The question is really one of the importance of the matters that are liable to be dealt with. In this case, I think, as the noble and learned Lord said, that this may be a good deal bound up with a subsequent Amendment—I think it is No. 275E—which we cannot discuss in detail in advance. It is not for me to suggest anything to my noble friend who leads us so well; but I should have thought that we might agree with the noble and

705
learned Lord now, reserving our right to consider the matter further if we do not get satisfaction in dealing with that later Amendment.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I thank my noble friend Lord Conesford for his support and good advice. I was very interested to hear the noble and learned Lord's analysis of the criteria for deciding whether the Affirmative or Negative Resolution procedure should be used. Certainly it fitted very well the noble Lord's argument and certainly it should have some part in the criteria. I have myself always thought that the main criterion was the general importance of the topic to be dealt with: that should be the first point. Certainly so far as the other place is concerned, there is much greater significance on which procedure is to be used. But this is not the point here. I do not think that a matter of great principle is at stake; it is more a matter of taste. Part VIII is generally trying to do something which will be, I think, satisfactory to the world of inland waterways. My own feeling is that it would have given a little more confidence in what was being done if this had been made subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure rather than to the Negative Resolution procedure. However, I noted the promising indications given by the noble and learned Lord about a later Amendment, No. 275D, and I shall be happy to pursue the matter in a different way when we come to that and hope for a more satisfactory outcome. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved Amendment No. 249A:
Page 139, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) Any person who suffers loss by reason of an order under this section shall be entitled to be paid compensation by the Board to be determined in the manner privided by section 104(9) of this Act.")
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is one which I feel able to move because it affects the public rights on waterways as against the private rights. As some noble Lords know, I am the owner of certain private rights on waterways and I feel slightly uncomfortable
706
when moving in this House any Amendments which affect them. Strangely enough, in this Bill the owners of private rights on the waterways are already protected and are entitled to be paid compensation under the relative clauses. But the owners of the public rights are not. The difference is this. If you take out a boat and navigate one of our public waterways, our nationalised waterways, you are enjoying a public right; if you buy a boatyard and set up a business on the bank which involves the navigation of the waterway, you are enjoying a public right. If you extract water for some great industry, water sold to you by the waterways, you are enjoying a public right. Those are the public rights and those, under this Bill, receive no compensation if the waterway is closed: whereas I who own a part—a very small part—of the bank of a canal an entitled under the clauses of the very old Act which authorises it to do all sorts of things which I have already mentioned in your Lordships' House. I am authorised not only to keep as many pleasure craft as I want on my section of the canal without paying any form of tolls or licence, I am also entitled to carry cargoes of manure free of tolls. I do not see why I should. But all these rights under the Bill will be compensated. I cannot for the life of me see why my rights, which are highly unimportant ones, should be compensated for while your rights, which are really important ones, should not.
What is more, these public rights effect the life of the waterways. If you are a businessman and you consider that the navigation of these waterways is a growing industry, as indeed it is, you may feel that you would like to invest some money in it. But it would make some difference if you discovered that the boatyard, or the marina, or whatever it is you intend to set up, could suddenly find itself put out of business at any moment by a Ministerial announcement, and that you would not receive one penny piece compensation. It is worse than that. These waterways are not used just by cruising boats, although there are many people who try to give the impression that that is their main purpose, partly to make it look as if the extra money the the Government are paying out is simply to subsidise people

707
with motor cruisers. That is not so. The major purpose of these cruising waterways is the carrying of water. They are very considerable waterways, supplying water to public services, industry and that kind of thing.
It has been shown over and over again that if you cut down on cruising boats, cargo boats and so on, the lack of navigation rapidly produces a state in the waterway which stops the extraction of water because the water does not get through; the waterway silts up, weeds up, and so on. If we are really to have this sort of thing, with the Minister able to close down waterways without any compensation to the users of the canals, I am afraid that in abolishing the navigation of waterways, the Minister will abolish the revenues of the waterways and in so doing leave the unfortunate taxpayer to pay out a very much larger sum than he pays now.
The present position of these cruising waterways is that they are to be supported, until revenue improves, by about two-thirds of their revenue, and about one-third is to be paid by the taxpayer. The Government say, "Yes, but we must protect the taxpayer. After all, he is putting down one-third of the money." The trouble is that if you discourage the use of these waterways by making it impossible for people to invest money in the industries along the shore, industries connected with water extraction or the use of boats, or any other use, by allowing the Government to close the waterways you will save them one-third of the cost, but you will leave the taxpayer permanently saddled with the other two-thirds. We want to assure people who are building up industries on these waterways that they will not be left in the lurch if they show enterprise. We want to encourage them to build up industry so that the waterways pay for themselves and thereby remove the whole of the burden off the shoulders of the taxpayers. I am afraid that the sort of thing which is proposed in the Bill may well lead to the death of the waterways by the discouragement of enterprise, and that finally a very large burden will be left on the shoulders of the taxpayers.
4.55 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR My noble and learned friend has raised several points—
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: No; I am not "learned".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My noble friend—I am sorry, it is force of habit. My noble friend (and I am sure he is, in fact, learned) raised a number of points. First, I must say—though I did not want to get involved in this argument now—that I am not conceding a right of public navigation, but I do not think that is really affected by this Amendment. There is indeed a question of finance affected, because one of the questions I was going to ask my noble friend was, "Where is the money to come from?" It is easy for Members of Parliament to pass Bills putting financial liabilities on people and saying that they are to compensate other people, but somebody has to find the money.
As this applies to quite a number of Amendments, perhaps I might remind the Committee that in 1962, when the Conservative Government found the awful mess that the waterways were in, they thought, very sensibly, "Well, we shall never get this right unless it is somebody's whole-time job to do it." So all the waterways were transferred to this Board created for the purpose. Then the then Government, again very sensibly, said "We shall all 'go bust' if all the waterway liabilities which at the moment rest on the British Transport Commission continue." So, in effect, they declared a moratorium from those liabilities, and told the Board to go away and think out what ought to happen.
As your Lordships know, after an interim report in December, 1963, the Board came up with The Facts about the Waterways in 1965. Their conclusions were:
"(1) At least for a large number of years to come there is no prospect of pleasure craft activities paying for themselves in a true commercial sense;
"(2) There is no true business future for the narrow boats' for which such nostalgic claims are still sometimes made:
"(3) The most serious and overriding fact emerging is that, even if the whole of the 'rest of the system' were to be ruthlessly treated (without any regard for social welfare) and every possible canal were to be eliminated altogether or reduced to minimum water channelling flow—whichever was the cheaper—the Exchequer would still be saddled with a bill

709
"(4) It follows that in hard reality the field open to discussion on amenity' grounds of pleasure boating and leisure use lies between:

(a) a rock-bottom starting point, not of zero but of £600,000 a year; and

(b) a figure for using most of the noncommercial system as it is for pleasure boating, which is some £300.000 to £350,000 a year higher.

The true room for manoæuvre (subsidy, use of volunteer money. et cetera) lies in that latter range. The £600,000 is not optional."
And, as your Lordships know, the Board recommended that there were still about 340 miles which ought to break even as commercial waterways. The choice, therefore, was between spending the minimum of £600,000 a year on the others and trying to preserve some 1,100 miles for cruising waterways, angling and so forth.
Naturally, when they decided, even in a time of economic stringency, that the taxpayer was to be asked to find what I think at present prices is another £400,000 a year so that people could have their holidays on the waterways, the inland waterway enthusiasts said, "Hooray! What a jolly good Government it is, after all." But I think it was treating them generously, in the sense that there are only 7,000 powered craft so it represents £50 per power craft a year. Or, to put it in another way, there are about 40,000 people who like to spend their holidays on the waterways, and this means that if this £400,000 were not spent on the cruising waterways they would be unable to have these holidays. It means, really, that the Government are providing £10 per holiday every year in order to enable these 40,000 people to have their holidays on the waterways.
The Bill has been so drawn that the Government are going to find between £900,000 and £1 million for the waterways, and the Board have to try to keep this 1,100 miles of cruising waterways open with this £400,000. So if some additional liability which is not in the Bill is imposed on the Board, one is forced to ask the question: Where is the money to come from?—because it will not come from the Government, and the Board have only this sum of between £900,000 and £1 million.
There is not, I should have thought, any moral case for this compensation. As I take it, what my noble friend has in mind, in particular, is a man who has
710
a business concerning the hiring of pleasure craft on the canal, and why loses money because an Order is then made which transfers it from the cruising waterways to the remainder waterways. It is then said that he ought to be compensated. But this is an ordinary trade risk. Circumstances change, and all traders are affected by the change. Presumably, this is something against which one can insure. From another standpoint one could take the case of a man who buys some land next to a railway station in the country, using most of it as a parking place; he has a petrol pump, and all the motorists who come to the station to take their commuter trains to London leave their car in the car park and fill up with petrol; and he has perhaps a light repair shop. Then one day some wicked Conservative Government or some wicked Labour Government comes along, the branch line is closed, the station is shut and never reopened. Of course, no more motor cars go there; they go instead to the nearest station on the main line. This is very hard. But nobody says that the Railways Board ought to compensate the man.
This is particularly liable to happen in the field of transport accessories. A man may have a nice garage and filling station just on the borders of a big town, and on their way through people entering the town, or leaving it for the open country, fill up there. Then one day a by-pass is provided, and all the through traffic, instead of going through the town, goes along the by-pass, and they get their petrol from the filling station on the bypass. Nobody compensates that man. This, as I say, is an ordinary trade; risk.
Of course, there is contract. No doubt such a person when thinking of setting up a business on the canal will say to the Board: "Will you guarantee to me if I come here that you will not make this a remainder waterway for the next four years?" There is no reason why the Board should not say: "If you pay an additional rent, we will give you that guarantee." But a much more likely cause of a waterway having to be demoted to a remainder waterway is because such people have not done well. They are the people who will help to make the thing go. One can imagine a man who, starting a business of this kind, puts money into it, keeps all his boats

711
nicely painted and his property in good repair, spends money on advertising, and he says: "This is much the best canal, and I have a much larger hire business than anywhere near." This does very well. People like it. The Board do well. Everybody is doing fine. Then one day perhaps he goes off on his annual holiday in a coach, and a horse or a cow runs out from a field into the road, the coach is overturned and he is killed. I see the noble Lord looks rather horrified at that. It was really an unconscious thing. I mention it because our law in that respect is pre-motor car, in fact. If a farmer leaves a gap in the hedge and a cow goes and eats his neighbour's cabbages he has to pay for them. If the cow gets through the same gap on to the road and people are killed there is no claim against anybody at all.
However, there it is. To revert to my original example, the business has to be sold, and it may be sold to a man who does not mind making money, but hates spending it. He does not paint the boats properly, does not keep the property in repair, does not advertise, the whole business goes off and very little revenue comes in on this canal. The Board will then reluctantly say "We are sorry, but we shall have to make this into a remainder waterway". I could accept an Amendment if my noble friend would put one down that in such circumstances the man ought to compensate the Board. I should agree with that, because the reason why the Board have lost all the revenue they used to have is because of this man conducting his business so badly. But why the Board should have to compensate him, I cannot understand. In my submission, there is really no moral case for this. It does not apply in any other walk of life in relation to by-passes, railways or any other changing conditions. It is a commercial risk. For those reasons, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, is so competent on these matters of canals that he does not need any help from others, but I should like to correct one slip the noble and learned Lord made. I share his view that we do not want on this Amendment to embark on some rather complicated questions of law which will arise
712
later. The noble and learned Lord referred to what is now in Section 61 of the Transport Act 1962, and he may be aware that the terms of that particular section resulted from an Amendment that I carried in this House, when I had to move it against the Government that I generally supported. Perhaps that will be taken as proof by the noble and learned Lord that I raise questions in the interests of users of canals, quite irrespective of the Government that happens to be in power. The point on which I think the noble and learned Lord made a slip was when he was referring to the moratorium which existed under the 1962 Act. I think I am right in saying that it never applied to commercial canals.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like to support the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, on this Amendment, because I feel that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been a little unfair on canals. In the first place, he talks about the question of compensation when a railway closes a branch line. He gave the example of perhaps a coal merchant losing his business because the branch line is closed. I think I am right in saying that if that coal merchant had a private siding he would get compensation from the Railways Board. I think this is very similar to a barge operator on canals.
The noble and learned Lord made quite a lot of this subsidy that the Government have undertaken. He seems to forget that the Minister of Transport when she introduced her White Paper described the canals as a "priceless asset". Yet, in my view, they are only giving a rather limited subsidy of £350,000 a year, which in fact is a reducing subsidy, because every year the operators of the craft increase their numbers, I believe, by 10 per cent. The Board do not have the power to levy any charges for drainage like river authorities do. When one considers other expenses —for instance, I believe the cost of keeping Hyde Park comes approximately to £350,000 a year—I do not think the noble and learned Lord can say that this is a great cost to the Government.
LORD SOMERS: The noble and learned Lord said that there was no precedent for compensation of the kind that has been described, but is it not true

713
that if the Government decided to close a branch of a canal, fill it in and use it for building purposes, the owners of sites on that canal would get compensation for planning purposes?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The last thing that I am is an expert in planning law, but I should have thought not. Of course, the Bill does provide compensation for the withdrawal of private rights in the 600 different Canal Acts that there are.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I wish I could get out of the minds of the Committee an idea which seems to have got into my noble and learned friend's head. I am sorry I am not as learned as he is. We had a number of discussions together on the clauses of this Bill, and I must say that he left me in some confusion as to the law. I may have left him in some confusion as to the facts. But he knows the law in this matter, and I believe that I know the facts. What he is suggesting in many ways is quite wrong. He quoted, for example, the case of a garage beside a railway station. That garage has nothing to do with the railway. It is there simply because the railway is there. It is a subsidiary industry which has set itself up because of the operation of the railway, but the railway has no responsibility whatever for the garage, unless the garage owner, as has already been suggested, was also a coal merchant who had a siding, in which case he would be entitled to compensation.
But this is the point. The people of whom we are talking are not in the position of a garage owner who has just a subsidiary industry which he has set up. They are very much more in the position of the coal merchant who has a siding, in that their business is intimately connected with the railway and if the railway closes their whole business is out. They are almost more like a garage owner, not whose railway was taken away but whose road was taken away. If we must take this as a parallel with the railway, my noble friend might consider that. t is the coal merchant with the siding he should be considering, and not the garage owner perhaps with a garage a little further down the road, not actually on railway premises.
My noble and learned friend seems to have another misconception. It is
714
that all this extra money is being found by the Government and is being, found to subsidise motor cruiser holidays at so much a head—I cannot remember his exact figure. But, if I may put this point quietly and politely, without indignation, that is nonsense. The fact of the matter is that this money is not subsidising motor cruisers. The British Waterways Board are running these canals and the money is not being given by the Government as an extra subsidy on top of what the Board are already spending. The Government are simply paying towards the deficit on these particular waterways, a deficit which, as a matter of fact, is decreasing very fast and will not long continue.
When the Board said they could cut down to £600,000 a year—I agree with my noble friend's figure; after all, I was given the same figure myself is a other words; the Board are finding two-thirds from their own money and or e-third will be coming as a subsidy on their deficit—they did not say that they could cut down to £600,000 a year instantly. The Board in their Report (and my noble friend has read it out) said that if they spent 10 years reducing their deficit by closing the waterways, at the end of 10 years they would have got the figure down to £600,000. Given 10 years of a revenue which is increasing at a very fast rate (I am not quite sure of the exact percentage), is it going to be cheaper to build these waterways up, or to cut them down? I believe, and the increasing figures show all the time, that the cheaper course is actually to keep the waterways open.
It is not a matter of supporting the motor cruisers, because these boas are actually dredging the canal for other purposes. I have heard it argued with some reasonableness, although I would not myself go the whole way with this argument, that as regards the cargo boat it would pay the British Waterways Board to subsidise the canal narrow boats, which I quite agree are not really viable cargo carriers, as has beer said. But it would pay the Board to subsidise them, for the simple reason that the loaded boats are pushing the mud aside, cutting the weeds down and rendering the waterway passable. This not only assists pleasure craft but enables the water to flow to industry. Also, these boats are

715
providing deep, clear water for the fishermen. We are very often told that fishermen do not like boats, but they do like them for the purpose of keeping a waterway clear.
We should remember that when the Ashby Canal recently had no coal boats going along it for a period—they had been its normal trade—the weeds closed over it completely and the fishermen ceased to be able to fish. The fishermen on the Ashby Canal then bought a canal narrow boat, which they steamed up and down the canal so many times a week for the sole purpose of keeping the channel mud pushed out. This left a deep channel and kept the weeds cut down. The navigation of boats is necessary for the fishermen, and it is also necessary for the passage of water, so that the water can reach the water users along the canal, who are the big revenue providers. The £300,000 is doing all this, quite apart from the cruising boats. If a canal is no longer navigable—in other words, if the lock gates are abolished and all the rest of it—if you are going to have any fishing and any water supply for industry you must clear the canal by other means than by dredger. You have to clear it by something which no longer floats, and that means dredging from the bank and all sorts of methods which are far more expensive than doing it by boat, because they are not the natural method of clearing a waterway. So the argument which my noble friend brought in (I would never have brought it up) that this is extra money, and that it is being handed over to subsidise at so much a head the pleasure boating community, is an argument which I do not think the Committee should wear for one moment. I bow in all respects to my noble and learned friend on the law, but perhaps he should give me a small nod in the matter of knowing the facts.
5.17 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: I did not want to interrupt this debate, but I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord what is going to be done to help the agricultural industry in the country if some of the waterways, all the waterways, or just a few of them are closed. These waterways, besides providing navigation for small boats, are very impor-
716
tant to the farmers. Can he give me any assurance that the farmers are going to be protected?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Government do not want to close the waterways at all. On the contrary, they are providing considerable sums of the taxpayers' money in order not to. All I was pointing out was that the Report (and I read out the whole of the Summary of the Report) said that, whatever was done—and this will take a period of years to arrive at—the canals and waterways were going to cost £600,000 a year. The Government could of course have stopped there and said, "We are very sorry. The economic position is particularly difficult. Taxpayers have to provide the £600,000, but we do not think on the whole that we are justified in calling on the taxpayer to provide the extra £400,000". But they did not. I am very glad they did not; I share the enthusiasm for the waterways. Therefore, I hope that this question will not arise for too long, as the whole of the Government's programme is to continue it—not only the 340 miles of commercial waterways but the 1,100 miles of cruising waterways.
But the fact remains that, if we are going to place on the Board any obligations larger than those in the Bill, which has been tailored to meet the £400,000, the question arises: where is the money to come from? It is not coming from the Government. I bow entirely to my noble friend about this, because he knows so much more about the waterways than I do, but I have been able to think of only two ways in which the extra money can be raised if the Board have to find substantial additional sums for compensation. First, they could increase the licence fees. I should have thought there was a point at which by increasing licence fees you may drive away customers so that you do not get extra revenue. Secondly, of course, they could transfer one or two of the cruising waterways and save money by making them remainder waterways.
The money has got to come from somewhere. I have not heard yet where it is going to come from. Even if the Committee think there is a moral claim in such cases to pay compensation, it will be very largely to the people, whom my noble friend has in mind, who will have been responsible for the low conditions of

717
this particular canal. It seems to me very odd that the Board should compensate them, rather than they compensate the Board.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I am not sure whather I need leave to speak or not, but since the noble and learned Lord has spoken again, perhaps I may be permitted to do so. The point is this: the extra money was a deficit, it was a deficit of the Waterways Board, exactly as the Railways Board has a deficit. The money simply appeared as a deficit in the accounts. It was not anything in fact provided by the Government at all. Nevertheless, it is very important because, sooner or later, the taxpayer has got to find a deficit, or somebody has got to, even if it is a matter of a Treasury write-off. Therefore, it is important but, nevertheless, it is also important, as my noble and learned friend has said, to cut down this deficit as quickly as possible.
The question was whether the quickest way to cut down this deficit—it was not a matter of a Government subsidy—was to close the waterways and try to reduce them to water channels, as the Board said in their Report (and I think my noble and learned friend has probably found it by now: I noticed he was looking for it), or, to build them up as cruising waterways. The question was which would abolish this extra £300,000 faster? Would it be closing down, spending 10 years getting their deficit down to £600,000, at which figure we shall be stuck with for good, or to build up over these 10 years in the hopes of abolishing the £300,000 that way. In the latter case, there is a chance to build up, and that would not only get rid of the £300,000, but would then go on to abolish the £600,000. This is the point. I believe the right policy is the forward policy of pushing on. The Report which my noble friend read out was 1965. We have had three years since then, and we have seen this policy build up more and more, even in these years. I agree that the forward policy is the cheaper one for the taxpayer, quite apart from anything else, and I support this forward policy.
On a matter of compensation, I do not know what your Lordships wish to do; whether you wish this Amendment to be put through the Lobby, and
718
whether you wish us to divide on it? I have a feeling that the Committee, probably would not wish to divide at this stage, but to consider the further clauses of the Bill, and reconsider this matter, having gone through other clauses of the Bill, at a later stage. I believe that this might be the wiser method, and so, having laid down what I believe to be the proper thing for us to do, I think I should now withdraw this Amendment, and let your Lordships hear more of the argument on the other clauses of the Bill, and then, when your Lordships know more exactly what we are talking about in these waterways, possibly put down an Amendment at a later stage. On the basis of that policy, I wish to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 104 [Maintenance of the Board's waterways]:
5.26 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved Amendment No. 251:
Page 139, line 17, at end insert:
("( ) to maintain in a reasonable condition for supporting a right of way any lank of a cruising waterway carrying a pub is path shown on a definite map published under Part IV of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Chorley and myself on the Order Paper. This Amendment seeks to give effect to recommendation 21 of the Gosling Committee or Footpaths. The Government on the whole have given a favourable reception to that Report, and I hope, therefore, that they may be disposed to accept this Amendment, which gives effect to one more of its recommendations.
This Amendment seeks to add a second duty to the Waterways Board in respect of cruising waterways. At present, under paragraph (b) it is a duty of the Waterways Board to maintain the cruising waterways in a suitable condition for use by cruising craft. This Amendment seeks to add a responsibility to maintain the condition of a towpath alongside of a cruising waterway, where there is a right of way, in order to maintain the effectiveness of that right of way. The highway authority at present can take no

719
action in the face of a towpath, since its duty is to maintain the surface of a path and not its supporting bank. The result is that under this Bill the Waterways Board will have no power to take action, and the highway authority also has no power to take action. Therefore, the effect of the use on these cruising waterways by pleasure craft may well be to undermine the banks, with the result that the right of way along the towpath will come to an end.
Not all towpaths are public rights of way. Your Lordships may feel it desirable that the Waterways Board should be under an obligation to maintain all of them. I do not think that we should go so far as that. It would open up a number of difficulties. The conclusive evidence of the public status of these rights of way is in Section 32 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, which provides that they should be included on definitive maps. This Amendment does not go much beyond the law as it is at the present time, before the coming into operation of this Bill. Under the law at the present time, the Board are bound by Section 17 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1873, as amended by Section 61(1) of the Transport Act 1962, to keep towpaths in good order as part of the canal, or navigation works.
This duty will clearly disappear as soon as this present clause comes into effect, because it limits responsibilities of the Waterways Board. I suggest, therefore, that we should ensure that the Waterways Board will be obliged, in addition to preventing the towpaths from falling in, so as to impede navigation, to prevent them from falling down to an extent which is going to interfere with the use of a right of way. I hope the noble and learned Lord will not repeat in the case of this Amendment the argument that the Government have carefully calculated exactly what the income and the expenditure of the Board is going to be, and that it would therefore be wrong for your Lordships to impose any additional duty upon the Board.
Surely the thing we have to bear in mind is whether this public Board ought to discharge certain responsibilities. I suggest that the maintenance of towpaths so that the rights of way are maintained
720
for the benefit of the general public is a duty which we ought to impure upon them. All that the Government can do is to make an estimate of what the income will be under this Bill, and also what the expenditure will be. Governments—and I am not speaking of this Government more than any other—are notoriously unable to foresee the future, and there may well be the money available. If the money is not available it may well be that the Board will incur some deficit, as has been known in the case of the railways in the past. Therefore I hope it will not be argued that to impose on the Waterways Board this small and, I think, reasonable obligation, which hardly goes beyond the law as it stands at the present time, and which was recommended by the Gosling Committee, should be rejected by your Lordships for these purely financial grounds. I beg to move.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to add a word in support of what my noble friend Lord Molson has just said. He has explained the legal side of it most lucidly but I should like to add a word as to the great importance, from the point of view of the young man and the young woman who like to take their holidays in the country, of maintaining the footpaths along the canal banks. This Amendment is very much in line with the Amendment which the noble and learned Lord moved to bring the Countryside Act into line with this Bill. The National Parks Commission (now the Countryside Commission) have been devoting a great deal of attention over the last years—with a great deal of success—to what are called long-distance footpaths. There are remarkable examples of these, and in particular I might quote the Pennine Way. It has not been stated quite so prominently that along many of the canals there are long-distance footpaths—of a different type, of course, but nevertheless of great importance to the young people who go walking in the country at weekends for pleasure, exercise and recreation. This is an example of an excellent type of footpath which is present all over the country wherever there are canals, and which certainly ought to be maintained.
Obviously, the Waterways Board have to keep up these canals. The obligation

721
to do that is put upon them. The obligation has not so far been put upon them to maintain the banks in such a state that they will continue to carry the footpaths. Obviously, to keep up the waterways will require some maintenance of the banks, and the difference between maintaining them from that point of view and maintaining them in a state to carry a footpath obviously cannot involve a heavy financial burden. There is an overwhelming case for putting this burden on to the Waterways Board, and I hope the Government will agree.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: While I agree that it is necessary to keep up public footpaths on canal banks, surely that is already covered in the clause. Under subsection (1)(a) and (1)(b) the authority has to keep up the banks for commercial usage by all types of craft, and therefore if one has to keep up the banks in order to stop them from crumbling into the canal I should have thought it covered the two things. If they are allowed to crumble in, the canal cannot be used by craft, and particularly by commercial craft which are usually much larger than pleasure craft. Therefore I should have thought the very fact of having to keep up the banks for the passage of commercial craft would mean that they are also kept up from the point of view of the public right of way on top of the banks.
LORD BOYLE: I wonder whether I may, in a few words, quote what seems to me to be an analogy. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, will know what I am referring to. I am thinking in terms of the situation when reservoirs are built. For my sins, I was a member of a waterworks committee for many years, when a certain reservoir was built and the valley was flooded. At that time, there were representations from ramblers' associations and the like with regard to footpaths to replace those which had been flooded, and they asked that those footpaths should be maintained for the future by the local authority. This was done, and I am sure it was also done in the Lake District by the Manchester Corporation. My mind goes back to the Kinder Down fall area and the Kinder Reservoir. If it is right that footpaths should be made and maintained by public money it is surely reasonable that they should be
722
maintained as far as canal banks are concerned. I know that it is not a case of the National Exchequer in regard to reservoirs but it is money provided by local authorities, and there seems to me to be a certain amount of reasonableness in the Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: I should like to support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, about the great advantage that towpaths confer on walkers. Although I suppose it was half a century ago, I still remember walking from Marlborough to Devizes, which is one of the loveliest walks in the country, and I remember particularly the last four miles or so, which were on the towpath of the Kennet and Avon Canal. Knowing the pleasure that such walks can give to those who have discovered that walking is almost the best thing to do if you want to discover the countryside, I hope the noble and learned Lord will find is possible to accept this Amendment.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I hope my noble and learned friend will excuse me if I say a word on this subject. On the last Amendment he made some play of there being only a limited number of people using hired cruisers on the canals. In this Amendment, the number of people we are dealing with is not in the 10,000, or 50,000, or 100,000 mark; there are over a million fishermen who use these canals and, in particular, the towpaths. We are also talking about the walking community, which is very large and has never been counted at all. My experience of going along canals—and I have gone along quite a few in my tune—is that if one counted heads along a waterway the walkers would be just about as numerous as the fishermen, and there would he something like 50 or 100 fishermen to every person seen in a boat. These are the people who want the towpaths. Obviously, the towpath would cost a small sum more than a mere navigation bank, but I should have thought it one of the finest investments that could possibly be made.
To get back to the analogy of Hyde Park: I do not know how many people could use Hyde Park if they tried to, but the number would not be very great before they started walking on each other. Many who would want to use it

723
probably could not even get to Hyde Park either by public or private transport, but these waterways have the advantage that they are generalised all over the country. They are within reach of the bus stops of all the major towns, and particularly the old towns, where there is so little other public open space. It is for this reason that their towpaths are so valuable. You can get to a canal towpath from almost anywhere in any of Britain's major industrial towns, and they make most attractive walks. If there is a little extra money available to be spent on the countryside, one of the finest places on which it could be spent for a very large return for very little money is in keeping up these towpaths as public footpaths.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am absolutely bursting with sympathy and I only wish I were bursting with some money. We all want to keep Government expenditure contained and to safeguard the position of the taxpayer. Of course, when you get a group of people with a particular interest naturally they think that taxpayers ought to spend money on that particular interest. If I may say so to my noble friend Lord St. Davids, there was £340,000 to be spent on the cruising waterways, which, I think, with the fall in the value of money is now £400,000. This was after taking into account all the revenue from pleasure cruisers themselves, which was about £100,000. With regard to fishing, I do not know how many anglers there are. I know they contribute only £20,000 to this £1 million which in effect has to be provided for the waterways.
I have in front of me Section 17 of the 1873 Act, and it does not say anything about the footpaths. I think the noble Lord, Lord Molson, will find there was no liability under that Act in relation to footpaths. The Board, as they made clear in the Annual Report for 1967, are anxious to encourage the use of their waterways for all kinds of recreation, including walking, and they recognise that their towing paths offer attractive possibilities for providing long distance walking routes entirely freed from motor traffic. The old situation, in which a "trespassers will be prosecuted" policy was traditional, is now completely changed and the Board's witnesses to the
724
Gosling Committee on Footpaths made it clear that in the light of the Government's decision to retain the grater part of the waterways system for and amenity use a much more positive policy would now be pursued. Except in towns where questions of public safety and other problems arise, the Board are very sympathetic to the use by the public of towing paths of waterways in the cruising network. Some local authorities are already considering whether they could assist, either with money or with physical help, in the maintenance and improvement of towing paths. The Board welcome this, for it will enable standards to be attained and kept for which funds would not otherwise be available.
But it does not follow that the Board ought to be burdened with the new liability which this Amendment seeks to impose on them. The Board will have to maintain the banks of their waterways to certain standards merely to fulfil the purpose of properly containing the water in its channel. It would be inequitable to demand of them that they should maintain the banks of their waterways in a reasonable condition for supporting a public path for the benefit of the general public who may use the path without payment to the Board. The local highway authority is responsible for the surface repair and maintenance of public paths out of public funds. The local highway authority also has a permissive power to reinstate a footpath that has been lost. If only because of their concern with the maintenance of the waterways for navigation, it is unlikely that the Board will allow towing paths along canals to be lost through bank erosion. We must also remember that on a number of waterways within the Board's undertaking, the Board is not responsible for the maintenance of either of the banks. A river authority may be liable, for example. I am afraid that the Amendment, if made, would undoubtedly give rise to confusion, and I must ask the Committee not to accept it.
I hope that what I have said will reassure the noble Lord that it would not be reasonable to impose this added burden on the Waterways Board whose resources are limited. A more practical way of achieving the admirable purpose the noble Lord has in mind would be for him to use his redoubtable powers

725
of persuasion to encourage local authorities to use their powers under the Highways Act or their new powers under Clause 110 to maintain and improve and, if necessary, replace public paths along the banks of the waterways. Constructive moves in this direction have already been made by some local authorities in London and Leicestershire. Perhaps the noble Lord can help to spread the Gospel elsewhere.
LORD MOLSON: May I get something clear. The noble and learned Lord read very fluently, but it was not altogether easy to take in what he was saying. Do I understand that under Clause 110, "Power of local authorities to assist in maintaining waterways for amenity purposes", highway authorities will be empowered not only to maintain the surface but also the support which is necessary in order to keep these rights of way in proper condition for use?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, so I understand—and in any case the local highway authority has a permissive power to reinstate a footpath that has been lost.
LORD MOLSON: Including along the side of a canal where it is lost owing to the subsidence of the support?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: So I understand.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I add a word to this important debate and say to my noble friend Lord Molson that, as other noble Lords, I entirely sympathise with his objective, but would also commend the course that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is commending; that it is the local highway authority which is the right authority to carry out this work. I can give my noble friend an interesting example of where this was done in order to repair the towpath on the banks of the Thames. T1-, Thames Conservancy, like the Inland Waterways Board, has no funds for repair of the towpath itself—which of course is no longer used as such—and this towpath inevitably gets eroded in places in bends of the river and therefore becomes unusable for the many people who would like to walk on it. But it has bean possible to persuade the riparian county councils, which at
726
the time were Surrey and Middlesex, to engage in a scheme, which the Thames Conservancy carried out for them, to repair the towpath throughout the length of Middlesex (as it then was) and Surrey, right up to the boundaries of Surrey, over a very important length of the river which would be very much used by walkers. The two county councils, with the local district councils coming in as well, financed the whole project. It was very expensive. The cost was something of the order of £150.000 to £200,000. This is the problem: it is not cheap. It is necessary, usually, to put in camp-shedding in the bank in order to strengthen the bank, because it is eroded at that spot.
If the alternative course is pursued of asking the Inland Waterways Board, or in this case the river authority, to make a new footpath, it probably has to buy the land from the riparian owners and once again it involves considerable expenditure. I should think, with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, that the local highway authority is the right authority. I rather suspect that the new Countryside Act will also give further powers to the county authorities who are contemplating making a country path, which will, of course, in many cases include canals or rivers, and who will have funds available for making up footpaths which have fallen into disrepair. On this occasion I feel that the advice given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is the right advice, and I hope the Committee will follow it.
LORD CHORLEY: Very interesting possibilities seem to me to be developing. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is right, that the local authority can do this work under a later clause, it will obviously go a great way towards meeting the point which we are putting forward on behalf of the Commons and Footpaths Society and the hikers. Lord Nugent of Guildford's linking it up with the obligations and indeed rights of the local authorities under the Countryside Act is very important. Under that Act, of course, over a wide range of their activities for the purpose of providing these amenities in the countryside, the local authority is entitled to help from the Exchequer. Surely it would be very reasonable indeed that this should in fact be a responsibility

727
which is shouldered partly from the centre and partly from the local districts. If the Government have at their command people able to look at these things, it might be that a reasonable solution of this problem—a most important problem from the point of view of walkers—can be found. I hope the noble Lord is prepared to indicate that this might be done.
LORD MOLSON: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the full and erudite way in which he has dealt with this matter and also for the general sympathy he has expressed for what we have in mind. I have now looked at Clause 110 and I see that it authorises a local authority to give assistance. I hope therefore that it will be effective. I also hope that when I have followed up the various points which the noble and learned Lord made it will be apparent that there is adequate machinery for dealing with this matter in general.
At the same time, I would point out that, in so far as I followed the argument, there is nothing mandatory in this matter and it would be possible for most useful and valuable towpaths to be lost simply because of the divided responsibility. I do not accept the noble and learned Lord's argument about exonerating a water board from all responsibility. Here we are setting up a statutory body to administer for cruising purposes—that is, for recreation and amenity—1,100 miles of canals in this country. It is thought that that is the most useful purpose to which they can be put. That a water board's responsibility should be limited to repairing damage done by pleasure boats in cases where so much of the bank has fallen in as to be obstructive to pleasure boats themselves and, therefore, they should not be under any obligation to take steps to repair or support the towpath, does not seem to me entirely satisfactory.
It should be borne in mind that these towpaths were built by the canal authorities at a time when the ordinary traffic on canals consisted of horse-drawn barges. When the nature of the traffic changes and becomes power-driven boats which are used as pleasure cruising craft, it does not seem to me at all unreasonable that the towpaths which were pro-
728
vided by the waterway authorities should be maintained by the authority which is taking them over. However, I will look at this matter again and consider whether I shall put anything down on this point at the Report stage. In the meantime, I would thank the noble and learned Lord for his sympathetic reply, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.54 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 257Z:
Page 140, line 17, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment in the names of my noble friends and myself. Clause 104 is a very important clause which was introduced, as noble Lords will have discovered, at the Report stage in another place as a result of strong representations from many quarters, including the Inland Waterways Association. I do not doubt that noble Lords on all sides of the Committee have received briefs and documents from the Inland Waterways Association, saying what they think of the clause as it now is. It is a clause which the Government put on the Order Paper with good intentions, to meet the general complaints that had been made, but, like the curate's egg, it is good in parts. Without any doubt the worst part of it is subsection (6).
Subsection (6), and indeed the clause as a whole, had only a very limited debate in another place because it was not taken at the Committee stage and the guillotine time-table rendered the debate on Report very short. Subsection (6) is particularly objectionable because it enables the Minister to use his powers under Clause 103 to reclassify a waterway, even though an application to the High Court has already been made alleging a failure to maintain a waterway in a proper state by the Waterways Board. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 104 lay a statutory duty on the Waterways Board to maintain particular waterways in a proper state, according to the classification of the waterway. This is entirely acceptable and right, and everyone is pleased with that.
Then subsection (5) of this clause gives the right to apply to the High Court—or in Scotland to the Court of Session—when someone believes that the Board is

729
failing in its responsibilities for maintaining a canal, and wishes to oblige the Board to carry out proper maintenance. This is also a right and proper provision, in my view, although the Inland Waterways Board has some rather critical things to say about the last part of it. However, I would accept these in good faith.
Then comes the offending subsection (6), which in effect gives the Minister power to change the rules in the middle of the game and thus render the right of action to remedy a grievance under subsection (5) completely nugatory. Let me give an example. A canal is classified under Clause 103 and Schedule 12 as a cruising waterway. It becomes choked with weeds and therefore unnavigable in certain stretches. A person who finds his cruiser unable to navigate the canal brings an action in the High Court charging the Waterways Board with negligence in their duties under subsection (5). The Board immediately rush to the Minister and convince him that this canal is little used nowadays and that it would be only sensible to reclassify it, downgrading it from a cruising waterway under section 103(1)(b), to that of "the remainder"—in other words, a non-cruising waterway. The Minister agrees and immediately gives an Order f or reclassification. The complainant's action in the High Court then falls to the ground: the canal has been changed to a classification where there is no obligation for maintenance laid upon the Waterways Board.
Really, a more ludicrous situation is hard to imagine. This is equivalent to the referee at a football match awarding a penalty in the penalty area, and just as the chap is about to kick a goal he blows his whistle and declares him offside. The referee would never get off the field alive; and nor, I suggest, should the Minister get away with this. If there is a case for reclassification—and perhaps this will happen from time to time—it must wait until after the High Court hearing is settled. This procedure is quite unacceptable. I feel sure that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor could not feel this to be a satisfactory piece of law to put on the Statute Book. I beg to move the Amendment, and hope he will accept it.
6.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I agree to some extent with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, although I cannot go all the way with him, especially in his example. But there can be even worse examples. If a waterway is likely to be reclassified, people using it are likely to know about it, or at least should be informed about it; and as the information gets around the waterway users will take the trouble to remove their craft elsewhere, start closing down their businesses, and so on. They will have some time, or some chance at least, to remedy the worst results upon themselves.
The danger in this clause is that you might get something, not like weeding up, which is a slow process which occurs over weeks or months and everybody knows about it, but something like the sudden collapse of a lock gate and circumstances occurring whereby a boat is trapped in some impossible position from which it cannot be retrieved. The owners then ask the Board to put the matter right and the Board says, "There is going to be a stoppage for a week or two, or some weeks or some months while we mend this lock gate." So the owners of the boats sit down and wait. The stoppage goes on and on, and eventually the owners say, "What has happened about that stoppage?"; and the answer is, "We have decided not to repair the lock gate. We are going to close the canal. The Minister has decided that."
Your Lordships may think that this is an imaginary case, but that is just what happened on the Kennet and Avon. John Gould took his pair of working narrow boats up the Kennet and Avon and a stoppage occurred behind him. The stoppage then became prolonged, and when he inquired what had happened about the repair of the stoppage he was told that they did not intend to repair it. This meant that his boats were trapped. Under the law as it then was, and in fact as it now stands, he had a right to compensation, but if this occurred now Mr. Gould would have no case for compensation and no method of removing his craft. He would not be warned of what was going to occur; he would not have the slightest method of avoiding disaster to what in Mr. Gould's case were working boats which were his livelihood. He would not have the chance to remove

731
them from the area of risk. The danger is that you may get a sudden stoppage and the Board may simply refuse to put it right. This has happened in the past, and I am afraid that it may happen in the future. We want there to be some warning before the Minister makes an order. The trouble about this arrangement is that you may get everybody held up and caught by a sudden order, without any warning at all.
LORD CONESFORD: Various objections have been made to this subsection. Perhaps I may add one which will not be considered quite trivial. It is a direct breach, and I think the first statutory breach, of a well-known requirement of Magna Carta. Whatever my differences with such an eminent law reformer as the noble and learned Lord, I should not like him to be associated with such a bad piece of legislation. I will quote the phrase both in Latin and in English if desired, but I think it will probably be sufficient if I quote the well-known words in English:
"To none will we sell, to none will we deny or delay, right or justice."
This subsection enables the Minister when an action is brought to delay justice by order. The subsection is so monstrous and so unnecessary that I hope the Committee will reject it with scorn.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like to support the Amendment. I feel sorry for the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in trying to reply to this Amendment. As I understand it, an aggrieved party can apply to the court and then, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said, halfway through the Board can come along and say that they are thinking about changing the order. The result appears to be, first of all, that the court's time is wasted; secondly, the aggrieved party's costs are totally wasted; thirdly, an implication that it is a mockery of the court; and fourthly, that the Board seem to be able to frustrate litigation. Consequently I believe that no aggrieved party would come forward in future as there would be little hope of satisfaction; there would be no hope of recovering any costs or damages and it would seem that Lord Cairn's Act would not apply.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This subsection does not seem to be one of the
732
most popular in the Bill, but, in my opinion, it is essential that the Minister's power to consider, publish and, if necessary, make orders for reclassifying a waterway or altering maintenance standards should be preserved. These powers could be of great practical importance if some disaster befell a waterway—for example, if an aqueduct or a tunnel collapsed. Some of these canals are 150 years old, and the tunnels are of that sort of age. They are low tunnels because, as your Lordships may know, the method of propulsion was by men lying on their backs and propelling with their feet on the roof of the tunnel. In such a situation the Minister might legitimately conclude that it would be in the public interest to reclassify the affected length rather than expend large sums of public money in reinstating the waterway.
Without this subsection it would be possible for some types of waterway enthusiasts, whom the Board generally welcome, by instituting court proceedings under subsection (5) alleging serious failure to maintain a waterway, to frustrate any proposal by the Minister to make an order reclassifying a waterway. There is in fact a history of the use of legal proceedings begun or stimulated by such waterway enthusiasts in order to secure the preservation or restoration of waterways. If such proceedings were begun in relation to a length of waterway in the commercial or cruising categories, it would be virtually impossible in the absence of subsection (6) for the Minister to initiate and proceed with a reclassifying order. He would be accused of prejudicing the legal proceedings, and it would be claimed that he was acting in contempt of court. The retention of subsection (6) is essential in order to protect public funds and the Minister's powers.
I should emphasise that subsection (6) relates only to legal proceedings against the Board under subsection (5); that is to say, to proceedings requiring the Board to remedy serious defects. It has nothing whatever to do with Common Law claims against the Board for negligence or nuisance, or with claims under the Occupier's Liability Act, or with any other claims by persons using the waterway and sustaining injury or damage while navigating the waterways. Such claims are quite independent of subsection (5) and are therefore unaffected by subsection (6).

733
I do not understand the suggestion of something being closed in a moment. The reclassification procedure is, after all, subject to all the provisions of Schedule 13, to all the notices and consultations and objections and inquiries, and to Parliamentary control. Subsection (6) cannot finally put a stop to proceedings under subsection (5) without Parliament having an opportunity to pronounce on the matter. I feel sure that this subsection has to some extent been misunderstood, and I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord may be prepared not to press the Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: I have no doubt that the clerks who advised King John at the time of Magna Carta gave him exactly that sort of advice, which was rejected by the Barons of England, and I hope the noble Lord will not withdraw this Amendment.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I feel I was given very sound advice by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. The fact is that this provision goes much too far. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, if I may say so, made out a good case where a special emergency occurs of the collapse of a tunnel which would not necessarily be very expensive to mend; or the collapse of a large-scale aqueduct which may cost hundreds of thousands of pounds to mend. That, perhaps, would be a case for reclassification. I would, myself. be prepared to consider that the Minister should have the right to intervene to save public funds there. But this provision covers everything. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, mentioned the incident of the collapse of a lock gate which, of course, does happen sometimes, but it is no serious interference with a waterway, with navigation, to close the lock for a period. This often has to be done on all navigations, which may be closed for two or three months while the lock is being rebuilt, and, in the meantime, the navigation is temporarily stopped; and similarly, I should have thought, with a tunnel collapse. The general case, I believe, is not a good one, and the noble arid learned Lord the Lord Chancellor himself has taken away with one hand what he gives with the other. What he gives in subsection (5) he is really taking away in subsection (6). Lord Kinnoull's intervention was, I thought, particularly effective on this point. No
734
one would ever start an action if the Minister could step in and reclassify the canal. It costs several hundred pounds to do; it simply would not be worth doing. The subsection, as it stands, goes much too far.
I should be willing to see this redrafted in a way to cover the extreme emergency such as the collapse of a complete aqueduct, which is a very special case, but for normal purposes I think tat the Board must accept the obligation to repair what has gone wrong and keep the navigation going. If there is to be a reclassification the Board must come along afterwards through the proper procedure laid down in the Schedule, and everybody can then have his chance of putting forward his point of view and the Minister can consider it in a proper way. But the clause as it is now drafted gives no satisfaction to anybody. I believe that the Government have tried in this clause to meet the enthusiasm and the needs of the inland waterway world and I think, if I may say so, they have gone a long way to do it; but here in subsection (6) they have done something that is so unacceptable that they detract very largely from all the good they are doing here. I hope that the noble and learned Lord is going to say something more forthcoming; otherwise I feel that I should ask the Committee to divide on this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I think about this? Obviously the Committee do not like this subsection as it is, and if I may have an opportunity to think about it I shall be able to see how far we can meet the views expressed.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: That is very handsome, and I am sure it would be the wish of the Committee to see if it can be re-drawn in a way which would protect the vital and exceptional case while leaving the right in subsection (5) in the main secure, as it should be. In the light of that undertaking I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 260Y:
Leave out Clause 104 and insert the following new clause:
Maintenance of the Board's waterways.
(".—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, all persons whatsoever shall have the right with boats, barges and other vessels of any kind suitable for use thereon to use and navigate the commercial waterways and the cruising waterways at all times and for all reasonable purposes without any unnecessary hindrance, interruption or delay, paying to the Board the licence fees, tolls and other charges and observing the terms and conditions applicable thereto.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this section, it shall be the duty of the Waterways Board—

(a) to maintain the commercial waterways in a suitable condition for use by commercial freight-carrying vessels; and

(b) to maintain the cruising waterways in a suitable condition for use by cruising craft, that is to say, vessels constructed or adapted for the carriage of passengers and driven by mechanical power.

(3) Subsection (2) of this section—

(a) shall not impose upon the Board any higher duty or liability to maintain a waterway or part of a waterway for the purposes of navigation than the duty of the Board contained in section 17 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1873 and subsection (1) of section 61 of the Transport Act 1962 which the subsection replaces;

(b) shall not impose upon the Board any duty to provide special facilities for commercial or cruising vessels which the Board would not have been liable to provide prior to the date of this Act;

(c) shall not, save as provided in subsection (4) of this section, impose upon the Board any duty to enlarge the dimensions of the locks, other navigational works and bridges on any waterway as they exist at the date of this Act;

(d) shall not, save as provided in subsection (4) of this section, impose upon the Board any duty to maintain the navigable depth of water on any waterway at any greater depth than is reasonably necessary for the passage of cruising craft on a cruising waterway and commercial freight carrying vessels on a commercial waterway of a size, design or type in each case customarily using that waterway;

(e) shall not impose upon the Board any higher duty or liability in respect of the use by a commercial vessel of a cruising waterway than the duty or liability which the Board would be under in the case of cruising craft using the same waterway.

(4) If it appears to the Minister that, having regard to any change in the size, design or type of vessel customarily using, or which would be likely to use, any commercial waterway or cruising waterway, or any part thereof, or which would be likely to use any such waterway or part but for limitations caused by the existing state of maintenance thereof, it is desirable to exercise his powers under this subsection, he may by order substitute for the duty imposed on the Board by the foregoing provisions of this section in respect of that waterway or
736
part such duty in respect of the maintenance thereof as he considers appropriate having regard to that change, and may by that order make such incidental or transitional provision as he thinks necessary or expedient in connection therewith.
(5) Where any part of a commercial or cruising waterway is subject at the date of this Act to the provisions of section 64 of the Transport Act 1962 (which temporarily suspends the duty of the Board to maintain certain waterways) the provisions of that section shall continue to apply to any such part for a period of one year from the date of this Act and thereafter the Minister may by order continue the suspension of the duty of the Board upon the same terms as are contained in the said section for such period or successive periods as having regard to the financial resources of the Board and such other considerations in the case of each waterway as appear to him to be relevant he may think fit.
(6) Schedule 13 to this Act shall have effect in relation to the making of any order under subsections (4) and (5) of this section, and any such order shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(7) The Board shall cease to be under any duty imposed by any statutory enactment to maintain for the purposes of navigation any waterway comprised in the undertaking of the Board which is not designated by or under this Act as a commercial or cruising waterway and any local enactment passed with respect to any such inland waterway, so far as that enactment imposes upon the Board any duty to maintain that waterway for the purposes of navigation (including any duty to supply or maintain a supply of, water for the waterway for that purpose), shall cease to have effect.
(8) In the case of any such waterway as is mentioned in subsection (7) of this section the following provisions of this subsection shall have effect:—

(a) any local enactment passed with respect to any such inland waterway so far as that enactment creates any public or private right of navigation shall cease to have effect;

(b) in the case of any artificial canal or watercourse the soil of which is owned by the Board all public rights of navigation shall be extinguished but any rights of frontagers to keep or use boats thereon which are in the nature of accommodation rights to cross the canal or watercourse shall continue unless and until otherwise ordered by the appropriate tribunal;

(c) in the case of any natural river forming part of a navigation carried on or formerly carried on pursuant to powers conferred by any local enactment the soil of which is not owned by the Board and any navigational works or artificial canals forming part thereof

(i) rights of public navigation shall continue or be deemed to have revived;

(ii) any rights of frontagers to use boats other than a right to make use of navigational works shall be preserved;

737

(iii) the Board a River Authority or a body exercising powers under section 107 of this Act shall be under no liability to any person to maintain any navigational works and may carry out any necessary works in the interests of safety, drainage, amenity or the prevention of flooding whether or not navigation is obstructed by such works;

(d) the Minister may by order made in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 13 to this Act provide for the regulation, use and management of any such river navigation and may by the order make such incidental or transitional provision as he thinks necessary or expedient in connection therewith.

(9) Section 17 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1873 and subsection (1) of section 61 of the Transport Act 1962 (which require the Board to maintain the waterways comprised in their undertaking for public navigational use) shall cease to apply to the Board and any provision of any local enactment which imposes any duty upon the Board to maintain any commercial or cruising waterway for navigation shall cease to have effect and for the duty of the Board thereunder and the rights of the public there shall be substituted the provisions of subsection (1) of this section.
(10) Nothing in this section

(a) shall affect the right under any local enactment of the owner of the soil of any part of a commercial or cruising waterway to keep or use any vessel on the part of the waterway owned by him;

(b) shall operate by the naming or description of any waterway in Schedule 12 to this Act or in any order made under subsections (3) and (4) of this section to vest in the Board any part of that waterway not comprised in the undertaking of the Board prior to the passing of this Act so as to make the Board liable for the maintenance of any such part for which the Board was not previously liable or otherwise affect the ownership of or liability for such part;

(c) shall operate by such naming or description as is mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection or otherwise to entitle the Board to make demand and recover charges for the use by any ship or boat of any tidal water customary free river, lake or loch in Scotland or any waterway vested in or controlled by any other navigation authority for the use of which the Board were not entitled to charge prior to the passing of this Act.

(11) Any person who suffers loss by reason of the extinguishment by virtue of this section of any right shall be entitled to be paid by the Board compensation to be determined, in case of dispute, by the appropriate tribunal; and the tribunal shall, in determining the compensation, take into account any contractual right offered by the Boa.-d in substitution for the right which is extinguished.
The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and the name of the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids. This is somewhat of a formid-
738
able Amendment and one feels rather like David taking on Goliath. I should, in the first instance, explain the reason for the gaps on the Order Paper of Amendments Nos. 252 to 259. The original series of Amendments, in fact, was to amend Clause 104. It was then considered that it would be easier for the Committee if one put down a completely new clause. The principal purpose of this Amendment is to restore—I would say "almost" again to my noble friend Lord Conesford—in the Bill a public right of navigation.
The drafting of this new clause is in no way different from the Government's policy in the White Paper they issued, Cmnd. 3401. It accepts the necessity to reduce the Board's maintenance obligations; that is, from the 1,800 miles of waterways to the 1,400 miles of waterways. It then accepts the necessity that the Board's maintenance obligations must fit in with modern times. Thirdly, it accepts that the bulwark of the Board's maintenance obligations—that is, Section 17 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1873—should be repealed. It has now become out of date. What the clause does not accept is the loss of the public right of navigation.
The Government, one understands, when drafting Part VII of this Bill asked the question how they were to reduce the Board's obligations of maintenance. I think I am right in saying they took the view that they would have to take away all the public rights of navigation in order not to cause any hybridity to the Bill. I believe, in fact, that this can be achieved without causing hybridity, although I do not think that this clause, or this Amendment, achieves it. In fact, I have a fresh Amendment to this Amendment which it was too late to put down but which I think does achieve it. I am, therefore, not suggesting that we should press this Amendment to-day but discuss and, I hope, persuade the Government of, the principle that it is not necessary to remove public rights of navigation in order to reduce the maintenance obligations of the Board.
Before going any further may I give a short history of the old rights of navigation and the duty of maintenance that has been laid down in the past? The British Waterways Board are, of course, responsible for two types of nationalised waterways: that of the natural water-

739
ways, the Severn, the Trent, the Lea, and so on, on which the public have a Common Law right of navigation and have had for centuries—they have had, anyway, up to now. Then there are the artificial waterways which, the Committee will know, were constructed around 1760 to 1840, principally for commercial purposes. These all came within Local Acts which gave the public a statutory right of navigation. We then found that the railways considered the canals were in competition, and they purchased many of these canals. Parliament, in its wisdom, saw that there was a real danger that the public right of navigation would cease, so it brought in Section 17 of the 1873 Act, which stated:
"Every railway company owning or having the management of any canal or part of a canal shall at all times keep and maintain such canal or part, and all the reservoirs, works, and conveniences thereto belonging, thoroughly repaired and dredged and in good working condition, and shall preserve the supplies of water to the same, so that the whole of such canal or part may be at all times kept open and navigable for the use of all persons desirous to use and navigate the same without any unnecessary hindrance, interruption, or delay."
The decision in 1931 in Blundy Clark v. L.N.E.R. gave the precise extent of that duty to repair. The duty is not absolute, but is a duty to take reasonable care both as regards non-feasance and misfeasance. The plaintiff has to prove negligence, and in that case the canal authority was not liable for the collapse of an apparently sound structure, the weakness not being discoverable on ordinary inspection. The authority was liable to the extent only that there was unreasonable delay in effecting repairs.
We then come to the 1947 Act which, as the Committee will know, nationalised railways and canals belonging to the railways, and also certain natural waterways. The British Transport Commission was then set up and took over the maintenance responsibility under Section 17 of the 1873 Act.
There was then the 1962 Transport Act, which set up a new body, the British Waterways Board. At that time the Government saw that, despite the Section 17 obligation of maintenance, many waterways had fallen into disrepair and in many cases were far too expensive to restore. The Board were told to review
740
the waterways under Section 10(2) of the 1962 Act. Under Section 64 of the Act the Board were given a temporary relief of obligation of maintenance, other than in respect of the state the canals were already in. This was virtually a holding operation given for five years. We then come to Section 61(1)(b) of the 1962 Act (or what was later known as "Lord Conesford's Clause") which brought in Section 17 of the 1873 Act so as to apply to the Waterways Board.
There is also one further section I should mention under the 1962 Act, namely, Section 43, which gave the Board powers to make charges for services as they saw fit. It has been said in a letter by the Minister to Members of Parliament that that section cut away some of the public rights of navigation. Perhaps I may quote a short extract from his letter:
"The claim that by doing away with these old navigation rights Parliament will be depriving the public of valuable rights cannot be substantiated. These were originally rights to navigate on payment of the tolls prescribed in the local Acts. These fixed tolls were finally abolished by the Transport Act 1962 which gave the Board the power to demand what charge it liked. Today, therefore, navigation on a waterway of the Board is navigation on the Board's terms. Navigation rights on the canals to-day, so far as the public are concerned, are theoretical rather than practical rights."
I cannot accept that, because in fact the Board are still under an obligation under Section 17 of the 1873 Act, which gave the public the power to navigate without unnecessary hindrance, interruption or delay. I suggest that if the Board were to impose too heavy charges these could be called a hindrance to navigation.
The Government's White Paper (Cmnd. 3401) was published in 1967. This recognised the value of waterways as a "priceless asset" on the grounds of amenity, drainage, water carrying, transport and so on. The White Paper also set out the Waterways Board's future obligations as to the maintenance of commercial and cruising waterways and reducing it to 1,400 miles. The White Paper also said that the Board was to be given a new and positive duty of maintenance. At this stage in 1967 there was no suspicion that the public rights of navigation were to be abolished under this Bill.
We then come to the 1968 Bill. Here, the Government decided to repeal the Board's obligations under Section 17 of the 1873 Act. We have no quarrel with that. The Government also decided to remove all public and private rights of navigation on waterways. Thirdly, they decided to place on the Board a maintenance duty for waterways under Schedule 12. The result of this, and the reason why one is pressing for public rights of navigation to be restored, is that if the public lose their right of navigation they will be losing the four remedies of action which at present they possess against the Board.
The four actions, I am advised, are as follows. There is, firstly, the action for special damage caused to a person by the unreasonable and negligent failure of the Board to fulfil its duties. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, has already quoted the case of John Gould in 1954, where an ex-serviceman with his gratuity set up a salt-carrying business which was virtually destroyed by the lack of maintenance of the Kennet and Avon canal. He sought an injection against the Board and was eventually awarded £5,000 damages. Then there was the Willow Wren case. So that there have been two recent cases where an action for special damages has been pursued.
Then one has the second remedy, the action for damage for personal injury; that is injury to persons or property caused by the negligence of the Board. The obvious example was the lock gate collapsing. The reason, I am told, that the public would riot have an action under the Bill as it is at present drafted, is that the court may take the view the public have no automatic right to navigate; they are navigating by permission of the Board. In another place the Government spokesman said that the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 would cover this. I am advised that this would not be so. Section 2(1) of that Act reads:
"An occupier of premises owes the same duty, the ' common duty of care', to all his visitors, except in so far as he is free to and does extend, restrict, modify or exclude his duty to any visitor or visitors by agreement or otherwise."
In other words, he or the Board can contract out of that liability.
The third action is the action to enforce a right of way, which may be brought
742
by a member of the public, or by the Attorney General on behalf of the public, if a person wishing to navigate is refused passage unreasonably. The reason, I am told, why the public would not have a case here is that the court may take the view that it could only grant an order to someone with a legal interest. There has been a recent case on this very point, Attorney General v. Reading Corporation. Lastly, there is the action for injunction that is, the action for injunction to enforce the duty of repair. This action may be brought by an individual suffering special damage, or by the Attorney General on behalf of the public. Here one has the Ashton Canal case, which is the subject of a later Amendment.
There is one other factor which I believe this clause destroys, and that is the Common Law rights. The Minister, in his letter to Members of Parliament, stated this:
"There is nothing in the Bill which interferes with Common Law or prescriptive rights of navigation on rivers or natural courses or with contractual rights relating to navigation where these exist. Only rights arising, from long outdated canal and railway legislation will cease."
I am advised that under the present Clause 104, the combination of subsection (7)(a) and subsection (10) would accidentally abolish the Common Law rights on both the natural and artificial waterways of the Board.
Turning to the new clause, subsection (1) reaffirms the public right of navigation in the words of Section 17 of the 1873 Act. All remedies of action are to remain. This, of course, gives security of tenure to operators of canals. Subsection (2) reaffirms the Government's present subsection (1). Subsection (3) sets out the minimum obligation on the Board to maintain the Schedule 12 waterways. Subsection (4) gives the Minister power to make an order increasing, as well as lowering, the standard of maintenance—in other words, to make his power more flexible. Subsection (5) deals with the eight waterways in a later Amendment to Schedule 12 which, if it is accepted, will extend the interim provisions of Section 64 of the 1962 Act. Subsection (6) repeats the Government's present subsection (4)
Subsection (7) relieves the Board of all duties of maintenance in respect of

743
the remainder of waterways. That, again, is similar to what the Government propose. Subsection (8) deals with existing rights of frontagers on the remaining waterways, and also retains the rights of navigation on natural waterways such as the River Tone. Subsection (9) abolishes Section 17 of the 1873 Act and the later Section 61 of the 1962 Act, recognising that to-day they are out of date. Subsection (10) preserves the right of frontagers on river navigations to moor their own boat on their own land on their own water. This appears to be abolished under the Government's clause. Subsection (11) deals with compensation in terms similar to the Government's subsection (9).
I repeat, again, that the purpose is to retain all public rights of navigation over the Board's waterways, which I suggest can be done without hybridising the Bill. I recognise that this Amendment fails to do this, but there is, in fact, a precedent for this, in Section 41 of the Land Drainage Act 1930, dealing with power to vary navigation rights. I ask the Government this question. Why should the public not be allowed an enforceable right to navigate over the Schedule 12 waterways, which are to be kept open at public expense? I beg to move.
6.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAV1DS: I have a great sympathy with my noble friends who produced Clause 104 in an effort to make simple something which is extremely complicated. Unfortunately, it simply will not do, because it is a lawyers' attempt to cut a Gordian Knot without reference to the facts. Perhaps I can put some of the complications to your Lordships so that you can understand.
The waterways are not basically what one thinks of as canals. They are not necessarily artificial channels. Many of these waterways are natural waterways, which would be there whether the Board wished them to be there or not. The Board do not necessarily own the waterways; in some cases not only do they not own the waterway; they do not even own the water. In some cases the Board have nothing more than a simple right to navigate without any other ownership
744
at all of the waterway. In some cases they own the sites of the locks and the sites of one or two major works, such as weirs, but nothing else. In some cases the Board own the water but nothing else, the owners of the land owning the ground under the waterway to the central line or, in some cases, the whole of the ground. In other cases, the Board own the channel of the waterway but not the banks.
In some cases the Board own the banks but not the towpaths; and of course the banks are of various widths. In other cases, to make the matter more complicated, the Board have only a lease of this property, and sometimes the lease depends on the right of navigation and comes to an end should navigation stop. In other cases, even where the Board have the freehold of the land under the canal, that freehold reverts either to the present riparian owners or to the original owners of the land on which the waterway runs. The waterways may be in all sorts of states. In some cases there is considerable navigation on a waterway even though the British Waterways Board's works—the locks, et cetera are completely out of action. The complications can be quite enormous, and some of the results can be very odd indeed.
If navigation rights are removed as this Bill proposes, among other places where it will be illegal to navigate will be the River Severn, the River Trent and, most extraordinary of all, Loch Ness. Loch Ness is a navigation belonging to the British Waterways Board by the fact that it is contained within the beginning and end of the Caledonian Canal. The Caledonian Canal has locks at each end, at the sea ends, and Loch Ness is part of the waterways of the British Waterways Board. If this Bill is allowed to stand as it is, there will be no legal right to nagivate Loch Ness, or even to fish on it, because a great deal of the fishing is done from a boat. The only way of having a right to fish or to navigate Loch Ness is by getting the permission of the British Waterways Board. It will be necessary to get a licence from the Board. All boats will be illegal. I do not know about the poor old Monster: I suppose be becomes not only fabulous but illegal, too. If all the navigation rights which have existed throughout history on these

745
various waterways are to be swept away for the Board's convenience, I suggest that this is simply monstrous; it is fantastic.
Let us take the example of a West Country river, the River Tone, which flows through Taunton. That is a navigation owned by the British Waterways Board by the fact that it owns the original sites of the locks. The locks have been out of action for many years and there is no through-passage for heavy craft, because heavy craft cannot get through the locks. Nevertheless, there is quite considerable navigation of the river by all sorts of small craft—rowing boats, canoes and so on—which can be portaged over the lock sites easily enough; and there are even quite heavy craft in the pounds between the old broken-down locks. All this usage becomes illegal—and this would not even be navigation. This would not even come within the cruising range of the Board.
What has been done is a praiseworthy effort to get rid of the 600 antiquated Acts which muddle and confuse everything that we try to do on these waterways. But the Government really have thrown out the baby with the bath water. Surely it would be much better not to do away with public navigation but to retain the obligations of Section 17 of the Regulation of Railways Act and to cut them down as suggested by the method used in the Land Drainage Act 1930, where Section 41 gave the Minister powers and rights (which he was to use in case the navigation authority did not use its power) to extinguish, vary, or decrease navigation rights. That was done without any prejudice to Section 17 of the public rights of navigation.
But the public rights of navigation are valuable. We have to remember that if we are dealing with the British Waterways Board we are not dealing only with the pleasure-cruising waterways. We are dealing with the commercial waterways as well. The commercial waterways are not losing money. In fact, they have made a very considerable profit this year. If we start tinkering with these very successful waterways by removing the rights of navigation on them, which is what we are doing in this Bill, we may start damaging the commercial side, in which case the financial losses with which we may be faced are certainly going to
746
make a difference to the Board's revenues.
My name is on the new clause, Clause 104, but I recognise that because of the fact that, as it turns out, our new clause is a hybrid we cannot move it. Nevertheless, although our clause will not stand up, nor will the Government's clause. Why, oh why, must we have the rights which the public has had over all the major waterways in the country swept away for the convenience of the Board? I suppose the only possible argument is: because it would cost more money to keep them. But how? If it cost more money to keep the waterways up to a higher standard of navigation the Minister could quite easily have powers, as in the Land Drainage Act, to cut down the size of boat allowed to pass through a waterway, or in fact to cut it down to the point where a boat would not be allowed through the waterway at all. The Minister could easily have that power while basically retaining the ordinary public rights of navigation.
Are we going to be told that if the public rights of navigation are left the Board are going to be liable for enormous sums by way of compensation? I suppose it could, theoretically. The Board have fought these compensation actions from time to time. But what sums have been obtained from the Board? If we are told that it is going to cost the Board vast sums of money, I ask: what sums of money has it cost the Board in the past? There have been these actions, these well-known actions, but that is almost the entire list of actions that there has ever been. There have not been masses of actions by people hiring hire-cruisers and complaining that they have been hit on the head, or something. The hire-cruiser companies operate an enormous number of vessels. As my noble and learned friend says, there are some 10,000 hire-craft on the waterways. How many of these boats have been damaged by some negligence on the part of the British Waterways Board, and how many of their operators have sued the British Waterways Board? I can hardly think of a single case.
As for the private owners of boats, they navigate these waterways for hundreds and for thousands of miles with no trouble at all; and if we run on the occasional snag, we do not blame the

747
British Waterways Board. I have navigated these waterways for thousands of miles, and I have never had any trouble. It may be said: "Ah, yes, but you are an expert, so of course you do not get into trouble. But what about all these people that we are told about by the noble and learned Lord, these 40,000 people in hire-cruisers?" These are not experts, these are the beginners, and yet they do not spend their time running their boats on to submerged snags and wrecking them. If the waterways were in such a shabby state that they did, all the hire-cruiser firms would be out of business. They are not. I do not care what my noble and learned friend says about what actions may be brought: in fact the actions are not brought. There is no need to take away the public rights of navigation.
We are being asked to exchange our birthright for a mess of pottage in this case. We are being asked to give away much too much for much too little reason. If the public right of navigation cannot be restored by the clause which we want to put in because we cannot make the clause stand up, then the only thing we can do is to go on to see if we cannot get a new clause which allows us a public right of navigation.
LORD CONESFORD: This Amendment is in two parts—to leave out the present clause and to substitute a new one. For the reasons given by my noble friend who moved it, we cannot press for the new clause, which would make the Bill hybrid, but I think the omission of the present clause may be for the convenience not only of the opponents of the present clause but also, I should have thought, of Her Majesty's Government, because there is so much that is wrong with the present clause that I think it would be much better if, on Report stage, they were in a position to move the insertion of a clause which, on reconsideration, they thought to be the right one.
It seems to be my fate, whatever Government are in power, to have to fight for the public in order to retain their rights of navigation. Section 61 of the 1962 Act stands in the form in which it does as a result of an Amendment which
748
I moved in this House and which was eventually accepted by Her Majesty's then Government. The importance of Section 61 is that it prevents the Board from using their commercial freedom under Section 43 of the 1962 Act to impose prohibitive charges and conditions where they want to keep the public from using a particular canal. Such charges would be inconsistent with the section as it now stands and, incidentally, would make nonsense of the compensation provisions in the Act and the special provisions of Section 64. But it is now proposed, as has been pointed out by the previous speakers, to abolish the public rights of navigation altogether. When one looks at the waterways to which this applies, which are shown in the Schedule, one sees that it would deprive the public of all rights of navigation of Loch Ness, as the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, pointed out, of the Trent, of the Severn and of the Lea.
There is, of course, no conceivable case for doing away with rights of navigation which have existed throughout our history. Therefore, it seems to me to be quite impossible to justify the provisions of subsection (7). Subsection (6) must quite obviously go. I think this Committee would have struck it out on a previous Amendment but for the very reasonable attitude taken by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when he promised to reconsider this subsection which had been the subject of so much damaging criticism. Subsection (1) is clearly incomplete, making no mention whatever of the rights of navigation.
Subsection (2) ends in a passage which appears to me to be sheer gibberish. I assume that there is somebody who understands what it means. It concludes with these astonishing words:
"… save as aforesaid, the duty imposed by that paragraph shall extend to any vessel of the kind therein mentioned as respects the dimensions of which paragraph (a) or (b) of this subsection is satisfied."
How a paragraph can be "satisfied of … dimensions", I cannot conceive. It may be that some words have dropped out; it may be that a page has dropped out. But certainly the words as they stand, whatever else they do, do not make any sort of sense and cannot be construed in the English language.

749
I have dealt with subsections (1), (2) and (6), and also with subsection (7), which abolishes all the rights of navigation and, together with a subsequent subsection the Common Law rights. The conclusion of subsection (5) is very difficult to construe. It could have been put in only on the assumption that the draftsman overlooked the fact that Common Law rights were being abolished by the clause. I am inclined to think that subsection (8) is not required at all, because I think the Board could acquire an inland waterway only by legislation—and, if they did, the legislation could provide for the circumstances that arose. The conclusion of subsection (10) is also quite inappropriate and difficult to construe, having regard to what is done to Common Law rights.
Those being the facts about the clause as it stands—and I do not think the facts can he seriously disputed—I am sure that it would be in the interests of the Committee—of the Government side, no less than of this side—to adopt that part of the Amendment which proposes to leave out the clause. In other words, we should not let the clause stand part of the Bill.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to add a few words to what has been said on this very important subject. I think we are left in the position from which Lord Conesford saved us in 1962. I remember that occasion very well. The Bill came before Parliament in a state in which the Minister had not realised that the public were being deprived of important rights conferred upon them in all those Acts of Parliament which permitted the building of canals, rights which had grown up at Common Law over important river systems which became part of the canal pattern in the country established in the 18th Century. It may have been an accident that the Bill came before Parliament framed in that way. But I doubt it; I think it was a plot. Ministers sometimes do not realise what is going on behind the scenes. Certainly, if it had not been for the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, moved in 1962, and which has come to be called the Conesford Amendment, the public would have been deprived on that occasion of these very important rights.
750
Since that time the Government—a different Government—have been persuaded that the amenity values of the canal and river systems are of the greatest importance to the community. Yet here again, in 1968, we are faced with the same sort of attempt as that of 1962 to deprive a very important section of the public—indeed, the public as a whole if they like to make use of them—of their rights of navigation over these canal and river systems. This is a very serious business. It may be said that the organisation which has been set up will not in practice deprive the public of these rights; that the publlic will be allowed, on payment of licence fees and so forth, to use the system. That is no doubt true. But that is the sort of specious argument which is always brought in on these occasions: that, "You are not really being deprived of your heritage. We will allow you to go on using it; but you must use it in the way we want and on the terms that we shall lay down." That is typical of the Whitehall method. But to a large extent Parliament exists to defend the public against loss of their rights.
There is another important aspect of this matter. The draftsman must have been thinking that he was here dealing solely with artificial canal system; constructed since Brindley built the first canal in England. The draftsman seems to have overlooked the fact that a great deal of the system depends on the incorporation in it of rivers and of lakes like Loch Ness, which were there long before the canals were thought of and over which rights of way in navigation by boats and so forth have been established. Otherwise, I doubt whether the draftsman—and still less the Minister—appreciates what is being done in that regard.
I think it is important that these rights should be protected; and, so far as I can understand this rather complicated clause, it appears to me that they are being taken away—and I refer not only to the rights given by Acts of Parliament but to rights at Common Law and to the rights of the riparian owners. If you own property on the bank of a river like the Severn (which has become part of the canal system), then long before it became incorporated you were using your navigation rights over that water

751
for purposes of carrying your goods, for your recreation, for fishing, for visiting your neighbours and all that sort of thing. If the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor takes a different view, I stand to be corrected on this; but I think that it will be possible in future for the organisation to prevent those riparian owners from using their own banks of the rivers for boating and other purposes unless they agree to pay such permit fees as may be laid down. This is another important aspect which I think needs to be put right.
The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has referred to subsection (2). I had the same puzzlement over the final part of that subsection. I agree that, on the face of it, it is gibberish. There may be some sort of lawyer at some stage who will be able to say what it means. Quite apart from that, surely this is a nonsensical clause. It establishes, or tries to establish, a kind of test in relation to the size of boats and otherwise on the canal which cannot possibly still be viable at the end of 10 or 15 years. Nobody looking at this clause could regard it otherwise than being legislatively meaningless. quite apart from the gibberish in which its last phrases are concocted.
One could go on making a number of detailed criticisms of this kind. Would it not be very much better if, as happened as I remember very well in the case of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Bill, in the time of the late Lord Addison, we all got together and tried to hammer out a reasonably viable clause; because I am quite sure that the one at present in the Bill is not reasonably viable. In the case of the earlier Countryside Bill there were difficulties which were exposed on the Floor of your Lordships' House; and Lord Addison suggested that those concerned about this matter, the Opposition, and those on the Government side who were carrying the Bill, should meet him in his room, with their advisers. This was typical of a method of legislation which was used not only on that occasion but in connection with the Companies Bill and on other occasions during the life of that Parliament. There is so much in the clause as it stands at present which does not make good legislative
752
sense that I think it would be right that it should be looked at in close detail by a small number of Peers. I suggest the same sort of method as was adopted in the time of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Bill when a meeting of a small number of Peers took place and reasonably viable clauses were hammered out.
7.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would say to my noble friend Lord Chorley that I am always glad to see anybody, and in fact I have had long sessions discussing this Bill with my noble friend Lord St. Davids. I am far from saying that this is an easy subject, or that there may not be misunderstandings. Perhaps I should start by saying that if it were accepted this Amendment would not only wreck the Board financially but make the Bill hybrid. I have consulted the Public Bill Office of your Lordships' House and the Parliamentary draftsmen, and I am told there is no doubt at all that the Amendment would make the Bill a hybrid Bill. There is, of course, nothing to stop your Lordships' from throwing out the Transport Bill, or any other Bill, but I hope that, if that is to be done, it will be done openly and not covertly. I am not suggesting for a moment that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, knew when he put down the Amendment what would be the effect—I am quite sure that he did not. But if the Amendment were carried the Bill would be lost.
I am sorry, but I have agreed with so little of what has been said about the clause in the Bill that I am in some despair. May I briefly go back? The position to-day—and it is always the position where a new form of transport supersedes an old one—is very much like the position once occupied by the roads. In the 16th century the roads were repairable by the inhabitants at large, and everyone had to give up four days a year to mending them. In a later Act of the same century the period was six days. Some magnificent roads were left us by the Romans, but whether it was because we lost the know-how or had no resources or materials—whatever it was I do not know—if one takes the 17th century, our roads were in a pretty miserable state.
Then, just about the early part of the 18th century it occurred to some people

753
that if they went to Parliament and got an Act enabling them to make a road from A to B, with provision for compulsory powers of purchase, and some way of fixing the purchase price, and providing for a toll; and if they could get tolls for 21 years by putting "turns" (as they were called), that is to say a gate or a bar, across the road, they could make a good deal of money. This was so in the case of the first one or two attempts; and then everybody did it, and you had these dozens and dozens of Turnpike Acts, mostly for 21 years, with the right to take tolls from those going along the roads. These did extremely well and were very successful. At the end of 21 years it was still necessary to have money to keep the roads in repair, so that invariably the Acts were renewed. In fact, we reached the point where, instead of having a great number of Turnpike Acts renewed, there was an annual Turnpike Continuation Act.
Then an awful thing happened, because somebody invented the railway track which absolutely killed the roads. We have lived in an age when we have seen the roads kill the railways, but at the time when the railways were invented the roads were killed; because everybody who had to travel long distances, and people who had heavy goods to carry, went by railway. They gave up the horse for the "iron horse". All those who went by train and all the goods which were carried in freight trains were people and goods which would have paid tolls had it not been for the existence of the trains. So, gradually, the turnpike roads began to cease to pay. Although people had all sorts of private rights under the Turnpike Acts, what was the good of them? There were all sorts of individuals who had particular rights. There was the landowner across whose land the road was built, who did not have to pay the toll, and so on. Bat these rights were no longer much good. It was rather like all the rights under the 600 old Canal Acts. The turnpike rights were not much good because, one by one, the turnpike trusts all "went bust". Grass was growing up even in the middle of the Great North Road. It may seem extraordinary now, but this was the effect on the roads of the invention of the railways.
It was at a date later than the construction of turnpike roads that it first
754
occurred to somebody to go to Parliament and get compulsory powers to buy land to make canals and then to charge tolls on the canals. I do not know whether it was as a result of the success of the Turnpike Road Acts; but this is what happened from 1760 to 1840. when all these canals were built. In general, there was no public right of navigation on the canals. I do not know whether there was on the roads. I do not know whether, technically, a turnpike road was a highway. Obviously, the owners encouraged people to use the roads because that was the way they got their tolls.
Curiously enough there was a public right of navigation—if that is the right term to use—on the railway track, provided, of course, that you brought your own engine and coaches with you. If your Lordships want to know how long that lasted, it lasted until nine years ago, when the statutory right for All of us to have our own trains on the tracks was repealed in a Statute Law Revision Bill. It is true that the right had practically never been used, but this was because the Court of Appeal at an early date held that although, of course, every true Britisher had the right to put his train on the track, there was no obligation on the railways to work the signals or the points.
At one time the railways were, I think, public carriers, but now they are not. While I am not an expert in this branch of the law, I am told that there is no public right to travel on a railway. When you get to the booking office the clerk can say to you: "Your hair is much too long, and I am not going to sell you a ticket." It is all a matter of contract. It says on the front of the ticket: "For conditions see back." Then on the back it says:" "Issued according to the rules, regulations and by-laws". And if you are a careful lawyer, like me, and you do not like to make a contract without knowing the terms in advance, you say to the clerk: "Where can I see a copy of the rules, regulations and by-laws?" But it is extremely difficult to find them.
With the canals, there is no reason why there should have been a public right to navigate. One or two of the Acts may have given it, but in general they did not. 1 have an Act here of 194 sections. What it does is to provide for the tolls on freight. Canals were made

755
for freight. They were not made for pleasure craft or passengers, and ordinarily such people are not referred to in these Acts at all. The canal was in land which the canal company had bought; it was their property. They had made the canal themselves with their own money. Why should there be a public right of navigation? The only right, if one existed at all, was to carry your freight on the barges. As I have said, I do not suppose that there was much need of a public right for that, because obviously it was to the interest of the canal company that the public should put their freight on the canals, as otherwise they would not get their tolls.
I am talking now, of course, about the manufactured canal: there was a public right of navigation on the river. On rivers like the Trent and the Severn there has been a Common Law public right of navigation for centuries. But I am talking about the manufactured canal, which a canal company built with its own money, on land which it bought for itself. It is a complete delusion for the Inland Waterways Association, if I may say so with respect, to assume that on these manufactured canals there was any public right of navigation. The only right of navigation, if any, was for people with freight barges, which is what they were made for.
The invention of the railway had exactly the same effect on the canals as it had on the roads. After all, when the canals were built they were not slow. The only alternative was a horse and cart, and it was a horse that dragged the barge. So the rate of travel was the same. But once the trains arrived, naturally nearly everybody used the railways. Then the railways started buying up canals. Sometimes they drained them and put a track down; but more often they wanted them for the land in order to put a railway alongside the canal. And, as we know, Parliament put an obligation on the railways to assume the liabilities of the canal company. Sometimes, of course, it worked the other way. The North Staffordshire Canal Company saw that the railways were making money and they said: "We evidently live in an age of advanced technology. What does A. do now?" And the answer was what they did: A. empties his own canal and
756
puts a railway track along the bed. That is what they did.
Perhaps we should ask: What ought to have been done about the roads? What was done? There were all these dozens of Turnpike Acts; the roads were in a shocking state. What was to happen? The sensible thing, obviously, was either to repeal all the old Turnpike Acts or to revoke all the private rights in them and then to enact a modern sensible Highway Law, which would preferably put a duty on some local body, which had the power to levy rates, to keep die roads repaired. This is really what they did, and this is why we have the famous Highway Acts of the 19th century. Ultimately, of course, the local authorities came in; the burden was put on them, and particularly on the counties, with power to rate the inhabitants.
If your Lordships ask, "In the Act to abolish all the old Turnpike Acts did they compensate people for their private rights under those Acts?" then the answer is that they never passed the Act, because, as all the Turnpike Acts were renewable, all they had to do was not to renew them. If only the Canal Acts had been renewable!
We are in this position. We have 600 old Acts of Parliament, of great length and complexity, applying to the canals. We have a bankrupt organisation, in the sense that everybody agrees that not only can the system not possibly pay, but if we want to have pleasure cruising as well it is going to cost £1million, anyway. We are really not in a position to resurrect private rights contained in these 600 Acts going back about 150 years.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: If I may interrupt for one moment, the extraordinary thing is that in the Bill you are compensating for private rights, but not for public rights.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: There are no public rights. This is what I am trying to point out. It is a mistake to suppose that somehow or other there was a public right of cruising on the manufactured canal. There was on river navigations. I have never understood where a public right on a manufactured canal comes from. I have read a number of these 600 Acts, but by no means a large number. It is not given by statute; it cannot fall out of the sky. I have never

757
understood how it is supposed that in canals manufactured by companies on their own land, the public in some way acquired a right of navigation for pleasure purposes. The Government are quite satisfied that such a right does not exist.
It is quite true that this old liability of the railways who inherited the obligations of the old canal companies survives, but as nobody has the money to do this, Section 64 of the Act of 1962 was a protection. Everybody knew that no modern canal organisation could possibly afford to carry out the stringent obligations of the 1873 Act; first, because the rights and obligations under the local Canal Acts and the 1873 Act are certainly rights and obligations relating to freight transport. Whatever else they cover, they certainly relate to freight transport, for this is the purpose for which the waterways were constructed. So long as the rights and obligations continue, the creation of modern maintenance obligations based on modern needs is impossible, because in the case of the cruising waterways, at least, modern needs are quite different from what they were 150 years ago.
Secondly, maintaining a waterway for freight transport involves heavier expenditure than maintaining it for pleasure cruising and other recreational purposes. This is because the canal craft for the carriage of freight requires a greater depth of water than the modern cruising craft does. Thus to continue these old rights and obligations of the 1873 Act on waterways which are to be preserved for amenity purposes would simply waste a great deal of the taxpayers' money.
Thirdly, the continuance of these old rights and obligations makes it impossible for the Board to redevelop a remainder waterway in the case where the old rights and obligations still exist, as they do on about 300 out of 600 miles of waterway in this category. This means that such a remainder waterway cannot be water channelled; that is to say, have locks replaced by walls—an operation which materially reduces maintenance costs—nor could it be de-watered or filled in. This is because the waterway is still subject to the public rights of navigation which cannot be lawfully obstructed by deliberate action so long as they remain. The result would be that money which is really needed for the
758
commercial and cruising waterways would have to be spent on the remainder.
The Government are most anxious to make the new deal for the nationalised waterways a reality and not a sham. In order to do so the old Local Act navigation rights and maintenance obligations will have to go. They are being replaced in this Bill by a new and positive duty on the Board to maintain the commercial and cruising waterways in a suitable condition for the craft that use them now. This will be a realistic obligation which any person can enforce in the courts if a serious breach of the obligation should occur. Unless we do this, the categorisation of the waterways proposed in the Bill will he entirely or partially ineffective. Without the provisions in the Bill, the Board's administration of their system would continue to be hampered by complex rights of uncertain extent and effect, which have their origin in conditions which have long since ceased to exist. Perhaps even more important, it would be quite impossible for the Board to maintain the waterways within the financial and other resources which the country can afford.
I can assure your Lordships that there is nothing in this clause in the Bill which takes away anybody's Common Law rights or anything that is his right under those old Acts. It does not take away anybody's Common Law right to navigate; it does not take away anybody's Common Law right to bring an action of negligence or an action of nuisance or an action under the Occupier's Liability Act All it does take away are these useless old rights under these 600 old local Acts, and of course the equally old rights under Section 17 of the 1873 Act which it would he impossible to-day to comply with financially. For those reasons—and I apologise for having spoken for so long—I ask the Committee n at to accept the Amendment.
7.23 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his long reply. I naturally bound the reply astonishing, as I think other noble Lords may have found it, if only because we were unanimous in trying to restore the public right of navigation. I find it astonishing because in the 1962 Act, as I understand it from reading back, there was not this right of public

759
navigation: and in the other place during the Committee and Report stages there was no mention of it again. From private conversations again I have understood this. For those reasons I find the noble Lord's reply astonishing, but I certainly should not wish to cross swords on a legal matter with him and, as I said earlier on when I introduced the Amendment, I will withdraw it because it is defective. Perhaps we can study the noble and learned Lord's reply and put down another Amendment, if necessary, for the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 104 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I quite agree that the Amendment which has just been withdrawn could not possibly stand, but I do not think anybody can have been satisfied with the answer, either. It was defective in a number of ways which I do not suppose the Committee wants to listen to anyway, because a long succession of errors on technical facts is not something which I think we should inflict on the Committee at this stage. However, I should be perfectly prepared to argue that there was considerable passenger traffic. In fact, I could show plans and photographs, and even a model in the Transport Museum, of passenger craft operating the canals in former days. But, apart from that, there is a public right of navigation and it is contained in the Railway and Canal Traffic Act 1873, Section 17. That Act was not actually a conferring Act, but that section emphasised and preserved something which already existed. In 1873 when Parliament passed Section 17 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act it was not conferring a new right of navigation on the public; it was making sure that when the Railways got hold of a canal they did not abolish the public's right. It was not inventing something new in 1873. It was just making sure that, so far as the railways were concerned, the waterways they got hold of were not done away with by some kind of subterfuge. That was the purpose of Section 17. That is why it was so valuable when the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, preserved it for us in the last Transport Act, and why it is so valuable now.
760
I quite agree with my noble and learned friend that we need modern maintenance obligations and not the old ones, but they could quite easily be got by cutting down Section 17. In the case of the cargo waterways there is no case whatever, and nobody has made a case—there has been no attempt to make a case—why on the cargo waterways Section 17 should be abolished. It is doing a good job now and nobody has denied it or shown any reason why it should be got rid of.
The Amendment could not stand, but this clause is not right and is full of holes. It has been shown to be full of holes, and better could be done. I believe that we should do what my noble friend Lord Chorley suggested, and I suggest that to my noble and learned friend. Why cannot we have a Committee upstairs or somewhere else where we can thresh out what the clause should be in place of Clause 104? Let us do that. Let us remove Clause 104 from this Bill and then have a Committee to sort out a proper Clause 104 to put in its place.
LORD CONESFORD: I frankly thought when I spoke, and still think, that that would be the most convenient course, for this reason: I think there is a great deal in Clause 104 as it stands which really cannot be justified. The noble and learned Lord gave us a most interesting speech. He talked a great deal of what the clause was supposed to do, but very little of what it did do which it should not do. I should have thought for that reason that it would be for the convenience of everybody if this clause were omitted and the Government then put down on Report stage a clause which they thought they could justify in every detail. I think that that might shorten the proceedings on Report. The alternative is, of course, that we shall have to attack on Report every single thing in these many subsections which we believe to be wrong, which I should have thought would take the House much longer. However, if it is the considered opinion of the noble and learned Lord that he wants the clause, with all its defects, I do not suppose that my noble friends want to divide on this occasion.
Clause 104 agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved Amendment No. 260Z:
After Clause 104, insert the following new clause:
Section 104 not to affect Attorney-General v. Waterways Board
(". No provision of section 104 of this Act in so far as it operates to exclude the jurisdiction of the Courts or to modify the public rights of navigation or the duty of the Board as regards maintenance shall apply to proceedings now pending in the Chancery Division between the Attorney-General as plaintiff and the Board as defendants in relation to the Ashton Canal and that part of the Peak Forest Canal the subject of those proceedings.")
The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment which I do not want to move at all, for the simple reason that if it is accepted we should not get the best of three alternatives but only the second best. The worst alternative, incidentally, is the Government's proposal. The fact of the matter is that there is an action at law now pending in the matter of the Ashton canal and the Peak Forest canal. The reason for the action is that the people in the area, those who wish to use the canals, and the local authorities, believe that they have a considerable chance of keeping the canals in good working order, and that it will serve a useful purpose for the area. They also think that it will cost the Government nothing, because they believe that they can take over the canals and run them at their expense, without one penny of the cost falling on the Government. This may or may not be true. The Government do not seem to think so, and as the Bill now stands the Ashton and the Peak Forest canals are like the remainder waterways, and should this Bill go through as it now stands those waterways will be closed.
There will be no public inquiry, as is intended under the new provisions of this Bill. There will not even be a Private Bill procedure upstairs. After all, the old method of closing a waterway had very considerable defects: it was expensive; it was not as efficient as the modern public inquiry; and not everybody could be heard. There was information of all kinds which was not relevant, but it was an inquiry of a sort. It had its defects, but it was an inquiry.
The modern idea, the idea in this Bill, is far better. There is the recommendation of the Advisory Committee; there is the public inquiry. It is all much
762
quicker, much cheaper, much simpler, many more facts can be put on the table, and it is a much better way of d Ding it. If the Bill has its way; we shall not get the one or the other. We shall not even get the worst alternative, which is that occurring at the moment, of proceedings in the Chancery Division between the Attorney General, as plaintiff, and the Board as defendants, to look it to the matter of the waterways. This procedure is not as good as the other methods, anyway, because what are they inquiring about in the Chancery Division? They are not inquiring as to whether the waterway should or should not be closed; they are arguing about whether it should have been closed; whether it is legally closed, or illegally closed, which is not really a question we want to go into.
If this is allowed to continue, if the Bill goes on as it stands, it produces a further evil. It produces an action at law which is brought to a sudden end by a Government's Public Bill. This I believe to be a bad policy. It has been done before, I know, and there are many cases which can be quoted. There are sometimes good reasons for doing it, but it is a thing which one should mold, if possible; it should be done only if there is a really major policy reason, and so much right on the other side that it is clearly the right thing to do to bring the action to a stop. But this does not apply here. If this action is brought to a stop as the Bill now suggests, without this Amendment, we will have killed the action, thus bringing considerable opprobrium on the Government for stepping in and interfering with the proceedings of a court of law. We will have closed this waterway without any form of useful inquiry at all.
There are two ways of putting this evil right, and the worst of them is to move this Amendment which would keep the action at law going. That would be better than the action which the Government are taking, but there is a better way even than this, that is, to take the Ashton and Peak Forest canals out of the list of the remainder waterways and put them in the list of cruising waterways, and for the Minister of Transport immediately to say, "Now I will close them under our new procedure". If he doe; that then this expensive action will be brought to an end; the Government will

763
not have to face the opprobrium of having stopped it, because it will stop purely because the defendant will have granted the plaintiffs what they require. We shall be able to have a proper public inquiry, and at that public inquiry we shall be able to get at the facts, which is what we want, because the Board is closing these waterways because it says that the repair of them is expensive. The local authorities and the enthusiasts on the spot say that it is not expensive; that it is cheap and easy. We have a pure clash of fact—Yes and No. This is the kind of thing a public inquiry can sort out, and which can be sorted out in no other way.
If my noble and learned friend will say that he will consult the Minister to see whether the Ashton and Peak Forest canals can be put on the cruising list of waterways (not so that the Government will have to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on repairing them—we are not suggesting anything of the sort, for that would be nonsense—but simply so that we can go on from there to use for the first time the new provisions of this Bill, which are good provisions, which we like, which we want, and which we want to see used) then there is absolutely no purpose in moving this Amendment and we can throw it on the floor straightaway.
We want to find out the facts on which there is complete dispute. Surely, the proper way to do that is to hold a public inquiry. If we do it in this way, then there is no opprobrium on the Government for stepping in and smashing up an action at law, and everything can be simple and easy. It simply requires my noble and learned friend to say that he will consult the Minister as to whether these waterways cannot be put on the cruising list temporarily while we find out the facts. I beg to move.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: I should like to say a few words about this Amendment, which I think raises a very special problem. There are 18 local authorities involved in the action which is pending against the Inland Waterways, and there is, I think, considerable local feeling about this, because had it not have been for the introduction of this Bill their case would have come on and would have been settled in court.
764
As the Bill is at present drafted, the Government are really stepping in and changing the rules in the middle of the game. This has caused a good deal of feeling. It is a very special problem and. as the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, has said, there are two solutions to it: one is by means of the Amendment which we are discussing at present, to exclude the Peak Forest and Ashton canals from the operation of the Bill, thereby leaving the court free to deal with the action on its merits, and for the Government to classify these canals after the action has been heard. There is the second alternative, to which the noble Viscount has referred, and for which he and my noble friend Lord Kinnoull have subsequent Amendments down, which would put these canals into the cruiseway list. That would mean that the matter would be sorted out under the provisions of the Bill when it comes into force, and thus waterways would not be destroyed when there is an action pending which concerns their future.
It seems to me it is an elementary matter of justice that something must be done to resolve this problem. This is in a way retrospective legislation, because it is taking away a right from 18 local authorities and others which they had before the Bill was introduced. Therefore I hope the noble and learned Lord will be able to meet this point somehow in the same generous way in which he met a previous Amendment which raised, not exactly the same point but one having the same principle.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I should like briefly to support the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids. I believe this to be a very serious matter, the more so when one sees the reply given by the Minister in a letter to Members of Parliament, in which he said:
"It would of course be inappropriate for me to comment upon the points at issue between the claimants and the Board in the litigation referred to by the Inland Waterways Association, since the matter is sub judice. This litigation, in which the Minister of Transport is not involved, concerns two particular waterways only, and the situation could he different from the situation in respect of other waterways. The waterway clauses in the Transport Bill are directed to the waterway board's system generally and not particularly to these two waterways. These provisions have been included in the Bill because the Government considers that they arc in the public interest,

765
and we see no reason why Parliament should not debate and pass general legislation in the public interest, even though it may have a bearing on the current litigation between parties."
This is a serious matter. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, explained that this action has been going on for something like three years. It involves 18 local authorities and a further 12 bodies. They applied to the Attorney General, who granted the fiat after this Bill was published. We understand the case cannot possibly he heard until after the Bill goes through. The only precedent one can consider at all is that of the Burmah Oil Company, which was a matter where legislation was brought in after the case was settled. The only way out of the serious predicament in which the Government have got themselves is, as the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, suggested, to include this canal in Schedule 12. Otherwise it would seem that the Board will simply ask the 18 local authorities to take over this liability and to restore something which has been caused entirely by their negligence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot help thinking that there must be some misunderstanding somewhere, but it may be mine. In the first place, it has never been thought wrong to have legislation which affects a pending action. I believe that happened in the case of the Transport Act, 1962. What is said here is, "It may be proper but it is hard on somebody who has started an action; they are halfway through and then you come along with this Bill and it kills their action."
The reason I said that there must be some misunderstanding is that I am told that these canals, one of which, the Ashton Canal, has suffered from a lot of mining subsidence and would cost about £195,000 to make navigable, were the subject of some correspondence between those concerned and the Board. This correspondence ended in December, 1965. The Bill was introduced on December 7 last. On January 24 of this year a writ in the action was issued. There is some great misunderstanding somewhere, because the noble Earl talked about the "action which has been going on for three years". If my information is right, they have, as a formality, to get the consent of the Attorney General. His name
766
is added to it but he takes no part. I have here a copy of the letter which was written to the Attorney General by the plaintiff's solicitors, asking for his fiat. That was in December and I am told that the writ was actually issued on January 24. But this Bill had been introduced on December 7, and so far from the Bill being introduced in order to try to stop the action, the truth is that, knowing of this Bill, after it had been introduced they issued the writ in order to try to start an action to spike the Bill.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: May I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he implied that the people now engaging in the action had already had correspondence with the Inland Waterways Board that they had really abandoned the whole thing and only started it up again after the Bill was introduced?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is what I am told: that there was correspondence with the people interested in this canal, that this correspondence finished in December, 1965, and that it was only after the introduction of the Bill on December 7 last that, without any further correspondence at all, a writ was served on (I think) January 24.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Could the noble and learned Lord clear up one point on the question of the Attorney General's fiat? As I understood the position, he gave this fiat after the Bill was published, whereas the node and learned Lord said that in fact the Attorney General takes no part in it. But of course he looks after the public interest.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: No, this is a pure formality. As long as it is a bona fide claim he has no real option in the matter. I think some of the parties have tried to make out that he is taking part in the action, but anybody who knows his law knows that it is a pure formality. As I said, the Bill was introduced on December 7 and then, although nothing had been heard from them for two or three years, on December 14 the solicitors wrote to the Attorney General and said:
"We send herewith the necessary papers in the above proposed action. We submit them to the Attorney General, and we enclose two copies of the proposed writ",

767
and so on. I am not quite sure when the Attorney General gave his consent, but the writ was actually issued on January 24.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: It seems to me that there is certainly some misunderstanding here. The noble and learned Lord said that he may he the victim of the misunderstanding, or I may be, or my noble friends, but in view of what he has said it seems that we must obviously try to get this matter sorted out. Of course I cannot speak for the noble Viscount, but I would mention that the same point will arise on the later Amendment.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Perhaps I may try to sort out some of the misunderstanding. Although the action is quite recent, in point of fact the dispute is very old and has been going on for a long time. Efforts have been made to get these boats through this waterway, in spite of the British Waterways Board's efforts to keep it closed, simply because they held that the British Waterways Board had closed it illegally; and there has been not only a vast amount of correspondence with the Board but the matter has been in dispute between the Board and everybody concerned over quite a number of years. Craft have been attempting to get through.
Rallies have been held, including one enormous rally at Marple at one end of the closed section, in an effort to persuade the Board that vast numbers of people want to get through, as indeed they do. The local authorities, taking another look at their waterway, have over the years become keener and keener on the idea of opening it and finally the weight of public opinion is that it should be open. I am quite sure that is now the consensus of opinion in the neighbourhood. What we are trying to do is not so much to fight a legal action—I do not think anybody gives a damn for a legal action—but we are trying to persuade the Government that the proper way to deal with it is to hold an inquiry under the new methods of the Bill and find out what the new facts are: whether the figures are right for the restoration of this waterway and whether there is a body of opinion prepared to put money down on the table.
768
If there is not a body of opinion prepared to put money down, let the waterway be closed. Nobody is asking the Government to find vast sums of money to keep it open. All we want is a public inquiry at which everybody can get round a table, find out the facts, find out whether somebody is willing to put down the money, whether there is a consortium willing to do the job, and all the rest. We cannot do that without a public inquiry if the Minister just slams the doors and leaves them shut. The reasonable thing would be to list it for closure and then hold a public inquiry, and then we shall know where we are. Otherwise we are flapping around talking about pieces of paper, which is not the best way to do it.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Might I again draw the attention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the question of the Attorney General's fiat? The noble and learned Lord indicated that the Attorney General takes no part in the proceedings, and simply decides whether in the public interest it is a proper case. If he looks at Lord Halsbury's observations in the London County Council v. Attorney General, he will see that he dealt with the Attorney General's jurisdiction:
"The Attorney General exercises administrative discretion in deciding whether the action shall be brought. The court does not inquire into the rightness of that decision. The bringing of the proceedings has shown that in the opinion of the Attorney General the act warrants an injunction."
This is the nub of the matter, "the act warrants an injunction." The question of spiking the guns prior to or after publication of the Bill I do not think is a sound argument. I think the Attorney General's fiat is a sounder argument.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I have always understood it, the Attorney General is concerned to see whether it is a case that people can properly bring. He is not backing the action, so to speak; he is not even saying he approves of it. I hope I have satisfied the noble Earl—although our information seemed to be quite different—that so far from this Bill interfering in some improper way with an existing action it is the other way round: after nothing had been said for

769
three years, the Bill was introduced and the action was started to try to spike the Bill.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: Is it going to be possible for my noble friend to suggest to the Minister that he should have second thoughts and consider whether these waterways can be put into the cruising waterways list—that is into Schedule 12—solely for the purpose of closing them and holding a public inquiry on that?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am quite prepared to put that up to the Minister. it would really destroy from the start the credibility of the Board's new maintenance duty if a canal, such as the Ashton Canal, which has not been used for navigation for years and would cost £195,000 to make navigable, is put into that category. If it is done with that, why not have it done with the whole present remainder category, starting them all off in the cruising category, and spend tens of thousands of pounds on inquiries which would last some years. I am certainly prepared to put it to him and see what he says.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: In this particular case, considering it as part of the other waterways. I think that might be the more reasonable thing to do, although there is argument to be put for the others. Anyway, with that assurance I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 105 arid 106 agreed to.
Clause 107 [Power of certain bodies to maintain or take over waterways and connected works.]:
7.58 p.m.
THE EARL or KINNOULL THE EARL or KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 260AZ:
Page 143, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Where it appears to the Minister on an application by the Board or any such body as is mentioned in this section that the Board and such body are willing to enter into an agreement under this section and it is desirable that they should do so but that they are unable to agree upon terms the Minister may if he thinks fit direct that any such difference be referred to the appropriate tribunal for decision.")
The noble Earl said: Clause 107 gives power to the British Waterways Board to dispose of, or arrange with certain
770
bodies to take over, the maintenance of the remainder canals. The purpose of my Amendment is to allow the Board or the purchaser of a canal (the purchaser being one of the bodies listed in Clause 107) to appeal to the Minister and to ask him to refer to arbitration the subject of the value of the canal should the parties fail to agree between themselves. I consider that this power could be useful. It could be useful to the Board, as they will not be able to be accused of asking a ridiculous price from which there is no redress, and of course useful to tie purchasers, because they always feel satisfaction if they can go to arbitration if, in their opinion, a ridiculous (rice is being asked. It will prevent what has happened, or what has appeared to happen, in cases when the Railways Board were attempting to dispose of branch lines which they have closed. There have been quite a number of genuine societies willing to run a closed line on a proper transport basis which have failed to reach agreement with the Board because they claimed that a ridiculous price was being asked. For these reasons I hope the Government will see fit to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The difficulty here is that agreement between two parties must of necessity include terms which are acceptable to both; and, of course, where there is money in question it may depend very much on the amount of money involved. If either party is unwilling to accept certain terms which the other party requires, there can be no true agreement. The Amendment seems to imply that the Minister should be able to insist that such an agreement be entered into even though the parties concerned cannot see eye to eye. The Board will be required by Clause 105(2)(a) to secure that each of the remainder waterways should be dealt with in the most economical manner possible, and it would be wrong to impose on the Board an agreement which might conflict with this duty.
Further, by the "appropriate Tribunal" I assume that the noble Earl means the Lands Tribunal, which is concerned primarily with the assessment of compensation. The terms of an agreement under Clause 107 might mean that it would have to consider other matters

771
on which it might not be appropriate for the Tribunal to adjudicate. It is mainly for those reasons, that it might make the Board enter into an agreement on terms which they felt they could not afford, that I hope the noble Earl will not press this Amendment.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I did not mention the matter to press the Amendment, but rather to inquire into the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.2 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 260AA:
Page 143, line 40, at end insert ("and, as respects any particular agreement or transfer, any other body having public or charitable objects which is certified by the Minister as a body appearing to him to be capable of discharging the responsibilities falling on the body in consequence of that agreement or transfer.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment in the names of my noble friends and myself and with this perhaps I may mention Amendment 216ZA. Clause 107 sets out the list of the authorities who may take over and maintain waterways. They include local authorities, river authorities et cetera. The Amendment would add to the list of bodies in subsection (2) of the clause any other body having charitable objects, provided that the Minister certified them as capable of discharging the responsibilities involved: incidentally, these are usually quite onerous and expensive. This point was strongly impressed in another place, and it would meet the wishes of many people if it were accepted. The related Amendment, No. 261ZA is added in order to remove any doubt that a voluntary body registered as a charity could claim tax relief when embarking upon such a project, and by making it quite clear that the public would have access to the waterway. I think the point is a considerable one and I beg leave to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This seems to be a very sensible Amendment, and the Government welcome it for the reasons which the noble Lord has put forward.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 261:
Page 144, line 16, leave out ("or Monmouthshire").
The noble and learned Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, I beg to move this sensational Amendment. There is actually no need to mention Monmouthshire here at all, because Clause 149, the general interpretation clause of the Bill, defines Wales as including Monmouthshire and says that references to England should be construed accordingly. So we do not need the words "or Monmouthshire".
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: May I just congratulate the Minister on having discovered this ten years late?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 261ZA:
Page 144, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) Any agreement under this section whereby a waterway or part of a waterway is to be maintained by, or transferred to, a body to which this section applies may include provision for securing that the body in question makes the waterway or part available for public use.")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 108 agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 262:
After Clause 108, insert the following new clause:
Access agreements and orders as respects canals other than commercial waterways and cruising waterways.
(". Subsections (2) and (3) of section 16 of the Countryside Act 1968 (which enable access agreements and access orders to be made under Part V of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 in respect of canals and of certain land held therewith) shall apply as respects, and as respects land held with, any canal or part of a canal owned or managed by the Waterways Board which is not for the time being a commercial waterway or a cruising waterway; and accordingly in subsection (6)(c) of that section (which prevents the said subsections (2) and (3) from applying where the canal or part of a canal is owned or managed by the Board) there shall be added at the end the words which is for the time being a commercial waterway or a cruising waterway within the meaning of section 103 of the Transport Act 1968 '.")
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Shepherd. This is the Amendment about the Countryside Act to which I spoke before. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 109 [Power to extinguish certain statutory rights and obligations in respect of canals not belonging to Board]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 263:
Page 145, line 24, leave out from ("canal") to first ("the") in. line 25 and insert ("which is not comprised in the undertaking of").
The noble and learned Lord said: May I, in moving this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend, refer to Amendments Nos. 264, 265 and 266. These are all simply drafting Amendments. The term "proprietor" is deficient in two respects: first, it does not exclude from the provisions of Clause 109 all the Waterways Board's canals. The Board do not necessarily own all the canals in their undertaking: they may simply manage them for the purpose of navigation. Secondly, it restricts the application of the clause to the owner of a non-nationalised canal. This restriction was not intended. The obligation to maintain a canal for navigation might rest on a person who does not own the canal but manages it for navigational purposes. The Amendments now proposed make the intention of the clause quite clear.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 264:
Page 145, line 37, leave out ("proprietor of") and insert ("person who owns or manages").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 265:
Amendment moved—
Page 145, line 41, leave out ("proprietor of") and insert ("person who owns or manages").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved Amendment No. 265A:
774
Page 146, line 13, leave out ("private").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this simple Amendment. It will be seen that this clause deals with the power to extinguish statutory rights and obligations in respect of canals not belonging to the Board. I am not at all clear why an injured party should not have the right to compensation whether he suffers loss by reason of the extinguishment by virtue of an order under the section of a private right or a public right. The point is that a right has been extinguished and he personally has suffered damage. There seems no reason why he should not have a right in respect of that damage. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The effect of this Amendment would be to make good any loss arising from extinguishment under Clause 109 by making it grounds for compensation. As subsection (4) of the clause is at present, only a person who suffers loss by reason of the extinguishment of a private right will be entitled to compensation. This provision in the case of a canal not belonging to a Waterways Board will be on the same line as the provision of clause 104(9) for the payment of compensation by the Board in respect of loss arising out of the extinguishment of any private rights of navigation on the Board's waterways. The extinguishment of public rights does not generally admit of compensation. For instance, there is no provision for compensation for loss of business as a result of a highway closure—but the essential point is that it would be undesirable to have materally different provisions in this respect for nationally owned canals, owned or managed by the Waterways Board, and for those in other ownership.
LORD CONESFORD: I agree that this Amendment is related to what we considered in an earlier clause. As we certainly have to consider that clause at a later stage I am content to consider this one also on the same occasion. In asking leave to withdraw the Amendment I should like to make it clear, to avoid future misunderstanding, that I may restore it at a later stage. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdrawn the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move Amendment No. 266.
Amendment moved—
Page 146, line 18, leave out ("proprietor of") and insert ("person who owns or manages").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 266A:
Page 146, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) In the case of any order made under subsection (1) of this section or any other section of this Act by which the Minister proposes to close any canal or inland waterway any person objecting to the said order shall have the right to demand a public inquiry when making his objection and in the case of a recognised Inland Waterways Authority or any Local Authority who may lodge an objection an inquiry shall be held within 30 days of the said objection being made to the Minister.")
The noble Viscount said: This is an Amendment to make sure that where, under the new provision, a waterway is closed, if anybody reasonably wants a public inquiry then one should be held. This was the Amendment put down to try to bring this about. Having looked at it with various friends, I am not sure whether it is not too wide. One certainly needs some kind of public inquiry if the Minister is going to close a waterway, and there should be a right in the hands of any reasonable person to demand one. The difficulty has always been to define what is a "reasonable person".
We may have drawn this Amendment too wide. I have a feeling that this may well be so. If it is too wide, then the right thing may be to withdraw it. Also, not being a lawyer, I am not too sure whether this is the right place in the Bill for it to be, or whether it should be withdrawn in favour of Amendment No. 275D in the name of Lord Nugent, which not only seems to draw it a little tighter but I think puts it in a better position in the Bill.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Does the noble Lord wish to move the Amendment?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I do not think I shall move this one.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 110 [Power of local authorities to assist in maintaining waterways for amenity purposes]:
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 266AA:
Page 146, line 33, leave out from ("improving") to ("for") in line 34.
The noble Lord said: Clause 110 enables a local authority to assist a waterway provided that it is wholly, or at least partly, within that local authority area. But sometimes a local authority, especially a big city, is interested in a waterway outside its own area but which is visited often by its own ratepayers, and the city authority would therefore wish to contribute to its upkeep or improvement. This Amendment would enable the local authority in such circumstances to do so. I perhaps should declare an interest here, as the citizens of Birmingham come down in large numbers to the River Thames around Bablockhythe. They have never offered to contribute towards it yet, but who knows! if we put this on the Statute Book they might. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This seems to me an admirable idea, and I greatly welcome this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I beg to move Amendment No. 266AB:
This is related directly to the previous Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 146, line 35, at end insert—

("(a) any inland waterway situated wholly or partly in the area of the authority; and

(b) any other inland waterway which is so situated that it can conveniently be used for those purposes by persons residing in the area of the authority.")—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 111 [Interpretation of Part VII]:
8.15 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved Amendment No. 266B:
Page 146, line 38, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Lord said: This is the interpretation clause, and I am proposing

777
to strike out paragraph (a), which seems to me much too wide. I should like to put the point quite shortly to the noble and learned Lord. It seems to me that the words as they stand would mean that any reference to a right of navigation over a waterway—a matter with which the Minister may frequently deal in an order—will be held to apply to any right to use or keep any vessel or craft on the waterway or canal. Just think what that could mean. If you have not full rights of navigation over the water you will not be able, if you are a riparian owner, to sit in a boat in order to fish next to your own land. If there were a pub on the other side of the river or canal, you would not be able to row a boat across in order to visit the pub, but might have to take a 10-mile walk in order to do so. 1 cannot believe that all these results are intended. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Questions of definition always raise difficulties. The purpose of Clause 111(1)(a) is to make clear the intention of Clauses 104 and 109. Virtually all the canals were constructed in the 18th and early 19th centuries. At that time, a canal company often avoided opposition to an enabling Bill by conferring on property owners through whose land the canal was to be cut a right to
"navigate or to use and keep boats or other vessels on the canal".
I am told that that is a quotation from a fairly common type of clause. It must be made clear in the Transport Bill that, in the context of Clauses 104 and 109, all these rights are covered by the word "navigation". It is therefore necessary that paragraph (a) should remain in subsection (1) of Clause 111. I do not know whether or not that satisfies the noble Lord.
LORD CONE SFORD: Frankly, it does not, because it seems to me to make the interpretation very wide indeed. But so much has to be considered at the next stage that I do not wish to divide the Committee at this moment upon this Amendment. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord, whose need for some words of interpretation I am not disputing, to consider whether this does not go much too wide, because whatever you may think of such a small
778
matter as keeping a coracle on the Severn, the right to do so should not be abolished merely because of these extremely general words.
I know that the noble and learned Lord sees what my point is. He may require something, but I do not think he squires something that confuses, or puts in a single definition, things so diverse. The noble and learned Lord nods to show that he will consider the point. In those circumstances, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 111 agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Commercial and cruising waterways]:
8.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 267:
Page 233, line 40, leave out from ("Navigation") to end of line 42.
The noble Earl said: I beg have to move this Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. With the leave of the Committee I should also like to couple, with this Amendment, the Amendments up to 275A in my name. What I should like to do, if I nay, is to describe briefly the purpose of asking for these additional canals to be included in Schedule 12, and then perhaps I could briefly describe each canal. It may take a little time, but on the other hand I think it would be shorter than if I did it the other way round.
The reason why we should like a further 190 miles of canals included in Schedule 12 is because we believe there is a very strong case for each these canals to be reviewed before they are considered as a remainder canal, and perhaps disposed of. The strong case is that if they immediately start off in the remainder section of the canals there will not necessarily be a public inquiry. The case for all these canals rests on the grounds of amenity, drainage, water carrying and, surprisingly in some cases, on good financial grounds, a subject of which the noble and learned Lord has made quite a lat of mention during Part VII of this Bill.
There are two points to be considered if these canals are not included in the Schedule. If we are correct that there is

779
a strong case for these canals to be included, then each canal will have to be included by separate order to be included in Schedule 12. By accepting these Amendments we will avoid this rather long and possibly tedious method of statutory order. Again, if we are right, there is the strong case that these canals are primarily "priceless" assets, using the word of the Minister of Transport in her White Paper. They are priceless assets for the reason that they give many people a great deal of pleasure and they are in areas, particularly the Birmingham canals, of a high density of population.
The waterways requested to be included amount, as I say, to 190 miles, 86 miles of which are at present not navigable, and I would suggest that this latter, not-navigable, part of the canals could be treated as special cases with temporary relief from the Board against destroying immediately their navigability. As I have said, I do not think the finances of these canals would make a tremendous difference to the Board. In the case of the Birmingham Canal navigation, this particular canal makes a profit, against admittedly the Sheffield section which makes a loss. The cost of abandoning canals, we all know, is very high, not only in finance but on amenity grounds. They just cannot be left to rot. To fill in sometimes costs £100,000 a mile and of course there is the immense loss of amenity to the area, which is difficult to value.
The future of these canals, I would suggest, is very good and bright. Inland waterway cruising is increasing, as we have already said, by 10 per cent. a year. The angling clubs are expanding year by year, as the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, has said, and have reached over a million people. Once again without overdoing this description, they are, I suggest, a priceless asset.
Turning to Amendment No. 267, this deals with the Sheffield to Tinsley section of the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation. The top two miles and 11 locks of this waterway are currently navigable and are used to carry nearly 20.000 tons of goods a year to the Sheffield basin. There does not seem to have been a persistent policy of seeking extra trade on this section of waterway at the present time. This, of course, could
780
be expanded. The Sheffield basin is at present used to a small extent for mooring and repairing pleasure boats. In ten years' time there is likely to be such a demand for moorings that the basin, if by then closed, would be sorely missed. I would repeat, there is a 10 per cent. increase a year on cruising craft.
If I may then turn, with the permission of the Committee to Amendment 268A which deals with the Birmingham Canal navigations. This group of canals with the various branches should be considered, I suggest, as a whole—as they were by the British Waterways Board in their very thorough and useful report The Facts about the Waterways. The Report showed that these canals had a surplus of income over expenditure in 1964. Comparatively little of this was attributable at that time to pleasure craft as income from these was apportioned to those canals which were shown as the "home moorings" on the licensed applications. As the suitable rural moorings around Birmingham tend to become overcrowded—and one cannot overstress that there there are already signs of this—more and more boat owners in the Midlands will seek moorings nearer home on the Birmingham Canal navigations.
The network also forms an important source of water for industrial users. In 1964 the annual receipts from this source were over £100,000 and the demand for water by industry is increasing every year. The main through routes are scheduled for retention as amenity waterways. The remainder should be similarly treated. With certain of their useful and still navigable branches they amount to around 60 miles. Almost all at present are in good condition, having carried fairly heavy commercial traffic until comparatively recently. Experience shows that their condition will rapidly deteriorate if this usage declines.
These canals serve a population of over 2 million people and provide almost the only opportunity of water-based leisure activity open to people living well over 100 miles from the coast. At present this is mainly boating and canoeing, but if we get stricter control of pollution there is no reason why angling could not be increased. The network is being increasingly used by pleasure boats. The area has many aspects of industrial archaeology, while

781
several sections are surprisingly rural—around, for instance, Cannock, Smethwick and Dudley. One of the chief attractions is the immense variety of routes available over these canal navigations. The alternative, I would suggest to the Committee is to allow them to become stagnant pools collecting silt and rubbish and eventually becoming a menace instead of an asset—a menace perhaps even to health, and a danger to young people of being drowned. In this event, sooner or later, such canals will have to be filled in.
May I now turn to Amendment 270, which is the Erewash Canal? This canal runs for nearly 12 miles in a northerly direction from the River Trent, through Long Eaton and Ilkeston, to the junctions with the now derelict Cromford and Nottingham Canals. The countryside is very pleasant and is much admired by residents in the area. The large Stanton Ironworks use this canal extensively for their supply of water for industrial purposes. There is a passenger boat service operated on the southern half of this canal, and in Long Eaton the Sea Scouts use the canal. By taking water from the River Erewash the canal alleviates flood problems around Long Eaton. I think this is a very important feature of canals, the drainage they can take off surrounding land. Local enthusiasm for the canal is very great. A local development and preservation association has been formed and local authorities are represented on the committee.
May I now turn to the Slough Arm, which is the subject of Amendment No. 271. The whole of the five miles of the Slough Arm of the Grand Union Canal has been excluded from the amenity network. The Arm is fully navigable, but we understand that plans have already been made to use the last one and a half miles of the canal for road purposes. The canal passes through part of the Collie Valley, for which we believe there is a scheme being formulated along the same lines as the Lea Valley Regional Park. It seems only logical that the canal should be included in the Schedule and the plans for this valley. There is already a boatyard halfway along the Arm at Iver, which has the distinction of being the nearest canal boatyard to London and the only canal
782
yard over a large area which is capable of carrying out repairs to all sizes and types of canal craft. The firm also runs a flourishing and expanding boa t hire concern.
Moorings on the Thames, as I am sure my noble friend Lord Nugent will confirm, are comparatively expensive and are in fairly short supply. The Slough Arm is considerably used for moorings, and it is suggested it could be more used. It does not need emphasis that Slough town itself already has a popular ion of around 200,000 and is fast expanding. At Slough the canal is less than two miles from the Thames at Windsor. It is not impossible that a link could be cut joining the two. As it would cross gravel-bearing land, a substantial part of the cost of the link could be raised by extraction of the gravel. The more that pleasure boating increases, the more likely and necessary a link between the River Thames and this canal may seem necessary. It would enable the Thames craft to join the Grand Union Canal without having to use the tidal section of the Thames below Teddington, and once in the canal they would have a 20 mile lock-free stretch of water in front of them.
I am sorry to go on at some length. Amendment No. 272 involves the Kennet and Avon Canal, which I am aure is well known to many members of the Committee. It is 86 miles long and runs from Reading to Bristol. At present it is only navigable in parts. There is, however, a very substantial demand for its restoration. One lock has been recently rebuilt near Reading, the cost having been covered by the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust, and another should be completed by the end of May. The canal is now the only waterway crossing the South of England. Using the Thames at Reading, it would provide a coast-to-coast route. Unlike a number of canals which cannot be used by craft over 7 ft. wide, the canal can take boats up to 14 ft. wide The scenery through which the canal passes is really outstanding: from Reading, through the water-meadows of the River Kennet, the Marlborough Downs, with views of Salisbury Plain, the Vale of Pewsey and the marvellous Avon Valley just East of Bath.
If I may turn to Amendment No. 273, this involves the Liverpool end of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal. The section involves eight miles of waterway which are navigable and well maintained. The canal is joined to the sea by the docks and links Liverpool by water to the beauties of the Yorkshire Moors. The link to the sea enables boats of suitable construction to cross the Mersey Estuary and, via the Manchester Ship Canal, to rejoin the canal system at Ellesmere Port. The September White Paper laid emphasis on the value of through routes of canals, and I submit that this most certainly is a very important through route. Liverpool is another example of a very large centre of population badly needing amenity facilities. Here, I suggest, is another case for the canal being included.
Perhaps I may now turn to Amendments 274 and 275, which involve the Caldon branch of the Trent and Mersey Canal. This branch, which is nearly 20 miles long, can for convenience be be divided into two parts. The canal runs easterly from Stoke-on-Trent for eight miles to Hazelhurst. This part is navigable. But the second part runs southerly to Froghall, which part at present is unnavigable. The canal runs through the beautiful Churnet Valley and the Consall Gorge. It also goes close to the industrial area in which over one million people live and who again desperately require amenity facilities. The canal has become an integral part of the drainage system of the area. I submit again that it should be considered for inclusion in Schedule 12.
Finally I want to come to Amendment 275A which is the Ashton and Lower Peak Forest Canals. These total about 15 miles and are currently unnavigable and have been the subject of our earlier Amendments. I do not wish to go further in describing them. I beg to move.
8.36 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I have often heard it said that whatever matter may be raised in your Lordships' House or whatever place may be mentioned here, there is some noble Lord who will rise and say, "I am an expert on that subject", or, "I was there". A great part of the noble Earl's Amendments
784
concern the Birmingham Canal Navigation and the tributaries which run into it or join with it. It so happens that when I was a boy of ten in Birmingham I bathed in the foul and filthy waters of these canals and caught tiddlers there on Sunday afternoons. I know that network of canals fairly well. The noble Earl has mentioned the Birmingham Canal Navigation. It so happens that my first employer was the estates officer of the Birmingham Canal Navigation. I did not work for that body myself, but for a spare time magazine dealing with golfing which my employer used to run on the side. Later on, when I was a local government official in Birmingham, I was responsible for organising the transmission of thousands of tons of household refuse each year along the Birmingham Canal Navigation's channels to the various tips which we had out in the country.
I like these canals and have fond memories of them. They form an excellent network between the countryside, the City of Birmingham and the towns of the Black Country. But my great fear is this. The noble Lord wants to transfer some of these from the purely commercial use to the pleasure sailing use.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: No; a sailing enclosure.
LORD LEATHERLAND: Well, my great fear is that some of these are so extensively used for industrial purposes that it would be a pity to interfere in any way with the industrial purpose which they now serve. I would put one final question to the noble Earl. Is the California Canal one of those which he wishes to use? There is a tunnel there one mile long along which I used to travel by hanging on to the stern of one of the boats. I understand that the brickwork of the tunnel is in a crumbling state at the moment and it would be a pity to bring it into use once again. With those few rambling remarks I should like to hear further about this.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I have one small waterway to add to these, the Peak Forest canal—and perhaps it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I moved at the same time Amendment No. 273A. This is part of the Peak Forest-Ashton canals of which we have

785
already spoken. I hope that with any luck the Minister will relent and let us consider those two waterways separately on their merits, because of the action which is now pending. Apart from that, there would be considerable sense in putting these waterways in Schedule 12. It would mean that if the Minister wanted to close them—and, clearly, he does—there would have to be a public inquiry.
There is a considerable point here of which Parliament should take great notice. If waterways are closed now, there is a Private Bill, there is a Committee upstairs and there is an inquiry. Anybody who has reason to object can get up before that Committee and raise his objections. As I said before, that is an expensive and slow business, but it is a way of doing it. Under the new arrangements for the closure of a waterway there is going to be a public inquiry and a ministerial order—a far better way of doing it. But unless these waterways are placed in Schedule 12, there will be a third category where there is no public inquiry at all, no Private Bills Committee, and no method by which anybody concerned can raise an objection. That seems a very extraordinary provision to make.
At the time of the last Transport Bill, the British Waterways Board could easily have included a list of waterways that it wanted to close. No doubt my noble and learned friend will say, "Ah! But that would have made the Bill into a hybrid." Anyway, the British Waterways Board did not attempt anything of that kind. But at the same time as the public Transport Bill was going through Parliament, there was a Private Bill closing various waterways on which there was the usual inquiry upstairs, objections were heard and the waterways were closed in the proper manner which Parliament had laid down.
I do not want these waterways closed by Private Bills. I am quite sure my noble friends are right, and that that method is out-of-date. Why can they not be closed by the modern method which they suggest, and which they say is a good one? One feels that the inclusion of this list of waterways which are to be closed without anybody saying "Yea" or "Nay" almost makes this into a hybrid Bill. I suppose that somebody has investigated the matter and come to the con
786
elusion that that is not so. But it is a very odd procedure to have, in the one class, waterways which are closed by the old method with a Committee upstairs; in another class, waterways which are going to be closed by this new method which we think is a better one; and, at the same time, this other category of waterways on which nobody is going to be given a right to say one word of objection. I think the Committee should consider this matter very carefully and see whether it is a proper way of doing business.
There is another reason why these waterways should be included in Schedule 12. Although, admittedly, it is expensive and a nuisance to hold these public inquiries, if one waterway is not closed as a result it is going to save somebody a great deal of money, because almost the entire list are waterways in urban surroundings which are going to In very much needed in the future. In addition, they are going to be a great expense and nuisance in the future if an attempt is made to close them. A rural waterway can quite often be abolished at a considerably cheaper price than an urban waterway. A whole number of think s have to be done, such as drainage in the area having to be straightened out; hut, in general, it is possible to avoid in-filling, which is very expensive.
Town after town has in the past tried closing and abandoning its waterways but in each case it has been found that if a waterway is just left it becomes an area of rubbish and rats and infection. It does not drain, the water stays in it and there is little one can do to get the water out. Then there starts what has been happening for many years now with the Rochdale Canal. There are letters to the local Press in Manchester from various people along the Rochdale Canal saying, "Why doesn't somebody do something about our wretched old canal? It is full of rubbish and rats, and children are getting drowned. Why shouldn't it be closed?". Then the editorial comment at the end of the correspondence is, "This canal was closed ten years ago." This has become so much the standard thing that it is the arch reason why the local authorities in the Peak Forest and Ashton area are now demanding that their waterway be kept open. They do not want to be saddled in their local areas

787
with what has happened right next door with the Rochdale Canal.
The same thing has now happened in Derby. The Derby Canal was a private canal, but the Derby Canal Company did a property deal and one way or another had it closed. The inhabitants of Derby are now beginning to discover the difficulties, the dangers, the expenses and the troubles of trying to fill in a derelict canal. Your Lordships have heard of another waterway where precisely this same thing is happening, and that is the waterway to Langley Mill which is mentioned in Amendment No. 270. That is right next door to Derby and, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has said, there is considerable local public enthusiasm for keeping it open. There certainly is, because it is right next door to the Derby Canal which has been closed, and the inhabitants know what trouble there is when you try to fill in a waterway.
The point is that we need inquiries in these areas to find out just how expensive it is to get rid of the old waterways and to see what can best be done about them. We want to know not only whether the waterway ought to be retained as a cruising waterway but whether it ought to be filled in, how much that will cost, what purposes it can be put to, whether it can be made into a road, whether it is going to be possible to get rid of the water, whether it is going to become a rubbish dump and so on. I am sure it is expensive to hold public inquiries, but if we neglect to have them we are going to get the sort of thing which happened in Derby, where there was no possibility of a public inquiry and where they went ahead and landed themselves with a fine old mess. For this reason I most strongly support the plea that these waterways should be treated in a different manner. They should be put into Schedule 12, and then, if the Minister does see fit to close them, there will be a public inquiry. In that way we may at least avoid some of the troubles which some of these towns have run into.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I say just a word in support of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who has put before the Committee a detailed list of evidently marginal cases? For myself. I accept the general approach of Part VII
788
of the Bill, that this classification has been made by the Board after a very lengthy and expert review of all our canals; but obviously there are some marginal cases, and I feel sure that noble Lords in all parts of the Committee will feel indebted to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for giving us a detailed and compendious list of them. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to tell us that there is some way of looking at these marginal cases, and that he will give sympathetic consideration to my noble friend's Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: I should like to put in a word for the Peak Forest Canal and the Ashton Canal, which are the subject of, I think, two of these Amendments. I understand that these canals form part of what is known as the Cheshire ring of canals, comprising a complete circuit of about 100 miles of waterways made up of part of the Rochdale Canal, the Bridgewater Canal, the Trent and Mersey Canal and the Macclesfield Canal, as well as the two canals about which I am speaking. I understand that the restoration of these two canals to a navigable condition would at once restore to navigation the entire circuit of the Cheshire ring, with all its branches off and connections into other inland waterways such as the River Trent, the Shropshire Union Canal, the Birmingham Canals, the Leeds and Liverpool Canal and so on. I very much hope that the procedure advocated by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, will be acceded to, so that a thorough public inquiry can take place in order that the question can be threshed out whether these two canals about which I am speaking ought not to be restored to a proper navigable condition.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It would not be courteous on my part if I did not deal with this subject in detail, but I think, if I may say so, that the whole exercise is unfortunate. We considered the report, The Facts about the Waterways, and found that the B.W.B. need not spend more than £600.000; we decided to spend another £400,000 of the taxpayers' money by adopting what was broadly the Board's proposal—namely, "You can have 340 miles of commercial waterways, and if only you spend an additional £400,000 then the

789
cruising enthusiasts can have another 1,100 miles of waterways; so that, with the commercial ones which they can also use, three-quarters of all the waterways would be open to the cruising enthusiasts". The Government had to decide on the Board's advice which were which. They published which were going to be in which group, and everybody approved. Now there is wanted more money, more money, more money. That will be the effect of all these proposals. These are all canals which cannot be as economically maintained for cruising as those in the cruising schedule. That is why they are in the "remainder" Schedule.
I will take them all one by one, but one of them in particular would involve £1 million, when, the total annual amount which we have to do everything is only £400,000. The first Amendment is to move up into the commercial division a canal which is in the cruising division, and this is the top 5¼ miles of the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Canal. It contains 15 locks, including the Tinsley flight of 11, and over recent years waterborne traffic to the terminal at Sheffield has fallen away. This was all in the Board's report.
"From the Board's Sheffield terminal the canal passes through the heavy industrial area between Sheffield and Rotherham. Operating, dredging (mainly for traffic purposes) and maintenance are all costly, and the length incurs a heavy deficit".
That is the first one.
Then, as to the waterways in Part II of Schedule 12—that is the cruising ones —they were announced in Appendix B to the White Paper British Waterways: Recreation and Amenity, which was published in September of last year. This list of cruising waterways was promulgated after the extensive consultations promised in the White Paper Transport Policy of June, 1966, with all those interested about the extent of the network which it would be justifiable to maintain for use by powered pleasure craft. The list, which comprises almost all the navigable waterways (other than those in the commercial category—listed in Part I of of Schedule 12) in the Board's system, covers about 1,100 miles of waterway. Only a few lengths of waterway (about 119 miles in all) that are at present available for cruising are not included in Part II.
790
None of the 475 miles of waterway which were unnavigable by powered craft at the time the network was first announced has been included in the list of cruising waterways. It would destroy from the start the credibility of the Board's new duty in respect of the cruising waterways to include lengths that had no powered cruising craft use at the time the Bill was presented. And, of course, it would be extremely costly to restore these waterways. Of the 475 miles excluded for this reason, some 300 miles are already statutorily closed to navigation. Some are in the process of redevelopment. There are some, however, that are potential candidates for restoration, and the provisions of Clause 103(3) will make it possible for a waterway which for the time being is not included in Schedule 12 to be added to it by order. One of the statutory functions of the new Advisory Council will be to advise the Board and the Minister on any proposal to add to the cruising waterways. When the White Paper in which the network was first announced was published, the former Minister of Transport explained in some detail why only navigable waterways had been included in the network and the reason for the exclusion of the few miles of navigable waterway. The Inland Waterways Association welcomed the White Paper and accepted the Minister's statement, and it is surprising that they should, at this late stage, wish to see Amendments made to the Bill which are entirely contrary to the White Paper they accepted so gladly.
Taking each in turn, as I suppose I must, the Birmingham Canal Navigations form a network of 112 miles of canals through industrial urban areas. It is said that there are more canals in Birmingham than in Venice. There has been a sharp decline in the level of commercial freight-carrying over the last twenty years. The traffic still remaining consists of short-distance or inter-factory movements—very little comes on to the network from outside the Midlands. Moreover, the network cannot be said at present to have a high amenity value. From the pleasure craft standpoint, there is little revenue from moorings, as many owners prefer to moor their craft outside the mainly industrial area in which the network lies. A number of the local authorities concerned are giving serious thought to the adaptation of parts of the system to amenity use, and it may be that

791
this picture will change over the years, but it has not done so yet. At present, the essential characteristic of the Birmingham Canal Navigations is that it provides a link from the North-West to the South-East, and the list of cruising waterways in Part II of Schedule 12 preserves just such a 23-mile link, with a branch to the South-West. The future of the remaining 89 miles, much of which is nevertheless important for industrial water supplies, will be the subject of an intensive programme of study and consultation with local authorities, the Regional Sports Council, and other interested bodies.
As to Amendment 270, the Erewash Canal extends 12 miles from Trent Lock, where it joins the River Trent, to Langley Mill. The last mile or so through Long Eaton, which is within easy reach of the important Trent crossroads area, is increasingly used for moorings, but the rest of the canal has been little used by pleasure craft. It passes through mainly semi-industrial countryside which is not particularly attractive. In the light of the limited resources that can be made available for maintaining a network of canals for pleasure cruising and of the need to use those resources to the best advantage, it was not possible to justify including the Erewash in the list of cruising waterways apart from the short length from Tamworth Road Bridge, in Long Eaton, to its junction with the Trent.
Local recreational and amenity interests have expressed concern at the exclusion of the greater part of the Ere-wash from the cruising network. They have been assured that this does not mean that craft will be automatically barred from using the excluded length of the canal or that it will no longer be available for amenity and recreation. The Waterways Board will have discretion to continue to provide facilities along all or part of this length though they will, of course, need to have regard to the economics of the situation. The long-term future of the canal will depend on the results of a careful study by the Board of the costs and possibilities.
As to Amendment 271, the Slough Arm of the Grand Union Canal runs from Cowley Peachey, near Uxbridge, for about five miles to a terminal basin at Slough. There is a major dredging tip at the junction with the main line, and
792
the Arm becomes rather unattractive towards Slough. Like the Erewash, the Slough Arm has not been used much by pleasure craft. Bearing in mind the limited resources that can be made available to maintain a network of canals for pleasure cruising and the need to make the best use of those resources, there does not seem sufficient justification for including the Slough Arm in the network.
In regard to Amendment 272, the Kennet and Avon Canal, which is about 80 miles long, can be conveniently divided into three sections. The centre section is the "problem" section; it consists of about 43 miles of artificial canal constructed from the junction with the River Avon at Bath, through Bradford-on-Avon and Devizes to Bedwyn (a few miles west of Wiltshire-Berkshire border). This centre section of the Kennet and Avon is unnavigable and is maintained only to minimum standards. It is affected by a number of serious engineering difficulties, including shortage of water supplies, which could only be overcome at very considerable cost. Restoration of the centre section has not received serious consideration for a long time. The last round estimate was that the order of cost would be in the region of £1 million. The joint working party set up in 1964 by the Board and the Kennet and Avon Canal Trust, the enthusiast body devoted to the restoration of the canal, did not even consider restoration of the centre section. Then there is the Eastern Section which is estimated to cost at least £80,000.
Then, Amendment 273. This deals with the Leeds and Liverpool Canal. There are special problems on the 8-mile length of this canal between Liverpool and Aintree. It passes through an urban industrial area and is hardly used at all for navigation. Some children were drowned in it and there has been much pressure locally to eliminate the canal where it runs through this built-up area. As a result, a working party has been set up under the auspices of Bootle County Borough Council, on which the British Waterways Board and interested local authorities are represented, to study the complicated technical implications of elimination. The initiative in this rests with the local authorities, though the Board are giving them a great deal of help and expert advice.

793
Amendments 272, 273A, 274, 275, and 275A I can take as one group. These are all canals not fully navigable by powered cruising craft or included in the British Waterways Board's pleasure cruising licence at the time the cruising network was promulgated. The Government propose to place a new and positive maintenance duty on the Board in respect of the cruising waterways, and the Government intend that the Board should take this duty very seriously. It would destroy credibility of this new duty to include work of this sort. So far as No. 273A is concerned, I think it would be better not to say anything about Ashton and Lower Peak Forest, for they are subject to impending litigation. It is sub judice between those parties. The Ashton Canal has been estimated to cost £195,000 of which £95,000 is payable by the Board. I hope I have fairly covered the Amendments, but they all point to the fact that somebody has to decide what the total has to be at the end of the day. Only a certain amount of money is available: and to be able to make 1,100 miles navigable for the waterway enthusiasts for £400,000 is pretty well done.
LORD AIREDALE: I think it a bit hard for it to be said that two canals which are the subject, admittedly, of present litigation must not be discussed in this Committee because they are sub judice, when we know quite well that if this Bill goes through in its present form the litigation now going on will be a complete and utter waste and will be brought to naught. This is a bit tough, in my submission, on these two canals.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his courteous reply and for its length; but I am disappointed with it. I still do not accept that £400,000 a year is a generous donation to the Inland Waterways. The noble and learned Lord seems to think it most generous; but to many of us who believe in the tremendous amenity facilities that these canals offer, it is really a pittance. When one looks at other nationalised concerns, at the railways' £150 million a year, what is £400,000? I am grateful to other noble Lords who have spoken on the Amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Leather-land, asked about the California Canal.
794
I think I am correct in saying that that is not included in my list of Amendments. In regard to not disturbing the industrial use of the canal, that is one of the prime purposes of getting it in the Schedule—to safeguard industrial users. The noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, made what I thought to be a clear case for Keeping these canals in the Schedule. I think one must respect his great personal knowledge of this subject. I believe he has a very good point here about the question of a public inquiry.
I was grateful for the support from my noble friend Lord Nugent in pointing out that these canals are marginal cases. The noble and learned Lord seemed to imply, and has done on one or two occasions, a certain resentment, almost, of the body known as the Inland Waterways Association. I think I should declare at once that I am not a member of the Inland Waterways Association but I feel that if this body, which is entirely self-supporting, had not been formed some ten years or so ago, and had it not been for their spirit, I doubt whether the 1,100 miles of canals, or even the 1,400 which we are now protecting, would be here today.
I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord two questions about this series of Amendments. Would the Government consider whether the canals which make a profit (I think I am correct in saying that the Birmingham Navigation Canal makes a profit) could be considered for inclusion in the Schedule, because these really are marginal cases? They do not cost the Board anything. Secondly, could those not making a profit (and I well see the point of the heavy expense which the Board would incur) be put into Part III, which would allow a public inquiry before they were finally pushed into the "remainder" category? I hope that this may be considered. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord would care to reply to those questions now.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not sure whether any of them are making a profit now. If there are any, I will certainly ask my right honourable friend to consider them.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful for that undertaking. I reserve the right to look at this matter again,

795
but I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment, and I shall not move the others of the series.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 12 agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Orders relating to inland waterways]:
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 275C:
Page 236, line 32, leave out ("to a significant extent")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. The Minister may make an order relieving the owner or manager of an independent waterway of his maintenance duties and removing the public right of navigation. The paragraph to which the Amendment refers deals with the consultations which the Minister must have, but the consultations under this Schedule are limited to cases where the waterway is used "to a significant extent"—these are the words which the Amendment would omit.
There are cases, such as that of the Basingstoke Canal, which one might fear would not be included in this Schedule for consultation because the canal is not used for navigational purposes to a significant extent. The purpose of the Amendment is to put on the Minister a clear onus to consult any organisation appearing to represent persons navigating the canal. This clears away any ambiguity about what "to a significant extent" really means. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a short point. A proposed order under Clause 109 is subject to the normal public safeguard—publication of the proposals, lodging and consideration of objections with a public inquiry if necessary. In cases where there is any significant navigational use, it is reasonable to require the Minister to consult the organised representatives of those who use a canal for this purpose. But it would, I suggest, be unreasonable to demand this consultation in cases where a canal was used only occasionally by craft, or was used only by a very few. In cases of this kind it would be for the individuals concerned to lodge an objection to the proposal in the usual way if they desired to do so.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. This was basically a probing Amendment. I am grateful for his advice, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 275CA:
Page 236, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) In the case of any proposed order under Section 103, 104 or 109 of this Act, the Minister shall consult with any local authority or any river authority for the area in which the waterway is situated.")
This again is a probing Amendment, and its purpose is to lay a duty on the Minister basically to keep local authorities and river authorities fully informed. It is possible that this may not be necessary, but I should be grateful for the Government's reply on it. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The orders under Clause 104(5) and Clause 104(8)(d) referred to in this Amendment are a new class of order which the noble Earl's new Clause No. 260Y sought to introduce. To the extent that this Amendment has not been made, the Amendment now under consideration must also be rejected. I hope that I have this right: it does not sound right to me. But there have been so many changes of numbers.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I wonder if I may intervene for a moment (it may give the Lord Chancellor a little time to prepare his reply) to say that with regard to river authorities, to which my noble friend's Amendment refers, an informal arrangement has been reached between the Board, the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Agriculture which will ensure that when the Board are making a proposition for reclassification the river authority concerned will be informed, because the Board will first of all inform the Ministry of Transport, and the Ministry of Transport will then inform the Ministry of Agriculture.
I mention this as the river authorities naturally have a strong interest in what happens to these canals, because in the long-stop position it is the river authority that is responsible for land drainage, fisheries interests and other matters concerned. Therefore, the river authorities (if I may put on my river authority hat

797
for the moment) would like to express their appreciation that in the event the Ministry of Transport have made this informal arrangement for consultation which will ensure that when any proposals for reclassification are being made they will be adequately informed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. There seem to have been exchanges about this in another place. The river authorities have a special interest in anything which may affect land drainage, water supply or fisheries. The river authority of any area will have an opportunity to make representations about any proposal for an order under Clauses 103, 104 and 109, and so will local authorities and any other body that may be affected. But, as was said in another place, the Government thought it right, after discussion with the Association of River Authorities, because of the special responsibilities of those authorities, to make certain administrative arrangements, in consultation, about any proposal for any order under Clauses 103, 104 and 109 in addition to what will be required by Schedule 13. There is no need to make it a statutory requirement that the Minister should consult with either the local authority or the river authorities before making an order under these clauses. I hone that this may be satisfactory to the noble Earl, and I apologise for the initial confusion.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. I was hoping for the moment that, having lost his place, he might have accepted my Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.19 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 275D:
Page 237, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 6, and insert—
("Provided that such objection or objections as are made to him are not frivolous, the Minister shall order that a public inquiry shall be held, and shall appoint a suitable person to hear it".)
I beg to move Amendment No. 275D in the names of my noble friends and myself. This has already been referred to earlier, and indeed the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, was good enough not to move his earlier Amendment in the
798
expectation that this might be the more convenient place for the Amendment. The effect of this Amendment would be to require the Minister to order a public inquiry in the event of objection or objections being made to a reclassification. The Schedule, as drafted, makes it permissive: the Minister "may" order an inquiry.
The Minister, of course, will have published the proposal. As drafted the Schedule goes no further than saying that he "may" order an inquiry. I do not doubt that in practice he invariably would order an inquiry if the objections seemed to be substantial. That is the purpose of an inquiry: to get out all the facts and to satisfy local opinion. That being so, especially as sympathetic noises were made earlier, I beg leave to move the Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is the one that I really should like to think about. I am sure we ought to be able to find some sense—I do not mean that there is not sense in the Amendment—but we ought to find some formula which is half-way between giving the Minister complete discretion and making him have an inquiry whenever it is not frivolous. I should have thought that the Minister might always have an inquiry where the demand for an inquiry was supported by one of the representative bodies. That is the sort of line I should like to think about, if I may and if the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, because, as I say, I believe that something half-way between tie two is the sensible thing to do.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Perhaps before my noble friend withdraws his Amendment I should say that my following Amendment was basically setting out the same purpose, although it was not so well drafted. I shall not move my Amendment, but I should like to support my noble friend.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his undertaking to look at this point, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 13 agreed to.
Clause 112 [Transfer of responsibility for maintenance of highways on bridges over Boards' railways, inland waterways, etc.]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM moved Amendment No. 275F:
Page 149, line 31, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: There are two Amendments here, Nos. 275F and 283A, which it might be convenient, if the Committee agrees, to consider together. These are the first two of a group of Amendments put down by the Government whose purpose is to modify the commencement provisions of the Bill. It might be convenient to say something about the whole group at this stage. The other Amendments are numbers 301Y, 316A and 3I6B, which will come at a later stage in the Bill; and Amendment No. 316B is the substantive Amendment.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: May I interrupt? Would the noble Lord be kind enough to repeat the numbers of those Amendments?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am sorry; I was galloping away. They are numbers 301Y, 316A and 316B, and it is 316B which is the substantive Amendment. I am sorry that this leads us into Part X of the Bill and may be taking the discussion a little wide, but these are Amendments designed to bring together the actual decisions about modifying the commencement provisions of the Bill. It is also intended on Report to put down a consequential Amendment to Clause 28 to achieve the same ends.
As drafted, Clause 156(2), which deals with the commencement of the Bill, provides for Clause 92 (which deals with the removal of goods vehicles under 30 cwt. from carriers' licensing) to come into effect on Royal Assent. That means as soon as the Bill becomes law. The remainder of the Bill, except for four provisions, is to come into effect on days appointed by the Minister by Order. These four provisions—Clauses 28(2), 112, 115 and 127—are to be brought into effect on days appointed by the Minister and the Secretary of State acting jointly, or, in the case of Clause 127, by the Secretary of State alone. Each of these clauses contains a specific provision to this effect. In essence the Government are proposing to make three changes in
800
these arrangements. They concern the identity of the Minister or Ministers who will make commencement orders for the various provisions of the Bill. They will not, however, alter the principle that, with the single exception of Clause 92, the Bill's provisions are to come into effect as a result of orders by Ministers.
The first change concerns Scottish provisions. As a result of Amendments made to the Bill since it was first introduced, there are now three clauses, Clauses 58, 143 and 144, which relate solely to Scotland, and a fourth has been proposed by the Government, which is Amendment No. 314. The Government consider it only right that the commencement order for these clauses should be made by the Secretary of State for Scotland and not by the Minister, which is the effect of the Bill at the moment.
Secondly, there are several provisions of the Bill besides Clauses 112 and 115, whose application in Scotland and Wales will be the responsibility of the Secretary of State, while the Minister will administer them in England. We are therefore proposing that the commencement order for all these provisions should be made jointly by the Minister and the Secretary of State. Thirdly, Clause 28(7) already provides for the appointed day, for the purposes of the transfer of assets, liabilities and securities from the Transport Holding Company and the Railways Board to the Scottish Group under subsection (2) of that clause, to be appointed by the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland jointly. But there are, of course, many other provisions in the Bill relating to the Scottish Group, and we are accordingly proposing that the commencement orders for these provisions too are to be made jointly by the Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland.
We are not proposing any change in the arrangement under which the commencement order for Clause 127 (which concerns fixed penalties for certain driving offences and an extension of the powers of traffic wardens) is to be made by the Secretary of State; that is to say, the arrangements are to be made by the Secretary of State. So the changes proposed in this group of Amendments are really only tidying up changes which nonetheless give proper recognition to the locus, to the position, of the Secretary

801
of State in this Bill. They will not result in any practical changes either in the way in which or the dates on which the Bill's provisions are to be brought into effect, or in their application and administration. But they will have the advantage that, if they are accepted, all the commencement provisions of the Bill will be brought together into a single place in Clause 156, instead of there being references in various other places as well. I beg to move.
9.28 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for that explanation, and apologise to him for not being here at the beginning of it. I must say that I am not clear why Claus, 112(8) was originally in the Bill at all. The main clause concerning the commencement, as the noble Lord explained, is Clause 156(2) as the Bill is drafted at the moment. This says that the various provisions of the Act shall come into force on a day appointed by the Minister, by order, and that these may be different days for different Parts of the Bill. Then, as he explained to us, there are the four clauses of the Bill of which Clause 112(8) is one, which were singled out for special mention. In each of these cases, provision would he brought into effect on a day laid down jointly by the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland. Of course, there were many other provisions in the Bill, as we know having been going through it for these past few weeks, that concerned Scotland, not just the four which are itemised in Clause 156(2). So now we have the Government coming here to propose, in these Amendments, and particularly in Amendments 316 and 316A, to add a new subsection which will itemise all of these clauses.
I would not dispute what the noble Lord has said. I think this is a desirable tidying up, but surely it is rather late in the day. These Amendments were tabled last Friday and the Bill was originally introduced in another place in December last. We have already passed Clause 28, the first of the four, so it is now left as a sore thumb, presumably to be severed on Report stage, after we return from the Recess, in order to bring Clause 28 into line with the other Parts of the Bill. So if
802
anyone is inclined to complain about the time taken in your Lordships' House on this Bill it seems to me an ample justification that time is needed on the Government side, as well as on the Opposition side, to give the Bill the examination it did not receive in the House of Commons.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I would not argue with the noble Lord on this point. In fact the whole of Part VIII of this Bill has not been debated in the House of Commons at all, and presumably that is why we must pay more attention to it this evening. I accept the noble Lord's strictures completely but this happens to be the first appropriate moment when these Amendments could be introduced. This particular subsection (8) was a means of recognising some of the Secretary of State's responsibilities under the Bill to Scotland and Wales but it is in fact the wish of the Government to tidy up all these provisions and this is the way we are doing it. It may not be the most satisfactory way, but if the objective is agreed I bore the method will be forgiven.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: We were not complaining about the way of doing it: we were merely observing that the Amendment was only put down last Friday, so presumably my noble friend was right when he said that more time was needed on the Government side.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 112, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT SIMON: Before we agree to this clause, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, could answer one question which I think may help us in considering a later Amendment As I understand the position from the Explanatory Memorandum, this clause and the next hang together, and in general terms what they do is to redistribute financial responsibilities in respect of the maintenance and repair and improvement of bridges, over railways and over waterways, as between the Boards and the highway authorities. I wonder whether the noble Lard can tell us why this is being done? Is it that the present arrangements are found to be unsatisfactory, and if so, in what respect?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am speaking now without precise knowledge

803
but I believe in general there has been dispute between the road authorities and the British Railways Board over a number of years. In fact the figure in my mind is six years, and learned lawyers on either side have in fact been arguing the case, at the public expense and to the profit of the lawyers. I am not speaking against lawyers but I understand this to be the case. I think this is a suitable moment in our legislative programme when this unnecessary dispute can be brought to an end and the responsibilities defined.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Before we leave Clause 112, I was going to make a point or two about this matter on the next clause but since the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has raised it on this clause, I think perhaps it is more appropriate to say a word here about the way we see the principle underlying this Part of the Bill. The clauses at first sight look relatively uneventful, as in fact does all Part VIII. But when one comes to look closely one sees that under it the very substantial cost of maintaining roads on bridges, where they cross either railways or canals, is transferred from the Railways Board or the Waterways Board to the highway authorities. As the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom said, this Part of the Bill was guillotined. It has not received any discussion at all, either in Committee or on Report, in another place. although I think there were two Government Amendments to Clauses 117 and 121 which were just accepted without any debate of any sort.
We on this side of the House accept the principle behind Part VIII of the Bill, that the Railways Board should be relieved of the cost of maintaining the public highway where it crosses the railway. For too long, since 1947, there has been this absurdity referred to by Lord Winterbottom, where the Transport Commission, and later the Railways Board, have sought, with substantial payments under bridge agreements, as they have been called, to get highway authorities to take over responsibility for maintaining the road over a bridge and its approaches in exactly the same way as the other parts of the road. And the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, had a good point when he said that two sets of lawyers have been engaged, at the public expense, in transferring the cost of main-
804
tenance from one grant-aided authority to another. If the Railways Board are to concentrate more on their real task of administering the railways with realistic financial targets, it seems to us that this is a financial obligation which could be removed from them.
Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 113 [Duty of Boards as respects bridges carrying highways]:
9.37 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 276:
Page 150, line 7, at end insert ("and width"),
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 276 to 283 all run together and, with the permission of the Committee, I think it might he convenient if I spoke to them together. The point at issue is the width of bridges. The Bill makes no mention of the width of a bridge; it is concerned with the load-bearing capacity. This is because many of the bridges are old, and the weight that they now have to carry, both in frequency and in weight of individual vehicles, is very much greater than that for which they were originally designed.
The point we should like to put to the Government in this series of Amendments is that when a bridge over a railway is reconstructed it is not sufficient to construct it to an adequate weight capacity if it is still too narrow, as many old bridges are. To farmers, in particular, width is often more important than load-bearing capacity, because many types of modern farm machinery, such as combine harvesters, although not of excessive weight are too wide to get across old bridges. The National Farmers' Union, in representing the interests of its members, has taken up for a great number of years many problems concerning bridges and level crossings. The N.F.U. believes, and has said, that a recognition of width in this clause would be a substantial advantage to the farming community.
I would not rest the case for these Amendments solely on the interests of farmers, important though these are. How often has traffic congestion been caused by a road narrowing down from three lanes of traffic, or perhaps four, to two at a narrow bridge? And the problem here is aggravated by the time scale. Most bridges over railways were

805
built well before the days of heavy road traffic and many of them are now no longer adequate for to-day's changed conditions. If these Amendments were accepted in Clause 113(3), the standards of width which would be applied would be left as a matter of reasonable judgment to the Minister or by reference to traffic normally carried on the bridge. Therefore we are not proposing to try to write any arbitrary standards into the Bill—indeed, 1 think it would be foolish and impossible to try to do so. All that these Amendments would do would be to give in this part of the Bill some statutory recognition to the importance of the width of bridges as well as to their load-bearing capacity. I beg to move.
LORD SOMERS: I should like very strongly to support these Amendments. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, is well aware of the fact that one may have a long length of very wide and straight road which may be interrupted by just one narrow bridge, and that one narrow bridge can slow up traffic along the entire road. Therefore there is no doubt that if we want to get traffic moving we must remove not merely a few bottlenecks but all of them. In many cases this can be done not by widening the existing bridge but by building another beside it, which can often be done at lesser expense than by widening the existing structure.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I must admit that when I was considering this particular group of Amendments the combine harvester was not the machine that entered into my mind at the time. This is obviously a rather interesting point, and I should like noble Lords to consider this single element further and, if you agree, to perhaps say something about it at a later stage. However, I should here like to talk about the general principle, and; about the differences which arise between the standards of load-bearing capacity on bridges, and the width standards for bridges. The Amendments would, in addition to setting load-bearing standards, require the Boards to improve or alter the width standards of bridges in use at this time.
Noble Lords should not forget that there are a great many bridges about, and the improvements, we believe, would
806
introduce an extremely burdensome obligation on the Boards, and one which would be entirely unrelated to the requirements of rail or waterway traffic. I believe that, due to a rather odd legal ruling about 1916, it was decided that bridges would have to be maintained not at the level of load-bearing which they would have to meet at the time in question but at the level of load-bearing for which they were designed, which could be at a substantial period earlier. Nevertheless, this does not seem to have really hamstrung the whole of the operations because Ministry load-bearing standards on bridges, which are related to permitted axle loadings, have remained unchanged for some thirty years. On the other hand, the width of carriageway required over a bridge depends on the local volume of traffic and is liable to vary from time to time according to developments in the area, road improvement schemes and diversions.
We believe at this stage it would be impossible to lay down a standard width which could be expected to remain unchanged for many years to come, and am sure noble Lords will agree that with a Bill of this size we do not war t this to happen every few years. This standard of width is not one which we could lay down with the same ease that it is possible to lay down a standard loading capacity. As I said earlier, the standards of lead-bearing capacity can be related to the class of road carried. The volume of traffic which determines the width of carriageway required is not necessarily related to the class of road. This is a point I made earlier. To determine standards of width to be prescribed at the appointed day would require a traffic survey of more than 11,000 bridges.
It is implicit in the clause that load-bearing standards can be revised upward following reconstruction or replacement of a bridge. Applied to standards of width, this could involve the Boards in very heavy liabilities indeed. Even if a contribution to the costs of widening were made by the highway authority the Board could still not escape being encumbered with the higher costs of maintaining the wider structure. Bottlenecks caused by narrow bridges can be dangerous, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers. has pointed out, but the danger

807
is not of the same order as the risk of collapse of a bridge due to inadequate bearing strength. Moreover, there is no threat in the first case to rail or waterway traffic beneath.
The Government's whole object, as noble Lords will remember from an earlier stage of the debate, is to ease the burden of the liability of the Railways Board and the Waterways Board and the London Transport Board, for services unconnected with railway and waterway operations. The cost to the Boards of strengthening bridges which are at present substandard in respect of load-bearing capacity has been taken into account in the new financial arrangements dealt with in this Bill. No provision has been made for the cost of widening to present-day requirements or for the liability of maintaining widened bridges, nor is such provision practicable in view of the potential for change in the requirements. If the Amendments were adopted they would place upon the Boards a liability which is unquantifiable; that is to say, a liability for widening 11,000 bridges.
Turning to the bridge-strengthening programme, the Boards have been asked to discuss their proposals for strengthening substandard bridges with local highway authorities so that any proposals of the local highway authorities for widening, re-alignment or other special provision can be incorporated in a Board's scheme where practicable. Any such special work requested by the highway authority will of course have to be paid for by that authority, but in the case of a principal road it will be considered for grant in the usual way.
The bridge programme will be substantially complete before the appointed day for the provisions of this clause to come into force. By that time, therefore, there will have been an opportunity for carrying out any widening or other work which the highway authority considers to be of immediate importance. Because of these circumstances, the Government can see no justification for imposing upon the Boards, whom we are trying to bring into a profitable state of operation, a new, heavy bridge widening commitment.
I accept the point that the combine harvester is a new problem which we have to face. I hope that my answer is satis-
808
factory in regard to vehicles other than this peculiarly bulky piece of equipment. If I can give a more satisfactory answer later on this single element I shall try and do so, but the main argument against these Amendment is that which I have deployed.
LORD SOMERS: Before my noble friend withdraws his Amendment, I think the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, mentioned 11,000 bridges. Surely, all these cannot be either on trunk roads or 'A' class roads? Can the noble Lord says what sort of proportion are on main roads?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I am afraid I cannot. I have a figure in my mind, but I would rather write to the noble Lord and give him precise details than mention it now. It is of course every sort of bridge, from the good modern one to the peculiar little hump bridges that we know of over some of the older canals of this country. But there are 11,000 bridges to be considered.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I think we would prefer what the noble Lord himself said to what he read out from the brief. The brief gives all the arguments as to why width should not be brought into the matter, but the noble Lord himself recognised that the excellent example which my noble friend Lord Windlesham, gave, of the combine harvester, is a valid point.
All we are really concerned with is the entirely practical point. If these bridges are being rebuilt and brought up to an adequate standard, the width as well as the load-bearing capacity should be considered. We are not asking that every one of them should he made 60 ft. wide. Naturally, it will depend on the local circumstances, but it seems common sense to take into account width as well as load bearing when they are being rebuilt. Maybe our set of Amendments is too comprehensive, in that it would require the Minister to set up requirements for standards of width as well, but that width should be considered in any rebuildings is just plain common sense. What we should like the Minister to do, in his own words, and in his own thinking, is to say: "Yes, this is common sense. You have a good point here. I will take it back and have a look at

809
it to see what Amendment is needed in order to make sure that width is looked at without tying the Minister's hands". If the Minister would say that, we should be very happy.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I think I can give the commitment that I will look at it again. We have time to consider this, and I hope we can, in fact, say something at Report stage.
LORD WINDLESHAM: We are very grateful for what the noble Lord has said. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 113 agreed to.
Clause 114 agreed to.
Clause 115 [Ending of liability of Boards to make payments on being relieved of responsibility for bridges carrying trunk or special roads]:
LORD WINTERBOTTOM LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I beg to move Amendment No. 283A:
Amendment moved—
Page 155, line 5, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Winterbottom.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 115, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 116 agreed to.
Clause 117 [Application of foregoing sections to undertakers other than Railways Board, London Board and Waterways Board]:
9.53 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 283B:
Page 155, line 41, after ("subsidiaries") insert ("river authorities (as defined for the purposes of sections 107 and 109 of this Act) or drainage boards constituted or treated as having been constituted by the Land Drainage Act 1930").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment standing in the name of my noble friends and myself, and I suspect that the same point that I wish to develop is going to be dealt with in principle by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, in his two later Amendments. Clause 117 gives the Minister power to apply the provisions of Clauses 112 and 113 to bridges other than those belonging to British Railways or the Waterways Board. As the clause is now drafted this
810
could include a bridge owned by a river authority or an internal drainage board. These authorities do not own many bridges and usually only for very limited access purposes; but obviously if the Minister made an order requiring that a bridge owned by one of these authorities was to be reconstructed to modern highway standards, the financial implication could be very large indeed and far beyond the resources of such authorities. I should mention that, as the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will know, there are no less than 400 internal drainage boards who are with very limited finances indeed, and they could not possibly be capable of a financing implication of this kind.
I have had the opportunity of discussing the correspondence between the Ministry of Transport and the Association of River Authorities. I understand from that correspondence that it is not the Ministry's intention that Clause 117 should apply to bridges owned by river authorities or internal drainage boards. Evidently the Ministry recognise that it would be inappropriate to apply this clause to such bridges.
The Ministry have suggested that Clause 99 of the Highways Act 1959 would give these authorities a sufficient safeguard, but to this suggestion I must reply that it would still leave the river authorities and internal drainage boards at risk. In theory, the Minister, if he wished, could still make an Order under Clause 117 against a river authority or internal drainage board. Clause 99 of the 1959 Highways Act requires him only to consult the affected river authority or drainage board before making the Order. He can still decide against them if he wants to. Therefore I suggest that, as the Ministry of Transport do not intend to include bridges belonging to these authorities in orders made under Clause 117, it will be far the best course, and in everybody's interest, to amend the clause to say so, so as to give certainty to all concerned. I am sure that this is the right way of doing it. I hope that the noble Lord will accept this Amendment, which I beg to move.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord is turning round the argument which I made in favour of not loading the highway authorities or Railways Board with

811
too great a burden of widening a proportion of 11,000 bridges. The widening of bridges is a desirable operation, but an expensive one. In the time which has passed since we started these discussions in another place and our discussions today, a certain sympathy—shall we say?—is developing in the Department of my right honourable friend towards this argument. If noble Lords will agree, I should like to bring to my right honourable friend's notice the points which have been made in this evening's discussion. I will discuss with him the problems and on Report will let your Lordships know with greater clarity the Government's attitude on this point. I can give that undertaking.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I wish to thank the noble Lord for that undertaking. I hope he understands the implication that something is needed here. There has not been opportunity to discuss this clause before, since it fell under the guillotine, and therefore the point has not been examined. Now that it has been examined I am most grateful to the noble Lord for looking at it with his customary sympathy. I am sure that that will be fruitful. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.58 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved Amendment No. 283C:
Page 155, line 41, after ("subsidiaries") insert ("or dock undertakers, harbour undertakers or canal undertakers (as defined in section 295 of the Highways Act 1959)").
The noble Viscount said: I do not know whether the noble Lord's sympathy is also going to extend to dock and canal undertakings, but there is a particular point on this Amendment to which I call the Committee's attention. It may well be that, as a result of correspondence, the river authorities and drainage boards have been advised that they are not affected by this clause, but I do not think that that applies to dock and harbour authorities and canal authorities. The position of the dock authorities is rather different from the position of the river authorities.
The present situation is governed, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent has said, by Section 99 of the Highways Act, under
812
which certain orders can be made. The 11th Schedule to that Act, "Provisions as to Orders under Section 99", lays down clearly the orders which can be made and the limitations which can be placed upon them. I do not know whether the noble Lord has been fortunate enough to obtain a copy of the Highways Act. It is even longer than the Transport Bill and has 299 pages. Paragraph 15 of Schedule 11 on page 477 provides that
"Where an Order has been made with respect to a bridge
(i) where the bridge is a bridge crossing a railway or railway undertakers "—
this also applies to the Railways Board at present, although the position will be altered by Clause 113—
"or a canal of canal undertakers, or a railway, lock, passage or other work of dock undertakers … any additional expense incurred by the owners … by reason of any alteration thereof due to the provisions of the order (not being provisions applied for by the undertakers for the improvement of their undertaking) shall be defrayed by one or more of the highway authorities".
So, in brief, the position is that in the case of the dock undertakers they have a statutory protection. They pay for the maintenance of the bridge, but if the highway authorities want a stronger or wider bridge—to take up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham—then the highway authorities have to pay for it and not the dock undertakers. It has no benefit to the dock undertaker that the bridge over his dock is strengthened.
I was surprised when the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said he thought the bargain in Clauses 112 and 113 was favourable to the railways. I think it is extremely unfavourable. What is done under this Bill is to transfer to the highway authorities the cost of repairing the surface of the road, which is a comparatively small matter, and to place upon the railways the cost of reconstructing a bridge to a new requirement of a load-bearing capacity which the Minister may lay down. That seems most unfavourable to the railways. They may have entered into this as a bargain which they think is a good one, but I do not think the dock undertakers would think it a bargain and they would prefer to remain as they are at present, governed by the 1959 Act. I beg to move.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Although I am in sympathy with the point made

813
by the noble Viscount, I want to say straight away that it would not be possible to accept an Amendment which would automatically place on the highway authority the costs of strengthening or reconstructing and of maintaining the bridge to higher standards. The merits of whether the highway authority or the bridge owner should bear the additional cost arising from the growth of road traffic can be debated endlessly, and that is not something which we wish to do to-night. It is partly a question of whether the railway or waterway interfered with the road, or vice versa. What we have done in this Bill, in the case of bridges owned by the three Boards, is to place certain obligations on the highway authority by Clauses 112 and 114, and certain obligations on the Boards by Clause 113. We cannot risk upsetting the balance of these provisions by a one-sided provision in favour of other private bridge owners.
In my notes on this Bill there is a point which I thought the noble Viscount might have raised, and that is the special position of the Manchester Ship Canal. It may be of interest to the House, since we are putting a great many cases on record this evening. In the absence of any procedure whereby the highway authority can take over the bridges, the Minister should have a reserve power to insist on load-bearing capacity adequate for modern traffic. My right honourable friend is willing to examine with the company and the highway authorities the reasons for the exemption from Sections 99 and 100 of the Highways Act 1959 of bridges owned by the company, and to consider whether this exemption should be repealed. This, again, is a question of looking at a special case with reasonable sympathy.
I think this is also true of bridges maintained by charitable trusts. There are comparatively few such bridges, and where funds have become inadequate for proper maintenance, or where it is considered that funds should be devoted to some other charitable purpose, it is usual for the highway authority to take over these bridges maintained by charitable trusts. I do not know whether this reply satisfies the noble Viscount, but we are trying to be helpful on this point, and we will look at what he has to say when we come to consider the Bill at Report stage.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I do not think we want to go into this question of the savings to the Railways Board under these clauses of the Bill, but if the noble Viscount would look at the Whitt Paper, Railway Policy, he will see that Section 5.38 sets out the considerations which are involved. That perhaps is a point for later on and not for now.
10.7 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for his sympathetic answer, although I must say 1. was not very satisfied by it. It seems to me that dock and canal authorities have a position now which it is proposed to alter. I particularly asked the noble Lord earlier what was tie purpose of Clauses 112 and 113, and I understood that it was in order to solve some long-standing problems of litigation. That is between the persons concerned, and they may have thought it was right to settle their litigation by getting an agreement of this kind, hut so far as I know there has been no litigation in regard to bridges over docks.
Some very large figures are involved here. I think of a bridge which runs over the whole of the western end of the Victoria Dock and carries the Silvertown Way down to Silvertown. Suppose the Minister decided, now that we are talking about having much larger containers going through the country, that he wanted to have a greater weight-load on that bridge. It would cost well over £1 million, I am sure, to reconstruct it. I should have thought that if the highway authority wanted to have a stronger bridge it was they and the users of the highway who should pay for it, rather than the people over whose property it happens to pass. But the noble Lord has said that he will look at the matter between now and Report stage.
May I add just one thing? My friends in the Dock and Harbour Authorities Association have felt a little hurt that they were not consulted about this matter at all. No doubt there were consultations with the Boards, but there were no consultations with the dock and harbour authorities about this matter; they just found it in the Bill. But if we can have a talk about it later on, I am quite content to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: As we have all noted, this is the first discussion we have had on a Committee stage of the various problems arising from this clause of the Bill. The noble Viscount's comments are of great value to myself and my right honourable friend. We can only
816
note them and see whether we can bring them into a proper framework when we come to produce the Bill in its final form.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 117 agreed to.
Clause 118 agreed to.
10.17 p.m.
Clause 119 [Power of highway and other authorities to contribute to cost of barriers, etc., at level crossings]:
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 284:
Page 157, line 10, after ("signs") insert ("cattle grids").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 284 and 285 go together. These Amendments seek to widen the discretionary powers of the Minister relating to level crossings, which are contained in Clauses 119 and 120 of the Bill. In these clauses the Minister may by order require the Railways Board to provide and operate lifting and other types of barrier, lights, signs and other devices and appliances at level crossings with roads other than public carriage roads. That is in Clause 120; while Clause 119 empowers the highway and other local authorities to contribute to the expenses of the Railways Board in providing such equipment on public roads. It is that clause which my noble friend Lord Ilford will be debating further in the next Amendment.
These two Amendments of my noble friend and myself (Nos. 284 and 285) would add cattle grids to the list of safety devices which, in appropriate circumstances, either the Railways Board or the Minister might consider desirable to install at level crossings. It seems to me that the case for adding cattle grids is a strong one. In the past, local authorities have sometimes claimed in response to local pressure that there is no legal recognition of the desirability of cattle grids at certain level crossings, and they have no grounds to insist on their provision. There is an increasing trend towards the installation of the automatic half barrier—and this is something Lo which we shall return on Amendment No. 286. This equipment is generally proposed by the Railways Board for crossings with rural roads.
Sometimes it is the case that the public road level crossing, where it is proposed to replace the old gates with an attendant, serves also as a farm accommodation crossing for joining up holdings originally severed when the railways were first constructed. In consequence, it is not unusual in country
818
areas for a public road crossing to be used regularly for the passage of cattle 'on the hoof'—not being a countryman myself I am told this is the correct expression. In the absence of gates, the control of the herd obviously becomes more difficult and there is the Danger that some animals may gain access to the track via the unguarded section of road. Where the movement of cattle is regular—and this applies particularly to dairy herds there is no doubt that safety measures must be considered, both in the interests of the animals, and indeed of the passengers on the railway whose lives and safety may be endangered.
To press for the retention of manned crossings with the traditional type of gates across the full width of the road would be, in my view, a retrograde step. It would do nothing to assist in the promotion of greater operating efficiency by British Railways. None the less, I think we can agree that there is a real problem here. Without being dogmatic it would seem, on preliminary inquiry—for this is, as the noble Lord has said, the first time that anyone has discussed this part of the Bill—that the best solution would be to encourage the installation of cattle grids as and where necessary.
Here again, as in the previous Amendment, our Amendments would n of be binding, they would not seek to set any absolute standard in the Bill. No one would be forced to provide cattle grids at all railway level crossings. Far from it. All that these Amendments would do would be to recognise in the Bill that cattle grids are worth considering by the Railways Board, and by the highway authorities or appropriate authorities, when plans are made for the provision of automatic half-barrier equipment in country areas. I beg to move.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I think the noble Lord has again produced a valid point, but one that had not been overlooked by the drafters of the Bill. It is not the question of a herd of beasts being driven across a railway crossing that is the problem. You could not drive a herd across a railway crossing of this sort if there were a cattle grid there: the animals would have to be driven across through a special gate-

819
way at a special point. The problem is caused by animals which could stray down the road and come to a barrier crossing and then get on to the line because there would be nothing to stop them, as there is at the moment with the full gate across the road.
We accept that this is the problem, but we believe that this addition is unnecessary, because in our view provision of cattle grids would be covered by the existing wording in Clauses 119 and 120:
"… lifting or other barriers, lights, signs, or other devices or appliances for the protection or convenience of the public at or near any level crossing …"
Here we come to the standard problem with which we are always faced: that if we start to spell out things in too much detail we may automatically exclude other things that are equally desirable. if we tried to spell out in detail all the possible devices or appliances which may be required in future it might have a retrograde effect, since the impression would be given that anything not specifically mentioned did not fall within the scope of these two clauses. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that cattle grids would be included within this particular definition in the Bill. If he feels that this is insufficient I can look at it—it is not a matter of deep importance—when we come to the Report stage.
10.17 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: These provisions concern not only straying animals but also driven animals, the dairy herd moving across to its grazing. For that, of course, as my noble friend has said, having fixed the cattle grid in the road, it would be necessary to have a fixed gate alongside, and the animals would be driven through that gateway after the train had passed. Here there is the double problem. Subject to what my noble friend says, I think that we should like to see some provision here, because experience has taught the Farmers' Union that in negotiations with the railways almost invariably the railways plead that they cannot afford additional money for these purposes; quite rightly, they are careful, knowing that they have to go to the Ministry of Transport for their money. We feel, how-
820
ever, that we should like to see this provision in the Bill, with appropriate safeguards, to make sure that the railways know that they are authorised to spend the additional money on this in appropriate cases.
LORD BELSTEAD: May I say two sentences in support of what has been said by my noble friends on the Front Bench? I wish to refer to something which has been in the minds of us all particularly in the last few months, and which, in another capacity, concerned my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. I refer to foot-and-mouth disease. I should not like the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, about its not really affecting driven cattle to be considered as a point about this Amendment. A large number of farmers split up their cattle and their pigs because of the foot-and-mouth disease. If this dreadful disease strikes, and if a herd is split between two farms, it may be that the farmer can avoid the consequences of wholesale slaughter. If a farmer splits his herd, not infrequently some of the animals have to be driven across a level crossing.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I think that a point has emerged from the discussion and I will see what we can do about it. It is obvious that if you have a cattle grid and a half barrier crossing you must have a means of getting a herd across the railway line. We had better have a look at this point.
LORD WINDLESHAM: On this side of the House we appreciate what the nobel Lord has said. On an earlier Amendment he undertook to look into the question of agricultural farm machinery. Although this Amendment concerns a different problem it does also affect the N.F.U. and the farming community as a whole. It might be worth looking at both together, to see how this Part of the Bill impinges on the interests of farmers.
If I may say so, I think the official line of reasoning that the noble Lord advanced, namely that to include mention of cattle grids in Clause 120 would make it harder to install those forms of safety device which were not listed, does not really hold up, because Clause 120(1)(a) itemises,
"lifting or other barriers, lights, signs or other devices or appliances".

821
Our Amendment still leaves all those in. We merely add a fifth to the four already listed. However, I appreciate what the noble Lord has said about looking at these points, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 119 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD ILFORD: Unlike certain earlier occasions in this Bill in which the local authorities sought powers that they considered necessary, and did not as a rule get them, this clause thrusts upon local authorities powers which they are unwilling to accept. The clause provides that the local authorities may make contributions to the expenses incurred
"in providing lifting or other harriers, lights, signs, or other deices or appliances for the protection or convenience of the public.…"
The local authorities take the view that the Railways Board ought to pay for their own undertaking and that local authorities ought not to be invited to contribute to the costs of any part of the railway undertaking. They see no reason why they should, and there are many reasons why the railways ought to bear their own burdens.
I would draw the attention of your Lordships to die definition of these various appliances. They are defined as being "appliances for the protection … of the public". If these appliances are necessary for the protection of the public, then the railway undertaking ought to provide them, and ought not try to get a contribution out of the local authorities. It is not right that the expenditure should be taken off these national undertakings and put upon the local authorities. That is what will happen. Rates are a regressive tax, and if the choice is between the rates and some other sort of revenue, the burden ought not to be put upon the rates.
The clause puss no obligation upon the local authorities to make a contribution, but simply gives the power to do so. No doubt it will be said that if they do not want to do it they need not and nobody can make them. But that is not how things work out. One knows what happens. Great pressure is put upon the local authority. Somebody
822
goes to the railway undertaking and says: "We ought to have a level crossing, or signs, or we ought to have something that we have not got for the protection of the public". The railways then say: "Go and see whether the local authority will contribute to it". At once pressure is placed upon the local council to pay up and fill the gap which the railways have refused to fill.
That is the objection to the clause. It is not an answer to say that the local authorities have the choice whether to make a contribution or not. So far as these appliances are concerned, of course the local authorities will welcome them if they are necessary for the protection of the public. No doubt these cattle grids, of which my noble friend was speaking a moment ago and of which I regret to say my knowledge is practically nil, are very desirable on the level crossings in the country. But there really is no reason why the local authority should pay for them. They ought to be paid for by the Railways Board. I hope that your Lordships will follow that course and agree that the local authorities should not be presented with this alternative of paying or not paying. I beg to move.
10.26 p.m.
LORD WENTERBOTTOM: I think that the noble Lord is really envisaging an ideal world where there is no conflict of interests, or where every conflict can be adjudicated by a Bill passed through the Houses of Parliament, but unfortunately that is not the case. I think it is impossible in a Bill to define every situation that can arise. Quite rightly, the noble Lord has pointed out that no one is imposing on the local authorities a duty to provide the type of crossing or facility mentioned. The power is entirely permissive. But, quite clearly—the noble Lord has said it, and we agree with it—there will be cases where a highway authority would welcome automatic half barriers to speed the flow of road traffic, or where a local authority wished to secure the provision of some additional facility at a level crossing but where, in the normal course of events, there would not be a sufficient financial incentive to the British Railways Board to give the scheme high priority. This is the conflict of interest. In such a case the local authority would argue that a

823
half barrier crossing would be valuable and British Railways Board say that the traffic was not sufficient to justify it.
LORD ILFORD: I should like to interrupt. These are appliances which are defined as being for the protction of the public—something the railways authority ought to provide.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Yes; I think I said something like, "a half barrier or the provision of some additional facility at a level crossing". I do not know what that additional facility might be. It might be the cattle grid that we were discussing; it might be a set of lights; it might be some warning system other than a half barrier crossing; it might be something that would warn the public that a train was coming or that they should pay attention to something that was happening. There could at any rate be a difference of opinion between the Railways Board and the local authority as to whether or not this facility was needed. If the Railways Board were not convinced by the local authority's argument, then the local authority would be in a position under this clause, if they so wished, to install that facility through making a contribution towards it.
It may be argued that the railways should make this provision on every occasion; but people can be pernickety and difficult. Mothers may be a little unreasonable. There can be situations where people are unnecessarily frightened of something, and where reasonable men on the Railways Board would say "No; really, this is not necessary". Then, if the local authority come under pressure from the people living within their area, their voters, they might decide that it would be worth while to install the facility themselves. Let us use the word "facility" rather than "half barrier", or some such specific piece of equipment. This Bill simply gives the local authority power to contribute towards its installation.
There is another factor. It is already possible for local authorities in England and Wales, under general powers in existing legislation, to make such contributions, but these powers are not altogether free from doubt. That is the first point. It is therefore felt desirable
824
to spell out clearly in the Bill the right of highway local authorities to contribute in this way on an entirely voluntary basis. There is an important second point. Scottish local authorities do not have these same general powers as their English or Welsh counterparts, so the specific power is needed for them. Moreover, it is not clearly provided that the Minister of Transport and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales in their capacities as highway authorities for trunk roads may contribute in similar circumstances.
As I am reminded, the clause refers not only to protection but also to convenience. This is another factor. There are many things which one would like to have installed. They are not necessary for protection, but it is convenient for one to know through them that something is happening at a certain time, or to be warned that something is happening. So I do not think that this Bill bulldozes the local authorities into anything, but at least it protects the railway authority from having to carry into effect every request made to it by the local authority who might be influenced by a pressure group which however small, might be extremely vocal.
LORD SOMERS: I think the question arises as to whether the local authority is not qualified to put up level crossing gates and things like that. One has to remember that these gates are connected electrically to the signal box, they are operated by the signalman and they are wholly railway apparatus; and I do not think a local authority would necessarily have the engineering qualifications to put them in.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: I do not think the point is that they would be required to put them in. They might wish to specify certain facilities which the Railways Board themselves did not think justified to install. In that case, they would ask the Railways Board to provide these facilities, but they would have to pay for them. That is part of the business of taking off the Railways Board the load which they inherited from the days when they were the monopoly common carrier of the country. The question is one of an unreasonable demand on the railways which may seem

825
reasonable to a local authority. If the two cannot agree, and if the local authority feel strongly on the subject they are in a position to ask for facilities to be installed and to contribute towards them themselves.
LORD ILFORD: The noble Lord has not convinced me. I certainly think we ought not to take the load off the Railways Board and put it on the rates. I apprehend that I shall not get much further and, in those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 119 agreed to.
Clause 120 [Board's obligations at level crossings with roads other than public carriage roads]:
10.32 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 286:
Page 157, line 30, after ("protection") insert ("safety")
The noble Lord said: This is a probing Amendment, and it might be as well to get that clearly established at the start. It is concerned with the subject of safety at those points where the public cross the railway track. Perhaps I could pick up one or two of the strands of the discussion on the previous Amendment, because it seems that there is a need to look at the word "protection". The Bill has two stated criteria, convenience and protection; it does not mention safety as such. Clause 120 concerns the Board's obligations at level crossings with roads other than public carriage roads. Nevertheless, where these roads are concerned these two criteria, protection and convenience, are the only ones mentioned. After the recent Hixon accident, in which 11 people lost their lives, the question of safety at road crossings, particularly those with unattended automatic half-barriers, has caused considerable public disquiet. Although the main problems occur at public road crossings, the dangers of accident at unattended crossings, with roads other than public carriage roads, should not be overlooked.
The average cost of installing a half-barrier is £7,850, and the annual saving in withdrawing staff varies from £900 to £3,500 per crossing. So this is clearly a device which has to be encouraged, not only because it is more economic
826
but because it helps the British Railways Board towards a more efficient use of manpower. On the other hand, the safety factor calls for study and attention which, as a result of the Hixon disaster, it is now receiving. In particular the question of timing needs to be raised. The point has already been made that this part of the Bill, concerned with bridge, level crossings and related points, has not been discussed at all in either House. Therefore, late though it is, I think it it legitimate to raise this matter, because of our concern with safety.
There is a minimum time of 24 seconds at an unattended crossing from first red light flashing to the arrival of a train. Leaving the heavily laden truck an one side, a family car which stalls on, or partly on, a crossing, with adults in the front (wearing seat belts) and children who need to be assisted out of the back seats, would be in grave danger. If they are in grave danger so, of course, are the passengers in the train. It is said by the Ministry of Transport that if the time is lengthened, motorists might ignore the warning light and go round the lowered barrier (as it is possible for them to do). But the disincentive provided by disasters like Hixon, and the publicity that has been given to the dangers involved, give grounds for thinking that the time-cycle should be lengthened. And lengthened now, because inevitably the Inquiry into the Hixon disaster must take time to consider the evidence and to report. Throughout this time we are still stuck with the interval of only 24 seconds.
I am absolutely convinced that 24 seconds is too short a time. I am in favour of the half-crossing, but I am sure the time-cycle should be lengthened. I am also informed that there is the possibility of devices which would detect the presence of road vehicles immobilised on the crossing. This Amendment seeks to acknowledge the paramount interests of safety in the Bill, and believes that a specific mention, along with convenience and protection, or perhaps instead of protection, would be appropriate. I beg to move.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord has raised two separate points, the one about the Hixon Inquiry, and the point of the actual Amendment which he

827
has introduced. The findings of the Hixon Inquiry will be made public very soon, certainly before the House rises, and it might be wise for the House to wait until such time as the findings are made public before it passes judgment on the actual time-scale necessary between the coming down of the barrier and the passage of the train. This is obviously a subject which must be considered carefully by the gentlemen concerned. I believe Mr. Brian Gibbens, Q.C., was in charge of the Inquiry, and I hope we shall get an answer which we can consider when the findings are made public.
As regards the question of safety, the Government accept entirely that many of these private crossings carry a substantial amount of traffic. I am basically a countryman, unlike the noble Lord, and I know a number of cases where a comparatively remote village requires the crossing of a railway line before one comes to a main road; and because the country districts are relatively prosperous a fairly substantial number of cars and agricultural machines and animals have to use the crossing. But we believe that the Minister, who has power to make regulations to cover a situation such as this, will do so as he considers necessary or desirable for the protection or convenience of the public.
I find it difficult to separate the words "protection" and "safety"; I thought they were two sides of the same coin: that if you were properly protected you were safe. That is the view with which we regard this particular Amendment. Obviously the safety of the public is paramount, and we believe the wording of the Bill is adequate to ensure it.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I would support the noble Lord. Of course "protection" and "safety" are exactly the same in the English language. If you protect someone you make him safe. I cannot see that there is any difference at all in these words.
LORD WINDLESHAM: There is a distinction. "Protection" can refer to property for example; you can protect property interests as well as the person. "Safety" can refer only to the individual. That is an immediate distinction
828
that occurs to me, and people in the Department can, I am sure, think of many more. It may be that this form of words has been carefully considered. It may be, on the other hand, that it has not been considered at all. This is an original piece of drafting, not yet revised in any way. The noble Lord has been kind enough to say that he is going to take a look at a number of these points, and perhaps he could look at this. I think the word "safety" says a little more precisely what is meant than the word "protection". With regard to Hixon, I am delighted to hear that the report of the Committee of Inquiry is expected in the next couple of weeks. If that is so we should certainly wait for it. I had feared, since the accident occurred only in February, that it might be some months yet before publication. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.42 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM moved Amendment No. 287:
Page 157, line 31, at end insert ("including the owner and occupier of the land for which the crossing is maintained").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, which is the last on Part VIII, seeks to widen Clause 120 so that its provisions apply not only to the public, but also to the protection—or safety —whichever word we use, or convenience of the owner or occupier of the land for which the crossing is maintained. It is my understanding that in this clause the Government intend to deal only with those accommodation or occupation level crossings which over the years have come to be used by the general public. Some will be bridleways and other rights of way. Others will have resulted from a change of user, where, for example, farm land has been developed as a caravan site or a housing estate. If the site is one side of the railway line and the public house the other, what previously has been a private farm accommodation crossing will inevitably become much more widely used and will call for more rigorous supervision as a result.
It seems that the provisions in Clause 120 are sensible as far as they go, but the question arises what happens when the crossing remains essentially one that

829
is there for the convenience of the owner or occupier of the adjacent land? It is worth just pausing on this point, because the mere fact that there is a crossing at all, and a form of gate, means that the occupier, or his predecessor when the railway line was first built, has some rights. Therefore what ought to be considered is, should not the right of passage across the track—the fact that a crossing exists indicates that there is a right of passage—be a right of safe passage, even if only to the extent of the "convenience" and "protection" set out in Clause 120(1)?
New dangers have been brought about by technological advances for the private user of land adjacent to the railway line. British Railways have introduced comparatively noiseless but faster diesel and electric locomotives. They arrive more quickly, and they arrive unannounced. At the same time, farmers have been replacing silent horses with comparatively noisy tractors and other mechanical equipment. So these two factors can combine to introduce new hazards which were not thought of, or known of, when the railways were first developed and the crossings agreed.
In places there is a case for the installation of safety precautions, perhaps on a shared cost basis between the Railways Board and the owner or occupier of the adjacent land. I believe that the present practice of the Railways Board is that all costs must be carried by the owner or occupier of the land. The Ministry of Agriculture have agreed, and the Agriculture Act 1967 allows, that any money paid by a farmer for safety precaution equipment may qualify for grant. So here is a recognition of a public right in a Statute saying that expenditure by the farmer can qualify for assistance from public sources. But in view of the high cost of telephone equipment and miniature warning lights and so on, this leaves the farmer with the prospect of a higher expenditure than he can usually afford.
So once again we propose one of our moderate Amendments, the last on this Part of the Bill. It only envisages a discretionary power which the Minister can use or not as he thinks fit. It would increase to a small extent the financial burden on the Board, and it should be put forward only on the basis of shared
830
costs and not that all costs should be carried by the Railways Board alone. I beg to move.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord has agreed with the general intentions of Clause 120, and has indeed welcomed them. But I think he is considering a slightly different situation. He is, I think, considering, first of all, a simple farm crossing which is used by the farmer himself, presumably to move his own farm equipment or his livestock across the railway line. But it is still entirely private; nobody else uses it except that farmer. It is the Government's view that where the crossing is used to this limited degree the Railways Board should not be made liable for this additional obligation; and we think it should still be, as it is is now, that the landowner should come to a mutually agreeable financial understanding with the railways for the provision of whatever additional safeguards he wants: that is to say, if he has a particularly loud tractor and the railway uses particularly quiet trains, then he may do a deal for some sort of warning light system and pay on the basis of 50–50. Presumably, the railways are as anxious not to hit his tractor as he is anxious not to be hit by the train. There is a mutual interest here.
The noble Lord made another point which I think is a conceivable situation. A caravan site is developed on a piece of farmland and individuals cross the railway in order to refresh themselves in the evening after a hard day's work in the open air. That being so, and if sufficient individuals were concerned, then I should have thought the local authority would advise the Minister on the necessary action to take. It is a question of judgment, and one hopes (I think it is a fair hope) that in most cases common sense will be applied. If a crossing starts to be used by more people other than the farmer and his staff and his livestock, then of course the crossing becomes a matter of public interest and the local authority, the railway authority and the Minister must be concerned with the matter.
I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord more hope than that. It depends entirely on circumstances. The powers are there if they have to be used, but we do not believe that they should be

831
over-used to provide expensive facilities where a crossing is used by a farmer purely for his own ends.
10.50 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Lord makes it all sound most reasonable. His second group in fact is covered under the Bill as it stands. It is the purpose, as I read it, of Clause 120(1)(a) to provide specifically this sort of protection at a private crossing where the public are involved. So that is all right, the Bill already caters for this category. The question of the farmer and others concerned with the land adjacent to the line, the first example the noble Lord gave in reply, is really a matter of practice. The noble Lord mentioned an instance of farm machinery and a fast, silent train.
I think he used the words "A mutually agreeable financial understanding might be reached with the Railways" and costs split on a 50–50 basis. All I can say is that my information is that this is usually not so. I cannot speak from first hand experience, but when he is consulting, as no doubt he will, with representatives of the farming community, this is a point he ought to take up with them. I have correspondence which says that, except in rare circumstances, this is not so, that the farmer has to bear the whole cost himself, although he can get a grant under the Agriculture Act 1967. May I just leave that thought with the noble Lord and withdraw this Amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 120 agreed to.
Clause 121 agreed to.
Clause 122 [Amendment of provisions as to regulation of traffic]:
10.52 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 287A:
Page 160, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) for the words in no circumstances' there shall be substituted 'not necessarily';")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 287A standing in my name on the Marshalled List. The purpose of this Amendment is to remove
832
what I feel to be a psychological inducement for local authorities to make severe restriction orders in respect of loading and unloading without paying proper regard to all the relevant circumstances, which could lead to severe curtailment of vehicular access to premises. Subsection (5) of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 reads as follows:
"Subject to subsection (6) below and Section 5 of this Act, no Order shall be made under this section with respect to any road which would have the effect of preventing such access as may be reasonably required for vehicles of any class to any premises situated on or adjacent to the road, or any other premises accessible for vehicles of that class from, and only from, the road;"
The section goes on to say:
"but for the purposes of this prohibition a restriction on the loading or unloading of goods shall in no circumstances be treated as preventing such access as may be reasonably required."
The object of this Amendment is to substitute for the words in the Act "shall in no circumstances" the words "shall not necessarily", so that a restriction relating only to the loading and unloading of goods should not necessarily be treated as preventing access. As the Bill is drafted, a safeguard is removed—that is, the safeguard which prevents a denial of such access as is reasonably required by vehicles—and in its place has been inserted a proviso whereby access by vehicles shall not be denied for more than eight hours in every 24 hours. With a view, therefore, to ensuring that restriction orders with regard to loading and unloading of goods will not be unduly severe or will not unduly curtail access by vehicles to premises, I beg to move.
LORD BOWLES: This Amendment seeks to alter the wording of the concluding part of subsection (5) of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 which at present reads:
"but for the purposes of this prohibition a restriction relating only to the loading or unloading of goods shall in no circumstances be treated as preventing access."
If amended, as the noble Lord proposes, this part of subsection (5) would read:
"but for the purposes of this prohibition a restriction relating only to the loading or unloading of goods shall not necessarily be treated as preventing access."
Subsection (5) of Section 1 prohibits in certain circumstances the making of

833
traffic regulation orders which interfere with vehicle access to premises, but it declares that for the purposes of this prohibition a restriction on the loading and unloading of goods is in no circumstances to be treated as preventing access. This is the present position, and it will also be the position if Section 1(5) is amended as proposed in Clause 122 of the Bill. If this Amendment is accepted, however, the present position will be changed.
The present status of orders restricting loading and unloading of goods will be altered and, instead of the present rule that these orders are in no circumstances to be treated as preventing access to premises, the Amendment will substitute a rule that these orders are not necessarily to be treated as preventing access to premises. I hope that what I have had to say to the noble Lord he will agree is a sufficient answer to his Amendment.
LORD MERRIVALE: I have not the slightest idea what the noble Lord was trying to say to me. Perhaps he has not the slightest idea of what I was trying to say either. From what he has said I have not gathered whether he was accepting my Amendment or what were the grounds for not accepting it. If he was not accepting it, I must say that I am uncertain as to the reasons, and I am completely in the dark as to why his form of words is better than mine, or why he feels that mine are not better than his. Perhaps he could explain why he feels his words are better than mine.
LORD BOWLES: We want to have a degree of certainty which would not be there in words like "not necessarily", as the noble Lord suggests. That kind of phrase in traffic regulations is very difficult for local authorities and others, including the courts, to interpret. We want definite things and the noble Lord wants to have a certain amount of freedom—
LORD WINDLESHAM: Flexibility.
LORD BOWLES: The Government's aim is for certainty in the regulations in regard to access and non-access to these roads. I am sorry, but I should have said that I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD NIERRIVALE: I am Crateful to the noble Lord for clarifying the point. The noble Lord in this respect des not want flexibility. Although over the last few days the Government have stressed that there is flexibility in the Bill in this specific instance flexibility is not required. At this late hour, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 287B:
Page 161, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) Where an order under subsection (5) or (6) of the said section 1 would otherwise prevent the usage of off-street areas used for delivery and collection of goods, servicing, garaging, parking or any other necessary purpose, suitable provision should be made—

(a) to provide reasonable alternatives, or

(b) to provide for controlled passage by vehicles to the off-street areas.")

The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that when local authorities make use of the power to make regulations which will close streets and prohibit access to premises for periods of up to eight hours, there shall be a clear onus upon local authorities to ensure alternative means of access, or to provide that other suitable arrangements are made. Under the existing provisions of subsection (5) of Section 1 of the 1967 Road Traffic Regulation Act, an order cannot be made except under the provisions of subsection (6), which would have the effect of preventing such access as may be reasonably required for vehicles of any class to premises in or adjacent to the road, or on any other premises accessible for vehicles of that class from—and only from—the road.
As the Bill stands, access can be denied for eight hours, or more with the Minister's approval, and this could be most detrimental in the case of the essential delivery and collection of goods—for example, to meet certain deadlines at ports, production schedules and so on, as well as in the case of certain perishables. It is essential that there should be reasonable access to premises and that this should be preserved, and it is only right that the servicing of these premises should always he able to be carried out expeditiously. I beg to move.
11.2 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: I am afraid that, again, I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment, but I shall explain the provisions of the subsections of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act referred to in this Amendment, as they refer to vehicles. Subsection (5), as amended by the Bill, states that traffic regulation orders shall not be made which would have the effect of preventing access to premises by vehicle for more than eight hours in a day. Subsection (6) qualifies this by providing that where there is, or is likely to be, danger to persons or to other traffic the eight hour limitation on denial of access shall not apply. Subsection (6) also waives this limitation where orders are made for preventing damage to the road or buildings on or near it.
The Amendment itself is undesirable as it imposes unnecessary conditions on a local authority when making traffic regulation orders. In particular, it introduces the question of what "reasonable alternatives" might be. This is vague, and it has been found by experience that vagueness in traffic regulation has a stultifying effect on the use by local authorities of their traffic regulatory powers. It is for this reason that the Government wish to introduce a precise definition of what constitutes a denial of access. There could be endless argument over what constitutes a "reasonable alternative" and the validity of traffic regulation orders could be called into question. Second, it is unnecessary to introduce a provision which would allow for the controlled passage of vehicles to off-street areas, since Section 1(3) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act already provides that exemptions can be made in traffic orders.
The Government are keen that local authorities should have wide scope in the use of their traffic powers. We intend that traffic regulation orders should in future be able to be made not only to prevent danger but also in anticipation of its arising; also, that orders may be made to improve conditions, especially in shopping streets, by relieving the conflict between pedestrians and vehicles. At the same time, we realise the need for proper access to premises.
836
The Transport Bill will therefore introduce in Section 84 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act a duty on local authorities to have regard to the need to secure and maintain reasonable access to premises. This simple provision keeps Statute Law simple and flexible, but local authorities will need advice on what is intended. The Ministry of Transport is already preparing a manual of guidance on the use of the new traffic powers, which will be issued at the time the new procedure regulations are made—about the turn of the year. The manual will stress the importance of the need for adequate access. It will point out that streets should be banned to traffic only where arrangements can be made for the collection and delivery of goods. This may be, for example, by delivering through alternative accesses, or at different times of the day, or by making use of new or alternative means, for example, trolleys. It is not our intention that streets should be closed where access to parking or garaging would be seniously denied. These matters, of course, apply mainly to pedestrian precincts—where danger is involved restrictions may have to be more stringent as safety must be paramount.
This Amendment is identical to one tabled by the Opposition in Committee in the Commons. That Amendment was considered with a number of related Amendments which were negatived without a Division. My honourable friend the Minister of State opposed the Amendments on the ground that advice will he given to local authorities on the importance of the need for access in the manual of guidance which the Ministry is preparing for local authorities on the exercise of their new traffic regulation powers. But he said that in the light of the uncertainty which Mr. Heseltine, for the Opposition, had felt as to whether reasonable access to premises would be allowed, he would see whether a further statement could be made on Report or Third Reading about the type of guidance to be given and about the concept of the exercise of these powers. There was no further opportunity for such a statement to be made in the Commons, and it may be that the Amendment is being put forward again by the noble Lord in order to press for this further information. The speaking notes suggest

837
this, and I am trying to reassure the Opposition, while at the same time making it clear that the Amendment is not acceptable.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Before my noble friend makes a comment on that, may I say that I think he has an important point here. Access, of course, is absolutely vital for trading purposes; and while it is reassuring to hear that it is the intention of the Ministry of Transport to issue a manual of guidance for local authorities when putting into practice this section of the law and the regulations flowing from it, manuals of guidance are not, of course, law, and I feel some anxiety lest there should be uncertainty here. The noble Lord says that he wishes to see certainty in making traffic regulations, but it is also necessary for trading purposes that there should be certainty.
I rather feel that my noble friend has a point of some importance here, and that perhaps there ought to be something in the Bill, which is the best place for it—you then know it is there—to indicate that access is a matter to which the Minister should have regard when making regulations, or some such words as that, to make sure that it really is covered. I wonder whether this may be a point that ought to be returned to again, perhaps at Report stage, but I will leave it to my noble friend to say how he wishes to react.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford for his support, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, for mentioning that there will be a manual of guidance made available to local authorities towards the end of the year. But the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, said earlier on that he felt that the words in my Amendment, "to provide reasonable alternatives", were extremely vague. I should have thought that by means of regulations the Minister could have suggested to local authorities what these reasonable alternatives should be.
The noble Lord, Lord Bowles, also mentioned the question of trolleys. Do I understand him to say that if a street is closed for eight hours or more and there are some important perishables or
838
other goods which have to meet a certain deadline, and if there is no access to some specific premises, then the goods will have to be offloaded on to trolleys and carried on these trolleys into the premises? I am wondering how these trolleys are to be used. It seems to me that if there is to be an offloading from vehicles on to trolleys, with the goods then being carried on these trolleys, it is going to put up the cost and make the procedure rather complicated. I should have thought there could be other ways of making premises available to vehicles so that they would not have to offload in that way. Could the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, expand a little on what he means by suggesting the use of trolleys?
LORD BOWLES: As I understz nd the position, it does not mean a street is going to be closed for eight hours; it means that in the total of 24 hours, eight hours would be the maximum tine for which the local authority world be allowed to lay down the non-access regulation. After that, the Minister will have to give his consent to any extension. It does not mean that the street is going to he closed absolutely. I think it means that if, for example, Mr. Boots has a great load of chemicals to unload which is likely to take a certain amount of time, something can be unloaded by trolleys. There are plenty of trolleys tiled in modern transport for unloading, as a matter of convenience.
The great conflict is between the rights of frontages or shopkeepers, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said, and the desire of the rest of the population to get through the street. That is the kind of conflict which becomes more and more important as time goes on. We are trying in the clearest possible way in this Bill to lay down that eight hours is the maximum period of time for which the local authority can lay down they non-access regulations. After that, the Minister will have to give his consent. Furthermore, I think there is a great fear on the part of the Government of having too many "reasonable alternatives", to use the phrase of the noble Lord.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, referred to what I said about the manual of guidance to local authorities. We supplement many Acts of Parliament by

839
giving advice to local authorities and other interested people on how things should be done. I do not think that there is anything new about what I suggested. We cannot accept this Amendment. We are anxious to do the right thing to all the parties concerned in this conflict of access and freedom of frontage and to the people who want to use the streets. The noble Lord is trying to go a little too far and I think that our view is the right one.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I do not think so and I hope that my noble friend will not either. I am not complaining in the least about the manual of guidance, which I think is a thoroughly sensible thing. Nor am I complaining about the general purpose here. It is right to control access to certain streets and to encourage local authorities to set up shopping precincts, and so on. At the same time, it is essential to ensure that there is reasonable provision for access to the premises concerned.
It is easy enough to provide for these things if you can re-design the town centre; but in many cases that will not be possible and you will have to manage with the existing street pattern. It will be of absolute importance that the local authority should ensure that there is a reasonable plan of access. I must say that the more I hear the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, explaining this, the more certain I feel that this Bill should say something about the need to have a reasonable plan of access and that this should be provided for in the regulations.
I hope that my noble friend will stick to this point until he gets from the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, an undertaking to look at it before the Report stage, to see whether we can find some words which may be put in here to give the necessary power to be tough about this matter. The Minister and local authorities will have to be tough; otherwise they will not get anywhere. At the same time, there has to be a reasonable access. It is a matter of balance. I am not sure that my noble friend has the right answer with his Amendment. It may be that it goes too far, but there should be some-
840
thing; and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, will be able to tell us that he will look at it again.
11.15 p.m.
LORD BOWLES: I am always open-minded and I will give an undertaking that my right honourable friend will look at this matter again. The difficulty in the past has been that the law has been lackadaisical, and it was easy for local authorities with these powers to be influenced by local interests. I think the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, knows what I am getting at. But I will ask my right honourable friend to look at the matter again.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent for his support. As an ex-Minister at the Ministry of Transport he has great experience, and I am glad of the weight of his support for my argument. I wish to make one point. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Bowles, said there was no question of closing any street, but in effect, whether or not the street is closed, what could happen is that a wholesaler would not be able to receive his goods for a period of up to eight hours. There will not be access for up to eight hours or even more, because if one is receiving a bulk load it would not be reasonable to expect that the vehicle could then be off-loaded on to a trolley or trollies. Therefore there would be a delay and that would not be economical or expeditious. That is a very important point.
It may be that this Amendment goes too far, as my noble friend said, but perhaps the noble Lord will have a look at the matter. It seems wrong, when a street is closed, or for other reasons, that, in effect, a delivery van driver should not be able to gain access to a consignee for eight hours. The noble Lord shakes his head, but in effect that is what will happen; it says so in the Bill. But the noble Lord has given an assurance. I am most grateful to him for it and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved Amendment No. 288:
Page 162, line 42, after ("made") insert ("or issued").
The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD BOWLES LORD BOWLES moved Amendment No. 289:
Page 163, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) In subsection (2) of section 97 of the principal Act (which sets out the provisions of that Act which, subject to the provisions of that section, are to apply to vehicles and persons in the public service of the Crown) at the end there shall be added the words "and, except in relation to vehicles and persons in the armed forces of the Crown when on duty, section 6"; and any order made or having effect as if made under section 6 of that Act and in force at the commencement of this subsection shall apply accordingly.")
The noble Lord said: This is not quite a drafting Amendment. It is designed to carry out an undertaking given by my right honourable friend in another place. I move.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I thank the noble Lord for his brief statement. An undertaking was given that this section should apply to the Crown and we are grateful and glad to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 122, as amended, agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: We have made excellent progress and I think that we can adjourn now in a position to face tomorrow with confidence that we can finish the Committee stage of the Bill. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

DISBURSEMENTS OF BRITISH OFFICIAL BILATERAL ECONOMIC AID TO TANZANIA 1963–1967

Year

Financial Aid

Technical

£ million

Grants

Loans (a)

Assistance

Total

1963

…

…

1·8

3·1

2·8

7·6

1964

…

…

1·3

2·9

3·3

7·5

1965

…

…

0·1

2·5

2·5

5·1

1966

…

…

0·8

1·6

1·9

4·4

1967

…

…

(b)

0·3

0·9

1·2

Total

4·0

10·4

11·3

25·8

(a) Including investment by Commonwealth Development Corporation.

(b) £22,000.

Columns do not add because of rounding.

House adjourned at eighteen minutes past eleven o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL ORGANISATION BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with an Amendment: the said Amendment considered and agreed to.
  TANZANIA: AID AND LOAN INTEREST ARREARS
  TANZANIA: AID AND LOAN INTEREST ARREARS