Sitting of 15 October 1968

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  COVENT GARDEN MARKET BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  FOREMAN AND STAFF MUTUAL BENEFIT SOCIETY (APPLICATION OF RULES) ETC. (No. 2) BILL (By Order).
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Wealth Tax
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the annual yields from wealth taxes directed at wealth in excess of £20,000; if he will now introduce an autumn Budget to tax wealth; and if he will now make a statement on the Government's plans regarding a tax on wealth.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Diamond): A 1 per cent. tax on wealth in excess of £20,000 owned by individuals would yield about £180 million, although because of the varying demand effects it certainly cannot be assumed that this would enable other taxes to he reduced by an equivalent amount. My right hon. Friend has no plans for an autumn Budget. I have no statement to make about future plans.
    Mr. Roberts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that millions of people who work for their living and pay taxes are very disappointed at the lack of urgency expressed by the Treasury in this matter?
    174
    Does he not realise that the introduction of a redistributive wealth tax this autumn would have a material effect on the climate of opinion behind the prices and incomes policy?
    Mr. Diamond: I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said, but I have no further statement to make.
    Mr. John Hall: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the Inland Revenue is in any position to accept the burden of imposing another tax? Has it sufficient staff?
    Mr. Diamond: It is well known that a wealth tax does create problems of valuation.

    Balance of Payments
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his latest estimate of the balance of payments out-turn in the second half of 1968; and whether he is still forecasting a surplus of £500 million in 1969.
    Mr. Juddasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the balance of payments for the first nine months of 1968.
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has now made of the balance of payments in 1968 and 1969.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Roy Jenkins): Our deficit fell substantially in the second quarter of 1968, and the recent trade returns suggest the third quarter may have been much better again. Exports are rising strongly and invisibles are doing well; imports remain higher than we had expected, though the increase has at least flattened out. I do not propose at present to give detailed forecasts, but there can be no doubt that we are now rapidly eliminating our deficit; next year should see us in substantial surplus.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: That does not, of course, answer the question about the £500 million estimate which the Chancellor gave. Clearly, he will have to go a lot further with the I.M.F. officials when they come next month. How will he explain the fact that the money supply has continued to rise despite the fact that the expected surplus has continued not to materialise?
    Mr. Jenkins: The latter part of that question has nothing to do with the Question which the hon. Gentleman had on the Order Paper. The money supply was expected to rise in the second quarter because—as he will know, if he studies these matters as I thought he did—the pattern of taxation coming in means that Government borrowing is necessarily higher in the second quarter.
    Mr. Judd: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on how this welcome trend is related to the effectiveness of the prices and incomes policy to date?
    Mr. Jenkins: The prices and incomes policy and the other measures which we have taken—the public expenditure measures, and above all the Budget measures—are now working themselves out in the trade figures which we have seen in the past two months.
    Mr. Sheldon: While welcoming today's trade figures, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he does not agree that the present level of imports gives greatest cause for concern? Is he aware that the latest forecast of the National Institute predicted a level of imports flattening out to a plateau over the second half of 1968 and the whole of 1969? Would he not agree that, in the light of the latest figures, this forecast may prove too optimistic?
    Mr. Jenkins: The forecasts of the National Institute, like those of other people, have not always proved wholly accurate in the past. That is somewhat in the nature of forecasting. It appears to be the case—and I speak with all due caution—on the basis of any number of months' figures that imports have flattened out, though they are higher than I would like them to be.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: Will the Chancellor return to the original Question which he was asked by my hon. Friend and which he was asked again in a supplementary question? I understand that he does not want to make a new forecast, and I do not press him on that, but is he still holding to his original forecast of a surplus of £500 million in 1969?
    Mr. Jenkins: If the right hon. Gentleman looks at my Budget statement he will see that what I said was that we
    176
    should aim at achieving during 1969 a surplus at the rate of £500 million. That is precisely what I said in my Budget statement. If the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) does not believe me, he should look up my statement. I still think that a surplus at that rate is desirable and is within our achievement.
    Mr. Barnett: As the rest of the world would in any case react very quickly to prevent us from sustaining a surplus of £500 million on the balance of payments, would it not be more realistic to go for a much smaller surplus which we could sustain for some considerable time?
    Mr. Jenkins: No. I think that it is necessary in present circumstances to sustain a very high rate of surplus. In all these matters a particular figure is not of crucial importance, but I think that it has to be of the order of £500 million. I am bound to point out to my hon. Friend that some other countries have sustained a substantial rate of surplus over a considerable number of years.
    Mr. Alison: When the Chancellor talks about the trend of imports levelling out, does he anticipate any sharp rise in imports for industrial stocks in the next few months?
    Mr. Jenkins: No. One must always speak with caution in these matters, as the hon. Member knows. I think that one factor in the relatively high level of imports in the last few months has been a high rate of stock-building. That is a factor which has been in the accounts for some months past. It could conceivably be a factor which would lessen in the future, but that remains to be seen.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he now proposes to take to strengthen the balance of payments.
    Mr. Dickensasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his latest estimate of the balance of payments out-turn in the second half of 1968 and in 1969.
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in view of the fact that the balance of payments deficit

    177
    is now running at the rate of £1,300 million per annum, how soon he estimates the undertaking to eliminate this deficit altogether will be fulfilled; and what new steps he is taking to achieve this end.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the earlier Questions today on this subject.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman make it clear whether, on the present basis, he expects to move into surplus in the first or second half of next year?
    Mr. Jenkins: I indicated when answering previous Questions, as I had done previously, that I was not prepared to give an exact date by which I thought we would move into surplus. I hope that it may be as soon as possible. I certainly hope that it may be in the first half of next year.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is answering with this Question Questions Nos. 20 and 26. Mr. Dickens.
    Mr. Dickens: In view of the fact that the private outflow of capital in the first six months of the year totalled about £348 million, of which perhaps £100 million went out in portfolio investment to Australia alone, will my right hon. Friend now turn his attention with all urgency to considering new restrictions to prevent the heavy drain which this represents on our balance of payments?
    Mr. Jenkins: I think that my hon. Friend is giving the gross and not the net figure, which is a very different thing indeed. Naturally, one's view of the capital flow must have regard to both capital outflow and capital inflow; and present indications are that the position in the third quarter was substantially different from that in the first two quarters.
    Sir C. Osborne: Since the Economist a few weeks ago estimated that our balance of payments was—that is, at that time—running at the rate of £1,300 million a year, what view would the right hon. Gentleman now give, if he does not accept that estimate, of the position; and why should we believe him when he says that by next year we should be in surplus to the tune of £500 million? What
    178
    evidence does he have to substantiate that claim?
    Mr. Jenkins: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman quoted the figure of £1,300 million in relation to the rate of the balance of payments when he put down his Question, which I suppose was tabled early in the Summer Recess. As he will be aware, matters have changed since then.
    Sir C. Osborne: Answer.
    Mr. Jenkins: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will answer his question. If the rate of improvement since he tabled his Question—which itself was based on somewhat doubtful figures—remains what it has been since then, we shall be in very substantial balance of payments surplus indeed by next year, and at an early date.
    Sir T. Beamishasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by how much he now expects the balance of payments surplus in the second half of 1968 to fall short of the estimate of £100 million given to the International Monetary Fund after the £ sterling was devalued; and what are the main reasons for this shortfall.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I have nothing to add to the Answer I gave to the earlier Questions today on this subject.
    Sir T. Beamish: What is the right hon. Gentleman's answer to the charge that the main reason for the dangerous gap that has appeared between the forecast and the reality was his own blind refusal to face the facts of devaluation during the wild spending spree which followed?
    Mr. Jenkins: In so far as the level of imports has remained our problem, and has remained a substantial problem, over the six months since the Budget, it did not respond, as did consumption at home, to the budgetary measures. Therefore, there is no reason to think, even if I accepted the hon. and gallant Member's premise, that this is a primary aspect of the matter.

    Gold (Marketing System)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a progress report on the workings of the two-tier marketing arrangements for gold.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The system has worked well and I see no reason why it should not continue to do so for a considerable time to come.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the Chancellor tell us which British national interest is served by his collaboration with the American Treasury in denying to the South African Government their right under the Articles of the I.M.F. to sell gold for currency to the market?
    Mr. Jenkins: It is not a collaboration only with the American Treasury. It is a collaboration with the financial authorities of all the main countries concerned in the world monetary system. The British national interest which is here served is the stability of the international monetary system to which I, at any rate, attach very considerable importance. The hon. Member has always been pessimistic about the working of that system. It is working far better than he indicated in previous Questions which he put to me, and I believe that it can continue so to work.
    Mr. Barnett: Does my right hon. Friend believe that it is likely to be a much more permanent system than was originally envisaged? Does he believe that it can be so permanent that it will no longer be thought to be a stop-gap, as was originally intended?
    Mr. Jenkins: It has certainly worked. It has worked better than expected—perhaps better than I expected—when it was introduced in March. "Permanent" is a word to which one can apply varying interpretations, but it can certainly last a long time ahead and there is no need to regard it as a stop-gap.

    Carlton Mews
    Mr. Huntasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans are currently being considered by the Crown Estate Commissioners for the conversion and use of Carlton Mews.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Dick Taverne): The Crown Estate Commissioners have approved plans for a comprehensive scheme of development for an area covering Carlton Mews and adjoining properties. This is intended primarily to provide centralised accommodation for the British Council as well as a block of flats and a substantial public underground garage.Planning
    180
    consent has been given by the local planning authority, but work cannot start until an office development permit has been obtained.
    Mr. Hunt: Can the Minister say how long the present fine buildings have been standing empty and why? Does the redevelopment plan mean the demolition of these buildings?
    Mr. Taverne: The present buildings in Carlton Mews were designed in 1829 and completed in 1832. Great care has been taken in the general redevelopment of the area to fit the new buildings into their historic character. Approval to the present plan was given by, among others, the Royal Fine Art Commission.

    Taxation and Incentives
    Mr. Sheldonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what studies he is carrying out into the effects of taxation upon incentives.
    Mr. Diamond: I am carefully considering the main studies which have been carried out in this field in recent years.
    Mr. Sheldon: But is my right hon. Friend aware that in his Budget statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a dramatic change from direct to indirect taxation and justified it on the ground of incentives? Is it not worth while to spend a little time—as is done by so many other organisations—measuring the effect of incentives in this connection?
    Mr. Diamond: As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend has studied the matter with great care. There have been many publications about it, and a great deal of time has been spent on this important topic, but it is not yet evident that there is a clear conclusion or that further study would produce a clear conclusion. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend feels that what I am doing is sensible—that is, going over the ground very carefully once more.

    Close Companies (Legislation)
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he is considering for the reform of close company legislation.
    Mr. Diamond: The Inland Revenue are about to discuss this matter with representatives of industry and commerce. I shall, of course, give full consideration to any proposals which are put forward.
    Mr. Baker: The House and British industry will be glad to know that the Treasury is looking again at close company legislation. May I ask the Government, and the Chief Secretary in particular, to have regard to the present limitation upon the salaries which executive managers in close companies can earn, because for the larger close companies these are clearly inadequate?
    Mr. Diamond: I am sure that the hon. Member did not phrase his question precisely as he intended, because executive managers are under no disability of any kind and could earn whatever their employers thought they ought to be paid. I recognise that he is, in fact, speaking of directors. That is one of the matters which no doubt will come forward in the discussions which are to take place.

    Post-War Credits
    Mr. Marksasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will consider extending the categories of persons qualified to claim repayment of post-war credits to those workers whose earnings are below the supplementary benefit rates for them and their families.
    Mr. Taverne: I am afraid it would not be practicable to extend the repayment of post-war credits in this manner.
    Mr. Marks: I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend is aware that there are a large number of men who work for less than supplementary benefit rates and that the State owes them money. Would not a payment of this kind be one way of helping and encouraging them? Will he also seek other ways of helping this group?
    Mr. Taverne: There are many other ways, which go outside the Question, of helping this group, and certainly it is a group which deserves every sympathy. The difficulty about using post-war credits is that of determining for how long people have been under a certain level, which means many detailed inquiries. One must seek identifiable categories as the present system has done.

    Basle Agreements
    Mr. Martenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the progress made with the 2,000 million dollars credit arrangement.
    Mr. Dickensasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the final agreement made with the Bank for International Settlements on the medium-term credit arrangement.
    Sir C. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total sterling balance he estimates will remain after drawings have been made under the $2,000 million Basle agreement; which countries mainly will hold them, and by what amounts, respectively; whether they are all fully guaranteed in dollars against further sterling devaluation; what is the position after the 1971 guarantee expires; and what additional guarantee he has given to repay the whole amount unconditionally by 1978.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: A full statement on the Basle facility and the sterling area agreements is contained in the White Paper which I presented to the House yesterday.
    Mr. Marten: Will the Chancellor elaborate on paragraph 13 and tell the House what is the agreed starting level of the sterling balances below which the United Kingdom can draw dollars or other foreign currencies from the International Monetary Fund?
    Mr. Jenkins: We do not draw from the I.M.F. It is a Bank for International Settlements arrangement. The starting level is broadly the end of March level.
    Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while many of us want to see changes made, in underwriting the short-term sterling balances in particular, many of us are nonetheless opposed to this Government going yet again to the Bank for International Settlements to incur new obligations to that body which recently advocated higher unemployment in Britain, reduced public expenditure, a tougher incomes policy and a revision of trade union law?
    Mr. Jenkins: I assure my hon. Friend that none of those questions arises in

    183
    connection with the facility which is here under discussion. My hon. Friend says that he would like to see changes but not made in the way in which we have made them. I am not quite sure in which way he would like to see changes made. I think that we have here made a practical step towards giving greater stability to sterling and, therefore, to the world monetary system by bringing in those countries which at present have large surpluses. That seems a most sensible direction in which to go.
    Sir C. Osborne: Will the £500 million surplus of which the Chancellor spoke earlier be anything like sufficient to repay the debts which we shall incur under this agreement, to repay the £2,500 million which we owe elsewhere, and to add the £500 million which he says he requires to build up the sterling balances?
    Mr. Jenkins: The debts which can be incurred under this agreement are by definition no greater than calls which we should have had to meet earlier had sterling balances been run down without the agreement, and we incur debts under this agreement only to the extent that sterling balances are run down. If we achieve and maintain—as I am determined that we shall—a substantial surplus, we can meet our commitments over the forthcoming years.
    Mr. Macleod: Will the Chancellor recognise, particularly as he was not pressed in the matter, that he has a duty to give as much information as he reasonably can to the House. In particular, will he tell the House what drawings, if any, have been made, in view of the fact that it was widely reported in papers such as the Financial Times that about 600 million dollars were drawn straight away?
    Mr. Jenkins: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it is not normal to give details of drawings in respect of the Central Banks' facilities. I can, however, tell him and the House that as a result of changes in the sterling balances between the date which I mentioned to the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten) and the present time about 600 million dollars were available for us to withdraw—as a result of changes which had taken place when the agreement came into operation on 25th September.

    International Monetary Fund (Special Drawing Rights)
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study he has made of the extent to which the grant of special drawing rights by the International Monetary Fund will have an inflationary effect on the economy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The allocation of S.D.Rs. will not in my view have inflationary consequences.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: is there not reason to suppose that the grant of these drawing rights will simply wash up in due course as an increase in bank deposits in this country?
    Mr. Jenkins: No, Sir. The allocation of S.D.Rs will have no direct effect on the money supply in this country. The acquisition of additional S.D.Rs. for currencies will have no more effect than the acquisition of other assets by the exchange equalisation account which has taken place in the past, and which has not been thought to have that effect. The effect of S.D.Rs. is to add to world liquidity, not to increase world inflation.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Can the Chancellor say anything about the progress made by other signatories towards ratifying the agreement? Does he wish to modify the estimate which the Financial Secretary gave to the House during the debate on the Bill that this scheme would become operative in the first half of next year?
    Mr. Jenkins: No, I do not think so. This is by its nature something which cannot be firmly predicted, but it is a hope to which I stick and to which Mr. Schweitzer sticks.

    British Capital (Investment)
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures are now proposed to encourage the repatriation of British capital.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Government have already taken action on this front. The 25 per cent. scheme is making a substantial contribution in transferring to the first-line reserves a proportion of the nation's foreign currency assets and tax

    185
    changes since 1965 have reduced the attractiveness of overseas investment as a whole.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Will the Chancellor tell the House what are the Government's plans for increasing the profitability of investment in this country?
    Mr. Jenkins: I have no specific plans to announce, but it is clearly the case that the profitability of British industry has been increasing fairly sharply since the Budget, which I predicted at that time would be the case. That, I have no doubt, will have a considerable effect on investment.

    Public Schools (Charity Status)
    Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now take steps to remove from the public schools the fiscal advantages which spring from their charitable status as recommended by the Public Schools Commission.
    Mr. Taverne: The majority view of the Commission on this point has been noted, but I have no statement to make at present.
    Mr. Price: In view of the fact that The Times stated last week that there is a case in equity for removing charity status, would not my hon. and learned Friend consider applying the £4½ million which he could raise in this way to the deprived primary schools of the country?
    Mr. Taverne: That is a matter of educational policy with which it would be more appropriate for the Secretary of State for Education to deal.
    Sir T. Beamish: Since the charge is often made against public schools that they are too exclusive—a charge in which I see some truth—is there any possible reason for making them even more exclusive?
    Mr. Taverne: Again, the hon. and gallant Gentleman has asked a question of educational policy.

    Government Expenditure
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give special directions to Government Departments with a view to their estimates for the forthcoming financial year being
    186
    so framed as to secure reductions in Government expenditure.
    Mr. Diamond: Departments are already operating on instructions based on the plans for public expenditure in 1969–70 announced last January.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman has given no further and more emphatic direction? Secondly, can he say to what extent he expects public expenditure in the coming year to be less than that in the current year?
    Mr. Diamond: In answer to the first part of that supplementary question, as the right hon. Gentleman knows probably better than anyone else in the House, this is a matter for continuing management and not for special occasions only. Certainly we are continuing to give the matter most careful thought. It is a matter which engages my attention certainly every week and sometimes every day. The answer to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question is "Yes. The increase as already announced is expected to be about 1 per cent.".
    Mr. Shinwell: Will it be possible to reduce Income Tax by 4s. in the £ in the next Budget, as suggested by one prominent Member of the Conservative Party?
    Mr. Diamond: My right hon. Friend takes the view that it is his responsibility to look after this matter now, next year and for many years ahead, so one need not look too closely into the suggestion mentioned in that supplementary question.
    Mrs. Ewingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate the increase in Government spending of £5,000 million in the last five years, with a view to effecting economies.
    Mr. Diamond: All public expenditure is subject to constant investigation, and economies are made wherever this is possible without undesirable consequences.
    Mrs. Ewing: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the commonly-held view in Scotland that Government expenditure is regulated by Parkinson's Law—that work expands to fill the time of the number of people available to do it—and the new

    187
    law, that Government spending increases according to how much the House of Commons will put up with it? Would the right hon. Gentleman seek to effect reductions, particularly in over-centralised Government spending in London?
    Mr. Diamond: I am prepared to consider most carefully any case which the hon. Lady wishes to make out about extravagant spending in whatever part of the country it is incurred. Since the hon. Lady mentioned one area, she may care to know that in the last five years—the period mentioned in her Question—the increase in identifiable public expenditure has been somewhat greater in Scotland than in the rest of Great Britain.
    Dr. Winstanley: Does the right hon. Gentleman's use of the phrase "constant investigation" in answer to this Question and his use of the phrases "constant observation" and "constant management" in answer to a previous Question in relation to budgetary matters mean that we are now to dispense with the pantomime of an annual Budget?
    Mr. Diamond: No. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that when one is dealing with projected expenditure of £15,000 million a year, it is a matter which cannot be allowed to run on on its own.
    Miss Herbison: Would my right hon. Friend try to discover what effect this expenditure in Scotland has had in relation to bringing very much needed new jobs to the area, how this expenditure has increased under the present Government in the last four years and how it has increased to benefit old people, particularly in Scotland, the chronic sick and all those others who badly need help? Will my right hon. Friend take it from me and from the vast majority of my hon. Friends that there are no complaints whatever in Scotland about expenditure on these two vital matters?
    Mr. Diamond: I have noted carefully and sympathetically what my right hon. Friend has said. I will endeavour to obtain such information as is accurately available.

    Foreign Travel Allowance
    Mr. Huntasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will now
    188
    announce the amount of the foreign travel allowance for 1969.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The basic allowance for the 12 months beginning on 1st November will remain at £50. The arrangements for special allowances for business, education, etc., will continue as at present.
    Mr. Hunt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Answer will cause dismay and despair? Is he further aware that the present £50 allowance is regarded by most people as a petty, irksome and totally unnecessary restriction which is being increasingly evaded by many British tourists? Why will the right hon. Gentleman not end this farce?
    Mr. Jenkins: This is not a restriction which I like or which I would wish to keep on for a moment longer than is necessary. However, in present circumstances, with our present problems and with the sacrifices we are having to impose elsewhere, I do not believe that it would be right to take it off until we move into surplus. As for the other points raised by the hon. Gentleman, there is certainly no legal means of evasion; and I hope that illegal evasion is on a small scale. This is certainly not a negligible matter. Our best estimates, which are bound to be based on projections about the trend and growth of foreign travel and expenditure, are that this represents a saving of between £25 million and £30 million a year, so that this is not a negligible matter, particularly in present circumstances.
    Mr. Bessell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the allowance was fixed before devaluation? Will he consider increasing the allowance to compensate for the effects which devaluation has had on it?
    Mr. Jenkins: It might possibly be said that such a case could be made out, but devaluation has involved certain other sacrifices. I do not think that it is unreasonable that the foreign travel allowance should bear a small measure of the sacrifice. Looking at the matter—and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have looked at it closely—it seems that a small adjustment would be costly without giving any great benefit. I would, therefore, prefer to wait until it is safe to abolish the restriction altogether.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Marksasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the loss of revenue resulting from a cut of 6d. in the standard rate of Income Tax and of the effect on the income of married men with two young children earning £10 per week, £20 per week, £40 per week, and £100 per week and receiving £100 per week unearned income.
    Mr. Diamond: The loss of revenue would be £141 million for a full year; the cases quoted would benefit, respectively, by nil, 3s. 6d., £20 8s., £84 10s. and £109 19s. annually.
    Mr. Marks: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for those figures. Would not he agree that any reduction in Income Tax benefits most those who have high incomes, not necessarily earned, and benefits least those who work for average and below-average wages? When considering changes in direct taxation, will priority be given to these workers, to their incentives and also to groups such as widows who work to supplement their pensions yet who are taxed? Is he aware that they greatly resent this tax?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions, however worthy, must be brief.
    Mr. Diamond: The short answer to the first point made by my hon. Friend is, "Yes". What my hon. Friend says is, of course, right, and that is why one must take other matters into account when these matters are considered.

    Decimalisation of Currency (Machinery Conversions)
    Mr. Michael Shawasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will introduce legislation to permit the granting of free depreciation rates for tax purposes in respect of all machinery purchased as a result of the need to convert or replace existing machinery arising out of the decimalisation of the currency.
    Mr. Taverne: I cannot add to my right hon. Friend's reply of 26th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Haseldine).
    Mr. Shaw: Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that this expenditure is likely to be very considerable indeed in certain sections of industry and that it is not incurred for the creation of new types of machinery for new purposes but to maintain the existing position? Is he aware, therefore, that this expenditure is incurred more in the nature of a repair than as a true addition to capital and, as such, should be allowed as a charge in the year of purchase against the profits of that year?
    Mr. Taverne: A reasoned case on this subject was put forward by the Decimal Currency Board just over a week ago, so that all these matters will be carefully studied, when the likely cost and effect that will be involved by this change will be looked into.
    Mr. Macdonald: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend is not prepared to give an immediate answer, but is he broadly satisfied with the apparent rate of progress being made in plans to invest in new machinery so that we are ready for decimalisation day?
    Mr. Taverne: I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to express a view on this matter generally, when the Question is concerned with the specific matter of allowances for free depreciation.

    Rhodesian Mail (Customs)
    Mr. Wallasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many letters and packets from Rhodesia have been opened by the Customs authorities since 14th June, 1968; how this figure compares with the previous four months; what information is extracted, and to whom it is passed.
    Mr. Taverne: No records are kept of the numbers of such letters and packets opened for Customs examination. The examination, in any event, is concerned solely with Customs matters and there is no question of information being extracted for other purposes.
    Mr. Wall: As the Postmaster-General has announced that all mail from Rhodesia goes to the Customs for examination, would the Minister say by how much this delays the mail?
    Mr. Taverne: Mail which comes from Rhodesia is not opened and is not examined if it consists of only a flat letter. It is because of the import Order passed earlier this year, which prohibits the importation of goods except under licence, that this mail goes through the Customs.

    Invalid Beds (Tax)
    Mr. Kenneth Bakerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will add the self-adjustable bed for invalids, made by H. Bickerton Limited, to the list of those items that are exempt from Purchase Tax.
    Mr. Taverne: No, Sir. An exemption for invalid beds would not be practicable.
    Mr. Baker: Would the Minister recognise that all the beds sold by this company have been sold to severely handicapped and crippled people? Is he aware that these people live in their own homes and endeavour to be cured by this means rather than by being a charge on the State? Is there not a good humane and economic reason for abating the Purchase Tax on these beds?
    Mr. Taverne: The question at issue is for what these beds could be used—[Interruption.]—I must mention, for example, that the sales literature of this firm claims that these beds are superbly comfortable and useful for people in normal health.

    Montague L. Meyer Limited
    Mr. George Jegerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why Treasury approval was given to Montague L. Meyer Limited for the increase of their dividend from 16 per cent. to 20 per cent.
    Mr. Taverne: This company was firmly committed to a total dividend of 20 per cent. in a public offer document issued before the Budget. Treasury approval was given in accordance with the ruling which the Chief Secretary explained to the House on 25th March.
    Mr. Jeger: Does not my hon. and learned Friend realise how difficult it will be to explain to low-paid workers why their wages must be restrained and increases denied to them at a time when millionaire firms with friends in high places — [Interruption.] — can increase their dividends by 25 per cent.
    Hon. Members: Cheap.
    Mr. Taverne: My hon. Friend makes out a perfectly good case, which the Government have accepted, for dividend restraint. In this case, however, money was accepted from shareholders on the basis of an offer already made; and it would have been wrong in the circumstances not to have acted as we did.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: What conclusion does the Minister draw from the fact that this firm is doing very much better since the Prime Minister stopped advising it?
    Mr. Taverne: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to analyse the prosperity of the various firms which have been and are advised by hon. and right hon. Members, he would be engaging on a long, though no doubt interesting, task.
    Mr. Shinwell: Would my hon. and learned Friend repudiate the allegation that has been made that the decision to increase the dividend in this case was attributable to any influence exercised by anyone in Her Majesty's Government? Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that that was a most offensive remark?
    Mr. Taverne: I am sure that not a single hon. Member would for a moment think that there was any possible explanation for what has occurred, apart from the one which I have given and which is perfectly satisfactory.

    Agriculture (Credits)
    Mr. J. E. B. Hillasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking, in view of the effect of recent weather conditions on farm incomes, to ensure that agricultural recovery is not help up through lack of credit.
    Mr. Diamond: None, Sir. Agriculture is a priority category within the credit ceiling, and I am sure that the banks will do all they can to help farmers badly affected by recent weather conditions.
    Mr. Hill: None the less, is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the short-fall in crop income is so great that most farmers will be reaching their ceilings a great deal earlier than was expected? Therefore, will he instruct the banks that

    193
    they can extend credit to enable agriculture to get back into full production; and to use any spare credit for that purpose rather than giving it to other institutions to enable other industries to stop production?
    Mr. Diamond: As I have already explained to the hon. Gentleman, there is no need to give additional instructions because instructions have already been given broadly to the effect he has indicated.

    Local Authority Loans
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state approximately the amount of loans incurred by local authorities since 1945 and before the increase in interest rates in 1956 which matured for repayment in the last 12 months, the amount borrowed to replace these loans at high interest rates, the consequent increase in councils' annual expenditure, and its effect on council rents.
    Mr. Diamond: It is not possible to give the figures for which my hon. Friend asks, since statistics of local authority borrowing are not collected in such detail.
    Mr. Allaun: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is this burden of high interest rates on replacement loans which is the main cause of soaring council rents throughout the country? Will the Government therefore consider granting 4 per cent. loans for this purpose, as they already do—and it is a great thing—for new council house building?
    Mr. Diamond: I am glad that my hon. Friend appreciates the efforts which the Government have already taken to assist in this difficult matter, but I have no further announcement to make with regard to any further steps.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the Chief Secretary aware that for some local authoties finance has become a nightmare under this Government owing to very high interest rates, and can he give any indication how much these rates have risen in the last three years compared with the previous three years?
    Mr. Diamond: If the hon. Gentleman cares to put down a Question, I shall be only too glad to give him the information.

  COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    United Kingdom (Gibraltarian Immigrants)
    Sir W. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs what is the position of Gibraltarians about entering the United Kingdom, in the light of the negotiations held in Gibraltar in July and later developments; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. William Whitlock): The position remains the same as it was on 23rd May, when my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary stated in Gibraltar that he was satisfied that within the present number of vouchers available to the whole Commonwealth tinder the Commonwealth Immigrants Acts all the Gibraltarians who wished to come to Britain would be able to do so. Between that date and 30th September, 13 vouchers were issued to Gibraltarians. One application was outstanding, but the voucher has now been issued. No applications were refused.
    Sir W. Teeling: Does the Under-Secretary of State realise that there is a feeling in Gibraltar that we are not hurrying very much over the decisions made at that time? Can he assure us that the matter will be quickly dealt with to cover not only these people but everyone else concerned, especially the local Indians?
    Mr. Whitlock: The position is that all those who wish to come can do so under the provisions of the Commonwealth Immigrants Act. Under the proposals put forward in February, there is now a special quota for people from dependent territories, and under that special quota all those wishing to come to this country from Gibraltar can do so.

  COAL

    Pit Closures
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Power what further consideration has been given to the pit closure programme.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The National Coal Board continues to keep my right hon. Friend

    195
    informed of the collieries it intends to close, and he keeps the general lines of the Board's programme under constant review.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that within the mining communities there is great hostility to the future pit closure programme? Is he aware that there is even hostility between his Department and the miners' trade unions? Does he propose to examine or re-examine this policy, because if the programme is continued as suggested at the present time it can mean disaster for the economy of the country?
    Mr. Freeson: All I can say is that the Government are examining the possibility of deferring some closures on a selective basis, as has been done in the past, in areas where there is very high unemployment. Indeed, two closures have already been deferred this month pending consideration of their implications.
    Dame Irene Ward: Having regard to that reply by the Minister, when the Government have seen the list of possible closures, do they then decide what they will do to help to a proper and considerable extent the men who are displaced owing to the closures? That is really one of the failures of this Government.
    Mr. Freeson: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is a little out of touch with what has been going on in this respect. A great deal has been done, and earlier this year a special scheme of retirement pay or redundancy pay for men in this industry over 55 years of age having to leave their employment owing to closures was introduced, something the previous Government never did.
    Mr. James Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend aware that the rundown in the mining industry now is reaching nearly double the rate envisaged in the White Paper and that as a result, redundancy in the coal mining industry is now in danger of far outstripping the provisions of alternative employment? In view of that fact, will he take steps to defer closures?
    Mr. Freeson: As I have indicated, there is a procedure for considering selective deferment. On the general point, the Government are very concerned, and my Department is very
    196
    concerned, about the rate of rundown this year, although we have no reason to believe on the evidence so far available that the extremely high level of rundown this year will be repeated in the succeeding two or three years.

  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  Mr. Martenasked the Prime Minister when he next proposes to take the chair at a meeting of the National Economic Development Council.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): At its next meeting on 6th November, 1968, Sir.
  Mr. Marten: As at this meeting the Government's incomes policy is likely to be mentioned, can the Prime Minister clarify to the House his remark at his party conference at Blackpool that every time the platform was defeated the Government would regard it not as an instruction but as a warning? How will this particular warning on their defeat on prices and incomes affect the Government's attitude?
  The Prime Minister: I also reminded Conference of the phrase I used in this House and in a meeting upstairs in relation to the renewal of the legislation when it ends next November. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that there is Question on the Order Paper when I can have an opportunity of dealing with this matter further if it is reached.

  OCEANOGRAPHIC AND MARINE SCIENCE
  Mr. Archerasked the Prime Minister whether he will now publish the findings of the Government's review on Oceanographic and Marine Science; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister what are Her Majesty's Government's proposals regarding implementation in the North Sea and elsewhere of the Government's Review on Oceanographic and Marine Science.
  The Prime Minister: I would ask my hon. Friends to await publication of the Report on Marine Science and Technology which is expected shortly.
  Mr. Archer: I thank my right hon. Friend for that Answer. Can he give the House an assurance that the Government will continue to press at the United Nations for international control of the exploitation of ocean bed resources?
  The Prime Minister: We do feel that there is very real need for international co-operation in this matter. I do not think that the case is yet made out for international control, but my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will certainly be pursuing that matter. In the light of the report I have mentioned, I think that my hon. Friend will be able to form his own view on what the next step should be.
  Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Prime Minister have regard to the fact that this particular review is not merely a local affair but is of great interest to the whole of North-East Scotland, the trade, commerce and industry of which have been greatly neglected during the last few years?
  The Prime Minister: I certainly agree with my hon. and learned Friend that this is certainly not a local affair.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House that the time has come for this Government to take some action on co-ordinating marine science and technology; not just reporting it, but doing something?
  The Prime Minister: We have gone much further in this matter of co-ordination than our predecessors. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to await the report.

  RHODESIA
  Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest position in Rhodesia.
  Mr. Whitakerasked the Prime Minister what change there has been in the Rhodesian situation.
  Mr. Wallasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on Rhodesia.
  Mr. Molloyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a further statement concerning developments in Rhodesia.
  Mr. James Johnsonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement upon the latest developments in Rhodesia.
  Mr. Wyattasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement about the latest situation in Rhodesia.
  Sir T. Beamishasked the Prime Minister what is the present position with regard to a constitutional settlement with Rhodesia.
  Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the recent communications between Great Britain and Rhodesia.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the latest situation in Rhodesia.
  The Prime Minister: I would ask hon. Members to await the statement which I shall be making at the end of Question Time.

  EXPORTS (DISCUSSIONS)
  Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister what discussions he has recently had with leaders of industry about increasing exports; and if he will make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: The most recent, Sir, have been at my monthly meetings of the National Economic Development Council.
  Mr. Fraser: Has my right hon. Friend discussed with industry the loss of export orders because of the failure to keep delivery dates? Could not these losses be avoided if manufacturers had the ability to deliver from stock instead of manufacturing when the order is obtained? Will he discuss both with industry and with the Chancellor of the Exchequer facilities to make stock of uniform goods available for export to meet delivery dates?
  The Prime Minister: All of us would agree that the question of delivery dates, both fixing sufficiently short delivery dates and keeping them when fixed, is at least as important in winning and holding export orders as even price itself. I can confirm that this has been pressed on industrial leaders by every President of

  199
  the Board of Trade certainly since the mid-1940s and is still being pressed. There is a very lively awareness of the importance of this question in industry today.
  Mr. Bessell: In consultation with the President of the Board of Trade, cannot ways be found of assisting small industrial firms which are anxious to contribute to the export drive but which find the present export facilities inadequate?
  The Prime Minister: We had a useful discussion on this at the meeting of N.E.D.C. last week on the basis of a very helpful paper on this question put forward by the C.B.I. A number of new ideas were put forward as well as those set out in the paper. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My own recent meetings with the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce confirm that much more can be done to help small firms which have something to sell but which do not know how to go about it.
  Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Does the Prime Minister agree that the increasing imposition of taxation on industry and the continued credit squeeze make it difficult to stockpile expensive material for export?
  The Prime Minister: There is a problem of credit and of taxation here. I do not think that it is in any sense the main inhibiting factor in meeting delivery dates for exports. The whole House will know, though I do not want to anticipate a Private Notice Question, that one of the gravest dangers to our exports and to delivery dates is unofficial strikes and, indeed, all kinds of strikes.

  PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)
  Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech about the economy, on Saturday 6th July at the Pavilion in Newtown, Montgomery.
  The Prime Minister: I did so, Sir, on 8th July, 1968.
  Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the Prime Minister. I have had the benefit of reading his speech. As he says that the task of a Labour Government is to direct change which will help to make
  200
  the country strong, would he now say whether he intends to legislate to improve industrial relations along the lines of the Report of the Donovan Commission?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt be desirous of waiting for the Gracious Speech, which will, as usual, open the new Parliamentary Session.

  LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (SPEECH)
  Sir J. Langford-Holtasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Lord President of the Council in Bristol on 5th September on social policy represents Government policy.
  The Prime Minister: There was no such public speech, Sir.
  Sir J. Langford-Holt: In his speech the Lord President of the Council said that it was morally and legally right for somebody to draw from the State for doing nothing an amount equivalent to that which he could have earned. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that it is his view that this is morally correct and, secondly, that the law would not be used in any circumstances to prevent anybody from doing that?
  The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman—I am sure inadvertently—has misunderstood exactly what was said and where it was said. It was said at a Press conference. There was no speech. What my right hon. Friend said at a Press conference was badly reported. I would not normally stand on that defence, but in this case, most unusually, a highly reputable newspaper actually dug into the record taken by its own people and found that the reports which upset the hon. Gentleman and many others were totally inaccurate.

  POWER STATIONS (FUELLING)
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister what representations have been received by him and other Government Departments calling for an independent inquiry into the comparative costs of operating electricity stations based either on coal or nuclear energy.
  The Prime Minister: The Government have, of course, studied the Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on this question. In addition, representations have been received from the coal industry as well as from a number of hon. Members.
  Mr. Shinwell: In view of representations by Lord Robens, the Chairman of the National Coal Board, by the National Coal Board itself, by the National Union of Mineworkers, by other organisations interested in the matter, and by a number of hon. Members, can my right hon. Friend afford to disregard these representations?
  The Prime Minister: It is not a question of disregarding this, as my hon. Friend suggests. He might have added to that list the Report of the Economist Intelligence Unit as well. On the receipt of the Report of the Select Committee, although I do not myself believe that a case is made out in any way for changing policy, I have given instructions that the matter, which is kept under continuous review, be reviewed yet again in the light of the important pronouncement made by hon. Members who sat on that Committee.
  Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware of the tremendous dissatisfaction felt by coalminers, not least in his own constituency, which I have just visited, that the rate of rundown of the coalmines under this Government is such that the National Coal Board, with the best will in the world, cannot absorb those who are made redundant or provide adequate retraining or alternative employment for them?
  The Prime Minister: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has had this most up to date evidence on this question. He will know that some of us have been having regular meetings with the National Union of Mineworkers over a very long period of time. I myself have discussed this with miners in Northumberland, Durham, Yorkshire and many other parts of the country. This matter was very fully debated in the House on the last Coal Industry Act which, as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power said earlier, provides unprecedented help for any over 55 years of age who cannot be re-employed with the National Coal Board or found alternative work.

  PRICES AND INCOMES POLICY
  Mr. Shinwellasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the recent Trade Union Congress decided by a large majority in opposition to some aspects of the prices and incomes policy; and whether, in view of this, he will amend the scheme.
  The Prime Minister: We do not propose to amend the current legislation, which expires at the end of 1969, since it has an essential rôle in our economic strategy. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State has invited the trade unions through the T.U.C. to a joint study of the future of prices and incomes policy after the present powers expire.
  Mr. Shinwell: Although I fully appreciate that it is the business of the Government to govern—that is their primary and sole responsibility—nevertheless, in view of the very strong representations that have recently been made about certain aspects of the prices and incomes policy, would it not be advisable for the Government to be a little more flexible on the penal clauses of the prices and incomes policy which have caused offence to the majority of trade unionists?
  The Prime Minister: After more than two years, I do not think that these penal laws have been invoked in the sense that my right hon. Friend has in mind. My right hon. Friend will know that it is our hope and belief that it should not be necessary to renew this legislation when it expires next November, but for us to be able to ensure that depends on a number of things, as my right hon. Friend has heard me say not very long ago, including progress on our balance of payments and progress in making the T.U.C.'s own machinery more effective.
  Sir C. Osborne: Between now and the end of next year, does the Prime Minister intend to ram down the throats of trade unionists his prices and incomes policy whether they like it or not?
  The Prime Minister: We intend to maintain the laws which have been passed by this House until they expire next November. My right hon. Friend the First Secretary will continue, as she has been doing in the last 24 hours—late at night and again this morning—to emphasise the fact that very good and liberal

  203
  increases in pay are possible on a basis of increased productivity. That is what we are ramming down their throats.

  FLOODED AREAS (RELIEF AND REHABILITATION)
  Mr. J. E. B. Hillasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the recent floods and on Government policy and departmental responsibility for the relief and rehabilitation of the affected areas.
  The Prime Minister: I am sure the House would wish me to express its sympathy, as well as that of the Government, with all who suffered in the recent floods in East and South-East England, as earlier in the South-West.
  I appointed my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government to co-ordinate the relief work. As already announced, my right hon. Friend will also be responsible for allocating the Government contribution to funds set up for the relief of personal hardship. Responsibility for rehabilitation rests with Ministers responsible for the various services and with local authorities.
  Mr. Hill: What is being done to produce more accurate weather forecasts, particularly as to the quantity of rain that is likely to fall? I acknowledge the very prompt action of the Government services in affording immediate relief, but is the Prime Minister aware that the remaining damage is very considerable? In Norfolk alone farm arable income is down by £5 million and there has been grievous interruption of communications. Therefore, can the Prime Minister give us an assurance that no limit on Government or local authority expenditure or private credit will prevent this damage from being put right and production being resumed?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that any hon. Member would propose that there should be no limit on Government expenditure. With regard to the early part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I think that he recognises, as we all do, the great difficulty of ensuring full accuracy in weather forecasting, especially when it is a question, as the hon. Gentleman says, of the amount of
  204
  rain and not whether rain is likely. However, on the other question affecting forecasts, namely, the amount of water piling up in the areas of particular river authorities, my right hon. Friend is examining with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture what can be done to improve the forecasting service of water gathering and of floods coming from one area to another.
  On the question of finance, my right hon. Friend is at present seeking to get fuller information than we have had so far about the scale of the damage and the extent of uninsured losses with a view to establishing a suitable figure. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the case of the South-West, for example, we have provided financial aid, the amount of which I know is not satisfactory to many hon. Members, at the rate of £3 for every £1 raised by way of appeal against £1 per £1 under the previous Government.
  Mr. Ellis: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, while technically it is very difficult to forecast the precise amount of rain, within that context the forecast was reasonable but that we could improve the service immensely by sorting out the departmental responsibility of various Ministers so that warning given to people to get furniture, and so on, out of doors is improved and that one Minister should have overall responsibility for this?
  The Prime Minister: As soon as the floods occurred, I put my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government in charge of all the co-ordination work, and he furnished to me reports twice a day on the situation in each of the affected areas. I agree that there is a problem about the warning, not so much about rain coming but how much rain is gathering and moving from one area to another. I think that this could be improved, and this is what my right hon. Friends are discussing with river authorities, local authorities and others concerned.
  Sir D. Renton: Is the Prime Minister aware that many small farmers have lost all their crops this season either through flooding or frequent saturation by rain? Whether there are local relief funds or not, would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that they face bankruptcy

  205
  or ruin unless the Government are prepared to help them? Would the right hon. Gentleman please do something about this?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware of the very serious effects, particularly on small farmers and some not so small, not only in the areas referred to in the Question but earlier in the year in the South-West. We are well aware of the problem, and my right hon. and hon. Friends have explained the difficulty of extending automatic compensation in respect of agriculture. I do not think that we can say any more about compensation in the South-East until my right hon. Friend has completed his inquiries about the extent of uninsured damage.

ENGINEERING INDUSTRY
Mr. Wyatt Mr. Wyatt (by Private Notice) asked the First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity whether she will make a statement on the present situation in the engineering industry.
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. Harold Walker): Representatives of the Engineering Employers' Federation and the full Executive of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions met under my right hon. Friend's chairmanship last night. Detailed discussion then continued for four hours in a smaller joint working party under official chairmanship.
This morning, a further plenary meeting received a report on the working party's discussion and the two sides then met separately at the Department to consider matters arising. My right hon. Friend is chairing further discussions this afternoon.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to say anything further at this stage.
Mr. Wyatt: Would the Government confirm that they will not give their blessing to any agreement which goes beyond the spirit of the Government's prices and incomes policy and that in the event
206
of there being no agreement the Government will instantly use their powers under Part II of the 1919 Act to set up a court of inquiry to resolve the causes of the dispute?
Mr. Walker: On the question of incomes policy, I am sure that the House would want to await the outcome of the discussions and see whether there is agreement. I doubt whether the House would want me to say anything which might exacerbate what we all agree is a very difficult situation.
Mr. R. Carr: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the desire of the House to be informed as soon as possible when there is any news? Would his right hon. Friend bear in mind and convey to the parties that, in view of the very grave national damage which might result from this strike, we think that the public would find it intolerable if a strike were to take place as a result of the decision of a majority of one in a committee of 61 without a ballot of the members involved when there is growing evidence that the majority of the workers in the factories do not wish to strike?
Mr. Walker: I give the undertaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend that we shall keep the House fully informed, and as quickly as possible, of the outcome of the current discussions.
My right hon. Friend has spelled out on several occasions her deep concern about the gravity of the implications of this situation, and I am sure that she will take into account the right hon. Gentleman's observations.
Mr. Heffer: Is my hon. Friend aware that he is very wise not to be drawn into making any statement, particularly if it is the desire of the whole House that we should endeavour to get a settlement of this situation and avoid a strike next Monday? Is he further aware that he is also wise not to take the advice of my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Wyatt), whose information and experience in relation to the Liverpool docks proved disastrous and, I am sure, will prove disastrous in this case?
Mr. Walker: I am sure that my hon. Friend is quite correct.

RHODESIA
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the talks about Rhodesia which were held on board H.M.S. "Fearless" in Gibraltar from 9th to 13th October.
First, I should like briefly to mention the events which led the Government to conclude that it would be right to have such a meeting.
As my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary and I myself have repeatedly made clear in the House, we were prepared at any time to engage in discussions if it seemed that there might be a chance of a settlement and provided it were understood that such a settlement must fully implement the requirements of the six principles which have been laid down.
As the House knows, I have more than once before the Recess expressed the doubt whether, even if Mr. Smith's position changed sufficiently markedly to make talks worth while, there could be any guarantee that any agreement initialled by him would be endorsed by his colleagues. During the Recess there were changes in the membership of his régime, involving the disappearance of intransigent racialists, and we have also had evidence of the firmness with which he dealt with his party congress last month. Hon. Members will also have noted the régime's decision to introduce measures designed to end mandatory death sentences for certain offences. At the same time, reliable reports reached us that Mr. Smith would be prepared to enter into meaningful talks.
Accordingly, an Assistant Under-Secretary of State in the Commonwealth Office was sent to Salisbury on 20th September. He had discussions, first, with His Excellency the Governor of Rhodesia and the Head of the British Residual Mission; and, secondly, under the aegis of the Governor, with Mr. Ian Smith. In addition, he had discussions with other Rhodesians of different races, occupations and political views who asked to meet him.
On his return to London he reported that he found a widespread feeling in Salisbury that the recent changes in the political climate there offered some
208
prospect that a fresh attempt to achieve a settlement might be successful. At the same time, however, he reported that Mr. Smith had not given him any indication of a change of position on the fundamental issues which have over these past five years made agreement impossible. This was particularly the case in relation to certain non-negotiable requirements on which any British Government must insist as the condition of a settlement. Mr. Smith had expressed his readiness, however, for an early meeting.
Further probings were conducted under the Governor's aegis by the Head of the British Residual Mission. We insisted that Mr. Smith should fully understand that, if talks were to be held, there could be no concessions by us which would undermine or weaken the six principles. We insisted, also, that Mr. Smith should confirm that he understood this. He did, in fact, give this confirmation, at the same time indicating that he, in turn, regarded certain matters as of fundamental importance to himself and to those he represented. Despite this reaffirmation of his own position on the six principles, it nevertheless seemed reasonable to assume that he would be unlikely, before coming to the conference table, to show his negotiating hand, and, in particular, to indicate any concessions he was ready to make.
Accordingly, we met at Gibraltar. On the British side, I was accompanied by my right hon. Friend the Commonwealth Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. On the Rhodesian side, were Mr. Ian Smith, Mr. Howman and Mr. Lardner Burke. The Governor of Rhodesia was present in Gibraltar for the duration of the talks.
It would not be helpful to go over the hard-hitting exchanges in 30 hours of talks except to record that they confirmed that there was and remains a deep difference between the two sides, not only on the requirements for a settlement, but even more on the basic political philosophies which underlie the attitudes expressed. At the same time the talks were conducted in a good atmosphere, having regard to all the circumstances, and within the limitations created by the fundamental differences to which I have referred.

209
By Saturday night, 12th October, it was clear to both sides that it was unlikely that a settlement would be reached on board H.M.S. "Fearless"—and that this would become no more likely if the discussions lasted several more days. I decided, with Mr. Smith's agreement, to prepare a statement setting out our proposals for a settlement of the Rhodesian dispute.
This statement took acount so far as was possible of points made in the discussions. I made clear to Mr. Smith that while there could be no change in the British Government's attitude on the fundamental issues, on other matters there could be further discussion; and that, of course, we should be ready to consider alternative drafts on these non-fundamental matters.
The Government have set out in a White Paper the text of the British statement and the text of the communiqué which was issued in agreement between the two sides. The White Paper also includes yet again the text of the six principles, since we have made it clear before, throughout and since the discussions that there could be no agreement except on the basis of those principles.
The proposals which I gave to Mr. Smith on 13th October incorporate the changes to the 1961 Constitution which were worked out on board H.M.S. "Tiger". In certain cases these changes have been set out with greater precision, particularly as regards the powers of the Senate and the circumstances in which appeals would lie to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—the instrument which, in our view, is the best fitted to provide the reinforcement required to guarantee the fulfilment of the second principle. While, no doubt, alternative instruments to this end could be proposed and considered, I am sure hon. Members would agree that the Judicial Committee would provide the most effective guarantee.
The changes suggested in the 1961 Constitution were, and are, designed to meet the first, second, third and sixth principles. The statement makes clear that, provided that there is at all times a "blocking quarter" of directly and popularly elected Africans as a safeguard against retrogressive amendment of the Constitution, the British Government do
210
not insist on any particular composition for the legislature.
The statement further sets out the basis on which the Government would be prepared to accept, as part of an otherwise satisfactory settlement, new procedures to deal with the problem of the return to legality.
Finally, I would draw attention to three further important features of our proposals. First, and this reinforces the "Tiger" proposals relating to the fourth principle, is our insistence on the importance of a vigorous and extended programme for African education, particularly in technical education, including agriculture. We have said that we would be prepared to contribute to this programme a sum of up to £50 million spread over 10 years on a £-for-£. basis. We regard this as imperative in the interests of the African population and of Rhodesia: it would also have an important bearing on the number of Africans able to qualify for the A Roll franchise. Secondly, arising out of our discussions, we have included the proposal that the Royal Commission to be appointed for testing the acceptability of any settlement to the Rhodesian people as a whole, should be instructed also to inquire into the arrangements for the registration of eligible voters under the widely extended franchise which is proposed, with a view to encouraging greater African participation in Rhodesian political life. Thirdly, the House will note what has been said about the need for a broad-based Government, including Africans, to carry Rhodesia through the whole process of introducing the new Constitution, right up to the election of a new Parliament under that Constitution.
The House will recognise the relevance of these three proposals, as well as certain other events, to the creation of the "substantial change of circumstances" which repeatedly I have said in this House must exist to justify our raising with our Commonwealth partners the question of "no independence before majority rule".
And the House will recognise, too, that we will not agree to the implementation of any settlement that has not first been shown to be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole—the fifth principle, on which all else depends.
As was stated in the communiqué, Mr. Smith said that he would take the British

211
Government's proposals back to Salisbury, without commitment, for consideration with his colleagues there. I said that the Commonwealth Secretary will be available to fly out to Salisbury if Mr. Smith and his colleagues feel that this would assist them in their consideration of the British proposals. Our position at the end of the talks, as throughout these past years, maintains the position repeatedly stated by the Commonwealth Secretary—no sell-out, no slamming the door by us.
We have insisted that our proposals have to be taken as a whole. Any concessions we have been prepared to offer on matters which do not involve the safeguards required for the six principles are available only as part of an agreement which incorporates the clear guarantees on which we have insisted to safeguard those principles. Now, decisions have to be taken in Salisbury. We for our part are keeping the door open. But the key to a settlement is, and must remain, the six principles, which are cardinal to the future of Rhodesia—the future of Rhodesians of all races, for whom the British Parliament stands trustee.
Mr. Heath: The House has heard with regret that it was not possible to reach a settlement during the talks in H.M.S. "Fearless", but we are glad that, as I understand, the talks have not been broken off and that the Commonwealth Secretary stands ready to resume them whenever Mr. Smith and his colleagues wish.
At the same time, I think that the House would feel that there were encouraging features about the talks—the fact that the atmosphere and conduct of the talks generally was so much better than on the previous occasion and that the Prime Minister was able to discuss the question of moving on to a new constitutional legality rather than going back to the old, and to explain the circumstances in which Nibmar would no longer be the policy.
We shall, of course, want to consider the White Paper carefully and perhaps I could suggest to the Prime Minister that we might have a debate on this matter when hon. Members have had a chance of studying the White Paper. We could, perhaps, discuss the timing of the debate through the usual channels to take ac-
212
count of any movements of the Commonwealth Secretary which he may want to make in response to Salisbury.
Secondly, during the debate, if it is not set out in the White Paper, could the Prime Minister explain to us the different means and methods which were discussed of implementing the first and second principles against regression and to ensure movement towards African rule and the part which the Privy Council would play in this matter, and the arguments that were put up against them? To have a debate, we would like to know what were the detailed proposals and the various arguments so that we could weigh the balance.
The Prime Minister: On the early part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, when he set out his understanding of the position, may I say that the way he expressed it exactly corresponds to the facts as I see them to be today.
Obviously, the House will wish to debate this whole matter. It should, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, be discussed through the usual channels with a view to finding a convenient time for all hon. Members. It would probably be convenient if this were associated with the debate which is required at this time of the year, in the event of any substantial change in the situation, in relation to the Southern Rhodesia Order, which has to come before both Houses.
In reply to the other point raised by the right hon. Gentleman, I will certainly consider what more explanation can be given. The White Paper which is now available in the Vote Office, or should be at about this time, deals in some detail with our proposals. It sets out in full what were our proposals to Mr. Smith and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find some information there. He is quite right, if I may say so, in putting his question in a form which links the first and second principles together. They are closely connected, and, right through, all British Governments have insisted that there should be guaranteed, unimpeded progress, and no regressive amendment of the Constitution. We have since that time, when my predecessors were responsible, sought to get guarantees both by internal mechanisms such as the blocking quarter and by external mechanisms.

213
I think the right hon. Gentleman once suggested a treaty which we discussed on the "Tiger" and, of course, the role of the Privy Council as the highest court in construing Rhodesian affairs. I think that one really needs a double-barrelled means of giving the guarantees required for the first two principles. I will not disguise from the House that this has been by far the most difficult of the many difficult problems we had aboard "Fearless". Great progress was certainly made; encouraging progress was made; but I would be misleading the House if I suggested that at the end of the day we had reached an agreement on adequate, copper-bottomed guarantees which would ensure there would be no regressive amendment of the Constitution.
Mr. Winnick: Since the Rhodesian Front believes in maintaining and extending racialism in Rhodesia, is there any possibility at all of an honourable, negotiated settlement between Britain and the illegal régime? Is the Prime Minister aware that many people in the country, and certainly in the Labour movement, would rather see an intensification of sanctions than continuing concessions and talks with the régime which bases itself more on the principles of racial supremacy than on the six principles?
The Prime Minister: There have been no concessions to the régime. What we have done is to indicate the kind of concession we will be ready to make as part of an overall settlement which could end the five or six years of very unhappy relations between the two countries, the last three of which have been additionally clouded by the illegality of the action taken three years ago.
Of course we deeply deplore—and they understand this—many of the actions taken. At the same time, we should, I think, note that there have been one or two recent moves in the right direction. I have mentioned one piece of legislation they are introducing. In the past year there have been one or two moves of a regressive character. We have to take all these things together before deciding whether to talk.
We have always said that we need sanctions on the basis and to the extent that they carry home a message to the people of Rhodesia that will put them in a position where they will be more
214
willing to talk. We have seen willingness, but have not yet bridged the gap between us.
Mr. Thorpe: While the whole House and the whole country would welcome an honourable settlement of this issue, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that many of us feel that in the interests of a durable solution we should prefer him to come back without a settlement rather than with an agreement which involved jettisoning any of the six principles involved? Would he confirm that the last 30 hours proved that continuous calls for talks are not in themselves a substitute for a policy still less a solution to the problem?
May I also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this is an indication that there is likely to be an acceptance in principle by Mr. Smith, but not in detail, to consider the possibility of a joint working party being set up, bearing in mind all the publicity which is attached to the visit of a Cabinet Minister, and the difficulty, thereby, of getting down to close, detailed negotiations?
The Prime Minister: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he began his question. There never was, and, throughout these discussions, equally there has not been, any suggestion of an agreement which was not four-square within the six principles. This was fully understood.
With regard to future progress, I think we must now wait to see what Mr. Smith and his colleagues say. The Commonwealth Secretary stands ready to go out there. This may be necessary and I would very much welcome it if this were agreed. There will be a need for a joint working party. This has been proposed, and following any settlement there would have to be a joint working party to work out details of the constitution. But we have said to Mr. Smith that this statement on these fundamental issues represents our conception of what would be reasonable in the light of our talks last week. We would obviously be prepared to consider alternative drafts.
Mr. Whitaker: As Mr. Smith is reported to have accepted the constitutional part of the "Tiger" proposals, how is it that he objects to the first two of the six principles now? Secondly, as a test

215
of his sincerity is he prepared to accept the offer of help with African education immediately and in any event?
The Prime Minister: It is not for me, I think, to explain to the House exactly the arguments by which Mr. Smith reaches certain conclusions. It is the fact, of course, that he does not like the six principles. He has never pretended to do so. It is also a fact that he does not like the prospect of majority rule in the foreseeable future. He is, however, sufficiently realistic to recognise that there will be no agreement with any British Government of any party that does not give effect to the six principles.
In these circumstances, it is a question how far he is prepared to stomach the repugnance which is involved in our proposals to get a settlement which will be of great value to Rhodesia and to Rhodesians and which will also help to avert the very great dangers which are lurking in the fairly near future. Some of the dangers, of course, result from the measures of his own régime and are at present in cold storage, awaiting application.
It could well be said that the acceptance of a crash programme of African education would be a good test of sincerity. That was not the only reason we put it forward. I was reasonably encouraged by the attitude on this question.
Another matter to which I drew attention in my statement is the question of a crash programme for registration, because under these proposals there will be up to 1 million Africans enfranchised on the B Roll. Very few of these already registered are enfranchised. We have, therefore, to provide machinery for ensuring what can be done to speed up registration of any African who would like to have the vote, and is entitled to it.
Mr. Wall: While congratulating the Prime Minister on the businesslike conduct of the negotiations, may I ask him when he expects a full report from Salisbury on the two questions of the first and second principles.
On the question of educational aid, would he not agree there is also need for economic aid since there is not much good in training people if there are not jobs for them to go to?
The Prime Minister: On the first question, I cannot say when we expect the reply. I made it clear that we are not pressing Mr. Smith for undue haste. We would rather wait for the right reply, and we would rather have the right reply than speed. There are many difficulties before him and we recognise that. It is not just the reply on the first of the six principles on which some progress, but not enough, was made. It is a reply to the document as a whole. I do not know when that will be. It may be that he will wish to accept my suggestion that my right hon. Friend should go out there before he even forwards a complete reply.
Education is, of course, very important, and it is equally important that there should be jobs for Africans when they are trained and that they should be available on a non-discriminatory basis as between colour and as between races. The biggest impediment, of course, to the expansion of Rhodesian industry and to development of a country of such rich resources—what has been holding it back for three years—has been the existence of the illegal régime and the fact that it is the centre of great international controversy. This was what we were trying to put right last week.
Mr. James Johnson: While welcoming the Prime Minister's Herculean efforts to get an honourable settlement, may I ask would he not accept the fact that in African history the white community, whether French or English people, have not willingly given up their economic or political previleges? Therefore, what basis has the Prime Minister for thinking that a referendum of Rhodesian white people would not give support to action taken by Mr. Smith now?
The Prime Minister: I think that that is too gloomy a view of the situation. I have been encouraged. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) has already talked to the House about the situation in Kenya following the transfer of power, which we have always said could be an encouragement to Europeans in Rhodesia. I agree that it will not be easy for them. Anyone who saw the television interviews with some allegedly representative Rhodesians last night will not be very encouraged.
The people of Rhodesia will have to recognise the great value to Rhodesia of

217
a settlement and all that follows from it, including the end of sanctions, and they will have to decide whether they are prepared to pay the price. We believe that the price they insist on is totally wrong. We reject the racialist views so often expressed. They will have to decide whether to surrender those racialist views in order to get a settlement.
Sir T. Beamish: Since any constitutional settlement must be based on the good faith of both signatories, will the Prime Minister take careful account of the fact that independence qualified by a leading rein for the Privy Council would be unrealistic and a paradox? Will he at any rate give the House an assurance that this is not what he described in his statement as one of the non-negotiable requirements?
The Prime Minister: I said that the question of the blocking quarter and some guarantee other than the vote in the Rhodesian Parliament are both required to give effect to the first and second principles. I would not call it a leading rein. The hon. and gallant Member will notice, when he reads the White Paper, that in our proposals for an external guarantee we are ready to put a limited term of years upon it. We want to see this question go through the very difficult period of the movement that has to be undertaken by Rhodesia over the next few years if there is to be a settlement.
The hon. and gallant Member will recognise that any discussions such as those last week which could lead to the grant of independence without prior majority rule would be totally unprecedented in the lifetime of any of us in this House. Therefore, in so far as it is unique, to that extent it carries with it great dangers, especially after the controversies inside and about Rhodesia, and I hope that he would agree, on consideration, that with this unique agreement an extra guarantee might well be required.
Mr. Hector Hughes: As the constitutional problems involved affect the Commonwealth as a whole, will my right hon. Friend consider summoning or inviting a Commonwealth conference, so as to bring the weight of the whole Commonwealth to a solution of these problems?
The Prime Minister: Before I announced that we were going to Gibral-
218
tar, my right hon. Friend's Department discussed this with the High Commissioners in London and I think that my right hon. Friend has arranged for them to be fully informed about what has happened since our return. In addition, I was in touch with a great number of Commonwealth Prime Ministers during the talks. As the House knows, a number of my right hon. Friends inside the Government and senior officials were entrusted with the job of discussing this with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers and Presidents while actually in Gibraltar. Further, as he knows, there is to be a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conference in a few weeks' time.
Mr. Edward M. Taylor: If agreement is reached will the Government remove sanctions forthwith? What will be the position with respect to mandatory sanctions if the United Nations does not give any such agreement its blessing?
The Prime Minister: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to study the White Paper on this point. The linking of the agreement with a settlement, together with the carrying through of the acceptability test by the Royal Commission, is linked with the beginning of the dismantling of sanctions. The question of sanctions arises when these things have been done and there is agreement on the Constitution. We have been carefully into the position of the United Nations. I do not want to make things more difficult, but I do not foresee the difficulties that the hon. Member has referred to.
Mr. Paget: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while I have been critical of the Rhodesia policy in the past, on this occasion, in respect of the manner, the patience, the courtesy, the friendliness, and the sticking point, which is a matter of principle and not legalistic, and also the educational proposals, linked with economic development, my right hon. Friend has my most wholehearted support?
I would like to say to those in Rhodesia that in my view, at any rate, no British Government of any party who wish for continued co-operation between our two countries can offer substantially better terms than these. The South African alternative will be unhappy in the short run and unworkable in the long run.
The Prime Minister: I should like to thank my hon. and learned Friend both for the tone and the manner of what he said at the opening of his question, and for the wise advice which he is seeking in his last few words to pass on to the people of Rhodesia.
There may have been—there have been—deep differences in the past on this question, but I think that my hon. and learned Friend is right in saying—and I think that the Rhodesians understand—that there is no good now in their trying to play on differences, real or imagined, between the parties in this House or between individuals within any given party. They now have a chance of an honourable settlement. It remains open, and this is giving them plenty of time to consider the position. We all hope that they will accept.
Mr. Hastings: How does one appeal to the Privy Council after a possible settlement? Can the Prime Minister say whether this proposal was known to Mr. Smith before the talks began? Are there precedents for such an arrangement with any other independent Commonwealth country?
The Prime Minister: Was it the Privy Council to which the hon. Member was referring?
Mr. Hastings: Yes.
The Prime Minister: Yes—because the Privy Council was in the "Tiger" proposals, so was the external treaty between ourselves and Rhodesia. That was with or without other countries guaranteeing it. There was no question of this being new to Mr. Smith. In the visit of the Commonwealth Office official, as well as in the probings which followed his return, this was highlighted as one of the essential matters on which a settlement would have to be reached.
Sir Dingle Foot: Did my right hon. Friend and his colleagues represent to Mr. Smith the great importance of immediately releasing those African leaders who represent far more Rhodesians than does Mr. Smith and who have been locked up without trial for the last four years?
The Prime Minister: As my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware, both in the "Tiger" proposals and in the new document there is provision for the prob-
220
lem of those in detention and those under restriction. We have emphasised throughout, both in our talks on various occasions and in this House, that the test of acceptability could not be a real test unless there were proper machinery for dealing with the problem of detainees and the freedom of expression in Rhodesia during that period. Compared with "Tiger", censorship has been abolished and there will have to be—and I think there would be—a reasonable allocation of broadcasting time and other means for putting different points of view about the acceptability or otherwise of a constitution.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Since all the six principles are conditions laid down by the British Government for agreement, and not moral principles, is the Prime Minister satisfied that it is wise to place such emphasis on the two conditions about movement to majority rule when so little use is made by the independent countries of Africa of that system of Government?
The Prime Minister: A proposal under the first or second principle for a blocking quarter is not a moral principle; it is a technique to give effect to essential principles which themselves derive from the moral attitude of every party in this House. The six principles which have been worked out jointly over the years by successive Governments and endorsed by all parties in this House are an attempt to give practical expression, in constitutional terms, to deeply-held moral principles. I do not disguise the deep differences between Mr. Smith and ourselves on the moral principles which underlie the constitutional techniques. That is why I have said that however repugnant to them it is, it is essential that they should stomach their repugnance and accept these proposals because that is the only way to reach a settlement.
Mr. Judd: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that by definition independence implies that a country is in a position to do what it wishes with its constitution, and that entrenched clauses are worth no more than the paper on which they are written, and that, therefore, Nibmar has always been and remains the key to the substance of the six principles?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is too gloomy about this matter. When he says that independence must be absolute, without any arrangements for safeguarding the entrenched clauses, that is an argument that I have heard perhaps rather too much of in the past week. I am sorry to see my hon. Friend identifying himself with that point of view, which I do not accept. There have been many cases throughout history, especially during the transitional period—and a very difficult transitional period—where there must be guarantees, external as well as internal. Even some of the most senior and experienced Commonwealth countries that had a long record of local self-government voluntarily accepted some kind of control and guarantee which would fetter their otherwise totally unfettered freedom of action.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: The House will want further time to study the proposed functions of the Judicial Committee, as set out on page 9 of the White Paper. But is it not a fact that, whether or not they are good, they are without precedent and constitute a departure from the normal British constitutional principle of the sovereignty of Parliament? Supposing the Privy Council exercised this jurisdiction, how would it enforce it?
The Prime Minister: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right. These functions are at any rate almost without precedent. There are near-precedents, but perhaps not absolute ones. They mean restricting the sovereignty of Parliament, and this would no doubt be a unique situation, but we are dealing with a unique situation. The situation in Rhodesia is unique partly because it involves independence before majority rule, and partly because the whole world is deeply suspicious of what has been going on in Rhodesia—the lengths to which they were willing to go in order to maintain their position. Because of this, we are entitled to ask that for a transitional period, and a transitional period only, there should be an external guarantee as well as the guarantee within the proposed Rhodesian Constitution provided by the blocking quarter.
Mr. Michael Foot: Does my right hon. Friend recall that one of the main controversies following the "Tiger" talks was the question of how long it would
222
take under those constitutional proposals for majority rule to be established in Rhodesia? Therefore, could he tell us his calculation of when majority rule would be established in Rhodesia if his proposals were now accepted in their entirety, and confirm that whatever representations he may make to the Commonwealth, the Nibmar pledge which was given to the Commonwealth will stand?
The Prime Minister: With regard to the time taken under our constitutional proposals for majority rule to be reached, I should find it extremely difficult to give an authoritative answer to my hon. Friend. There are many estimates on this, many of which have been put before the House. Some were as short as one or two elections—seven to 10 years; some were 12 to 15 years. A great deal depends on how many of the Africans who qualify under the 1961 Constitution for the A Roll take up the right to vote by registration. It depends partly on their attitude and partly, we suspect, on the extent to which they are helped to register, which is dealt with in our proposals.
Our educational proposals, which we put forward at great cost to ourselves, great cost to the British taxpayer—this should be understood—will have the secondary effect of increasing the number of qualified Africans and those who would be able to exercise the vote. It would be very difficult to make a clearer estimate than that. We have never proposed immediate majority rule, and I do not think that anyone in the House has. For reasons I prefer not to go into, African nationalist leadership there, and the chances given to Africans for political participation there, compare unfavourably with what has happened in other parts of Africa where there was direct British rule and then local self-government under British rule.
On Nibmar, the position is unchanged. I have said that if there were a change of circumstances we should go to the Commonwealth about it. Some of the things in our proposals relate specifically to what is required in the shape of changed circumstances.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Did my right hon. Friend ask Mr. Smith when he was on "Fearless" whether he was prepared to explain why, last month, he has twice confirmed that there would

223
never be majority rule in Rhodesia in his lifetime, or in his child's lifetime, if he were genuinely prepared to accept the first principle?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that it would help if I tried to tell the House everything that was said between us in 30-hour meeting. I assure my hon. Friend that everything relevant was said, more of it looking to the future than to the past on both sides. I have not disguised from the House today, any more than at any other time, that Mr. Smith does not like the first and second principles, or most of the others for that matter. That results from his very different viewpoint on what we have called moral issues on all these questions. What I have raised is the question whether he is prepared to stomach his repugnance in order to accept an agreement that will bring great gain to Rhodesia—to all races in Rhodesia—and help avert some of the very serious dangers threatening Rhodesia from inside and outside.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must come to the business of the day.

WALES
4.15 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. George Thomas): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the Report on Wales for 1967 (Command Paper No. 3544).
All right hon. and hon. Members will be glad to welcome back today my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), who has been away for a long time after some ill-health. We all rejoice that he has returned to us.
During the six months that have elapsed since I came to this office I have been privileged to tour a great part of Wales. Already, I have met local authorities in North, South, East, West and Mid Wales and I have been tremendously moved by the appreciation expressed everywhere for the work of the Welsh Office since it was established under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths). His stamp will always be on this office, and the contribution he has made to our national life in Wales cannot easily be exaggerated.
No one can travel about Wales today without being aware of a great movement in the life and thought of Wales. In almost every field, economic, cultural, social, and in the realm of political thought as well as elsewhere, we find new developments and new ideas being pressed forward. This ferment of ideas is nowhere seen more clearly than in the debates being conducted in the Press, television and elsewhere about the role of Wales, about its position in the United Kingdom, about the problem of devolution and the status of the Welsh language. I would like to speak briefly about some of these important issues before I turn to matters in the economic and allied fields which arise from the Report.
What impresses me perhaps more than anything else in the life of Wales today is the great interest being shown by ordinary men and women in the broad question of what it really means to be a citizen of Wales. For my part, I greatly welcome this. It is right that we as a nation—and, indeed, this House today—should give serious heed to these matters. I entirely understand the arguments of those who want a greater degree of responsibility entrusted to Wales for the conduct of its own affairs within the United Kingdom. This is something

225
quite different from separatism. I am absolutely convinced that extreme separatist attitudes are rejected by the great body of public opinion in Wales. Above all, the element of violence which has crept into and marred the image of Wales, particularly in recent months, is absolute anathema to Welsh people.
Let me take this opportunity of saying to this House and to all our fellow-citizens of the United Kingdom that the Welsh people as a whole are not like this. The extremists responsible for these outrages, culminating in the brutal affair at Pembrey, are thugs and criminals and in no sense reflect the mind and spirit of Wales. I like to think that the House supported the statement which I made about the airman who was injured at Pembrey, and I know that we all send our good wishes for as full a recovery as is possible. I can only hope and pray that what happened at Pembrey will bring the extremists to their senses and that there will be no more violence after this.
Nor, to move to a less violent plane, are we in Wales the discourteous boors who have commanded newspaper headlines by their ill-mannered and loutish behaviour towards the Prince of Wales at some of his appearances in the Principality. Those who talk so much about adult nationhood should remember that one is more likely to be treated as an adult if one behaves as an adult.
However, to reject separatism and condemn violence does not mean that we simply stand by the status quo. The Government, and I personally, certainly stand absolutely by the concept of partnership within the United Kingdom, and a close partnership. But the Government's mind is far from closed to the concept of reasonable devolution of functions from Whitehall. We have moved some way already. It was this Government who set up a Welsh Office.
The Opposition are now very interested in and fascinated by the subject of devolution. But the fact remains that in all their years in power they failed to nerve themselves to create a Welsh Office or a Secretary of State for Wales with a place in the Cabinet. They regarded my present task as a part-time occupation. In turn they considered it a spare-time hobby for the Home Secretary of the day and then for the Minister of
226
Housing and Local Government of the day. Let me assure the House that this is very much a full-time occupation.
Plenty of people will say that we have not gone far enough or fast enough, and I admit frankly that I would like to see a further extension of the functions of the Welsh Office. But I must stress the importance of basing policies on informed examination of their implications. Big issues arise in these fields and action, once taken, may not be easily reversible. We must study thoroughly their implications, so that whatsoever is done is done soundly and well. I believe that this is the wish of the people of Wales and that it is the right way to advance.
In this context, I should like to say something about local government reorganisation in Wales. This has been a substantial preoccupation of all Welsh Office Ministers since the Government proposals, which were deliberately presented as matters for public discussion. They were far-reaching in their effects and it was very important that the Government should be able to form as wide and clear a picture as possible of the reactions to them in Wales. Thus, over a period of six or seven months, since our last Welsh day, we have conducted a very full and detailed series of discussions about the proposals.
Twenty-five meetings have been held with local authorities and their associations. We have met virtually every local authority in Wales at district level and above. I doubt very much whether any Government proposals of this sort have ever been the subject of more thorough consultations. The brunt of the work has fallen on the shoulders of my colleagues the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary of State, to whom I should like to pay tribute for their great contribution to this dialogue between the Government and Welsh local authorities. We hear a good deal today about participation in government and our actions are surely a participation in the widest and truest sense.
All the evidence submitted is being very carefully assessed. I am conscious that Wales is impatient to know our future plans and intentions, and I fully accept the undesirability of prolonged uncertainty. I assure the House that there will be no avoidable delay in these matters. But if the work is to be done

227
properly, and correct judgments reached, we must study the views expressed carefully. Of course, whatever decisions are taken are bound to displease some. In a matter as complex as this, one cannot hope to satisfy all opinions. That is why I have thought it right, at the risk of delay, to give this matter such full examination. I am sure that the House will appreciate my position in this regard.
I should like to say a word about the Welsh language. We can look back over the past year with a sense of pride and achievement. In education, the Gittins Report is a courageous document. It faced issues squarely. Although not all of us may be fully in agreement with all the Committee's recommendations on the Welsh language, we recognise that they are based on a sincere assessment of the real value of educating our children in both languages wherever possible.
The Welsh language Act is, of course, a landmark of the first importance in this respect, for we have thus removed all the legal obstacles which existed to the use of Welsh in the administration of the law and in public administration in Wales. We may justly claim that the Labour Government have done more for the Welsh language than any other Government in history and the Welsh vernacular Press might some times show an appreciation of this fact—but it would be very unlikely, I suppose.
I should like now to refer to the work of the Advisory Translation Panel, which I had the pleasure of meeting a month ago. By the end of this year, about 200 Government forms will have been translated into Welsh and the text of the great majority has been approved by the panel. I am sure that the House would wish to congratulate its members for the work which they are doing. In view of their constructive and valuable advice, it is all the more regrettable that there was recently a resignation from the panel for what I must confess I can regard only as utterly misguided reasons. Of course, it has not been possible to accept all the suggestions which the panel has made, but, as I have shown, we have made substantial progress in a short time and we shall continue to press ahead.
The adoption of bilingual ballot papers for the local polls on Sunday opening, for example, has been recommended by
228
my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Critics should consider how much has been achieved during the last two or three years and compare it with progress in the past two or three decades. I look forward to a progressive and sensible extension of the use of Welsh in public administration. I stress the word "sensible", as I do not think total bilingualism is sensible or practicable in this field. There are many specialist forms whose translation is not required and would be a waste of time and money. For in the long run responsibility for the Welsh language cannot rest with the Government alone. The local authorities, and parents and, above all, each of us as individuals have also an important part to play. By co-operation and sympathetic understanding—and I stress this, for the language must never be allowed to become a divisive influence in our country—I am confident that we, in our generation, can ensure that the language will not only be preserved for those who follow us but will be given fresh sources of strength and vigour. In this connection, I read with deep interest the splendid leading article in the Western Mail today.
I would like now to turn to the economic situation in Wales and to the closely related problem of road communications. I know that this is of concern to us all. During the months that I have been privileged to be the Secretary of State, I have found in Wales a very high percentage of professional pessimists. They are the people who never miss an opportunity of shouting about our economic problems—but are curiously silent about the bright side of the picture. Indeed, I get the impression at times that these professional pessimists—for political reasons, perhaps—are really rather upset when they hear or read about the progress we are making towards solving the economic problems of Wales.
I propose to review the economic situation in the Principality on a geographical basis. I shall start in the North-East. The story of recent industrial development in that part of North-East Wales which is in the development area is truly remarkable. At the same time, I am very conscious that there are uncertainties surrounding the future of the coal industry in the area, in particular, the proposal to close Ifton Colliery.

229
But, despite the uncertainties, a realistic comparison of the jobs needed and the jobs in prospect in the area gives cause for optimism. The important point is that the jobs in prospects are not "pie in the sky"; they are being created now. B.I.C.C., Cadbury and Firestone—giants of industry—are but three of the firms which have appreciated the excellent locational advantages of the area and the attractiveness of the Governments development area incentives.
On the Flintshire side of the Dee Estuary the unemployment rate remains satisfactorily below the rate for Great Britain as a whole. There is, however, local concern because of the heavy dependence of the area on a few large industries, notably steel, the aircraft industry and synthetic yarn. So far as the steel industry is concerned—and this also applies to South Wales—the British Steel Corporation is still working on an outline plan for the long term development of the public sector of the industry While it is right for local authorities and other local bodies to take an intelligent interest in the future—this is what economic planning is all about—it would be wrong for anyone to make gloomy and alarmist prognostications The fact is that the Steel Corporation's plans are not complete. When they are, they will be the subject of close examination by and discussion with the Government.
In North-West Wales, the problems are more difficult to solve, largely because of the extended lines of communication. But progress is being made at a rate which should convince even the most biased of the Government's critics that our policies are working, and working well.
In Anglesey, there has been anxiety over the rundown in construction work at the Wylfa Power Station. Across the Menai Straits, in Caernarvonshire, there was but a little while ago the prestige industrial site at Llandegai, but there was until recently seemingly no one interested in it. At Caernarvon, a 25,000 sq. ft. advance factory was nearing completion with no tenant in sight; and at Pwllheli there was another advance factory, this one of 10,000 sq. ft., with again no tenant on the horizon. That was the position but three or four months ago.
Let us look at the position today. In Anglesey, one of the three aluminium smelters approved by the Government is
230
to be built, giving two-and-a-half to three years' work for up to 2,000 men on the construction site and 700 to 800 jobs in the smelter itself when it come on stream in 1971; and the construction work is starting now. Across the Menai Straits, a substantial part of the Llandegai site has been let for the building of a factory of 100,000 sq. ft which will provide 500 to 600 jobs, mostly for men. The two advance factories to which I referred have been let, the one at Pwellheli barely two weeks ago.
In Mid-Wales, there is steady progress to report. Since November, 1964, under arrangements made with the Development Commission, seven advance factories have been approved for Mid-Wales towns. Six of these have been let—largely because of the spirit of self-help which moved the county councils in the area to form the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association, to which I give credit. There has also been considerable private factory building in the area, assisted, of course, by generous Government grants.
Let me now turn to South-West Wales and, in particular, Pembrokeshire. Despite the developments by the oil industry at Milford Haven, local people, as I have discovered in my visits, are rightly concerned about the unemployment situation. On the south side of the Haven, work is proceeding apace on the new power station, providing employment at present for a large number of the local people. But the Government are fully alive to the situation which might arise in two or three years when the station is commissioned, bearing in mind particularly that Pembrokeshire is more dependent on civilian employment in defence establishments than any other county in Wales. The possibility that recent changes in defence policy may result in a reduction in employment opportunities, both direct and indirect, or in the county is, I know, exercising the minds of responsible people in that part of the country.
Having recognised the problems, I can assure the House that we are doing everything within our power to ease them. In particular, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and his officials in Wales never miss an opportunity of seeking to interest industrialists in opening up factories in the area.

231
The greatest problems, however, arise in industrial South Wales. It is here that we find the most acute problems of change with the older traditional industries giving way to the new. It is no good seeking to hold back these processes of change. What we must continue to do is to enable the change to take place from the old to the new with the least possible hardship.
Those of us who were brought up in the valleys of South Wales in the days before the war need no reminding of the cruel effects of unemployment. The situation is infinitely better now than it was then, but we shall not be satisfied until there is work available for all who are capable of doing it and who want it. Full employment is our target. We aim to move from the 96 per cent, employed in Wales today to 98 or 99 per cent.
Let me now deal with industrial development certificates, which is a fair way of measuring our success in attracting new industry. Over the four years up to and including 1964, when the party opposite were in power, the total area of factory space approved in Wales was 9½ million sq. ft. During the four years since the present Government took office, the area approved was not 9½ million, but 25·7 million sq. ft. From 1961 to 1964, 20,000 additional jobs are estimated to have arisen from approvals. I am proud to tell the House that during the last four years the number of additional jobs is over 53,000, which is higher than I said when I was in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert). This is welcome evidence of the success of our policies.
Then there is the future. The level of forward inquiry for industrial space has also risen, and in the first nine months of this year it was nearly double that for the first nine months of 1967. The number of visits to Wales by industrialists seeking to inspect sites and premises has also risen, and in the first nine months of this year exceeded the total for the whole of 1967.
Let me now turn to advance factories so that I can put on record our achievement in this field. It is not many months since rarely a week went by without there being Questions on the Order Paper intended, no doubt, to show that our policy of building factories in ad-
232
vance of specific requirements was a failure. Our critics have now, apparently, gone to ground—they have certainly gone quiet—and it is not difficult to find the reason. The facts are that since October, 1964, 41 advance factories have been authorised for Wales. Of these, 27 are completed or are very near completion, 11 are at earlier stages of construction and three are in the planning stage.
Up until this morning, 24 of the factories had been allocated and I am very pleased to be able to inform the House that the Board of Trade has today announced that another advance factory at Merthyr Tydfil has been let. That makes 25 in all out of the 27 which have been constructed. The allocation of another three is now being negotiated with prospective tenants. Only one completed factory has not so far been finally or provisionally allocated. This is a spectacular record of success.
Twenty-five firm allocations and three near certain ones—a total of 28—out of 41 factories authorised does not seem to me to be evidence of a policy which has failed. Over 2,000 people are working in those advance factories, or will be within a very short while. What is really significant is that many of the firms which have entered into agreements to take over these factories would not have come to Wales if the factories had not been available.
In the special development areas—the areas likely to be hardest hit by the rundown in coal mining—16 advance factories have been authorised. Nine of these have already been allocated to tenants and another two are currently the subject of negotiations. That leaves five for which tenants have not yet been found, but none of these advance factories is yet nearing completion.
I am also greatly encouraged by the fact that in 1967–68, Wales' share of assistance offered by the Board of Trade under the Local Employment Acts was over £8½ million, which was nearly one-fifth of the total assistance offered under those Acts in the whole of Great Britain. On any basis of comparison, this was a very good share indeed. In fact, 1967–68 was the fourth year running when we increased our share of the assistance offered under those Acts. In the same financial year—I would like the hon. Member for

233
Carmarthen to hear this, because it will be music to his ears, I hope—investment grants paid to firms in Wales amounted to nearly £25 million, nearly £20 million of it to firms in the development area.
In addition to all this, major new Board of Trade sites were announced by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade last November. The Llantrisant site is already fully taken up. It has the Fram Filters factory now being brought into use, the Perkin-Elmer Ltd. premises, due for completion later this year, and the Royal Mint, which is to be opened by Her Majesty the Queen on 17th December.
At Fforestfach, land already in Board of Trade ownership is being brought into use by reclamation for industrial development. In the Landore/Morriston area of Swansea, the Board of Trade has arranged to buy some 30 to 40 acres of land from the Swansea Corporation, and the Corporation is pressing ahead with its plans for the reclamation and redevelopment of the Lower Swansea Valley. Thus, factory development, housing development and the expansion of amenities will march forward step by step.
The development of the industrial estate at Kenfig will now go ahead very fast. The Borg Warner development, announced recently, will take up a very large site in the heart of the estate. The construction of the 50,000 sq. ft. advance factory is well in hand, and I am delighted to be able to tell the House that negotiations, for the occupation of this large advance factory at Kenfig Hill are at an advanced stage. A 25,000 sq. ft. advance factory is ready for occupation. The major part of the Kenfig Hill estate is accordingly now committed for development.
There is also the large new estate near Bridgend. The area has been extensively investigated and a site of 300 acres surveyed. The estate is to be called the Waterton Industrial Estate and the Board of Trade is now proceeding with the purchase of the land.
These are developments of which we have every reason to be proud, and there are several other major schemes in the offing. I am exceedingly hopeful that we shall soon be in a position to announce yet further major good news involving a substantial number of new jobs in South Wales. Such is the success of our policies
234
that it is becoming difficult to keep up to date with the number of jobs in prospect, but the very latest count shows 21,100 in prospect over the next four years, 14,100 of them jobs for men.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: Would the Minister also give the figure for jobs which are likely to run out in the course of the same period? The one figure has no meaning unless it is placed opposite the other.
Mr. Thomas: I realise that the House wants that figure and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will no doubt deal with it in winding up the debate. Such an unbalanced picture has been presented before, and through public organs, that it is about time that the success story in Wales was told. I am very anxious to get this story across. I realise the importance of the jobs stopped. The hon. and learned Gentleman will have his figures in due course.
I should like, next, to turn to housing. This is less in the public mind than it used to be because so much has been achieved, but it is still one of my major concerns. Over the past four-and-a-half years more than 89,000 new houses have been built in Wales compared with fewer than 87,000 in the preceding seven years. Since the war, nearly 300,000 new dwellings have been built in Wales, so that out of every three families one is living in a new modern home.
Living conditions in Wales are being transformed, and as the next step we are beginning to concentrate on improving our older houses and replacing those not capable of improvement. I see the new policies of our White Paper, Old Houses into New Homes, having a particular significance for us in Wales, especially in the Valleys. Many of our older houses, which are solid structures, are capable of providing good accommodation for many years to come, and I am convinced that it is possible to give these houses the comforts and amenities of modern houses. That is my aim.
Finally, a word about roads. The House does not need me to tell it how important the provision of good road communications is for the development of any industrial society. Our general strategy for improving road communications is an ambitious one. The pieces cannot all come together at once, but as the outlines are seen and the details

235
filled in, I am sure that our road programme will be recognised as one of our outstanding achievements. It makes nonsense of the claim of some people that Wales is overlooked or forgotten.
I am pleased to tell the House today that I have decided to add eight new schemes totalling about £28 million to the road preparation pool. Its total value is now £61 million. The total Welsh trunk road programme now amounts for the first time to over £100 million. The House might like to have some details of these schemes which I have decided to add to the preparation pool.
First, there is an extension of the M.4 motorway from its present terminal west of Newport to as far as St. Mellons, where it will link with the Eastern Avenue in Cardiff. This will be a further step in the improvement of communications to Cardiff and beyond, the importance of which is clear, and which has been emphasised to me by the Welsh Council.
Secondly, Carmarthen has been a bottleneck on the main road to the West for many years. The capacity of the existing bridge over the River Towy and the junctions at each end are limited and I have decided to add to the preparation pool a southern by-pass of Carmarthen, including a new crossing of the River Towy. I know that the priority of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) is a north-south road, about which he keeps writing and talking, but I agree with the Carmarthen County Council that a second bridge over the Towy is more important.
Then I am adding to the pool Stage I of the Pontardulais by-pass, which will assist traffic to and from South-West Wales. I am also adding a southern and eastern by-pass of Brecon.
In North Wales, I am including an improvement of the A.55 road through Conway and Colwyn Bay. Details were given very recently of the report of a major traffic study in this area. I want it to be known in North Wales that I shall not make any decision about the route of this road until public opinion has had a fair chance to express itself and until there has been consultation with the local authorities concerned.
I am also including a further improvement on the A.55 in the form of the
236
length in Wales of a Chester southern ring road. The Ministry of Transport will be constructing the English length and the Welsh length must now be included in our own programme.
Finally, there are two schemes in Central Wales. One is a replacement of Brynderwen Bridge on the A.483 road, and the other a scheme to replace the Llanelltyd Bridge on the A.487 road north of Dolgellau.
I hope that the House will agree that these are desirable schemes. They are fully in conformity with the strategy set out in, Wales: The Way Ahead, and they have been discussed with the Welsh Council which, I am pleased to say, supports their addition to the programme. There never has been such an attack on improving road communications in Wales as we are seeing at present.
I should like to turn from trunk roads and motorways to principal roads, because these are essential lines of communication which, although of more local significance, nevertheless play an important part in our industrial strategy. We announced in our White Paper that we were considering with local authorities six schemes on principal roads to improve "travel-to-work" facilities for those who have longer journeys to make to new areas of employment following the closure of collieries in the South Wales coalfield. We have, in fact, agreed to consider for grant seven schemes, and preparation work on these schemes is going ahead as quickly as possible with a view to work being started by 1970–71.
These schemes are four by-passes, of Ystradgynlais, of Ystalyfera, of Aberkenfig and of Ebbw Vale; two improvements in Pontypridd, one on the A.4058 road north of Pontypridd town centre and the other on the same road between Pontypridd and the A.470 Cardiff—Merthyr Road; the last scheme is a link at Pontlottyn with the Heads of the Valleys Road to give better access between this road and the northern end of the Rhymney Valley. The value of these schemes is over £2½ million.
The progress made in recent years in Wales has been achieved only as a result of very hard work by people who care deeply about Wales. Having served in the Welsh Office as Minister of State and now as the Secretary of State I can testify to the House to the first-class team spirit

237
which exists between all the Government offices in the Principality. There are also close links with the new Welsh Council, with the Development Corporation for Wales, which helps greatly on the promotional side and in boosting overseas exports from Wales, and with the Wales Tourist Board, which is playing an outstanding part in selling a product second to none.
I have concentrated today on the successes we are achieving because I want the world to know that Wales is truly a land of opportunity. But I do not under-estimate the seriousness of the problems which still confront us. The changed pattern of fuel demand leading to the rundown in the mining industry, the reduction in manpower in the steel industry and the decline in the numbers employed in agriculture and in transport all present us with a tremendous challenge.
Our major task must be an even greater acceleration of new industries to match the pace of redundancies confronting us. We have to increase our training facilities still more so that the new skills needed by our new modern industries will be available. Of the 152 industries listed, 151 are to be found in the new Wales that is being established. In training and in other fields much has already been achieved, but the way ahead beckons us to even greater endeavour.
There is no short cut, as there is no quick and easy answer to our major problems, but I believe in my heart that the sum total of the Government's policies give to Wales the weapons that will ensure for our people a better and a brighter life than we have ever known before. By establishing the Welsh Office my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has established that the needs of Wales are a top priority with this Government. We are determined both to protect and to develop all that is best in the Welsh heritage and to ensure for our people an economic strength in which we may feel that our future is secure.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. David Gibson-Watt: The House has listened to the Secretary of State discussing many problems of Wales, and we were hoping that he would say something on the subject of devolution. We have been led to believe from what was said at Blackpool, not
238
only by him but by his right hon. Friends, that we would today advance a little in our knowledge of the thinking of the Government on this subject, Although the right hon. Gentleman had a good deal to say, boiled down it came to absolutely nothing.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who has fairly strong views upon this subject—what they are I am not quite certain—was here to listen to what his right hon. Friend had to say, but I do not think he will go away a penny the wiser from what he has heard. No one will deny that this is probably the most difficult problem that any Government, any party or any individual interested in Wales, or with a knowledge of Welsh affairs, has to deal with or to speak about.
The present Government are responsible for devolution becoming such a major problem in Wales. I will explain why I make this fairly strong accusation. I have heard many people from time to time say that they are dissatisfied with what they call remote London government. I suppose they mean by this phrase that decisions about Wales are taken in London, whether they are taken by Welsh Members of Parliament or by other Members of Parliament. This is an argument with which I would not agree but which I understand, as indeed does the right hon. Gentleman.
One matter which could be improved upon is the way in which Welsh debates are handled in the House. During the last four years, that is to say during the life of the present Government, the Secretary of State's Report has been regularly brought out in February and the Welsh debate has taken place regularly in November. This means that the Report of the Secretary of State is stale meat by the time we have returned from holiday and our conferences. I am making a party point here. It was different in 1963 when we debated the Report of the Minister of Welsh Affairs, as he then was, in June. I seriously say to the Government, as I have said on many occasions to the Leader of the House, that our Welsh debates must be held nearer to the time when the Report of the Secretary of State is produced. For that matter we could well have a debate, possibly in the Welsh Grand Committee,

239
on the Welsh Digest of Statistics, which comes out in September. This is perhaps one reason why people who follow our affairs in Wales very carefully feel that we are not giving them that sense of urgency which they deserve.
In July last year Cmnd. 3340, Local Government in Wales, was produced. That Report has lain on the table ever since, and has not been debated; yet, as the Report states, it was produced because of the very urgency of the need in Wales. I will read to the House the initial paragraph of the summary on page 23:
"61. Because of the urgency of the need in Wales and because, as a result of the work of the Local Government Commission for Wales and subsequent work, reorganisation proposals were well advanced, the Government decided to proceed with a reorganisation of local government in the Principality instead of waiting until that in England and Scotland could be carried out following the Royal Commissions' reports."
The Report goes on to say, at the end of paragraph 62:
"Further adjustments might need to be made if experience of the working of the new system in Wales and of the changes decided on for England and Scotland showed them to be needed."
As I have said, the document has not yet been debated, but the Government have had discussions with the local authorities, and they have carried out Part II of the Report with regard to councils. That I agree, but is it not time that we had a debate on this subject either in the House or in the Welsh Grand Committee? I am certain that all hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies have strong views upon this, and that until we have obtained the views of hon. Members upon the local government aspect, and until we can advance, irrespective of the progress in England following the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government, then I do not believe that we shall be able to tackle properly the question of devolution.
I feel, and I believe that my views are shared in many quarters, that just to plump for devolution, or any form of it, without getting a proper and sensible reorganisation of local government in Wales would be a step in the dark which would not necessarily be to the benefit of the Welsh people. I blame the Government for delaying debate and for not
240
pressing ahead further in local government reorganisation.
I come now to a point which was made by the right hon. Gentleman—
Mr. James Griffiths: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says, but he now leads for the Opposition on Welsh matters. As he knows, the Opposition have available to them more than 20 days on which they can choose subjects for debate. Will he consider using one of them for the debate for which he asks?
Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful for that interruption. The right hon. Gentleman has heard me ask the Leader of the House over and over again for such time. However, he was not aware of the occasions on which I have asked my right hon. Friends. I have hopes that, at a date in the future, we may have a Supply day for Welsh affairs. I agree with him, but I am sure that he would not expect me to answer his question off the cuff.
Mr. James Griffiths: I will wait.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: The subject that I was about to come to was the point that the Secretary of State made about the shocking explosions which have occurred in Wales. I do not want to say too much about them. I believe that everyone was both shocked and infuriated that such outrages could occur in our country. Certainly, they have given many people outside Wales a bad and totally incorrect impression of the sort of people that we are, and we join with the right hon. Gentleman in what he has said about the wounded airman.
There has been a sequence of explosions over a period of time, and what the public is asking is why the authorities are not able to report that a single person responsible has been brought to justice. I appreciate, that these are not events which have occurred merely during the period in office of this Government. There was an explosion three miles from my own home which happened well before the present Government came to office, so it is not entirely their responsibility, However, we hope for some progress in this—
Mr. George Thomas: Security in Wales is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but I am surprised to

241
hear the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) lending himself to this denigration of the efforts which are being made. I hope that the whole House realises that those who are engaged in seeking out these villains are at full stretch and need our public support rather than hints of that sort.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: The right hon. Gentleman has used the word "denigration". I think that he is using an exaggerated expression. It is a bit strong. I was merely asking why the Government were not getting results, and that is what the general public is asking. After all, the Government are responsible for the police, just as successive Conservative Governments were up to 1964. Responsibility cannot be shelved in this way. The general public asks and urgently hopes that results will be obtained fairly soon, whether it is by the Secretary of State or the Home Secretary.
What evidence is there that there is any help in training and in money coming to these people from overseas? The job at Pembrey was not the work of amateurs. A number of hon. Members have enough experience in these matters to know that. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at this point very carefully.
Another point which I wish to make is not a personal one to the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will not take it as such. I would ask him what specific regulations the Welsh Office or the Home Office has given to firms and local authorities to control the way in which they keep gelignite for blasting and other purposes. Have the Government, resulting from this sequence of explosions, lately given special instructions about the way in which gelignite is looked after? I would like to be certain that controls have been tightened.
I want to refer now to a matter which affects Mid-Wales. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Tudor Watkins) is in his place and knows a great deal about the Mid-Wales railway. The House will remember that this railway, the last in Central Wales, was destined to be closed by British Railways in the period of office of the last Conservative Government. It was reprieved by the joint action my right hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) and Leeds,
242
North-East (Sir K. Joseph). It was a political and not an economic decision. On economic grounds, it can be argued that the line is losing money, but I believe that it would be a psychological blow to Mid-Wales if it were to go.
This year, British Railways again showed their intention of closing the railway, and the matter was considered not only by the transport users' consultative committee but by a protest conference at Llandrindod Wells. After Parliament went into recess, British Railways started knocking down the stations.
The first act by any railway company which wants to bring a service to an end is to try and reduce the number of passengers using it. Of course, if one is old and trying to catch a train from a small station and there is no shelter on it, one will quickly seek some other form of transport. I am glad to hear that this knocking down of stations has ceased, but I would like to know about two matters from the Secretary of State.
It is said in the Western Mail that the Welsh Council has said that it would not be a good thing if this railway were to be closed. The right hon. Gentleman has told me on previous occasions that he will not reveal to the House what the Welsh Council says. If the Western Mail has a leak on this occasion and it is true that the Welsh Council has said that it would be a bad thing if the railway were to be closed, will the Secretary of State say so, because only he can stop the closure, as it is a political decision and not an economic one? I hope that he will ask his hon. Friend the Minister of State to give the House an answer when she replies to the debate, because it is a matter which is all-important in Mid-Wales.
I have been mocked on more than one occasion for saying that the subject of water is explosive. I do not retract. It is a very explosive subject in Wales today.
Mr. Tudor Watkins: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the Central Wales line, is he aware that, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, I made representations to my right hon. Friends the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State about the stations? I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary

243
of State told me last week that Mr. Hilton, the divisional manager, probably because of a political decision, has now stopped the destruction of these station buildings.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I read a long letter on the subject which he wrote to the Brecon and Radnor Express. However, I do not withdraw my question to the right hon. Gentleman, because I think that it will strengthen the hon. Gentleman's arm, as well as those of the rest of us, to have a real answer from the Welsh Office.
The flooding of Welsh valleys has been going on for many years under successive Governments. Water is needed for industrial purposes, some of it for Wales and some across the border for England. There are two specific areas in Mid-Wales which are threatened today. One is in Southern Montgomeryshire, Dulas, and then there is the Usk Valley, where 1,800 acres are threatened in Breconshire. I expect that other right hon. and hon. Members will refer to water. Whatever the needs of water may be, I hope that the Government will consider carefully before they flood these areas, in particular, the 1,800 acres of excellent agricultural land just south of Brecon.
I also ask the Secretary of State what is happening about the inquiry, experiment and research into desalination. What is happening about the Dee Barrage Scheme and the Severn Barrage Scheme? Those of us who live in Wales do not wish to see this continuing swamping of the valleys which are known and loved so much. The right hon. Gentleman knows this problem, having had to face it both in opposition and in government. I ask him to bend his mind to this problem to see whether something bigger can be found to provide the water which is so necessary for industry.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke at length and gave us a lot of figures on the overall question of roads. What the Secretary of State did not say, and what I want to ask him, is what will happen to the 15 per cent, cut in maintenance on what I call the county council roads which came out last year. The right hon. Gentleman owes it to the county councils to give them good prior
244
warning whether this cut in road maintenance expenditure will be kept on and reinforced this year or will be taken off. It would be a great help if the Minister could tell us that at the end of her speech.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke a good deal about industry. I was glad that he did. He said that there were some professional pessimists about. The right hon. Gentleman will not find one at this Dispatch Box this afternoon, because I have never been a professional pessimist about Wales or anything else for that matter. I believe that the future of Wales is good. I said this when we were in power. It was not always echoed from the Opposition. But there is nothing like turning a poacher into a keeper. I was glad to hear some of the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave. I congratulate the Mid-Wales Industrial Association which, through the years under successive Governments, has made such a great contribution to industrial life, such as it is, in Mid-Wales. But the general picture of industrial activity and employment in Wales has not, getting down to figures, very greatly changed since the last Welsh debate. The figure for unemployed still remains obstinately around the 4 per cent. mark.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, the rundown in the coal industry continues and remains one of the main problems. So many of those made redundant in this industry are well over 50 and this makes the problem of retraining very difficult. During the last 12 months only six miners have been retrained in Government retraining centres. This may be one of the reasons.
One of the greatest threats to employment in Wales is the engineering dispute. We hope that this will come to a speedy end, because nothing could have a worse effect on Wales. But what we really need above everything for industrial progress in Wales is an upturn in the economy. We have been promised this by successive Chancellors. An upturn in the economy would do more for Welsh industry than anything else. For the smaller firms in the service industries, particularly in the rural areas, cancellation of Selective Employment Tax is an essential. I doubt whether it will come under this Government, but it will certainly come under the next. The picture

245
and the problem in Wales has not greatly changed since last year. With the closing down of some of the last mines in Wales we have a great problem to face both in North and South Wales.
What the right hon. Gentleman said today about housing, roads and industry would, in my opinion, have come very much better at an earlier part of the year when he was speaking to his own Report on the Principality. Therefore, I end my speech by asking the right hon. Gentleman and the Government whether, when the Secretary of State's Report comes out in February next year, we may have our debate at a more seasonal time.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I therefore ask right hon. and hon. Members to keep their speeches as brief as possible so that as many as possible may take part.
5.25 p.m.
Mr. Fred Evans: Mr. Deputy Speaker, coming to the House from the cloistered and academic atmosphere of an ancient and large grammar school, and standing here undergoing the ordeal of a maiden speech, has forced me to the realisation of an inadequacy hitherto unspotted in that, as a headmaster, I feel sure that I did not enter fully or probably kindly enough into the emotions felt by new boys entering a venerable institution for the first time and feeling upon themselves the weight of tradition and the burden of custom, precedent and convention. Should it be my lot to be redrafted to my former sphere, I hope that this will have a salutary effect.
I have heard something of the conventions of this House, in particular, of maiden speeches which are supposed to be brief and non-controversial, although I have always wondered whether expecting any politician of any party at any time to be both brief and also non-controversial belongs rather to the realm of pious aspiration than to the realm of attainable fact. If, however, I inadvertently infringe any such convention, I trust that the House, with its customary generosity, will ascribe this not to conscious design but to having just com-
246
pleted five and a half days of actual sitting in the House.
I am very proud to have been elected as the Member for Caerphilly. For the past 60 years the mining areas of South Wales have sent a continual stream of men of very high calibre to this House. Caerphilly has returned a Labour Member to Parliament for the last 50 years. For most of that period my two predecessors, Morgan Jones and Ness Edwards, both men of note in the House, filled that position. They were both men of high ideals and great tenacity of purpose. Both were imprisoned for their beliefs. I trust that this is a precedent which will not be elevated into a convention.
My immediate predecessor, Ness Edwards, was a Member of the House for 29 years and held office on two occasions. He came from the same generation of miners as that from which my own father sprang. In fact, my father was a miner in the colliery at which Ness Edwards was the lodge secretary before he subsequently became a miners' agent and then Member of Parliament for Caerphilly. It was a generation which produced many illustrious figures on these benches, some of whom are present now. They were a generation of men who, denied the advantages of present-day education, found outlet for their intelligence and creative energy by dedicating themselves, through the trade union movement and the Labour Party, to the vision of a new democratic and egalitarian society. I think that when this generation, which produced at least one great Parliamentarian, Aneurin Bevan, finally passes, British politics will have lost some of its unique savour.
Ness Edwards was my friend and comrade. I was for a time his agent, and it has, therefore, been a source of deep gratification to me that in conversations with hon. Members on both sides of the House I have heard so many tributes paid to him. I can pay a high tribute to his qualities as a constituency Member and as a man of high ideals who believed in the fundamental socialism for which the Labour movement has always stood. If I can only fractionally attain the contribution which Ness Edwards made to his country, to this House and to his constituency I shall rest content.

247
Perhaps I might now refer to my constituency, and here I have a distinct advantage because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, many Members on this side of the House, and at least three Members of the handful on the other side, because of certain events at Caerphilly, are somewhat familiar with what I am going to discuss.
The constituency is a long and straggling one on the Glamorgan side of the Rhymney Valley, and is divided into two big urban areas. The Caerphilly urban area has, in the most part, outgrown its former dependence on the mining industry. Through the efforts of an imaginative local council we have managed by our own efforts to attract a considerable amount of small-scale diversified industry into the area. We even have a Harold Wilson Estate there, and I am glad to say that every site is occupied. Yet such is the impact of the great industrial changes going on in Wales today that even in this part of the constituency the unemployment figure is greater than the average for the rest of Wales, and quite considerably so.
In the northern part of the constituency we are entirely dependent on mining. We have seven pits. One was scheduled to be closed on 29th July, involving 680 jobs. Another one, involving 1,000 jobs, is, on the latest information available to me, scheduled for closure by March, 1969. Most of the other pits are those which can be classified as being in some danger of closure, and it is in this area that we have the most intractable problem in that the topography prevents the use of natural industrial sites.
The nature of this part of the valley will not suffice to provide sites to attract the kind of industries that we want, and a considerable amount of work needs to be done to create these sites. Fortunately, it is an area of derelict ballast and shale tips, and only earth-moving machinery is needed to create the necessary sites. As my right hon. Friend has given the glad news that at long last we are to have a trunk road from north of Pontllotyn to connect with the Head of the Valleys road, may I ask him to consider providing earth-moving machinery to create an industrial site, which could be far bigger than the Treforest Estate, adjacent to the Head of the Valleys road
248
and only 40 to 60 yards from it. This would give us the two growth points that we want in the Rhymney Valley, one in the south in the Caerphilly area, and one in the north at Pontllotyn. If that can be provided, we can save the valley.
I do not want to pour cold water on the picture painted by my right hon. Friend, but he has been in this valley and he must be aware of the feelings of frustration among mining communities at the moment, feelings, indeed, of bitterness over what is happening to them, fears that their communities may be compulsorily disintegrated, feelings that after many years of loyalty to a political ideal they are now in the process of being abandoned.
We give great praise to all that the Government have done. We know from utterances in the rarefied and heady atmosphere of conferences just what would happen if some other party had control of the situation, but we rely on this Labour Government to see that the mining areas receive the treatment which they deserve for their contribution in providing the base of the economic prosperity of this country for the last 100 years, and which they deserve as vivid communities, with their own cultural traditions, and with their own way of life which has led to the production of many of the finest men and women who have given their services to Britain and to Wales.
I ask the Government to give serious consideration to the Reports of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, and that of the Economist Intelligence Unit, which, in my opinion, sets out a realistic programme for trying to do something about the mining areas. The Economist Intelligence Unit examined fuels. It examined the totality of the situation and the social costs in terms of what will have to be paid in redundancy and unemployment benefits, the cost of bringing alternative jobs into mining areas, the loss of revenue by British Railways as the major carrier for the National Coal Board, the problem of relying on strategically uncertain areas for the import of oil, and, above all, the possible longevity of supplies of North Sea Gas. It came up with the conclusion that the Government's White Paper on Fuel Policy was an underestimate of the coal demands of this country, and

249
that the figure should be 144 million tons in 1975 and 136 million in 1980.
I ask that consideration be given to certain points of actions so that communities like these in South Wales which I genuinely love, may be given the right of survival which they have so much earned. I ask that reconsideration of the White Paper on Fuel Policy should take place in the light of the findings of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, and the Report of the Economist Intelligence Unit; that pending this examination colliery closures should cease; and that in any case they should not occur until alternative jobs are provided, which means having the sites there and the jobs.
I should like to see full attention paid to the pledge given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, when he said in Tredegar last week that the communities of the Welsh valleys must remain integrated and viable communities. We are most grateful that the communications system is being improved, which will allow jobs to be brought in. I am satisfied that, if my right hon. Friend's pledge is fulfilled, not only Wales as a whole, but that part of it to which I as a Member of the House am particularly dedicated, will have not just a future but a very great future.
5.40 p.m.
Mr. Raymond Gower: Seldom, If ever, have I had the support of both sides of the House, but I know that I have that support now in complimenting the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans) on his very effective first speech in the House.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Gower: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was nervous; if he was, it was not at all visible to me. He spoke with an easy fluency and with a moderation which, in all essentials, was non-controversial. A particularly attractive feature of his speech was the amount of it which he devoted to a tribute to his two distinguished predecessors. I thought that an extremely attractive feature of what he said. After that, the hon. Gentleman showed his personal knowledge of the difficulties and problems of his constituency, and I feel that he can take real
250
satisfaction in the contribution which he made on the occasion of his first address to the House.
Despite the speech of the Secretary of State—I shall not attack the right hon. Gentleman in any way—many right hon. and hon. Members recognise that the last few years have constituted a strained and difficult period in Welsh life. It would be unrealistic and unfair to blame present Ministers or their predecessors. I am sure that the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. George Thomas), shares with his predecessors, the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes) and the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), a deep concern for the promotion of Welsh prosperity, but I doubt that, even in moments of euphoria, he or his right hon. Friends could really feel that their successes have equalled their hopes.
It would be foolish to deny that there are discontents in the Principality. What are the causes of the present discontents? In my view, these arise partly from an anxiety, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) has already referred, that the Government's political and economic administration is far too centralised. This anxiety, of course, is not to be found only in Wales. Then, there is the fact that Welsh Ministers have tried to help the Welsh economy in the context and against the background of the economic difficulties of the United Kingdom as a whole. Alongside the general economic and industrial problems of the United Kingdom, we have had, as has already been said, the accelerated decline of the coal industry. In addition, there have been the technological and technical changes in the iron and steel industry and in engineering. Further, there has been a significant and progressive decline in agricultural employment, which has its effect particularly in the Welsh rural counties, and, in addition, there is the undoubted inadequacy of some of the road communications to many of the less accessible parts of the Principality.
On top of those factors, there has been the introduction of new forms of taxation such as the Corporation Tax; not at all helpful to some of the small companies and undertakings to which Wales must look for a good deal of its industrial growth. We have the difficulties arising

251
from the sheer geography of the Principality, with the easiest communications east-west, and the problems created by population distribution, with most of our 2¾ million people being in the counties of Glamorgan, Monmouth, East Carmarthen, Flint and East Denbigh.
This has not been mentioned today, I think, but we still have an awkward pattern of employment. I need refer only to coal-mining, which in Wales even todays has 7·8 per cent, of employment as opposed to 2·4 per cent, in the United Kingdom as a whole. Metal manufacture accounts for 9·4 per cent, in Wales as opposed to only 2·5 per cent, in the United Kingdom as a whole. Chemicals, more significantly, perhaps, take 2·7 per cent, in Wales as opposed to 2·2 per cent, in the United Kingdom. On the other hand, we have far less in engineering and electrical industry. We have less than the United Kingdom average in vehicle building. We have less distribution in Wales than in the United Kingdom as a whole, and significantly less in the service industries.
Earlier today, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) intervened to ask the Secretary of State about the other side of the coin when the right hon. Gentleman mentioned new industries. Since 1960, there has been a 25 per cent, decline in employment in agriculture and a 50 per cent, decline in coal mining jobs. Whatever has been done, we have to recognise that new jobs have not been provided on anything like that scale.
There are fewer Government employees proportionately in Wales than in Scotland or Northern Ireland. Obviously, I make no comment that there are fewer than in England. I noted recently that the Welsh Office, according to figures given in the Western Mail, has 530 civil servants of whom 30 are in London and the remainder in Wales. I do not disregard the fact that there are other Government Departments, for example, the Welsh Board of Health with 205 staff, but I ask the House to compare the small figure for Wales with the Scottish Office, which has 7,800 officers, and Northern Ireland where there are 11,860. Those large figures are to be set against mere hundreds in the Welsh Office. Moreover, there are fewer executives and
252
administrative personnel of large companies in Wales. We have, therefore, a distorted pattern of employment.
Mr. Donald Anderson: It seems that the hon. Gentleman is out of sympathy with the rest of his party, for whom the name "civil servant" has something of a pejorative connotation.
Mr. Gower: No. I am speaking of the existing Civil Service and its distribution. I do not favour a vast expansion of Government Departments, but, given the Government Departments which we have, I am calling attention to the distribution of personnel. Plainly, the amount of devolution in respect of Wales is relatively small compared with that in respect of Scotland. In the private sector, as I was saying, there are fewer administrative and executive personnel. Thus, we have a disproportionate number of people doing unskilled or industrial jobs and significantly fewer administrators, executives and businesmen. All this makes for some distortion.
The other factor which has produced some of the discontent has arisen from the aspirations and longings of the Welsh speaking part of our population, spreading in some cases to the non-Welsh-speaking part, too.
I turn now to the remedies. The Secretary of State said little today about devolution. Some of our people advocate a sovereign Parliament. Others, like the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Liberal bench, advocate a federal Parliament. Some even suggest the Northern Ireland pattern. Others, among whom I should probably number myself, look to some strengthening of the Welsh Office and the extension of its functions. Obviously, there are difficulties, to some of which I have just referred, but there is considerable scope in that direction. In addition, there is the debate going on about an elected Welsh Council or a non-elected or nominated one. Further, there are the local government changes to which reference was made earlier today.
I press upon the Minister of State and, through her, the Secretary of State the need to ensure that, if significant constitutional changes are to be made, the House and the Government take with them the whole of the Welsh people, so

253
far as that is possible. It is essential to take Monmouthshire as well as Anglesey with us, and public opinion in Flintshire as well as Cardigan, Cardiff as well as Caernarvon. This is not easy, and such changes should be acceptable to the non-Welsh-speaking as well as the Welsh-speaking people. This also is difficult. Such changes would be doubly significant, because they could not easily be reversed. It is a tremendous responsibility for a Government of any one party to make such fundamental changes, and it is even more a responsibility on any Parliament which, in any single epoch, made changes which were likely to bind its successors in a large degree.
Therefore, if any decision in principle is made in the lifetime of this Government, I merely suggest that such a decision should be followed, before any final Act is passed, by a constitutional referendum in the Welsh counties. This would be much more serious than licensing changes, for which we already have the machinery to ascertain the opinions of people. I make that merely as a suggestion.
What are our policy proposals on this side for dealing with some of these problems? My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford has mentioned the best—economically to restore the buoyancy of the United Kingdom, which must surely he the most positive contribution to improving the position of Wales. We certainly agree that Welsh road communications should be improved and that even more should be done, not only to serve industry but also in future to serve tourism and agriculture. The removal of the Selective Employment Tax will be one of our most earnest ambitions. I believe that, in some respects, to reappraise the comparative merits of investment allowances and investment grants and to alter the Corporation Tax to assist the smaller companies and close companies will also be important, particularly in Wales.
We would certainly support—I am sure that this is our view now—larger assistance than has yet been contemplated for the Welsh tourist industry. This should not be regarded, as it has been by all Governments in the past, as the poor relation of our industries. We would give even greater emphasis to Government retraining. We do not support the Rural Development Board,
254
which has been the subject of recent controversy. We would take steps, as my hon. Friend suggested, to protect good agricultural land from flooding. This is vitally important. I suggest to the right hon. Lady and the Secretary of State that the Government should institute a survey of land use in Wales. There are plenty of reasons for this. One, of course, is flooding, and another is the development of caravan sites, which are sometimes unsightly.
Another important question, about which I will not enter into the individual merits, is industrial development, like that of Rio Tinto Zinc. I will not discuss the merits of that case, but that kind of development is sometimes against the wishes of local residents. This could all be considered in the framework of some organisation and a survey of land use in the Principality. These are the lines of our thinking.
I will abbreviate my remarks in the interests of others who wish to speak. The Secretary of State and his predecessors are doing their very best in the difficult context of a United Kingdom economic malaise, but they are fighting under very difficult conditions. We wish them well. We hope, however, that one of the lessons will be learned, namely, that some of the forms of taxation are making their job more difficult than it need be and that the job can best be assisted by a form of taxation which does not impose such a burden and such difficulties on some of the smaller companies. I hope that, in the next twelve month, we shall see some progress along these lines.
5.56 p.m.
Mr. J. Idwal Jones: I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans) for his interesting maiden speech, which we all enjoyed, a speech which was typical of a secondary school headmaster. I look forward very much to hearing him in the future. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his speech, which covered the whole of Wales, exactly as such a speech should.
Every area has its own problems and if that area is to survive, the problems must be faced and solved. That, of course, is the whole purpose of planning. We do not want to find in Wales what has been found in England, namely, a

255
concentration in the Midlands and the South and dereliction in the North, resulting in a divided kingdom. We want to see all Wales developing a pattern of industrial and economic prosperity.
I say that because I am one of those who believe that Wales is a nation. It is difficult to define nationhood, but I think that, very simply, it is a community expression of historical traditions and historical institutions within certain geographical boundaries. In Wales this may be blurred in the eastern part of the country, especially towards Monmouthshire, but in the West and the North-West the Welsh language is still spoken.
My right hon. Friend referred to the language problem. I know that it requires all the support and help that we can give and I am glad that the Government are doing what they are doing in this respect. At the same time, as I have said many times, the Welsh language will live so long as the people of Wales make up their minds to speak it. It should be the language of the home, because the children will speak the mother tongue; if it is preserved at home, it will be preserved in the life of the nation.
Recognising that Wales is a nation, and anxious as I am to preserve and cultivate the cultural elements in our country, we must see that our foundations are right. We need a successful economy in all areas in Wales, because people can live only where they can earn a living. That means—I think I speak for others on this side—that it would be fatal to regard Wales as an economic unit and it would be to the disadvantage of the national life of Wales to have economic separatism in the hope that that would preserve nationhood. Separation must result in the lowering of the standard of life and the lowering of economic activity.
The economy of Wales is integrated with that of Great Britain, as it has been integrated over the centuries. Here we have a common market with freedom of movement for capital, labour and goods. That has stood the experience of centuries. It puzzles me why those people who urge separatism for Wales at the same time advocate that an independent Wales should enter the Common Market of Europe. In my opinion, neither is the
256
solution. The solution for Wales is to be found neither in separatism nor in an independent Wales entering Europe. We need a plan for Wales—a twofold plan, which should cover the whole of Wales and which should be thoroughly integrated with the whole economy of Britain. That is the meaning and purpose of declaring almost the whole of Wales as a development area and certain parts of Wales as special development areas.
It is essential in this period of technical and technological changes that we have such a plan. In this period of change some industries are declining while others are expanding and yet are dispensing with manpower. Whether we have redundancies from expansion or redundancies from declining industries—whatever the cause—we have community problems created which must be solved. Therefore, there is a need for a through-going policy for Wales. I was pleased that the speech of the Secretary of State for Wales this afternoon gave a general picture of what is happening in Wales.
Coalmining is an example of a declining industry, for 72 coal mines have closed in South Wales since 1960. Between 1960 and 1964, 38 were closed, and between 1964 and 1968, 34 were closed. In Wrexham, two out of four collieries have already closed. Ifton, just over the border of the constituency, is threatened. Most of the workmen there come from my division. That colliery is about to close. If it closes next month, then out of five collieries affecting my division, three will have closed before the end of the year.
Hon. Members representing South Wales are in a better position than I am to understand the position in that part of the country and to judge the situation. I venture to suggest however, that while there should be factories in the valleys the plan to concentrate major development of industry in the valley mouths at Bridgend, Llantrisant, Pontypridd, Caerphilly and Abercarn is a sound one. Major development of the valley mouths can be a major contribution to solving the problems in South Wales caused by decline of the coal mining industry.
In my division Government policy has been at work—a very different policy from that which we saw at work in my area between 1951 and 1964. It is true that unemployment is still high in the

257
division because of pit closures. If Ifton is closed at the end of the year, that will aggravate the situation still further. But Government policy is being applied and is seen to be applied in my division.
The industrial estate, to which reference has been made, for example, is developing at an impressive rate. What was the policy of the previous Government? It was a policy of selling out and breaking up. The local authorities—Denbigh County Council, Wrexham Borough Council and Wrexham Rural District Council—sent a deputation to the President of the Board of Trade to ask permission to buy it and develop it as a public concern, but they were refused permission. That was the position as late as 1964. In 1963, when this was going on, we had an unemployment rate in Wrexham of 7·1 per cent. and all we were told was that there were 400 jobs on the way. They travelled hopefully, but the jobs never arrived.
In the Wrexham area, because of the policy of the Labour Government, there has been diversification not only in industry but in the size of industries, with a number of smaller industries being located near the old collieries in order to sustain the life of the mining communities. They have not reached the stage of production yet, but they will do so in the very near future.
We have the additional problem of Ifton, just over the border. May I ask my right hon. Friend to consider sympathetically bringing another factory into Chirk in view of this new problem created by the closing of Ifton? Five or six years ago my appeals fell on deaf ears, but I know that the ears are open today.
I will now leave the Wrexham area. Let us look for a while at the other end of North Wales to see Government action at work. There is the projected aluminium works at Holyhead as well as the projected development of the port facilities at Holyhead. We see plans for development at both extremities of North Wales—Holyhead in the North-West and Wrexham in the North-East. Nothing succeeds better than success. A successful industry will attract another successful industry. It is my view that Holyhead will throw its influences eastward and that Wrexham will throw its influences westward and in this way we
258
shall help to solve the problems of North Wales. I want the Wrexham area to become a bridge over which other smaller industries will go into the interior of North Wales to places such as Llangollen and Corwen, and beyond. That is the way in which economic development can proceed, and economic prosperity assured.
May I briefly comment on the situation in the rural areas because we have a problem of rural depopulation. This is not a problem peculiar to Wales for it is also taking part in Scotland and in most European countries, and the expression "flight from the land" is well known. This feature has played a prominent part in the 19th century. But for Wales it means that the young people leave the countryside and that we as a nation lose our people. That has an effect on the future of Wales and also on the life of our schools. In rural Wales schools have to be closed because the children are so few in numbers. The children are transported to other schools and in the context of the present situation that provides them with a better system of education, but the problem of rural depopulation is with us. Agriculture will not solve the problem. The woollen industry, once the thriving rural industry, has declined considerably and today it employs only 350 people.
There is another element in depopulation. We find a tendency for retired people to modernise the untenanted farmhouses of the rural area. Thus, there are two movements—the young moving out and the aged moving in. Very often those moving in object to the introduction of factories in the rural areas.
The only answer is to strengthen the old-established and larger community centres by introducing industries. We should see results from the setting-up of the Rural Industries Bureaux to advise the rural areas on marketing. As a result, industries should be introduced. But industries which are introduced should be able to produce goods in which transport costs figure insignificantly in total costs.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend refer this afternoon to so many advance factories being built in different parts of the country. We want to see private enterprise being introduced, too, but if they are not prepared to come to rural Wales, then I ask my right hon. Friend,

259
why not have Government factories to solve the problem? Schools, colleges, universities, and Government offices at central and local level would provide a wide and reliable market. This should be considered in order to strengthen the rural community life.
Having made my appeal to the Government, I want to make a plea to the rural communities themselves, because they can play their part. Protest has become the fashion of our time. Hardly a proposal is made these days, or there is hardly a rumour of a proposal these days, when the protests begin. Committees are set up for the conservation of this and the conservation of that, for the preservation of birds and the preservation of animals, and meanwhile we are losing our young people.
I should be the last to advocate the introduction of ugliness into the countryside, into the glorious valleys of Wales, because nothing appeals to me personally more than the harmony of nature, the appeal of rocks and the challenge of mountains. But in this modern age cultural landscape, factories well-planned and well placed, need not conflict with natural landscape any more than do bridges, farmhouses and aristocratic palaces. The greatest beauty in the rural areas is a living community. I urge the rural areas, when a factory is proposed, to extend the arms of welcome and at the same time to resist the voices of protest, to quiet them and eventually to silence all protests against the introduction of some of these industries into rural areas.
I have already spoken for too long, but I have a few words to say about university-industry collaboration. I want to see that development taking place in Bangor. I do not want to see the exercise ending with prototypes. I want the result of scientific research to be manufactured near the place itself, near Bangor, instead of being taken hundreds of miles away to other parts of England.
I was delighted to hear my right hon. Friend's comments about the road programme. It was wonderful. I was pleased to be at the opening ceremony of the Abergele by-pass, and I have had great pleasure in seeing what is happening at St. Asaph, which I visit often for personal reasons. I was pleased to
260
read about the proposed new road through Colwyn Bay. I do not know whether the A483 road was mentioned today. It is a road which leaves the A5 near Chirk and passes through my division to Cheshire. For most of the journey it is like a coiled snake and little has been done to improve the road and reduce its hazards. If my right hon. Friend mentioned that road I did not hear him. I hope he did.
Government policy for Wales is doing great work. This is the start which will result in greater achievements in the future.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. Emlyn Hooson: As I listened to the Secretary of State I could not help reflecting on what office does for a man. If the right hon. Gentleman was not a professional pessimist on Wales when in opposition, he was certainly an enthusiastic amateur pessimist for most of the time. He has now projected himself into a form of professional optimist, no doubt to justify his office.
I appreciate that some of the criticisms made of the right hon. Gentleman have been unfair; and he no doubt wishes to redress the balance. However, listening to him today one would not have thought that he was describing a country which has such a high unemployment rate. The charming maiden speech of the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans) put the matter in perspective, and I urge the right hon. Gentleman to study it, for only by appreciating past and present trends can we begin to solve the problems of Wales.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly mentioned two coal mines in his constituency and said that they were both scheduled to be closed. With this sword of Damocles hanging over his constituents, he said that 640 men would be out of work if one of the pits closed, while 1,200 men would be unemployed if the other closed. The Secretary of State had concluded his speech by saying that the Government could take pride in the achievements of the advance factory programme, which, he said, was providing jobs in Wales for 2,000 people.
The right hon. Gentleman must, like the hon. Member for Caerphilly, get the matter in perspective. If the men who will he made redundant in Caerphilly could be given the jobs being provided

261
under the advance factory programme, nearly all the jobs being provided by it would be taken up. This gives some idea of the size of the problem. I readily admit that the Government have done as well as any other Government in recent years to solve the problem of Wales, but much remains to be done and the industrial and economic problems of the Principality are huge.
I have no illusions about what is involved. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones) refer to Wales as a nation. I agree that it is something that one feels rather than it is possible to describe. However, I am completely opposed to the idea that a nation must necessarily be enshrined as an economic entity; that one must have, as it were, a separate, independent sovereign state to enshrine a nation. Twelve of the 13 Welsh counties are heavily dependent on the Rate Deficiency Fund, none more so than my own constituency. Next year my county council plans to spend £2½ million. Of every £100 spent by it, £91 10s. will be provided by the British taxpayer through the Rate Deficiency Fund or grants. The ratepayers of Montgomeryshire will provide the other £8 10s. With the exception of Flintshire, this is the pattern throughout Wales to a greater or lesser degree.
Wales contributed rateably far more to the United Kingdom economically in the past than it now does. In the last century, when coal and iron and the industrial revolution were at their height, Wales contributed heavily to the economy of the United Kingdom. Now the huge problem facing us in Wales is the decline of the basic industries which attracted large populations to Wales in the first place.
It is all very well for politicians to try to score political points when considering these problems. Often the Opposition attack the Government and the Government attack the Opposition—[Interruption.]—and I do not deny that the Liberal Party and Plaid Cymru are involved in this, too. The truth is that we are at the end of an evolutionary process. It does not matter what complexion the Government of the day may be, a huge problem faces them and I regret that this problem is still being virtually tinkered with. The Secretary of State is lot beginning to cure the econo-
262
mic ills of Wales. He is doing his best, according to his lights, but he is still accepting the perspectives set by his predecessors. I urge him not always to compare himself with his counterparts of previous Governments. Many former Administrations have been lamentable in their treatment of Wales and it is, therefore, not all that creditable for the present Government to be saying that they are doing better.
The alarming acceleration of the decline of the coal industry and associated industries, the enormous acceleration of the flight from the land with the modern technocratic developments in agriculture have all tended to exascerbate the problems of Wales. As a boy, I was brought up on a relatively small farm on the Vale of Clwyd. On this farm my father regularly employed six men and at times of the year many others were employed. Today my brother farms a much larger acreage with one man, and probably achieves greater production.
The hon. Member for Wrexham made a good point when he said that the developments in Holyhead and Wrexham could have a marked effect elsewhere in Wales. I agree that these developments may be the focal point for other developments in the area. However, what is lacking in Wales today are promotional ideas for the future. We are now laying down the basis for the Welsh economy not only for this generation but probably for the next century. No longer do we in Wales have the resources which led to the industrial revolution which took place there. Coal is in decline. What will take its place?
When the Secretary of State spoke of Mid-Wales he referred to the number of advance factories that had been built and the fact that some factories had been built privately, with some Board of Trade aid. It is interesting to note that it is easier to develop Welshpool than Newtown, simply because the former is nearer the markets. Some private factories have been built in Welshpool, which is developing naturally. Some industrialists reject Government factories and build their own so that they will be nearer the markets than in the areas where the Government wish those industries to settle. It is important for an industrialist to be able to send a lorry to the Midlands and have it return the

263
same day, having been driven there and back by one driver, without the driver infringing the regulations. A driver may be at the wheel for only a number of hours in a day. This illustrates my belief that communications are the essential sub-structure for the development of the Welsh economy. Promotional ideas along these lines are lacking in Wales at the moment.
The Secretary of State was less than fair to the hon. Member for Carmarthen when he chided him about the road around Carmarthen. I suggest that he made a slick party point. The hon. Member for Carmarthen is right to emphasise the need for a North-South road. It is equally important that we have other main arteries, along the North Wales coast and the South Coast—and in Mid-Wales—
Mr. George Thomas: I interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman in the hope that he will be aware that one must choose one's priorities. The priority of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) is the North-South road.
Mr. Hooson: Like their predecessors, the present Government have lacked promotional ideas. I put forward a plan for developing Aberystwyth, with a main road right through the area, and then developing the roads between the end points, to Shrewsbury. Good communications of this sort tend to result in developments taking place elsewhere.
Without wishing to make a party point, a real concept of the future of Wales is not possessed by the Government. I accept that an enormous task faces any Government, but a start must be made on it. All the efforts of the Secretary of State, will be to no avail unless we have the right promotional ideas and a proper tackling of the task. Unemployment is still a tremendous problem in Wales and this will not he overcome without a great deal more money being spent on Wales. For this reason I entirely disagree with the hon. Member for Carmarthen. Indeed, I do not know from where this money would come if we were not part of the United Kingdom. We derive great benefits—economically, politically and socially—from being part of the United Kingdom.
264
However, I want to see more signs of the Government laying down foundations for the future prosperity of Wales. Milford Haven will be an important factor in this development and better communications to Holyhead will improve matters. As I said, once the right road programme is secured, it is easier to develop other areas. It is difficult to encourage industry to come to certain parts of Wales, including my constituency. I am glad to say that there are signs of improvement in my area, but it is easy to see what good communications can mean, particularly as Welshpool is developing with the least amount of Government help. Newtown needs more help, with better roads.
The problem of water resources is causing anxiety not only to people in rural Wales but to Welshmen generally. I urge the Secretary of State to establish a Welsh Water Resources Board. Not only does he need one, but the people of Wales would feel more reassured if such a specifically Welsh body existed. It could co-operate with the English Water Resources Board and advise the Secretary of State.
The compensation terms under the Water Resources Act are not good enough. When a valley is selected the community, as opposed to individuals in it, should derive benefit from the development of the resource. In 1961 the Lloyd-Owen Committee recommended that the community, apart from individuals, should reap greater benefits. New villages and community centres should be provided. Whatever is finally decided, the whole matter should be controlled and governed by a Welsh Water Resources Board. No doubt the Secretary of State has considered this matter. I hope that there will be an early Government announcement on it.
I reinforce what the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) said about the need for feasibility studies into barrage proposals for various estuaries in Wales. I appreciate that not all the estuaries considered will prove satisfactory, but feasibility studies would allay the considerable anxieties that exist in Wales on this topic.
It was disappointing that the right hon. Gentleman said so little about devolution.

265
I hope that the Government will introduce definite proposals for the devolution of power to a Welsh legislature of some sort. This problem cannot be tinkered with. A bold decision is necessary and I hope that adequate study is being given to the matter. The United Kingdom itself has gone through a great process of evolution. In past centuries many people left Wales, Scotland and rural England to go abroad—to develop the colonies and other countries—and we have now more or less gone full circle. We are in the twilight of Empire. There are psychological reasons why we in England, Wales and Scotland are driven back to our home resources and must solve our home problems ourselves. It is inevitable, therefore, that there should now be a greater awareness of nationhood in Scotland and Wales and that there should be a tremendous feeling of regionalism in parts of England. This problem must be solved creatively rather than tinkered with.
I would personally prefer not to have an elected Welsh Council with little power but wait for an elected domestic Parliament. If we are to have devolution, let us do it properly. Let us give power to the people in Wales over their own domestic affairs. If this is not done, we will not entice and encourage in Wales the high calibre people we need to man such a legislature. A great deal of thought must be given to this issue and I hope that the Government will bring forward proposals about it before they reform local government, for the former is the essence of reforming the latter. This is essentially the first tier to be set up before one can decide the best pattern for local government in Wales.
I am seeing the Secretary of State for Wales on Friday on the subject of economies in my constituency, but he will appreciate that I must today say that when we have economies of the kind that are being made in Montgomeryshire against the kind of optimistic picture which the right hon. Gentleman has painted this afternoon it rather sticks in my gullet. In my constituency, his Department has decided—though I am sure that he will give sympathetic consideration to changing that decision—to economise by refusing to proceed with a sewerage scheme for villages that have never before had sewerage facilities. It is hard to understand the priorities in his Department
266
when such a decision as that is made, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is giving anxious thought to it between now and Friday.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Pearson: The House has heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans) a very delightful maiden speech. I offer him my hearty congratulations. He has shown himself to be a worthy successor of our former colleague and respected Member, the Right Hon. Ness Edwards. The quality of the speech was outstanding, and I hope that we shall hear my hon. Friend many times again.
The Secretary of State for Wales started by referring to devolution. I do not think that there is anything in the Report on that subject. In those short remarks my right hon. Friend certainly clobbered the separatism that is advocated by a section of the Welsh people. We shall need more than one debate on devolution, and on whether it involves a Parliament for Wales, or whatever may be the structure: we obviously cannot adequately deal with the matter this evening.
All sorts of things grow upon the account of the Government's record given by the Secretary of State. He set out to lighten the fire of debate with fuel from the Annual Report and that fire burnt and crackled cheerfully. Its leaping tongues of flame rejoiced and welcomed the day. So the great talk was set going by an earnest speech by my right hon. Friend with the air of one fully prepared for everything that comes. I have a sneaking idea that he may have culled a little confidence from having a galaxy of "big guns" near by to assist in deploying his fire power in defence or attack.
For a period the critics' hoses will spurt their dampening reflections upon any tranquil contentment my right hon. Friend may possess. After all, we need to fit together the main creative suggestions for the better regulation of affairs in Wales. I cannot fail to note that we have been hustled along by change, with its momentum distressing and confusing so many people. Our problem is to see that the unfavourable by-products of this change are dealt with as intelligently as possible. It is helpful that projects of industrial expansion are going ahead, and I hope sincerely that this growth will

267
become still more courageous and comprehensive.
Let us not forget—and forgetting is a besetting sin of politicians and of other people—that new employment over the years has been introduced into Wales through the channels of over 350 Government-financed factory buildings, the establishment of which has been greatly accelerated under Labour's ceaseless advocacy. In addition, many privately financed enterprises have been established and have gone ahead successfully. Not far off, there will be in operation seven large electricity generating stations operated by staffs of highly skilled personnel, with administrative elements residing locally. They have given a splendid lift to some rural areas.
Further, the build-up of transferred Government offices and the Royal Mint not only brings employment, but makes a substantial contribution to the local rates which is very welcome, especially in the rural areas. This is a picture of industry positively on the move, and effectively wards off the arrows of criticism that little or nothing has been done. Some may claim that not enough has been accomplished, but to say that little or nothing has been done is just not true.
In a debate on Wales reference is bound to be made to the agonising problem of the coal industry. The Secretary of State has mentioned it, and so have hon. Members on both sides of the House. During the past four years, colliery closures have gone on at an average rate of nine per annum. Let it be said that this most unpleasant operation has been handled on the whole by the National Coal Board and the miners' unions with a deep degree of responsibility. Most of the employees have been absorbed in transfers to neighbouring collieries. Some men have retrained and gone into other industries, some have opted to retire and take redundancy compensation, and some have had to register as unemployed.
At the close of 1968 we have reached the point when the concentration of closure policy is becoming hard and more serious in its consequences. There are greater distances to travel to other places of employment. No balancing jobs are near. The social burden is increasing. Those left in the coal industry are getting alarmed at the darkening prospects of
268
being able to carve out a life's career in the mines. Change there must be, we know, but voices will grow stronger and louder against its going on at a pace when it overrides the welfare of communities and continuously stabs the morale of those remaining. Until the knowledge has been sought and beaten out as to how to balance closures with available jobs, the process should be slowed down. We are demanding this. I know that all sorts of considerations arise in this connection, but a very welcome indication is the decision to stay the threatened closure of the National and the Pantyfynnon collieries.
A matter that occupies my mind nowadays is the trend coming to the surface that to maintain the numbers at present employed at industrial estates more and more space for factory expansion is required. This additional space is becoming very difficult to obtain at Treforest and at the mouth of valleys which give a good deal of employment, and existing firms wanting to expand need to do so in adjoining premises or near their present activities. If they are to plan for their future, some assurance will be needed that their requirements in the years ahead in the form of extensions can be met. Otherwise, these firms will look elsewhere and the number employed in the area will go down.
It is, therefore, important that an additional 100 acres of land near the Treforest Estate should be acquired to allow for expansions. Perhaps the present layout of the estate calls for a new look so that the utmost economical use of land available is made. The approximate number of men and women finding employment at Treforest is 12,000. I do not want to see that number reduced. But technical and logical changes are such that more and more space is needed to retain the number of people employed, and it is important that we should see to this. Success in this direction partially lies in the availability of more land. I should like an assurance that this aspect of my anxiety will have serious attention.
6.42 p.m.
Mr. Gwynfor Evans: We heard from the Secretary of State a very gallant attempt to show that the Government have taken the measure of the situation in Wales and that they are trying to act in the way that the situation

269
demands. His was an optimistic speech, even euphoric. I do not suppose that he will be surprised to learn that I do not share his euphoria, and nor do the people of Wales. It is true that in 1964 the Government were elected with a big majority in Wales with very high hopes, but the history of the last four years has done a great deal to disillusion people about the potentiality not only of this Government but of this system. We now have in Wales, particularly as a result of the experience of the last four years, disillusionment not only about the party of government but about the system of government.
It is because we have this system of centralised London Government in Wales that every aspect of Welsh life which is deeply affected by Government action or inaction is in a very unhappy state; and this includes the economic aspect. Apologists for the present system have justified it on the ground that it has been splendid in its effect on the economy of Wales. But what we have seen in these years is a Welsh economy failing not only to match the rich resources of the country, but even to keep pace with the English regions.
On Tuesday last, the Chairman of the South Wales Electricity Board, Mr. David Fenton, speaking from the middle of the problem, said:
"industrial growth in South Wales is lagging in comparison with the rest of Britain".
This lag affects the sale of electricity to industry. He pointed out that sales of electricity to industry in South Wales were less in 1967–68 than they were two years previously, in 1965–66. In the whole of Britain in the last four years there has been a growth of over 21 per cent. in the sales of electricity to industry, but in South Wales an increase of only about 7 per cent. —one third of the growth in the rest of Britain.
What we need in Wales is more development than there is in the English regions, not less because of the tremendous leeway which must be made up. Compared with the regions of England, there is plenty of room for complaint. What we see is our position getting steadily worse. It is the people of Wales who suffer from unemployment. It is they who suffer from lower living standards and enforced emigration. They suffer because their national or local
270
communities are being impoverished or because their nation is without the institutions of nationhood which enable it to live a full national life.
This century has seen more than one million people having to leave Wales because there was no work for them. There are only 2·7 million now. They are still leaving Wales at a terrible rate. In 1963–64, 33,000 people left; in 1964–65, 39,000 people left; and in 1965–66, 42,000 people left. At this rate, it would take only a quarter of a century for another one million people to leave. One million have left in half a century; another million at this rate would leave in a quarter of a century.
This drain, which is to a large extent a brain drain, is encouraged by the Government. It is encouraged in their education policy, in the colleges of education and in the university. The Government organise the export of brains from Wales to help solve English problems. This is one of our biggest exports. We lose about 1,000 teachers a year, and they are some of our ablest young people.
One might expect this terrible drain to cause a shortage of people for industry in Wales, but this is not what happens. It increases unemployment and causes a decrease in the number of people in employment. We still have 40,000 registered unemployed people, or nearly twice the English average. This is one dramatic indication of the Government's failure, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. The situation is far worse than this figure suggests. In addition to this massive figure, there is a great deal of hidden unemployment. When I asked in the House how many more people there would be at work in Wales if the activity rate were as high as it was in England, the answer which I was given was 200,000. We have a great army of hidden unemployed in our country. Here we have the measure of under-development in Wales. If we had an effective Government in Wales, these would be a great asset to them. But it is these, together with the registered unemployed, who define the extent of the need for new jobs.
The Government have never taken the true measure of the situation—or at least they have never revealed it. In the 1967 White Paper entitled "The Way Ahead", which was to be a plan for Wales, the

271
Government said that the shortfall of jobs in 1971 would be 15,000. They did not say how they arrived at that figure; it appears to be guesswork or wishful thinking. But this figure, which is ridiculously far removed from the true need, shows an irresponsible attitude to Wales by the Government. It shows that they have no real intention of taking the measures necessary to solve the problems of Wales. To tackle a problem of this magnitude, measures must be taken which none but a Welsh Government will take.
Professor Nevin, in his "Structure of the Welsh Economy", forecast that between 1964 and 1970 there would be an absolute drop of 59,000 in the number of jobs for men in Wales. This was laughed at from the Government Front Bench. The Professor said also that there would be a rise of 16,000 in the number of jobs for women. Today we are half-way between 1964 and 1970. Between 1964 and 1967, which is the last year for which we have figures, already the number of jobs for men in Wales has dropped by 41,000. There were 41,000 fewer men at work in 1967 than there were in 1964. The number of jobs for women has risen by 7,000. Thus there was a net decrease of 34,000 jobs, which shows that Professor Nevin was right on target. He was right and the Government were way out. Those who spoke in a rather denigrating way about the Professor's work owe him an apology.
This problem is at its worst in the coalfield. We have heard how 2,000 men can be thrown out of work when two mines close. This puts the concept of the 2,000 men employed in advance factories, although we are very grateful for such factories, in its proper perspective.
We know that the decline in the coal industry and the steady decline in manpower in agriculture explains in large measure what is happening. We knew that this decline would occur; this had been foreseen for years. There has been no more effective action here than there was in a similar situation when the tinplate works closed at the end of the 1940s, when thousands of Welshmen had to leave their land and go to England to find work. Today the same thing is happening.
272
The right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown) said this at Blackpool recently:
"Most of our people are immeasurably better off in material terms than when we came to power."
Let the right hon. Gentleman tell that to the Welsh miners—or to what his Government's policy have left of the Welsh miners.
The position was truly described in Parliament in these words:
"There is no plan for Wales. The Government are deceiving themselves. They do not understand what planning is. What they have done is to get together a series of uncoordinated projects. They do not put them side by side, they do not assess our resources or needs. …
We need a national plan for Wales, to bring together our needs, to assess the changes for industry, to forecast the new jobs required and to provide the machinery to do it all.
Therefore, I sum up our needs in this way: a national plan, which we have not got; a new town; the re-shaping of local government to bear the administrative structure that will be required when Wales starts to grow in the way we would like; the replacement of the Local Employment Act by planning on a wider basis; and a national fuel policy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Welsh Grand Committee, 11th December, 1963; c. 12.]
Those words were spoken at a meeting of the Welsh Grand Committee nearly five years ago by no less than a person than the present Secretary of State for the Home Department, who opened the debate for his Party. I do not think that any comment on the words is needed. They illustrate cruelly for the Government the failure of the system, not only of the Labour government, but of London government, too.
The Secretary of State for Wales has said that the Government intend to inquire into the matter of devolution. He has not described the nature of the inquiry, nor exactly what the Government intend inquiring into, nor even whether it is to be legislative devolution. I hope that evidence will be taken from other countries at this inquiry and that it will not be confined to what is happening in these countries of Britain.
How different the situation is in other small countries. I was recently in Denmark where I saw for myself the splendour in Copenhagen of their national cultural institutions, their opera house, their national theatres, their national orchestras, their national ballet, and so

273
on. Their language, their literature and their arts are in a flourishing state.
This is in a small country where the economy, too, has been flourishing. We have heard about the flight from the land, but Denmark is an agricultural country. Today only 7 per cent. of the workers in Denmark work on the land. The country has been industrialised throughout. There are not just one or two small pockets of industrialisation. Forty per cent. of industry in Denmark is to be found in Jutland, that great sandbank to the West. This has been done in a most remarkable way. The standard of living in Denmark is higher than it is in these countries. The gross national product per capita is higher than it is in these countries. This has been done in Denmark with nothing like the resources Wales has. In the past 100 years Wales has produced far more in wealth than the whole of the economy of Denmark.
The Danes have been able to raise their standard of living to this height because they have been a free country able to harness the energies of their own people to this task. That is what we need in Wales. We can do the same when we have the amount of freedom that the Danes enjoy. It has been said that we want separation, that we are separatists. I was able to go more than once from Denmark to Sweden. Nobody asked to see my passport; nobody looked at my baggage; there was freedom of passage back and forth. There was no separation of that kind even between Sweden and Denmark, so why should we have it in these countries when Wales has her own Government? There is no need for this separation. We cannot separate Wales economically from England. There is not this kind of separation now even in the Common Market countries.
Mr. George Thomas: In an article in the Sun on 20th July the hon. Gentleman made it perfectly clear that the hon. Gentleman would send representatives to Whitehall and would be wholly independent financially. Does not that mean economic separation, or does the hon. Gentleman want part separation?
Mr. Gwynfor Evans: It means financial separation; it means administrative separation; it means political separation, but it does not mean economic separation [Laughter.] I am sorry if hon.
274
Members opposite have not the intelligence to see so obvious a point. The Common Market idea has completely transformed the conception of self-government and of complete political independence. This is something we have to take into account. There is between the countries of Scandinavia the Nordic Council. This is a civilised arrangement which would be possible for the countries of Britain. We should now be embarking on the creation of a Britannic Confederation of free and equal nations here in Britain, a confederation into which I am sure that Ireland would be very glad to come. For Wales and Scotland there is no substitute for national freedom. In 1971 this Government will pull out from east of Suez. I hope they will pull out from west of the Severn, too.
6.58 p.m.
Mr. James Griffiths: I join right hon. and hon. Members in offering felicitations to our colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans). He made a delightful maiden speech. As one of the few remaining members of the generation to which he referred, I thank him for his tribute to the generation which provided from coalmine, tinplate mill and railway what I believe will come to be regarded as a very good leadership for Wales in days gone by. I join my hon. Friend to the tribute he paid to his two predecessors, Morgan Jones and Ness Edwards, with both of whom I had the privilege of serving in the House.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his opening speech. I am glad to see him in such fine form. I am glad, too, that his spirits are so high, because during the Recess he has been subjected to a good deal of ill-natured criticism by very ignorant people in some quarters of Wales. I have known my right hon. Friend since he was a young man and have regarded him as being the personification of some of the best traditions of our valleys. He is a real son of the valley.
I speak for as many people in Wales as the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) does. Perhaps even more. I was born in Carmarthen. He was not. Lest people take the view that Carmarthen has gone berserk, let me tell the House that my majority was bigger

275
than the vote the hon. Member had, so that Carmarthenshire still breathes the right spirit.
I want to take up two or three major problems and I will try not to be too long. I am glad to follow the hon. Member. When he speaks in this House, he is much more dovish than when he speaks elsewhere. His speeches in Wales are hawkish, but here he is a real dove. I hope that some day he will do us, not the privilege, but the fairness of speaking to us in this House in the same tongue as he does in Wales.
I understand now that Plaid Cymru does not stand for economic separation. The hon. Member will correct me if I am wrong. I do not want to give a false interpretation and I do not want the country to have a false impression either. Plaid Cymru means, not economic separation, but only financial separation. I am not an economist, although I once studied economics, but how one can have financial separation without economic separation I simply do not know.
I understood that what the Plaid Cymru stood for was not only economic, but political separation and the establishment in Wales of an independent sovereign State. Now, I gather, the sovereignty is to be not full sovereignty, but some kind of qualified sovereignty within a confederation of the United Kingdom. One cannot have a confederation without surrendering sovereignty from the federal parts. I understand, therefore, that Plaid Cymru envisages not full independent sovereignty for Wales, but a sovereignty that would be qualified because part of it must be surrendered to a confederation. Now, we are getting somewhere. [An HON. MEMBER: "Backsliding."] This is backsliding indeed.
I want to put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the problem of devolution. I say this to the Government to which I had the privilege to belong and which I still support and will go on supporting in this House and when I have left the House. I have belonged to this party all my life. I count it a great privilege and I do not want to belong to any other party.
I am speaking about devolution. I see the hon. and learned Member for
276
Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) in his place. For years the Liberal Party was dominant in the House of Commons with the biggest majority in modern history. When one considers this present century, and, indeed, the 19th century, one sees that in the devolution of authority to Wales the present Government have done more than any Government in history. For a century, the Liberal Party did not create the post of Secretary of State for Wales. The Liberal Party is the only party who have had 35 "Libs" and "Lib/Labs" with one Independent, Kier Hardie, in this House with an overall majority. In the years when they were in power, they did not bring about as much devolution to Wales as our Government did in 1964.
Mr. Hooson: The right hon. Gentleman is historically wrong. The Liberal Party want to give domestic Parliaments to Ireland, Scotland and Wales. As he knows, time and time again they introduced a Bill to give first priority to Ireland, and it was thrown out by the House of Lords.
Mr. Griffiths: All I can say is that the Liberal Party has never produced a Bill to give a Secretary of State to Wales. I want to see the devolution continue. I hope that the authority, scope and power of the Welsh Office will be increased. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will work to that end.
I want to go on further with the question of devolution and to put this point looking to the future. There is no doubt that in the whole of this Kingdom, as elsewhere in the world, there is something of a revolt against over-centralisation of power. This is one of the important developments in our modern society. Indeed, it is not only political: it is industrial, also.
We are moving into the technological age and to the large units in industry. If I were back at work I would much prefer to work in the mine where I spent most of my life before coming here, with 300 others, all of whom I knew by their names and nicknames, than to work in a big factory with several thousand employees. People are feeling a bit lost in the large industrial units. There is, therefore, a feeling that power is slipping away from them and that they are not as effective as they used to be or think they used to be in exercising and participating

277
in their decision. This, therefore, is the problem of devolution.
Plans are being discussed for the reorganisation of local government. I have made no secret of my view that I would like to see as part of it the development of regional local government by an elected Council for Wales. I am expressing only my own view, but I believe that a reorganised local government, with a national, democratic, elected council, would serve the people of Wales much better than a mini-Parliament. Make no mistake about this. Presumably, this Parliament at Westminster will continue. However many Parliaments we get in the United Kingdom, while this Parliament is here they would live and work in the shadow of this one and be dominated by it.
I say to my compatriots in Wales that if we had a Parliament, for example, on the Northern Ireland model—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that is what is talked about—believe me, disillusion would follow, quickly because the people would see that it was not a Parliament at all. It is much better, therefore, to build up on an expanded Welsh Office and reorganised local government and for all this to meet together within Wales, with some devolution of authority from the centre arid, perhaps, among other things, a place where a democratic, elected council could take over the responsibilities that we now give to ad hoc bodies which are scattered all over Wales. That is my view.
I want to put the economic problem in this setting. Listening to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, one would think that Wales was not an economic problem until 1964. I am slightly older than the hon. Member. One would imagine from what he said that nobody except the Labour Government ever closed a mine. Where was the hon. Member in 1920 and 1930? I have seen two great periods—perhaps the economists would call them readjustments—of decline in the coal mining industry.
The first of those periods began in 1921. It followed the rejection by a Liberal Prime Minister from Wales of the Sankey Commission's Report. That was a London Prime Minister, but a Welsh Prime Minister, who rejected the Sankey Report. The history of Wales could
278
have been far different in the past half-century had the Report been implemented instead of rejected.
I speak as an old coal miner and remember what happened in the 1920s and 1930s. The first readjustment took place because the Welsh economy was not geared for Wales or for London but for the world when coal industry in Wales was at its height. Of a production of 56 million tons, 36 million tons was exported. It was changes in the world—not in London—that caused the great decline in our export industry in the 1920s and the 1930s. Does the hon. Member for Carmarthen suggest that the present period of readjustment, with all its problems and headaches, is not being tackled infinitely more humanely than happened before? Of course he does not.
I was a Carmarthenshire miner, and I put to him what he knows is true, that this problem of readjustment has been handled at the present time better, and the problem of redundancy has been treated more humanely, than ever before. This is to the credit of my right hon. Friend and the Welsh Office and the Government as a whole. They have handled this difficult and big problem better than it has been handled ever before.
I do not carry all the figures in my head, but in 1921 more than half of the people of Wales—that is, of the occupied population—were in three industries, mining and quarrying, steel and tinplate, and agriculture. Employment in the first has been cut by more than half. In my time the number employed in the mining industry has declined from 250,000 to less than 50,000. We retained the tinplate industry in Wales, but not without struggle. There is a story I could tell about that, at the appropriate time. It was not done without a struggle, but even there we are faced with the fact that it does not now, and is not likely in the future, to provide for the same proportion of our working population as it did in the old days, for reasons which are quite clear.
This is the problem, and it involves, of course, tremendously difficult problems. The essence of Government success in this matter is to seek to use all the powers available to them to control decline and try to adjust the decline of

279
those old industries to the bringing in of new industries. This is the problem. It is not easy. As a coal miner, I was interested in a Question put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power today. This is not merely a Welsh problem; it is a coal mining problem; it is not merely a British problem, for the same thing is happening in the Soviet Union. At present, in Wales as elsewhere, we are moving from a one-fuel economy to a four-fuel economy. The position in Wales, as elsewhere, but particularly in Wales and in my own constituency, is that the rundown in the coal mining industry is getting on to nearly double what is envisaged in the Government White Paper, and I beg my right hon. Friend to take note of this. I was very glad to hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power say that this problem is being looked at, because it is very important indeed that we should do everything that we possibly can—and there is a lot still to be done—to slow down the closure of pits and to adjust the pace of that to the pace at which we provide alternative employment.
I must say just a word on depopulation. I have listened with very great interest to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the hon. Member for Carmarthen. This is the first Government in our history to put depopulation as one of the criteria for assistance under the employment and development Acts. Let that be known. Let that be known to the credit of the Government in Wales, where the majority get less publicity than the minority—through all media, including television. I hone that my right hon. Friend's work will be publicised. By all means let there be criticism, but the people of Wales should know the facts about his and the Government's work.
As to depopulation of the countryside, I would say to the hon. Member for Carmarthen that it is not only a question of bringing in industry for there may not be people there to work it, but of bringing in industry and people as well, and so this is a problem of having growth points. I proposed a growth point. What did the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberals say about that? I proposed that there should be a focal point of growth
280
in Mid-Wales, at Caersws, near Newtown. I believe that I was right and that history will show I was right, and I am very glad indeed that most people in mid-Wales now think so. But hon. Members opposite do not think so.
Mr. Hooson: What the right hon. Gentleman proposed was to bring 70,000 people from the Midlands, not from Wales.
Mr. Griffiths: I listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman today and he pleaded for Welshpool with the Secretary of State because it is nearer to the Midlands than Newtown.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: I do not want to shout the right hon. Gentleman down on this matter. There are many matters on which he has every reason to be proud of what he has done, but I think he will agree that his original plan for a new town in Mid-Wales has been given up by his Government.
Mr. Griffiths: Then I am very sorry and I do not agree with my right hon. Friend, but I do not understand that it has been completely given up. I believe that plan is the best plan. I still hope that it will be promoted. Depopulation does present a very difficult job.
I do not take second place to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery or the hon. Member for Carmarthen, to either or both of them, in love of my country, its language, its traditions. I believed half a century ago, and still believe today, that we have opportunity of building a new Wales. I am convinced of that. I want to build a new Wales very different from the Wales which was not built up by Labour Governments or by Socialists or by planners, but by exploiters who desecrated our country and drove seven out of every 10 Welsh people to crowd into four counties.
The economy was on a very narrow base, and I welcome, therefore, the diversification of industry which is taking place. We have made a beginning. Let us build on the foundation we have laid. That is the way ahead for Wales.
I am sure that when the time comes the people of Wales, with all their experience, knowledge, and, indeed, their culture, will know that there is no hope for them except in a Socialist Wales as a part

281
of a Socialist Britain. That is the hope for Wales. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right in the policy he is pursuing, and that when the time comes he will get the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales to vote in support of him.
7.19 p.m.
Mr. Geraint Morgan: As a Carmarthenshire man myself it gives me great pleasure to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths). I, too, would like to join him in paying tribute to the new Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans), for his excellent contribution to this debate.
Had 1 time I should have liked to follow him in some of the things he said about devolution, but appreciating, as I do, that many others wish to speak, I propose to confine my remarks to two main considerations, the reorganisation of local government and communications. My interest in devolution is great, and always has been, and I think hon. Members opposite will remember that I supported the idea of having a Secretary of State for Wales long before my party did.
However, I wish to turn this afternoon, first, to local government reorganisation. I referred to this very briefly in the last Welsh debate, and that only underlines the fact that this is a thorny problem about which there should be some finality. I propose to limit my remarks to North Wales, which I know best. Probably the most far reaching change proposed by the Government in their White Paper is the creation of a large county in North Wales, and it is particularly with regard to that that I have something to say.
I appreciate that what I have to say on this will conflict with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt). On this subject I am speaking for myself, but I sincerely believe that the views I express represent those of the majority of responsible people in my constituency who are interested in local government problems. They also have the support of the Denbighshire County Council. My constituency is particularly concerned in this reorganisation. There are, of course, strong differences of opinion in the matter, but in my opinion the best solution for North Wales is tie big county, the union of five
282
counties, and others whom I have consulted and whose opinions I respect hold the same view.
I have lived with the problem of local government reorganisation ever since I have been in the House. A year after I first came here the draft proposals of the Commission constituted under the Act of 1958 were published. Those proposals suggested a distribution of counties which was quite different from anything that has subsequently been recommended. In many ways these proposals had much to commend them, but it was considered that the general scheme was not administratively viable, and no more was heard about it.
In 1963, three years later, the Commission surfaced again with what it described as its final proposals. I can dispose of them very quickly by saying that they pleased hardly anyone in Wales, and were the subject of a great deal of attack. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), who was then responsible for Welsh affairs, acted wisely and properly when he shelved the proposals, and we then went back to "square one" so far as this problem was concerned.
There were two ways in which the proposals were particularly objectionable to the people of Wales. One was that they were essentially based upon tearing apart historic boundaries, and the identity of at least three counties would have been completely lost had the proposals been accepted. There were also anomalies in the proposals. If I may say so in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Cledwyn Hughes), whom we are glad to see in the House, Anglesey was, for some extraordinary reason, excluded from the general scheme.
After the shelving of the 1963 proposals, I made it my duty to find out in my own constituency what sort of union or merger of counties in North Wales would be generally acceptable. I asked the views of the people in the anglicised areas round the coast, and also in the "cefn gwlad". The general view expressed to me was that if there were to be amalgamation it should be in the form of a large county. That was the view that I came to, on the advice which was I was given, before the Government came to the same conclusion. I have no

283
doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Anglesey very carefully considered all these facets of opinion before he came to his decision.
The idea of a large county may be criticised on the ground that it will be too large, but there are manifest advantages as well. If a large county comprising five counties were to be set up it would not be administratively as large as many existing counties, and it would greatly facilitate the planning of communications which, as we appreciate from this debate is a matter of great importance. Also, a powerful North Wales county would to some extent balance the heavily populated areas of the South. Implicit in the proposals that have been put forward is that historic boundaries will be respected in a way they would not have been under the proposals of 1963.
To any person who speaks in terms of two counties instead of one in North Wales, I would say that such a system would drive us back to the unpopular proposals of 1963. I do not think that we can have a straight union, for example, of the Counties of Denby and Flint. It would not be viable within the context of the 1958 Act because the property with high rateable value would be concentrated in those two eastern counties. Therefore, it is, in effect, a choice either of the 1963 proposals or those put forward by the Government, and I support the latter.
I come now to communications. It is a pity that the Report on which we are basing our debate is now very much out of date. Since it was published the Abergele bypass has been completed and the St. Asaph bypass has been commenced. I congratulate the Government on having pushed forward with that work. However, in another respect, my judgment upon them cannot be so favourable. I would like the Secretary of State to pay particular attention to what I have to say about this recent Collcon Report, which has only just been published and to which reference has been made. The proposal favoured by the Government, of a by-pass of Colwyn Bay and Llandudno has been described both by the Mayor of Colwyn Bay and by the County Planning Officer of Denbighshire as "startling". That is a description with which I entirely concur.
284
If these proposals were implemented they would have very serious implications for Colwyn Bay, which is the biggest town along the North Wales coast, as a residential and holiday centre. I am glad to note from the handout that accompanied the publication of the Report that the Government do not regard this proposal as final. I also understand that nothing will be done anyway for at least five years, which gives the right hon. Gentleman plenty of opportunity to reconsider his proposal and, I hope, to change it.
Every reasonable person accepts the necessity for this bypass. It is, I suppose, the cornerstone of the policy of road building in North Wales. I would also be the first to concede that: he problems are appreciably greater in bypassing a town the size of Colwyn Bay than in dealing with St. Asaph, or Abergeley, which are being or are about to be bypassed.
There are four proposals in the Report. Two propose a bypass running south of the town and two, in effect, propose a bypass which barges straight through the town. I would suggest that the last two should be rejected out of hand. I was surprised to see that it was admitted in terms that one of the disadvantages of the favoured proposal was its high cost. It was also said that the disruption of residential property would be minimal, although I can assure the Secretary of State that that is not the view which is held locally. It is true that it shortens the route, but the character of a town should surely take precedence over the convenience of the travelling public and the short extra distance involved in the other schemes is a price which users of the by-pass could reasonably be asked to pay. I ask the Secretary of State to give serious consideration to possible roads south of the town, that is to say, plan A and plan D.
If I may make one general remark on communications, I have always accepted that the Government were right in their decision in 1965 to give precedence to east-west roads rather than to a north-south road. But let us be reasonable about this. Every political party regards Wales as, at least, an administrative unit, and, therefore, north-south communications are of importance. The time has now come for serious consideration to be

285
given to an adequate north-south road within the context of the general road improvement plans of the Government.
I thought that the Secretary of State was rather less than kind when he said that the present Government had done more than any other for the Welsh language. This is really an effort by all parties. It was, after all, a Conservative Government that appointed the Hughes Parry Committee which gave birth to the Welsh Language Act. This is really as it should be, because the Welsh language is the common heritage of us all.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. E. Rowlands: It was a pleasure to listen to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans). Many of us remember tramping up and down his constituency at great length some weeks ago. It was also a pleasure for a young man like me to hear the marvellous contribution by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths). Of the many speeches on Welsh affairs to which I have listened in the last two or three years, his was one of the best. It rammed home the facts of life and some of the necessary solutions.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans). I am always open-minded on the subject of devolution, but I think that the hon. Gentleman would make a poor doctor. He is quite good at diagnosing some of Wales's troubles, but he is no good at providing solutions.
Whatever the arguments for or against devolution, it is not an economic solution as such, and certainly it is not the panacea for the solution of our problems. On the other hand, in his optimistic speech, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was right in correcting the impression that the Government have done nothing and that any London-based Government will neglect the problems of Wales.
Against those problems, we have to weigh the advance of the Government and their efforts and especially the variety of inducements that we offer to people to come and bring their capital to Wales. This is where the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) was right in saying that the two have to be
286
measured together. One needs to know the sort of job gap that would exist in Wales over the next few years and whether the present programme and regional policies will be sufficient to meet the need.
This is the real problem, and today's debate is very much like last year's in that it is mainly repetitive. Hon. Members on the back benches say, "Well done" to the Government. "But there are greater problems ahead, and we want to know if they are being tackled and being conquered." Despite the efforts of the Government, the rate of unemployment in Wales is 4 per cent. compared with the rate of 2·5 per cent. in the rest of the United Kingdom. It appears that the shelter and protection which was to be given to the regions is leaky, and we have failed to understand the difficulties created particularly by the run-clown of the coal industry. In the course of last year, understandably, a variety of alternative policies have been recommended to solve the harsh problems caused by the rundown of the industry. Some have cried for the extension of the development area to cover the whole of Wales.
When an area like my own is left out of the development area, understandably the view is strongly held that we could do better if we were included. We have had to wait a long time for the Hunt Committee to report on the "grey" areas. It is rather like waiting for Godot. It is easy for an hon. Member representing an area left out of the development area to plead to join it, but, on the whole, hon. Members outside have resisted that temptation. But there are absurdities which arise when an industry moves only a couple of miles into a development district, because obviously that does not improve the employment position.
In the case of Cardiff, the number of such instances is very small. It could be accelerated by the Buchanan proposals, which may disrupt some of the small firms that exist in the city who will take advantage of moving into the development area. I am not against this. At the same time, I am not in favour of including the whole of the area which has been left out of the development area. It has not been proved that there would be a massive increase in the number of jobs available in the development area as a whole by the inclusion

287
of this area. What we want to do is to block the absurdities of this non-development area versus development area status and also help to reorganise and refashion the whole form of administration in South Wales in order to get proper planning on the broader scale beyond the needs of the county councils and country borough councils and the local jealousies which occur as a result.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen is quite wrong in saying that the problem has been created by an English conspiracy to neglect the needs of Wales. It may be said that the Government themselves fall down when they think that, if they offer juicy carrots, the capital will flow back into Wales. It will not come back in anything like the quantity required to solve the problems of unemployment and depopulation.
It must be remembered that capital came to Wales originally not because of a London-based Government but because Wales was where the quickest return could be found. When the valleys had been milked dry and it was found that coal was no longer a profitable investment, the capital left, and it will only come back when there is a genuine economic reason for it to return.
There are only two answers to this enormous problem. One is to find new reasons for the capital to return, and the other is to make sure that the circumstances are right for the capital to come back. That is why we hear so much talk about the need for roads and better communications, so making Wales attractive to investment. However, we must face up to the fact that while all these improvements are being made, more and more people become unemployed. It is all very well to have an immense programme of road improvements extending over ten or 15 years, but it is tomorrow and next month that mines are closing and when the immediate problems of our valleys worsen. What we need more than anything is more immediate and short-term solutions.
This is not a question of private capital. For a long time to come, Wales will be dependent on public capital. Everyone knows that it is dependent upon public capital in the forms of the rate deficiency grant and investment in nationalised industries, especially in steel.
288
One hopes that the Steel Corporation will follow regional policies strictly. The Central Electricity Generating Board, for example, proposes to rationalise its administrative offices out of Cardiff to Bristol. At the same time, we are trying to build up Cardiff as an administrative centre for the whole of Wales, including bringing down Government offices from London.
More importantly, if we are dependent upon public capital in the short term, the Government cannot burk the issue any longer and must face up to the problem of using a regional investment agency to sponsor industry which can meet the immediate and short-term needs of our valleys. If that is not done, the situation will worsen progressively, despite our efforts, and we shall not be facing up to the situation in which we find ourselves.
For that reason, I would like very much to see the Government committing themselves. This will be anathema to hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it would be interesting to hear the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) and the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) trying to reconcile the policies of their party to the needs of Wales. They say that S.E.T. is to be scrapped, and it probably follows that they propose that R.E.P. should go as well. However, if the Conservatives ever return to power, we shall not hear the voice hon. Member for Hereford. It will be that of the Birmingham and the national C.B.I., who will say that these policies cannot be carried out because they are against the free market.
The Birmingham Chamber of Commerce and Trade has made a passionate plea against I.D.C. controls, and we see increasing pressure brought to bear on Conservative leaders. I am convinced that, despite the pleas of the hon. Members for Hereford and Barry, if the Conservatives return to power, we shall see the dismantling of regional controls.
In the long term, the answer will be to find a new reason for so many hundreds of thousands of people to live and work in Wales. We will have to find a replacement for coal. Where does it lie? It is not only in roads. It has to be a natural or national resource that we have which other areas do not possess. What is this commodity? It was pinpointed very forcefully by the National Ports Council a year or so ago when it said that the

289
scarcest national resource in Britain today is land capable of industrial development adjacent to docks and deep water ports.
One of the key points in the industrial development of Britain is the capacity to develop industries on a large scale adjacent to our major ports. An investigation was set up to look into this matter and of the top choice three sites one was the coastline from Llanwern to Barry and beyond. But it can be taken even further West. There are acres of land capable of major industrial expansion as a longterm scheme adjacent to the finest group of ports in the country.
By this time next year when we come to debate Welsh affairs, I should like to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State come to the Dispatch Box with a concrete set of proposals for major industrial expansion in the long-term for such an area. Only by developing what we know to be our new national resource capable of producing industry and employment to match the needs of our employment situation shall we discover the future of a new Wales.
7.41 p.m.
Mr. John Tilney: Even though Liverpool likes to consider itself the capital of North Wales, it may seem odd that a Liverpool Member should take part in the debate. Therefore, I propose to take up the time of the House for only a few minutes.
I am sorry that I did not hear the whole of the speech of the Secretary of State. I had to go away to take the chair at a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting. However, I did hear the right hon. Gentleman say that the Government were giving very careful consideration to the problem of local government. For a long time I have believed that as Britain is partially federated with Northern Ireland we might have Stormonts in Cardiff, in Scotland and in parts of England as well. But I doubt whether those Stormonts should be set up in Wales until the problem of communications, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Geraint Morgan), especially a north/south road, has been put right.
I have many Welsh constituents. Many of our Liverpool homes have been built by Welshmen. Every weekend and throughout the summer thousands of
290
people from Merseyside go into North Wales. I have the privilege of being a trustee for an estate in the Vale of Clwyd, which I suppose is one of the most beautiful valleys in the whole world. So far, it has not been spoilt by man.
The most important influence that Wales has on Liverpool is the supply of water, which has caused a certain amount of annoyance in Wales where Liverpool is concerned. I believe that Tryweryn and Lake Vyrnwy have added to the beauty of Wales, but Welsh Nationalists do not feel as I do. It was difficult for the Lord Mayor of Liverpool to hear himself speak when the power station and dam at. Tryweryn were opened.
I think that some Englishmen occasionally forget that man does not live by bread alone and that there are people who would prefer their old habitations, their sheddings the marshes that they have known well, the trout streams and even the hillsides to a modern house or school which has been put up by a rich corporation. We are apt to forget that many people do not really wish to live in the 1960s and have a great hankering after the life they have always known.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: Even though we may wish to live in the 1960s, there are a great many people who do not wish to see their valleys flooded. Whatever party we may belong to, I am sure that we are grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend is putting forward this subject.
Mr. Tilney: I thank my hon. Friend. I hope it is understood in the City of Liverpool how strongly the people of Wales can feel about the land grab through the power of Parliament.
Many people from all over our United Kingdom come to Wales. They enjoy the new beauty of Tryweryn; they picnic there. If the people of Wales decide to build more similar dams, I hope that they will take a lesson, oddly enough, from the free people of China. At a great multipurpose dam that I saw only last year they have space for cars for the picknickers and small restraurants, but also some magnificent fountains. We do not have enough fountains in this country. But the provision of fountains, as a part of the compensation water, has to be thought out in the planning stage. That is a minor suggestion on my part.

291
Instead of building dams up in the mountains, I urge the Government to consider the great sandy and rush-strewn wastes of the estuaries. I am thinking particularly of the Dee Estuary, which is so near Merseyside. A freshwater reservoir there could be multi-purpose for fishing and sailing and could provide an easy access from Cheshire into North Wales. It could be even better linked with a bridge from the south side of Liverpool across the Mersey. The Minister of State's constituency would be very much affected. We lack many amenities in the North compared with the South. We want to establish pleasant acres of water in the North-West where our people can enjoy recreation. Whether we should be as welcome in Wales as in the past, I do not know. This is not a problem for two counties. It is really for two nations, because the Dee Estuary runs along the frontier between England and Wales.
A few months ago I had the privilege of seeing the great Port of Rotterdam Europort. I stood a mile and three-quarters out in the middle of the North Sea where, only a week or two before, there had been 30 ft. of water. I looked back on a man-made beach 700 ft. wide and shelving one in 50. I might have been on the sands at Formby or Southport. It was a most remarkable feat, costing only £3,000 an acre and worth very much more almost immediately. I hope that the Government will look carefully into that. I realise that the problem of our tides is greater than the Dutch have to tackle. But if we could put a joint enterprise in hand I believe that we could produce in the Dee Estuary something which other nations would quickly come to see and admire.
7.50 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Probert: No one who heard the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales could fail to be impressed by the way in which he has grasped the many problems confronting Wales. It was a rousing and excellent speech, full of facts, and it fully substantiated the claim which many of us make that only a Labour Government can solve the problems affecting Wales.
My right hon. Friend has grasped the problems facing us because of his experi-
292
ence in dealing with the issues covered by the many departments over which he has a direct responsibility, and also those dealt with by departments for which he has an oversight responsibility. He is therefore able to see the problems confronting Wales on a wide basis and not merely on a departmental one.
During the short time my right hon. Friend has held his present office he has shown great courage. As was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths)—whose speech was described by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands) as one of the best that he has heard in Welsh debates—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State thrashed the infantile utterings of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans), whom I regard, because of his presence in this Chamber, as a disgrace to Welsh public opinion. However, I hesitate to follow that theme too far.
I want, first, to discuss the possible consequences of large scale industrial mergers, of which there have been a number during the last few months. Those who represent Welsh valley constituencies have for years experienced the fears of their constituents when there is an industrial recession. In the past, quite often industries which have been directed to South Wales have been those on the geographical periphery of industries based in the South-East or the Midlands, with the result that the first effects of any recession have been felt there. It is there that the first factory closures have taken place, and what one might call the bases of the industrial giants have suffered very little.
The fear of factory closures due to recessions has to a large extent been eliminated because of the success of the Government's policy in dispersing industry, but it has been replaced by another fear. People are now afraid of large scale mergers, because these are often followed by a process of rationalisation. I therefore suggest to my right hon. Friend that whenever a large-scale merger of the kind that we have seen in recent months is put to the Government for approval he should ask for an assurance that the consequences of any rationalisation will be less severe in the development areas than in the areas which are best fitted to experience them.

293
I do not want to dwell at length on the problems caused by pit closures, because a number of us have raised this issue on the Floor of the House on many occasions. We have been highly critical of the Government's policy, but it is as well to realise that the Government have contributed millions of £s to the coal industry to meet the social consequences of pit closures. This fact ought to be emphasised time and again.
I do not know whether the nationalised industries—;the National Coal Board, the Gas Council, the Central Electricity Generating Board, and the new Steel Corporation—have power to do what I am about to suggest, but it seems that they are reluctant to set up ancillary industries in those areas which are grossly affected by contracting basic industries such as coal and steel. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North dealt effectively with this issue. Is it possible for my right hon. Friend to set up an appropriate body to make a feasibility study into whether the nationalised industries can set up ancillary industries in these blighted areas?
The nationalised industries spend millions of £s annually on purchasing various goods and services. If only a fraction of that money were devoted to these difficult areas the outlook for the people there would be far better. Remploy could assist by giving advice to whatever body my right hon. Friend considered necessary to consider this problem. I should like this body to investigate, too, how the Government's contracts preference scheme is working out. I do not think that it is working out as many of us hoped it would.
I propose, next, to discuss an issue about which, I warn my right hon. Friend, he will hear quite a lot in the near future. I am wondering whether legislation can be introduced to deal with the problem of straying animals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) said on a previous occasion, this is a huge joke, but it is a serious problem in South Wales. Some months ago my right hon. Friend courteously received a deputation consisting of myself and certain of my colleagues to discuss this matter with him, and he promised to consider it. I hope, therefore, that in the near future he will bring forward his proposals for dealing
294
with this difficult problem. It is not merely a question of the number of accidents to pedestrians and motorists because of straying animals. We must consider the suffering 'of the animals themselves. This is a difficult problem, but I think that the time has come when a start must be made toward finding a solution.
I come, finally, to the issue raised for a different and political reason by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, namely, the bulk charge for electricity supplied to the South Wales Electricity Board. Some time ago a number of my Welsh colleagues and I raised this issue with the Minister of Power to see whether it was possible to amend the charges which the South Wales Electricity Board has to pay for bulk supplies received from the C.E.G.B.
Due to the contraction of the coal industry, the chemical industry, and perhaps the steel industry—but I cannot speak with any personal experience of that—the South Wales Electricity Board now supplies far less electricity to these basic industries than it did in the past. There is industrial growth in Wales, but not of industries which are what one might call large-scale consumers of electricity. The bulk tariff rate is based on the requirements of the C.E.G.B. in future years to take account of industrial growth nationally. The South Wales Electricity Board is having to pay the increased charges for industrial growth which is not taking place in its area. This is a vicious circle, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will discuss the matter with the Minister of Power to see whether it is possible to vary the rate paid by the South Wales Electricity Board to take account of the situation which I have described.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. Alec Jones: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans) on his maiden speech today. Those of us who knew him at Caerphilly were sure that he would be the next Member of Parliament for that constituency, and from what we have heard from him today we are sure that he will be a truly worthy successor to our late friend and colleague Ness Edwards. Also, as one of the newer Members on this side, I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the

295
Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths). He made an outstanding contribution to today's debate. The House will be much the poorer place when he decides to leave us.
The theme of many of the speeches has been the decline of the old industries of coal, iron and steel and the delay in attracting and building up new industries. In a speech which he made at Swansea a short time ago, the Secretary of State for Wales referred to this process and said that Wales faced a race between the introduction of new industries and the decline of the old.
The fear ever present in the minds of the people of South Wales now, particularly in the mining valleys, is that in this race the decline of the old industries will win. Indeed, many of us fail to understand why the Government seem to be deliberately handicapping themselves in the race by their refusal to give public enterprise a proper rôle in the new economy.
There is some justification for the fear which is expressed. The Report which we are debating notes the fall in manpower in the coal industry over the past year. If my arithmetic is correct, there are now 4,890 fewer men employed in the coal industry in Wales. The Report itself says that this reduction of 5,000 male employees is "more than offset" by a 6,000 increase in female employment. I like those words, "more than offset". It may be statistically true that a 6,000 increase in female employment more than offsets a loss of 5,000 male jobs, but from a practical point of view the one certainly does not offset the other.
There is no substitute for alternative employment for men who are able, willing and anxious to work. This is why I join so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who argue the case for a slowing down of pit closures. We have put the case time and again from this side, but I make no apology for repeating it. I should be betraying my own people in the Rhondda if I did not add my word to what has already been said.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State noted the welcome signs of increased interest in Wales nowadays shown by firms which are considering expanding their industries and taking up advance
296
factories, and we were all pleased to hear the facts and figures which he gave. But I remind him and the Government that many of their policies to this end need time to come to fruition, and this time can be bought only if there is a slowing down in the rate of colliery closures.
The present procedure for dealing with pit closures is very suspect and much criticised in the mining valleys of South Wales. It seems to a good many of us that decisions to close collieries are often made while what are called jeopardy meetings are being held between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board. Further, it seems that decisions to close pits are sometimes made even before the Welsh Council is asked make a report and submit its observations.
The question which people are asking in connection with this procedure is this: what advice does the Welsh Council give on the question of colliery closures, and, more important, perhaps, do the Government or the N.C.B. pay any attention to the advice which is given? If the system of referring possible pit closures to the Welsh Council is to have any value and is to carry with it the confidence of the people of Wales, particularly the confidence of the miners, the reports of the Welsh Council ought to be made public.
I realise that all sorts of objections are raised to this; it is said that no provision is made for publication, it ought not to be done, and it has never been done. But, if the details of the reports cannot be made public, the recommendations certainly ought to be so that we may know on whose shoulder the final responsibility lies.
On page 12 of the Report there is a reference to the shortage of skilled workers, especially in engineering. Many of us received a report from the Welsh Region of the C.B.I. making the same point, in which it was said that the Principality was critically short of some skilled personnel. I know this to be true in my own constituency, where I meet industrialists. I know it to be true also because of a deputation which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, West (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) and I took last year to the Ministry of Labour, as it then was, advocating a new Government training centre in or near our area of

297
the Rhondda. Represented on that deputation were three local authorities, Rhondda, Pontypridd, and Llantrisant & Llantwit Fardre, all authorities which recognise the shortage of skilled labour which is necessary if we are to attract industry to our area.
The Government themselves have to a certain extent recognised the shortage. We know—I am sure that the Secretary of State would have given the figures if he had had time—that by 1970 we shall have seen a tenfold increase in the output of trained and skilled people from Government training centres, and we know also of the financial assistance, grants of £10 a week, and so on, for these training arrangements. Big improvements have been made. However, I do not believe that out training and retraining programmes are yet adequate to meet the needs of Wales.
Plainly, any industrial reconstruction in any part of Wales, and notably in the mining areas, calls for an adequate training programme, not just a training programme which is better than the Opposition brought in when they were in power—I see that they have all but disappeared from the benches opposite, but he that as it may—not just a programme which is slightly better in 1968 than in 1967, but a really adequate training programme lit to meet the need.
We need this training programme for two reasons. First, it will give redundant miners new opportunities, opportunities to which they are entitled by virtue of the years of service which they have given to their country. It is a matter of social justice to the miners themselves. Second, industrialists are more likely to be attracted to a new area if they know that in that area there are trained men waiting for work. Therefore, for social and economic reasons we need an adequate training programme and an extension of the existing system.
Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Jones: I share my hon. Friends' delight at having the Opposition represented on the benches opposite once more in the person of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr.Hooson). [An HON. MEMBER: "The alternative Government."] No, that idea has gone for all time.
298
I come now to two specific points regarding training. First, I mention the Ministry of Defence facilities which are now being used at R.A.F. St. Athan for training purposes. I visited it and saw the facilities offered to the men there, some from my constituency. Two things struck me. First was the sympathetic understanding of the R.A.F. personnel, who are determined that this scheme should work. They have changed the types of courses to accommodate the needs of the trainees. The second was the determination of the trainees themselves to make a success of their new careers.
R.A.F. St. Athan has, I understand, a maximum capacity for about 50 civilian trainees, yet they have never reached that target and there are always more places than trainees to fill them. Could my right hon. Friend not at least ensure that we make the maximum use of the facilities there? Further, could we look, not only at R.A.F. St. Athan, but at other defence establishments, to see whether there are not training facilities there which could be used?
Many of the existing colleges of further education and technical colleges had, and some still have, excellent facilities and courses especially geared to the needs of the coal mining industry, but now, with the changing pattern of industry, these mining courses are not needed and the mining departments in these establishments are completely run down—yet the specialist staff, the equipment and the workshop space is still there and available for use.
Is it not worth an investigation at least to see whether this spare capacity cannot be used to relieve the load on training centres? We know that there are heavy waiting lists for many of the courses at the training centres. I know that this would mean a tremendous amount of co-operation between Government Departments, because the Department of Employment and Productivity deals with grants, the Department of Education and Science controls the establishments and the trade unions are concerned in the recognition of the trained people, but my right hon. Friend could, I believe, examine this proposal in some detail. If it is feasible it will need not only the blessing of the Welsh

299
Office, but probably a hefty push from it as well.
I wish to deal now with the provision of employment for the registered disabled and also those who, though not registered, will suffer from minor disabilities, chest complaints, and so on, associated with many years work underground. The Report says that there are 1,381 disabled registered unemployed, and to this number can be added some thousands, both young and old, of ex-miners who suffer from these minor disabilities. We have had the miners' redundancy payments scheme, which was one of the most generous schemes of all time, but there are still many redundant ex-miners who are outside the scope of that scheme.
In my constituency, most of the collieries were closed before the scheme was introduced, so, if these people have been employed for more than 12 months, they are treated more harshly now, in 1968, than they were under the Act of 1948, introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly. This is the subject of another debate, and I am sure that the Secretary of State would be interested to read in HANSARD his own contributions to the debate on the 1948 Bill, which I will quote to him on some suitable occasion.
However, whatever the scheme we have redundancy payments are no substitute for work for these people. It is equally unreasonable and unrealistic to expect these disabled—either registered or those with minor disabilities—to travel long distances, or even normal distances, outside the Valleys. We have Remploy factories in Wales, 13 of them, employing about 1,200 severely disabled people and they are doing a wonderful job, but this aspect of employment wants investigation to see whether it could not be extended to cater not only for the severely disabled but for those with minor disabilities who find it almost impossible these days to find work. We should look at it not as a charity but as an act, almost, of economic good sense.
I am convinced, looking at the picture of industrial development and training or the social provisions, that this Government have done better than any other. I suppose that it is equally true that Wales
300
is very grateful that our affairs are not the responsibility of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Despite that, the people of Wales still have many valid criticisms and expectations of greater and faster progress from this Government, simply because a Labour Government, which they returned to power. I hope that, in all the fields of Government endeavour, and on top of the real achievement which the Secretary of State listed, we will see, in the next 12 months, a far greater sense of urgency in all efforts.
8.16 p.m.
Mr. Tudor Watkins: I am very glad to be able to acknowledge what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said about bypasses in my constituency. I have queried Secretaries of State about the Brecon bypass in the past whenever I was able, and I am most grateful to him. I only hope that the year which I was given before has been advanced by 12 months so that they can get on with it. In the summer months, I find it better and faster to travel with my wife on foot rather than to go by car; therefore a bypass will be a great improvement. The Ystradgynlais bypass will be a good scheme and will relieve the anxiety of people who could do with work.
Further devolution is our party policy, especially in respect of health, education and agriculture. I do not expect all those three to come at once, but at least let us start with health and see how far we can go. We have had the advantage for years of a Welsh Board of Health, so there is a foundation for devolution in that respect.
There is anxiety among those with constituency problems about why Ministers in other Departments rarely have consultations with the Welsh Office on problems which arise in Wales. I know that my right hon. Friend cannot tell the House or me what advice he gives to Ministers of colliery closures or the Central Wales line or hospital closures, but I hope that, some time, if they exceed his advice—this applies to the other Ministers as well—there will be such a flood of disagreement that one will rise in the House and say, "I am sorry, but I did not agree with what the Minister

301
has said about this problem." We must get to know that in some way or other.
I am anxious about the notice which is given. I have no collieries to complain about, because they are all gone, but I am satisfied that there was not sufficient regard paid by the Minister at the time to the advice given by the Secretary of State on colliery closures. I am satisfied that the Minister of Transport did not pay heed to what was said to her at the time about the proposed closures of the Central Wales line. There must be a limit to this situation and a proper accountability to hon. Members. We should be told the facts from time to time.
One problem arising is the proposed closure of the Adelina Patti Hospital in my constituency. I will say nothing about the merits of the case; but I hope that the Secretary of State for Wales will see that no announcement about it, favourable or unfavourable, is made without proper consultation and that he will be fully consulted.
I am afraid that my colleagues take too lightly the situation which has developed about devolution and a Federal Parliament. I am not nearly as much an elder statesman as is my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths), but I think that I can say to my colleagues that the young people in Wales are not marching with us. There is a lesson in that. We must be careful—not to change policy but to see that we put our policy over to the people. Perhaps the young people in Wales look at television more than they read the newspapers. Indeed, I do not particularly want them to read the newspapers, because there is no newspaper which supports us. But I think they will look at television, and we ought to consider using it to put our policy across to them.
The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) said that this debate should have taken place earlier. In my elder statesmanship, if I may use the phrase, I am worried whether the Welsh Grand Committee serves the purpose for which it was intended. Do we have as many Committee meetings as we ought to have? I do not know whose fault it is, but it seems to me that as back-bench Members we have a better chance to take part in debates in the House than in the Welsh Grand Committee, because the selection
302
of speakers is one-for-one—one Government speaker and one Opposition speaker. That is not your fault, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you are not in the Chair in Committee. That is the task of the Chairman of that Committee. There are 30 Labour Members in that Committee, yet the speeches are made alternately from the two sides of the Committee. There is something wrong with that.
The Secretary of State made a statement about local government reorganisation, but, with all respect, he did not give much information. I understand that. The Queen's Speech will be delivered next week or in the following week, and it may contain a reference to local government reorganisation, although I doubt it. It is important, for the sake of his staff in the different authorities, that the Secretary of State should make an announcement about a time-table for local government reorganisation. There have been three series of meetings with associations of local authorities—with county councils, county boroughs and district councils. Whatever the Ministers may have said at those meetings, we do not know their views—and we ought to know them. Would it not be a good idea to have a White Paper on the subject of local government? We have had many White Papers. Why not one on local government? If there is to be a radical change in policy we ought to have information about it. It may be that there is pressure for change: but in fact there is a great deal of support for the proposals.
We are discussing the White Paper on Wales and also paragraphs from the White Paper "Wales: The Way Ahead". I am interested particularly in the paragraphs dealing with the broad strategic planning with employment and industrial development. But I think of my constituents who have been made redundant because of mine closures or because of the proposed closure of the Mid-Wales line, or because of redundancy in factories following changes in defence policy. If I read these paragraphs to them, they would not know what I was talking about. I want our excellent White Paper on Wales and on the broad strategic plan to be simplified. Possibly discussion could be generated about it on the B.B.C. or T.W.W. It does not matter which. [HON. MEMBERS: "Harlech."] The Welsh station is now called Harlech,

303
which shows how out of date I am in these matters.
A redundant miner, who does not want to upset his home in order to move to an area where he has been offered a job in another pit, stays at home, but he does not get redundancy payment. He does not take a very favourable view of things. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly has often mentioned the number of collieries which he had as a miner's agent in the Swansea Valley. I remember nine collieries existing in the southern end of Breconshire. Today there is not one. I would not have minded collieries being closed had it not been a fact that there was no advance planning to provide work for those who became redundant. That is what has concerned me in the loss of collieries. I am grateful to the Controller of the Board of Trade in Wales for the great work which he has been doing to get the two advance factories at Yniscedwyn and Ystradaynlais occupied at long last.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. S. O. Davies) would like me to acknowledge the debt which we owe to the Secretary of State for Wales for the fact that there is to be an advance factory in Merthyr. I say that because some of my constituents live in Cefn Coed and they were working up to last week in the Teddingtons' factory. Because of defence policy changes a number have been made redundant. As a Socialist, of course, I have to recognise that I am prepared to accept cuts in defence expenditure. But it makes me worry when no alternative employment is provided. The Secretary of State for Wales has therefore saved me from an embarrassing situation because there is to be an advance factory.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hereford for mentioning the Big Usk site in my constituency. Of course, I represent Brecon and he does not—and hope to continue doing so.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: The hon. Member looks a great deal healthier now than when I had finished with him.
Mr. Watkins: I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising the point. Some hon. Members would have been annoyed, but I am not. People will realise that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor
304
speaks with authority because they will see that even the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) supported me. We are concerned not only with that site but also with other sites, such as Senni, Tylwch and St. Harmon.
I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. J. Idwal Jones) that we are not simply preserving nature. We are preserving a livelihood in these places. He should think about that. He may be thinking about the flowers and the birds, but he must remember that people are living in these areas and that I want to preserve their livelihood.
I turn to the problem of water supply. The Minister of Agriculture is a Welsh-speaking Welsh man, and I am glad about that because he will tell the Secretary of State for Wales about the importance of keeping the valleys for agricultural purposes. Let us consider other ways of providing the water supply, such as that mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool. Wavertree (Mr. Tilney), or desalination, instead of drowning these valleys. Indeed, there is an easier way out; I remind my colleagues that a Water Board for Wales would be the easiest way to deal with the problem.
I turn to the question of development in Mid-Wales. We are very grateful in Mid-Wales for what has been done both by private industry and by the provision of advance factories. Whenever advance factories are provided in Mid-Wales, there are tenants ready to go into them at once. Perhaps the prospective tenants and their wives like the scenery and the salmon in our local rivers. Where opportunities occur industrialists have snapped them up, and I am grateful for the help that has been given by the Board of Trade and the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association.
I was pleased that the Secretary of State attended the National Parks Conference in Brecon. People from all over the country were there and they had an enjoyable time. My right hon. Friend's speech on that occasion was well received, and he might like to know that, as chairman of the conference, I had put in a good word for him when I referred to the support that had been given by the Welsh Office towards, for example, the mountain centre, which is only four miles from my home, and for

305
what the Welsh Office had done for the Brecon and Abergavenny Canal.
It may not be entirely within the rules of protocol to refer to a civil servant, but I gather from the Press that the Permanent Secretary to the Welsh Office, whom I have known for a long time in that post, is leaving to take up the important post of principal of the Aberystwyth College. I am pleased about this, because this is a vital post and he knows precisely what is required of students and what will be required of them in future. I hope that, like Napoleon, he will be what a leader in a university should be, which is a dealer in hope, and that he will instil into the students much hope for the future of Wales. As long as work of this kind is in good hands, I am sure that the policy to which those concerned are committed will be carried out, and that is saying something these days.
8.32 p.m.
Mr. William Edwards: My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Tudor Watkins) concluded his excellent speech by referring to hope and the need to instil it. There is nothing we in Wales like more than a good funeral. There is an attitude in Wales today that we are witnessing the funeral of the Welsh economy and the Welsh way of life.
I do not entirely acquit the Labour Party of blame in this matter. We have instilled into the population of Wales the idea that there is no hope for the Welsh economy. This being so, we must try to analyse what has gone wrong and why there has been some disenchantment in Wales with the Labour Party. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor is a shrewd politician. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) referred to his state of health. Indeed, the state of health of his constituency is an example to all of us of the shrewdness with which he has dealt with the problems of his constituency.
The Labour Party raised hopes in Wales. We told the people there that all the things that were wrong were attributable to a sort of Conservative conspiracy which was London-Birmingham dominated. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is time that we got this matter into perspective. The constant theme of politics in Wales for a number of years
306
has been to blame all the problems on that type of domination, and if we are to analyse the situation which now faces us we must understand the mood in Wales.
I am not talking in terms of nationalism and I hope that the Secretary of State is not being over-sensitive about my remarks, although perhaps some of the wording I have used has been unfortunate. Nor am I talking about any sort of nationalistic conspiracy. Before we came to office there was a feeling that many of the things that were wrong were due entirely to a neglect and misunderstanding of the problems of Wales. There was insufficient appreciation of the fact before we came to office that many of the problems which would face us were endemic.
It has been said that the Labour Party failed to realise that unless we changed the system on becoming the Government we would have to operate in a capitalist country and abide by the rules which controlled a capitalist economy. Time and again in Wales we promised—I remember the promise being made indeed, I admit that I was one of those who made it—when we fought elections that many improvements could be made. I was at fault in saying that I thought that all our railway closures could be deferred and in felling my constituents that we would be able to direct industries into areas, even if those industries did not want to go there voluntarily.
My colleagues are equally at fault now in trying to create the idea among some of our communities that if private enterprise does not go into them willingly, we have some sort of fund of State-controlled enterprise that we can put in. Let us realise once and for all that the problem of the declining areas is not confined to the coalmining areas of South Wales. The scale is different, but I have similar problems in my constituency. The slate quarrying industry has not been mentioned today. In my constituency I have the community of Blaenau Festiniog and there are more people still employed in the slate quarrying industry than in all the advance factories we have built in Wales. There are in my constituency the same problems as there are in the mining areas, although my area is not designated as an area in need of special attention. I will not tell my people

307
that it is possible to put State-controlled, State-directed and State-inspired industries into that part of Wales.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) and many others in Wales are doing exactly the same as in previous years. There were days when it was virtually impossible to live in Wales. At that time people went round preaching salvation. In the days when capitalist Governments were neglecting us completely, we preached ultimate Socialism, and we were listened to. When a Socialist Government came to power people expected to see the economic remedies that we had offered. Now they are preaching separation. The people of Wales are seeking some sort of economic salvation from a political party. We must make it clear that it will not come.
A feature of this debate has been the frequent attacks on the hon. Member for Carmarthen because, we say, he is thinking in parochial and narrow nationalistic terms. But we have all been talking about solutions and of a Welsh economic plan. I am trying to face the facts of life, as I have been doing in my constituency. There is no Welsh economy from the point of view of its effect on my constituency.
Much has been said about the potential of Cardiff and the development of the Port of Cardiff. A great deal has been made about the effect it will have on the economy of Wales. It will have no effect on my constituency, in which there are three separate Welsh economies. My constituency is divided into two areas and is influenced by two areas, Merseyside and Birmingham. I have to relate the economy of my area to the state of the economy in Birmingham and in Merseyside. These are some of the hard facts of life that we have to face when discussing the Welsh economy.
In making this speech I did not intend to fall out with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I hope that he has misunderstood me, but the fact is that it is no longer any use in Wales talking in terms of long-term plans. We have a series of short-term problems which vary from constituency to constituency and from one part of Wales to another, and we have to deal with many of them as quickly as possible.
308
Our biggest short-term problem is the coal mining industry. I speak with a great deal of sympathy for the men in that industry, but it is no use talking in terms of a national fuel policy to try to save the mining industry. That industry needs a short-term injection of money to enable the men to move into some other kind of industry. If there is one piece of good advice that has been given to the House by the hon. Member for Carmarthen, and I will use the privilege of the House to say so, it was his advice about the chairmanship of the National Coal Board following the Aberfan inquiry. It is a great pity for their own sake that the Government did not follow his advice, because I am absolutely convinced that the campaign being run by the Chairman of the Coal Board about the Government's fuel policy is doing untold harm to the future of the coal mining industry at the present time. We have to face these unpleasant facts, and a large number of difficult short-term problems.
I have the greatest faith that the economy of our country will prosper. We feel that prosperity is coming into Wales, but there are areas where the problem is different, where the solution is difficult to see, and where there are few things we can do. We must try to get some kind of reality about the exact numbers available for employment in areas of high unemployment. That situation has to be faced. We also have to look at the amount of money we are spending in Wales at present, and realise that there are great opportunities in Wales provided we put our money in the right amounts in the right places.
I am delighted with the investment being made in my part of Wales in roads and in advance factories. I am delighted that those factories are being let. I am delighted with the money being spent on education. I am also quite convinced that if we were to use the amount of money we are now putting into Wales in the form of regional employment premium in a far more rational and pragmatic way we could give untold benefit to many Welsh areas that are urgently in need of short-term assistance. We are putting £14 million into Wales, and a great deal of it is completely unnecessary in some areas because of the very success of our policies there, yet many prosperous industries are getting R.E.P.

309
We should use the money on something more sensible and more long-term, because if this Government were to go, and if Wales were to be left alone, deprived of the assistance it is now getting and without some new kind of structure having emerged, we in Wales will face a very serious situation. We are getting vast amounts of grants and subsidies, and we ought to see that those vast amounts are going into building something worth while which will give us a new superstructure to enable the new economy which is beginning to flourish in Wales to bloom and to give us a new future.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Donald Anderson: I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) in his thinkpiece, because fundamentally I agree with him in his scepticism in the search for some philosopher's stone—some ultimate salvation—in Wales to give us an answer to all our problems. I agree, too, with his division of Wales into three fundamentally separate economies.
Like the best Welsh ministers in their sermons, I will begin by saying that I hope to be brief and I shall choose but three points. I hope that, unlike most Welsh ministers, I shall in fact be brief. I want to deal with certain points affecting employment, communications and administration.
First, employment. I want to take up the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) about the revision of the job gap forecast in the Blue Paper "Wales; The Way Ahead" of 15.000 surplus men over jobs by 1971. Is the Secretary of State now in a position to give a revised estimate of that job gap by 1971 as a result of the new industries which he has described as having been attracted into Wales?
I want to touch briefly on regional policies. Clearly the needs of humanity alone insist that we give priority at present in South Wales to the areas of declining industries. No one would gainsay this. I hope that we shall do so in a logical way and without creating anomalies on the borders of the type described by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. E. Rowlands).
I will instance only two of these anomalies. I accept that they are partly
310
constituency points, but they have some general validity. First, there is the stubborn refusal of the Government to see Newport—this point is frequently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes)—as having the same role for the mouth of the valley in catering for the unemployment needs of the valleys of Monmouth as they see for Llantrisant, for the Rhondda Valley, and for the Swansea/Port Talbot complex for the Swansea and Neath Valleys.
There seems to be no logic, for example, in their refusal to extend certain of the development area grants to areas like Rogerstone. Last week I visited the firm of Rogerstone Precision, over two-thirds of whose work force come from within the development area. Similarly, the much larger international company of Alcan, also at Rogerstone, was attracted there in the first place because of the need to provide employment immediately after the war. This company, again, draws about two-thirds of its work force from the development area but gains no incentive from the Government to expand in that area. For every three jobs that are generated there, two will assist in solving the employment problems of areas like Risca, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch).
I very much hope that the Government will not simply say, "Wait for Hunt", like Godot, because we have been waiting for Hunt for a long time. These anomalies are having a considerably bad effect on areas on the fringe. I refer in particular to Cwmbran, where two policies of the Government appear at present to be in contradiction. There is, on the one hand, the expected increase in the population target of Cwmbran. There is, on the other hand, the fact that, since Cwmbran is outside a development area, firms can get the full range of benefits a mile or two up the road and may therefore not site themselves in the optimum site. Yet they provide employment for the same group of people in the Cwmbran area. Employment is the basic criterion for being a development area.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) will, if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, make further points about Cwmbran. I understand that since July Cwmbran has been included in the eastern valley in terms of

311
journey-to-work groupings. Had the homework been done four years ago when the development area boundaries were first thought of, surely Cwmbran would have been included within the development area boundary. The time is certainly ripe for that provision to be made. I agree with what has been said about the need to look very carefully at the future of the development corporation in Cwmbran because of the anticipated slowing down of building in that area.
I will let the facts speak for themselves about the promise which we have had concerning the Government training centre in Monmouthshire. On 30th November, my hon. Friend the Minister of State said:
"Meanwhile, four Government training centres are already active or in prospect. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been holding discussions with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and it will not be long before we can give the House particulars of a fifth Government training centre. I cannot say exactly where it will be, but I can say that the special areas in South Wales stretch into Monmouthshire".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th November, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 781.]
On 6th February, the Minister of Labour said:
"I now have to tell the House that which has not been announced, that, besides the six I have just mentioned, the Government have decided to build a further seven centres. They will be sited in West Monmouthshire…"— OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th February, 1968; Vol. 758, c. 257.]
Since 6th February we have had silence. It is no wonder that local people are very disappointed at the delay.
Turning to the question of communications, we are now seeing the results of the failure of the Conservative Government in the early 1960s to give Wales that priority which it deserved. There is a remarkable contrast between the pace of development in Wales and the pace of development in central Scotland and North-East England between 1964 and 1966. The two White Papers on Central Scotland and the North-East which appeared in 1963 drew attention to the need for an accelerated roads programme. The result is seen in the figures for capital expenditure on roads in 1964–65 compared with 1966–67. In Scotland, expenditure rose from £20 million to £29 million; in the North-East from £8 million to £13 million; and in
312
Wales only from £12 million to £14 million, much less acceleration. The effect of further capital expenditure is being felt much later than we in Wales had hoped. We could have done with someone in the Cabinet in 1962–63 going with cloth cap, not only to the North-East, but to Wales. We could have done then with the voice of a Secretary of State in the Cabinet fighting for Wales and for roads in Wales.
The greatest need in communications in Wales must be the extension of the M4 westwards, opening up the valleys of Glamorgan to industrial development. I am glad that already in the preparation pool, following today's announcement, we have an extension as far as Bridgend. But the preparation pool is not the construction of the roads. It merely means that plans are afoot in the Welsh Office. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give the M4 extension the greatest possible priority, because there is nothing more convincing to industrialists than seeing the confidence which the Government have shown in pushing roads further westwards into Wales.
On administration, I agree with the analysis of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery that the current debate on devolution must be seen in the context of the twilight of the Empire. People are less proud to be British after the dissolution of the British Empire. There are two reactions to this in Wales. On the one hand, there is the separatist, parochial reaction of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans), refusing to realise that the problems which we face in Wales are paralled by problems elsewhere in the United Kingdom and on the Continent, and, on the other hand, there is the much healthier reaction, the robust patriotism of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) and a genuine desire to bring more democracy and participation to the people. It is in this spirit that I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will frame his ultimate proposals.
Concerning the top-tier authority in Wales, I make the plea in passing that just as we have used the resources of the University of Wales in the economic field, we should also consider using the

313
expertise available in the University of Wales in the political science departments there—perhaps a Gregynog weekend—to consider what form the top tier in Wales should take. Clearly, a whole series of implications has to be considered, including the relationship with the super-counties foreseen by the local government reorganisation plan, the new welfare authorities, and so on.
A large part of the good will which existed at the time of publication of the White Paper on Local Government has evaporated as a result of the lack of information on detailed proposals. This point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins). How can public discussions be meaningful or co-operation between authorities in anticipation of the proposals continue until the details are known? I make the plea to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to issue, yes, a further White Paper clarifying his ideas on the details contained in the White Paper so that a proper and informed debate can take place on local government reorganisation.
The Welsh Office has proved itself a success. There is an ease of access of our own local authorities to the Welsh Office which makes our English counterparts very jealous. I believe, like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, that truly in Wales we have a land of opportunity beyond the problems which we now face and that we have an able team at the Welsh Office. I wish them well in tackling their formidable tasks.
8.57 p.m.
Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies: I would have liked to say something about devolution, but I had the opportunity to talk on this topic at Blackpool, when I had an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that this is a question which the Government will look at urgently. I was glad to hear a similar sentiment expressed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today.
I will, however, say this. As a party and as a Government, we have been interested in devolution. The very fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—a member of the Cabinet—opened the debate today is an indication of the progress which has been made.
314
The success of which we have heard today is also an indication of the growing attention which has been given to the problems of Wales.
We must remember that the Welsh Council of Labour, nearly two years ago, passed a motion in favour of an elected Council for Wales. It may be that the climate of opinion today makes it possible for us to go even further in that direction.
Undoubtedly, we are suffering from a measure of top-heaviness in Whitehall and Westminster. There is, however, the administrative point, also, that we have come as a matter of political fact to rely more and more on ad hoc regional boards—hospitals boards, regional boards, the boards of nationalised industries and regional offices of Ministries. We think of economic planning in regional terms. It is sad that in democracy this is a field of the official and the appointee and that there is no elected body at this level. I hope very much that developments will take place in this direction.
This is a British problem. In Wales and Scotland, there is the further fact of the desire for more than regional expression, namely, for national expression. I know that when the policy of the Labour Party is evolved in this direction, it will give scope to that desire for national expression. Should we not do so, the people of Wales and of Scotland will reject us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) referred, as did my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to the recent Collcon Report on Traffic Problems in North Wales. The 10-mile stretch of the North Wales coast in the area of the A55 between Abergele and St. Asaph is of critical importance. In common with many people in North Wales, I had favoured an inland bypass over the mountains skirting the whole length of the A55 from Colwyn Bay, past Llandudno and Conway, Penmaenmawr and Llanfairfechan, to rejoin the existing road near Aber. I am prepared to accept the argument in this Report that through traffic in this area, based on an average day in August, is only 7,099 journeys and I am prepared to concede that this does not constitute a case for an inland route. I am, however, a little disturbed

315
about the presentation of the facts in the Report. I am less worried about the recommendations than the presentation of the facts. The Report examines Colwyn Bay, Conway and Llandudno and enumerates trips of three kinds made in the area—internal trips, trips in and out, and trips straight through. The point is made in the Report that of the 90,000, or so, trips which took place in that area as a whole in a day, only 7,099 were through trips—in other words only 8 per cent. of the total journeying through traffic, the rest being internal.
I make two points in this connection. One is that "trips" is a very odd measure. If I go from my house to the shops, half a mile, and back again, that is two trips. If somebody travels through the whole area, 10 miles, and makes a considerable contribution to traffic congestion there, that is only one trip.
Then there is the further point that many of these trips are not trips in the east-west direction of the A.55, but zigzag trips up and down. One would have thought, from the figures that only 8 per cent. of the traffic on Conway Bridge is through traffic. The figures for the bridge are not given in this Report, but looking at a number of different tables one can see that 18,300 trips are made across the Conway Bridge; the 7,099 are through trips, meaning that the through traffic is not 8 per cent. but amounts to as much as 38 per cent. of the traffic in the area. I am a little concerned about the way the facts have been put.
I accept the conclusion that the River Conway will have to be crossed by a new crossing somewhere in the neighbourhood of Conway itself. Three alternative routes are discussed, but one is picked out and recommended and that is a bridge across the estuary at Deganwy. I would urge the Secretary of State—he has given an assurance that no quick decision will be made on this question—to look at other possibilities which are discussed here, too, even though the cost may be up to £1 million more, because a bridge at Deganwy would ruin one of the finest estuaries in Wales and one of the most splendid residential areas. The Report mentions other possibilities and I would be grateful if the Secretary of State would look very carefully at those alternatives.
316
There is mention also in the Report of an alternative to a bridge. We have heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) that he is interested in using estuaries as sources of water supply. In an Appendix to the Report there is discussion, as an alternative to a bridge, of a barrage across the estuary. This would lead to a number of advantages. It would carry the road, but would also solve once for all the flooding problem of the Conway Valley by holding up the tide at times of heavy water. It would also lead to reclamation of about 1,000 acres in the lower reaches of the Conway Valley. Moreover, it would have a capacity of 450,000 million gallons, and since the flow of the river is 500 million gallons per day about 200 millions gallons per day could be used as a source of water supply.
This would more than offset the deficiency of the Dee till the end of the century. This reservoir, as it would then be, could also be used in conjunction with one of the mountain lakes above Dolgarrog for hydro-electric purposes and a pumped storage scheme could be built similar to that at Tanygrisiau. In addition, there would be two square miles of inland waterway, which would be of immense recreational value to the area.
I urge the Secretary of State that, when he considers the future of the North-Wales A55 route, he will bear in mind, as he naturally will, that the future of the economy and of the tourist industry in North Wales will depend upon his decision. Since whatever solution he chooses will be with us for at least 50 years, I urge upon him to ensure that the long-term needs of this area will not be sacrificed in the interest of short-term economies.
9.6 p.m.
Mr. Leo Abse: We have as yet only one new town in Wales, and that is Cwmbran. As all of us who are associated with that town know, we are on the eve of important decisions. Decisions have to be taken as to how large Cwmbran should be and how it should be governed. We have been waiting for some considerable time for this decision, and I am sure that nobody who was informed and well aware of the facts would make any complaint about the delay in coming to a final decision.

317
It is important that the Government make a wise decision and not one that prevents the ultimate implementation of pledges made by our party, one of which was that in due time legislation would be introduced to abolish the New Towns Commission. I am aware that there are many difficulties which prompt delay. They must include the fact that we are waiting upon a Severnside study which may not be published for some years. We are aware that there is a need perhaps at some time in the future for an organisation to start off a new town northwards from Llantrisant.
We are aware that there is need for a decision to be taken by the Government on the ultimate management of the new towns and the future of the New Towns Commission. We are aware that there is a delay because one is waiting upon the publication of the Cullingworth report on Housing Management in New Towns. For all these reasons it is understandable that there is a great temptation on the part of the Government to put into effect a holding operation. It is an exceedingly tempting thing to do, and an open-ended holding operation is even more tempting to the Government. It postpones all real decision-making to some vague future.
I want to begin by giving the Secretary of State a gentle warning, one which I know he will realise is of importance. When the decision is announced as to what the future of the new town will be, then it must be announced not in an open-ended manner. It cannot simply be announced, if such were to be the decision, that the 45,000 target would be increased to 55,000 over a period of 15 years without at the same time making it abundantly clear that steps must now be taken to phase out the wind-up of the Development Corporation. If that is not done, I am quite certain that Monmouthshire will be deeply wounded.
The Secretary of State will already be aware of the considered views of the Monmouthshire Council. He will know their anxieties on this matter, and he can take it from me, as I know that he will, that when the Councils of Pontypool and Blaenavon are looking forward to the day when, together with Cwmbran, they will form one Eastern Valley Authority, the notion that such an Authority would find an intruding bureaucratic body en-
318
sconced in their midst to perform the modest task of building 100 or 200 houses a year, would be highly repugnant to the democratically elected councillors of both Pontypool and Blaenavon. Nor, in my view, could it possibly be regarded as healthy that the rôle of the Cwmbran Council should, pending the coming into existence of the Eastern Valley Authority, be undermined.
On the contrary, the rôle of the Cwmbran Urban Council should be enhanced so that it might be seen by the people of the new town that, through their elected representatives, they themselves run the town. The citizens of Cwmbran have the right to rule themselves in Cwmbran as speedily as possible. In Monmouthshire, we do not take kindly to neo-colonialism.
The Secretary of State should be pondering the question with an informed philosophical prejudice against the Development Corporation, because our party, as all its policy statements reveal, has always regarded development councils as necessary evils to be tolerated only as long as the complex and sophisticated task of putting a new town on its feet remains to be performed, but not a day longer.
On the board and the staff in Cwmbran, there are many who are zealous and dedicated, but there is an inherent weakness in all new town development corporations because they are not directly responsible to the people of the towns. They are essentially authoritarian. A new town corporation management is responsible, and then only indirectly, to the Secretary of State and thus is cocooned against public opinion. As the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson) and I know, not only can it handle rent questions with extraordinary clumsiness, but sometimes it lapses into the belief that it is responsible to no one but itself.
I expect no reply from the Minister today, for I know that he is pondering on these matters. I expect only one comment, and it is on this little but very important issue. I hope that I shall receive an assurance that a rigorous inquiry will be held so that what I regard as a singular act of discourtesy, if not arrogance, to all local authorities in Monmouthshire will receive the reprimand that it deserves.

319
It is known that the Secretary of State is having confidential discussions with Members of Parliament and local authorities, and doing it with great delicacy, making certain that all opinions are collected. In view of that, it is lamentable that unilateral advertisements should now appear in the local government journals stating that Cwmbran New Town, in Monmouthshire, is inviting applications from chartered engineers for the jobs of principal assistant engineers, senior assistant engineers and assistant engineers, in which it is stated categorically that
"In addition to existing work out to contract, staff are required to assist in the substantial planning and design needs for the expansion of Cwmbran".
I need hardly say that this pre-emption of the Secretary of State's right to make a decision is a matter which, when it is known throughout Monmouthshire, will create an opinion that the Cwmbran Development Corporation believes that it can go it alone, unilaterally. I know that the present discussions are not charades and that the Secretary of State has not made up his mind, but it does not appear that the Corporation is yet aware that the discussions with local authorities which are taking place are real and important.
May I suggest to the Secretary of State that, before he comes to any conclusion, it is very important to examine the discussions which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing had in 1967 with Corby, which made it clear that there was a need for a technique to be deevloped for that phasing out of a development corporation so that, for example, there could be joint housing management. I would direct my right hon. Friend's attention to the correspondence in 1967 between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Corby, so that he may understand that there are techniques which have not yet been considered as to how to phase out the Development Corporation over, say, the next three years or so until the Eastern Valley Authority comes into existence.
In many respects, the situation is not a happy one. It cannot be happy when we are aware that the duplication existing is one which is uneconomic and which quite clearly causes grave offence. For example, it is absurd that the Cwmbran
320
Council should have a strong parts section at the same time as the Development Corporation have a strong landscaping section. The ridiculous situation exists of the two authorities carrying out grass cutting and similar work on the same sites and even on opposite sides of the same road. The same duplication of effort applies to street lighting and electric work, technical staff employment, and the carrying out of legal and administrative procedures. There could easily be some saving of effort if more thought was given to the possibility of a phased take over. I sincerely hope such a phasing out of the Corporation will now be considered.
As part of such a phasing out I gather it has been mooted that perhaps the Cwmbran Council should have greater representation on the Development Corporation. If that is done it is important that no councillor in the Cwmbran urban district should be placed in the position of the suggestion being made that he is seeking to prolong the life of the Cwmbran Corporation. It would undermine confidence and would be an injustice to the councillors if, as part of the phasing operation, they received any payment in taking up an appointment on the Development Corporation. It could undermine confidence among local people, and it is something which my local councillors who are high calibre would not, I am sure, desire.
I hope that the Minister will not be deceived into believing that any talk of phasing out is premature. The new town centre, which is said to be one of the main reasons why the Development Corporation should remain, is already a skeleton. It only needs clothing and, in any event, I am aware that private architects are doing the central buildings. If, again, the Minister fears to begin phasing out lest the future reveals the need for increased expansion, he should see to it that his officials are directed to examine with care what has taken place in other counties like Northumberland where careful arrangements have been made between county councils and local authorities under the Town Development Act, 1952, and where there can be co-operation which could be developed under the eagle eye of good planning officers and local authorities.
I am concerned that the county council should be more involved. It has a

321
wider picture of the county. It is able to make better judgments to balance the needs of old communities and to take into account the refurbishing of old sections of our valleys. It can help to balance the need for capital development in creating new towns as against preserving some of our older communities.
It would also mean that we have the possibility of getting away from some of the ghetto attitudes that I regret seem to be in form in some aspects of the Development Corporation's policy. I recently had a communication from the Chairman of the Corporation, no doubt will intentioned, bitterly complaining that it should be possible so easily for a firm to build a new factory within the Pontypool Urban area and have its employees living in the new town. For good measure, he complained that the road patterns of Cwmbran were not intended to carry the traffic to the new industrial estates, which, thanks to Government policy and local initiative, I am pleased to say are filling up in Pontypool. I believe these are droll complaints indeed.
Monmouthshire has a big challenge. It probably needs 2,000 new jobs a year for many years to meet the problem of declining industry. Of course, I hope that the Hunt Committee will look favourably on the legitimate importuning of Cwmbran for new industry; but as long as my constituents have work and housing in the Eastern Valley it matters little where the work or the house is. All in the long run will be embraced by an Eastern Valley authority. There are no iron curtains to be drawn between the Pontypool Urban District Council and the Pontypool Rural Council, between Pontypool and Cwmbran, or, indeed, between Monmouth constituency and Pontypool constituency. The common objective is work for all and good housing for all. The vice-admiral, the Chairman of the Development Corporation, really must resist the temptation, albeit out of well intentioned loyalty to his Corporation, to declare U.D.I. for his designated area in Cwmbran.
I end as I began by counselling the Secretary of State not to be pushed into a precipitous decision. There are too many matters which still require more thought, not least how Wales and my right hon. Friend's office can have vested in them all the residue of assets which
322
ultimately may otherwise have to pass to the New Towns Commission in London. When the decision comes, I urge my right hon. Friend to spell out that that perhaps in three or four years' time, when the Eastern Valley Authority may be emerging, there will be a winding up of the Corporation. The colossal administrative costs of this organisation cannot possibly be justified to give birth to a few hundred houses a year.
My constituents, for the sake of their pockets, and for the sake of their democratic rights, are quite prepared to thank all those who have participated in the Cwmbran Development Corporation over the last 20 years. They are quite prepared to thank them sincerely and encourage them to move on to Llantrisant and Mid-Wales and leave Cwmbran to be governed by itself.
9.11 p.m.
Mr. Nigel Birch: I think that the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) will forgive me for not following him into the administrative mazes of Cwmbran. I cannot hope to match the eloquence of many of the hon. Members who have spoken at such length, so I shall make a short speech.
The late Professor W. J. Gruffydd, to whom I was very attached, always described the Welsh day as the annual saturnalia of the Welsh Parliamentary Party. It is not generally like that. It is generally a solid belly ache throughout, but I noticed today that a few hon. Members thought that something was going right somewhere in Wales.
I attribute that to the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans). It is strange, in a way, that so gloomy and woolly-minded man can produce so happy a result—
"God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform;"
I was a little disappointed in the Secretary of State for Wales. He started talking about a number of things in which I have been interested. He talked about devolution, about local government boundaries in Wales, and he then mentioned rumours and troubles regarding Summers works. I was on tiptoe to receive the news, but each time he passed on before he gave any. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would earn his keep as a strip-tease artist.

323
Perhaps I might say a word, first, on the question of devolution. I think that there is almost universal agreement in the House that the economic separation of Wales from the rest of the United Kingdom would be ruinous. I say almost universal, because I am not certain where the hon. Member for Carmarthen stands, whether he said we could be economically separated but not financially, or financially separated but not economically. Either is nonsense. It is a meaningless concept.
If someone talks about rural depopulation, he should look at what has happened in the independent Republic of Ireland. I have friends in County Kerry, and I often spend my holidays there. Schools are closing, and so are churches. People go first to Dublin, and then to London. I believe that the people of Wales, if they split off, and had to endure a lower standard of living which would inevitably come, would vote with their feet.
Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Has the right hon. Gentleman based his statement on figures produced by the Treasury, or on his own opinion without any figures at all?
Mr. Birch: If the hon. Lady had listened to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who told us how much rate assistance was received by every county except Flintshire, she might have got the point.
I think that the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. James Griffiths) was right when he said that it was not much good having a mini-Parliament. If the economy is together, a Parliament cannot really exist except in name. There are all sorts of other things that one can do, but any further measures of devolution should be carefully thought out. If the functions of the Welsh Office are enlarged, this may result in a situation in which one gets no further independence, or no further local say in what happens. One simply produces the situation that letters spend another 14 days in the post. I am not referring to 4d. letters, of course; one would expect that with them. I am referring to 5d. letters.
324
It would be only too easy to employ a lot of extra people without producing a better administration—or, indeed, even getting a much worse administration. So for goodness' sake let us think carefully. One hon. Member—I think that it was the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson)—made the rather good suggestion that we should bring some good minds from the universities on to it. Let us have some really deep thinking about anything we do, and be sure that we have it right before we do it.
Now, the question of local authority boundaries. This is becoming rather a bore: it goes on and on. As one hon. Member said, we still do not have the financial details even of the Government's proposals. It is impossible to judge them. However, I take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Geraint Morgan) on the question of boundaries in North Wales. Flintshire is unanimously in favour of the two-county solution, and I am sure that my hon. Friend is not correct in saying that the great weight of opinion in Denbighshire is in favour of a single county. That is not in accordance with such information as I have. I do not believe that a one-county solution for North Wales is right. The distances are so great. Communications are not good. The area really divides itself psychologically at the Conway. We are having troubles with the Gwynedd police; there are certain difficulties of recruiting, particularly in Flintshire. The two do not really go very well together.
The thing is in a muddle. I earnestly hope that we shall have some sort of decision soon. The Secretary of State said that he had had 25 meetings. Who else has he to meet, I wonder? Perhaps H.M.S. "Fearless" might be anchored off Cardiff and everyone brought on board. We cannot go on as we are. It is wasteful and foolish.
Now, a word about Summers. I might not have mentioned this if the Secretary of State had not mentioned it himself. As the right hon. Lady knows, there have been a great many rumours and a good deal of anxiety in North Wales about the future of Summers. I thought it right to give what consolation or reassurance I could. We know that there is no plan in existence. What I did say, and what seems to me to be right, is

325
that, with a really efficient works like Summers, which has many tens or even hundreds of millions of pounds sunk in it, it seems dotty to root it out and start up again in a green field site. It would be a great joy if the right hon. Lady could put an end to the rumours now once and for all.
Now, the question of tourism. The Secretary of State said that we had everything to offer. I suppose that he means the scenery. We certainly have that to offer, but we have not everything to offer in the way of hotels. This business of giving special grants to a few hotels in places where people do not want to go very much anyway is really rather typical of the whole development of Wales—dribs and drabs which weaken the whole place. The coastal strip of North Wales, where people go and where the hotels are, receives no assistance at all; it is heavily penalised. We could have some new hotels built if the financial situation were right. A man came to see me the other day on this very question. He has been extremely efficient in bringing visitors from abroad, and so on, and he wants to expand, but, not being in a development area, he finds the taxation system right against him. It is not possible to do it, and this seems quite wrong.
That brings me to my last point, the question of industrial development in Wales generally. I agreed entirely with the point made by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards), that there has to be something permanent. The regional employment premium may be doing something, but it is doing very little, and that only temporarily. There will never be real industrial development in Wales unless the infrastructure is right. We should worry a great deal about the industrial future of Wales, because, as has been said, industry in Wales is very narrowly based, on coal, steel and slate, and certainly coal and slate are bound to go on declining. So it will not necessarily be right to develop in exactly the same places as the dying industries were.
I feel intensely that communications are probably the most important thing of all. This point was made in the Welsh section of the Report, which pointed out that it is lateral roads which matter, those
326
across North Wales, Mid-Wales and South Wales. The roads from north to south have a very low priority indeed from the industrial point of view, because the trade flows to England and does not flow from north to south or from mid-Wales to north and south. I would far rather have a concentration on development areas, financed by stopping the R.E.P. and putting the money into the real infrastructure, which is needed not only to get factories but to get viable ones which can make money and last through difficult times.
The trouble with dotting the factories about and spreading the margarine so thinly is that, in a bad time, an industrialist with very long communications and not a good situation will cut down in Wales and not elsewhere; whereas, if there is a real area with good communications there is something solid which can be relied on and from which one can develop.
9.32 p.m.
The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mrs. Eirene White): I am sure that the whole House will wish me to reiterate the compliments already paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Fred Evans) on his maiden speech. I do so with peculiar personal pleasure, because, until he became a Member of this House, he was headmaster of the school which, some 80 years ago, my father attended. It is true that he had to leave at the age of 13, but he had been taught by a most distinguished headmaster, the late Roger Jones, and, even at 13, he had instilled into my father the love of reading and learning which stood him in such good stead for the rest of his life. So anyone connected with the Lewis School, Pengam, on that account alone is sure of my regard. We are very happy to welcome the hon. Member to this House. We listened with attention to his speech.
The point which he particularly wished to impress upon us was the need to preserve the communities of the valleys. I can assure him that the words of the Secretary of State recently in Tredegar were truly spoken and that the Government are firmly of the view that whatever else we do, and whatever changes in the industrial or other structures may come about, the social structure of the valleys has a value for us in Wales which we wish very much to preserve.

327
We have had an extremely interesting debate. Some hon. Members have spoken in broad philosophic terms and others have made speeches which were—and none the worse for it—largely directed to constituency problems. If I do not deal in detail with some of the latter, I am sure that my hon. Friends will understand; I will be very happy either to see them or write to them about the points of detail which they have raised.
The right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) referred to the late Professor Griffiths' designation of our debates as saturnalia. I have not quite felt in that mood myself today, although it has been an enjoyable debate, and, anyway, there has been one thing missing from it: that was Banquo's ghost. I am referring to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). One of the most interesting developments in recent weeks has been the emergence of what one might call the Wolverhampton-Carmarthen Axis. The way in which the hon. Member for Carmarthen and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, seem to be in perfect accord is astonishing. The hon. Member for Carmarthen is on record as having said that in his view Wales should have no representatives in Whitehall—he said "Whitehall", but that must have been a slip of the tongue, for he must have meant "Westminster"—and that Wales would be wholly self-dependent financially. He made this copyright in July of this year. It did not take very long for the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton. South-West to say the same thing.
They are agreed financially, too. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) pointed out, under the Carmarthen plan there would be no rate support grant, no development grant and very little of the £25 million to which my right hon. Friend referred. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West is entirely in agreement. He does not want to help the development areas. It is a great pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not honour us with his presence today because I should have liked him to develop his views about the position of Wales and its situation in the United Kingdom.
Another interesting novelty which has emerged from the debate is the notion of
328
the Britannic Confederation. We have moved back to B.C. I do not read every word published by the hon. Member for Carmarthen and his Party, and I must admit that I have never before heard mention of a Britannic Confederation. We should like to see that spelled out
May I turn to the rather more serious discussion of devolution in Wales. This is a subject which genuinely is puzzling a great many people. I was glad that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Gibson-Watt) emphasised it. This is not an easy problem. It is one in which we are groping towards a satisfactory solution. When I say "we" I mean those of us who are not extremists but who feel genuinely that in Wales—and I believe this to be true of other parts of the United Kingdom, too, but we are concerned today with Wales—we are not entirely satisfied with our present arrangements but we are not certain what would be the best course to take. There is no need to apologise for taking some time very carefully to consider the possibilities and the probable outcome of various courses of action.
I am not sure that I agree with the comment about remote control. Indeed, it does not lie in the mouths of any hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench to make such a comment, because after the development of the Welsh Office, with Welsh Ministers working in Wales, the relationship is much less remote than when we had the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) in charge of Welsh Affairs.
We have had contradictory advice today. The hon. Member for Hereford suggested that we should settle local government first and then look at the problem of devolution. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery gave completely contrary advice. He said that we should first settle devolution and that only then should we be in a position to tackle the problems of local government. It is not easy to conclude from these contrary opinions what is the best line to take.
My right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Government are giving the most serious attention to both the national problems and the problems of local government. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I were responsible for the greater number of the 25 meetings to which my right hon. Friend referred.

329
It was, I think, an extremely helpful exercise. It is fashionable today to talk of participation. It was most desirable that we should do exactly what we did. We had discussions with representatives of local authorities. There have been some complaints that we had not previously held a full-dress debate in the House on that White Paper, but we did the right thing, for it is those who are elected to local government who have the very first concern in this matter. I am sure that the discussions which we had with them have been of great value. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will before long be in a position to take matters a stage further.
I was a little surprised that the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) should refer to the possibility of a referendum. That is the first time that I have heard that the Conservative, Party favour government by referendum. I do not think that we should follow that line.
We are very much concerned with what should be the next step, and the reference to this matter at the recent conference at Blackpool by the Home Secretary was not without significance We shall, I hope, be in a position before very long to say a little more about this subject.
Several hon. Members mentioned the Welsh Office itself and possible extensions of its functions. I did not have the pleasure of hearing the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Tudor Watkins), but I believe that he mentioned the Ministry of Health as a possible take-over bid. All these matters have to be considered very carefully in their full context and I am not in a position, therefore, to say much more about this subject tonight, beyond giving a full assurance that it is being most actively considered.
Apart from the extremely important subject of forms of government at national and local level, most hon. Members who have spoken have been more concerned about the economic infrastructure of Wales than about any other subject. During that debate hon. Members emphasised the position, which is familiar to all of us in the Principality, of the decline of the basic industries of coal and, in the North, of slate, and not the decline in production but the changes in the manpower requirements of the
330
other basic industries of steel and agriculture.
It is important to get the picture clear in our minds.
The whole House was encouraged by the report given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Those of us in the Welsh Office and in the other Government Departments concerned have become strongly conscious in the last few months of the change in climate and the change of pace in industrial developments in Wales. My right hon. Friend was this year in a more comfortable position than was my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food last year because he had been doing the spade work and, the foundations having been dug, we are now beginning to see the results.
The figure given by my right hon. Friend of new jobs should be amplified if the House is to have the picture entirely clear because the 21,000 jobs which are firmly in view for the next four years are in authorised new industrial buildings or in buildings being extended for new projects and devolepments. These are in manufacturing industry and one must, therefore, add to these jobs which are firmly in prospect other jobs which we have every expectation will also accrue in the next four years or thereabouts.
There is nothing in the figure given by my right hon. Friend which takes into account what the economists call the "multiplier effect" of increased employment or of increases in job opportunities in existing enterprises and buildings. That would be a bonus and it is not an unreasonable expectation to envisage such an increase. One may fairly say, from the excellent trade figures published today—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—hon. Members will have been delighted to learn that we have now achieved an export level higher than ever before; I had, therefore, hoped that the cries of "Hear, hear" would come from hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as from my hon. Friends—that the momentum of the economy in general is improving. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that this will have its effect in Wales as in other parts of the country.
I remind the House that the figure given by my right hon. Friend does not

331
include another extremely important sector, which is the work which will arise from the deliberate Government policy of the dispersal of Government establishments. With the exception of the Mint, that is not included in the figure for manufacturing industry. Swansea, Cardiff. Newport and other areas will benefit from this deliberate Government policy. We reckon that within the next four years more than 9,000 additional jobs will be definitely in prospect arising from this source. One must, therefore, add to the basic figure given by my right hon. Friend these other opportunities for employment which we foresee.
The hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Gwynfor Evans) played around with the figure of 200,000 what he called "hidden unemployed". I suspect that he is probably included in that statistic. I am not sure whether he is self-employed or a company. In this House he is self-employed and would therefore not appear in any Welsh statistics as being an employed person. This is one difficulty of using statistics when one is not perhaps entirely aware of some of their connotations.
I grant him that it is undeniable that the years 1964–67 were not favourable for male employment in the Principality. This was partly due to the fact that under the former Administration fewer I.D.C.s were given to Wales. As a result, little of Wales was in the development area programme. It is only now that we are beginning to reap the benefit of the change of policy under the present Administration.
If one is asked about a possible diminution in jobs in the next four years to match the positive figures, then I would say that the estimates given in the White Paper "Wales: The Way Ahead" are, to the best of our knowledge and belief, as accurate as one can make such estimates. In other words, nothing has happened since those calculations were made which should be taken in any way to make what one might call the debit side any worse. On the credit side of extra jobs in prospect, on the other hand, we have had some very good news indeed and we believe, as my right hon. Friend said, that there is more good news coming, although we
332
are not absolutely in a position to announce it yet.
Mr. Hooson: Are we to take it from what the Minister has said that the estimated job gap is still the same as that estimated in the White Paper?
Mrs. White: It is no worse. I explained that we believe that there is some good news on the way.
My hon. Friend has mentioned various other matters concerning the economic development into which I should very much like an opportunity to go but time just does not permit this. I should be very glad, for instance, to see my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) on the subject of Government preference purchasing, and so on.
Mr. Harold Finch: Nothing much has been mentioned in this debate about pit closures. Do I understand now that the Council for Wales considers the social consequences of any proposals made by the National Coal Board to close a colliery and then make a recommendation or otherwise to the Minister? If that is the position, will such recommendations of the Council Wales in respect of social consequences of pit closures in any area be made public?
Mrs. White: My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), whom we are delighted to see back in his place—[HON. MEMBERS: Hear hear."]—has not been with us, owing to illness, for some months. Perhaps he will allow me, as this is a rather complicated matter, to discuss with him afterwards these somewhat changed procedures in dealing with pit closures that have been made since he was with us before. I shall be very happy to do that.
Several hon. Members have referred to the need for the extension and speeding up of training as part of the redeployment process. I fully understand the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Anderson) about the delay in announcing the site of the proposed training centre in West Monmouth. I can assure him that this has been due to no lack of enthusiasm but to quite peculiar difficulties over sites thought to be suitable but found to be liable to subsidence. It has been a physical matter, and I hope that very soon we shall be

333
able to announce a satisfactory site. The House will be glad to know that the centre at Port Talbot is now in the very final stages of construction, and the first courses will start there next month. We are also awaiting the new centre at Wrexham.
A number of hon. Members have been concerned about the proposals, when we receive them, of the Hunt Committee. I fully understand the feelings of my hon. Friends the Members for Monmouth and for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and others about the difficulties in which they find themselves in their constituencies. None of us likes waiting for Godot—Godot never appeared of course, but Hunt, I trust, will. But as soon as we have the Hunt Report we shall be very willing indeed to discuss with hon. Members concerned the proposals which might affect them in their constituencies.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool will forgive me if I do not follow him, at least now, into the maze of Cwmbran, but the House will wish to know that other new towns in the Principality are making progress. We hope to have the draft master plan for the new town in Montgomeryshire published in a few weeks' time, and I believe my right hon. Friends hoped to have the report on Llantrisant from the consultants before the end of the year. These are very important growth points in Mid-Wales and South Wales respectively.
Mr. Gibson-Watt: I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to answer three questions that were put from this side: first, the Mid-Wales railway; second, the 15 per cent. maintenance for county council roads and, third, the Dee barrier.
Mrs. White: There are a great many points that I shall not be able to answer, but perhaps I might refer to the Dee barrage, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members and would have been mentioned by at least one other had he been called. The Dee barrage project, which is of the very greatest importance in North Wales, is being most actively pursued. The consultants for the socioeconomic study which is to supplement the physical study by the engineers have been appointed, and their terms of reference are now being fully worked out in consultation with the local authorities and others concerned. This exercise will
334
be of very great interest to those who are asking for barrages in other parts of Wales. It is a most complex procedure, and it must be if we are to undertake something which is not only a major physical project but also something which can have far-reaching social and economic effects on contiguous areas.
It can also have an effect on another matter which has been touched on and which is always of interest to Welsh Members. That is the whole question of water supply and the organisation of water resources within the Principality. I wish that there was time to say more about this. I think that we should have further discussion on this point, perhaps in the Welsh Grand Committee.
It has been a little disappointing to me to find that too many people in Wales, including bodies which I greatly respect—the county councils, for example—seem to take a rather superficial view of what can and cannot be done in the matter of water control. I know that water always causes "explosions" in Wales. If a thorough job is to be done, we must look very carefully, not only at water supply, but also at river authorities, flood control, and sewerage. They all come together as a complex of operations on the physical plane. They are divided now among various bodies for administrative responsibility. Rather like devolution, I think that we must consider this matter as a whole and not become too excited about any part of it. This we are trying to do in the Welsh Office.
Another matter touched upon by some speakers was the question of roads and other communications. Much has been said about the north/south road. What is suitable for Italy with its shape and geography is not necessarily suitable for Wales.
Mention has been made of proposals in North Wales which interest those of us who represent North Wales constituencies, particularly the rather controversial suggestions which have been published recently. I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Conway (Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies) and others who are interested that we shall, as my right hon. Friend has said, consider very carefully the various points of view before reaching any final conclusions about this road project. I emphasise, as my right hon. Friend

335
has, that we are making tremendous improvement to road communications in Wales all the time. Anybody who goes on a car journey in Wales can see for himself the number of places at which corners are being rounded, gradients improved, and so on. It would be completely misleading to suggest that we are doing other than rapidly improving communications in Wales.
It is something which all of us speak of and which I believe is of the greatest importance for our industrial development. I am sure that good communications—rail, air and ports—matter for the industrialist considering the possibility of moving his enterprise into Wales. Road communications are probably the most important consideration of all. We in the Welsh Office are very well aware of that.
Road communications are also extremely important for that other growth industry of Wales, which is tourism. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Flint, West suggested that the Government were doing nothing but chickenfeed for tourism. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that far more money is now being spent on tourism in Wales than was ever spent under his Administration and that we are for the first time supporting a professional tourist industry in Wales and taking it seriously. Anyone who has seen the admirable publications of the Wales Tourist Board, which are commended all over the world, not only in Britain, will agree that we are now tackling this in a professional and satisfactory way. This is of great importance for the rural and coastal areas of Wales.
We can truly say that we have been faithful stewards and come with a good record. We ask for the support of hon. Members.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report on Wales for 1967 (Command Paper No. 3544).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Clean Air Bill and the Domestic and Appellate Proceedings (Restriction of Publicity) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Peart.]

CLEAN AIR BILL
Lords Amendments considered.
CLEAN AIR BILL
  Clause 6

    HEIGHT OF CHIMNEYS
    Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 5, line 33, leave out from "therein" to "to" in line 35 and insert "to which this section applies".
    10.1 p.m.
    Mr. Robert Maxwell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take, at the same time, Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
    Mr. Maxwell: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that it will suit the convenience of the House to take those Amendments at the same time.
    They are designed to clarify Clause 6(1) in two ways. First, the expression "capacity of a furnace" has been found to be open to more than one interpretation, and it is intended to make it clear that it refers to the volume of combustion space in the furnace and not, for instance, to the amount of fuel burnt in the furnace in a specified time. The reason for making the volume of the furnace the criterion is that any increase in the volume would involve work of constructional alteration which can be clearly identified.
    In Committee in another place it was pointed out that the Clause did not deal expressly with the case in which a new furnace was substituted for an existing furnace. The Amendment provides that when a new furnace is installed after the coming into operation of the provision to replace the furnace of small combustion, space chimney height approval is required. The Amendments involve a slight change in the layout of the Clause.
    The operative words are removed from subsections (1) and (2) and incorporated in subsection (10). The definition of "new chimney" in subsection (11) becomes superfluous and is deleted.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

  Clause 11

    RELATION OF CLEAN AIR ACTS TO, AND AMENDMENT OF, ALKALI ACT
    Lords Amendment No. 6: In page 11, line 17, leave out "8" and insert "10".
    Mr. Maxwell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This is a drafting Amendment, and I hope that the House will agree to it.
    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I say how grateful I am to all hon. Members for the help which they have given me in making it possible to get this Bill this far. It will provide for the country the same kind of clean air protection which London has enjoyed for many years and which, as you know, Mr. Speaker, has put an end to the killer smog.
    Mr. Speaker: The last remarks were out of order, but understandable.
    Question put and agreed to.

DOMESTIC AND APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS (RESTRICTION OF PUBLICITY) BILL
Lords Amendments considered.
DOMESTIC AND APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS (RESTRICTION OF PUBLICITY) BILL
  Clause 1

    POWER OF COURT HEARING CERTAIN APPEALS AND APPLICATIONS TO SIT IN PRIVATE
    Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 1, line 10, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsections (1A) and (2)".
    10.4 p.m.
    Sir Lionel Heald: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take at the same time Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 13, at end insert:
    "(1A) Without prejudice to the next following subsection, the court hearing the appeal or application shall give its decision and the reason for its decision in public unless there are good and sufficent grounds for giving them in private and in that case the court shall state those grounds in public."
    Sir L. Heald: I should say a word of explanation about the origin and effect of the Amendments, particularly as this is a Private Member's Bill.
    The Bill originated with a report of the Law Commission which was directed towards and dealt with certain anomalies and loopholes in the law relating to the power of the courts, particularly the appellate courts, to sit in camera. It has long been agreed that there are certain cases and circumstances in which the court should sit in camera. It has equally always been recognised that those occasions should be limited to circumstances when they were absolutely necessary. There was never any intention on anyone's part to interfere with the freedom of the Press or with the opportunity that everyone has to know exactly what the courts are doing and why they are doing it.
    It is right to mention that at no stage in this House was any kind of opposition raised towards the Bill, although the Solicitor-General and I at more than one stage of the proceedings both stuck our necks out, if one may use that expression not improperly to suggest that anyone who thought that there was unreasonable interference with the liberty of the subject and the freedom of the Press would have the opportunity to say so; but no one said a word. Indeed, on Third Reading I attempted to speak and was very properly rebuked by you, Mr. Speaker, because there was not a sufficient number of hon. Members who were prepared to ask for any discussion.
    Thus the matter went from this House to another place. When it arrived there, the noble Lord, Viscount Colville of Culross, undertook the onerous task of introducing it. He let himself in for a certain amount of trouble because when the matter came before another place, it appeared that there was a fear among those responsible for the reporting of cases in the court that the Bill might have an effect in preventing them from acquainting the public with matters about which the public ought to know.
    To cut a long story short, thanks to the noble Viscount's skilful and tactical efforts, agreement was obtained even between eminent judicial authorities and in the end these Amendments were devised.

    339
    Their purpose is to provide what in any event would be expected to be the case. It is right that it should be made clear that even if a court sits in public to hear the evidence, the actual judgment and the reasons for it should, except in the most unusual circumstances, always take place in public.
    That is the object of the Amendments and I think that they will satisfy, and have satisfied, those concerned. I would like to repeat that there never was any intention to introduce—and I hope, if I might be allowed to say so, that it would never be suspected that I would be a party to introducing—a Bill which would interfere with the freedom of speech of the Press in reporting. All sides have accepted the Amendments and I hope that this House will accept them, also.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): I would like to say a word on the Amendments. I entirely agree with the account of the background and history of the matter which has been given to the House by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). I am sure that everybody, on both sides of the House, would accept without question what the right hon. and learned Member has just said about his own disposition in the matter.
    In another place concern was expressed about the effect which the Bill might have on future applications to hear proceedings in private. The noble and learned promoter of the Bill in another place had discussions with several of his colleagues, and eventually two Amendments were made to the Bill in Committee which are the Amendments now before the House.
    The purpose of these Amendments is to ensure that in any case where the court hears an appeal or application in private it shall give its decision and the reasons for its decision in public unless that would be prejudicial to the interests of the parties. These Amendments were put forward, I think it can be agreed, as a form of compromise between the views of those who considered that this provision was unnecessary and those who considered it indispensable, and they met with complete approval. That being so, the Government are willing to accept the
    340
    compromise which was arrived at in another place and which will result, we believe, in clarifying the law.
    I hope that the Amendments will meet with general approval here.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Remaining Lords Amendment agreed to.

ROAD COMMUNICATIONS, HULL
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ioan L. Evans.]
10.11 p.m.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: My purpose in seeking this brief debate tonight is to draw to the attention of the House and the Minister of Transport the very real problems of road accidents and the immediate communication needs of the City of Hull. Problems which must be solved not only for the important roll which they play in the development of our city and the realisation of the tremendous potential for economic expansion which exists on Humberside, but also because of the immediate importance of the part which the Port of Hull plays now in the economic life of our country as a great exporting centre, with its increasing importance as a passenger terminal for foreign visitors, and because of the roll-on, roll-off ferry service.
It is not only as a port, but an important commercial and industrial centre that Hull has a part to play in the nation's recovery, which is seriously affected by our grossly inadequate road communications, the congestion in the city, and the use of what are little better in some places than enlarged country lanes, the roads leading to the city from the north and west, with these miles of two-line traffic and bottlenecks through villages.
Selby toll bridge is an anachronism, one half scheduled as an historic monument which ought to be the concern of the Ancient Monuments division of the Ministry of Public Building and Works and not a subject of tonight's debate, but has to be used on a journey through the industrial West Riding, for a journey to Doncaster and Thorne or through

341
Dunswell through Beverley. These journeys are full of delays and frustrations which shorten tempers but, more than that, cost money and time and, on occasion, regrettably, lives, and retard the development of the area.
This sense of isolation in Hull and the inadequacies of our road communications must have been brought very much home to the Minister—we did not need to be reminded of it in Hull—during the Recess. The following headlines appeared in the Hull Daily Mail on 8th August: "Selby Bridge Closed. 30-mile detour. Selby chaos triggers new road demands." On 27th August: "Hulls last road link with the West: Crash blocks Boothferry Bridge".
The Selby Bridge remained closed for three weeks during part of which time the smaller bridge at Cawood was also out of commission. Boothferry Bridge was blocked by an accident for less than half a day but for a short time, apart from the route to the north, Hull was completely isolated. It would be interesting to know if any estimate has been made of the cost of these two mishaps, particularly the Selby incident. How much did it cost in time and money, in wages, petrol, to make the 30-mile detour? What increase was there in the cost of our goods, particularly those for export?
It is ironic that, despite the economy cuts and when the Government rightly place emphasise on the need to improve and develop communications to our major ports, these mishaps should have occurred on the access road to the third port. Of course, it would be true to say that these problems have been there for along time. Perhaps we can hope for more attention to them now that the Minister of State himself was late when he came for the opening of the Humber Tidal Model in Hull last month when he was delayed by traffic coming to the City.
If the lesson has not gone home to the Minister I would extend this invitation to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who is replying to the debate: make the road journey with me from Hull to Leeds or Doncaster by private car, or in the cab of a lorry, and he will appreciate the problem. If that invitation is not accepted and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull,
342
West (Mr. James Johnson), who frequently uses that road, is fortunate to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will be able to explain to my hon. Friend exactly the difficulties he may encounter.
We know that work on the Elloughton bypass is due to start next year, that important road developments are taking place in Hull, and that last week the Minister fixed the route for the extension of the first section of the M18 motorway extension. Something is being done, but what my constituents and the industrialists who are thinking of expansion in the city would like is the knowledge, not only that the Ministry is aware of our problems, but is seized with the urgency of them. The Hull Corporation in the excellent evidence it submitted to the Hunt Committee, and the Yorkshire and Humberside Economic Planning Council, in its first report, all made road communications, to the Port of Hull the first priority, and we would like to think that the Ministry has done so, too.
If I may say so, in passing, that is why I have not mentioned the Humber Bridge, important though it is. I know that my Minister will shortly be receiving the report of the feasibility study and also, if we are to embark on a discussion on the Humber Bridge, we would need not half an hour but half a week in which to discuss its importance to the area. Also, I know that the road networks as they are planned take into consideration the construction of the bridge.
My constituents and the whole area would like to hear from the Minister tonight when we can expect a firm decision on the starting date for the Selby bypass. Discussions on this have been going on for 30 years, which is 30 years too long. It is about time that the agents for the Ministry were able to come to a decision, and the Minister should be knocking their heads together to help them to reach it.
We have had the line of route for the Thorne bypass designated. When can we have a firm date for the commencement of work? When can we expect something on the Beverley bypass? The congestion, even if one uses the bypass to avoid the town centre, is still very great at the traffic lights, and the Beverley Bar has always created a problem.

343
Finally, when can we hope for a completion date to be fixed for the road schemes in Hull, in order to ease the congestion that exists in the city and also to help the country. These matters are all important, not only for Hull but for the country as a whole. I hope that we shall not be disappointed. I cannot emphasise too much that the stranglehold on the city should be removed.
10.18 p.m.
Mr. James Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for allowing me to speak for a few minutes and also to the Minister for giving a little time. I am delighted to say something, not least because my Parliamentary agent is chairman of planning for the Association of Municipal Corporations and also chairman for planning in Hull. If the Minister can give us a tangible factual answer this evening, this will please not merely Alderman Body but all those in Hull who are connected with planning in the widest sense of the development of the economic life of the city.
My hon. Friend has mentioned that we are the third port. We face Europe and we have a magnificent future, but we must be given these outlets to the west. We have bottlenecks to the west, and when travelling north by road, I often face the delays suffered by the Minister of State when he opened the Humber Estuary Model a short while ago. I speak feelingly on that subject.
I have in the past called attention to the scandalous lack of good communications suffered by are an isolated community on the North bank of the Humber, and we have to travel at least 40 miles before reaching the A1 to begin our link up with the hinterland of the centre and the west.
We shall never develop Humberside unless we get these road communications and, of course, the Humber Bridge, to which my hon. Friend has already referred.
Entering the city from the West are two highways, Boothferry Road and Hessle Road. Those are the two ways in. I understand from my city council colleagues that we are to have two roads
344
from the west continuing over the Hull river into East Hull and its dockland. Our difficulty is to get our stuff in and out of these fine docks mainly east of the river. I understand that Hessle Road is to be continued through Myton Gate and over the Hull river, but, even more important, a new road will be constructed north of the Fish Docks and over the Hull river by a new bridge.
If we can have some helpful answers to these points, I feel that this debate will have been well worth while.
10.20 p.m.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has set out very cogently and with his usual adroitness both the general need for the improvement of communications between Hull and the national road network and the particular problems which arise when even the existing admittedly inadequate routes are interrupted. He has been ably supported in the short time at his disposal by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson).
The Government fully accept the importance of the contribution which Hull can make to the national economy and the need for a radical improvement of communications to enable it to realise its full potential. This is demonstrated by the inclusion in the trunk road preparation pool of a new route extending the M62 Lancashire Yorkshire Motorway from Ferrybridge on the A1 to Gilberdyke, on the A63 west of Hull, and of another route joining this M62 extension to the already programmed bypasses of Doncaster and Thorne. All this new network is to be constructed as motorway. This is a measure of the importance that the Government see in the port of Kingston upon Hull. In addition the route from Hull to the north is catered for in the preparation pool by a proposed bypass of Beverley and an associated diversion of a part of the existing route between Beverley and Hull.
The inclusion of all these schemes in the preparation pool was announced in February, 1967. My hon. Friend is anxious to have a firm starting date for them, so that all concerned with industry

345
and commerce in the region may see their hopes of better communications take more definite form.
We are not yet ready to consider including these schemes in the firm programme, but that by no means implies that we do not share my hon. Friend's sense of urgency. Under the present two-stage system of preparation pool and firm programme the inclusion of a scheme in the firm programme is not considered until it has been prepared to the stage of plans to a scale of 1 in 2,500 and an accurate estimate of its cost has been made. This enables us to make a proper assessment of its priority and to assign it its due place in the programme.
This means that firm starting dates are not allocated until much later in the development of a scheme than under the old system in which schemes were programmed before being elaborated in any detail. It also means that, on major schemes of this kind, a vast amount of survey and design work is necessary before firm programming is considered. This work, on all the preparation pool schemes in the Humberside area, is progressing and will continue to progress with all possible speed.
On one part of the network, the Thorne bypass section of the route from Doncaster, my right hon. Friend has just announced the fixing of the route under the normal statutory processes. A bypass of Thorne has been included in the programme for some time, but its whole conception had to be altered to fit in with the new motorway pattern. I am certain that no hon. Member representing a Humberside constituency would complain about this reassessment of the situation. This has now been done and our present aim is to start work on this scheme at the beginning of 1970. I am sure that this will be welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. James Johnson) and by all the people on Humberside that they represent.
Mr. James Johnson: And my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Mr. George Jeger).
Mr. Brown: I am certain that the hon. Member for Goole will also be delighted about this.
346
Meanwhile progress is also being made on the interim scheme to provide a temporary bridge over the canal on the trunk road through Thorne in order to relieve the congestion caused by the existing narrow swing bridge.
On the section between Thorne and Doncaster, which will link up with the M18 motorway, an origin and destination survey has been carried out and its results are now being analysed with a view to selecting an appropriate route.
The motorway extension will terminate at Gilberdyke. My hon. Friend is already aware that the section of the A63 between there and Hull will be improved by the Elloughton bypass on which work should start in 1969. This will leave less than five miles which are not dual carriageway and of these the greater part is accounted for by Caves bypass, which is a good standard three-lane highway.
In Beverley a one-way system has been introduced and a route avoiding the town centre signposted, in order to improve conditions while the bypass is awaited.
I turn now to the particular problem of Selby. Following the decision to extend the M62 on the Ferrybridge-Gilberdyke alignment, which will supersede the A63 as the major Leeds-Hull route, we have been looking separately at the problem in Selby in conjunction with the local authorities concerned. General agreement has now been reached that a bypass to the north of the town would be a viable proposition and consideration is now being given to the inclusion of a scheme in the next extension of the trunk road preparation pool.
I should now like to mention the road system within Hull, with particular reference to access to the docks. Amongst the main causes of delays to traffic in Hull are the periodic openings of North Bridge and Drypool Bridge. A southern orbital road to be constructed in three stages will provide a new route from Hessle Road to Hedon Road, with a link at Myton Place to a southerly extension of Ferensway and with a new bridge over the River Hull. The first two stages are in the firm programme at an estimated cost totalling £1,400,000 and the third stage, including the bridge, is in the principal road preparation list at a cost of £2,850,000. These schemes, subject to

347
approval of their detail, will be eligible for a 75 per cent. grant from Ministry funds.
The preparation list also includes the first carriageway of a ring road to be constructed on the line of the low-level railway, which has been abandoned by British Rail. This will provide a northern bypass of the city centre for traffic bound for the eastern docks.
And we are contributing half the cost of a land-use/transportation study which is currently being carried out as a guide to what the future road pattern in the city should be.
Mr. James Johnson: Can the Minister say anything about the road which is parallel to the Humber north of the fish and Albert Docks which I understand is to begin at Dairycoates and go along the Hull river to the cargo docks on the east bank?
Mr. Brown: I will look into that.
For more immediate relief of congestion in the city centre a one-way traffic system has been introduced and this, together with a system of traffic light control and a parking meter installation, has kept the traffic moving fairly freely. Two multi-storey car parks have been provided and more are intended in order to assist off street parking. A further measure to assist the city centre traffic flow is the undertaking of three complementary road
348
schemes, two of which have already received grant, to divert west bound traffic from Carr Lane on to Waterhouse Lane, Osborne Street and Little Ferensway, thus easing the traffic conflict at the Anlaby Road/Ferensway/Carr Lane Junction.
I have not so far mentioned the Humber Bridge. There is at this moment nothing new I can say about this, but I welcome this opportunity to repeat again the assurance we have often given that the bridge will be given a place in the road programme to fit in as an integral part of any large-scale development on Humberside. The Government will make decisions on that when they have considered the results of the current planning studies, to which my hon. Friend referred.
In conclusion, therefore, the earnest of the Government's concern to terminate once and for all the isolation of Hull is to be found in their announcement of a new motorway system of over 40 miles to give it first-class communications to west, south-west and south, together with the very substantial improvement of the northward route via Beverley; and this is supplemented by the Government's willingness to make a major contribution towards the transformation of the city's internal road network.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

NATIONAL FINANCE
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  United Kingdom Liabilities
  United Kingdom Liabilities
  Valuers
  Valuers
  Fulton Committee's Report (Treasury Organisation)
  Fulton Committee's Report (Treasury Organisation)
  International Monetary Fund Mission
  International Monetary Fund Mission
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  Cost of Living Index
  Cost of Living Index
  Tax Arrears
  Tax Arrears
  Taxation and Incentives
  Taxation and Incentives
  Wealth Tax
  Wealth Tax
  Non-Industrial Civil Service
  Non-Industrial Civil Service
  Added Value Tax
  Added Value Tax
  Overseas Debts
  Overseas Debts
  German and French Currencies (Exchange Rates)
  German and French Currencies (Exchange Rates)
  Charitable Disaster Funds
  Charitable Disaster Funds
  Sterling Balances
  Sterling Balances
  Basle Agreement
  Basle Agreement
  Sterling (World Banking Rôle)
  Sterling (World Banking Rôle)
  Investment Allowances and Grants
  Investment Allowances and Grants
  Bank Rate
  Bank Rate
  Catering and Tourist Industries
  Catering and Tourist Industries
  Two-tier Postal System
  Two-tier Postal System
  Local Authority Borrowing
  Local Authority Borrowing
  Export Credits (Interest Rates)
  Export Credits (Interest Rates)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Consumer Demand
  Consumer Demand
  Gross Domestic Product (Growth Rate)
  Gross Domestic Product (Growth Rate)
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Autumn Budget
  Autumn Budget
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Taxation (Channel Islands)
  Taxation (Channel Islands)
  Public Services (Cost)
  Public Services (Cost)
  Rent Increases
  Rent Increases
  Family Allowances (Income Tax Allowances)
  Family Allowances (Income Tax Allowances)
  BRITISH HONDURAS
  BRITISH HONDURAS
  GUYANA
  GUYANA
COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Court of Appeal
  Court of Appeal
  NIGERIA
  NIGERIA
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA
MINISTRY OF POWER
  Fuel Policy (Miners' Union Representations)
  Fuel Policy (Miners' Union Representations)
  British Steel Corporation (Capital Expenditure)
  British Steel Corporation (Capital Expenditure)
  British Steel Corporation (Sheffield Rolling Mills Ltd.)
  British Steel Corporation (Sheffield Rolling Mills Ltd.)
  Oil a ad Gas Drilling (North Sea)
  Oil a ad Gas Drilling (North Sea)
  Proposed Hydrocarbons Corporation
  Proposed Hydrocarbons Corporation
ELECTRICITY
  Hams Hall C Generating Station
  Hams Hall C Generating Station
  Resale Price (Control)
  Resale Price (Control)
HOSPITALS
  Radiography (Employment Costs)
  Radiography (Employment Costs)
  Scientific and Technical Staffs (Committee's Report)
  Scientific and Technical Staffs (Committee's Report)
  Mobile Intensive Care Unit, Birmingham
  Mobile Intensive Care Unit, Birmingham
  Arteriosclerotic Heart Disease Cases
  Arteriosclerotic Heart Disease Cases
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Scientology
  Scientology
  Mentally Handicapped (Teachers' Training Council)
  Mentally Handicapped (Teachers' Training Council)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Excessive Prescribing
  Excessive Prescribing
  Abortions (Notifications)
  Abortions (Notifications)
  Home Help Service (Elderly Persons)
  Home Help Service (Elderly Persons)
  Immigrants (Medical Examinations)
  Immigrants (Medical Examinations)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Farms (Intensive Livestock Houses)
  Farms (Intensive Livestock Houses)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Torrey Canyon (Select Committee's Report)
  Torrey Canyon (Select Committee's Report)
  Rating (Statistics)
  Rating (Statistics)
  Flooding (Local Relief Funds)
  Flooding (Local Relief Funds)
  Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act (Grants)
  Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act (Grants)
  Levy Case, Nantwich
  Levy Case, Nantwich
  Pit Heaps (Removal)
  Pit Heaps (Removal)
  Derelict Land (Clearance)
  Derelict Land (Clearance)
  Sheffield Corporation (Disposal of Land)
  Sheffield Corporation (Disposal of Land)
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Crown Foreshore (Sales)
  Crown Foreshore (Sales)
  Water Rates and Charges
  Water Rates and Charges
HOUSING
  Long Leasehold Dwellings
  Long Leasehold Dwellings
  Huddersfield
  Huddersfield
  Rents, Brighton
  Rents, Brighton
  House Purchase Advances, Macclesfield (Quota)
  House Purchase Advances, Macclesfield (Quota)
  Housing Subsidy
  Housing Subsidy
TRANSPORT
  Hit-and-Run Motor Vehicle Accidents (Compensation)
  Hit-and-Run Motor Vehicle Accidents (Compensation)
  Bus Fares (Schoolchildren)
  Bus Fares (Schoolchildren)
  Channel Tunnel (Financing)
  Channel Tunnel (Financing)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Private Clubs (Racial Discrimination)
  Private Clubs (Racial Discrimination)
  Cruel Sports (Badgers)
  Cruel Sports (Badgers)
  Local Authorities (Immigrant Problems)
  Local Authorities (Immigrant Problems)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Operational Parachutes
  Operational Parachutes
  Flood Relief Works
  Flood Relief Works
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Colonial Service Pensions (Taxation)
  Colonial Service Pensions (Taxation)
  Student Training
  Student Training
SCOTLAND
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Part-time Education
  Part-time Education
  General Teaching Council
  General Teaching Council
  Police Officers (Recruitment)
  Police Officers (Recruitment)
TECHNOLOGY
  F111 Aircraft (Cancellation Cost)
  F111 Aircraft (Cancellation Cost)
  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
  PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (OUTSIDE INTERESTS)
  MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (OUTSIDE INTERESTS)
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Industry (Government Incentives)
  Industry (Government Incentives)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Public Transport (Children's Fares)
  Public Transport (Children's Fares)
  CONSULAR STAFF, BEIRA
  CONSULAR STAFF, BEIRA
  FALKLAND ISLANDS
  FALKLAND ISLANDS
  ROYAL BRITISH CLUB, LISBON
  ROYAL BRITISH CLUB, LISBON
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  VIETNAM
  VIETNAM
  UNITED NATIONS (PEACE PROPOSALS)
  UNITED NATIONS (PEACE PROPOSALS)
POST OFFICE
  Two-Tier Postal System
  Two-Tier Postal System
  Rottingdean Post Office, Brighton (Site)
  Rottingdean Post Office, Brighton (Site)
  Postage Rates
  Postage Rates
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Payment of Benefits (Postage)
  Payment of Benefits (Postage)
  Immigrants (Repatriation)
  Immigrants (Repatriation)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Industrial Development Certificates (York)
  Industrial Development Certificates (York)
  Headgear (Irish Imports)
  Headgear (Irish Imports)
  Wiggins Teape Limited (Loan)
  Wiggins Teape Limited (Loan)

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

REDEVELOPMENT OF QUEEN ANNE'S MANSIONS
2.35 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 whether the proposal to replace Queen Anne's Mansions with 300.000 square feet of office accommodation designed by Sir Basil Spence is in line with their policy on the control of office development in Central London.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, although the Government keep a tight control over new office development in Central London, it is not their policy to prevent the modernisation of out-dated offices. The Queen Anne's Mansions building is nearly eighty years old, has been in use as Government offices for almost thirty years, and does not conform with present day standards of office accommodation. The Government therefore took the view that approval should be given for the redevelopment of this prominent London site, on condition that the offices would be used only by an organisation which had to be in Central London. In view of the proximity of the site to Whitehall, it has been taken for use by a block of Government staff whose work requires them to be in the central area.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but I would ask him one supplementary question; namely, whether he does not think that a site like that in Central London, which is very near to shops and public transport, is fairly quiet and has a public park round the corner, would be more
1186
suitable for residential accommodation than office accommodation?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think that everybody sympathises with the noble Lord's point of view, but unfortunately civil servants have to be housed. They should be housed in decent accommodation, and the present accommodation is entirely unsuitable.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean by that statement that this office building is going to lead to more civil servants? I was under the impression that the number of civil servants was coming down, not increasing.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, over 14,000 civil servants have been moved from the London area by this Government. Nevertheless, those who remain in London have to be house d in reasonably efficient accommodation, and since this office block is converted flats it is extremely wasteful of space.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, will the effect of the reconstruction of the site mean that there will be a larger number of occupants of the site? And has full account been taken of the undesirability, from the traffic point of view, of adding to the number of occupants of that site?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, in spite of the very large superficial area of this former block of flats, the number of people using it at the moment is approximately 1,800, which is a very small number for a surface area of this size. That is why I said that the office accommodation was inefficient. But if additional efficient use of space is achieved and a larger number of civil servants is housed on this particular site, then other sites throughout the centre of London will be freed for other purposes.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what will be the increased number of offices consequent upon this redevelopment?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot. If the noble and learned Viscount will put down another Question, I will give him an Answer.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, is it not quite wrong that there should be this increased concentration in the centre

1187
of London? Is it not worth while to reconsider this whole policy?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the policy of Her Majesty's Government is well known. We are moving large numbers of civil servants out of the London area, but obviously some must remain.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, would the noble Lord say how many bodies will be housed in this new building?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, again, if a Question is put down, I will answer it.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, some people have to work in Government or Parliament. Would it not be possible in some future reconstruction to have flats to accommodate Members of Parliament? It would be a convenient place for them to live. Would it not be a better solution to accommodate Members of Parliament, who would not have to live so far away?

POST OFFICE LETTER SERVICE
2.40 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the report in The Times of September 20 at the foot of page 4 headed "Overnight guard on 4d. mail" is correct or, if not, how nearly correct; and whether the Postmaster General's statements that 5d. mail merely received priority are compatible with this reported expense undertaken to ensure that 4d. mail is deliberately prejudiced; and, whether the dissemination of the opinion that 4d. mail is unimportant among Post Office staff by the Postmaster General is not bound to diminish the confidence which the Post Office has hitherto commanded from the public; and whether, therefore, the time has now come to terminate the monopoly of letter-carrying enjoyed by the Post Office and to allow the public to seek other means of transport if they prefer.]
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the report referred to a local mistake which was quickly put right. Some anomalies were inevitable at the start of the new letter service. Post Office staff are well aware that postal packets entrusted to them must not be wilfully detained or delayed contrary to their duty, and there is no reason for any loss of public confidence in the service. To the Post Office all letters are important, but under the new scheme some are treated more urgently than others, according to the customer's choice.
The Post Office has a statutory duty to provide a nation-wide letter service. It would not therefore be reasonable to allow letters to be collected, conveyed and delivered by carriers who would seek out the most profitable traffic, leaving the Post Office to carry unprofitable letters over long distances and to remote places.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that answer, the last part of which gives rise to another question which I should like to ask. Would Her Majesty's Government agree that the property in a letter belongs to the person to whom it is addressed, and that the Postmaster General undertakes only to transmit and deliver it? While he has an undoubted right to invent a more rapid way of sorting and delivering, and charging a higher rate for it, this does not give him any right at all to withhold from their owners, in order to exert pressure on the public to adopt the higher price rate, letters which could in the normal course be delivered.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, unfortunately, the noble Lord has got it wrong, and from some of the laughter that I heard from noble Lords opposite I feel that they have it wrong, too. The position is that there are 35 to 36 million letters posted every day. A postage rise from 4d. to 5d. was going to take place anyway. What my right honourable friend did was to offer to those members of the public who felt that they had a special desire to get their letters through by the next day the choice of paying this extra charge.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that answer, but it does not really quite cover the point. Postmen themselves are of opinion, and are telling their customers,

1189
that 4d. letters are being delayed and will be delivered by the next post—
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (LORD SHACKLETON): Question!
LORD SALTOUN: —and they are coming round with empty bags. The Post Office staff at least should be informed.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to intervene.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to put my hearing aid on?
LORD SHACKLETON: It would be helpful, because we should like to hear a question from the noble Lord, and if he could frame his remarks, which are going rather wide, in the form of a question it would be more in order.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, does my noble friend think that, if an increase in price was justified, it should have been made all round, without this discrimination? And does he not think this present scheme is barmy?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, that question is another indication of a considerable amount of misunderstanding. I said a moment ago that discrimination between the two classes of mail, first-class and second-class, derives from the fact that the Post Office could not possibly deal with 36 million letters a day. Therefore the public was given an option. If the charges had all gone up to 5d. the same problem would have remained. My noble friend has not therefore thought about that. May I make clear to noble Lords that the amount of mail posted every year is going to go up by 2 per cent. and it will double in 25 years. These facts must be known to be understood. Ninety-four per cent. of first-class mail is delivered the next day; 93 per cent. of the second-class mail is delivered the day after that, called day "C".
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, could the noble Lord say what percentage is delivered four or five days later?
LORD BOWLES: Yes, my Lords, I can. About 6 per cent. And if one considers, again, the amount of postings, I do not think that 6 per cent. is really very many in 36 million. I should also like to point out that there is a certain element of
1190
human mistake which takes place, naturally. Oh, yes. Noble Lords opposite seem to be infallible! The trains are sometimes late and it is possible for a mail train to miss a connection, and by that means also all the letters in that train would be delayed. That is the kind of thing that happens. Human error is involved in what is taking place. The scheme is new. It has not yet been in force a month. It is a complete change in what the postmen are used to doing. Instead of sorting everything, they now have to discriminate between two classes of mail. I think it is worth bearing in mind, in view of the atmosphere about this matter—some noble Lords rend The Times—that the last letter in The Times to-day is from a Mr. Boston, who says:
"My first-class mail is reaching me promptly and my second-class mail is not unduly delayed. My telephone service is efficient and courteous.
"What am I doing wrong?"
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, the only reason why I intervene again is that I asked a question and it was not answered. I asked whether Her Majesty's Government would take steps to see that the postmen and the Post Office staff were informed of the answer which the noble Lord had given me because they are under the impression that the 4d. mail is to be delayed, and they say so to their customers. That was the question which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, wished me to put in the interrogatory form. I had really done so. Perhaps my vice is rather bad.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, it may be that one or two postmen are a bit disgruntled, but I think the relationship between the Post Office and the Postal Union is very good indeed. There may be one or two people who do not like any change at all, but I do assure the noble Lord that less than a month has gone by since the scheme started; it is getting better every day, and my right honourable friend the Postmaster General is completely confident that very soon none of these questions will be relevant to be raised in this House.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that he said the Post Office could not deal with 36 million letters a day, and that that number was going to increase by 2 million a year—
LORD BOWLES: Two per cent.
LORD DRUMALBYN: —two per cent. a year. Can he tell the House whether it is easier to deal with that amount of letters as one lot, or to add in an additional operation of sorting it into first-class and second-class mail? Does that not entail additional work for the Post Office? Would it not be better to have it as it was before?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, if I understand the noble Lord's question properly, the first-class mail has to go off with priority. Some second-class mail in fact does get in with it if the first-class mail bags are not quite full, and if the postmen's vans and the postmen's bags are not quite full. Mail with a 4d. stamp, although second-class, can go with the first-class and be delivered the next day. However, there are certain periods in the sorting office, as the noble Lord may know, when there is a slack time, and that is the time when the sorting of the second-class mail takes place. When 5 and 6 o'clock comes along, there is a tremendous load on the Post Office in the sorting offices, the clearing offices and soon. Then the first-class mail is distinguished from the second-class. It goes off that very night, and the second-class, which is delayed a bit, will go with the 11 o'clock or the day after.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, has not the noble Lord in that answer gone right back on what he said and the purport of my Question. I asked him—and I think he agreed—whether the Postmaster General had no right artificially to delay any letters that are submitted to him. On what the noble Lord says, as I understand him, in a small place which has only two posts a day 4d. letters are withheld until the next post, and that is deliberately and artificially delaying.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I am sorry but the noble Lord has admitted that he might be a little deaf on occasions. I did not say anything of that kind. I said that first-class mail was given priority. It was said it would get priority because people put a 5d. stamp on it. Priority is given to the first-class mail, but that does not at all mean the same thing as delay of the second-class mail. Priority is one thing; holding back is quite an active thing, and it is not true about the Post Office.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, could not all this fuss and bother have been avoided if only the Government had been a little more frank with us in the first place?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Postmaster General, I think in a speech last night, said that some of the earlier advertising had been disastrous—I think that is the right word. It is in the newspapers this morning, so I think I am entitled to quote him here.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask one more question? If the Government are serious in their demand for more productivity, how does it help productivity if every business firm in the country is getting its important letters by the second post in the day instead of by the first post?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, that is particularly untrue, and I imagine that the noble Lord has been taken in by a letter in The Times this morning in which a man says that his export business is being affected because every letter takes two days to reach him. It is a most misleading letter and it is not substantiated by any evidence or facts at all. That may have misled the noble Lord. The fact is that 94 per cent. of the first-class mail is being delivered by the first post the next day.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord consider it desirable that the Government should provide an opportunity for explaining all this in the course of a debate? Then the noble Lord would have an opportunity of answering the question put by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, which so far he has not answered.
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, I find making speeches in your Lordships' House much easier than answering a lot of questions coming from all over the House. My right honourable friend has an Adjournment debate in another place on Thursday night and perhaps he will be able to clarify the position. I think the House ought to know one other thing about the 5d. letters. In this country a 4 oz. letter costs 5d., in Italy 2s. 8d.. in Belgium Is., in Australia 7d. and in the U.S.A. 2s. The mail in most other countries is from 100 per cent. to

1193
600 per cent. more expensive than our mail in this country.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, before the debate concludes, is the noble Lord saying that the Post Office does not hold its mail back; it simply does not send it on?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think we have had 12 supplementary questions and I am not sure whether we are going much farther or faster. Perhaps this would be a suitable subject for an Unstarred Question at some future occasion.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord just to confirm one figure? I think he said that 6 per cent. of all letters are delivered four or five days later—is that correct?
LORD BOWLES: No, my Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh, asked me whether I had a percentage figure of the letters that were delivered within the three days; I think she mentioned 5 or 6, but my figure was over 93 per cent.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I should like to ask for elucidation of one passage in the noble Lord's Answer. I think he said that 94 per cent. of the first-class mail got there the next day; is not that precisely the same proportion as got there before all this started?
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, the amount of mail is going up rapidly and therefore something has to be done to see that some of it can go the next day and that not all has to wait the two days.

METEOROLOGICAL OFFICE AND SEPTEMBER STORMS
LORD FERRIER: 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 are satisfied that the Meteorological Office were unable to foretell the torrential nature of the
1194
rain of the 15th/16th September in time for a useful warning to be given to the public in the areas concerned.]
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the onset and persistence of prolonged rains and thunderstorms were we I forecast, although in the present stage of development of meteorology it is not possible to forecast rainfall amounts and intensities in precise terms. At 12.55 p.m. on September 14 heavy and prolonged rain for Southern England was forecast to continue into September 15. Subsequent forecasts on September 14 and 15 for 12 to 24 hours ahead also warned of heavy rain in the affected areas. The numerous regular broadcasts were supplemented by special "flash" warnings of heavy rain on September 15 and 15. Advance warnings were issued from September 14 to 16 to those river authorities and other bodies in the areas conerned which subscribe to the Meteorological Office rainfall warning service.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that detailed Answer and I have the temerity to ask a couple of supplementary questions. First, I think there are some 27 river authorities could he say how many of them take advantage of the facilities which are offered? Secondly, as one who feel; that warning of the imminence of exceptional conditions may be more important to people than the inevitably problematical long-range forecasts, would the Minister contemplate encouraging the Metrological Office to concentrate on such short-term forecasting, even at the experse of long-range forecasts?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's first supplementary question may I say that the number of river authorities is in fact 29, of which only 16 subscribe to the Meteorological Office warning service. As to the second supplementary question, I do not think the two types of forecasting are in conflict with one another. I do not believe the attempt to forecast in the longer term is in any way handicapping the short-term forecasting which the noble Lord would like to see improved.

FIJIAN RESIDENCE LAW
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper:
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will use their influence to amend the law in Fiji which does not allow a Fijian woman to reside in the colony with her husband if he was not a resident in Fiji previous to marriage.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, this is a matter for the judgment of the Government of Fiji, who have considered it carefully in the light of local circumstances. Unrestricted residence of non-Fiji husbands, who would normally be the family breadwinners, would add to the number of persons seeking employment in Fiji. The Fiji Government are concerned about the lack of employment opportunities available in the country. Individual cases of hardship are considered when the circumstances are made known.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether it is not the case that Fiji is not yet an independent country and therefore Her Majesty's Government have a certain amount of responsibility? Is it not the case that a woman in Fiji who marries a husband from abroad is not allowed to live with him in Fiji, while a man who marries a woman from abroad is allowed to live with his wife? Is not this a disgraceful example of sex discrimination?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord is right in saying that Fiji is not yet independent and Her Majesty's Government have a responsibility there. On the other hand, Fiji has an advanced state of internal government and therefore in matters like this we must take note of the views of that Government. I would not myself have said that this is sex discrimination. It is not dissimilar to the situation which exists in this country, where an English woman who marries an alien does not necessarily give to the alien husband an undoubted right of entry into this country to take up employment.

ENGINEERING INDUSTRY DISPUTE
2.58 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice and which, with your Lordships' permission, I would ask leave to substitute for the Unstarred Question standing in my name. The question is:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether there is any progress to report in the negotiations on the pay claim in the engineering industry.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord opposite for his understanding about the Unstarred Question? I shall be replying to this Private Notice Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., when a similar Question is being answered in another place. After that my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on Rhodesia.
It may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say now that dinner will be available to-night from 7 to 8.30 p.m.

RACE RELATIONS BILL
3.0 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Meaning of "Discriminate"]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, leave out from ("persons") to end of line 14.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may seem a bit odd that at this late stage in the Bill I am moving an Amendment to the governing clause of the whole Bill. Quite simply, the reason is that it has emerged that the Government intend it to mean something quite different from anything I understood and anything understood by those with whom I have discussed it, including, I may say, solicitors and barristers; it does not coincide

1197
with what they thought it meant. Perhaps I should read Clause 1. It says:
"For the purposes of this Act a person discriminates against another if on the ground of colour, race or ethnic or national origins he treats that other, in any situation to which section 2, 3, 4 or 5 below applies, less favourably than he treats or would treat other persons …"
and it goes on with the words I propose Ito leave out?—
"… and in this Act references to discrimination are references to discrimination on any of those grounds."
On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Stonham (whom we are sorry not to have with us to-day and to whom we wish a speedy recovery), said this:
"For purposes of greater clarity, we have accepted proposals that the Bill should define discrimination more closely than the 1965 Act, and Clause 1 makes clear that to discriminate means to treat someone less favourably than other people because of his colour, race, ethnic or national origin. The Government have also decided that this Bill must extend to a much wider range of public places than is covered by the present Act, and also to the provision of insurance and credit facilities, to employment and to housing."—[0FFICIAL REPORT, 15/7/68; col. 33.]
For my part when the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, spoke of extending the Bill to a much wider range of public places and to insurance, credit facilities, employment and housing, I thought he was indicating the limits to which the Bill extended the definition in the 1965 Act. From a letter he was good enough to write me it is plain this is not so. In case I get his meaning wrong I venture to quote what he said in his letter:
"Clause 1(1) of the Bill contains two definitions. The expression ' discrimination ' in Clause 6 is governed not by the first part of Clause 1(1), which refers to discriminating against another (person)', but by the second part which says that references in the Act to discrimination are references to discrimination on any of the defined grounds, that is to say, on grounds of colour, race, ethnic or national origins. This is done quite deliberately and it is by reference to this definition that Clause 6 prohibits discriminatory advertisements whether or not the act to which they refer would itself be unlawful under the Bill and whether or not they relate to discrimination against a particular person."
It seems, therefore, that we have thus the astonishing position that there are two different definitions of discrimination given in this clause, one a definition of the word as a verb and the other a definition of the word as a noun. Any person who discriminates obviously does an act
1198
of discrimination. The only difference lies in the omission of the words against another "in the second definition. I can quite see that it is undesirable to permit an act of discrimination against a whole group of people as it is to permit one against an individual. But I car not see how at the end of the day any act of discrimination or intention to do such an act can be other than an act of discrimination against a person, especially as I understand that as a matter interpretation the singular includes the plural. If discriminating is not to mean discriminating against a person or persons, I hope that the Government can explain what it does mean in the words I propose should be left out. So far as I can see, the phrase "act of discrimination" by itself, without the words "against any person," occurs once in the Bill and that is in Clause 6, which deals with advertisements and notices. Clause 6(1) says:
"It shall be unlawful for any person to publish or display, or to cause to le published or displayed, any advertisement o' notice which indicates, or which could reasonably be understood as indicating, an intention to do an act of discrimination whether or not it would be unlawful by virtue of any other provision of this Act."
So far as I can see, this phrase "act of discrimination" by itself, without the addition of the words "against any person," occurs only in this one case. I should like to know from the Government what kind of act is there contemplated which would not be an et of discrimination against a person. If there are no such acts contemplated, w rat is the purpose of the second definition in Clause 1, if it can be called a definition? Is it the intention of the Government that the Race Relations Board should have power to proceed on a voluntary basis on any complaint that an act of discrimination has been done which is not an act of discrimination against another person and which is not an act which unlawful under any provision of the Bill, other perhaps than Clause 6? If it is, why should advertisements not be dealt with in the same way without legal sanctions except where the act referred to in the advertisement is itself unlawful? Either, it seems to me, you leave a whole sector of discrimination to conciliation and to the voluntary side and then define in Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 5 which is the side to be covered by the civil proceedings

1199
if necessary (and in that case advertisements should be included in the voluntary side), or else you have to define very carefully what you mean by discrimination in the second part of the definition.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in his letter to me gave examples of what he regarded as discriminatory advertisements relating to a matter outside the scope of the Bill, and he gave as examples an advertisement seeking members for a private club or inviting people to join a holiday party. Surely both of those would involve an act of discrimination against a person, for by indicating an intention to restrict participation to persons with particular qualification the advertisement would be discriminating against a person who did not have those qualifications. Perhaps 1 may give a simple example. Supposing, for example, the London Irish Rugby Football Club intended to recruit more members, it would be an act of discrimination if it published an advertisement excluding those who were not Irish and perhaps also those who did not play Rugby football; but at any rate the first would appear to be an offence against the Bill.
I think this is an important point. I cannot conceive of any act of discrimination within the meaning of the Bill which is not an act of discrimination against a person, and that being so, it seems to me that those words are totally unnecessary and indeed confusing. To the extent that the words widen the definition of discriminating against another, I suggest they are wholly undesirable as they would cast doubt on the scope of the Bill without giving any indication of what discrimination in the wider sense is intended to mean. I hope I have said enough to make it clear that I am not in any way trying to restrict the scope of the Bill in this Amendment, but that I am trying to make it more effective. I think these particular words will cause an awful lot of trouble if they are left in the Bill. I beg to move.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I would remind the House that this clause states in general terms what in the Bill is meant by "discrimination ", and limits it to discrimination on grounds "of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins ". These were the words which were used in the 1965 Act, which in this
1200
respect was in accordance with the then draft United Nations Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination. While one fully recognises the precision of this formula, particularly the words "ethnic or national origins "—this was certainly recognised during the preparation of the 1965 Bill—in fact we have found that nothing better has been devised in the meantime, and it has proved workable since that Act was passed. The words which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, wishes to leave out are essential in this Bill, and perhaps in the light of my reply the noble Lord will not insist on or attempt to press his Amendment. I would urge the House to ensure that these words "discriminate "and "discrimination "remain throughout the Bill, because they mean discrimination on the grounds specified in the first part of Clause 1(1).
The noble Lord referred to the relationship of these words to Clause 6—the advertising clause, if I may use that form of shorthand. There are further Amendments which the House will be discussing at a slightly later stage. It is difficult not to overlap with that discussion, but these words "discriminate "and "discrimination "are required to exclude a possible construction of the words as including discrimination on the grounds of religion, politics or perhaps even sex. This is particularly necessary in relation to Clause 6, which seeks only to prohibit advertisements which discriminate on one of the specified grounds. They are also needed, as I believe the noble Lord is fully aware, for other provisions, including those in Clause 16.
It really is essential to keep in the Bill as at present drafted the words which the noble Lord's Amendment proposes to delete, in order to protect the provisions of Clause 6, if I may put it in this way and without trespassing on the Amendments which we are shortly to discuss, when perhaps we can go into this point a little more fully. I would assure Lord Drumalbyn that there are not two different definitions of "discriminate ". The first part of Clause 1 defines discrimination against another, a phrase which occurs again in Clauses 2 to 5. The second part, as I have already explained, defines "discrimination "which occurs not only in Clause 6 but also in Clauses 15 and 16 and certain of the Schedules.

1201
It is only in Clause 6 that the illegality of a transaction is affected by the definition. It may be that this was the particular point which the noble Lord wished to get clear, and this was the purpose of his Amendment. The other provisions are purely procedural.
I hope that this explanation on an extraordinarily difficult and, to some of us, delicate matter has satisfied the noble Lord. We are most anxious, particularly at this late stage, after all the consideration of the Bill both in another place and in your Lordships' House over many long hours through its various stages, that the clause should stand as it is for the reasons that I have given. We will discuss its relevance to Clause 6 when we come to the Amendments that have been tabled on that particular clause.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her courteous reply, but I am bound to say that I do not feel wholly satisfied with it. We shall indeed come on to discuss it further on Clause 6, and it may be that then she will be able to reply to the point that I made about the difference between these two definitions. One is discrimination against another; the other is discrimination quite shortly. There must be a purpose in this and I should like to know what that purpose is. As I pointed out, in the reply that I received from the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, he laid emphasis on this difference. I cannot see how you can discriminate except by discriminating against a person. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reply to that.
I realise that the stage is late, but it would be a great mistake if we were to allow the governing clause to pass—presumably we shall have another opportunity to deal with this point—unless we were quite sure that there was a good or adequate reason for the differences in the form of definition. It is most important. But if we are going to be able to come back to this question when we come to Clause 6, perhaps we can leave it at that for the moment. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Employment]:
3.17 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("qualified") and insert ("fit ")
The noble Earl said: My Lords there are two notable absentees from our discussion this afternoon. The first, is my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, mentioned is the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. Like my noble friend I should like to say how sorry I am that he is unwell, and also to echo his expression of hope that the noble Lord will soon be restored to us in full health. The second absentee is my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I am therefore moving this Amendment on his behalf. He is taking part in a Commonwealth Parliamentary Delegation in Australia.
We had quite a long discussion of this part of the Bill on Committee stage when my noble friend Lord Ilford moved an Amendment suggesting that the words "and suitable "should be added after "qualify "in line 20 on page 2; and it was pointed out at that stage of out discussion that the adjective "qualified" may be ambiguous. As my noble friend pointed out, a teacher, for example, may be quite unsuitable for a particular post although he or she may have all the professional qualifications which that post may demand. He went on to say that the wording of the Bill, as it stood then on Committee stage and as it stands now was causing considerable disquiet to two major educational authorities, the Inner London Education Authority and the Greater London Council.
I think it was clear from our discussion last time that a number of other roble Lords were worried about the possible double entendre in the word "qualified ". Some supported the addition of the two words suggested by my noble friend. Some thought that the whole of the latter part of this clause,
"and for which he is qualified."
were better omitted; and the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, from behind the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, felt that the word "qualified" should be spelt out in some definition clause to make it clear that it included the meaning of "suitable' as well as having the right professional qualifications. The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, while not happy about my noble

1203
friend's Amendment said, I think, that he was most willing to have a look at this matter and added that he would try to come up with a solution that would satisfy everyone. So far as I know, neither the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor nor the noble Baroness have come up with a solution, and, that being so, I hope that I am not being overoptimistic in assuming that they agree that we should substitute the word "fit ", which it seems to me includes the meaning "suitable ", for the word "qualified ", which does have this possible ambiguous interpretation. I therefore beg to move.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, the noble Earl has reminded us of the discussion on this clause at Committee stage on the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, and the concern that was expressed at that time about this particular wording. Since that time my noble friend Lord Stonham (perhaps no one to-day regrets his absence more than I do, and the House will be glad to hear that he is making very good progress) has given an undertaking that he would give very serious thought to various points that have been raised with a view to meeting them, if possible. Nevertheless, I am afraid that I am going to disappoint the noble Earl in replying to the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and which the noble Earl has just moved in an attempt to solve this particular problem.
The House will remember the reasons that my noble friend Lord Stonham gave during the Committee stage why the words "and suitable "were unacceptable. He expressed the view that the decision as to which of several qualified people to engage for a job will involve for an employing authority a number of subjective opinions as to their "suitability ". He further expressed the view that under this clause the employers will still be able to make their judgment, provided that they do not base it on race or colour, but he also took the view, with which I think the House broadly agreed, that the word "suitable "would open up a loophole in the Act and could permit unscrupulous employers to reject qualified applicants on value and subjective criteria as to "suitability ". Therefore, after further consideration my noble
1204
friend felt that the word "suitable "was not acceptable.
During the Committee stage a further suggestion was made, namely, to leave out the reference entirely to "qualified ": and this indeed had a certain attraction for some who participated in the Committee stage because it is true that a refusal to employ a person because he is not "qualified "has nothing to do. as such, with racial discrimination. But, again, after full consideration of this particular proposal my noble friend, and indeed Her Majesty's Government, felt that it would be far preferable to retain the reference to being qualified to make it quite clear on the face of the Bill that Clause 3 does not apply to unqualified applicants for employment, and that there can be no question that an aggrieved applicant in such a case feels that the real reason for rejecting him was his colour.
The purpose of this new Amendment which the House is considering to-day is, as the noble Earl has told us, to replace the word "qualified "with "fit ". In the view of my noble friend and the Government the word "qualified "as at present in the Bill means both qualified and suitable, in the non-technical sense, and therefore imports a requirement that an applicant must be competent and fit. which is saying all that is necessary and desirable in this context.
Certain fears were expressed during the Committee stage about the difficulties of this particular definition, but I would remind the House that under the present wording of the Bill it would not be unlawful, for example, for a local authority to reject an immigrant teacher who is a qualified teacher (I think this was the burden of the representations made by the Inner London Education Authority); that it will be able to reject a teacher who is a qualified teacher but is unemployable as such because, for example, of language difficulties. In our view, the use of the word "fit "in the place of the word "qualified" would not have this particular advantage.
I would conclude by assuring the House that in my own personal experience in London relating to the employment of teachers in London schools I myself see no difficulty whatsoever in the wording of the Bill as it already stands, covering both technical qualifications and also

1205
qualifications as to suitability, language ability, and general ability, if I could put it in this way, to control a class. I hope that, in those circumstances, the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment, leaving the Bill as at present printed.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, as the noble Baroness intends the Bill to be read, she is probably perfectly right. But how can she be sure that the courts are going to interpret the word "qualified" as meaning "qualified by technical degree" or something as well as "suitable"? And unless the courts are going to interpret it in that way we get back to the narrow meaning of "qualified", as qualified by some form of letters after the name, or examination, which is precisely what she wishes to avoid.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I suggest, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, that it was this very point that was discussed at some length at the Committee stage. I remember my noble friend Lord Stonham referring to the single man who applied for a post which was advertised for a married teacher. Such a man would not be qualified. That was a particular illustration that my noble friend gave. An employing authority, in my experience, always interprets the word "qualified" to mean both "technically qualified" and also "suitable" or "fit" for the particular post for which the advertisement is phrased. I really cannot see the difficulty here. With all the skills of the Parliamentary draftsmen at our disposal we have been unable to find a better solution to this problem, and I would only remind the House that the basis of this Bill, the objective of this Bill, is voluntary conciliation backed by statutory limitation. It is in that context that I would ask the House to accept the drafting as it stands at present.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, would it not be complete to say "fit and qualified"?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, if I may again trespass on the time of the House, this particular point, or something very similar to it, was discussed at Committee stage. The addition of the word "fit" to "qualified" could be open to some quite serious objections
1206
within the objectives of this particular Bill.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to say just a word in reply to the noble Baroness, and I can perhaps relieve her of any momentary anxiety by saying straight away that I do not intend to pursue this matter to the bitter end. I should, however, like to put this point to her. She has explained the preference of both the Government and the Parliamentary draftsmen for the term "qualified"; she has not—at least I cannot recollect it—said what objection there was to the word "fit". I should have thought that, with all the resources of the Parliamentary draftsmen at her disposal, she might have been able to tell us that, because it still seems to me that "fit" would be a better word. The noble Baroness says that "qualified" means both qualified professionally and suitable. Surely, as my noble friend Lord Hawke has said, there is still some ambiguity here and there might well be a difficulty of interpretation, whereas I should have thought that, without any shadow of doubt, a person could not be fit unless he was qualified, and "fit" ipso facto includes general suitability or particular suitability. I wonder whether the noble Baroness could explain. I understand her preference for "qualified". Apart from anything else, it happens to to in the Bill, and Parliamentary draftsmen always like to keep what is in the Bill. But can she explain why she dislikes the word "fit"?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, this is in a sense a matter of opinion. The Government are acting on the best advice they can command. "Fit" could well be a subjective criterion, influenced by personal predilections—and possibly even by personal discrimination. It would not, in our view, be the appropriate word in this particular case. As I have tried to explain to the noble Earl, albeit inadequately—and I certainly appear not to have satisfied him so far—"qualified" covers both technically qualified in the sense of academic or practical qualifications, together with those qualities of personality and experience which have to go together with technical qualifications to make a person suitable for a particular job.
EARL JELLICOE: And which are therefore a matter of subjective judgment.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the discussion and have tried to apply common sense to this matter. I agree that it is a difficult thing to decide what is the difference between "qualified" and "fit". I will give an example, which I hope the noble Baroness will not think frivolous. Suppose an advertisement referred to a person being required who was qualified to ride an animal, say a camel. If the person, through having ridden for some considerable time, had a temporary disability, with blisters on a part of his anatomy, he would not be "fit" to ride. Therefore this is a distinction between someone having full qualifications to do something and yet not being "fit" to carry it out.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am sure it is the wish of your Lordships that we should not detain the House any longer on this matter. The noble Lady has disarmed me with the charm of her reply, if she has not convinced me with its intellectual validity. In expressing my deep dissatisfaction with the Government's obstinacy on this point, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ENGINEERING INDUSTRY DISPUTE
3.33 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with permission, I will answer the Private Notice Question which was put earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. Representatives of the Engineering Employers' Federation and the full Executive of the Federation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions met under my right honourable friend's chairmanship last night. Detailed discussion then continued for four hours in a small joint working party under official chairmanship. This morning a further plenary meeting received a report on the working party's discussion, and the two sides then met separately at the Department to consider matters arising. My right honourable friend is chairing further discussions this afternoon. I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate that it would be inappropriate for me to say anything further at this stage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord for the statement which he has made to the House. I am sure that he is aware of the very great importance which the country attaches to this matter. May I ask him this question? Whatever view we may take about who is to say what is in the national interest and what is not, would the Government agree that there are two things which are quite clearly in the national interest at the present? The first is that the threatened strike next Monday should be avoided; and the second is that in any settlement which provides for a substantial rise in wages there should at the same time be an arrangement for increased productivity. Is the noble Lord aware that this, as we all know, is in line with the Government's prices and incomes policy, and may I ask him what steps the Government are taking to make sure that this is brought about?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord said about the importance of the discussions which are at this very moment taking place. I agree with him that anything which sets back production and interferes with our export drive is to be avoided. He asked me about the prices and incomes policy and, of course, that is a matter which will be very much borne in mind by those who are taking part in the discussions which are now taking place under the chairmanship of my right honourable friend.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his reply?

RACE RELATIONS BILL
3.36 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Clause 6 [Advertisements and notices]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 34, at end insert ("but no proceedings shall be entertained under sections 19 and 20 of this Act in respect of any act of discrimination which is not unlawful by virtue of any other provision of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now turn to a rather different matter. I ought to start by declaring a kind of interest, since I am chairman of the Advertising Standards Authority, in

1209
which capacity I naturally have had representations, and your Lordships may think that I have had some relevant experience in this matter.
The purpose of this Amendment quite clearly is to provide that civil prceedings cannot be brought in respect of acts of discrimination which are not unlawful under the other provisions of the Bill. I see the force of the argument that it is highly undesirable that there should appear in advertisements any indication of an intention to do an act of discrimination against any person or persons. I cannot conceive of any other kind of discrimination. But it seems to me wholly undesirable, if I may put it this way, that an act of discrimination should be made by this clause against advertisers. They are in a sense being segregated into a particular class and a particular class of offence is being introduced here.
In Clauses 2 to 5 one has set out the kinds of actions which are to be the subject of complaints, investigations and, if necessary, proceedings; that is to say, the provision of goods and facilities, questions of employment, questions of trade union, employers' and trade organisations, housing, accommodation, and business premises. I agree that it is undesirable that any kind of discrimination should be mentioned in advertising. With the experience I have, it seems to me that this is the kind of thing that can be dealt with very much better by voluntary methods than by civil proceedings and all the rest. I hope the Government will be able to accept this Amendment. Its effect is intended to be, and I hope will be, that the Race Relations Board would be able to proceed in any cases where there existed in advertising the expression of an intention to do an act of discrimination. In any such case the Board would be able to investigate and would be able to do exactly the sort of thing which is done under the voluntary system in the control of advertising.
I should have thought it was quite clear that those responsible for carrying advertisements—what are broadly called "the media"—would not willingly lend themselves to publishing intentions to do acts of discrimination, particularly if the Bill makes clear that it is unlawful for
1210
them to do so. I should have thought it would be quite enough for the Race Relations Board, in any case of in act which was not unlawful under the Bill, to intervene and point out that such-and-such an advertisement indicated an intention to do an act of discrimination. I am certain that the various media would then very willingly give an assurance that that kind of thing would not occur again and that that kind of advertisement would not be carried. That would be much more desirable than creating this wide and very indeterminate area of offences.
Some may think that, phrased in a certain way, there was an indication of an intention to do an act of discrimination, while others may not, and it would be a great pity if this kind of matter came before the courts. As I say, I have no reason to believe that the same results could not be achieved without the provision for civil proceedings. Therefore I hope that the Government will be able to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

RHODESIA: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING WITH MR. SMITH
3.42 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with permission, I should now like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is making in another place on the talks about Rhodesia which were held on board H.M.S. "Fearless", in Gibraltar, from October 9 to 13. These an his words.
"First, I should like briefly to mention the events which led the Government to conclude that it would be right to have such a meeting.
"As my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary and I myself have repeatedly made clear in the House, we were prepared at any time to engage in discussions if it seemed that there might be a chance of a settlement and provided it were understood that such a settlement must fully implement the requirements of the Six Principles which have been laid down.
"As the House knows, I have more than once before the Recess expressed the doubt whether, even if Mr. Smith's

1211
position changed sufficiently markedly to make talks worthwhile, there could be any guarantee that any agreement initialled by him would be endorsed by his colleagues. During the Recess there were changes in the membership of his regime, involving the disappearance of intransigent racialists, and we have also had evidence of the firmness with which he dealt with his Party Congress last month. Honourable Members will also have noted the regime's decision to introduce measures designed to end mandatory death sentences for certain offences.
"At the same time, reliable reports reached us that Mr. Smith would be prepared to enter into meaningful talks.
"Accordingly, an Assistant Under-Secretary of State in the Commonwealth Office was sent to Salisbury on 20th September. He had discussions first with His Excellency the Governor of Rhodesia and the Head of the British Residual Mission; and secondly under the ægis of the Governor, with Mr. Ian Smith. In addition he had discussions with other Rhodesians of different races, occupations and political views who asked to meet him.
"On his return to London he reported that he found a widespread feeling in Salisbury that the recent changes in the political climate there offered some prospect that a fresh attempt to achieve a settlement might be successful. At the same time, however, he reported that Mr. Smith had not given him any indication of a change of position on the fundamental issues which have over these past five years made agreement impossible. This was particularly the case in relation to certain non-negotiable requirements on which any British Government must insist as the condition of a settlement. Mr. Smith had expressed his readiness however for an early meeting.
"Further probings were conducted under the Governor's ægis by the Head of the British Residual Mission. We insisted that Mr. Smith should fully understand that, if talks were to be held, there could be no concessions by us which would undermine or weaken the Six Principles. We insisted also that Mr. Smith should confirm that he understood this. He did in fact give
1212
this confirmation, at the same time indicating that he in turn regarded certain matters as of fundamental importance to himself and to those he represented. Despite this re-affirmation of his own position on the Six Principles, it nevertheless seemed reasonable to assume that he would be unlikely, before coming to the conference table, to show his negotiating hand, and in particular to indicate any concessions he was ready to make.
"Accordingly we met at Gibraltar. On the British side I was accompanied by my right honourable friend the Commonwealth Secretary and my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General. On the Rhodesian side were Mr. Ian Smith, Mr. Howman and Mr. Lardner Burke. The Governor of Rhodesia was present in Gibraltar for the duration of the talks.
"It would not be helpful to go over the hard-hitting exchanges in 30 hours of talks except to record that they confirmed that there was and remains a deep difference between the two sides, not only on the requirements for a settlement, but even more on the basic political philosophies which underlie the attitudes expressed. At the same time the talks were conducted in a good atmosphere, having regard to all the circumstances, and within the limitations created by the fundamental differences to which I have referred.
"By Saturday night, October 12, it was clear to both sides that it was unlikely that a settlement could be reached on board H.M.S. "Fearless" and that this would become no more likely if the discussions lasted several more days. I decided, with Mr. Smith's agreement, to prepare a statement setting out our proposals for a settlement of the Rhodesian dispute.
"This statement took account so far as was possible of points made in the discussions. I made clear to Mr. Smith that, while there could be no change in the British Government's attitude on the fundamental issues, on other matters there could be further discussion; and that of course we should be ready to consider alternative drafts on these non-fundamental matters.
"The Government have set out in a White Paper the text of the British

1213
statement and the text of the communiqué which was issued in agreement between the two sides. The White Paper also includes yet again the text of the Six Principles, since we have made it clear before, throughout and since the discussions that there could be no agreement except on the basis of those Principles.
"The proposals which I gave to Mr. Smith on October 13 incorporate the changes to the 1961 Constitution which were worked out on board H.M.S. "Tiger". In certain cases these changes have been set out with greater precision, particularly as regards the powers of the Senate and the circumstances in which appeals would lie to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—the instrument which, in our view, is the best fitted to provide the reinforcement required to guarantee the fulfilment of the second Principle. While no doubt alternative instruments to this end could he proposed and considered, I am sure honourable Members would agree that the Judicial Committee would provide the most effective guarantee.
"The changes suggested in the 1961 Constitution were, and are, designed to meet the first, second, third and sixth Principles. The statement makes clear that, provided that there is at all times a 'blocking quarter' of directly and properly elected Africans as a safeguard against retrogressive amendment of the Constitution, the British Government do not insist on any particular composition of the legislature.
"The statement further sets out the basis on which the Government would be prepared to accept, as part of an otherwise satisfactory settlement, new procedures to deal with the problem of the return to legality.
"Finally, I would draw attention to three further important features of our proposals. First, and this reinforces the "Tiger" proposals relating to the fourth Principle, is our insistence on the importance of a vigorous and extended programme for African education, particularly in technical education, including agriculture. We have said that we would be prepared to contribute to this programme a sum of up to £50 million spread over ten years on a pound-for-pound basis. We regard this as imperative in the interests of
1214
the African population and of Rhodesia; it would also have an important bearing on the number of Africans able to qualify for the A Roll franchise. Secondly, arising out of our discussions, we have included the proposal that the Royal Commission to be appointed for testing the acceptability of any settlement to the Rhodesian people as a whole should be instructed also to inquire into the arrangements for the registration of eligible voters under the widely extended franchise which is proposed, with a view to encouraging greater African participation in Rhodesian political life. Thirdly, the House will note what has been said about the need for a broadbased Government, including Africans, to carry Rhodesia through the whole process of introducing the new Constitution, right up to the election of a new Parliament under that Constitution.
"The House will recognise the relevance of these three proposals, as well as certain other events, to the creation of the 'substantial change of circumstances' which repeatedly I have said in this House must exist to justify our raising with our Commonwealth partners the question of 'no independence before majority rule'.
"And the House will recognise too that we will not agree to the implementation of any settlement that has not first been shown to be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole—the fifth Principle, on which all else depends.
"As was stated in the communiqué, Mr. Smith said that he would take the British Government's proposals back to Salisbury, without commitment, for consideration with his colleagues there. I said that the Commonwealth Secretary will be available to fly out to Salisbury if Mr. Smith and his colleagues feel that this would assist them in their consideration of the British proposals. Our position at the end of the talks, as throughout these past years, maintains the position repeatedly stated by the Commonwealth Secretary—no sell out, no slamming the door by us.
"We have insisted that our proposals have to be taken as a whole. Any concessions we have been prepared to offer

1215
on matters which do not involve the safeguards required for the Six Principles are available only as part of an agreement which incorporates the clear guarantees on which we have insisted to safeguard those Principles. Now decisions have to be taken in Salisbury. We for our part are keeping the door open. But the key to a settlement is and must remain the Six Principles, which are cardinal to the future of Rhodesia—the future of Rhodesians of all races, for whom the British Parliament stands trustee."
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord for repeating this important Statement to your Lordships this afternoon. In view of the length of the Statement, and the fact that it is accompanied by a White Paper, I shall refrain from commenting on the substance of the Statement which the noble Lord has just read, since I am sure that many of your Lordships will wish to read it with care, and indeed to read the accompanying White Paper, before entering into a discussion on what is in both. I hope I am right in assuming that there will be an early opportunity for this House to discuss both the Statement and the White Paper.
It is, of course, a matter of deep regret to us on this side of the House that the settlement through negotiation for which we have always pressed still eludes us. Nevertheless, I feel that we can at least derive some gratification, albeit of a modest kind, that on this occasion the talks have been suspended (if "suspension" is the right term to use) in a civilised and adult fashion, and not in an atmosphere of sterile recrimination.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement, and to say that we share the deep and widespread disappointment that these talks should have been inconclusive at this stage. Like the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. I do not wish to comment in detail on this, but may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether an early opportunity can be given for a debate on this subject, and whether he
1216
will consider what form that debate could take?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may answer the two noble Lords, I am much obliged to them for their attitude. Obviously there is disappointment, and I think that probably the place where there is the greatest disappointment is Salisbury and Southern Rhodesia. Those of us who have contacts there know how much many people are hoping for a settlement; and therefore I agree with the noble Lords that it is a comfort that at least, as my right honourable friend's Statement makes clear, the door is still open. I think it would be wise for noble Lords to study the White Paper, which is now available, and I agree that this is a matter which we should have an early opportunity to debate. I think this is a matter which we might discuss through the usual channels in the hopes of having a debate, if not this week at least before the end of this Session—perhaps next week.
LORD SALTER: My Lords, in order to suggest a general background against which to consider the particular problem which has just been explained to us, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would agree that the combination of universal suffrage and majority rule, which we are attempting to impose upon Rhodesia, with such immense loss and damage both to us and to them, had no place in our own country until about fifty years ago? It had no place at all throughout all the previous centuries of our not ignominious history.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord would do well to read the White Paper. He is taking far too simpliste a view of the situation.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, all I would say, as one who has taken special interest in the subject of Rhodesia, is how disappointed I am, like the noble Lord the Leader of the House. that there has been no settlement; how glad I am to hear that the door is not yet completely closed; and how greatly I hope that we can have an early debate.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am much obliged to the noble Marquess.

RACE RELATIONS BILL
3.57 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, in this general spate of movement it is difficult for me to tell whether any noble Lord is rising on the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, moved before the very important Statement which we have just had from the Leader of the House. In view of that interruption, perhaps I might remind your Lordships that the purpose of this Amendment to Clause 6 is to ensure that no proceedings can be taken in relation to discriminatory advertisements concerning acts which are not unlawful under the Bill—and that, I think, is the whole burden of the argument which the noble Lord put to us. I should first of all like to assure him that the wording of the Bill as at present drafted is in no sense discrimination against advertisers.
In the request which the noble Lord made to the House he was really, in my view, undermining the whole principle on which this Bill is based. The purpose surely is to declare discrimination wrong in principle and to throw the weight of legislation behind voluntary efforts to eliminate it. The noble Lord was pleading that in this particular field of public advertisements we should rely solely on voluntary conciliation methods, without the statutory backing which goes through the rest of the Bill. That is why I say that this Amendment raises a major question of principle and is therefore unacceptable to the Government. Investigation and conciliation in respect of discriminatory advertisements cannot proceed without the support of sanctions; and an advertisement in respect of an intended action which is not unlawful under the Bill can be just as objectionable in our view as one that is.
The House will remember that this point was discussed at great length in Committee. I will not go over the details again; but my noble friend Lord Stonham has given serious consideration to the points then raised and has been in correspondence on them with many noble Lords, including the noble Lord. Lord Drumalbyn, during the Recess. I hope that the House will not think that proper consideration has not been given
1218
to the case which is now put before us again. For the reasons I have given, and certainly not for the purpose of discriminating against advertisers, the Government feel that this Amendment should not be accepted by the House. Moreover, we are confident that in practice the question of proceedings in respect of advertisements which are clearly not objectionable will not arise.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness has not really convinced me that full consideration along the lines of the Amendment has been given to this matter. In her reply she almost suggested that this Amendment would remove the sanction of proceedings in cases where the act of discrimination which was intended is not lawful—and mark this, my Lords! it is one that is intended and not one that has actually been committed. The case I was making is that where the act is not unlawful then it is not unreasonable to take it out of the sphere of the courts. The noble Baroness could have said, but did not since it was almost unnecessary, that this particular clause makes it unlawful; but that is really what we are complaining about. We are complaining about making unlawful an advertisement indicating an intention to carry out an act of discrimination which is not unlawful except in the case of advertisements. This is the case that we are trying to argue. The noble Baroness has not given any answer to that at all.
It is all very well to say that you must have sanctions to back up the conciliation procedure in cases of an unlawful act; but this is an act which is not unlawful except under this clause. I should have thought that there was ample scope for conciliation procedure here. If we were to have a clear definition of what discrimination is to mean, what circumstances it is to cover, what the evil is that it is expected to eliminate, this would be quite a different matter; but it seems to me quite wrong in principle to say that it is unlawful to advertise something which is not unlawful and that civil proceedings can be brought in those cases.
If it is only an intention, surely no question of damages can arise. Admittedly a court could give an injunction against doing it again or against advertising it again; but my submission was that it was

1219
not necessary. I agree that there is a difficulty in the matter of notices; but most of these notices are related to matters of employment or something like that. Most of them would not be advertisements in the proper sense. They would not be "at large". An advertisement must be "at large". A notice would be confined to members or to a factory. That is the difference between a notice and an advertisement. But surely it would be possible to cover that point. The point I am concerned with is only this matter of advertisement.
I am with the noble Baroness all the way in barring advertisements, in making them unlawful, where there is a question of an intention to carry out an act of discrimination which is unlawful under the rest of the Bill. All I am saying is that it should not be a matter subject to civil proceedings where the act is not in itself unlawful. I am bound to say that I do not think the noble Baroness has addressed her mind to that point at all.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, may I support my noble friend Lady Serota in this matter? We are concerned not with the Personal Column advertisements in The Times or in the Evening Standard. I am sure that media of that kind would not carry discriminatory advertisements and would never go near the courts; they would not be worried by the clause as it stands. We are concerned with notices in tobacconists' shops—even in the windows of private houses; but particularly in tobacconists' shops—where we have seen these most objectionable notices saying, "Room to let. No coloureds." It could be that the landlady with a room to let will see, after reading this Bill, that she is exempt from it and will put in an advertisement of this kind. If there is no sanction behind the conciliation efforts of the Board she is in a position to snap her fingers at anything the Board may intend to do. This is the intention, if I have it aright, in resisting this Amendment. I should have thought that it was of great importance, because it is at this level that you get the obstinacy which requires, in my opinion, after all else fails, the sanction of a court order.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Gifford. I usually agree with what
1220
the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, says about advertising, but in this case I am afraid I do not. With my noble friend Lord Gifford, I believe that the noble Lord. Lord Drumalbyn, is thinking about the kind of advertisements he deals with as the chairman (and a very distinguished chairman) of the Advertising Standards Authority. Here, as was said in the Second Reading debate, we are in deep and murky waters. The kind of advertising we have to deal with throughout in this Bill is the kind that will incite racial hatred and racial discrimination quite outside the ambit of Clauses 2 to 5. I think the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will considerably weaken the Bill for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Gifford has given.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, conceded that this might be justified in the case of a notice but not in that of an advertisement. On the other hand, his Amendment would also include notices and would weaken the effect of the Bill on them just as much as on advertisements. I hope that my noble friend Lady Serota will stand firm on this, because I think the Amendment is unhelpful to start with and, secondly, would weaken the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I reply—
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I wonder whether we could come to some agreement about this, as we did on the Transport Bill. The noble Lord has the right to reply, but not to reply more than once unless it be to explain himself.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, may I attempt to come to the rescue of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn by suggesting to the noble Lords who have just spoken, the noble Lords, Lord Gifford and Lord Strabolgi, that they have perhaps taken a rather unfortunate example. The example quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, was the example of an advertisement which said, "No coloureds". If the landlady answered the door and said to a coloured man, "Sorry, no coloureds", she would come within the mischief of the Bill; but I think that the noble Lord. Lord Drumalbyn, is concerned with the position that under the advertisement clause, which is Clause 6, something can be unlawful whether or

1221
not it would be unlawful by virtue of any other provision in this Bill. Therefore it is not helpful to select an example of something which would be unlawful quite apart from the advertisement.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, may I speak briefly again? I was assuming the case—
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we have just come to agreement that on the Report stage only the mover of a motion has the right to reply.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, on the Committee stage I put down an advertisement which did seek to deal with this—
EARL JELLICOE: Not an advertisement, an Amendment.
LORD CONESFORD: I am much obliged—an Amendment which attempted to deal with this difficulty. I admitted that probably my Amendment went too wide, and that view was taken by the Government. Since then I have consistently taken the view that if this clause were to be amended in any form to make it both agreeable to its critics and satisfactory to the Government, it could be done only by Parliamentary draftsmen, because it is an extremely difficult matter. For that reason I feel fairly certain that my noble friend will not press this Amendment because, frankly, it is not possible for the amateur to get this matter in order.
I should like briefly to reply to the two noble Lords who assumed that the only things hit by the clause as it stands are things that are offensive. That is not so. If you take the two subsections together, as I pointed out earlier, if an English family were living abroad and advertised in The Times for a French cook or for a Scots nanny they would be doing something unlawful under this clause. That is perfectly absurd, but I think it irremediable unless the Government ask their Parliamentary draftsmen to produce something more sensible. I think the clause is very bad indeed as it stands, but I do not believe that any attempt by an amateur draftsman could put it right.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in view of what has been said, I can only hope that the Race Relations Board will
1222
be more sensible than is the clause itself. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.14 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 40, at end insert ("or that, in relation to the particular employment concerned, the ethnic or national origin of a person is a bona fide occupational qualification.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships have just been reminded by my noble friend Lord Conesford that he moved an "advertisement" at the Committee stage designed to cope with the anomaly to which he has just referred. It then became plain, as he has again reminded us, that subsection (2) of the clause, as drafted, could lead to the most absurd results. Pace the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, it means, as my noble friend has said, that it would be unlawful to advertise in The Times of Evening Standard if you are living abroad and want to employ a person concerned abroad. It would be unlawful, as I read the clause, to advertise for a French cook or a French governess or a Scots nanny. It means that while it is lawful to advertise for a French chef or a German au pair girl for employment here, it s not lawful to advertise, for employment here, for an Indian chef or a Pakistani au pair girl. This seems to me an absurd anomaly.
I wonder whether I might take one more example of the sort of anomalous position which would arise. These of your Lordships who knew the London night life scene of some ten years ago may be aware that there was a very good Jamaican or Trinidadian steel band which rejoiced in the name of "Lord Kitchener's Band". I am told by those who know the Caribbean night life scene better than I do (I do not know the Caribbean at all) that there is a "Lord Jellicoe's Band", either in Trinid or Jamaica, at the present time. As I read the Bill, the absurd position would arise that if the calypso singer in "Lord Jellicoe's Band" fell sick, it would he possible to advertise in this country for a replacement without breaking the law, but it would not be legal to advertise for a replacement for the calypso singer in "Lord Kitchener's Band". This seems to me to be anomalous. We all

1223
recognise the purpose behind this part of the Bill, which is to rule out of court offensive advertisements of the sort referred to by the noble Lord. Lord Gifford, and the noble Lord. Lord Strabolgi. I am in sympathy with them on that point. They said that the advertisements to which they referred were offensive, and I agree with that point of view.
During the Committee stage discussions the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, seemed to think that it was beyond the wit of Parliamentary draftsmen to devise a formula which would exclude the offensive type of advertisement but not catch the perfectly inoffensive type to which I have just been alluding. I am very sad to see that my noble friend Lord Conesford has now joined the ranks of the pessimists. He also seems to believe that it is almost beyond the wit of man to devise such an Amendment. I find it a little hard to accept that contention. I think it would be wrong to leave the clause as it stands when we know it to be riddled with possible anomalies. Your Lordships may feel that that is just too bad, but I cannot agree with that view, and I should be very unhappy if we allowed this part of the Bill to go forward when it would seem to have such fatuous consequences.
It seems to me that my noble friend's Amendment rules out the more absurd sort of anomalies without in any way weakening the defences of the Bill against the offensive type of advertisement. The Amendment may not be perfect. We all know the difficulties of drafting without the help of the Parliamentary draftsmen though at the moment I cannot, for the life of me, see wherein lie the imperfections of this Amendment. I very much hope, therefore, that the noble Baroness, who has been not only charming but unyielding over Amendments of substance which my noble friend has been moving—and she was not only charming, but also unyielding, on the Amendment of a narrower scope which I moved just now—will, on my second try, which is also in connection with an Amendment of fairly narrow intention, be not only charming but yielding. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend misunderstood me so much as to think that I was aligned with the pessimists who thought that this could not be done. On the contrary, I did my utmost by letter to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, to get it done, so confident am I that it could be done, but only by really skilled draftsmanship. The reason I am pessimistic about the noble Lord's Amendment is that it was specifically dealt with in Lord Stonham's letter to me. While I wish the noble Earl luck, I am a little pessimistic about the late of this Amendment. I said I was pessimistic about getting into the clause by amateur draftsmanship both sense and something that would satisfy Her Majesty's Government. Throughout his letter the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, assumes that we could not do anything to remedy these absurd anomalies unless we permitted something that was offensive. Parliamentary draftsmen are constantly providing efficient legislation against things that are offensive; it is child's play to them. Where I am pessimistic is in devising from my own ingenuity something that would be completely satisfactory.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I hope that I shall not be misunderstood by the House when I say that I only wish I could yield to the noble Earl. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has not been convinced by all the efforts of my noble friend Lord Stonham in correspondence during the Recess. From what the noble Lord said earlier, I hoped that he would not be speaking again on this subject, having seen the wisdom of my noble friend's comments. It would be less than fair not to admit that this is an extraordinary difficult area. That is why your Lordships, both in Committee and now, have given such close attention to it. It would be equally unfair to say that the Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and moved to-day by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is so defective that it would make the Bill unworkable, although one could criticise the drafting.
We come back to the general point, that certain strange and odd situations can arise on the fringes of our area of consideration. I will not add to the numerous examples given during the

1225
earlier stages and again to-day. Surely the real point is that made by my noble friend Lord Stonham, during Committee stage, and supported to-day by my noble friends Lord Gifford and Lord Strabolgi—namely, that discriminatory advertisements of any kind are a particularly offensive form of discrimination. I would very much support the point my noble friend Lord Gifford made about notices, as opposed to bona fide advertisements. I can see the problem of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in accepting that what is a legal act in private is not legal in public. That really is the crux of our difficulty. I would remind him that this applies also in certain other fields. What he is really complaining about is that under the clause, as it is at present drafted, it is unlawful to advertise for something that is lawful under the Act.
I am sure, knowing the great regard in which your Lordships' hold my noble friend Lord Stonham, that the House will believe that he has given the most careful thought to this Amendment. But it is still the view of the Government that, although there may be some difficult situations on the fringes, it is essential that the Bill should stand in this form in the interests of educating public opinion and of giving a lead, which is part of the purpose of this Bill. In spite of some of the cases mentioned, I do not believe that real difficulties will arise.
For these reasons we cannot meet the very reasonable proposals of the noble Earl. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, gave great thought to this point and was in corespondence with my noble friend during the Recess. I can assure the House that every effort has been made to try to secure a drafting of this particular area of the Bill which would meet the points made in Committee yet stand firm on the principles of the Bill. I am sure that the House as a whole will not wish the Government to depart in any way from the principles of the Bill. We are discussing to-day a detailed matter which all of us regard as of the greatest importance for the happiness and well-being of the people of this country. We believe it is important that the public should know that anything which gives rise to any form of discrimination, even those which have been excepted because of the proximity argument, the personal
1226
argument and the domestic argument, should not be the subject of public advertisements and that only the personal exercise of discrimination in those categories that are allowed in the Bill should be permitted.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, again I must confess to considerable disappointment at the noble Baroness's reply. I would like to make absolutely clear that in this Amendment it is far from my intention, as I know it is far from the intention of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, to ask the Government to depart from the principles of this Bill. The Amendment suggests a way in which, without departing from these principles, we could avoid what the noble Baroness has called "some strange and odd" anomalies but which I would call perfectly absurd anomalies which arise from the clause as drafted.
The noble Baroness has said that all discriminatory advertisement is objectionable. I believe that that is perhaps overstating the matter. There are certainly forms of discriminatory advertisements, like those singled out by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, which are objectionable. But the sort of discriminatory advertisement to which I was alluding is, in my contention, perfectly harmless and I am disappointed that in the two months which was available to them, and with all the resources of Parliamentary daftsmen, it has not been possible for the Government to find some formula by which the first type of objectionable discriminatory advertisements could be Ailed out while permitting those obviously and patently perfectly harmless. I am exceedingly reluctant to withdraw this Amendment, and I do so almost in spite of my better judgment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Exception in the case of residential accommodation]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Stonham I beg to move Amendment No. 6. This is a technical Amendment. Your Lordships may remember that during discussion in Cammittee the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, suggested that the word "other", on page 4, line 3, was quite unnecessary and should not be there. My noble friend

1227
said that he would consider it. The matter has been considered; the noble Lord is absolutely right, and accordingly it is the terms of this Amendment to take out the word. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 3, leave out ("other").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE rose to move Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 4, line 28, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve")
Page 4, line 30, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) The Secretary of State may, if at any time it appears to him expedient to do so, and without prejudice to his power to make a further order, by order reduce below twelve, although not below six, the number of persons specified in subsection (2) above, but no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by each House of Parliament.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of the House to take this Amendment and No. 7 together. First of all, I should like to make clear that many of us on this side of the House think that the Government have been unwise in drawing the definition of "small premises" in Clause 7 so narrowly. My noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor made this perfectly clear on Committee stage, but he succeeded in getting no more change out of noble Lords opposite on that occasion than I have so far succeeded in doing this afternoon. However, this is not the point in connection with these two Amendments. My noble friend is not seeking in any way by these Amendments to strike at Clause 7, as such, or to extend in any significant manner the definition of "small premises". All we are asking the Government to do in these two Amendments—and we are asking them to do it in their own better interests—is to introduce more flexibility into this Part of the Bill than it at present possesses.
As the Bill is drafted, there will be a period of two years from the time when it becomes law when the immune premises—that is, the small premises—will he considered as those where there is not normally residential accommodation for more than 12 persons in addition to the
1228
landlord and the members of his household. However, the ceiling on small premises will automatically drop after that two years from 12 persons to 6. This is the area where we feel that greater flexibility is needed. We do not know how long it will take the Board to "get their eye in" on this part of their activities. We do not know how many cases of discrimination over housing will come before the Board. We do not know how quickly the Board will be able to adapt and extend their machinery to deal with such cases, nor how much time those cases will take to investigate. However, one way or another I am inclined to suspect that more than two years will be required before the Board are able to digest the really small premises—that is, those with only six persons.
If the Board are likely to need more than those two years, then the Government would, I suspect, welcome in two years' time the sort of Amendments that I am now moving. But if it turns out that the Board need less than two years to "get their eye in", then the Government will presumably like the definition of "small premises" to be narrowed in a shorter period of time than the two years' period. Without this Amendment such action would be impossible; with it, it would be possible. I think the Government would be wise to opt for the more flexible procedure which these two Amendments envisage, rather than the more automatic and more rigid two-year procedure which at the moment is written into the Bill.
Apart from this consideration of flexibility—and it is one to which we attach considerable practical importance—there is another reason why we think that these Amendments are right. We feel that it would be right, before the ceiling is lowered, before we get down to dealing with discrimination in the really small premises, in the situations where the personal relationships are likely to be the most acute and the difficulties at their most ticklish, for Parliament to give itself a chance of seeing how the Act is working in this particular sphere, which at the present time is totally unexplored, and to be consulted before the definition of "small premises" is further contracted. We believe that this would be a sensible precaution to make. It is for those reasons that I hope the noble and learned Lord

1229
the Lord Chancellor may feel disposed to give a favourable reception to these two Amendments, which I beg to move on behalf of my noble friend.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as the noble Earl has so clearly explained, the purpose of these Amendments is to provide that any reduction below 12 must be made by order to any number below 12 though not less than 6. These Amendments follow discussion in Committee between the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and my noble friend Lord Stonham. As your Lordships know, this is a Bill which the Government are anxious should accord with the views of all Parties, and therefore they have been most anxious to accept any Amendment which they felt that they could. Your Lordships know how conscientious my noble friend Lord Stonham is in these matters, and he considered this very carefully. My noble friend wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke and said:
"… the phasing arrangements fixed in the Bill must to some extent be arbitrary; but it is important that these two areas, in which it is generally accepted that the initial scope of the Bill should be extended, employers and landlords should have a clear indication in advance of the date at which they will have to come in line with the provisions of the Bill. The position under Clause 8(5), to which you referred, and under Clause 17(2), is different, because both of these are looking to the very much longer term. I think that the existing phasing arrangements are reasonable; they were introduced in the light of criticisms in Committee in the Commons that those originally proposed were too restrictive and rigid, and are, I understand, acceptable to the Race Relations Board."
The noble Earl will remember that the Government's view (and I think the general view) was made quite plain: that there ought to be an exception from the Bill for small premises. Then the question arose: What do you mean by "small premises"? I do not think the Government's view has ever changed about that. They thought that small premises ought to be the landlord, the man and his family, the residential accommodation for not more than four other people. That being so, my Lords, why have we now 12 for two years and then 6? The answer is because the Government were very anxious to meet different views. Their view being that the figure ought to be 4—in small premises, after all: a man and his family, and residential accommodation for 4 more people—
1230
somebody said 20. This was discussed at great length in another place both in Committee and on the Report stage. I believe I say what is true when I say that 12 to start with, and after two years 6, really represented the middle view.
As to staging, so far as I have been able to make out, there being no staging in the Bill which the Government introduced, the suggestion of staging came from the Opposition side of the House. Again, the Government thought at out it, and they came to the conclusion that there were some advantages in this, for two reasons. The two reasons why they still feel that the Bill as it left the other place is right are, first, that it really is necessary for landlords and employers to know ahead so as to make their arrangements. A man may be told that the Bill does not apply to him at the moment because he has less than 12, but that in two years' time it will. He then has time to make his arrangements. It perhaps applies with even more force to employers. The second reason was that the Government were apprehensive that the Board might be rather overwhelmed to start with if the number was set too low. They have consulted the Board, and the Board are satisfied with these provisions as they are.
My Lords, as I have said, the Government have throughout been most anxious to make this as far as possible an all-Party Bill, and noble Lords gill be aware of the length at which this question was discussed in Committee and on Report in another place. While some might think that the number ought to be more than 4, and others might think it ought to be 20, some might think no staging and others some staging, it appeared to us that the most sensible thing was to say 12 and after two years 6. I hope that, having taken all those considerations into account, the noble Earl may be inclined to think so, too.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for his reply and for what he has told us about the Government's responsiveness to suggestions from the Opposition and their desire that this point should be agreed as possible. All I can say is that my colleagues in another place were either luckier or more persuasive in their arguments than my colleagues and I have been. There was

1231
one point I should like just to mention. I may have read or heard the implication wrongly. I think the noble and learned Lord implied that this Amendment in some way represented a departure from the principle of staging. I do not know whether that was his intention, but it seems to me that, although there is not a rigid staging written into the Amendment, it does permit staging, but of a more flexible nature than hitherto envisaged. I still believe there is a great deal to be said for that.
Nevertheless, I have listened very carefully to what the noble and learned Lord said and there seemed to me to be force in parts, at least, of the arguments he was deploying: in the argument that there is something to be said for everyone's knowing a good deal clearly in advance and precisely where he stands; that the Bill as drafted already in a certain measure—this Part of it—represents a compromise. I also consider what he said about the reactions of the Board, for whose membership I have very considerable regard, and their attitude to this Part of the Bill. In view of the views which the noble and learned Lord has expressed, I beg leave to withdraw these Amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
4.42 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9:
Page 4, line 42, at end insert—
("() a grandson or granddaughter of the other or of the other's wife or husband;")
Page 4, line 44, at end insert—
("() an uncle or aunt of the other, or of the other's wife or husband;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment No. 8 standing in my name. If it is convenient to your Lordships, perhaps we could take Amendment No. 9 at the same time. Amendment No. 8 is a very simple Amendment. It is designed only to draw the attention of your Lordships to the very precise way in which it has been thought fit to draw the definition of what is a member of the family. As I understand it, the exempt small premises under the provision in subsection (2), taken together with subsection (4), lose their exemption in a case where the landlord has a son and daughter-in-law or a
1232
daughter and son-in-law living with him and they have a baby. Immediately the exemption is lost. In the same way, supposing auntie comes to stay, becomes ill and takes up residence and is looked after in her nephew's house, the exemption is lost. I cannot believe that that is right. After all, suppose the landlord were an Indian. By the age of 35 or 36 he would be having grandchildren, probably, because his children would probably marry very young. I really cannot think that this is right and that we should make the rules as narrow as this. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, here is a point which must inevitably be a matter of opinion. One speaks of a man's family. What does one mean? One has always to draw the line somewhere. Where have we got to on the Bill? Well, it includes the man, of course, and it includes his wife; it includes the man's sons and daughters; it includes the man's father and mother; it includes any illegitimate children; it includes the man's son-in-law or daughter-in-law; it includes the man's adopted son or daughter-in-law. It includes his wife's sons and daughters; it includes his wife's father and mother; it includes his wife's children; it includes her sons-in-law or daughters-in-law, and it includes adopted sons and daughters. As I say, the line must be drawn somewhere.
On the Committee stage of the Bill I remember the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, moved an Amendment to include foster children. In resisting that, my noble friend Lord Stonham explained that it is intended that the exception should be confined to the landlord and his immediate family, and if the definition were extended to foster children it would be difficult to resist extending it to other relatives. And the noble Earl withdrew the Amendment. Now the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, says, what about the children and the others and what about uncles and aunts? And, of course, if we have uncles and aunts, why do we not have cousins? One has to draw the line somewhere. Parliament has recently considered this very point and this definition is exactly the same as the definition in Section 7(7) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. It was felt that as last year Parliament had already considered this

1233
question, "What do we mean by a man's family?", it was reasonable to take the same view here.
This is not, I would suggest to the noble Lord, a point on which we can say, "Here is the House of Lords, as usual, improving the drafting", because it is not a question of drafting; it is purely a question of opinion. Anybody is entitled to his opinion. Opinions may well differ. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and I hope that, on reconsideration, the noble Lord may feel that there is no overmastering reason why we should change the Bill on this point.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. He seemed to suggest, by a kind of statistical fallacy, that all the people whom he enumerated would be included in one household. I am sure he did not mean that. I do not think it very much matters who is included. The need is to get some provision that will work. I do not want to be unduly patriarchal about this, but I should have thought that going to the second generation was not going too far in considering what is one's family. I would not carry it to cousins. That is going too far; it is taking it down the collaterals and I do not think that would be right. Obviously this is not something one can stand on, but I consider it is something that the Government, if they think it worth while between now and the next stage, might themselves change.
The mere fact that there is another Act dealing with something quite different—admittedly, house property—is no more convincing than it would be to quote the example of something we dealt with fairly recently, succession on intestacy, which is rather different. So, my Lords, I do not think that this is conclusive. The trouble is that it is not really a matter of opinion; it is going to be a matter of hard, practical reality to some people, and whatever our opinions may be about it, there are going to be some very hard opinions expressed about it by the people who are excluded. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
4.48 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 10 and 11:
Page 5, line 21, leave out ("in connection with") and insert ("for the purposes of")
Page 5, line 23, leave out ("therewith") and insert ("with the disposal")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient to dell with Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 together, and they also affect, of course, Amendment No. 12. The Government introduced an Amendment on Report in the other place excepting from the housing provisions of the Bill the disposal of property by a person owning and wholly occupying it, provided that he does not use an estate agent or advertise. Et was not intended that anyone disposing of his property in this way should be prevented from obtaining advice from a third party as to the value or state of the property even if that third party was in business as an estate agent. An owner might well use the services of a person who is also an estate agent for doing various jobs in connection with the sale of a house, such as providing reps its as to its value or condition. Many persons are in business as estate agents surveyors and valuers.
Your Lordships may remember that it was argued in Committee in this House that the clause as drafted could be interpreted to prevent the use of the services of such a person for valuation and surveys, and it is accepted that it would be desirable to make some Amendments in order to make the position clear.
Amendment No. 12 (if I am not out of order in just referring to it) would make it clear that a person could use the services of an estate agent solely for the purposes of obtaining a valuation. But that Amendment does not go far enough. It does not, for example, meet the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, in Committee, who said (col. 1352):
"Valuation is not the only … matter on which an owner may wish to consult a house agent. He may want a report on dilapidations, which is something he might wish to have for the fairest of reasons".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25/7/68.]
Therefore I hope that these two Amendments put forward by the Government will meet the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, as well as the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor.

1235
The effect of the Government Amendments is that a person who sells a property owned and wholly occupied by him will be excepted from the housing provisions of the Bill, provided that he does not use the services of an estate agent (as defined in Clause 7(8)) to find a buyer, and does not publish an advertisement or notice in connection with the sale. I hope the noble Earl will realise that this is another case where the Government are being most anxious to adopt the suggestions made to them. I beg to move.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for these two Amendments. I have no intention whatsoever of looking these two gift horses in the mouth. So far as I can see they completely meet the points which were made in Committee, and I do not think my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor would mind my saying that I believe, as the noble and learned Lord said, that they cover the particular point more comprehensively than Amendment No. 12 was designed to do. Therefore, I should like to say how much I welcome these two Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
4.52 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
Exceptions in the case of education, instruction, or training
".Clause 2 shall not apply in the field of education, training and instruction—

(a) where services and facilities are provided on favourable terms to certain racial, national and ethnic groups as part of a programme of technical assistance.

(b) where services and facilities are provided for particular racial, ethnic or national groups of children to facilitate their integration into schools.

(c) where numbers of students and pupils of certain national, ethnic or racial groups in certain classes and schools are adjusted in the interests of better teaching.

(d) where the service or facility is of the nature of private tuition, classes are of 12 or less persons and the tuition is given in private houses."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sandford and I put
1236
down this Amendment arising out of a discussion on the Committee stage on an Amendment proposed by my noble friend, Lord Jellicoe. The general object behind our Amendment is to protect the position where there is at present a form of discrimination in the field of education but where it seems to us, and I think it will seem to most of your Lordships, to be in the general interest of the community and in the particular interest of the immigrant population. Perhaps I can best explain myself by giving two examples.
The first is the example of the policy of dispersing immigrant children among different schools in cases where they would otherwise form a large proportion of one individual school. Circular No. 7 of 1965 from the Department of Education recommended this policy to local education authorities in the general interest of the children where otherwise immigrant children would constitute more than one-third of a particular school. Not all education authorities have accepted that advice, but some have done so. For example, Bradford, with an immigrant school population of 9 per cent. has practised dispersal on the basis that the immigrant children should not make up more than 25 per cent. in primary schools and 10 per cent. in secondary schools. Ealing also has particular difficulties which have been met in this way. Eighty per cent. of the Indians and Pakistanis in the Borough of Ealing live in Southall, and in the interests of a multiracial society Ealing arranges to transport by bus roughly 1,000 of these Asians daily to other schools in the borough, including those in places as far afield as Acton, some five or six miles away. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this is a valuable practice and one that is in the interests of a multiracial society. Certainly it is Government policy, according to the Department of Education circular which I have mentioned.
On the other hand, from the point of view of the individual immigrant parent, it may be seen as a form of racial discrimination. A person might consider that her children were being pushed around like parcels simply because they were immigrants, and in Southall the Indian Workers' Association and the West Indian Association have both come out against the policy of dispersal, so they may well lodge a complaint under

1237
this Bill. As I see the position, if the Bill passes in its present form they will have every legal ground for complaint to the Race Relations Board. There is no doubt that this discrimination is on racial grounds although it is undertaken to improve race relations.
Perhaps I may give another example, that of reception classes and special language centres in local education authority areas. It frequently happens that children from immigrant families speak little or no English, and in many schools concerned with these children they often spend up to the first year in a reception class which, incidentally, often has a specially favourable pupil-teacher ratio, which is sometimes as low as twenty to one. In other areas they attend a special language centre until their English is good enough for them to attend an ordinary school. Surely this kind of effort to integrate the immigrant children into a school is worthy of support. But again it could be held to be discrimination on racial grounds and might form the basis of a complaint to the Board from either side—from the immigrants who objected to the segregation of their children in a special class or language centre, or from the indigenous parents who objected to preferential treatment being given to the immigrant children.
All these cases were covered in the original Bill as drafted, in Clause 2(3) which allowed them to operate. If I may quote that subsection briefly, it read:
"Nothing in this section shall render unlawful anything which is done in good faith for the benefit of a particular section of the public and which has the effect of promoting the integration of members of that section of the public into the community."
Unfortunately for the case I am arguing, this provision was deleted in another place, mainly by the votes of Government supporters on the grounds that it opened the door too wide and might lead to the justification of separate but equal facilities. The Government themselves defended the subsection vigorously. They stated that it was necessary to bring special assistance to certain groups, especially where language was a consideration. They stated that this subsection was specifically to legalise the policy of dispersal and reception classes. Indeed, they went further: they said that it was necessary for the protection of language
1238
classes run by the Indian Workers' Association and similar bodies, and the activities of community relations councils. I am not clear why they have now changed their minds.
At the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, tried to argue that subsection (3), which was thrown out, was not necessary. He argued that the Race Relations Board would not persist in such cases. But my point is that we should put into the Bill what is and what is not illegal and not leave it to the Race Relations Board to decide. After all, the complaint will come—and, as I have indicated, I think it likely that complaint may be made in these cases. When it arrives at the Race Relations Board, if they
"form the opinion that an act has been done which is unlawful by virtue of any provision in Part I"
of the Bill they have to take action. As I see it, there would be no question certainly in the first case, the dispersal policy, that an act had been done which was included as illegal in Part I of the Bill.
I should like to mention one other point that arises on this Amendment under paragraph (d). This is a somewhat separate case but one that was also raised by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe in Committee and put very forcibly by him at that time. We had been discussing the question of small accommodation where there are not more than 12, or later not more than 6, people other than the landlord. There is also an exclusion clause in the case of employment which excludes employers of not more than 25 persons, reducing after two years to 10, Surely, if we are going to make these exclusions in the case of housing and employment, it is only fair that we should make some exclusion in the case of education, particularly to cover casts of private tutors teaching such subjects as music or dancing or languages and similar activities taking place in private houses in classes. I should have thought that if we are allowing an employer to employ up to 25 people without coming within the ambit of the Bill, and equally a landlord to have up to 12 people without initially coming within the ambit of the Bill, certainly it would be right to put in some figures for those who are running small classes.

1239
After what has been said to-day, I would agree that the Amendment is far from perfect in form, and the last thing I would expect would be for it to be accepted in its present form. But I hope it puts quite clearly to the Government the two points on which we should like a clear explanation: first, are the Government satisfied that existing educational policies with regard to immigrant children will remain legal when this Bill becomes an Act and, secondly, would they not consider making some exception for small private classes. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Government have given anxious consideration to this Amendment, as they have to all the others. If I may deal first with the factual side of the matter, the Government of course are aware of the circulars which they have sent out in regard to dispersal, and that some authorities—such as Bradford, as the noble Lord mentioned—are following dispersal. The Government's view is that there is nothing in that which in any way contravenes the provisions of the Act; it is not being done on racial grounds, but on educational grounds.
As to small classes, of course exceptions can always be made. The real object, of course, in relation to small premises is where you have people living in a house in close proximity, maybe sharing accommodation and so forth. But a small class is in a somewhat different position. Either you hold yourself out to give services to the public or a section of the public or you do not. Of course, a purely private matter can be arranged privately and there would be no infringement, but if you hold yourself out to be giving services, education or whatever it is, to the public or a section of the public, is it not desirable that there should be a restriction on discrimination? We always felt that there might in a sense be discrimination for a good purpose, for instance, the man who says: "I am sympathetic to these Pakistanis. They do not speak English very well, so I will get a class together to teach them English". There is no reason why you should not have a class to teach English, and there is no reason why Indians should not attend. There is no reason why one should discriminate and say: "I am not taking anybody except Pakistanis".
1240
The Government originally put in the Bill Clause 2(3), which said:
"Nothing in this section shall render unlawful anything which is done in good faith for the benefit of a particular section of the public and which has the effect of promoting the integration of members of that section of the public into the community."
That was obviously meant to cover that sort of case I have suggested of language classes for immigrants. Everybody said, "No". This was the Government's view. They had been very anxious throughout to have as much accord on this Bill as possible. When it was moved in Committee that this subsection should be deleted, the Government fought it and there was a Division and they were defeated. They then had to think: "We are always saying how anxious we are to accept the view of the House as a whole. Are we going to put the Whips on "—as I suppose they could have done —"and force it through on Report?". On the whole they thought that they had better accent the view of the Committee.
I can quote the Government view as subsequently put on Report by the Under Secretary. On Report stage there was another Amendment put down, the first subsection having been taken out. This time the Amendment was from an Opposition Back-Bencher and was in these terms:
"It shall not constitute any offence under this Act to advertise offer or provide special facilities for education instruction or training primarily or solely for the members of a minority community resident in the United Kingdom provided that the provision of such facilities is restricted to the members of such a minority community."
What the Under-Secretary said was this:
"The matter was fully debated in Committee but the views which I then argued were not shared by honourable Members. The arguments adduced against putting in such a protection were threefold. The first was the feeling that such a protection was not necessary. There was a recognition of activities specifically designed to assist minority groups, such as Pakistanis, Italians and Japanese. We thought that it was extremely unlikely that such an activity would be open to criticism or brought before the Race Relations Board. It was argued in Committee that there was nothing wrong in discriminating in favour of a minority group since we are concerned with discriminating against. It was argued secondly that such a provision might open the door to various forms of abuse. Some honourable Members feared that it might lead to the sort of separate but equal

1241
argument which we debated earlier. The third argument—and this is the essence of the matter, particularly in relation to new Clauses 5 and 6—was that it was best to rely on the good sense of the Race Relations Board and the conciliation committees. This I believe is the soundest argument of all."
The Member who moved this new Amendment was generally speaking shot down on all sides.
That being the position, the Government originally being sympathetic to the views put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, but having been defeated in the Committee, having accepted that that seemed to be the view of the House as a whole, appreciated that there was this much to be said for it, that this is really a Bill in which you are almost bound to do one of two undesirable things; either leaving pieces of real racial discrimination unprovided against by not covering enough or covering too much; you cannot deal specifically with every single particular case. That being so, the general view in the other place was, as I understand it, that it is better really to cover too much rather than too little, because, after all, first, you are not constituting any criminal offence: you are at most leaving people open to civil proceedings; the proceedings can only be brought by the Race Relations Board, and they will have the good sense not to pay any attention to the sort of case to which the noble Lord has referred.
I would venture to hope that that being the state of things as they left another place, the other place having argued for hours about this matter, both in Committee and on the Report stage, there is no good reason on the Report stage of this Bill here for starting again at the beginning and saying, "No, the whole House in another place was quite wrong; it ought to have left in the Government's original clause." I say that, although I am speaking on behalf of the Government. In those circumstances I hope that the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
5.10 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I would certainly start by reiterating what my noble friend Lord Aberdare said when he began: that neither of us has any intention of pressing this Amendment. This is only a probing Amendment
1242
designed to elicit further explanation from Her Majesty's Government about the working of this Bill when it becomes an Act, in the field of education, training and instruction. I must say that I am a little disappointed that most of what we have got the noble and learned Lord is an explanation of how the Government have got into the situation where they now stand on this Bill, and we are not really much clearer about the way in which it is going to work out in this field.
We felt that the House was owed a further explanation, for two reasons. The first reason is that there was no recommendation in this matter in the Street Report, to which so much is owed in this field. The Street Report described legislation in various countries and recommended further legislation in various fields in this country. It did so notably in the fields of employment and accommodation. So far as I can see, the Report recommended little or no action in the field of education, training and instruction. The Government have decided to legislate in this field, and when we moved an Amendment on Committee to leave it out in order to get an explanation from the Government of their action in including this field in the Bill in spite of its absence from the Street Report, the reply that we got was, to say the least of it, unconvincing.
The second reason for our Amendment is to discover how and why the law covering discrimination in education, training and instruction—a wide field—can possibly operate justly and effectively and in the way in which we all desire, in the way my noble friend describes it as now operating, without certain exceptions and exclusions that we have all found it necessary to introduce in the fields of accommodation and of housing. It cannot possibly be reasonable and sensible and just to include these exceptions and exclusions in one field and to have this sweeping, comprehensive clause covering education.
It is true that at the start there was included in this Bill subsection (3) to Clause 2, which both my noble friend and the Lord Chancellor have read out. This would have protected some, probably all, of the activities that are cited in our Amendment, the need for which has been outlined by my noble friend.

1243
But, as the Lord Chancellor has described, this subsection was lost in Committee in another place. It was lost at the instigation of the noble and learned Lord's supporters, who rose against the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office and defeated him.
In resisting the deletion of this subsection, the Under-Secretary of State used a number of phrases which I should like to quote. The first is from column 243, where he said:
"I think, therefore, that there needs to be some protection unless we are simply to say that the Bill is so unenforceable that we need not worry about writing in this sort of protection for bona fide activities."
Is that the position? Are we now saying that this law is so unenforceable that we have to do that? Nothing else that bears on this point has been changed. He went on later to say in relation to this subsection:
"If we were to delete it as a whole we would be in great difficulty with many very worthwhile activities"—
and my noble friend Lord Aberdare has shown that to be the case—
"which might be carried out by all sorts of organisations—local authorities and others."
That is still the position. That was on May 21. The Government were defeated on this clause and, incidentally, just to put the record straight, although I think the noble and learned Lord has really done that, the Government were defeated not by the Conservative Opposition, as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, but by their own supporters.
We now come to the situation described by the Lord Chancellor on the Report stage. By then the Under-Secretary of State had changed his mind and, as the noble and learned Lord reminded us, he admitted that there were perhaps objections to this clause as it was originally drafted. It was not thought necessary to protect discrimination in favour. He agreed that it would encourage the separate but equal approach, and he said that we could rely on the good sense of the Race Relations Board and the conciliation committees.
But let us examine those three propositions which the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office thought six weeks later to make the deletion of this subsection acceptable. Discrimination in
1244
favour—yes, certainly and obviously that is all right; but in the case of facilities and services which are in short supply, and certainly teachers in reception classes in primary schools are one of those, discrimination in favour of one group is quite certainly discrimination against another, and discrimination against another on grounds of colour, race, or ethnic or national origins, is illegal. So the argument about there being no need to protect discrimination in favour simply does not stand.
The second justification for leaving out this clause put forward by the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office was that we could rely on the good sense of the Race Relations Board. Of course we should all like to do that. We may do so when they are operating within the proper sphere of their responsibilities. But I submit that it is Parliament and not the Race Relations Board and the conciliation committees which should make the law of this land. Her Majesty's Government are in this field now proposing legislation which is so vague and comprehensive and woolly that what we shall end up with is a case law made up by the Race Relations Board as they go along. This seems to me to lay us wide open to creating more illegal discrimination than we are curing. However, that having been said, it is the Government's responsibility, and while reserving our right to put down a fresh Amendment, perhaps incorporating some part of the Amendment which we have tabled to-day, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment as it now stands.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Exceptions in the case of employment]:
5.19 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE rose to move Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
Page 5, line 36, leave out from beginning to ("to") in line 37.
Page 5, line 41, leave out paragraph (b) and insert?
("Provided that the Secretary of State may, if at any time it appears to him expedient to do so, and without prejudice to his power to make a further order, by order reduce this number, but no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament and approved by each House of Parliament.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, again I think it would be for the convenience of the House if we were to consider this Amendment and Amendment No. 15 together. A little time ago I tried, and failed, to get the Government to introduce more flexibility into the housing provisions of the Bill. My purpose here is a similar one. It is to try to get more flexibility built into the employment provisions of the Bill. As it stands at present, the Bill gives exemption from these provisions for a period of two years for an employer employing more than 25 people. After a further two years the exemption ceiling is lowered to 10 employees; and thereafter—that is to say four years after the Bill becomes law—there is no exemption whatsoever. What we are suggesting is a more flexible machinery. The exemption level would start at 25; it might indeed remain there if the Government of the day thought that this was wise. However, if they and the Race Relations Board thought it could be safely and wisely lowered, then under Amendment No. 15 this could be done quite easily by order.
I should like to remind your Lordships briefly that in their Report the Street Committee suggested that, initially, the employment provisions of the Bill might bite only on firms with more than 50 employees. They also made it clear that in some of the American States exemption was always given for employers of not more than 4 employees. Now the Government are starting with a lower exemption level than Street tentatively suggested-25, rather than 50—and they are not providing for any exemption whatsoever after four years. I am not myself suggesting any particular level, apart from the starting figure of 25. It may well be that experience will show that the Board are perfectly capable of coping with the tiny firm in the pretty short period of four years envisaged in the Bill, but the hard fact is that we just do not know. I suggest that it would be far wiser for the Government to see how all this works out in practice and, therefore, to embrace the more flexible procedure provided for in these two Amendments.
The Government cannot possibly be certain now whether the Board will be ready to reduce from 25 to 10 in two years' time. Likewise they cannot possibly know now whether in four years'
1246
time they and the Board will be able to digest the great mass of tiny firms employing 2, 3, or 4 employees. Given the Government's inflexibility on the housing Amendments where I was attempting to introduce this same principle of flexibility, I am not particularly optimistic that they will be disposed to accept these Amendments, but I am pretty sure that they would be wise to do so. My Lords, I beg to move.
5.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid that almost inevitably all the arguments on these Amendments are really exactly the same as they were on Amendments 6 and 7. As your Lordships will remember, I then pointed out that what was proposed had not come from the Government at all: they had set out with different views and less flexible arrangements. They had heard what happened in Committee. They made certain agreements there, and I think the matter was discussed again on Report. I also think I am right in saying that the first suggestion of phasing came from the Opposition side of the House, and the reasons why the Government are not unhappy about it is for the reasons I ventured to give before: namely, first of all, that it seems sensible to try to have a larger number first for exemptions and then to reduce it, partly because the Government were apprehensive that the Board might be snowed under to start with and also because, in a short-term matter like this, it really is necessary for the people concerned to know.
It is not only necessary for lardlords to know, it is perhaps even more important for employers to know and to be told: "As you have fewer than 25 the provision does not apply to you now, but it will apply to you in two years' time"—or whatever the period may be. If that is done, they know where they are. To find that the matter is to be dealt with by a mere Affirmative Resolution, for which very little notice is necessary, and which may be sprung on employers at any time, without any real notice having been given, is quite different, because they may urgently need to rearrange their businesses accordingly. If they know from the very start that it does not apply to those with under 25 now, but that on a date which is specified it is going to apply to those who have 10

1247
or more, then they know exactly where they are and in sufficient time in advance.
It is for those two reasons, first because the Government would be reluctant, unless there was some completely new reason for it, to go back to another place to disturb an arrangement made amicably at the end after much discussion, and secondly because, on reflection, they themselves feel that with short-term matters of this kind a phasing arrangement of this sort has, as I say, these two advantages—first, that it is acceptable to the Board and secondly that the employers, like the landlords, will also be able to see in advance exactly where they are and have plenty of time to make their own arrangements—that I hope I may have been able to persuade the noble Earl, who was so extremely gracious in withdrawing his Amendments Nos. 6 and 7, to take the same course with regard to Nos. 14 and 15.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack prefaced his remarks by saying that his response to these Amendments dealing with employment would almost inevitably follow the same pattern as his interesting but negative response to the Amendments which I moved on behalf of my noble friend on the housing provisions. Indeed, save in one respect, to which I will come, I think the noble and learned Lord was right that the pattern of his reply was similar. He mentioned that in the first place, as with the housing provisions, the Bill as at present drafted to some extent represents a measure of compromise reached in another place; and I accept that that is the case although I myself am inclined to think that the compromise has been pitched a little low.
Secondly, he referred to the fact that if the more flexible procedure were to be introduced then one would inevitably lose a measure of certainty, and that it was important that employees, and even more so employers, should know in advance where they stand. I accept that there is force behind that particular argument, although it would of course be open to the Government of the day—and I think any wise Government would take this course—to give plenty of notice if and when they were proposing to introduce an order lowering the ceiling. Certainly I envisaged that this would happen if
1248
these Amendments proved acceptable to the Government.
The third argument (I am not trying to read any particular significance into this) which the noble and learned Lord did not use was this. When he was referring to the housing Amendments he assured us that the Government had consulted the Board regarding the housing provisions and that they were happy with them as they stood. He did not use this argument with regard to the employment provisions, and it is not for me to speculate about the attitude of the Board on these matters. I only draw attention to the, fact that this argument was not deployed by the noble and learned Lord. I personally am inclined to think that there is not sufficient flexibility here, and that the numbers are pitched too high initially; and I think we may find that the Government and the Board are biting off rather more than they can easily digest in this employment Part of the Bill. That said, I will respond as graciously as I can—I am getting rather bored withdrawing my Amendments at the noble and learned Lord's suggestion—I beg leave to withdraw these two Amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Charities and acts done for charitable purposes]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
Page 7, line 15, leave out from ("affecting") to ("benefits") in line 16 and insert ("a provision which is contained in a future charitable instrument and confers")
Page 7, line 20, leave out from ("with") to second ("of") and insert ("any such provision or with the provisions of")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I think that it will be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 16 and 17 together. The Government introduced an Amendment on Report in the Commons to protect the position of any future charitable instrument having as its main object the conferring of benefits on persons of a particular race, descent, ethnic or national origin. The Amendment was welcomed by the Opposition in this House but criticised on the grounds that it was too restrictive, in that it did not cover a charitable instrument which had such a provision as one of its main objects. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, sought to insert the words "or as one of

1249
its main objects "and said in particular that
"it would be undesirable if a charitable trust, acting in all good faith, were found to be in conflict with the Race Relations Act, because it was argued that the 'conferring of benefits on persons of a particular race' et cetera was not its main and exclusive object ".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25/7/68; col. 1384.]
In resisting Lord Brooke's Amendment, I explained in column 1383 that it would
"appear to make it possible for a charitable trust to be set up to do two different things. In one clause it might be a beneficial object of the kind proposed; in the next it might be to set up something for the benefit of everybody except Jews. … A court can be asked what is the main object of the charity, but I am not sure that, strictly, there can be more than one object. The word 'main' means 'chief' or 'principal'. I doubt whether it is possible to have more than one main object."
Further consideration has been given to this delicate point and it is thought that Lord Brooke's criticism of the clause is valid. The Government Amendments now proposed meet his point but avoid the difficulties which I have mentioned. Here, again, we see the Government very anxious to adopt suggestions which have come from the Opposition. My Lords, I beg to move.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I rather expect that a gracious noise is now expected from me by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor. I am not absolutely certain that I fully understood everything connected with this particular Amendment, but, at the risk of receiving a sharp rebuff from my noble friend Lord Brooke in the Antipodes, I should like to welcome these Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 13 [Liability of employers and principals]:
5.33 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 8, line 21, leave out from ("him") to end of line 22 and insert ("unless the employer proves that it was done without his knowledge and approval.")
The noble Lord said: Subsection (1) of Clause 13, which this Amendment seeks to amend, says:
"Anything done by a person in the course of his employment shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as done by his employer as well as by him …"
1250
and then it goes on
"… whether or not it was done with the employer's knowledge or approval."
My Amendment would insert instead the words:
"unless the employer proves that it was done without his knowledge and approval".
This firmly places the onus on the employer to prove that something was done without this knowledge and approval.
I should have thought that it is only fair that this should be a valid defence. It is not always so. One can think of safety provisions in factories, for sample. I have in my hand at the moment the Trade Descriptions Act in which defences are provided. It might be better to say that he should prove that lie has taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence, but even that is not appropriate in this Bill where one is dealing with personal relationships. I hope that nobody will feel offended if I remind your Lordships that case; have occurred when there has been strike action by employees against an employer which might come within the terms of this provision. It would be ridiculous in such a case if the employer were to be held responsible for something which gave rise to strike action against himself. That is the sort of thing which needs watching carefully. There is no question that this is absolutely mandatory upon the Board since it says:
"Anything done by a person in the course of his employment shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as done by his employer …"
I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say on this matter. It seems to me that this is a case where we must have regard to justice in individual cases. My Lords, I beg to move.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I should 1ike to support this Amendment. The poor old employer has a rather thin time of it today. We have to do all our employees' tax; we have to see that their cares are stamped for national insurance, aid so on, and we have to do all sorts of other things. Of course if we have an unfortunate employee we are only too pleased to help him. But as the Bill is now drawn, are we employers also to be responsible for the prejudices of our employees? I think that this is carrying

1251
things too far. We are a very long-suffering breed, but if we have to be responsible for the prejudices and passions of our employees heavens knows where we shall end up.
I should like to reiterate what my noble friend said about strike action, since the whole matter could become most involved. Does one also understand that if this Bill becomes law the nationalised industries will have to abide by it? I presume that they do.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, they do; and so does the Crown.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: Well, that may lead to an extraordinary state of affairs. If the Crown is "had up" by the Race Relations Board, then what happens? It would be most helpful if I could have some guidance on this matter. At any rate I fully support the Amendment.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, the noble Lord has reminded us of the contents of subsection (1) of Clause 13, but he perhaps did not put as great emphasis as he might have done upon the fact that it was subject to the saving in subsection (3), which provides that it will be a defence to a charge of unlawful discrimination for an employer to prove that he took such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent the employee from discriminating. This also covers the noble Viscount's point. An employer cannot, however, avoid responsibility under the Bill by claiming that the act complained of was not his but that of art employee.
Your Lordships will remember that we had a full discussion of this matter in Committee when noble Lords drew on their own personal experience. The difficulty which the Government see in this Amendment is that it seeks to provide that the employer shall be liable only if the act was done with his knowledge and approval. This would mean that the employer could, without contravening the Bill, deliberately neglect to instruct his employee or to make himself aware of his employee's conduct. One of the purposes of subsection (1) surely is to encourage an employer to issue clear instructions to his employees and to ensure that they do not discriminate in their employment. For these reasons the Government
1252
are unable to accept the Amendment, and I hope that the noble Lord, even though he has yielded so much this afternoon already, will once again withdraw his Amendment.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness does not think that it is going to be easy for employers to instruct foremen and the like in the intricacies of this Bill, because it is really not "on".
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am bound to say that I did not think that the defence provided here was nearly good enough. Subsection (3) says:
"he took such steps as were reasonably practicable to prevent the employee from doing … "
One knows how very stringently the courts have interpreted such defences in cases of this kind, and it seems to me that they might well expect a very high degree of care and activity, going far beyond what should be necessary in cases of this sort. I should have thought, especially in a case where a warning has been given and that warning had been conveyed by the employer to the employees, that it was really sufficient as a defence for him to say that what was being done was being done without his knowledge and approval in that case. I think I heard my noble and learned friend say that he wanted to ask a question before I withdrew this Amendment. I therefore sit down at this stage.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I did not know whether or not the noble Lord was going to withdraw the Amendment. But there is one question which I want to put to the noble Baroness, and it is this. She has drawn attention to subsection (3), which provides that it is a defence if an employer proves that he took such steps as were reasonably practicable, and it is only a defence if he proves that. What is the position if there are no steps that are reasonably practicable? He will not have satisfied the requirement of that subsection, and it would therefore seem, on the wording as it stands, that he is not protected by subsection (3) and has no defence.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I should have thought that in issues of this kind there were always steps that one could take which are reasonably practicable.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [General provision as to investigation of complaints of discrimination]:
5.43 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos, 19 and 20:
Clause 15, page 9, line 37, leave out from ("complaint") to ("is") in line 38 and insert ("which is made to them within two months of the act complained of and also, if the Board think that special circumstances warrant its reception, any complaint made to them or a conciliation committee after the expiration of that period, if in either case the complaint")
Clause 17, page 11, line 33, after ("notice") insert ("or such longer period as the Board may in special circumstances allow")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, may I take Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 together, and refer also to Amendment No. 29, to Schedule 2, all of which really relate to the same point?
The purpose of these Amendments is to allow the Board discretion in "special circumstances" to authorise the investigation of cases which would otherwise fall outside the time limit of two months. It has always been the Government's intention that there should be a time limit for the making of complaints. As my noble friend Lord Stonham explained in Committee, the period chosen must to some extent be arbitrary. It must be short enough to enable events to be accurately recalled—and a person wishing to make a frivolous complaint is likely to delay doing so, so that it will be difficult to refute his allegation—and long enough to enable probably busy people—perhaps leaving the country for a short period—to submit their complaints. Two months (which is acceptable to the Board) was chosen as a reasonable period to meet both these interests. Arguments were put forward in Committee in the other place for both a longer and a shorter period than two months, but no compelling case for any change was made.
In Committee in this House the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, moved an Amendment to give the Board discretion "in special circumstances" to receive complaints after the time limit had
1254
expired. In resisting the Amendment, my noble friend Lord Stonham argued that:
"a discretionary power to extend the time limit would probably result in such pressure to entertain out-of-date complaints that there would be no opportunity for the proper exercise of discretion; and in that case it would be as if there were no time limit". —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30/7/68, col. 187.]
He also said, as was certainly the case at the time, that the Race Relations Board had not expressed any wish for a discretionary power to extend the time-limit.
The Amendment was withdrawn on the understanding that my noble friend Lord Stonham would consider further a specific problem raised by my noble friend Lord Gifford: that the person may have no chance of learning about the discrimination until more than two months have elapsed. Lord Gifford subsequently wrote to my noble friend Lord Stonham about this, and asked the Government to reconsider the possibility of amending the Bill so that the time limit of two months within which complaints must be made would run from the time the complainant became aware of the alleged act of discrimination, rather than from the date of the act itself.
The question of the time limit has now been re-examined by the Government, in consultation with the Race Relations Board. We have come to the conclusion that the specific proposal of my noble friend Lord Gifford must be resisted, since the effect would be that there would in practice be no time limit at all; the victim of the alleged discrimination could always claim that he did not become aware of it until months or even years afterwards.
Further consultations with the Board indicate, however, that although they firmly support a time limit they are satisfied that this should be two months, and do not wish to be exposed to unreasonable requests to consider cases out of time, yet they would welcome power to consider delayed cases in the sort of special circumstances to which my noble friend Lord Gifford has drawn attention—for example, a man seeking to buy a house, who is told that a higher offer has been received and that his offer is unacceptable, discovers some time later that no such offer has been received and that the house was sold at a lower price.

1255
They consider that if the Bill were amended to allow the Board to exercise discretion "in special circumstances "they would be able to withstand such pressure as might be applied in cases where the delay in coming forward was not justified.
The Government have therefore decided that Amendments should be moved to enable the Board in "special circumstances" to authorise the investigation of cases which would otherwise be out of time. In all cases it will be for the Board—not the conciliation committees or the voluntary machinery (or the Department for Employment and Productivity in employment cases)—to decide whether there are "special circumstances". In this way the discretion will be exercised uniformly. The Government are confident that the Board can be relied upon to exercise their discretion judiciously. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, my noble and learned friend very generously drew attention to the part I played in the formulation of these Amendments. I am very happy to reaffirm, in case it was ever doubted in quarters opposite, that the Government are able and willing to yield to reasonable argument, particularly, if I may say so, when reason goes hand in hand with justice, because I spoke to the Amendments moved in Committee which sought to do very much the same as the Government seek to do to-day.
The way I put my argument, and have always put it, was that this kind of circumstance (there may be others) was peculiarly suitable for the exercise of the Board's discretion. A discriminator will rarely give the reasons for his rejection of a particular applicant for a job or a house, and after the Bill is published it will no doubt be rarer still for him to do so. It may be only some time later—perhaps quite fortuituously, perhaps after making inquiries, perhaps even never—that the victim of discrimination will discover that he has been discriminated against. It would obviously be very wrong to debar someone from his lawful remedy when he had had no opportunity of discovering that he had ever been wronged. For those reasons I very much welcome these Amendments. I think they are a very substantial im-
1256
provement to the Bill and will remove what might have been a number of injustices.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should just like to ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack one question. I see the point of these Amendments. While I would hold that in normal circumstances two months was a reasonable maximum, I fully accept the point of view that there may be special circumstances which warrant a special procedure. The only point which worries me is this. While I accept the case for special machinery in a small number of special cases, is there not also a case for a cut-off point? What I am worrying about is that there may be cases resurrected after one, two, three, four or even five years. Would this really be desirable?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Government have considered that point. They were not thinking of anything quite so long as that: they were thinking of a final limit of six months beyond which no complaint should be entertained. But they felt that if one did that it would in practice amount simply to extending the time limit to a fixed period of six months, and the problem of the person with a genuine complaint who did not discover for more than six months that he had been discriminated against would not be met. An open-ended discretionary power is therefore the only one which is of real use; but the longer the period which has elapsed since the incident occurred the less likely the Board will be, I apprehend, to consider that the complaint is justified out of time. That being so, it is not thought there is any real risk of the Amendments leading to the investigation of any substantial number of very late complaints unless these are fully justified by exceptional circumstances.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Nature of proceedings in England and Wales]:
5.52 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD LORD CONESFORD moved Amendments Nos. 21 and 22.
Page 13, line 12, leave out subsection (7).
Page 13, line 18, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to Clause 19, which deals with

1257
legal proceedings. Through their spokesmen in both Houses the Government have made it quite clear that they hope that most questions which arise under this Bill will be solved by conciliation, and of course I appreciate that desire and fully accept their good faith in that matter. It is their wish, as it is the wish of the whole House, that only exceptional cases shall come before the courts. When cases have to come before the courts noble Lords in every section of the House, I am convinced, will want the proceedings to be such that all concerned will have a sense of justice and fair play. However much the views of Members of this House may differ about what should constitute unlawful acts of discrimination, I see no reason a priori why we should not all be of the same opinion on the subject of enforcement, because I feel that in every case our desire will be the same.
It is because I am convinced that the compulsory provision of two assessors to assist the judge is likely to do much more harm than good that I am again venturing to bring the matter before this House. On July 30 I brought the matter before the Committee, and on that occasion the Committee was very evenly divided: 65 approved of my Amendment to leave out subsection (7), and 70 opposed it. Since then I have given further study to the subject, including, of course, a study of the very careful and useful speech of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; and I dare say the Government have also given further consideration to it, and particularly to the urgent plea made by my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor in his last speech on the occasion to which I have referred.
May I remind the House of some of the characteristics of the proceedings for which this clause provides? As the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack recently reminded us, they will not be criminal proceedings at all; they will be civil proceedings, but civil proceedings of a novel kind. They will be proceedings for a quasi tort or civil wrong—a tort or civil wrong that owes its existence to the Bill now before us. But the plaintiff in the action will not be the person injured, or alleged to be injured, by the unlawful act of discrimination. The plaintiff (if that is the right expression)
1258
will in every case be the Race Relations Board—a body appointed by the Government, I think the Home Secretary, and no doubt appointed by them having in mind the suitability of the members for their character and knowledge and experience of race relations. I think that is probably a fair way of putting it.
The judge will be one of such county court judges as the noble and learned Lord selects for that purpose. But there will be two assessors who are compulsorily to sit to assist him, and, if I may quote from the Bill about how they will be chosen, it says that they will be
"… appointed from a list of persons prepared and maintained by the Lord Chancellor, being persons appearing to the Lord Chancellor to have special knowledge and experience of problems connected with race and community relations".
I therefore think it is fair to say that the Race Relations Board, who are the plaintiffs, and the assessors, whose description I have just read out, are the same type of person; that is to say, anybody who would be suitable to be chosen for the one body would be suitable to be chosen for the other.
My Lords, what is likely to be the effect of that on the defendant, brought before the court, who is probably a nativeborn inhabitant of these Islands? I am very anxious that he should not have any sense of grievance. But what w ill be the position in which he finds himself? He finds himself accused of a wrong of a totally novel kind; something that is a wrong only because of this Statute. It has not hitherto been a wrong. He finds himself brought before the court by this body, the Race Relations Board, and he finds, not giving evidence in court but sitting next to the judge, two gentlemen who can give advice to the judge that he does not hear at all. Let me say at once that I can well imagine that in some of these cases expert evidence may be required to deal with the matter before the court. An expert on race relations might well give evidence; but if he gives evidence, of course, he can be examined and cross-examined, and his evidence can be tested. My Lords, the defendant will ask: "Why is it that this matter is too difficult to be heard and decided by a judge? Why is a judge not good enough?".
May I remind the House that this use of assessors is wholly exceptional in English practice. If I might give two well-known examples where it may be found, the best example, perhaps, is in Admiralty jurisdiction—for instance, the trying of cases concerning collisions at sea—where the judge is assisted by two nautical assessors who are Elder Brethren of Trinity House. That example is well known. Then occasionally a wholly novel subject comes up as the creation of Statute. One example of that is monopolies and the Restrictive Practices Court. Under the 1956 Act a number of judges are appointed, and so are persons of experience in industry, commerce and public affairs.
What seems to me to have happened here is that this provision is a sort of compromise—and, I think, an unnecessary and unwise compromise—between two rival views. One view that was put forward—I think the noble and learned Lord reminded us last time that it was recommended by the Street Committee—was that there should be a special tribunal to try these race relations cases. That has been, rightly I think, rejected by Her Majesty's Government, and reading the speeches both of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack and of the Attorney General in another place I think their views are certainly not in favour of the unnecessary creation of special courts. I do not believe that this compromise will help the Government at all. I do not think that subjects will arise under this Bill that are not of the type that a county court judge can decide unaided. I believe that the introduction of these assessors, for whatever reason, will not achieve the purpose that the Government have in mind. I believe it will do more harm than good and I move to delete the subsection. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Is the noble Lord moving Amendment No. 22 as well as Amendment No. 21?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, that might be the most convenient. I would otherwise have dealt with it as consequential. I should not be moving it if I did not carry Amendment No. 21. But I adopt the suggestion of moving them both together.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I take it that Amendments Nos. 23 and 24, which relate to Scotland, may be considered at the same time?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I agree that all four should be considered together. The noble Lord, Lord Conesford, has of course, inevitably, very largely said what he said on the Committee stage of the Bill, and I am inevitably going to say very much what I said then. This is a matter on which there are three perfectly rational views which anyone might take. The first view, strongly put forward by the Street Report, was that there ought to be special race relations tribunals; and many people agreed with that view. The second view, mainly taken by the lawyers was that they did not like the idea of special tribunals; that being lawyers they liked the ordinary courts. And that, again, is a natural and proper view to take. The third view is what you might call a compromise; but I do not think there is anything necessarily wrong with a compromise. It may be the most sensible thing to do. That was that there should be selected county courts but that, while the judge should be the only person to decide the case, he should have assessors consisting of people with special experience in race relations to advise him.
As I say, anybody can quite well take one or other of those three views. But the first thing I should like to make plain is this. It may be that at one time the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, had a very extensive county court practice, but I imagine that it is some little time since he was in a county court; so he will not, I am sure, mind my reminding him that Order 31, Rule 1, provides:
The registrar of every court shall, on the direction of the judge, prepare and submit to the judge a list of persons who are in the opinion of the registrar fit and proper persons to act as assessors.
"2. The registrar shall apply to such persons as the judge may approve to ascertain if they are willing to act as assessors.
"3. The registrar shall cause a list of the persons approved by the judge and willing to act as assessors to be posted in the court office.
"Every assessor named in the list shall continue to be an assessor until a new list has been completed…"
and so on.

1261
Then, what he is to be paid. It goes on:
"6. A party who desires an assessor to be summoned to assist the judge shall, not less than 10 clear days before the day fixed for the hearing, file an application in Form 247, and deposit the amount of the assessor's fee in the court office, and thereupon the registrar shall send a copy of the application to the judge.
"7.—(1) If the judge grants the application, the registrar shall give notice to the parties in Form 248."
So, my Lords, there is a special order under which anybody in the county court has a legal right to ask for an assessor. This does not, in fact, happen often. I have no personal experience of it. For that very reason, I should think that a judge asked by one of the parties to sit with an assessor would be much more likely to say "Yes" than to say "No", because it would be a nice change for him. He would think that it does not do any harm. As the Race Relations Board are going to be the plaintiffs, they have an absolute legal right to ask the judge for an assessor. Ought we not to decide what is to happen? Do we want half the courts saying "Yes" and the other half saying "No"? The only difference really is that under the order the party applying for the assessor has to pay the assessor's fees in the first instance; and then it is for the judge at the end to say who shall pay them according to the result of the case. But, of course, under the Bill the Government pay for the assessors.
I should have thought, with great respect, that as the order is there and as there is a strong view that there should be assessors, it is much better to apply a proper procedure and make it clear in the Bill whether there are to be assessors or not. Although the noble Lord is right in saying that at the Committee stage I said that this was not my favourite clause, the reason why, on balance, I suggest that this is right is simply, as I said all the way through, that the Government are most anxious that this Bill in the form in which it is ultimately to be enacted should receive the largest measure of support possible. On the whole, most people seem to think that a profesional judge who alone will decide but who will have people sitting with him with special experience in race relations is most sensible. I appreciate that some lawyers still say that they would
1262
like the judge alone; and that a number of people who support the Street Report say that on the whole they would sooner have special tribunals.
But this course seems to meet general approval and we are at the stage when this matter has been specifically considered in the other place and has been specifically the subject of revision when an exactly similar Amendment was put forward in the other place. The other place decided, "No, we shall leave the Bill as it is." Then it came here. Then the same Amendment was moved on the Committee stage. Then, again, we had a Division; and this House also thought it was better to leave the Bill as it is. In those circumstances, would it be sensible to send the Bill back to the other place saying: "It is true that you thought that this was on the whole the best plan; and it is true that we thought this in Committee, too; but now we have changed our minds about it"? For those reasons, I hope very much that the noble Lord may think it right not to press this Amendment.
6.9 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I have listened with the most careful attention possible to what the noble and learned Lord has said. Like my noble friend Lord Conesford, I have also studied the speech he made during the Committee stage. I for one do not feel in the least affected in my view regarding this Amendment by the fact that it has already been considered in another place. This House has functions as well as another place. We have heard that argument advanced before, implying that we should not reconsider a matter which has been the subject of a Division in another place. That is an argument, but I think it is one that this House should reject. We have also considered this subject in Committee. It is true the Amendment was not carried; there was a very small majority against it.
This is the first time I have spoken on this Bill, and I would rather approach this question entirely by considering the merits of the proposal. With regard to those, the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has been very frank. He said there was the view that there should be a special tribunal or court to deal with these matters, and that that view was

1263
tenable. I dare say it has a number of supporters. Then there was the view that he attributed primarily to lawyers, that this matter should be dealt with in the courts. Then there was the view that he says is embodied in this Bill as a compromise. Well, my Lords, compromises are not always bad; sometimes they are very good; but, in the light of me information I now have I must say that this compromise does not seem to me at all satisfactory.
My approach to this question is, in some respects, a little different from that of my noble friend Lord Conesford. It is of course the case that there is power to secure the appointment of assessors in the county court. I cannot recollect a single case in which that power has been exercised—I do not think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can—but he is quite right in saying that there are rules which enable that to be done. It is a long time since I looked at those rules, but I apprehend that it is within the power of the county court judge to refuse the application to sit with assessors. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, will correct me if I am wrong. Of course, if it were a technical matter of a highly complex character, I feel sure that the county court judge would grant an application, if it were made, in the same way as the Admiralty cases are tried with assessors. But what I want to come to in relation to this particular proposal is to ask your Lordships to consider what it is that the assessors are to be required to do.
In this case it is not a question of a party applying for it and the judge deciding whether or not there should be assessors. They are compulsory—assessors with special knowledge of race relations problems. What is it that the assessors are to be required to do? It does not suffice just to say that they are to be there to assist the judge. To assist him in deciding what? That is the question I want to put to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, because I think it is worth bearing in mind the task that will confront the county court judge when a case is brought before him under the provisions in this Bill.
As my noble friend has said, the case will be brought by the Race Relations Board and it is clear from the Bill that
1264
it can be brought only if the Race Relations Board have come to the conclusion that there has been a breach by the defendant of the requirements of the Act, as it will then be. So the defendant will start knowing, as the county court judge will know, that the Race Relations Board have found against him on the facts. Then the proceedings are started. They come before the county court judge and he will have to do what he does in every other case where there is a trial—listen to the evidence called before him, weigh it up and, where there is a conflict of evidence, determine where the truth lies. He will have to perform that task in these cases just as he has to perform it in every other case where there is a trial and he is sitting without a jury.
Having decided what facts are proved, he will then have to decide (and, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, it is a matter entirely for him) whether or not those facts proved establish a breach of the requirements as defined in this Bill; whether they amount to unlawful discrimination as defined in the Bill. In that part of the judicial task what part are the assessors having special knowledge of race relations problems to play? Are they to express a view on whether a particular witness should be believed or disbelieved? Are they to express the view that certain facts have been established and that those facts amount to unlawful discrimination?
My Lords, during the Committee stage discussions the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, suggested that their function would be similar to that of a jury. Of course it would not be; they are no jury. They have not to decide any question of fact. The judge has to decide questions of fact—that has been made clear—and it would, I think, be very wrong if the judge turned to the assessors and asked them to act in private as if they were a jury when in fact they are not. I could understand it—I do not say that I would support it—if there were to be a special body of people who were to find the facts like a jury, but this Bill does not provide for that. It merely provides that there will be these two people, with special knowledge of race relations problems, to assist. Are they intended to assist in the discharge of that part of the judicial function by the judge? If so, we ought to be told what it is that they are intended to do,

1265
and we ought to be told it with the greatest clarity and precision.
Suppose the judge has found that there has been unlawful discrimination. Then one can see from the Bill that he has power to grant an injunction. That depends on whether the conditions in Clause 21 are, or are not, satisfied. They are laid down precisely and the learned judge would have to satisfy himself that those conditions were satisfied before he granted an injunction. Are the assessors with special knowledge of race relations problems to assist him in determining whether the conditions laid down in Clause 21 are, or are not, satisfied? I should have thought not. That, again, is a question of evaluating the evidence and considering the provisions in the Bill. Of course, an injunction is always a discretionary remedy, but here the discretion is limited by Clause 21; and I cannot believe that the mere presence of assessors would assist a judge in determining whether or not, in a particular case where those conditions are satisfied, an injunction should be granted. Because whether or not an injunction should be granted depends on whether or not there appears to be a real risk of a repetition of the conduct. That is one relief which may be claimed.
The next is damages on behalf of the person who is alleged to have suffered loss. Well, my Lords, what room is there in that respect for assistance by assessors? If the loss is proved to the satisfaction of the judge, he will award damages in compensation. It does not seem that there is any room for assessors. If a judge does neither of those things but is satisfied that there has been unlawful discrimination, he can grant a declaration to that effect. So when one deals with those three things that the judge can do, which are set out in terms in Clause 19, it does not appear to me that there is any real assistance that may be given to the court by the presence of two persons with special knowledge of race relations problems.
Also in Clause 19 there is power given to the county court judge to revise the terms of any contract which run counter to the provisions of this Bill. That is a pure question of law and I should not think that on that assessors could give any assistance of any value at all. So, approaching this matter pragmatically, it
1266
seems to me that in reality there is no need for assessors of this or of any other kind to assist the judge in the performance of duties which are similar to his duties when trying any other case.
This is a compromise, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said. It seems to me, with the greatest respect, that this is really a compromise with a good percentage of window-dressing attached to it. I do not think it is a good thing. It is really an innovation to have assessors sitting compulsorily in matters of this kind. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Conesford in what he said with regard to the position of the defendant, who is not charged with a crime but is charged with conduct which a great many people will condemn; and a condemnation under this Act will be a reflection on his character. I do not think that, in the hearing to determine whether or not he has been guilty of the conduct alleged, he will think he has had a fair trial if, sitting with the county court judge, there are two persons with special knowledge of race relations problems appointed by the Lord Chancellor, whose advice will presumably be tendered to the county court judge without the defendant having the least idea of what that advice is.
When we come to consider the great care we have taken, in relation to criminal proceedings in magistrates' courts, to see that the clerks to the justices do not go beyond their sphere and express views on the facts and evidence behind the scenes to the magistrates without the accused knowing anything about it, I must say that I think that to provide here by Statute that there will be two people who will be able to express views in private which will never be known to the defence is a retrograde step and one to which this House should not agree.
6.24 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I think that people are going to be very surprised when they discover that county court judges, who are entrusted with sitting alone in judgment upon a wide variety of cases are not to be allowed, in this one class of case of race relations, to sit alone, but only with assessors sitting beside them. In the experience of two Lord Chancellors, county court judges have

1267
never been known to need assessors with them to hear a case. I can well understand that a High Court Judge trying Admiralty cases may need expert advice from assessors when he has before him a question of the intricacies of the navigation of ships upon the high seas. But what is so special about a race relations case tried in the county court that it cannot be tried by the judge alone?
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has made it clear from extracts from the County Court Rules that it would be open to the Race Relations Board, as plaintiff, to ask for an assessor, and it would be open to any county court judge to suggest to the parties that an assessor should sit with him and no doubt that could be achieved. Can we not see how this works out in practice, and see whether it is not possible for county court judges to try race relationship cases alone, unassisted by assessors, as they deal with the other cases that come before them? If they cannot, then they have powers whereby they can suggest that assessors sit with them. As experience is gained, the matter can be resolved. But I think it is a mistake at the outset to insist on assessors in this one class of county court case. I should think that this was blowing up race relation cases to give them a special importance and magnitude which they do not deserve, as well as drawing more public attention to them than they deserve.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask a question and make an observation purely from the Scottish point of view? I should like to know whether it is customary for assessors to sit with sheriffs, and who will appoint the panel of assessors in Scotland? The difficulty we are always up against in Scotland is that we do not have a Lord Chancellor. Your Lordships will see that, so far as Scotland is concerned, it is the Secretary of State who is to be given power to designate sheriff courts where actions are to be taken and to prepare the panel of assessors. One must have regard to the separation of powers. I am not entirely happy about this. Here we have a double possibility of political influence. Cases may be referred to a court which may be expected to take a certain line in general. In addition, there are to be assessors who are considered to have certain views
1268
which are acceptable from this point of view. I do not want to overstress this, but it is a danger. To my mind it is one reason why we should not give the Secretary of State both the power to say in what sheriff court cases may be heard—after all, it may cause considerable inconvenience to parties if the court is outside their area—and power to nominate panels. I express this misgiving only because it is one which has some influence with me personally.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, those of us who have listened to this debate obviously feel in a difficulty. I gather from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that two different views have been expressed by two groups of people and I also gather than they have not been along the lines of political Parties. The Government have come along with a compromise, and, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, a compromise is not necessarily a bad thing; it just depends on the compromise. My own view is that the compromise already exists in existing legislation. Under the county courts procedure, if in the opinion of the judge an assessor is required, he can ask for the appointment of an assessor. It seems to me unreasonable that there should be assessors appointed in all cases, whether they are necessary or not. I hope that the Government will think again about this, and be content to rest on the existing county court procedure. To have this matter settled on Party lines, as it would be if there were a Division, would in my view be most unsatisfactory. It is not something that ought to be decided according to one's political complexion.
THE EARL OF ENNISKILLEN: My Lords, I should like to support the last remarks, because I feel that from the ordinary person's viewpoint this is a compromise with a bias, and will be so construed. There is nothing wrong with British justice, and nothing wrong with British courts; but we are by this means setting up precisely what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor described as one of the means they wish to get rid of—a special court. This is what I should have thought Englishmen required: it is British. It is bad enough that we have to have legislation on this subject. The people whom we are trying to assimilate are to be assimilated as

1269
subjects of the Realm and as such they should be treated in the ordinary fashion of the British people in law.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may have leave to speak again, quite shortly. I have already referred to the county court rules. I should have started with the Act itself, because the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, asked: What exactly are the assessors going to do? The answer is that they will help the judge in whatever way the judge wants to be helped, which is indeed the position in law now. Section 91 of the County Courts Act reads as follows:
"In any proceedings the judge may, if he thinks fit, on the application of any party"—
so my noble friend Lord Silkin will see that the judge has no power to do it himself, other than on the application of the party—
"summon to his assistance, in such manner as may be prescribed, one or more persons of skill and experience in the matter to which the proceedings relate who may be willing to sit with the judge and act as assessor. The remuneration of assessors for sitting as afore-said shall be of such rate as may be prescribed…"
and so on. There is nothing in the Act as to exactly what he does when he gets there beyond what I have read.
What I was suggesting, my Lords, was that we cannot really leave the matter there, because if these Amendments are passed the Race Relations Board will have a legal right to apply to a county court judge in every case for assessors, but the registrar will not have a list of assessors. It is necessary to provide some machinery obviously appropriate to this kind of case.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will give way, I should entirely agree that it might be necessary to produce a list of assessors; but all that would be needed would be to add names to the existing list of assessors. What he has said already makes it quite clear I think (and I should like him to confirm this), that the learned county court judge has a discretion to refuse an application for assessors where he does not think they will help him.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: He has under the County Courts Act. But I should have thought that this would have been undesirable in the case of this Bill
1270
—undesirable, that is to say, that entirely different practices should grow up in different parts of the country, and that in some places the judge should always sit alone, and in other places should always sit with assessors. No doubt it is for Parliament to make up its mind as to what is the right thing to do.
I said to start with that these are three perfectly tenable views: the very strong view taken by the Street Committee, that there ought to be a special Race Relations Tribunal; the view taken, mainly by lawyers, that one wants just the ordinary courts, and what has been called the compromise view, that there should be a judge with two persons with special experience of race relations.
Finally, I would say that I never intended to suggest that this House is not entitled to differ from the other p1ace. Of course it is. It is not only its right, but very often its duty. All I was suggesting was that this is the unusual case of Leaders of Parties feeling that, in the national interest, the more we can agree on the terms of this Bill, the better that it is a case in which the Government who of course, with their majority, can always push things through in another place, have time after time on this Bill deliberately not done so but have accepted the view of the opposition. All I was suggesting was that when there is a Division in this House, and this House takes exactly the same view as the other House has taken, then it would seem odd on a later occasion in this House to use the power which one political Party always has in this House, whoever is the Government, to change the decision which this House in Committee has already made.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, in view of the late hour and the very complete speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne I shall be very brief. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was quite right to remind me that my county court days were very long ago, and I think I might have forgotten about the provision for assessors had he not been good enough to remind us on the last occasion, when I found out that, as usual, he was quite right. I take some comfort from the fact that all the time that I had my meagre practice in the courts I never knew a case where assessors were appointed in the county

1271
court; the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has never known such a case, and my noble and learned friend his predecessor on the Woolsack has never known such a case. So I do not think we need treat this as something that is constantly arising or particularly likely to arise.
My view of the matter, my Lords, is quite clear. If I thought that the Race Relations Board were themselves as plaintiffs likely to ask for assessors—assessors of exactly the same type and chosen from the same milieu as themselves—I should have thought that we probably ought to provide in this Bill that they should not be provided with assessors. I am prepared to leave the law as it is, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, but I object to compulsory assessors.
The only other matter is this. I respect greatly a decision of the other House, but I think that some Members may have been under the impression from what the Lord Chancellor said (what he said was quite accurate, and I do not complain about it) that it was a decision of that House sitting as a House. In fact it was a decision of a Committee, and by a majority of 12 to 8. I think
that that does put a slightly different complexion on it. I think I am right in saying that the other House as a House has never had anything like the full discussion that we have had.
On the question of reversing on Report something done in Committee, that is done very frequently in this House. I have very often been the victim of it myself, when I have succeeded in carrying something in Committee and it has been reversed on Report. That is not an uncommon occurrence in this House. In this case there was a very small majority against me in Committee. My last words are these. My real object in this Amendment—I hope this will be accepted because I am speaking the absolute truth—is to improve this Bill. I believe that this Bill with this Amendment will carry more confidence in the country, will give more sense of justice among litigants, than this Bill as it will be without this Amendment. For that reason, I wish to take the view of the House.
6.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendments (Nos. 21 and 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Monson, L.

Airedale, L.

Enniskillen, E.

Mountevans, L.

Albemarle, E.

Falkland, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Audley, Bs.

Falmouth, V.

Moyne, L.

Barnby, L.

Ferrier, L.

Oakshott, L.

Barrington, V.

Fortescue, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Boston, L.

Gridley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brecon, L.

Guest, L.

St. Just, L.

Carrington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sandford, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hawke, L.

Sandys, L.

Colville of Culross, V. [Teller.]

Headfort, M.

Somers, L.

Conesford, L. [Teller.]

Holford, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ironside, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigavon, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kirkwood, L.

Swansea, L.

Daventry, V.

Long, V.

Teviot, L.

Denham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vivian, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Merrivale, L.

Younger of Leckie, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Carron, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Archibald, L.

Champion, L.

Kennet, L.

Arwyn, L.

Collison, L.

Latham, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Fiske, L.

Leatherland, L.

Beswick, L.

Gardiner, L. [L. Chancellor.]

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Gifford, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Brockway, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Henderson, L.

Peddie, L.

Burden, L.

Henley, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Rusholme, L.

Shepherd, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Serota, Bs.

Sorensen, L.

Williamson, L.

Shackleton, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendments agreed to accordingly.
Clause 20 [Nature of proceedings in Scotland]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23. I think noble Lords will agree that it would be quite inappropriate that we should have assessors in Scotland if there are not to be assessors in England.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, does the noble Lord wish to move Amendment No. 24 with No. 23, or separately?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Together, my Lords. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 14, line 32, leave out subsection (7).
Page 14, line 38, leave out subsection (8).—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Lord has said. I cannot, of course, accept the Amendments, for the reasons given in relation to the previous Amendments. On the other hand, I shall not ask the House to divide against them, because plainly that would be a waste of time.
Clause 27 [Application to Crown, the police and public bodies]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, to facilitate progress perhaps we may take Amendments Nos. 25, 26 and 27 together. These Amendments are purely technical. The provision in the Bill which is now being amended was added at Committee stage in your Lordships' House. Unfortunately, the Amendment then moved did not apply, as it should have done, to proceedings in regard to police cadets. These Amendments now proposed correct this omission. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 19, line 34, after ("(4)") insert ("or (5)").
Page 19, line 35, at end insert ("or police cadet").
1274
Page 20, line 5, after ("(4)") insert ("or (5)").—(Baroness Serota.)
Schedule 1 [Provisions as to the Race Relations Board and conciliation committees]:
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, this Amendment also is technical and merely corrects an error in the way it was printed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 13, after first ("of") insert ("Schedule 1 to").—(Baroness Serota.)
Schedule 2 [Complaints relating to employment, trade unions and organisations of employers]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in moving this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Stonham, your Lordships may remember that this was the third of three Amendments, Nos. 19, 20 and 29, with which I deal: fully when moving Amendment No. 19. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 25, leave out from ("applies") to ("is") in line 27 and insert ("and which is made to them within two months of the act complained of and also, if the Race Relations Board think that special circumstances warrant its reception, any complaint made to the authority after the expiration of that period, if in either case the complaint").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask whether exactly the same circumstances apply here? The example given in the previous case related to accommodation; here we are dealing with employment. Is it really believed that cases of this sort may arise after two months?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, my Lords. The Government are satisfied, together with the Board, that the same considerations should apply.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL
6.55 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Town and Country Planning Bill, has consented to place Her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Before any Amendments are called, I will, with the leave of the House, make a short statement. First, I want to comment on the fact that there is a large number of Amendments—larger than usual on Third Readings in your Lordships' House. The House will see that by far the greater part of them are pure drafting, while most of the remainder are regroupings of material in the interests of clarity, and only a small number have any points of substance. I will indicate when we come to those. There are two points that I wish, as it were, to "pull out of the bag": first, a point about statutory undertakers and, second, a point about advertisement appeals.
Dealing first with statutory undertakers, the House will recall that the present Clause 70 in this Bill was moved in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, on Report and inserted in the Bill on a Division. The effect of the clause is to make compensation no longer payable to statutory undertakers for certain kinds of planning restrictions. The proposals of the Government which it replaced were rather less drastic, but we have considered the matter in the light of the action taken by your Lordships' House on Report. We have borne in mind the strong views expressed, in this House and elsewhere, about the cumbersomeness of the earlier proposals; about the continuing right of statutory undertakers to compensation in circumstances in which no one else would be entitled to it; and about the effect of having to deal with the kind of case which has focused attention on this issue, for instance,
1276
Abingdon. After this consideration the Government have, on balance, concluded that Clause 70 as amended by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, should stand. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, is not in his place to-night. He is to be congratulated that his clause will need only one small drafting Amendment simply to bring up to date the wording of paragraph (2)(b), because the definition to which it refers has already been altered during the passage of the Bill.
I turn now to the question of advertisement appeals, that is to say, appeals to my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government against refusal by a local planning authority of consent to display an advertisement. As I explained to the House on July 29 during the Report stage of the Bill, the Government had concluded that the control of advertisements was essentially a local matter which ought to be left to the locally elected council. The proposal of the Government made it desirable to ensure that these advertisement decisions, against which there would in future be no appeal to the Minister, should be taken by elected members and not by officers of the local authority.
Clause 63 of the Bill empowers local authorities to delegate certain planning decisions to officers, including advertisement applications. So at that time, when I was moving the Amendment to delete the relevant part of Clause 63 in order to prevent these decisions being delegated to officers, I announced the intention of the Government to lay regulations abolishing advertisement appeals. It was this Amendment which the House rejected at an earlier stage. My right honourable friend has naturally been considering the situation thus created, and I had hoped that it would be possible to make a statement.
In general, I am not sure whether the proposal has been fully understood. For example, do those who have misgivings in connection with amenity recognise that the power that the Minister contemplates relinquishing is one which only enables him to allow an advertisement against the wishes of the local authority and never vice versa? Do they appreciate that the abolition of appeals to the Minister would be accompanied by a strengthening of the provisions about appeals to the courts, making it easier for applicants

1277
to appeal against a local authority refusal to the court, and thus making local authorities more careful about issuing refusals?
Within the last few days my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing has received from the Outdoor Advertising Council proposals for alternative arrangements for appeals. These, briefly, envisage the appointment by the Minister of local panels of barristers and solicitors to whom advertisement appeals could be referred. The cost would be met by local authorities who would recoup it by charging a fee on each application.
The Outdoor Advertising Council also sent to my right honourable friend the results of a public opinion poll. This poll asked questions on public attitudes towards outdoor advertising, both in general and according to types of advertising and area; whether outdoor advertising should require permission from the local authority. It also included (and this is what concerns me to-night) the following question:
"If the local authority refuses to give permission. there is a right of appeal. It has been suggested that this right should be abolished. Do you think it should be abolished or not?"
According to the poll, 75 per cent. believed that the right of appeal should continue.
I should like to point out at this stage, for the sake of getting it on the Record (although this is not the time to discuss it), that this question did not inform those who were expected to answer it of two facts: first, that many people who want to display an advertisement do not have to apply for permission at all. A shopkeeper who wants to advertise what he does and what he sells does not even have to apply for permission, so the question of appeal or abolition of appeal does not touch him. The second fact of which this question left the answerers in ignorance was that at the same time as the Government proposed the abolition of appeal to the Minister they proposed a facilitation and broadening of the grounds of appeal to the courts.
The time to discuss this will be if and when the Government lay proposals before Parliament for abolition of appeals to Ministers. I do not wish to raise any false hopes that the Government will be able to accept proposals for an alternative
1278
method of appeal, but what has been done represents a constructive attempt to provide an alternative to the present arrangements and deserves consideration. The Government must consult with the various interested bodies, not least the representatives of local authorities who would, under the Outdoor Advertising Council's proposals, be largely responsible for operating the scheme. These consultations and the consideration which must follow them will be carried through as quickly as possible. I have myself already, yesterday, met the representatives of the Outdoor Advertising Council for a preliminary discussion. In the meantime my right honourable friend thinks it would not be right to lay regulations which would end advertisement appeals. As soon as the consultations and considerations are completed I will inform the House of the results, and of course any proposals for changing the arrangements now in force will come before your Lordships.
So much, my Lords, for a preliminary statement. We can discuss the matter further when we come to the Amendment down in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, may I clarify one point? The noble Lord says that those who voted in this public opinion poll were not aware that there were a number of advertisements that did not require planning consent. I am a little puzzled by that statement. We are talking of outdoor advertising. Is he referring to advertising by shopkeepers in their own windows or to any class of outdoor advertising for which planning consent is not necessary?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, generally speaking, if you are carrying on any trade or commerce in some premises and you want to advertise on the premises your name, and what is the nature of your trade and the sort of things you sell there, and even the brand names of the things you sell, you do not have to apply for planning consent to display that advertisement.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 17 [Certification of established use.]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 18, line 16, leave out from ("of") to end of line 17 and insert ("procuring a particular decision on an application (whether by himself or another) for an established use certificate or on an appeal arising out of such an application")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to ensure that the offences created by Clause 17(8) apply not only where the object of the fraudulent act is to obtain an established use certificate, but also where the object is to ensure that a certificate is refused. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I would support this Amendment. It seems to me a sensible extension of this particular provision and cannot be objectionable in any way.
Clause 18 [Grant of certificate by Minister on referred application or appeal against refusal]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 19, line 10, at end insert—
("(4) Before determining an application or appeal under this section the Minister shall, if either the applicant or appellant (as the case may be) or the local planning authority so desire, afford to each of them an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment rectifies an unintentional omission in Clause 18, which does not contain an express provision giving the parties to a called-in application for an established use certificate or an appeal against refusal of a certificate a right to have an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a person appointed by the Minister for the purpose. I beg to move.
Clause 19 [Power to stop further development pending proceedings on enforcement notice]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 4, leave out ("is in force") and insert ("has effect").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 20, line 22, at end insert—
("() Where a person (in this subsection called 'the contractor') is under contract to another person (in this subsection called 'the developer') to carry out any operations on land and—

(a) a stop notice takes effect (whether in relation to the developer or the contractor, or both) prohibiting the carrying out or continuance of those operations; and

(b) the operations are countermanded or discontinued by the contractor accordingly,

then, unless and in so far as the contract makes provision explicitly to the contrary of this subsection, the developer shall be under the same liability in contract as if the operations had been countermanded or discontinued on instructions given by him in breach of the contract.
This subsection applies only to contracts entered into on or before 1st November 1969, whether before or after the commencement of this section.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 hang together. They are designed to give protection to contractors who are obliged to discontinue operations on land as a consequence of a stop notice being served. These are essentially transitional provisions. I think they are quite clear. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, there is rather more to this than perhaps the noble Lord has indicated, since this matter was first raised in another place, I think at the Committee stage, and it was at that time that the Minister of State who was in charge of the Bill said that he would look at this point again. I know that negotiations have been going on as to the right way to deal with it, and very recently this Amendment has appeared. As I understand it, those who wish to have the matter dealt with are not wholly satisfied with this. However, one is in the position either that nothing is put in the Bill specifically about the matter and it has to remain to be dealt with simply under the compensation provisions as they now are with the word "directly", or that one accepts the Amendment because there will be no other opportunity.

1281
Probably in the circumstance it would be better to accept the Amendment, but I would do so with reservations, for this reason. There are two ways in which this matter might be dealt with. One is the method the Amendment puts forward, which is that where a contractor has been employed he must seek his compensation first of all from the employer, the building owner, and then the building owner can go to the local planning authority in his turn, thereby involving two transactions; or it could be dealt with by the contractor going straight to the local planning authority. Of course, the situation is going to arise only where the stop notice has been, as it turns out, wrongly served; where it has been rightly served there will be no question of compensation anyway. The result of this method of doing it is to complicate the matter and it will put an extra burden on the building owner who, ex-hvpothesi, has been wrongly frustrated and thwarted by the local authority. Therefore, I do not think it is perhaps the best way of doing it; but of course we have no other chance.
I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell me why he says that it is only transitional? Then, why is the date November 1, 1969, chosen for this purpose? The noble Lord has not explained that, and I do not think he explained what is expected to happen thereafter. I may have seen certain information about this which is not available to the rest of the House, but I think that that matter needs explaining because I understand that it is not going to be simply a transitional problem; it will go on after November 1, 1969, as well, and I think the House ought to know the answer now.
7.10 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the Government conceive it to be transitional because in the long run we hope that this new law on stop notices and compensation in the event of a wrongful stop notice will work through and be expressed in clauses in standard contracts. A lot of work is being done under contracts which are already in vigour, and many contracts are nearing signature in respect of which it is advantageous to legislate in order to ensure that a reasonably just situation exists between now and the time when contracts would nor-
1282
mally contain provisions to cover this point. The reason for November 1, 1969, is that which I have just given: that we want to give people warning that a new statutory provision is in effect, and give them time to adapt contracts and standard forms of contract; and that seems a reasonable period to give.
Clause 20 [Compensation for loss due to stop notice]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 15, at end insert ("o of any liability arising by virtue of section 19(8) of this Act").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 21 [Determination of planning and similar appeals by persons appointed by the Minister]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6. This is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 29, at end insert ("(default powers and appeals in connection with tree preservation orders)").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7 which is also drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 36, leave out ("publicity to be given to any directions made") and insert ("the giving of publicity to any directions given").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 22, line 1, leave out ("section") and insert ("Part of this Act")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 8, 10, 13, 14 and 15 are all drafting and hang together. I beg to move Amendment No. 8. I am conscious of the fact that the noble Lord who occupies the Woolsack has a lot of reading to do on this Bill, and probably during the course of our discussions this evening will actually talk more than I or any other noble Lord. It seems to me that the alternative procedure, which would be for me to move Amendments

1283
en bloc, would in the case of this particular Bill be most taxing on your Lordships' powers of computerisation, and that therefore it is far better not to risk it, because the Amendments do not come together in blocks. I should be jumping about and moving blocks with intermissions in them. So with the patience and consent of your Lordships, I will proceed as I have been doing, moving each Amendment separately. Amendments Nos. 8, 10, 13, 14 and 15 hang together. I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (LORD CHAMPION): My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's consideration.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the only difficulty is that I think there is a point of substance under Amendment No. 11, and the noble Lord, while explaining the procedure, has not explained the substance. This is a paving Amendment to Amendment No. 11.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if the noble Viscount would not mind, I would sooner discuss Amendment No. 11 under Amendment No. 9, to which we are coming next.
7.15 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 22, leave out lines 17 to 21.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 9 is, I believe, a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 11, which is substantial, so let us discuss them now. Amendment No. 11 replaces subsection (7) of Clause 21 with two new subsections. The new subsection (7) is partly concerned to achieve an effect similar to that achieved by the present one, but the provision contained in paragraph (b) is new. This paragraph is aimed at preventing an inspector's jurisdiction to determine an appeal being challenged for the first time after he has given his decision. It will not prevent an inspector's jurisdiction being challenged for genuine reasons while the appeal is in progress. What it will do is to prevent a party to an appeal having the
1284
best of both worlds—that is, keeping his doubts about an inspector's jurisdiction to himself during the appeal, in case the decision should turn out in his favour, and then seeking afterwards to upset it and get a second hearing from the Minister if the decision has gone against him.
That is the Amendment of substance in the group of Amendments Nos. 9, 11, 48, 49, 84 and 85. I beg now to move the paving Amendment, Amendment No. 9. I shall move the others formally when we reach them.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 27, leave out ("section") and insert ("Part of this Act").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 38, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) Where an appeal to which this section applies has been determined by a person appointed under this Part of this Act, his decision shall be treated as that of the Minister and—

(a) except as provided by Part XI of the principal Act, the validity of his decision shall not be questioned in any proceedings whatsoever;

(b) it shall not be a ground of application to the High Court under section 179 of that Act or of appeal to the High Court under section 180 or 181 thereof, that the appeal ought to have been determined by the Minister and not by that person, unless the challenge to the person's power to determine the appeal was made (either by the appellant or the local planning authority) before his decision on the appeal was given.

(8) Where in any enactment (including this Act) there is a reference to the Minister in a context relating or capable of relating to an appeal to which this section applies, or to any thing done or authorised or required to be done by, to or before the Minister on or in connection with any such appeal, then so far as the context permits it shall be construed, in relation to an appeal determined or falling to be determined by a person appointed under this Part of this Act, as a reference to that person.").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 22 [Determination of appeals by the Minister]>:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 23, leave out line 14 and insert—
("section 16 of this Act;
section 18(2) of this Act;
Part I of Schedule 5 to this Act; and")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first Amendment that falls into the class which I shall call "machinery". It is not drafting—it is a little more than drafting; but it affects nobody's rights, and it affects nobody's duties. It affects merely the route by which rights and duties are laid down, and if your Lordships agree I will move this Amendment and other subsequent ones by simply saying "machinery". Accordingly, I beg to move Amendment No. 12, with the assertion that it is an Amendment of machinery.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Nevertheless, my Lords, I have one question on it. There is a reference to Section 18(2) to (4). We have just added a new subsection in the middle of Clause 18, and I wonder whether, when this is reprinted, it will read "Section 18(2) to (5)" or whether it will still read "Section 18(2) to (4)". I do not know whether the noble Lord can tell us about that. It is, in any event, a matter that should be looked at when the Bill is printed because the right decision has got to be made.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I will ensure that all the numberings in the Bill when we have finished with it here take account of anything that may have been added.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 5, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 24 [Local inquiries and hearings]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 24, leave out ("section 21 or 23 above") and insert ("this Part of this Act").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 26 [Supplementary]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 20, leave out ("section 19 or 21 above") and insert ("this Part of this Act").—(Lord Kennet.)
7.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 26 insert the following new clause:
Regulations to provide for appeal against refusal of consent to display of advertisement
".Notwithstanding anything in section 34 of the principal Act any regulations made thereunder whereby the consent of a local planning authority is required for the display of any advertisement shall include provisions granting a right of appeal against the refusal of such consent by the authority."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the Amendment about advertising appeals which the noble Lord foreshadowed, and I was glad to hear what he had to say, because I am sure it is correct that he should now look at the matter afresh. I hope that what seemed to me to be a touch of reluctance to have his ideas changed on this matter is not really true, and that he will find there is a possibility of applying a genuine new look to this matter. So far, then, I very much agree with what he has to say but I think it is worth while moving this Amendment this evening because there may be other noble Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who may have something to say about it and we can have an enclosed debate.
I also have seen the Outdoor Advertising Council's proposals, and they certainly look to me as though they are a basis for discussion. Whether in fact they will come out in the end exactly as they are now, I would not know. It also seems to me that they would save public money (which, I believe, is one of the objects) and also the time of public officials, which at one time was put forward as an argument by the noble

1287
Lord and his right honourable friend in another place for this proposed change. Although it would require a little ingenuity among the provisions of Sections 34 and 44 of the 1962 Act, I think it would be within the powers that already exist under the Statute. The provisions of Section 44, of course, relate to an independent tribunal, which was an idea of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. I do not believe that has ever been implemented, but this may be the opportunity. Equally, if the matter was dealt with by regulation under Section 34, it looks to me as though it would be possible, if the tribunal were called an advisory committee, to deal with the payment of that body under Regulation 34(2)(d), because there is a specific power to make provision by regulation for payment of advisory committees. I do not know whether that is too ingenious, but at any rate it may be possible that something could be done.
I must confess that, although I have not studied this as fully as the noble Lord and perhaps others in this House, I suspect that some appeal system is needed in this matter. The local planning authorities do not all stick to the rules, and they do not all stick to the same rules. At least, if they do it is a strange thing, because it was only in 1960 that the Ministry themselves issued Circular No. 3 of that year which has this passage in paragraph 11(b):
"The Minister has noticed that in some cases which have come to him on appeal the reasons given by the local planning authority for refusing consent appear to be outside the powers which are conferred by the regulations. The regulations provide that these powers are exercisable only in the interests of amenity and public safety and do not provide for consent to be refused because, for example, (i) there is no need for an advertisement, or (ii) the advertisement advertises a particular kind or brand of commodity, or (iii) it is not the Council's policy to permit advertising in a particular way or in a particular area."
Perhaps all those sinners have repented in the last eight and a half years, but I wonder whether there does not lurk in the bosom of some councils a desire to go back to some of those reasons which they have been told by the Minister are wrong reasons for refusing advertisement consents. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said on the Report stage that the Ministry does not necessarily accept
1288
that the local authorities might act like that, but I would require a certain amount of convincing that there would always be a very strict sticking to the rules if that has been the experience in the past.
I do not see how, even if the full reason for the decision is to be given—and that is one of the things that is being suggested—there is going to be very much source of rejoicing in an appeal to the High Court. I have not seen particular arrangements for strengthening this right of appeal and I do not know of what they consist, but I think one thing is quite clear, that is, that it is notoriously difficult to go behind what is called a "speaking order". If the council gives a reason for refusal and says in its reason that the refusal was based on amenity—and amenity is one of the grounds in the regulations for refusing consent—it is singularly difficult to impugn the good faith of the authority in the High Court. Of course, I can very well envisage that it would not necessarily be a matter of bad faith. A local authority might very well say that in a certain area there is a proper amenity consideration that there should be no advertisements at all perhaps in the whole of their area. That may be a perfectly sincerely held view based on pure amenity grounds, and I do not see what one could do about that in the High Court.
Then again it is an historic accident that the right of appeal in this matter is not in the 1962 Act as it now is. It was left to regulation when Lord Silkin's Act was passed. I think it was because the actual method of arranging the appeals had not been finally decided, and it was thought better to leave this to be dealt with subsequently by regulation. But, as I understand it, the Government have suggested that the abolition of rights of appeal here is in line with their general policy of allowing devolution of local matters to be dealt with locally and locally alone, and if this is so then we are dealing with a matter which is rather broader than the pure advertisement appeals alone. It so happens that this is the only matter that the Government can tackle without specific legislation in this particular realm of local government, because it is the only one that can be done by regulation. But the question

1289
of policy goes much wider, and I do not think it should be tested in this way by regulation, for this reason. It is all very well the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, saying that the matter will be brought to this House and, indeed, to another place, but every noble Lord knows perfectly well that once the regulations have been laid no power on earth can get them amended. There is no method of getting them amended in this House, and unless the Government withdraw them and relay them nothing can be done. I do not think this is a matter, involving as I believe it does a wider question than just advertisement appeals, which ought to be dealt with without a Parliamentary debate and the possibility of amendment.
There is another difficulty, if I am correctly informed, which is that there are still in force in various parts of the country local Acts or by-laws, or something of that sort, which used to govern the display of advertisements before Lord Silkin's Act came into force in 1948. I do not know whether any of these contain rights of appeal, but a fascinating situation would arise if they did. Suppose the advertiser applies for and is refused consent under the advertisement regulations, and suppose there is another power, another right to apply a still existing local Act which provides for a right of appeal. I dare say the advertiser could get his appeal heard under the old legislation despite the fact that it would not necessarily get his advertisement up, and we would have an extraordinary and chaotic situation whereby these two separate powers were still running side by side and could be played off, as I think, against each other.
To be perfectly honest, I believe the Government's approach on this, in dealing with it in isolation, is wrong. I do not say this in any way in order to protect the advertisers; I am not saying it from that point of view at all. I am treating this as a matter of principle, and I believe it goes rather further perhaps than this very issue, because in the complicated society in which we live there is an ever growing number of things that you cannot do without getting consent. If the public interest demands that you have to get permission for that and consent for the other thing from one source or another, so be it, but I believe there is a concomitant duty on Parliament and on the Government to see that at least
1290
people are allowed to have an appeal when their consents and their permissions are refused.
The growth of control by quasi-administrative rather than by purely legalistic decisions may be useful and effective, but it is still part of a system of control by law. From the early days of our legal system in this country our law has developed systems of appeal whereby unmeritorious decisions in the first instance can be overturned by appeal tribunals and appeal courts. I strongly suspect that, in their desire to get things which are local dealt with locally, the Government with utilitarian motives, may be making a move directly contrary to the whole direction in which our thinking about quasi-administrative tribunals ought to go. I cannot believe that the reason given, that this is a purely local matter, to be dealt with locally, holds any water at all. Precisely the same thing can be said about an enormous number of the planning appeals which are dealt with under the 1962 legislation; but the Government cannot do anything about rights of appeal there because they would have to alter the law by Statute to do so. Those matters are just as local as advertisements. I do not believe that there is any difference between the two which warrants a different approach. The only difference is that it can be done by regulation, which Parliament cannot amend.
I hope that it will not be necessary to press this Amendment. If it is pressed, it would still allow, by the breadth of its wording, for the sort of appeal tribunal which the Outdoor Advertising Council have suggested, because I have not said what sort of appeal there should be. Nevertheless, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be able to go further than he has already and maybe persuade your Lordships that there is not quite so much need to fear on this matter as was perhaps at one time the case. My Lords, I beg to move.
7.33 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like strongly to support the Amendment. Unless my noble friend the Minister is prepared to go very much further than he has gone, I would strongly urge the noble Lord to press his Amendment to a Division, in which case I will support him in the Lobby. When this matter

1291
came up on Report—and I was unaware that it was coming up—my first reaction was that this was a gross breach of faith, but I gave no reasons for it. I should like to elaborate on this matter and tell the House why I feel that the withdrawal of the right of appeal constitutes a grave breach of faith.
Prior to the 1947 Town and Country Planning Act, outdoor advertising was controlled by the Town and Country Planning Act 1932. Under that Act outdoor advertisers did not need to get planning permission at all. They could put up their advertising as they thought right, but if the local authority disapproved of the advertisement it had the right to call upon them to remove it. The advertisers could then go to the court of summary jurisdiction and get the matter dealt with. The advertisers were under a great advantage because the initiative for the withdrawal of the advertisement had to come from the local authority. They were also at a great advantage in being able to go to the court of summary jurisdiction, because the matter was quite open at that stage and the court was not limited or restricted by any rules: it could decide just as it thought fit.
This position was changed by the 1947 Act, under which outdoor advertisers, as in every other case of development, were required to apply for planning permission. An outdoor advertisement was regarded as development, and the intending advertisers had to apply for permission. In that way they were restricted. They were restricted in another way in that they virtually were not allowed to advertise in rural areas or in other areas which the Ministry decided were areas which ought to be restricted in respect of advertising. These were two valuable concessions which the outdoor advertisers made as a result of lengthy negotiations. I remember those negotiations very well, although they took place some twenty years ago. Fortunately, the Secretary of the Association of that time is still the Secretary to-day, and I have been able to refresh my memory.
The fact is that we had lengthy and strenuous negotiations, and the advertisers gave way on these points—or, rather, they accepted them—in exchange for a definite assurance that in the same way as any other developer, they were
1292
to have the right of appeal. To take that away unilaterally to-day seems to me to be a grave breach of faith, and I am very sorry indeed that my Government, the Government which I support, should be guilty of even contemplating such a thing, let alone actually doing it.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, discussed the reasons as to why this was being done. If one is to take facts at their face value, this whole question arises out of a casual suggestion by a member of the Committee in another place when the Bill was being discussed there. He thought that it would be a good idea if this right were taken away from advertisers, as advertising was merely a matter of local concern and was not important enough to bother about. As I mentioned the last time we discussed this matter, the particular person who raised it happens to be a partner of mine, and I feel pretty sure that had he first talked to me about it he would not have raised the matter. But he did raise it, apparently the Government were most attracted by the suggestion, and all this has followed from it.
But are these matters purely local matters? Are they only of local concern; and what is the significance of saying so? If to affix an outdoor advertisement is a piece of development, it is as much a piece of development as any other kind of development which may be of very minor interest. Whether one has a door leading on to the street, or whether one puts an extra window into a house, these are all matters of local concern; and if one is refused permission one can appeal. Nobody so far has suggested—and I hope that it is never going to be suggested—that in these other matters of local concern the right of appeal should be withdrawn.
The right of appeal is surely inherent to-day in any kind of public decision. We accept that local authorities may go wrong—they may be prejudiced or even ignorant. After all, one knows that a large number of local authorities are involved in this matter. As the noble Viscount said, even the Ministry know that some of them in the past have been rather prejudiced in dealing with outdoor advertising. We know that officers who make recommendations may be prejudiced, and we also know that they may be wrong. We know that generally some 25 per cent. of appeals are successful,

1293
which means that local authorities are wrong in 25 per cent. of cases—and they may be wrong it 25 per cent. of appeals on advertising. In fact, on the figures that have been given there are something like 1,400 advertisers who have been successful on appeal and who, but for the right of appeal, would not have been allowed to carry out their undertaking. Surely this is something more than a local matter. It would be a grave injustice if these people, who have actually been successful on appeal, were not to be allowed in future to appeal at all.
I have frequently contended that the citizen has a right to do what he likes with his own property so long as he does not act contrary to the interests of the community. In my view, this is a most important right, and interference by the local authority can be justified only if it is a matter of the interests of the community as a whole. We have instituted an admirable system for enabling administrative mistakes of local authorities to be put right, and, generally, we are extending this right. We do everything we can to give people a right of appeal against possible errors by the local authority. Why, then, are we withdrawing it in this particular case? I must say that I find it extremely puzzling. If it is a matter of expense, then I think the expense is trifling. In any case, are we justified on the ground of expense in taking away people's rights and acting contrary to what I regard as natural justice?
It seems to me unthinkable that the Government can seriously proceed with this matter, and I hope the Minister will be able to give us some more satisfactory assurance than he has done so far about these matters. The assurance we want is that there will definitely be a right of appeal. On the question whether it should be in one form or another, as the matter has gone as far as it has I should be willing to have a discussion about it; but to satisfy me, at any rate, the Minister must stand up and say that there will be an unconditional right of appeal. We can discuss the method of appeal, but there should be one. Only that will satisfy me and prevent me from voting against the Government if there is a Division.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, very briefly, I should like to support this Amendment on the ground that the right
1294
of appeal is what secures uniformity of practice throughout the country, which I regard as desirable. If you are a large company selling petrol, tea or ice cream all over the country and you are making your advertising decisions, you surely ought to feel entitled to say to yourself that an advertisement which is satisfactory in Sussex will be satisfactory in a similar situation in Yorkshire. It would be intolerable if you had to say to yourself, when considering your advertising programme, "This will do for Lancashire and Northumberland, but it will not do for Cardigan and it will not do for Dorset. We must have some thing quite different for those counties."
I should have thought that a Government, which allowed obstacles of that sort to stand in the way of large companies in regard to their advertising could not afterwards go to them and say, "You must keep your costs down. You must not raise your prices for the goods that you sell. "It seems to me that this right of appeal is what secures the uniformity of practice throughout the country which commercial people are entitled to feel they can have. For that reason I warmly support this Amendment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I, in twenty words, warmly support this Amendment? As I see it, if this right of appeal is taken away from advertisers it wil1 be a dangerous precedent. Where is it going to stop? It may well be that other categories of people will have their right of appeal taken away from them. If the reply of the Minister is not satisfactory I sincerely hope that my noble friend will press the Amendment to a Division. This his is a very serious matter and I sincerely hope he will do that.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, if the noble Viscount presses this Amendment to a Division, I will support him on the principle of the matter, which was so clearly set out by the noble Lord, Lard Airedale. The principle is what seems to me to matter. I hesitate to criticise the advocacy of the noble Viscount, and even of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who seemed to assume that all the appeals meant the upsetting of decisions of local authorities, but I imagine that that is not the case at all. Appeals cut both ways.

1295
It is a matter of the right of the individual to feel that he is entitled to appeal, and for that reason I support the Amendment.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, in answering this interesting discussion, I want to speak with some caution because, as I have already informed the House, we are going into a period of consultations about this matter and I do not want to say anything which is going to prejudice the chances of success coming out of those consultations. So I am sure your Lordships will understand if I leave unanswered a good many of the points which I should have liked to answer, because I feel that I could not answer them without running the risk of jeopardising the consultations and negotiations which I must now have. Some points, however, I shall take up.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, welcomed the proposals of the Outdoor Advertising Council as a basis for discussion. I share his welcome. I, too, welcome them as a basis for discussion. Discussion has already begun—I met them yesterday—and this will continue. The noble Viscount also mentioned the three things in the 1960 circular which the then Minister found that councils had been doing and which they should not have been doing. These were, in essence, all grounds for refusal which were incompatible with the only two permissible grounds of refusal; namely, amenity and public safety.
I beg the House to remember that this is not a proposal to abolish appeals against refusals of permission to exhibit advertisements. This proposal, which I am not pressing on the House, is a proposal to abolish the appeal to the Minister, while at the same time strengthening the grounds of appeal to the courts. It would not be right to take away the appeal to the Minister without at the same time facilitating access to the courts. The decisions affected by the three things which the noble Viscount Lord Colville of Culross, rightly reminded the House the Minister had warned local authorities against in 1960 were decisions taken because those local authorities did not like something about an advertisement, and had nothing to do with amenity or public safety. If a local authority takes a decision on those other
1296
grounds, then the applicant has a right to appeal in the court against the decision.
He has that right now, but the Government freely admit that it has been a bit difficult to exercise it, because if all a local authority has to say is, "It is against amenity", or, "It is against public safety", and, in point of fact, it has taken the decision for quite a different reason, you cannot win against the authority. If, on the other hand, you insist, as the Government propose you should insist, that the local authority should say, "The advertisement is against amenity in that blank-blank-blank", or, "It is against public safety in that blank-blank-blank", and should go on and say why it is against amenity—such as that something was in the wrong place and spoiled the view, or ruined the look of the High street, or was against public safety because it stuck out into the street or took the eyes of the driver off the road—you would ensure that some detail, some reason for a decision, was given. This will then give the applicant a chance to go along to the courts and say, "This is perfectly ridiculous. This is not a reason for holding that the advertisement is against public safety or against amenity".
LORD SILKIN: But we are in some difficulty about this. Of course, if it is the intention that the courts should have exactly the same jurisdiction as the Minister has, and should be able to decide, on the basis of evidence presented to them, that the reasons given by the local authority are not satisfactory, then we are merely changing the tribunal, and I do not suppose anybody would seriously object to that. But is my noble friend in a position to go as far as that?
LORD KENNET: The courts would have power to quash the decision; to say that the local authority decision—in this case the refusal—was wrongly taken; and that would be that.
LORD SILKIN: But that means only that they have gone beyond their jurisdiction, and that, of course, the courts already have the right to say. One can always go to the court and say that the local authority has gone outside its jurisdiction. But the real point is would an appeal be available if a local authority decides within its jurisdiction but

1297
where the applicant feels that the decision is a wrong decision?
LORD KENNET: I do not think I can improve on what I have just said. The Government's proposal was to provide that local authorities should justify their decision; that they should not simply say, "Against amenity; full stop; turned down," but, "Against amenity in that blank-blank-blank", and put some reasons on it. The point of this, of course, is that it opens a flank by way of appeal to the courts, and the knowledge in a local authority's mind that it has got to do this will perhaps make it think a bit more before refusing permission than it already has to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question on this, becaus I should be glad to have his views on it? It is all very well to say that you will ask the local authority to say, "It is against amenity because …" The authority may say, "It is against amenity because, for amenity reasons, we do not wish to have an advertisement at this place in the High Street"; and that may on the face of it be a perfectly reasonable thing to do. But the difficulty is that they may have already done it 15 times on every other advertisement application up and down the High Street; and they have every intention of doing it again with every other advertisement application that comes in for that same street, simply because they have taken a policy decision that they will have no advertisements there. You cannot take any of those to the court. You cannot compare one with the other. You cannot say, "The local authority has been doing this systematically". You take each one on its own merits, as I understand it. In each case the decision is made on amenity grounds, and there is no possible method that I can see for getting that quashed.
LORD AIREDALE: Whereas, if you went to the Minister the Minister would say, "Ah, I remember this. This has been coming before me a number of times recently".
LORD KENNET: My Lords, there are great difficulties in the way of the House considering how the courts are likely to interpret provisions which have been drafted, but there are almost insuperable
1298
difficulties in the way of the House seeking to guess how the courts would interpret provisions which have not even been drafted yet. If at the end of the consultations the Government propose to go forward with these proposals, then they will be brought before your Lordships, and that will be the time to discuss them. I shall be coming to that point in a moment. I think that perhaps we are getting a little far ahead of ourselves in the present discussion.
Another point I want to take up is that very one. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said, "Ah, but of course the House cannot amend regulations"—and this of course is true. It can throw them out, however, and I would say that any Government which drafted regulations without bearing in mind that Parliament was not able to amend them and had a simple "Yes" or "No" choice would not be proceeding very sensibly. The regulations, if they offend your Lordships, and if they are laid, will no doubt be thrown out by your Lordships. They are not at present before your Lordships. Let us wait until the time when they may or may not arise. I cannot say at the moment whether they will or not.
My noble friend Lord Silkin made many interesting points in his speech, most of which I will not take for the reason I gave: for fear of fouling up the discussion. I am sure he will understand my reason for saying that. He said that there is a right of appeal inherent in any kind of public decision. My Lords, I wish there were. I think your Lordships should bear in mind the fact that a person who lives opposite a site on which an advertiser wants to display a poster, and gets permission from the local authority to do so, has no right of appeal. There is nothing he can do. He cannot go to the Minister and appeal against a poster which may be ruining his view and, if he is a sensitive person, ruining his life. He cannot go to the court about it. There is nothing he can do. This is not the time to pursue that line of thought, but it is not true in all circumstances that there is a right of appeal inherent in any public decision.
Just as a gloss on the figures given by my noble friend Lord Silkin, may I point out that he said that local authorities were wrong in 25 per cent. of the cases, when the appeal was allowed by the

1299
Minister. No, my Lords, it is in rather less than 1 per cent. of the cases. More than 99 per cent. of the applications are either allowed by the local authority, and that is that; or they are refused by the local authority, the applicant accepts the decision and that is that; or—
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN: But, my Lords—
LORD KENNET: May I just finish running through my statistics, if my noble friend would allow me? Or they are appealed against to the Minister and again refused by the Minister. That accounts for 99-plus per cent. of the cases. The less than 1 per cent. in the last year were those cases which were refused by the local authority, appealed against and allowed on appeal by the Minister. It is this less than 1 per cent. of which the Government proposal would deprive the advertising industry.
LORD SILK1N: My Lords, the noble Lord is really confusing the issue. The real point is: of those cases that go to appeal, how many are allowed? And the fact is that about 25 per cent. of the cases that go to appeal, amounting roughly to about 1,500 cases a year, are successful. That means that the local authority has been wrong in 1,500 cases a year. Now is that not a justification for the right of appeal?
LORD KENNET: I would have to check the figures, but I just took the noble Lord up on his words. He said that the local authorities were wrong in 25 per cent. of cases. He could have said that they were wrong in 25 per cent. of those cases against which there had been an appeal.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN: Yes.
LORD KENNET: Not in 25 per cent. of all the applications during the course of the year.
To my mind the most important thing about the present situation and where we stand on this subject in this House tonight is this matter about which I have already told the House. The Government proposed to abolish the right to appeal to the Minister while yet strengthening the right to appeal to the court. That was the proposal which told your Lordships the Government
1300
would be laying before Parliament. Since then, the Outdoor Advertising Council has made a counter-proposal which, in the Government's opinion, is constructively intended. It clearly is constructively intended. It is well thought out. It is a compromise. Whether it will be acceptable in the long run I cannot say. We must examine it. It does not rest solely on the willingness of the advertising industry to operate it, or on the willingness of the Government to operate it; it rests also on the willingness of the local authorities to operate it. We have not yet talked to the local authorities about it. We must do so. I submit to the House that it would be wrong to tie the hands of the Government in this matter during the negotiations we are about to enter into with the local authority associations and other interests—and there are other interests concerned—by passing this Amendment.
I turn back for one moment to an earlier stage of the argument about the figures of my noble friend Lord Silkin. I think he has confused the appeals allowed with the appeals received in the Ministry. The 1,500 is the number of appeals that come to the Minister in the year.
LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN: No.
LORD KENNET: And about a quarter of those—in fact, rather less; 23 per cent. of them—are allowed. That is about 400 a year. So, although the number of appeals allowed is nearly 25 per cent. of appeals received, yet it is not 1,500 cases a year in which the local authorities, in the opinion of the Minister, were wrong. It is about 400.
To conclude, I hope that the noble Viscount will agree, in view of the fact that no amending regulations are going to be laid before your Lordships in the immediate future, until after a period of consultation and discussion, and in view of the obvious undesirability of tying the Government's hands about what they are to do at the outcome of this period, that he will not find it necessary to press his Amendment to a Division.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am grateful to those who have taken part in this debate. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, will now realise that in fact he is perfectly correct

1301
in supposing that the appeals are not all successful. The only one I ever did, I lost, I well remember. At any rate, I think the situation is clarified. The decision your Lordships have to take—I cannot withdraw this Amendment without your Lordships' leave—is this. To what extent, if at all, do we wish to tie the hands of the Government?
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, very rightly said that in these negotiations with the Outdoor Advertising Council he does not want to be tied. The Amendment would not tie him in any way, because as long as the Government are prepared to accept that there shall be a right of appeal by Statute, as applies in all other town planning matters of this sort, he can negotiate to his heart's content with the Q.A.C. to decide what sort of appeal is best. We must decide, therefore, whether this House ought to make a decision of principle this evening or not. If the noble Lord does not wish to have his hands tied so that he can revert to regulations abolishing the right of appeal, this Amendment will not do. If the House wishes to leave that matter open, then I must withdraw this Amendment. But, without in any way suggesting what might occur if regulations having this effect were to be introduced at some subsequent date, I hope that the noble Lord will realise from the speeches made this evening that he is likely to have a fairly rough ride if he does not take substantial account of what has been said.
I think my inclination is to ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw this Amendment, because I believe that the noble Lord, when he reads what has been said, will find that perhaps there is a certain amount of force in what we have been talking about and that this is an anomaly of which the Government ought not to take advantage. But, of course, if other noble Lords do not wish to have this Amendment withdrawn by leave then I will have no objection to having it tested by the House as a matter of principle. I would ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [New descriptions of land qualifying for protection]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendment No. 17 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 19, leave out third ("the")—(Lord Kennet.)
8.4 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 29, line 33, leave out paragraghs (a) to (c).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is the first of a series. The first of the series is Amendment No. 18, the present one, followed by Amendments 21, 30, 87, 88 and 91. The purpose of the series is to clarify the presentation of the blight provisions in the Bill. The object is to state more directly the changes made in the Bill, and to gather into an expanded Schedule 4 the verbal amendments of provisions of the Act of 1962 which flow from the changes already made by this Bill. The Amendments to be moved make no change in the substance of the blight provisions as the House left them at the previous stage: they are concerned solely to rearrange, redraft or make consequential references. I shall move the subsequent five Amendments formally when I come to them. I now beg to move Amendment No. 18.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords., the blight provisions, either as originally enacted or as amended by this Bill, must be a draftsman's nightmare. Although I appreciate that a great deal of hard work has been put in to clarify this matter, it is not going to be easy to see what the law is when this part of the Bill is brought into effect; and I shall be asking about this in general. I hope it will not be too long before a great deal more clarification takes place and before we have some consolidating legislation to do it properly.
Clause 34 [Power of mortgagee to serve blight notice]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendment No. 19 is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 15, after ("Act") insert ("or, as the case may be, section 33(3) of this Act").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendment No. 20 is consequential upon a change made in the Bill at an earlier stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 39, after ("section") insert ("and in a case to which section 35(1) below applies, the ground specified in that subsection").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 21 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 11, leave out subsection (9).—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 35 [Extension of grounds of objection to blight notice]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this is an Amendment of substance. I regret that it is one of infinite complexity. I am sure that the noble Viscount understands it. In the hope of saving the time of the House I should like to ask him straight across the Table whether he wishes to have it explained to the House or not.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 18, leave out from ("within") to end of line 21 and insert—
("section 138(1)(c) of the principal Act or section 33(1)(a) of this Act; and
(b)not falling within section 138(1)(e) or (f) of that Act or section 33(1)(d) of this Act ").—(Lord Kennet.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord was going to ask me to explain it. No, I think this is a technical matter which will work out all right.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 4, leave out ("and") and insert ("or").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendment No. 24 is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 22, leave out from ("area") to end of line 28 and insert—
1304
("references in those provisions to the affected area being construed as references to the hereditament").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendment No. 25 is a drafting Amendment in the interests of style. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 43, leave out ("the Tribunal is") and insert ("they are").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 37 [Miscellaneous amendments of Part VIII of principal Act]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment; but it is the first of a series which hang together. The series starts with Amendment No. 26, is followed by Nos. 27, 28 and 29 and then jumps to Amendment No. 92. With your Lordships' leave I propose now to abandon my previous procedure and, for the sake of the Chairman's voice, to move Amendments Nos. 26, 27, 28 and 29, all of which are to Clause 37, together.
Amendments moved—
Page 34, line 33, at end insert—
("(3) For a person to be treated under section 149(1) or (3) of the principal Act (definitions for purposes of blight notice provisions) as owner-occupier or resident owner-occupier of a hereditament, his occupation thereof at a relevant time or during a relevant period, if not occupation of the whole of the hereditament, must be or, as the case may be, have been occupation of a substantial part of it.
(4) In subsections (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) of the said section 149, the period of six months ending not more than six months before the date of service shall in each case be replaced by a period of six months ending not more than twelve months before that date.")
Page 34, line 36, after second ("Act") insert—
("(a)")
Page 34, line 40, at end insert—
("and
(b) subsections (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) of section 149 of that Act shall apply with the substitution for the reference to twelve months before the date of service of a reference to that period extended by so long as it takes to obtain a determination of the question.")
Page 34, line 41, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 30 formally.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 37, insert the following new clause:
Consequential amendment and modification of sections 138 to 149 of principal Act
(". The provisions of the principal Act specified in Part I of Schedule 4 to this Act (being provisions about blight notices and proceedings in connection therewith) shall be amended as shown in that Schedule.—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 44 [Penalties for non-compliance with notice under section 43]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendment No. 31 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 42, line 18, leave out from second ("notice") to end of line 20 and insert ("as that within which the steps specified in the notice are required thereby to be taken, or such extended period as the local planning authority may allow for taking them").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 46 [Enforcement by, or by direction of the Minister]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 32, 33 and 34 are all drafting Amendments. With the leave of the House I beg to move them en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 43, line 2, after ("authority") insert ("(and, in Greater London, also with the Greater London Council.")
Page 43, line 9, leave out ("41") and insert ("44(5)")
Page 43, line 26, after ("of") insert ("subsections (3) and (4) of").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 61 [References to a Planning Inquiry Commission]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendment No. 35 has the effect that development to be carried out on behalf of a Government Department may be referred to a planning inquiry commission as well as development to be carried out directly by the Government Department itself. The obvious example, of course, is a regional hospital board. There are two consequential Amendments, Nos. 40 and 103. I beg to move Amendment No. 35.
Amendment moved—
Page 52, line 29, after ("by") insert ("or on behalf of").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 38 are drafting. I beg to move them en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 52, line 38, leave out ("evaluating") and insert ("evaluation")
Page 53, line 15, after ("him") insert ("or them")
Page 53, line 23, leave out ("shall").—Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this is a little more than a drafting Amendment. It is a matter of machinery, but it is extremely complex and changes no important matter of substance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 6, after ("appeals)") insert ("and sections 21(6) and 22(4) of this Act").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 62 [Procedure on a reference to a Planning Inquiry Commission]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 40:
Amendment moved—
Page 54, line 13, after ("by") insert ("or on behalf of").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 63 [Delegation of planting functions to officers of local authorities]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 41 to 47 inclusive are drafting Amendments. I beg to move them en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Clause 63, page 56, line 31, leave out ("in respect of it, as the case may be").
Clause 63, page 57, line 3, leave out ("had been") and insert ("was").
Clause 64, page 58, line 8, leave out ("or").
Clause 64, page 58, line 11, at end insert ("or").
Clause 65, page 59, line 24, leave out ("any conditions under subsection 3") and insert ("the conditions required by subsection (41").
Clause 66, page 60, line 6, leave out ("the proviso to section 65(3)") and insert ("section 65(6)").
Clause 66, page 60, line 9, at end insert—
("(a) in the case of planning permission granted by an order under section 28 of the principal Act (requirement of discontinuance of use of land or alteration or removal of buildings or works) is the local planning authority making the order or, where the Minister in confirming the order exercises his powers under section 28(5) of that Act, the Minister;").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 48 and 49, to Clause 66, hang together with Amendment No. 9 to which the House has already agreed. I beg to move Amendment 48.
Amendment moved—
Clause 66, page 60, line 13, leave out from ("granted") to end of line 17.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET: My Lords I beg to move Amendment No. 49:
Amendment moved—
Clause 66, page 60, line 23, leave out from ("Minister") to end of line 26 and insert ("grants the approval, on the date of the determination of the appeal").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 67 [Termination of planning permission by reference to time limit]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am taking a hint from the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, about his willingness for me to put my foot on the accelerator. I beg to move Amendment No. 50.
Amendment moved—
Page 62, line 10, leave out ("for the purposes of") and insert ("whether the original period specified under subsection (2) above or a longer period substituted by the Minister under").—(Lord Kennel.)
Clause 68 [New provisions as to what is "operational land" of statutory undertakers]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 51:
Amendment moved—
Page 63, line 11, after ("a") insert ("special").—(Lord Kennet.)
Clause 70 [Restriction on entitlement of statutory undertakers to compensation for adverse planning decisions]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 65, leave out line 1 and insert—
("(b) it is not development which has received specific parliamentary approval").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment although it is one of some note since it is the only minor change which the Government consider it necessary to make to the new clause about statutory undertakers introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, at an earlier stage. I said a few words about this important matter of substance at the beginning of the debate. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I simply want to slow down the machine for one moment in order to say, "Thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and to the Government for, in effect, accepting my noble friend's new clause. I think it extraordinarily clever of him to have drafted it with only this minor change required. Much more important, of course, is the fact that the substance of the matter has now been changed and that the provisions in the Bill are agreed between both sides of the House. This, I think, is a most satisfactory situation to have achieved. On behalf of my noble friend Lord Ilford and, I think, all on the Opposition Benches, I should like to thank the Government.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I should like to take advantage of the momentary pause imposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, upon our headlong rush to thank him on behalf of the Government for his kind words. I agree with what he says about the drafting feat performed by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford. This whole matter of compensation to statutory undertakers has, in my view, been a remarkable example of the dialogue between Government and Parliament in the many stages in the passage of a complicated Bill of this nature.
Clause 71 [Modifications of s. 164 of principal Act]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 53 to 57 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 65, line 11, leave out ("under the section")
Clause 74, page 67, line 27, leave out ("to") and insert ("of")
Clause 80, page 71, line 34, leave out from ("order") to ("be") in line 36 and insert ("instead of requiring the confirmation of the Minister in accordance with section 29(4) of the principal Act, may")
Clause 82, page 72, line 30, after ("development") insert ("or precluding it from containing any office floor space")
Clause 88, page 78, line 10, after ("section") insert ("153").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 78, line 16, leave out ("path or way") and insert ("highway")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennet I beg to move Amendment No. 58 to Clause 88 and speak to Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 to Clause 93. This Amendment is little more than drafting. Clause 88(3) already recognises that it will sometimes be necessary or expedient to create an alternative highway over which there are rights of way with vehicles as replacement to a footpath or bridleway which is being stopped or diverted. As it stands, the clause would not permit the alternative highway to be provided by the improvement of an existing vehicular highway, although it does permit the improvement of a path or way. The Amendment will remedy this. Regarding Amendments Nos. 74 and 75, Clause 93 provides powers for local authorities similar to those in Section 153 of the principal Act which are transferred to the Minister, that is to say, powers to stop up or divert footpaths or bridleways. Clause 93(3)(a) enables an order to provide for the creation of an alternative footpath or bridleway as a replacement for one stopped up or diverted.
The purpose of these Amendments is to enable the order to provide for replacement, either by the creation of a new highway or the improvement of an existing highway, a term which goes
1310
wider than merely footpaths or bridleways. This brings the provision into line with that in Clause 88(3) as proposed by a previous Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 78, line 24, at end insert—
("() In section 32 of the Mineral Workings Act 1951 (power of Minister of Transport to make temporary stopping-up or diversion order in connection with surface working of minerals),—

(a) in subsection (1), after the words 'Minister of Transport' there shall be inserted the words 'or the Minister of Housing and Local Government'; and

(b) in subsection (2), after the words 'Minister of Transport' there shall to inserted the words 'or the Minister of Housing and Local Government, as the case may be'")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill has already extended powers to make orders for stopping up or diverting footpaths or bridleways to the Minister of Housing and Local Government. This Amendment similarly extends the powers to the Minister of Housing and Local Government in relation to orders for temporary closure or diversion to permit mineral workings. I beg to move.
Clause 89 [Procedure for making orders for stopping-up and diverting highways]:
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 61, 62, 63 and Amendment No. 64 to Clause 90 are drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 78, line 35, leave out ("had")
Page 80, line 4, after ("bridleway") insert ("only")
Page 80, line 6, leave out from beginning to ("the") in line 7 and insert—
("(b) otherwise")
Clause 90, page 80, line 10, leave out ("given") and insert ("granted").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 65:
Page 80, line 26, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(5)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment to Clause 90 makes the

1311
necessary additional application of Section 153(5) which specifies that the powers conferred are to have effect without prejudice to any power conferred by any enactment on the Minister of Transport to authorise the stopping up or diversion of a road; the provision of Section 3 of the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act 1946, "Power to extinguish certain public rights of way over land acquired" and the provisions of Section 155 of the principal Act, "Extinguishment of the public rights of way over land held for planning purposes." I beg to move.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 66, 67 and 68 are drafting, basically for clarification. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 80, line 31, after ("order") insert ("made by the Minister of Transport").
Page 80, line 32, leave out ("the Minister of Transport") and insert ("that Minister").
Page 80, line 34, after ("Minister") insert ("(as defined by subsection (2) above)").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to secure consistency of provisions relating to the extinguishment of rights of statutory undertakers in respect of their pipes and cables and other apparatus when roads are closed and diverted. I beg to move
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 34, at end insert—
("(4) In section 32(3) of the Mineral Workings Act 1951 (rights of statutory undertakers in respect of their apparatus where order made under section 153 of principal Act), after the reference to the said section 153 there shall be inserted an alternative reference to this section.").—(Lord Shepherd.)
Clause 91 [Conversion of highway into footpath or bridleway]:
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I beg to move Amendment No. 70.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 7, after ("the") insert ("responsible").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I beg to move Amendment No. 71.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 24. leave out ("being made") and insert ("coming into force").—(Lord Shepherd.)
Clause 92 [Provision of amenity for highway reserved to pedestrians]:
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I beg to move Amendment No. 72.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 43, leave out ("in, under or over") and insert ("under, in, on, over, along or across").—(Lord Shepherd.)
Clause 93 [Powers for local authorities analogous to s. 153 of principal Act]:
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is drafting. I beg to move Amendment No. 73.
Amendment moved—
Page 83, line 16, leave out ("for the purposes of this section").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I spoke previously to Amendments Nos. 74 and 75 when I spoke to Amendment No. 58. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 74 and 75.
Amendments moved—
Page 83, line 33, leave out ("footpath or bridleway") and insert ("highway").
Page 83, line 36, leave out ("path or way") and insert ("highway").—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 83, line 40, at end insert—
("() for the preservation of any rights of statutory undertakers in respect of apparatus of theirs which immediately before the date of the order is under, in, on, over, along or across any such footpath or bridleway.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment adds a further matter for which an order made by a competent authority—in this case an authority granting planning permission for development occasioning the footpath or bridlepath order—may provide. It is made to secure consistency and adequacy

1313
in the machinery dealing with the rights of undertakers. I beg to move.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 84, line 4, at end insert—
("(5) Section 32(1) and (2) of the Mineral Workings Act 1951 (power of Ministers to make temporary order for stopping-up or diversion of highway in connection with working of surface minerals) shall apply to an order made by a competent authority under this section as it applies to an order made by a Minister under section 153 of the principal Act, with the substitution—

(a) for references to Ministers of references to a competent authority for the purposes of this section; and

(b) for the reference in subsection (2) to section 153(3) of the principal Act, of a reference to subsection (3) of this section.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment applies to the case of a footpath or bridleway order made by a competent authority—the local planning authority or a delegate planning authority—the extended powers already conferred by the Mineral Workings Act 1951 in relation to similar orders when made by a Minister. These powers under the Mineral Workings Act enable a highway to be stopped up or diverted temporarily in connection with the surface working of minerals. They permit the imposition of requirements as to maintenance of alternative highways for the period of closure or diversion and also as to the reinstatement of the original highway at the end of that period. It is only right and consistent that these powers relating to temporary diversion and stopping up should be available in the new circumstance created by the Bill—where the footpath closure or diversion order is originated by a competent authority under the section, and not the Minister. I beg to move.
Clause 96 [Miscellaneous amendments of Part IX of principal Act]:
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am advised that this Amendment is drafting—a matter of style. I beg to move Amendment No. 78.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 42, leave out ("which statutory undertakers have") and insert ("of statutory undertakers").—(Lord Shepherd.)
Clause 99 [Miscellaneous amendments of principal Act]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 85, line 26, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords this Amendment removes an otiose subsection, and Amendment No. 141 is consequential to it. I beg to move Amendment No. 79.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I have not understood this and I wonder whether the noble Lord could explain it a little more. What is being done in the Bill as it stands is that Clause 99(1) repeals Section 187 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1962, and that is what happens in Schedule 11 as well, but now apparently they are both to stay in force. I am afraid that I have missed the point and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would tell me exactly what is going on.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I missed the point, too, but in fact this section has already been repealed earlier this year by the National Loans Act.
Schedule 1 [Special provisions as to development plans in Greater London]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 90, line 21, after ("5") insert (",6")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the general principle in the Bill is that proposals for the alteration of a structure plan or a local plan shall go through the same procedure as the original plan. This Amendment ensures that proposals for alteration of the structure plan for a London Borough shall follow the same procedure as the original plan, coming to the Minister through the G.L.C. I beg to move.
Schedule 2 [Provisions as to established use certificates]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 81, 82 and 83 and later Nos. 93, 94 and 95 are addressed to machinery and change the substance of nothing. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 81, 82 and 83.
Amendments moved—
Page 91, line 41, after ("certificate") insert ("in such form as may be prescribed by the order and")
Page 91, line 46, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) include requirements corresponding to section 16(2) and (3) (contents of certificate), section 16(4) (planning authority not to determine application for a certain period) and section 17(3) (duty of planning authority and Minister on appeal to take into account representations by owners, tenants, etc.) of the principal Act;")
Page 92, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (3).—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 are consequential on Amendment No. 9. I beg to move them together.
Amendments moved—
Page 92, line 29, leave out from ("Minister") to ("shall") in line 31 and insert ("grants an established use certificate, he")
Page 92, line 39, leave out from ("Minister") to end of line 40.—(Lord Kennet.)
Schedule 3 [General vesting declarations for land compulsorily acquired]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 86, which is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 1, leave out paragraph 9 and insert:
("9.—(1) Subject to the following sub-paragraph, the supplementary provisions contained in Schedule 3 to the Land Commission Act 1967 (being provisions as to exclusion of power of entry, objections to severance, compensation and other miscellaneous matters arising on the making of a general vesting declaration under Part II of that Act) shall have effect for the purposes of paragraphs 6 to 8 above as they have effect for the purposes of section 10 of that Act.
(2) For the purpose of applying the said Schedule 3 to paragraphs 6 and 8 above, the
1316
following substitution of references shall be made therein—

Original reference in Land Commission Act 1967, Schedule 3

Substituted references for purposes of this Schedule

The Land Commission

An acquiring authority

The Land Commission Act 1967

This Act

The Land Commission Act 1967

Section 9(3)

Paragraph 4 of this Schedule

Section 10

Paragraphs 6 to 8 of this Schedule

Section 10(2)

Paragraph 7 of this Schedule

(3) In the said Schedule 3 as so applied, 'land' shall have the same meaning as in this Schedule.")
Schedule 4 [Consequential amendments of planning blight provisions of 1962 Act]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 87 and 88 are consequential on a series of Amendments which I explained on Amendment No. 18. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 87 and 88.
Amendments moved
Page 96, leave out lines 37 to 42 and insert—
("In subsection (1)—

(a) after the word 'Act', where occurring for the first time, there shall be inserted the words 'and of sections 33 to 37 of the Act of 1968';

(b) paragraphs (a) and (b) shall be omitted; and

(c) in paragraph (c), for the words in parenthesis there shall be substituted the words '(otherwise than by being dealt with in a manner mentioned in section 33(1)(a) or (b) of the Act of 1968)';

For subsection (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections:—
(5) In this section and in the said sections 139 to 151 'these provisions' means the provisions of this section, those sections and sections 33 to 37 of the Act of 1968; and 'the specified descriptions' means the descriptions contained in paragraphs (c) to (f) of subsection (1) of this section and paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 33(1) of that Act.")
Page 96, line 46, at end insert—
("In subsection (3)—

(a) in paragraph (a) the word 'designated' shall be omitted, in both places; and for the words any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of the last preceding section' there shall be substituted the words paragraph (c) of section 138(1) above or paragraph (a) or (b) of section 33(1) of the Act of 1968'; and

1317

(b) in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) for the words 'that subsection' there shall be substituted, in each place, the words 'section 138(1) above'.")—(Lord Kennet.)

LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 are drafting. I beg to move them together.
Amendments moved—
Page 97, line 2, leave out from ("(1)") to end of line 10 and insert—
("for the words 'Where a notice has been served under the last preceding section' there shall be substituted the words 'Where a blight notice has been served'.
For subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following subsection—
'(3) Any counter-notice served under this section in respect of a blight notice shall specify the grounds (being one or more of the grounds specified in subsection (2) above or, as relevant, sections 34(8) or 35(1) of the Act of 1968) on which the appropriate authority object to the notice'.")
Page 97, line 22, at end insert—
("In subsection (3), for the words from the beginning to 'that notice' there shall be substituted the words 'Where the appropriate authority have served a counter-notice objecting to a blight notice'.").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 to Schedule 4, and 93 to 95 to Schedule 5, are all consequential. I beg to move them together.
Amendments moved—
Page 97, line 26, at end insert—
("Section 145
Subsections (3) and (6) shall be omitted.")
Page 97, line 30, at end insert—
("Section 149
In subsections (1)(a), (1)(b), (3)(a) and (3)(b), for the words 'the whole or part' (wherever occurring) there shall be substituted the words 'the whole or a substantial part'.
In subsections (1)(b), (2)(b) and (3)(b) for the words 'six months before the date of service' there shall be substituted the words 'twelve months before the date of service'.
Section 150
Subsection (5) shall be omitted.")
Schedule 5, page 98, line 4, after ("certificate") insert ("in the prescribed form and")
Schedule 5, page 98, line 10, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) include requirements corresponding to section 16(2) (contents of certificate), section 16(4) (planning authority not to determine application for a certain period) and section 17(3) (duty of planning authority and Minister on appeal to take into account
1318
representations by owners, tenants, etc.) of the principal Act;")
Schedule 5, page 98, line 26, leave out subparagraph (3).—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 100, line 21, at end insert—
("or—

(a) in the case of a building to which section 39(10) of this Act applies, that the Minister should give a direction under that section with respect to the building; or

(b) in the case of a building subject to a building preservation notice under section 47 of this Act, that the building should not be included in a list compiled or approved under the said section 32").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, No. 96, to Schedule 5, is a matter of machinery. It provides that a ground of appeal which is already applicable in the most likely case should be also applicable in the least likely. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think that in paragraph (a) "section" should be "subsection" but this may be beyond power of recovery at this stage.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendment No. 98 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 105, line 38, leave out ("of the owner").—(Load Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendment No. 99 is a matter of machinery. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 109, line 3, leave out ("of this Act committed by him") and insert ("or 44 of this Act committed by him with respect to the said building").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendment No. 100 is a matter of clarification. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 109, line 12, after ("thereon") insert ("under Part IV of this Schedule").—(Lord Kennet.)
Schedule 6 [Construction of references in sections 61 and 62 to "the responsible Minister or Ministers"]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 are both drafting Amendments. I beg to move them together.
Amendments moved—
Page 109, line 36, leave out paragraph 3.
Page 110, column 1, line 13, at end insert ("or to land in the case of which the circumstances mentioned in section 69(2) of this Act are present,").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendment No. 103 is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 110, column 1, line 29, after ("by") insert ("or on behalf of").—(Lord Kennet.)
Schedule 7 [Procedure in connection with orders relating to footpaths and bridleways]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 hang together. They are addressed to machinery. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 111, line 9, at end insert—
("(iii) any statutory undertakers to whom there belongs, or by whom there is used, for the purposes of their undertaking, any apparatus under, in, on, over, along or across that land; and")
Page 112, line 24, at end insert—
("4.—(1) The Minister shall not confirm an order under section 93 of this Act which extinguishes a right of way over land under, in, on, over, along or across which there is any apparatus belonging to or used by statutory undertakers for the purpose of their undertaking, unless the undertakers have consented to the confirmation of the order; and any such consent may be given subject to the condition that there are included in the order such provisions for the protection of the undertakers as they may reasonably require.
(2) The consent of statutory undertakers to any such order shall not be unreasonably withheld; and any question arising under this paragraph whether the withholding of consent is unreasonable or whether any requirement is reasonable, shall be determined by whichever Minister is the appropriate Minister in relation to the statutory undertakers concerned.")—(Lord Kennet.)
Schedule 9 [Adaptation and interpretation of enactments, etc.]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendments Nos. 106, 107 and 108:
Page 115, line 45, leave out from beginning to ("references") in line 47 and insert ("References in any Act to the acquisition of land under Part V of the principal Act or to land acquired thereunder (including references which, by Schedule 14 to that Act, are to be construed as such) shall be respectively construed as, or as including (according as the context requires)")
Page 115, line 49, after first ("and") insert—
("(a)")
Page 116, line 5, at end insert—
("and
(b) in section 130(2) (effect of purchase notice accepted by local planning authority or statutory undertakers) and section 133(1) (confirmation of purchase notice by Minister) of that Act, references to compulsory acquisition shall, in the case of statutory undertakers, be construed as references to any statutory provision (however expressed) under which the undertakers have power, or may be authorised, to purchase land compulsorily for the purposes of their undertaking.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I propose to move Amendments Nos. 106, 107 and 108 together
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I should like the noble Lord to explain Amendment No. 108, at any rate.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, perhaps I should explain the three together, since they are closely bound up. So far as No. 106 is concerned, it is necessary for the Bill to provide for the bringing forward of references to powers of acquisition under earlier enactments so that other provisions expressed in terms of those powers may be enabled to continue working as was intended. The provision in paragraph 6 of Schedule 9—the general adaptation schedule—is not wide enough.
First, it has not dealt with references which there may be in enactments other than the 1962 Act to acquisition (or to land acquired) under Part V of that Act. It is necessary that it should do so, otherwise the effect of those provisions could become entirely uncertain on the repeal of the powers of acquisition in Part V of the 1962 Act (effected by Clause 27 of the Bill). Second, paragraph 2 of Schedule 14 to the Act of 1962 provided that a

1321
reference to an enactment repealed by the 1962 Act should be construed as, or as including, a reference to the corresponding provisions of the 1962 Act. By this means references to the powers of acquisition contained in the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 fell to be construed as references to those in the Act of 1962. But they will not be carried forward under the Bill unless now referred to in the manner of the Amendment.
Amendment No. 107 paves for Amendment No. 108, which arises out of the repeal by this Bill of Section 67 of the 1962 Act, which is the provision conferring powers of compulsory acquisition on statutory undertakers.
My Lords, if that is sufficient explanation of the way in which the three Amendments relate to each other, I beg to move them together.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendment No. 109 is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 116, line 19, after ("by") insert ("the Minister of Transport or").—(Lord Kennet.)
8.35 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 116, line 30, at end insert—
(". In section 14(8)(b) after "1959" there shall be inserted the words "except sections 72, 73 and 74 thereof")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move, not for the first time, this Amendment, whose purpose I am afraid is not too self-evident upon the face of it. It refers to Sections 72, 73 and 74 of the Highways Act 1959. Those sections deal with road widening schemes and the like. What they provide is that such schemes are to be achieved by prescribing improvement or building lines in consequence of which any landowner whose land is injuriously affected by the road widening scheme is entitled to immediate compensation.
No doubt, my Lords, Parliament's reason for so enacting in the 1959 Act was Parliament's experience of the time that it takes for road widening schemes and such schemes to be effected. It may take 25 years or more for this to happen.
1322
So unless the person whose land is injuriously affected, and who is no longer allowed to develop this land, is to receive immediate compensation, it is tantamount to saying that he will not get compensation at all, because in 25 years' time, when the scheme is put into force, he may no longer be with us.
The Ministry of Transport apparently discovered what they thought was a way round this intention of Parliament, and they published a circular which they addressed to local authorities in which they said that they need not proceed under the Highways Act in the manner that Parliament said they were to proceed, but could proceed under the planning legislation instead. The consequence of acting under the planning legislation was that the landowner whose lard was injuriously affected, and who Parliament had specifically indicated was to receive immediate compensation, would not receive immediate compensation. Indeed, I think it is right to say that in some cases he might receive no compensation at all.
This circular earned for the Ministry of Transport the following rebuke in the Court of Appeal from Lord Justice Salmon, who said of the circular, in a case which was reported in The Times on May 31 last:
"Ever since the circular was published it appeared that improvement lines were not prescribed under the Act, but planning powers were used to sterilise land without property owners having the right to compensation. That practice was to be deplored. It was a practice to defeat the express intention of Parliament in the Highways Act."
LORD KENNET: Before the noble Lord goes on, would he tell us from what case he is quoting the judgment?
LORD AIREDALE: As a matter of fact, I have only one more sentence to quote. The case is the Westminster Bank Limited v. Beverley Borough Council.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the House will be aware that this matter is sub judice in that an appeal lies to your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, that was a matter which I explained when I moved this Amendment on Report; I explained that this case was sub judice. I am not proposing to quote any part

1323
of the judgment which affects the facts of the case. I am citing a general observation of Lord Justice Salmon. The conclusion of the quotation is:
"It was an unjust practice designed to save money."
My Lords, I suggest that it is not a feather in the cap of a Government Department when it incurs for itself that kind of rebuke from the judiciary. There is one, and only one, proper constitutional way for a Minister to have the intention of Parliament as expressed in the Statutes changed, and that is to go to his colleagues and explain that a particular provision in a Statute is inconvenient, and for Parliamentary time to be found to bring the matter before Parliament for repealing the Statute and putting something else in its place. I suggest that that is the only proper way in which this matter could have been dealt with. What we have to decide, my Lords, is whether we are to have Government by Act of Parliament or Government by Ministry circular, not published for the benefit of the public at large but addressed and forwarded by the particular Ministry to whom they choose.
I am sorry to say that in the replies I have so far received from Government spokesmen to this Amendment, I have not detected much in the way of what I would call humanity. I have not detected that the Government appreciate that what we are here dealing with is a specific intention of Parliament, expressed in an Act of Parliament, saying that if land is taken away for the public use in certain circumstances the person from whom the land is taken shall have immediate compensation. Is it the Government's intention that the immediate compensation which Parliament has said the landowner is to have shall change? Is this compensation no longer to be given? Are we to have government by Ministry circular or are we to have government by Act of Parliament? That is what this Amendment is about. I very much hope that it will be accepted, and that if the Government wish to change the law in this matter they will do so in the constitutional manner. I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the House considers this Amendment for the third time on this Bill. I think that the noble
1324
Lord, Lord Airedale, rested his case mainly on some remarks by a judge in a certain case, which he alleged were a rebuke. But this case has not finished: it is sub-judice; an appeal is now pending to the House of Lords. I do not wish to go much further into it, but I do not think it was wise of him to rest so much of his case on this amendment to the law on the remarks of a judge in a case where an appeal is allowed and a further appeal is pending. As to relating that with the highly emotive question of whether we are to have government by circular or by Act of Parliament, I think that really is pushing it a bit.
I do not know how much more the House would wish me to say on this third occasion, in addition to what has already been said at earlier stages, but I would assure Lord Airedale (I think he was assured before; I am speaking generally now and forgetting the Case) that the effect of his Amendment would be against developers, in that it would prevent the Government from coming to their rescue in certain awkward cases by dictating that one Act should be used rather than another. I think it would probably come out the other way from what he intended. We could go into an enormous explanation of it, but that is the essence of the matter: that if it is the intention of his Amendment to help developers, as I think it is, then it would not have that effect.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I should like to say just this. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, I do not think that this is a matter that can be put right by an Amendment in a Schedule to this Bill. What is really at issue here—in fact in this case it may not turn out to be an issue under this particular set of legislative provisions, but it is nevertheless a general issue—is the relationship between conditions that can be attached to planning provisions, which have some sort of restrictive effect, and similar powers which are granted to local authorities by other Statutes but which carry rights of compensation. Whether or not it is right that the power that does not carry the right of compensation should be used in lieu of the one that does is a much broader matter than something that just arises under the Highways Acts. It applies over a broader field, and I think

1325
it ought not to be isolated in this particular case.
I hope that the Government are not simply waiting for the decision in the House in its Judicial capacity in the particular case that has been mentioned. I hope that the Government have some thoughts about the generality and are not simply going to drop this matter altogether, depending upon what happens in the Westminster Bank v. Beverley case. I believe that this matter would repay a little thought on the part of the authorities, and I hope that that is something which will be given.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if I can add anything to that it is to say that the noble Viscount should be assured that the Government are giving it a lot of thought, but it seems that the next thing to do is to wait for the final determination of the Beverley case.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am willing to wait for the final determination of the Beverley case. Before I withdraw this Amendment I will simply say this. When you are looking to see what the intention of Parliament is with regard to highways you look at the Highways Act, and if you find that what is in the Highways Act may be in some way in conflict with something which is contained in planning legislation, you still adhere to what is contained in the Highways Act, because you say to yourself, "When Parliament was considering the Highways Act it had its mind riveted upon this kind of problem, whereas when Parliament was considering planning legislation Parliament was considering planning generally and was not riveting its mind upon highways in particular".
I can only bitterly regret that any Government Department should have thought it fit to issue a Ministry circular in those terms which earned that rebuke from the Judiciary, because I want to see the Executive held in high repute in the country, and it does not do the Executive one little bit of good when it gets its actions criticised in terms of that sort from the Judiciary. Having said that, I will await the result of the Beverley case, and I hope that I shall then be encouraged to return to the attack. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 111 and 112 are both drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 118, line 15, after first ("of") insert ("the provisions of").
Page 118, line 17, leave out ("in both subsections") and insert—
("(a) in subsection (1), after the words 'this Part of this Act' there shall be inserted the words 'and Part II of the Act of 1968'; and
(b) in subsection (2)").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 113, 114 and 115 are addressed to machinery. They have that in common. I beg to move them together.
Amendments moved—
Page 119, line 44, leave out ("91") and insert ("90, 91, 93, or 94")
Page 120, line 9, at end insert—
("(h) any decision of the Minister on an application for an established use certificate referred to him under section 18(1) of the Act of 1968;
(i) any decision of the Minister on an appeal under section 18(2) of the Act of 1968").
Page 121, line 33, at end insert ("o 91").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET,My Lords, Amendment No. 116 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 122, line 16, at end insert—
("(b) subsection (2) shall be omitted; and").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendment No. 117 tidies up the machinery and improves and clarifies the right of appeal to the courts in certain cases. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 122, leave out lines 20 to 29 and insert—
(". In section 183 (orders subject to special parliamentary procedure), after the word Act', where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words 'or section 90 or 9l of the Act of 1968'").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 are both drafting. I beg to move them together.
Amendments moved—
Page 123, line 38, leave out ("section 28, 48 or 90") and insert ("section 20, 48 or 91")
Page 124, line 8, after ("a") insert ("completion").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendment No. 120 is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 124, line 8, at end insert ("and for the words (in the proviso) from 'an enforcement notice' to 'this Act' there shall be substituted the words an enforcement notice under section 15 or 43 of the Act of 1968 which is served by the Minister, the provisions of sections 47 to 51 of this Act or, as the case may be, sections 44 and 45 of that Act'; and").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 121, 122 and 123 are all drafting. I beg to move them all together.
Amendments moved—
Page 125, line 11, leave out ("this Act") and insert ("the Act of 1968")
Page 126, line 14, leave out from ("the") to second ("Act") in line 15 and insert ("Town and Country Planning Act 1968 (hereafter in this Act referred to as 'the 1968 Planning Act'), for all purposes of the Planning Act and the said")
Page 126, line 24, leave out ("said Act of 1968") and insert ("1968 Planning Act").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendment No. 124 is machinery. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 126, line 36, after ("24(4)") insert—
("(a) After the words 'Planning Act' where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words 'and of the 1968 Planning Act (except sections 17 and 18 of that Act)';
(b)").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 125, 126 and 127 are all drafting. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 126, line 45, leave out ("Act of 1968") and insert ("1968 Planning Act")
Page 126, line 47, leave out ("subject to the next following paragraph")
Page 127, leave out lines 1 to 7.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 go to machinery. I beg to move them together.
Amendments moved—
Page 127, line 47, at end insert—
("(d) in subsection (5), for the words 'section 46(1) of the Act of 1962' there shall be substituted the words 'section 16(1) of the said Act of 1968'")
Page 127, line 50, leave out from ("the") to end of line and insert ("said Act of 1968; for the words 'paragraph (a) to (c)' there shall be substituted the words 'paragraphs (a) and (b)'; and for the words 'section 177(1)' there shall be substituted the words 'section 177(1)(a)'").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 130 and 131 are both drafting. I beg to move them together.
Amendments moved—
Page 129, line 7, at end insert ("and for the words 'that Act' there shall be substituted the words the 'Planning Act'")
Page 129, line 29, leave out from ("16(2)") to end of line 32 and insert ("(3) and (4)(a) of the Planning Act of 1968 and so much of section 16(5) of that Act as enables the Minister to give directions").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 132 and 136 hang together. They are both addressed to machinery and achieve the same effect as the Bill as drafted, but by another route. I beg to move Amendment No. 132.
Amendment moved—
Page 129, leave out lines 33 to 35.—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 130, line 25, at end insert—
("The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (c. 88)
In section 28(6) (description of development which, if proposed to be undertaken by a local authority, public or other body, may restrict

1329
the rights under the Act of tenants of the land affected) for the words from 'in order to secure' to comprehensive development' there shall be substituted the following:—
'in order to secure—

(a) the development or re-development of an area defined by a development plan under the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 as an area of comprehensive development; or

(b) the treatment as a whole, by development, re-development, or improvement, or partly by one and partly by another method, of any area in which the property is situated'").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 133 is a little more than machinery. It ensures that certain provisions of the Leasehold Reform Act shall carry forward in terms of the new language used in this Bill about the development and improvement of an area, as well as in the old language used in the 1962 Act. I beg to move.
On Ouestion, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 10 [Transitional Provisions and Savings]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 134.
Amendment moved—
Page 130, line 43, at end insert ("this Act").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this is a matter of the machinery of transition. I beg to move Amendment No. 135.
Amendment moved—
Page 131, line 3, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 4 and insert ("be taken to prevail for the purposes of Parts III, IV, V, VI and VIII of the principal Act, Parts II and VI of this Act and Schedule 5 to this Act").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, this Amendment, No. 136, is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 132, line 25, at end insert—
("11. Section 9 of the Control of Offices and Industrial Development Act 1965 shall, in relation to an enforcement notice served before the commencement of Part II of this Act, have effect as originally enacted and not as amended by paragraph 64 of Schedule 9 to this Act.
12. The amendment of section 14 of the Civic Amenities Act 1967 which is made by paragraph 73 of this Act shall not have effect
1330
in relation to a notice served under that section before the commencement of Part II of this Act.").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, once again this Amendment No. 137, is a matter of the machinery of transition. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 132, line 45, leave out paragraph 14 and insert—
("14.—(1) Notwithstanding any amendment by this Act of sections 138 to 151 of the principal Act, the description of land contained in section 138(1)(b) of that Act (land allocated by a development plan for the purposes of a government department, etc.) shall continue as one of the specified descriptions for the purposes of those sections in their application to any district to which this paragraph applies.
(2) This paragraph applies to any district for which no local plan is in force under Part I of this Act—

(a) allocating any land in the district for the purposes of such functions as are mentioned in section 33(1)(a) this Act; or

(b) defining any land in the district as the site of proposed development for the purposes of any such functions.

(3) To the extent that section 138(1)(b) of the principal Act survives by virtue of this paragraph and for so long as it does so, the amendment by this Act of section 139(3)(a) of that Act (definition of 'relevant date' by reference to section 138(1)(b)) shall be treated as not displacing the reference in that paragraph to section 138(1)(b).")—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 138.
Amendment moved—
Page 133, line 21, after ("of") insert ("Part V of").—(Lord Kennet.)
Schedule 11 [Enactments repealed]:
LORD KENNET: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 139, 140, 141 and 142—that is, all the remaining Amendments—are consequential on various earlier provisions already taken into the Bill. I beg to move them together.
Amendments moved—
Page 135, column 3, leave out lines 14 to 16.
Page 135, column 3, leave out line 18 and insert—
("In section 145, subsection (3), in subsection (4) the words 'and (6)' and subsection (6)")
Page 135, column 3, leave out lines 50 and 51.
Page 136, column 3, line 17, at end insert ("and (3)").—(Lord Kennet.)
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Kennet.)
8.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think I should be in favour if I made a long speech at this stage of the Bill and at this time of the evening, but there are two points I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. The first thing that catches my eye is Clause 104, dealing with the commencement of the Bill. Can the noble Lord give any indication of the stages at which this Bill will be brought into effect, and when they are likely to be? This information will be of great interest to almost everybody in this country, as in one way or another a large number of people are affected by its provisions.
Secondly, not only have we "blight" provisions but we have yet another instalment of chaotic amendment of the provisions relating to industrial development certificates and office development permits. We had Section 38 of the 1962 Act, which was the original I.D.C. provision; then it was changed by the Control of Offices and Industrial Developments Act, which added the O.D.P.s and changed the I.D.C.s in 1965; the Industrial Development Act, 1966, changed the I.D.C.s again, and here we have a Bill in 1968 which changes both of them again. It is already virtually impossible to understand what any of this means. It is far more difficult than "blight" provisions, and I hope something will be done fairly soon about consolidation and that any loopholes which have been discovered have now been satisfactorily stopped up by this Bill.
I am also interested in the matter of commencement because the moment this Bill comes into force all the way through, I have no doubt the whole thing can be consolidated. Can the noble Lord help on either of those points? They are really of some importance.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, we are speaking on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass, and I want first of all to
1332
pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Kennet for the way in which he has handled this Bill. I know that I have been in conflict with him, but I hope he will not feel that there has been anything personal about it: I really do strongly disagree with the decision on advertisement appeals. But generally I have nothing but praise for the way in which my noble friend has handled this Bill. He has been calm, serene, helpful and conciliatory, so far as his instructions permitted. I would say the same thing about the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. He has been ideal as an Opposition spokesman. He has never taken a political or Party view about this Bill; he has treated it as a measure which is for the common good, and I think I can say quite truthfully that every single speech of his has been of a non-Party character, and made with the sole desire to improve the Bill. I wish I could say the same about all Bills which go through this House.
It is now twenty years since the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 was passed, and as one who was very largely responsible for that Act I must agree that the time has come to look at the planning proposals once more, and I am very glad to find—it is a personal gratification to me, at any rate—that the structure of the 1947 Act, by and large, has not been greatly changed. This Bill introduces a considerable number of improvements and modifications which experience has shown are necessary, and I do not complain about them in the very least. I think they are all for the better.
What I wonder is whether there was any urgency about this Bill. I can see no great dramatic changes in the law, and I cannot see why there was this great urgency to get this Bill through at this time. I recognise that there was a problem in connection with planning appeals. They were getting hopelessly congested, and I agree that something had to be done about it. But as regards the rest of the Bill I wonder whether it could not have waited. I should have thought it might have waited until we had had the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government. Undoubtedly that Report, when it is produced, is going to recommend very great changes in the structure of local government and in the powers of local authorities.

1333
I myself feel that we have too many planning authorities in the country with jurisdictions which, by and large, are too small, and we have got ourselves in the further difficulty of having a very large number of local authorities who have delegated powers but who in fact are carrying out very important functions without very much interference from the bodies that have delegated those powers to them. If we take the total number, there must be over 1,000 local authorities that are exercising town planning functions to-day. They cannot do this efficiently, and it would have been far wiser, in my view, if we could have held over the major changes that we are making in this Bill until we had had the Report from the Royal Commission on Local Government and had decided what to do and altered the structure of local government. Only at that time, I feel, would it have been appropriate to introduce a measure of this kind in town planning; and had that course been taken it would have been a much more drastic measure.
I think the general trend to-day is towards more and more regional government, and undoubtedly in this small island of ours a reasonable unit for planning development is the region, and not the generally artificial local authority of to-day. You cannot have a development plan for the country which is based on the separate development plans of 124 local authorities. Yet that is the position to-day, and that is the position which has largely been maintained in this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, shakes his head: but he does not know what is going to be the structure of local government; he does not know what is going to be the future, and undoubtedly there will have to be great changes in the future.
There is one final matter that I want to touch on, and I do so with great diffidence. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, some years ago, in the early days, held out high hopes of the simplification of our legislation. We were going to have legislation which would be understood, if not by the man in the street, at any rate by even the least experienced practitioner in the law. We were going to bring an end to the complicated highly technical legislation which we are getting to-day and which we have had for so many years. Certainly this
1334
Bill is not an example of such a change—though I quite realise (I want to be quite fair) that it cannot be done in the present outlook of legislation. If we are to have legislation intended to provide for every possible contingency in planning, for the exceptional cases and for the normal cases, then of course we must have a highly technical Bill.
I understand that some thought is being given by the Law Commissions to some method of simplifying Bills, possibly by laying down principles and having more regulations, more statutory orders, or some other way by which a Bill will be readily understood by most of its readers. I am sorry to say that that is not the case with this present Bill: even I find it very difficult to follow in a number of places. I remember that when the 1947 Act was before the House it used to be said by friends that there was only one person who understood it, but by those who were not friends that nobody understood it; but it was not quite as bad as that.
However, I will say this as regards recent legislation: that already there are several matters coming up before the courts for decision. May I quote one, the Leasehold Reform Act? The Lands Tribunal are inundated with cases in which a decision is sought on what is the proper amount of payment to be made for the redemption of leaseholds. We all know what was meant in the Bill. What I understood the Bill to intend way that it was to be a payment representing something excluding the value of the house, only the land. Certainly there is a strong feeling throughout the country that that is not what the Act says, and it is being argued that all the great labyrinth of words means simply that a person wanting to redeem the lease has to pay the full market value of the lease. That is one example. Another example, which no doubt your Lordships have had drawn to your attention, concerns the Landlord and Tenant Act, where there is some doubt as to a large class of cases which have been left out of the Act although it was intended that they should be included. Again there is a great pressure on the Government to amend almost immediately after the Act has been passed.
I feel that some kind of simplification of legislation is called for, and I am only sorry that the ambitions of my noble and

1335
learned friend the Lord Chancellor have not yet been realised. I hope that before the end of this Government we shall have this simpler legislation. Having said that, I once more congratulate my noble friend Lord Kennet on having got through this monumental Bill, with no friction in this House, with great pleasantness, and, I think, with the general good will of the whole House.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I be allowed to associate myself and those on these Benches with the tribute that he has paid to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet? I have not been intimately involved in this Bill, but I have read the proceedings and I appreciate that the tribute is well deserved. May I also, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, thank the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for the kind words he said about my noble friend.
9.10 p.m.
LORD HOLFORD: My Lords, to add any words at all to what has been said by what I may call the three statesmen of planning, Lord Silkin, Lord Brooke, and finally Lord Kennet, needs a certain audacity at this hour of night; but Lord Silkin did encourage me to say a few brief words on the passing of this Bill as one who has been teaching and practising town and country planning for thirty-five years.
What I want to say is that the Bill seems to me to try to resolve a great number of conflicts, the biggest of which, as I have listened in the course of the passage of the Bill through this House, has been the wish to get greater public participation in planning and at the same time to increase the speed of the machinery, to have fewer appeals and delays. These are obviously complex matters. I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord and also the noble Viscount have said: that here, in a situation where you have a fast driver on a rather skiddy road, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has shown himself to be a wonderful steersman.
The only other thing I want to say is that I believe that although there is no great urgency for this Bill it is timely. I happen to be one of the guinea pigs in regard to this Act, in that I have
1336
just put up an application for planning permission in full display in the Royal Exchange, in the middle of the City of London, for a building which has not yet received planning permission. In the course of the eight days for which this exhibition, with its models and photographs has been exposed, we have had, to my surprise, 20,000 people visiting it, and comments which run into several thousands. Whether those comments are for or against I am not prepared to say; I do not think any of us know. But it is at any rate a measure of the interest which people are taking in this subject, and therefore, although the Bill may not be urgent, it is certainly timely.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was most lavish in his praise for the efforts of others upon this Bill; but it all rests upon the foundation of the 1947 Act, the indefatigable pilot of which was the noble Lord. Lord Silkin, himself.
9.14 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, let me thank for their kind words all those who have uttered them, and if I may, I should like to pass on a due share of them to my noble friends Lady Serota and Lord Shepherd, who have borne the brunt of some of the most incomprehensible parts of this Bill, and also tell my noble friend Lord Silkin of my impression that he got it right first time in 1947. I think it is remarkable that the principles laid down in that first Planning Act ever really to bite on the British situation should have stood the test of time so well and needed so little revision twenty years later. I am only sorry that he did not agree with me on all the details of this Bill. I have great sympathy for what my noble friend Lord Silkin said about too many planning authorities, and I would point out that if the Royal Commission recommend fewer, and the recommendation is adopted by the Government, that will fit very well with this Bill. In the meantime, there is a de facto reduction going on among the authorities whom we have invited to operate the new provisions as soon as they can—indeed, they are already beginning to work on it.
A couple of statistics may be of interest. The House has considered about 400 Amendments to the Bill. We have carried in 21 new clauses, and three new

1337
Schedules. This is quite a lot. It is an unusual score, and I would not draw it to your Lordships' attention if I were not perfectly confident that we have very much improved the Bill by doing this. It is one of those occasions when my noble friend Lord Silk in was able to speak about the lack of Party animosity in this Bill. There has been virtually none. And how pleasant it is to find something on which the Parties really do agree; and how pleasant it is to legislate in such an atmosphere!
On the question of compensation and consolidation, I have told the House at earlier stages that an overall review of compensation is going on inside the Government machine. It is still going on. It is going on well but, as all Members of the House will know, there is probably nothing in the country, or hardly anything in the country, so complicated as land compensation; and tempting as it sometimes is to say, "To hell with the details: let us decide the principle", that is not possible, because the details "come back at you" the next day and you find that you have decided the principle the wrong way and got it upside down. But I assure the House that this review is active; it is going forward. There is progress. We are further forward than we were last time I mentioned it. I cannot yet give a date when anything will come before Parliament from it. As the House knows, the programme is pretty congested these years, and in any case it is an open question yet how many of all the matters which are now under review should he put in one Bill, whether we can wrap it all up or whether it may be necessary to go ahead with some parts of it before others.
The noble Lord, Viscount Colville of Culross, also asked when the Bill would be coming into effect, and I am glad he did so, because I think it may be useful to get certain intentions of my right honourable friend known among those who will have to operate it. Because of the varied nature of the alterations and additions to planning law which are made by the Bill, the various parts of it will have to come into effect on different dates.
1338
There are some provisions which must be brought into force as soon as possible, and the Order for this purpose will be made as shortly as possible after Royal Assent is given to the Bill. These provisions include Clause 38 and Clauses 68 to 72, "Statutory undertakers".
A number of other varied improvements in the detail of planning lays contained in Part VI which do not require the making of regulations or administrative preparation will also be brought: into effect as soon as possible after Royal Assent. The Planning Inquiry Commissions provisions need a small set of regulations. My right honourable friend intends to bring them into force at the end of November, so that all that should be ready if ever a case arises in which it would be appropriate to refer to a Planning Inquiry Commission.
Nearly all the rest of the Bill, including the provisions for transfer of appeals to inspectors, the strengthening of protection for listed buildings, and the improved enforcement code, but with the exception of Part I, my right honourable friend plans at the moment to bring into force on January 1 of next year. Time is required between now and then to get the regulations and circulars drafted, and some of these will have to be the subject of consultation with interested organisations. A very few provisions, such as Clause 87, dealing with ministerial responsibility for the Location of Offices Bureau, will fit more conveniently with the term of the financial year, and accordingly will be brought into force later next year.
My Lords, we take leave of a long Bill. I regret that it is in places an obscure Bill, but if it were any clearer than the surrounding landscape it would give rise to greater obscurity. It is a Bill which has to its credit two records: probably a record number of Amendments on Third Reading in your Lordships' House, in recent years at any rate, and a record degree of concordance and agreement among all Parties.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty-one minutes past nine o'clock.