Sitting of 30 April 1969

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For Chichester, in the room of Walter Harris Loveys, esquire (deceased).—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
PETITION

  Granite Quarrying (Sapcote)
  Mr. Farr: I rise to present a Petition on behalf of my constituents in the village of Sapcote, in Leicestershire, which has been signed by more than 800 of the approximately 1,000 adult residents. These petitioners are distressed because an old quarry at Calver Hill adjacent to the village has recently, after a number of years in which many houses have been built, been reopened. A public footpath has been blocked and the village threatened by noise, dirt and danger and general destruction of the peaceful community life.
  And, as in duty bound, your Petitioners will ever pray.
  The CLERK OF THE HOUSE (Sir BARNETT COCKS) read the Petition to the House as follows:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of residents of Sapcote in the County of Leicester,
  SHEWETH
  That the opening of the granite quarry on Calver Hill has imposed on the said village a danger from blasting and heavy vehicles, as well as the nuisance of noise, dust and vibration. That, in consequence, there has been a general lowering of the village status.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that planning permission for the said quarry be rescinded forthwith.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  BOARD OF TRADE

    Cocoa and Waste Paper Recovery Industries
    Mr. Michael Shawasked the President of the Board of Trade what is his estimate of the contributions to exports and to import saving made in the manufacturing process of producing cocoa from cocoa beans and the waste paper recovery industry, respectively.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. Edmund Dell): United Kingdom exports of cocoa, chocolate and other preparations containing cocoa last year amounted to £14·9 million. It is not possible to estimate the import saving made in the manufacturing process of producing cocoa from cocoa beans which is but one part of a complex food manufacturing process. In 1968, waste paper to the value of about £1·9 million was exported. As far as the contribution to import saving by the waste paper industry is concerned, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer which my hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) on 12th March this year.—[Vol. 779, c. 298.]
    Mr. Shaw: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the purpose of my Question has been largely overtaken in that investment grants and S.E.T. repayments are now to be made in respect of wastepaper processes? On what basis do the decisions about making an investment grant differ from the bases on which decisions are made about the repayment of S.E.T?
    Mr. Dell: I thought that the hon. Gentleman's purpose had been overtaken by the decision announced a few days ago. The essential characteristic of investment grants is that they are given in respect of manufacturing processes and manufacturing industries which produce a substantial change in the article concerned. The legislation governing S.E.T. is different.

    International Exhibitions (Restrictive Practices)
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he

    1409
    will seek powers to control restrictive practices by the organisers of international exhibitions in this country.
    Mr. Dell: I understand that the Question arises out of applications for space at commercially organised exhibitions. We are not satisfied that there is any case for legislation in this field.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the Labex International Exhibition at Earls Court in March when a constituent of mine making scientific equipment, Silver and Sons Ltd., of Hampton, owing to some dispute was not able to exhibit, although the firm had an excellent export trade? Was not that a restraint on trade?
    Mr. Dell: I am aware of this case, about which the hon. Gentleman has had correspondence with my Department. I have examined it fully and I am satisfied that there is no cause for me to intervene; nor are there any grounds on which I could reasonably do so. These are matters for the commercial decision of the commercial undertakers of these exhibitions.

    Company Law
    Mr. Michael Shawasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will give an undertaking to introduce legislation to reform company law during Session 1970–71.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): No, Sir. It is too early to say what legislation will or will not be possible during the 1970–71 Session.
    Mr. Shaw: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that a promise was solemnly given in the House and on several occasions upstairs in Standing Committee that during the lifetime of this Parliament another Companies Bill would be brought before the House, and that it was on that basis that we discussed the whole of the 1967 Bill? Is this another promise which is now about to be broken?
    Mr. Crosland: I have no doubts that a Labour Government will be responsible for legislation in the 1970–71 Session—[Interruption.]—refreshed, no doubt, in the latter part of the year by a strong new mandate from the electors. Although
    1410
    it is true, as the hon. Member says, that hopes were expressed—I have not checked the language, but I accept the hon. Member's interpretation of what was said during what we call the part one Jenkins Bill—part two of Jenkins, as we have come to refer to it, is immensely long and complicated. Our system of passing legislation in this House is not, perhaps, as up-to-date and modern as it ought to be in all respects, and I cannot yet say what other claims may be made upon legislative time in the 1970–71 Session.

    Investment Grant System (Study)
    Mr. Laneasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the scope of the study of the effectiveness of the investment grants system which he is undertaking; when the examination will be completed; and if he will publish the results.
    Mr. Dell: I hope that it will be possible to examine the more significant questions relating to the effectiveness of the investment grant system. I would not expect to get quick answers to such complex questions and I have, therefore, placed no time limit on its completion. I will consider the desirability of publication when I have had an opportunity to see how far it has proved possible to overcome the difficulties which this sort of study must encounter and to arrive at informative answers to the questions posed.
    Mr. Lane: As these grants now cost over £400 million a year, and as there is widespread and growing doubt about their effectiveness, could not the Minister at least undertake to ensure that this study is pursued with maximum urgency, even if he cannot put a time limit to it today?
    Mr. Dell: I will certainly ensure that the study is conducted as quickly as is possible in the circumstances. There is, I think, increasing evidence that the investment grant system is an effective way of creating new investment.
    Mr. Maclennan: Before the Government come to any conclusion about how to finance the assistance to the intermediate areas which was announced last week, will the results of this study be available to them?
    Mr. Dell: No. The study will obviously take some time and the other decisions will have to be made before these results are available.

    Investment (Manufacturing Industry)
    Mr. Blakerasked the President of the Board of Trade why investment in manufacturing industry is less buoyant than investment in the service and distributive trades in periods of cyclical downturn.
    Mr. Dell: One of the main reasons is that demand for the output of manufacturing industry is more variable.
    Mr. Blaker: While it is gratifying that investment in manufacturing held up better in the last cycle in 1967–68 than in the previous cycle, would not the Minister agree that it does not follow that it is worth spending £473 million a year to achieve that objective when other important objectives have to be given up and it involves the crushing burden of discrimination against the service industries?
    Mr. Dell: I do not understand that question. Before 1964, the previous Government were prepared to spend large sums of money by way of investment allowances and free depreciation on creating incentives to investment. We are doing the same thing in the more limited sector of manufacturing industry. This makes a valuable contribution to the economy.

    Investment (Manufacturing Industry)
    Mr. Hall-Davisasked the President of the Board of Trade what is his latest estimate of the level of investment by manufacturing industry in 1969 and 1970 compared with 1968.
    Mr. Crosland: Manufacturers' forecasts provided to the Board of Trade at the end of last year indicated a rise in investment of between 10 and 15 per cent. in real terms between 1968 and 1969 with a further increase between 1969 and 1970.
    Mr. Hall-Davis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there have recently been reports and assessments by independent economists that the upward trend at the end of last year was already slowing down markedly? Does the information available to him indicate the same trend?
    Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. We have no evidence to support what the hon. Member is saying. I should say that our last investment intention survey is supported by the most recent surveys carried out by the C.B.I. and the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, and is also strongly supported by the figures for i.d.c. approvals and the current figures of orders in the engineering industry as a whole, and in machine tools.
    Sir K. Joseph: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we very much hope that he is right. Is he also aware that year after year his Department's manufacturing trend forecasts have proved very optimistic indeed?
    Mr. Crosland: It is obvious that any attempt to make a forecast based on replies given to us by manufacturers contains a considerable possibility of error. All I can say is that the other indications available to us in this case support the view that 1969 and 1970 will be years of strongly rising investment.
    Mr. Dickens: In view of the disturbing remarks of Mr. Catherwood about the level of investment in this country, can my right hon. Friend say what the figures will be, in real terms, in 1969 compared with 1961—a comparison which Mr. Catherwood has made recently, to the disadvantage of more recent years?
    Mr. Crosland: I would have hoped for notice of that question. I shall gladly give the figures if I am given notice. I agree with my hon. Friend and with Mr. Catherwood that for 20 years the level of investment in this country has been much too low. That is one reason why we have persistently run into balance of payments crises every time we have had a period of economic expansion.

    India
    Sir G. Sinclairasked the President of the Board of Trade why Great Britain's share of Indian imports dropped from 19 per cent. in 1960–61 to 8 per cent. in 1967–68 while the European Economic Community increased its exports to India; and, whether, in view of the fact that about half the total overseas investment in India is British, he will institute an inquiry into this country's diminishing share of India's imports.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): Contributory causes of this decline include the increase in other countries' aid and India's need for food and other goods that we cannot supply. Factors such as these are outside our control, but we are examining what scope there may be for action to improve the situation.
    Sir G. Sinclair: Is not the Minister aware that during the fiscal year 1968–69 our share of Indian imports fell to 6 per cent.? What practical steps is the hon. Lady taking to ensure that we regain a better share of this market? Is she satisfied that in our High Commission there has sufficient business and industrial experience to take advantage of this expanding market?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: In reply to the latter part of that question, my experience in dealing with particularly our commercial sections abroad is that many of the posts have a high degree of efficiency and a workmanlike approach to the problems of commerce. What they are doing is of immense importance and we should not underestimate their abilities.
    We are worried about the decline in trade with India. We have said that we are carrying out studies in connection with the Indian Government, but business men also have a great deal to do with this.

    Finance Companies (Promissory Agreements)
    Miss Lestorasked the President of the Board of Trade what proposals he has for ensuring that promissory agreements issued by finance companies are not connected with unrelated trade agreements.
    Mr. Dell: The extent to which finance companies should be responsible for the performance and quality of goods purchased with the money they lend is one of the matters being considered by the Crowther Committee. I see no justification for taking action in advance of its report.
    Miss Lestor: May I assure my hon. Friend that I am delighted that he was able to give such a clear answer, because when I handed in the Question, although
    1414
    it may have been ungrammatical, it was understandable but the way in which it has been formulated is confusing? I agree with what my hon. Friend has said. In the interim period, however, is it not possible to give maximum publicity to the fact that this sort of agreement is still being made, that goods are being sold on the doorstep and that people are being given the impression that finance companies are financing the goods when it is done by private loan?
    Mr. Dell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on what she has done to give publicity in this matter. I am also glad to know that a number of finance houses and oil companies have reviewed lists of approved dealers in connection with central heating applications, with which my hon. Friend has been particularly concerned.

    European Economic Community (Membership)
    Mr. Martenasked the President of the Board of Trade his latest estimate of the effect on the United Kingdom balance of trade of joining the Common Market on terms acceptable to Her Majesty's Government both immediately on joining and at the end of the transitional period.
    Mr. Crosland: Any estimate under present circumstances would be highly speculative.
    Mr. Marten: If it is impossible to make an estimate of our balance of trade on entering the Common Market, why is it thought to be a good thing to join? Might not the estimate be extremely bad, as the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor has pointed out?
    Mr. Crosland: My predecessor, like the hon. Member, holds strong and well-known views on this topic, which do not command universal assent on either side of the House. I do not think that there is substance in the hon. Member's contention, partly because he ignores the political arguments—they may be held to be for or against, but there are clearly strong political arguments in this connection—and partly because it is possible to make a judgment that entry is in the long-term economic interests of the country without being able to quantify all

    1415
    the possible gains and losses in terms of an exact figure.
    Sir R. Russell: Bunk!
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: The Minister must have, or can surely get, at least some evidence on which to make an estimate. It would be helpful if he could give us an idea. Surely, he is not telling us that we are going into the Common Market without any idea of what is involved.
    Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. This matter was discussed at great length during our debates a year and a half ago, when one figure—and only one figure—was given for the likely effect on us of the common agricultural policy. It is impossible to give even an analogous figure to that at present because the financial regulations governing the common agricultural policy have to be renegotiated by the Six before the end of 1969.

    Waste Paper Recovery Industry (Investment Grants)
    Mr. Blakerasked the President of the Board of Trade on what criteria it was decided that machinery used in the preparation of seed for sale in the factory which performs all the processes of cleaning, drying, etc., should qualify for investment grants, and that the wastepaper recovery industry should not.
    Mr. Dell: To receive investment grant a manufacturer must carry on a process which results in a product significantly different from the raw material. As I stated on 23rd April in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling), policy on investment grants for the wastepaper industry has been reconsidered and certain processes carried on by that industry will, subject to the normal conditions, be admissible for grant.—[Vol. 782, c. 85–6.]
    Mr. Blaker: While I welcome the Government's belated decision relating to the waste paper recovery industry may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman will say what is now the position in relation to other parts of the reclamation industry such as rubber waste and textile wastes?
    Mr. Dell: I could not answer that question without notice.
    Mr. Higgins: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that while he has told us
    1416
    what the rules are, he has not told us what the reasons for them are? Is there not a strong case for having consistent rules with regard to S.E.T. and investment grants? Could we have an explanation in each case for the differences between one service and another?
    Mr. Dell: Over the great majority of the field the treatment of investment grants and S.E.T. is the same. There are a few exceptions. These exceptions arise from the nature of the legislation governing them. In the case of investment grants, it depends on whether or not it is a manufacturing process or a manufacturing industry, but the coverage is very largely the same.

    Locomotive Works, Inverurie (Closure)
    Mr. Gordon Campbellasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will take further action to alleviate the effects of the decision now made to close, before the end of the year, the locomotive works at Inverurie.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply to his similar Question given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland on 21st April, 1969.—[Vol. 782, c. 35.]
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Does the hon. Lady realise that the announcement of the complete closure in so short a time, resulting in the loss of a great many jobs, is contrary to what many of those concerned in the area had been led by the Government to expect? Why have the Government not decided to designate this area as a special development area?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We are very sympathetic to the problem of everyone in Inverurie. That is why there has been a very special publicity campaign carried out in order to find suitable firms which could possibly take up the skilled workers. This is, I think, the important thing, and we are very encouraged by the sort of replies we have got. I think that this is the practical way of dealing with the situation at the moment, and far better than talking about designating the area as a special development area.
    Mr. Simon Mahon: Is the hon. Lady aware that in a case like this men are treated as economic ciphers and units of production, and that they are getting very

    1417
    tired of it? Will she instruct the authorities concerned to treat these people, who have given a lifetime to industry, with more sympathy, and human dignity?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I can assure my hon. Friend that we have the interests of the people of Inverurie very much at heart. We recognise that this is a very specific and difficult problem. We are undertaking unusual methods to try to deal with it, and we hope very soon to see a complete change in the situation.

    Baby Seal Skins
    Mr. Huntasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will initiate discussions with the major fur importing and producing countries with a view to making trade in baby seal fur illegal.
    Mr. Dell: I assume that the hon. Member has in mind allegations in the Press about cruelty in the methods of killing used in the Canadian seal hunt. I would refer him to the answer that I gave on 12th February to the hon. and gallant Member for Winchester (Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles). It remains our view, after careful consideration of the evidence, that direct controls of the sort operated by the Canadian Government provide the most effective means of preventing cruelty.—[Vol. 777, c. 312.]
    Mr. Hunt: As the Minister appears to take the view that there is little cruelty, may I ask him whether he has had an opportunity of studying the evidence of Dr. Elizabeth Simpson, of Cambridge University, reporting that one out of three baby seals was still alive when skinned? Is he further aware that there is a widespread feeling of revulsion in the country at this annual massacre of baby seals off the coasts of Labrador and Newfoundland? Why will not the Government give a lead in putting an end to this barbarism and brutality?
    Mr. Dell: I am well aware of the concern that exists. I share the concern expressed at the possibility of cruelty. I have not studied the evidence to which the hon. Member referred but if he will send it to me, or give me an exact reference, I shall certainly study it. I have, however, studied the other evidence,
    1418
    which appears to contradict the evidence that he has mentioned. Indeed, there is a dispute whether it is possible to skin a seal that is still alive. I am well aware of the concern expressed, but we have made a serious study of the evidence.

    Textile Industry (Productivity Study)
    Mr. Robert Howarthasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Textile Council's Productivity Study.
    Mr. Crosland: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Oakes) on 16th April.—[Vol. 781, c. 253.]
    Mr. Howarth: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the real concern in the industry about the position after 1970? Manufacturers are eager to know what protection they can look forward to in the 1970s.
    Mr. Crosland: I am well aware of the concern in the industry, and have been so for some time. I heard it again expressed at the Textile Council's annual spring conference only a fortnight ago, at Nottingham. The conclusions in the report of the productivity and efficiency study are not directly solely at the Government; they are equally directed at the industry itself.
    Mr. Hall-Davis: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that reports have been in front of him for over a year dealing with major problems of the textile industry—for instance, the Monopolies Commission's Report? We have been asked to wait until the Textile Council productivity report was made. This places him under an obligation not unduly to delay.
    Mr. Crosland: I entirely accept that. I accept complete responsibility for announcing Government decisions without undue delay, but having had the report—I forget the exact time—only recently, I must have discussions with the industry through the Textile Council. I propose to do that over the next two months, and as soon as possible after that I shall announce our conclusions to the House.

    Advertising Material (Door-to-door Delivery)
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will seek powers to control the door-to-door delivery of advertising material.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: No, Sir. We are not aware of any grounds which would justify our doing so.
    Mr. Mitchell: Will the Minister consult the police in this matter? Is she aware that many householders who go on holiday comply with police requests to cancel milk and newspapers and make arrangements with the Post Office, and so on, but come back to find their letter boxes stuffed with unwanted advertising material, revealing to everyone that the house is empty and thereby creating a potential danger of house-breaking?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I am sympathetic to the difficulties that people encounter in making their homes safe, but the difficulty is that to bring this sort of restriction in would also affect charitable organisations which traditionally put notices of jumble sales through letter boxes.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the hon. Lady agree that the door-to-door salesman situation is beginning to get out of control, and that too many people can do this, with consequent danger? Will she not institute an inquiry to see what can be done and bring about some sort of order by defining who can stand on a doorstep with impunity and talk to a householder?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I am aware of the hon. Member's interest in this matter. The question of door-to-door salesmen, as opposed to the distribution of material, is a highly complex one. It would be wrong to rush into making any direction without any evidence.

    Industry (United States Interests)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage of industry in the United Kingdom economy is owned and controlled by United States interests; and in what way he estimates that this trend will develop within the next few years.
    Mr. Dell: It is estimated that 6 to 7 per cent. of the net assets of non-financial
    1420
    companies are both owned and controlled in the United States. Present expectations are that this proportion will continue gradually to increase.
    Mr. Dempsey: American industrialists are good employers and we want factories in development areas, but can my hon. Friend say whether any initiative will be launched to encourage our own domestic industry to expand to a greater extent?
    Mr. Dell: Many initiatives have been taken to encourage British industry to expand in precisely that way. I note my hon. Friend's welcome for the contribution made by American investment in manufacturing in this country.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Will the Minister point out to his hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) that he cheerfully supported the Corporation Tax system, which makes British industry a sitting duck for American intervention? Will he make representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to change the tax system?
    Mr. Dell: I do not know that the rate of American take-over of British firms is any higher now than it was under the Government of hon. Members opposite. Certainly the Government have powers of control in cases where they feel that it would be contrary to the national interest for there to be a take-over.

    Sea Rescue Facilities (Kent Area)
    Mr. Bostonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about his review of alternative safety measures following the withdrawal of helicopters from Manston, Kent.
    The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. William Rodgers): There is a wide range of well tried and effective rescue facilities in the area on which H.M. Coastguard can call in an emergency. They include 11 life-boats and 11 fast inshore rescue boats operated by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and the Institution has now announced that it is adding two more inshore rescue boats and a new 40 ft. lifeboat. Helicopters from Coltishall and Thorney Island will be available.
    Mr. Boston: Will my hon. Friend accept that the additional facilities that he has mentioned will be welcomed? Is

    1421
    he satisfied that these will be adequate to cope with an area where there is increasing traffic? Does not he feel that there is a case for basing our rescue services as a whole on more than mainly voluntary organisations and part-time military help? Will he not consider having an inquiry into the whole matter?
    Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that we can ever say that we are satisfied with the facilities available, because it is our job to improve them as far as possible. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution has a noble record as a voluntary organisation and would, I think, prefer to keep it that way. We are certainly reviewing the facilities at present and discussing them with, for example, the Chamber of Shipping and the R.N.L.I., and we shall make such changes as may be required in the light of what we learn.

    Industrial Development Grants
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent the entitlement of companies to receipt of industrial development grant is related to the expected number of jobs to be created by the investment to which the grant relates.
    Mr. Dell: In considering assistance under the Local Employment Acts the Board of Trade are required to have regard to the relationship between the expenditure involved and the employment likely to be provided.
    It is not a condition of investment grants under the Industrial Development Act that the investment must create additional employment, though of course it often does.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Has the hon. Gentleman noted reports that taxpayers' subsidies to the projected American petrochemical complex at Invergordon may work out at £176,000 for every job created? Is this what he described earlier as an example of the effectiveness of the investment grant system in encouraging industrial development?
    Mr. Dell: I have noted such reports. I cannot, of course, give information about individual firms, but I do not believe that report, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does.
    Mr. Maclennan: Will my hon. Friend note that the suggestion being made by
    1422
    the Opposition, that this development would not be welcomed, will be rebutted strenuously and energetically throughout the Highlands?
    Mr. Dell: It is, of course, true that the investment grant system has helped greatly to create employment in Scotland and elsewhere.

    Advance Factories, Scotland (Employees)
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the President of the Board of Trade what is the total number of male and female workers, respectively, currently employed in factories in Scotland built under advance factory programmes announced since 15th October, 1964.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Of the 54 Board of Trade advance factories authorised in Scotland since 15th October, 1964, 41 have been completed. Of these, 31 have been allocated and 24 of them are in production. These 24 factories so far provide employment for 800 men and 1,030 women.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: How much, in toto, has it so far cost to provide these 800 male jobs in Scotland?
    Mrs Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman seems not to understand that this advance factory programme is producing more jobs in Scotland than have been produced for many years. His constant campaign against them will not be welcomed by Scots, even if it is welcomed by some of his hon. Friends.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Opposition for many years were entirely opposed to the principle of providing advance factories at all and that this is part of the problem from which we are suffering in Scotland today? Will she assure us that she will use every endeavour to ensure that we get tenants for these factories as early as possible?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I will certainly give that undertaking. I know that hon. Members who wax very eloquent against advance factories in the House do not do so in development areas when dealing with their constituents.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Does the hon. Lady agree that there is little point in

    1423
    building an advance factory in Scotland if it then remains empty for long periods? How can she explain her previous remarks when there has been a loss of 35,000 net jobs over the last four years compared with an increase of 30,000 in the previous four years?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The advance factory programme was started and is being carried on specifically to provide factories so that when tenants want space quickly it can be provided. The hon. Gentleman himself must know that in the past it has been painfully obvious that factories were not available when people wanted them quickly. This factory programme is changing the job picture in Scotland, and he cannot deny it.
    Mrs. Ewing: In considering this factory programme, does the hon. Lady seek the advice of the Scottish Economic Planning Board and the economic planning councils? If so, does she follow the advice that she gets?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The Government are in close contact with the economic planning councils and obviously we consider their advice very carefully.
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the hon. Lady's failure to answer my question, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as early as possible.

    Apple Imports (Licences)
    Mr. Bagierasked the President of the Board of Trade when the apple import quota licence allocation was last reviewed; and when he intends further to review the allocation.
    Mr. Dell: Apple licences were last reallocated before the quota period beginning 1st July, 1967. I have decided to reallocate licences in time for the quota period beginning 1st July this year. Notices to importers giving the details of reallocation and inviting applications were issued yesterday. I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Bagier: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the reallocation in 1967 was looked on as a radical reallocation? What new factors have arisen, or new representations been made to him, to make him look at this so soon after that reallocation?
    Mr. Dell: The 1967 reallocation may have been radical in terms of practical stability on the basis of the issue of licences since 1951, with some changes but very few; it certainly was not radical in any other sense. Since we have to have this quota system, it is necessary to try to bring the quota allocation into some sort of line with the way in which the trade could have developed in the absence of the quota system.
    Mr. John Wells: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that the quotas are being given to bona fide traders and not to "mushroom" operators who have no substantial existing trade in apples and pears?
    Mr. Dell: The qualifications for the issue of licences are explained in the notice to importers to which I have referred, and I suggest that the hon. Gentleman examines it.

    Industrial Development Certificates
    Mr. Bostonasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about his policy concerning industrial development certificates arising from the publication of the Government's review of the South-East Economic Planning Council's report, A Strategy for the South-East.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Government's reply to the Council's report answers very fully the various points raised about industrial development certificate policy in the South-East. We have nothing further to add.
    Mr. Boston: Would my hon. Friend accept that there are parts of the South-East which do not enjoy the prosperity of the region as a whole, and that this needs to be recognised in other parts of the country as well? Would she confirm that her Department will continue to exercise a flexible policy on i.d.cs., and give the maximum encouragement to town development schemes in the region?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: We take into account as far as possible the difficulties faced by some small areas of the South-East and will continue to be flexible in the way that we consider every i.d.c. application.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the President of the Board of Trade by what

    1425
    percentage the number of industrial development certificates granted in 1968 exceeded the number granted in 1965 in Scotland, England and Wales, respectively; and what were the comparable percentage increases in the factory floor covered by the industrial development certificates.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The increases by number of approvals were 7·9 per cent., 68 per cent. and 105·2 per cent., and by area 7·1 per cent., 25·2 per cent., and 96·6 per cent., respectively. The figures fluctuate from year to year and comparisons based on individual years can be misleading.
    Mr. Taylor: Are not those astonishing and depressing figures for Scotland? How can the Minister justify a situation in which the percentage of i.d.cs for Scotland granted in 1967 and 1968 was lower in both years than at any time since 1961? Is the hon. Lady aware that this is a scandalous state of affairs in view of the rapid decline in some of our traditional industries in Scotland?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman should try not to let his imagination run away with him. [Interruption.] In the four years 1965 to 1968 the number of i.d.cs approved for Scotland increased by 112 per cent. over the period 1961 to 1964. More than 42,000 jobs, 23,000 of them for men, are in prospect over the next four years in authorised new building and buildings taken over by manufacturers in Scotland.
    Mr. Gordon Campbell: Will the hon. Lady withdraw what she said about my hon. Friend's imagination—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—remembering that she had to make a correction in the OFFICIAL REPORT after giving an incorrect Answer the other day to one of my other hon. Friends?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I will certainly not withdraw my remark in view of the facts. The occasion to which the hon. Gentleman is referring was one about which I sent a letter of apology to the hon. Member concerned. The position arose because, off the cuff, I gave a figure quickly. If the hon. Gentleman is so worried about this issue and is interested in the figures, he should congratulate the Government on what they have been doing and not keep harping about the past.

    Shipbuilding and Aircraft Industry (South Africa)
    Mr. Wallasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will facilitate efforts by British companies to participate in South African shipbuilding and aircraft industries.
    Mr. Crosland: Companies investing in South Africa are expected to operate in accordance with the Voluntary Programme of investment restraint.
    Mr. Wall: Is it not a fact that, because of the United Nations embargo, the Government have deliberately prevented or discouraged participation in these industries, and that the right hon. Gentleman gave an incorrect Answer in the House on 19th March, saying that our exports to South Africa had increased, when, in fact, they have declined by £65 million and our total share of South African exports has decreased by 2 per cent.? What will he do about this?
    Mr. Crosland: I shall be answering the latter part of that question in about two minutes. On the first part, I do not have the evidence which the hon. Gentleman has. If he sends it to me, I will examine it.
    Mr. Hooley: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it is dangerous and unwise to send valuable and scarce capital resources to an area which is politically highly unstable, which could have serious political repercussions on this country's standing in the United Nations and elsewhere?
    Mr. Crosland: No, Sir. If my hon. Friend is proposing that we should impose a unilateral ban on the export of capital to South Africa, I cannot accept that. There is no suggestion of this in the United Nations Resolution. As far as I know, such a ban has never been suggested in the United Nations, and our policy on the export of capital is identical with that of those other countries which are faithfully carrying out the Security Council Resolution.

    South Africa
    Mr. Biffenasked the President of the Board Trade what is the percentage change in British exports to South Africa for the year to date compared with the corresponding period in 1968; and what

    1427
    is the estimated British share of total South African imports.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the President of the Board of Trade what was the percentage increase in British exports comparing 1968 with 1965; and what was the comparable increase in exports to South Africa.
    Mr. Crosland: The value of United Kingdom exports increased by 31 per cent. between 1965 and 1968; there was virtually no change in the value of our exports to South Africa between 1965 and 1968, or between the first quarters of 1968 and 1969. Our share of South African imports in 1968 was 24 per cent. This was less than in 1967, and not greater, as I inadvertently stated on 19th March. The trend is broadly in line with our experience in overseas sterling area markets generally.
    Mr. Biffen: Even so, do not these figures reveal that South Africa remains a major market for British goods? Would the right hon. Gentleman take this occasion to underline his own anxieties that our trade with South Africa shall continue to proceed at a buoyant level and, indeed, to increase?
    Mr. Crosland: South Africa remains a most important market, and I repeat what I have said many times in public; that our policy, on the one hand, is faithfully to carry out the United Nations Resolution on the arms ban and, on the other, otherwise to encourage civilian trade to the greatest possible extent.
    Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that at a time when trade in this market could have increased by an additional 31 per cent., our record of exports to South Africa has been disappointing? Is he satisfied that his Department is doing everything possible to encourage trade with South Africa? In particular, will he give advice to local authorities to provide every help and encouragement to South African goodwill and trade missions coming to this country?
    Mr. Crosland: To answer the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, about the decline in our share of this trade, I remind him that our share of South African trade was declining even under the Conservative Administration
    1428
    before the arms ban was introduced. This decline is roughly in line with what is happening in other developed sterling countries as a result of the shift away from traditional markets towards markets in Western Europe and the United States. Our policy in this matter is perfectly plain. It is to maintain the arms ban but, subject to that, to increase trade.
    Mr. Hastings: Do the Government consider it advantageous that the South African Government should be buying French submarines and fighters? Is he in a position to give an estimate of the sums that are being lost to us as a result of the policy that we are following?
    Mr. Crosland: There is no clear evidence—none has been submitted to me by hon. Gentlemen opposite or others—to show that our trade in non-military goods is suffering as a result of the ban. As to the ban itself, I believe that it is in the general interest of the world that the United Nations should have imposed it and that the United Kingdom should uphold it.
    Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his last comment is very welcome on this side of the House? Would he agree that rather than our exporting arms to South Africa being a help, such a step would place a tremendous strain on the supply of arms to our own Forces? Is he aware that in the constituency of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) it is being found difficult, despite what was said last year and has since been shown in the local Press, to obtain skilled labour to build up the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Crosland: I agree with my hon. Friend. At this stage I will only add a point which is consistently ignored by hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the great majority of advanced industrial countries are pursuing exactly the same policy on arms as we are.
    Mr. Wall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I beg to give notice that in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the right hon. Gentleman's Answer I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Industrial Development Certificates (Hull)
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the President of the Board of Trade how

    1429
    many industrial development certificates were applied for and how many were given to firms wishing to build a factory in Hull in the years 1966, 1967 and 1968; and what was the square footage in each year, respectively.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: In the Hull employment exchange area 21 industrial development certificates were issued in 1966, 33 in 1967 and 32 in 1968, for 450,000 sq. ft., 746,000 sq. ft., and 552,000 sq. ft. respectively. No application was refused during this period.
    Mr. Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is she aware that these figures could be vastly improved, particularly if the Government implemented the recommendations of the Hunt Committee? Will she take special note of the need for special aid in this area? Is she further aware that even better progress could be made if the Government implemented the findings of the Humberside Study, the Report of which I have with me?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: I understand that there is to be a statement about the Humberside Report. I suggest that we await the findings.
    Mr. McNamara: Even so, is my hon. Friend aware that the underlying trend in Hull is causing tremendous concern, that the people of the area are looking forward to something constructive being done as a result of the Humberside and Hunt Reports, and that we hope that things will be considerably improved?
    Mrs. Dunwoody: A certain amount of discussion is already going on with the authorities in the area about, for example, the boundaries and the findings of the Hunt Committee. We must wait to see what is decided.

    Textile Imports (Underdeveloped Countries)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the President of the Board of Trade what proportion of the home market for textiles is taken up by importers from underdeveloped countries.
    Mr. Dell: The value of imports of textile products in 1968 from the developing countries—that is, countries included in Economic Class II of the
    1430
    United Nations trade statistics—amounted to about 6 per cent. of the total sales of the textile industry to United Kingdom buyers outside the industry. These imports exclude, of course, cotton, wool and other natural fibres, but include those imports which are incorporated in exports.
    Mr. Hastings: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that reputable people connected with the industry have put the figure very much higher than that and that, depending on what one takes into account, it could, they say, be as high as 40 per cent.? While we must do all we can to help the under-developed countries, would not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is possible that, on this matter, we are going beyond reason?
    Mr. Dell: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question may be confusing the original Question, which was concerned with the home market for textiles, with the undoubtedly large imports of cotton cloth from developing countries, which, in 1968, reached about 32 per cent. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the Textile Council's recent report and the fact that my right hon. Friend is currently considering the recommendations made therein.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: Does my hon. Friend anticipate the figures which he quoted being altered in any way as a result of the increase in Purchase Tax on textiles in the Budget, about which much concern has been expressed in Lancashire?
    Mr. Dell: I hope that the increase in Purchase Tax on textiles will not affect these figures. I believe that the main factors which affect the figures are the competitiveness of the British industry and the degree to which it responds to market demands.

    Yacht Exports (Westerly Marine Ltd., Waterlooville)
    Mr. Ian Lloydasked the President of the Board of Trade what reply he has given to the representations made to him by Messrs. Westerly Marine Limited, of Waterlooville, regarding the export of yachts to the United States of America.
    Mr. William Rodgers: We did what we could to help Westerly Marine Ltd.

    1431
    with its immediate problem of finding shipping space to carry yachts to the Great Lakes ports. I understand that the position has now improved. We are making inquiries to establish whether there is likely to be a general problem, and the company is being kept informed.
    Mr. Lloyd: Are the Government taking this general problem seriously, since obviously a firm with a splendid record like this should not be placed in a position where simply because of the size of its products it cannot find shipping space to the United States?
    Mr. Rodgers: I agree with all that the hon. Member has said.

  AVIATION

    Edwards Committee's Report
    Mr. Martenasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will now make a statement on the report of the Edwards Committee.
    Mr. Fortescueasked the President of the Board of Trade when he intends to publish the report of the Edwards Committee.
    Mr. Robert Howarthasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the Government's policy for civil aviation following upon publication of the report of the Edwards Committee.
    Mr. Crosland: The report will be published this Friday, 2nd May. I shall urgently consider the Committee's recommendations, and I hope that all interested parties which wish to put their views to me will do so as soon as reasonably possible after publication.
    Mr. Marten: Can the Minister take the unusual step of leaking to the House today what will appear in the Press tomorrow, the day before publication?
    Mr. Crosland: Leaks never emerge from the Board of Trade.
    Mr. Fortescue: Could the President assure the House that in this matter he will not find himself suffering from what might be called the Hunt syndrome—that is, publishing a report and half an
    1432
    hour later refuting all its recommendations before the House of Commons?
    Mr. Crosland: My trouble is that I have never been clear exactly what a syndrome is, so that I cannot say whether I am suffering from one. At least, my intention is clear. I do not intend to publish the Government's conclusions on the report at the same time as the report is published. I hope during the summer to publish a White Paper which might form the basis of Parliamentary debate, but I do not want to do even that until there has been plenty of time for public debate on the subject and for all views to be heard.
    Mr. Robert Howarth: Would my right hon. Friend confirm that the statement he has made means he will welcome the views not only of the air corporations but also of independent operators in the aviation business and of tour operators who are greatly concerned in this?
    Mr. Crosland: Certainly. I shall very much welcome views from all interested parties in all sections of the industry.
    Mr. Onslow: While the House will welcome the Minister's attitude in that he is not taking precipitate action in this matter, will he take note that if there are recommendations which would involve legislation it would be to advantage if the legislation could come without delay?
    Mr. Crosland: I think that is right, but it is early to say at the moment whether this will be so, for it depends on what the recommendations are and what sort of views we take of them, but certainly if there has to be legislation, while I think it is unlikely that we should get it through this Session, I quite agree that it should be as early as possible in the next.

    B.O.A.C. (Pilots' Strike)
    Mr. Onslowasked the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the cost to the economy of the British Overseas Airways Corporation pilots' strike.
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will publish in a White Paper a synopsis of the claim of British Overseas Airways Corporation pilots and their remuneration compared with other international

    1433
    airlines; and what loss of revenue and of foreign exchange resulted from the British Overseas Airways Corporation pilots' strike.
    Mr. Crosland: B.O.A.C.'s preliminary estimate is that the strike caused a loss of revenue of about £5 million and a loss of profits of £4 million. The loss of foreign exchange will have been of the same order and magnitude. I do not propose to publish a White Paper on the lines suggested.
    Mr. Onslow: Is the Minister aware that many people feel that this trouble was not only very expensive but highly unnecessary, and that it was the product of an unfortunate breakdown in management-pilot relations over a considerable time? What action is he taking to ensure that it does not happen again? Would he, in particular, consider making available to the House some of the findings of Professor Woods?
    Mr. Crosland: I do not want this afternoon to try to apportion blame between the two sides in the industry, but I do not agree with the hon. Member that, as we all know, we have had for some time labour relations in B.O.A.C. which have certainly not been satisfactory. I think that the most urgent job now is that an effort should be made by both sides—by both sides—to get these labour relations on a very much more satisfactory footing, and I have made quite clear to B.O.A.C. that this is my view. As to the question of Professor Woods' reports, I shall have to consider that, because they were reports made to my right hon. Friend the First Secretary.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this air corporation is in an unique position among our nationalised industries, having to compete with very many foreign corporations of a similar character, and what has he now to tell the House about permanent reform of the consultative machinery among the highly paid executives and pilots of B.O.A.C. which would frustrate the possibility of another crisis of this kind, with heavy losses, from which he excluded the consequential losses?
    Mr. Crosland: I certainly have the same objective in mind as the hon. Gentleman does, but it is not my province
    1434
    as a Minister to get too involved in the detail of industrial relations in a nationalised corporation, although I think the machinery, as well as the attitude, does need improving. But I am bound to leave that to the responsibility of the management of the Corporation.
    Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend agree that usually it takes two to make a quarrel?
    Mr. Crosland: Well, I have already said in reply to an earlier question that I thought that there were, clearly, faults on both sides. What there is no point in doing is trying to apportion blame precisely between the two sides; the thing is not now to rake over the past but to try to make sure that it does not happen again.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that most international airlines have a senior captain on their board or on the management? This has not happened in B.O.A.C., with a consequential rift between management and the 1,200 aircrew. Would it not be logical to find a suitable man out of those 1,200 to fill this senior appointment, bridge the gap, and bring about better relations?
    Mr. Crosland: I take note of the point the hon. Gentleman raises but I do not propose to interfere to that degree of detail in the management of B.O.A.C.

    Aircraft Noise
    Mr. Onslowasked the President of the Board or Trade if he will make a statement on the progress of his talks with the United States and French aviation authorities on the establishment of aircraft noise control procedures.
    Mr. William Rodgers: Good progress was made last year in drawing up an outline tripartite noise certification plan covering future generations of subsonic jet aircraft.
    Discussions are to be resumed shortly with the American and French Governments, in which we shall seek the early adoption of a practical and internationally recognised scheme that will ensure that progressive introduction of the much quieter aircraft which recent technological innovations make possible.
    Mr. Onslow: The House recognises that the Minister has good intentions, but could he tell us what noise levels he is talking about in these terms and when he anticipates agreement will be reached? Can he assure us that he is taking steps to keep the Roskill Commission informed of the progress which is being made, as the results must be relevant to its inquiry?
    Mr. Rodgers: I cannot say when agreement will be reached because it depends, quite clearly, not only on ourselves but also on the French and American Governments, in particular. We are moving as fast as we possibly can. The point about noise levels is not easy because, as the hon. Gentleman and the House know, they vary in different circumstances, and particularly in relation to weight of aircraft. I think the standards which we are aiming at are ones in which the House will find some satisfaction. Certainly we shall ensure that the Roskill Commission is kept in touch with the progress which is made.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will my hon. Friend give attention in particular to the recommendations of the Ministers of the Council of Europe regarding the limitation of noise levels when licensing aircraft?
    Mr. Rodgers: I think we share a common problem with many other countries. Noise is a very real social problem, and there is a general anxiety to reduce the current levels. Certainly we will consult with everybody who can help towards this end.

    Directors, British European Airways (Charter Firms)
    Mr. Fortescueasked the President of the Board of Trade which directors of British European Airways have notified him that they have a financial interest in firms engaged in chartering aircraft.
    Mr. William Rodgers: No member of B.E.A. Board has notified us of a financial interest in any company operating aircraft for charter use. One member has an interest in a travel agency which charters aircraft from operators.
    Mr. Fortescue: In view of the suggestion by B.E.A. that it will go into the charter business on a large scale, and in view especially of the provisions of the Air Corporations Bill, now before the
    1436
    House, does the Minister agree that it would be entirely improper for any member of the B.E.A. board who has an interest in a charter company or in a travel agency to be a permanent member of that board?
    Mr. Rodgers: Conflicts of interest are bound to occur from time to time in industry. The real safeguard is disclosure. We are proposing to take powers which will provide certain statutory backing for a practice which the Board of Trade has been carrying out informally. I think that this is the best way to do it.

    B.O.A.C. (Pilots' Pay)
    Mr. Ridleyasked the President of the Board of Trade whether the settlement of the British Overseas Airways Corporation pilots' salary claim is within the terms of the prices and incomes policy.
    Mr. Crosland: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 25th April—[Vol. 782, c. 147.]
    Mr. Ridley: Without commenting either way on the settlement, which is none of my business, can the right hon. Gentleman say how a 15 per cent. average increase, from which the productivity increase strings were cut away, can possibly be regarded as coming within the terms of the Government's prices and incomes policy? Does this now mean that that policy has been jettisoned by the Government?
    Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman's opening words, if universally carried out in the House, would very much shorten our debates. On the merit of the matter, the hon. Gentleman is, of course, right in saying that this is a very large increase. On the other hand, it is not a straight pay increase. There is also the introduction of an entirely new system of piece work and a number of other detailed productivity matters, some of which have not yet been wholly agreed between the Corporation and B.A.L.P.A. Until we have examined the productivity aspect, it is not possible to make a more positive statement.
    Mr. Brooks: Would my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to take the comparability criteria seriously, it might

    1437
    be a good idea to deal with the glamour boys of transport in the same way as we deal with the busmen?
    Mr. Crosland: To imitate the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), the busmen are not my responsibility; nor is the incomes policy generally. However, I have noted my hon. Friend's remarks. As I said in my original Answer, we are looking at this settlement in the light of the Government's policy.

  SHIPPING

    Bulwark Ladders and Stanchion Combinations (Safety)
    Mr. Costainasked the President of the Board of Trade why he has not issued a notice incorporating I.S.O. Recommendation R.799/68 on the safety of bulwark ladders and stanchion combinations.
    Mr. William Rodgers: Because the I.S.O. Recommendation does not provide the degree of latitude contained in the Pilot Ladder Rules, 1965 which is essential having regard to the many different designs and shapes of vessels on which pilot ladders are used.
    Mr. Costain: Does the Minister appreciate that I asked his right hon. Friend about the matter following the death of a pilot and we were led to believe that these regulations would be implemented? Since then eight months have passed and there have been other serious accidents. What is the hon. Gentleman to say to pilots, who are perfectly entitled not to board ships under these conditions? Does he want them to go on strike?
    Mr. Rodgers: These are very difficult problems involving technical considerations. I know of the hon. Member's deep concern, which we share. There are still differences of opinion among the interested parties. We are having discussions, and I hope, like the hon. Member, that these differences will be resolved very shortly.

HUMBERSIDE FEASIBILITY STUDY (REPORT)
The Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Peter Shore): With permission, I wish to make a Statement on the Humberside Feasibility Study which was
1438
published by the Stationery Office today. Copies are available in the Vote Office.
This is the first Report of the Central Unit for Environmental Planning—a planning team drawn from five Government Departments under the chairmanship of one of my senior officials. It is an important document, dealing with issues of concern to people in all parts of the country.
By the end of the century the population of Great Britain is expected to increase by nearly 15 million, a scale of increase without precedent. Regional and sub-regional strategies for population growth are being developed in all regions with the advice of the regional economic planning councils. In order, however, to consider well in advance the possibility of placing some part of this great increase in population in major new centres, three areas were selected for detailed study—Humberside, Severnside and Tayside.
The Humberside Study accordingly makes a detailed factual appraisal of the costs and benefits to the nation of promoting a major influx of population into that area which is well clear of the country's main existing concentrations of industry and population.
The Report concludes that Humberside has the physical potential to absorb three quarters of a million people and so become an attractive community of nearly 2 million people by the end of the century. It estimates, however, that existing plans, including new towns and town expansion schemes, should be adequate to cope with the increase in the country's population until about 1980, so that an immediate decision whether or not to go ahead on Humberside is not required. Moreover, further study is needed of how the costs and benefits of Humberside would compare with those of other possible ways of locating the same population.
Nevertheless, Humberside should be regarded as an area which may well be needed as a site of major population growth after 1980. Accordingly, the Report recommends that measures should be taken in the interim to sustain the area's momentum of economic growth and preserve its potential as a major growth centre. A key factor here is the unification of the two sides of the Humber into a single economic area. To this end the Report recommends early completion of a Humber Bridge.

1439
The Government are consulting the Yorkshire and Humberside Council and the local planning authorities about the Report and its recommendations.
The Government accept the Report's conclusion that the Humber Bridge and associated linking roads should be constructed in time for service in 1976. To meet this timetable, the necessary preparatory work will be continued so that construction can start in 1972.
Like other major estuarial crossings, the bridge will be financed by loan, and tolled. The greater part of the cost will count against the road programme in the usual way, while the remainder will form part of the roads element in the programme for additional expenditure in intermediate areas which I announced in the House last Thursday.
When completed, the Humber Bridge will be the longest suspension bridge in the country, and one of the longest in the world.
Sir K. Joseph: Is the Minister aware that we welcome the commitment to the Hull bridge, the longest suspension bridge in the country, even if its start is to be deferred until 1972, when the next Government will be in office? Does the Minister agree that there has been a very long period of suspense since the right hon. Lady the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity dangled the bridge before the electorate of Hull at a by-election four years ago?
Mr. Shore: The suspense has been nothing like so long as the time which passed between the passage of the Humber Bridge Act, 1959 and the announcement that I have made.
Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the necessity to go ahead as soon as he can with the construction of roads necessary to serve this bridge, particularly from the South?
Mr. Shore: The building of the bridge will necessitate certain link roads and these are covered by the statement I have made.
Mr. Wall: Is this decision absolutely final and will work start this year and be completed in 1976 in accordance with the Humberside Feasibility Study?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the completion of the M62 and
1440
M18 roads will be through to Hull by that date to link with the bridge?
Will the right hon. Gentleman congratulate those who have compiled this voluminous and excellent Report?
Mr. Shore: I thank the hon. Member for his closing remarks.
Preparatory work on the bridge will take a considerable time to complete, but I have in mind a programme which will allow the bridge to be completed and in use by 1976. The other roads in the road programme will go ahead according to the time-tables already announced.
Mr. James Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the whole of Hull and Humberside will warmly welcome the findings of the Humberside Feasibility Study, and particularly his statement that he will implement the pledges made in Hull some years ago? Without this bridge linking the economic units on the north and south banks, Hull itself would never gain its full stature nor would the people of Humberside enjoy the full life which they deserve.
Mr. Shore: I have no doubt at all that the completion of the Humber Bridge will be of great benefit on both sides of the estuary. Even apart from the projected expansion of the whole Humberside area as a major centre for population location, it will be of great help to the communities and the economic viability of both sides of the Humber.
Mr. Bryan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the most dangerous immediate problem is the road east and west of Hull and the lack of a crossing to Selby, where traffic is building up to a dangerous degree? Will he give a date for the building of that road and a bridge in the Selby area?
Mr. Shore: That is a different question. If the hon. Member puts it to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport I am certain he will be glad to answer.
Mr. George Jeger: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this Report takes a very narrow view of Humberside and almost ignores completely the hinterland, particularly Goole and Thorne, where there are large areas of unemployment and much potential growth? Is he aware that road access to the Humber

1441
Bridge across Lincolnshire will cost almost as much as the bridge itself and will make the North Hull by-election the most expensive by-election that we have ever had?
Mr. Shore: I think that my hon. Friend has taken, for him, a surprisingly parochial view of the benefits of the Humber Bridge to the whole Humberside area.
Sir H. Legge-Bourke: While the incorporation of a Humber bridge into the exciting scheme for Humberside north and south is greatly to be welcomed, has full consideration been given in the Report to the very high quality of much of the agricultural land on the south bank of the Humber? Is the right hon. Gentleman certain that the most economic use will be made of that?
Mr. Shore: When he studies the Report I think that the hon. Member will find, on page 50 a very admirable balance of advantages and disadvantages, including, of course, the price to be paid in terms of loss of agricultural land. This is clearly one of the factors which must be weighed in coming to a conclusion about the case for such an expansion on Humberside.
Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I welcome his announcement, and, in particular, the general underlying tone of confidence which appears in the Report? Further, I congratulate him and his Department on the work that has been done, which follows the pattern outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity when she spoke in Hull on that occasion.
Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has more direct experience of these events than most hon. Members in the House. I am grateful to him for his commendation and his remarks.
Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend resist the temptation, if so dazzled by the Humber Bridge, important as it is, to overlook the consequences for other parts of the Yorkshire and Humberside region of the development, or lack of it, in the
1442
Scunthorpe and Immingham area, which could have repercussions on the steel producing centres in other parts of the region?
Does he also agree that Yorkshire and Humberside is the only area which has no new town growth centre and that the deferment of such growth to 1980, as suggested in the Report, might be adverse to the development of the region as a whole?
Mr. Shore: I do not think that this would have the adverse effect on the towns on the south bank that my hon. Friend has mentioned. On the contrary, I think that it will give them considerable indirect benefit as it will help the whole of the Humberside area.

BILL PRESENTED
  IRON AND STEEL
  Bill to make new provision in relation to the finances of the British Steel Corporation and certain of their subsidiaries; to empower the Minister of Power to vest property, rights, liabilities or obligations of certain of that Corporation's subsidiaries in them and dissolve certain of their subsidiaries and, in that connection, to amend section 41 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1949; to amend the enactments relating to corporation tax in their application, in certain circumstances, to that Corporation; to empower the Board of Trade to make to that Corporation grants comparable to certain of those that may be made under the Industrial Development Act, 1966, and the Ministry of Commerce for Northern Ireland to make to them grants comparable to certain of those that may be made under the Industrial Investment (General Assistance) Act (Northern Ireland), 1966; to alter that Corporation's financial year; and to make new provision with respect to the authentication of the fixing of their seal, presented by Mr. Roy Mason; supported by Mr. John Diamond and Mr. Reginald Freeson; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 148.]

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS
Mr. Tony Gardner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the registration and control of private detectives, investigators and certain other persons engaged in obtaining information about private citizens; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
During recent years there has been a great increase in the amount of spying and prying into our personal secrets. Government Departments require a great deal of information to carry out the economic and social legislation which this House has enacted. But so do private agencies—credit agencies, prospective employers, and many other people. The range of these inquiries is increasing all the time.
I have in my hand a brochure issued by one of the larger firms of private investigators in London. Among the areas which are inquired into are the following: divorce, status inquiries, tracings, repossessions, fraud, internal thefts, embezzlement, industrial espionage, blackmail cases, insurance claims, contested wills, patent infringements and lost relatives.
The point which disturbs me and those who support the Bill is that new methods are now being used. The revolution which has taken place in the electronics industry following the introduction of the transistor has made it possible for the investigator into our private lives no longer to have to hide under the bed, in the wardrobe, or in a very damp shrubbery. By using modern electronic devices, he can investigate and record what we are doing, often from some distance away. During recent weeks I have seen electronic devices for this purpose that would make hon. Members' hair stand on end.
The Englishman's home used to be his castle, but increasingly his home is now open to both public and private gaze. It may be that some of the public and private collecting of information is really necessary—we do not live in a perfect world—but, clearly, a comprehensive new law about the right to individual privacy is now needed.
Hon. Members of both Houses of Parliament have been trying for some time to get such legislation. In 1961, Lord
1444
Mancroft, introduced a Right to Privacy Bill in the other place. Unfortunately, that Bill got no further than Second Reading. In February, 1967, my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) was given leave to introduce a similar Bill in this House. Later that same year the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) initiated a debate on the subject of the rights and liberties of the individual—again with no effect.
Those of us who are associated with the campaign being conducted by the National Council for Civil Liberties for the right to privacy hope very much that the Government will take the initiative and will introduce in the near future comprehensive legislation in what is admittedly a very difficult sphere.
In the meantime, the Bill which I seek leave to introduce today seeks to deal with the particular problem of the private investigator. When a policeman or any public servant investigating a personal matter breaks the rules or behaves in a manner which this House would find objectionable, we can ultimately question his conduct here or perhaps in some other place. But there is no one available to keep an eye on the "private eye".
Therefore, the Bill will require, first, that anyone acting as an inquiry agent on any matter passing through the courts must be authorised to do so by a written certificate issued by a county court judge who will have to satisfy himself that the applicant is a fit and proper person to hold such a certificate. The applicant, furthermore, will be required to take out a bond in the sum of £1,000.
The device which I have adopted puts the private investigator in a similar position to the well-recognised position of the bailiff who is regarded, in effect, as an officer of the court in matters with which the court is concerned.
Secondly, the Bill will provide that, in the event of misconduct, the court will be able to withdraw the certificate and require the surrender of all or part of the bond. That will mean not merely that the judge to whom the application is made would have to make inquiries about the person applying, but that the insurance company issuing the bond would have to be certain about his financial responsibility before issuing such a bond.

1445
Thirdly, the Bill will require the Lord Chancellor to maintain a central list of all the certificates which have been issued by county courts and also a list of those to whom certificates had been refused for one reason or another. He would be further authorised to make any rules which might be necessary to carry out the objects of registration.
No one likes more rules and regulations. The trouble is that, unlike medicine and the law, the sphere of private investigation has no single professional body which can regulate the activities of private detectives. During the last few months I have had many discussions with people operating in this area. It has been very difficult to get firm evidence and views from anyone because there are so many associations and one is never sure who belongs to which.
As matters stand, there is nothing to stop a man coming out of prison tomorrow—he may have been convicted of blackmail—putting an advertisement in one of the London evening newspapers, setting up in business as a private detective, and thereby getting hold of information which might not merely be embarrassing to the individual, but could be personally very damaging.
Although some activities—forcible entry, telephone tapping and the use of radio transmitters—are illegal, it is well-nigh
1446
impossible to control their use because a private detective, by definition, must operate in private. At least we ought to ensure that those who seek this kind of information are honourable men and women. Most people in the profession are honourable. All I seek to do is to ensure that this honour is maintained in a profession doing a difficult job.
The House has always regarded the rights of the individual as extremely important, and privacy is an important part of those rights. For this reason, I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gardner, Mr. Lubbock, Dame Joan Vickers, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Mr. Fisher, Sir G. de Freitas, and Mr. Raymond Fletcher.

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS
  PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS
  Bill to provide for the registration and control of private detectives, investigators and certain other persons engaged in obtaining information about private citizens; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 13th June and to be printed. [Bill 146.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  POST OFFICE BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
  POST OFFICE BILL
    New Clause 6

      QUESTIONS TO THE MINISTER
      Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: I understand that the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) has the floor.
      3.50 p.m.
      Mr. Paul Bryan: Mr. Speaker, when we broke off for the luncheon interval, I had been arguing the value of the Parliamentary Question to hon. Members, the value to the consumer of his accessibility to his Member of Parliament, and of the hon. Member's accessibility to the Minister. I argued, further, that this was often the consumer's or the constituent's only access to authority.
      I also argued that if we took away the Parliamentary Question, nothing had been conceived to take its place. Neither the Ombudsman nor the Consumer Council nor any other device would take its place. I summed up by saying, that as a result of the passing of this Bill, the consumer would be in a markedly weaker position. He would have lost his access to authority through his Member of Parliament, and nothing credible was being put in its place. Unless it is a practical impossibility for the Parliamentary Question to remain in its present position, this Clause should be passed.
      What are the possible snags? What is the impracticability of this? Is the new Minister in a position to deal with this sort of problem and has he the necessary staff? I do not think that it can be said that he is short of staff. When we examined the matter in Committee, we found that no fewer than 400 civil servants would be allotted to the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. Whenever we asked how he would pass his time and use his staff, the Postmaster-General came back to his wireless and
      1448
      television problems. However, there are at the moment 105 civil servants occupied in this Department. What will the remaining 295 do? If the Postmaster-General seeks leave to speak again, we would like to know from him exactly how his staff will be employed.
      One thing is certain. He has enough staff to deal with Questions. Again, in Committee we discussed his Ministerial assistance, and we could not think what the Parliamentary Secretary to this Minister would do. It was only because of our affection for the present Assistant Postmaster-General that we thought that this would be a nice way for him to pass, if not the autumn, the late summer of his life. However, if it is proved that another junior Minister is required to deal with the number of Questions likely to come, assuming they continue, we shall not quibble about it.
      In the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries of its investigation into Ministerial Control of the Nationalised Industries, it was pointed out that the duties of the sponsoring Minister were, first, to exercise overall control of policy and, second, to safeguard the responsibility of the industry to the consumer. That is really what we are trying to make sure that he does now.
      The second practical snag which is sometimes brought up is that Questions in Parliament are an obstacle to the smooth functioning of the Corporation. Let us consider for a moment the effect of Parliamentary Questions on the Post Office. To get a fair and authoritative view on it, one can do no better than refer to the evidence of Sir Ronald German, who for many years was in a very senior position in the Post Office.
      In his evidence to the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, the Chairman asked him, at Question 26:
      "Do you find, apart from what you have already told us, that the management of the Post Office is influenced by the parliamentary control as it now exists?"
      Sir Ronald replied:
      "I do not think there is any doubt that the existing form of parliamentary control has a market effect on the Post Office. It affects the Post Office at all levels …. The effect of having Ministers in the House responsible for day to day operations of the organisation, liable to be questioned in Parliament by Members on day to day operations of the

      1449
      organisation, has a profound effect right down through the organisation."
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: Would my hon. Friend tell us whether there is any reference in that evidence to the effect that Parliamentary Questions are dangerous? That was one of the points made to hon. Members.
      Mr. Bryan: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to continue on this line of argument, because I think that his point will be answered in a moment.
      A little later in his evidence, Sir Ronald said:
      "It is not the problem created by the occasional Parliamentary Question, the amount of time involved in answering a Question or indeed the amount of time involved in answering letters from Members of Parliament."
      I think that that is the answer to my hon. Friend.
      "It is the inhibiting effect in the organisation of parliamentary control."
      Apparently it is not the Question itself, but Parliamentary control in a general way which inhibits the Corporation.
      A colleague of Sir Ronald's went on to say:
      "It is rather difficult to disentangle the effects of parliamentary control as such from the effects of being a Civil Service Department and having Civil Service procedures, not all of which are laid down because of the needs of parliamentary control …. Whereas there is nothing wrong with that, it is bound to lead to a defensive type of attitude of mind, especially in people who are of an impressionable type."
      We cannot blind ourselves to the fact that probably it has some inhibiting factors about it.
      Later still in his evidence, Sir Ronald said:
      "The advantages of parliamentary control surely are rather these, that here is a public service affecting almost every individual person in the community, and with parliamentary control it is the individual member of the community who feels that at least his representatives are able to question the people in charge about something which he feels is of vital concern to him. It is this aspect, I would have thought, which is important from the general community point of view."
      There we have a balanced view. Clearly, it is not altogether welcomed at the Post Office, but those in charge realise that, in a monopoly position of this sort and in a service industry, they must expect this amount of supervision.
      1450
      Another point on the question of how inhibiting this is in a Corporation was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Sir H. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid) and my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), when they referred to the possibility of this sort of atmosphere adversely affecting the recruitment of first-class talent of high managerial calibre. However, I do not think that a case for that has been made.
      In the Select Committee's Report on Ministerial Control of the Nationalised Industries, paragraph 294 describes the difficulties of personnel selection at that level. It does not say that it is because of the difficult atmosphere in the nationalised industries, but that personnel selection is not done very well. The present Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity said, when she was Minister of Transport, that she thought that Ministers were too dependent on available knowledge that "may be knocking about" and on general reputations. That is the scientific basis on which they make their selections—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will link what he is saying with the new Clause.
      4.0 p.m.
      Mr. Bryan: I am cutting down the passage for that reason, Mr. Speaker. I have now finished it. The point I was making was that, if there is any reason why we do not get the best management in the Post Office or in public corporations now, it is not Parliamentary accountability or Parliamentary Questions.
      Mention has been made of the Post Office's monopoly position. Superficially, it may appear to be a monopoly like any other monopoly, but in fact it is the monopoly of all monopolies. It is unique. It is a special case. When nationalisation was introduced in the 1940s, we thought of the fuel and power industries in general in terms of monopoly. In fact, to my surprise, they have become highly competitive with each other. All sorts of things have happened which we could not foresee, like the rise of the gas industry and so on.
      Thus, a great deal of competition is looking after the consumer to a certain extent, whether or not that extent is satisfactory. The nationalised airways compete with other countries' airlines while

      1451
      the railways compete with the motorcar, which is one of the reasons why the railways suffer. But there is no competition for the Post Office in the majority of its dealings.
      We all know the danger of monopoly to the customer. It fails to react to him. In addition, it fails to react in its business dealings and the best possible illustration of that is the one fresh in our minds—the two-tier postal system in its early days. There was chaos for the first two or three weeks, and, clearly, any competitive industry would have reacted and changed straight away. The original idea was that the situation would be reviewed after three months but within three days one could see what was happening. The Post Office was well off the mark and it was Parliamentary accountability which got us the debate. We were well-informed of what was happening all over the country and were able to tell the Postmaster-General about it. It was because of this accountability that the right hon. Gentleman made the alterations he did.
      In the light of this tremendous argument, which I think everyone agrees with, I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has not taken a more conciliatory line. On Clause 13, earlier, he put up the white flag after nothing more than a shot across his bows. We have had many hours of debate and many broadsides have been fired at him, but he is still unwilling to include the new Clause, which he practically admits to be harmless. We cannot understand why we have been required to debate for so long something which at least would do no harm and which, clearly, is wanted by a majority of hon. Members.
      No method has been found to protect the consumer superior to parliamentary accountability and Questions. The Minister is equipped to deal with the matter. The embarrassment, if it is embarrassment, is often beneficial to the Post Office. The argument against Questions about day-to-day operations may be tenable in the other nationalised industries, but the Post Office is a special situation where it is not. Therefore, whether the new Clause is passed or not, one of the most important
      1452
      things will be the Minister's interpretation in future of what is day-to-day and what is not.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said that he depended very much on the Clerks at the Table for interpretation of whether a Question is acceptable or not and I dare say that, in turn, they are influenced by what they know the Minister himself will accept. I hope that the pattern is set early in the life of the Corporation whereby the Minister, whatever the Act, as it then will be, says, will accept a very wide range of Questions and will remember that what may be trivia to a Minister is a real grievance to a constituent.
      I finish on a different subject. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow my hon. Friends who wish to speak to continue this debate. I do not think that you were present this morning when the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) made a two-hour speech. It was entirely welcome, enjoyable, instructive and useful, but it had the effect that a number of my hon. Friends, who had waited all through last night's debate and all through this morning's debate with speeches prepared, were not able to speak. It is an unusual and unique situation. I ask you to consider this situation when the Closure is put, as no doubt it will be.
      Mr. Joseph Harper (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      The House proceeded to a Division—
      Sir Harmar Nicholls(seated and covered): On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In accepting the Motion for the Closure, it may well be that justice is not being done to the argument. I know that some of my hon. Friends want to speak in support of the Postmaster-General's case. All we have heard are speeches opposed to it. We have not had a balanced debate if those who hold views similar to the right hon. Gentleman are not allowed to express them from the back benches.
      Mr. Speaker: The question of accepting a Motion for the Closure is a matter for Mr. Speaker.
      The House divided: Ayes 222, Noes 183.

      Division No. 179.]

      AYES

      [4.7 p.m.

      Albu, Austen

      Harper, Joseph

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Anderson, Donald

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Archer, Peter

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Murray, Albert

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Haseldine, Norman

      Neal, Harold

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Hattersley, Roy

      Newens, Stan

      Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Oakes, Gordon

      Bagier, Gorgon A. T.

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Ogden, Eric

      Barnes, Michael

      Hilton, W. S.

      O'Malley, Brian

      Barnett, Joel

      Hooley, Frank

      Oram, Albert E.

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Orbach, Maurice

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Orme, Stanley

      Bishop, E. S.

      Howie, W.

      Oswald, Thomas

      Blackburn, F.

      Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

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

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Booth, Albert

      Hunter, Adam

      Paget, R. T.

      Boston, Terence

      Hynd, John

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

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

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Boyden, James

      Janner, Sir Barnett

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Bray, Dr. Jeremy

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Brooks, Edwin

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

      Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

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

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

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

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Pentland, Norman

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

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Buchan, Norman

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

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Cant, R. B.

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Probert, Arthur

      Carmichael, Neil

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

      Rankin, John

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Rees, Merlyn

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Chapman, Donald

      Judd, Frank

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

      Coleman, Donald

      Kelley, Richard

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Kenyon, Clifford

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Rose, Paul

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Lawson, George

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Dalyell, Tam

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Ryan, John

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Sheldon, Robert

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)

      Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lipton, Marcus

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Lomas, Kenneth

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

      Delargy, Hugh

      Luard, Evan

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Dell, Edmund

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Dempsey, James

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Silverman, Julius

      Dickens, James

      McBride, Neil

      Skeffington, Arthur

      Dobson, Ray

      McCann, John

      Slater, Joseph

      Doig, Peter

      MacColl, James

      Small, William

      Driberg, Tom

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      McGuire, Michael

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

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

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Eadie, Alex

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Edelman, Maurice

      Mackle, John

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Taverne, Dick

      Ellis, John

      Maclennan, Robert

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

      English, Michael

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

      Ennals, David

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Thornton, Ernest

      Ensor, David

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Tinn, James

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

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Tomney, Frank

      Finch, Harold

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

      Urwin, T. W.

      Fletcher Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Manuel, Archie

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mapp, Charles

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Foley, Maurice

      Marks, Kenneth

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Marquand, David

      Wellbeloved, James

      Ford, Ben

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Forrester, John

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Whitlock, William

      Fowler Gerry

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Mendelson, John

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Gardner, Tony

      Mikardo, Ian

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Garrett, W. E.

      Millan, Bruce

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Gregory, Arnold

      Molloy, William

      Woof, Robert

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Moonman, Eric

      Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brghtside)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Mr. Ernest G. Perry and

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Mr. Alan Fitch.

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      1454

      1455

      NOES

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon N. W.)

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Astor, John

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Peel, John

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Percival, Ian

      Balniel, Lord

      Hawkins, Paul

      Peyton, John

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Hay, John

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Batsford, Brian

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Pounder, Rafton

      Bell, Ronald

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Pym, Francis

      Bessell, Peter

      Hiley, Joseph

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Holland, Philip

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Hordern, Peter

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Braine, Bernard

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Royle, Anthony

      Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

      Hunt, John

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Scott, Nicholas

      Bryan, Paul

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Scott-Hopkins, James

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

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Sharples, Richard

      Buck, Antony (Colchester)

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

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

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Silvester, Frederick

      Burden, F. A.

      Jopling, Michael

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

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

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Kerby, Capt. Henry

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Speed, Keith

      Channon, H. P. G.

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Stainton, Keith

      Clark, Henry

      Kitson, Timothy

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Clegg, Walter

      Lancaster, Col. C. G.

      Stodart, Anthony

      Costain, A. P.

      Lane, David

      Summers, Sir Spencer

      Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Tapsell, Peter

      Crouch, David

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

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

      Dance, James

      Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Davidson, James, (Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Longden, Gilbert

      Temple, John M.

      Dean, Paul

      Lubbock, Eric

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Drayson, G. B.

      MacArthur, Ian

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Eden, Sir John

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      McMaster, Stanley

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

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

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Emery, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Walker, Peter (Worcester)

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Maginnis, John E.

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

      Marten, Neil

      Walters, Dennis

      Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

      Mawby, Ray

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Eyre, Reginald

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Farr John

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Fortescue, Tim

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Wiggin, A. W.

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

      Monro, Hector

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      More, Jasper

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Glover, Sr Douglas

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Goodhart, Philip

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Goodhew Victor

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Worsley, Marcus

      Gower, Raymond

      Murton, Oscar

      Wright, Esmond

      Grant, Anthony

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Younger, Hn. George

      Gresham Cooke, R.

      Neave, Airey

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Gurden Harold

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Mr. Humphrey Atkins and

      Hall-Davies, A. G. F.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Question put accordingly, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 201, Noes 206.

      Division No. 180.]

      AYES

      [4.16 p.m.

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Bell, Ronald

      Braine, Bernard

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos & Fhm)

      Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Berry, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Astor John

      Bessell, Peter

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

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

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Bryan, Paul

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

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

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Buck, Antony (Colchester)

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Balniel, Lord

      Booth, Albert

      Burden, F. A.

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Boyd-Carpenter, R. Hn. John

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Batsford, Brian

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Channon, H. P. G.

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Clark, Henry

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Pym, Francis

      Costain, A. P.

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

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Crouch, David

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Crowder, F. P.

      Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Jopling, Michael

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Dance, James

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Kerby, Capt. Henry

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Dean, Paul

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

      Royle, Anthony

      Dickens, James

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Drayson, G. B.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Ryan, John

      Driberg, Tom

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Eden, Sir John

      Kitson, Timothy

      Scott, Nicholas

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Lancaster, Col. C. G.

      Scott-Hopkins, James

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

      Lane, David

      Sharples, Richard

      Emery, Peter

      Lee, John (Reading)

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

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Silvester, Frederick

      Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

      Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

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

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

      Farr, John

      Longden, Gilbert

      Speed, Keith

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Lubbock, Eric

      Stainton, Keith

      Fortescue, Tim

      MacArthur, Ian

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

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

      McMaster, Stanley

      Stodart, Anthony

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

      Summers, Sir Spencer

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Tapsell, Peter

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Maginnis, John E.

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

      Goodhew, Victor

      Marten Neil

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Gower, Raymond

      Maude, Angus

      Temple, John M.

      Grant, Anthony

      Mawby, Ray

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Gresham Cooke, R.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Gurden, Harold

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Monro, Hector

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Walker, Peter (Worcester)

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

      More, Jasper

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Walters, Dennis

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Murton, Oscar

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Hay, John

      Neave, Airey

      Wiggin, A. W.

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Newens, Stan

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Onslow, Cranley

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Hiley, Joseph

      Orme, Stanley

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Worsley, Marcus

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Wright, Esmond

      Holland, Philip

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Peel, John

      Hordern, Peter

      Percival, Ian

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Peyton, John

      Mr. Hugh Jenkins and

      Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Mr. Ian Mikardo.

      Hunt, John

      Pounder, Rafton

      NOES

      Albu, Austen

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Edelman, Maurice

      Anderson, Donald

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Archer, Peter

      Chapman, Donald

      Ellis, John

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Coleman, Donald

      English, Michael

      Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

      Conlan, Bernard

      Ennals, David

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Ensor, David

      Barnes, Michael

      Crawshaw, Richard

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

      Barnett, Joel

      Crossman Rt. Hn. Richard

      Finch, Harold

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Dalyell, Tam

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Blackburn, F.

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Foley, Maurice

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Ford, Ben

      Boston, Terence

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Forrester, John

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Fowler, Gerry

      Boyden James

      Delargy, Hugh

      Freeson, Reginald

      Bray, Dr. Jeremy

      Dell, Edmund

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Brooks, Edwin

      Dempsey, James

      Gardner, Tony

      Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

      Dewar, Donald

      Garrett, W. E.

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

      Dobson, Ray

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

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

      Doig, Peter

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Buchan, Norman

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Cant, R. B.

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

      Gregory, Arnold

      Carmichael, Neil

      Eadie, Alex

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      1458

      1459

      Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

      Mackie, John

      Rees, Merlyn

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Harper, Joseph

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Rose, Paul

      Haseldine, Norman

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Hattersley, Roy

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

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Manuel, Archie

      Sheldon, Robert

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Mapp, Charles

      Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.

      Hilton, W. S.

      Marks, Kenneth

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

      Hobden, Dennis

      Marquand, David

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Hooley, Frank

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Skeffington, Arthur

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Mayhew, Christopher

      Slater, Joseph

      Howie, W.

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Small, William

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Millan, Bruce

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Hunter, Adam

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Hynd, John

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

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Moonman, Eric

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

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

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Janner, Sir Barnett

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Taverne, Dick

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Thornton, Ernest

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

      Murray, Albert

      Tinn, James

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Neal, Harold

      Tomney, Frank

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

      Oakes, Gordon

      Urwin, T. W.

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Ogden, Eric

      Judd, Frank

      O'Malley, Brian

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Kelley, Richard

      Oram, Albert E.

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Kenyon, Clifford

      Orbach, Maurice

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Lawson, George

      Oswald, Thomas

      Wellbeloved, James

      Leadbitter, Ted

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

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Whitlock, William

      Lipton, Marcus

      Paget, R. T.

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Luard, Evan

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      McBride, Neil

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      McCann, John

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      MacColl, James

      Pentland, Norman

      Woof, Robert

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      McGuire, Michael

      Price, William (Rugby)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Probert, Arthur

      Mr. Ernest G. Perry and

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Rankin, John

      Mr. Alan Fitch.

    New Clause 7

      POSTAL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOARD
      (1) There shall be established in accordance with the provisions of Schedule (The Postal and Telecommunications Board) to this Act a Postal and Telecommunications Board (in this Act referred to as 'the Board') which shall have the powers and duties conferred or imposed on it by or by virtue of the following provisions of this section.

      (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any of the provisions of this Act or any exclusive or other privileges, powers or duties conferred or imposed on the Post Office by or by virtue of any of those provisions, the Board shall have power to license the provision and performance of postal and telecommunications services, including any facilities or services ancillary or incidental to any such services, whether generally or in any area or for any purpose or by any means or system specified in the licence.

      (3) Any licence so granted may be granted either unconditionally or subject to any conditions specified in the licence and either irrevocably or subject to revocation as therein specified, and nothing done under and in accordance with any licence under this section
      1460
      shall constitute an infringement of any privilege conferred on the Post Office by this Act.

      (4) In exercising their discretion to grant or refuse to grant any licence applied for under and in accordance with this section and their discretion to attach conditions to any such licence, the Board shall have regard to—

      (a) any services or facilities then provided by the Post Office and the general duty of the Post Office under section 9 of this Act,

      (b) the extent to which the licence will authorise the provision of services or facilities not or not adequate provided by the Post Office or services or facilities necessary or desirable in the public interest in addition to any services or facilities then provided by the Post Office.

      (c) the extent to which the grant of the licence will promote or encourage the provision or development, whether experimentally or otherwise, of services or facilities required or likely to be useful in the public interest, and

      (d) any objections or representations made in accordance with any relevant regulations made under subsection (7) of this section.

      (5) In any licence authorising the use of wireless telegraphy apparatus, the Board shall

      1461
      include a condition specifying the frequencies on or between which such apparatus may or the frequencies on or between which it may not be used, and in fixing such frequencies the Board shall have regard to any direction from time to time given to them in writing by the Minister as to the frequencies for the time being reserved by the Minister for the exclusive use of the Forces of the Crown, police, fire, ambulance or other security services.

      (6) If at any time the Board are satisfied, whether or not any application or representation has been made to them for the purpose, that it is right and proper so to do they may revoke, suspend or vary the licence, but if any licence is revoked, suspended or varied by the Board otherwise than on the application of the holder of the licence, the revocation, suspension or variation shall not take effect until the expiration of the period prescribed by regulations made under subsection (7) of this section for the making of an appeal against the Board's decision nor if an appeal is duly made during that period until the determination or abandonment of the appeal.

      (7) The Minister shall by regulations make provision—

      (a) for requiring, except in such circumstances, if any, as may be specified in the regulations, publication of notice of the making of any application for the grant, revocation, suspension or variation of a licence under this section and for the making of objections or representations with respect to any such application;

      (b) as to the persons entitled to be heard by the Board at any meeting to consider the grant, revocation, suspension or variation of any such licence;

      (c) for conferring a right to appeal to the Minister from any decision of the Board with respect to any such licence or any application for such a licence upon the holder of or applicant for the licence and upon such other persons, if any, as may be specified in the regulations, and generally as to such appeals, including in particular provision as to the time by which any such appeal must be made, the other persons, if any, to be made parties thereto, and the liability of any of the parties in respect of costs or expenses incurred in connection therewith;

      (d) as to the form and manner in which any application, objection or representation shall be made to the Board;

      (e) with respect to the furnishing by persons making an application, objection or representation to the Board of information or documents relevant thereto;

      (f) generally as to the procedure of the Board.

      (8) Any power to make regulations conferred on the Minister by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and any such instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Captain Orr.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Captain L. P. S. Orr: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this new Clause, I suggest that we take new Clause 8—(Appeals to the Minister in connection with Licences under section 27):

      (1) Any person, being the applicant for or the holder of a licence under section 27 of this Act, or a person of any class for whose benefit a licence applied for or granted under that section will enure, who is aggrieved by the refusal or failure of the Post Office to grant the licence or by any term or condition upon or subject to which the licence is or is to be granted, or by the revocation of the licence, may within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner appeal to the Minister.

      (2) On any appeal under this section the Minister shall have power to make such order as he may consider just and reasonable and to give such directions to the Post Office for giving effect to his decision and the Post Office shall give effect to any directions so given.

      (3) The Minister shall by regulations make provision as to the time within and the manner in which appeals under this section must be made, the persons to be made parties to any such appeal, the holding of inquiries for the purpose of hearing such appeals and the appointment of the person by whom any such appeal is to be heard, the furnishing to the Minister of information or documents relevant thereto, and generally as to the procedure on the hearing of such appeals.

      (4) Any power to make regulations conferred on the Minister by this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument and any such instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

      I suggest, also, that we take the following Amendments:
      No. 78, in page 28, line 39, leave out paragraph (c).
      No. 79, in line 43, leave out paragraph (d).
      No. 80, in page 29, line 7, leave out from 'fine' to end of line 8.
      No. 93, in page 31, line 20, leave out Clause 27.
      We can also take the new Schedule:
      THE POSTAL AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS BOARD
      1. The Board shall consist of not less than five nor more than twelve members appointed by the Minister, who shall also appoint two of those members to be chairman and deputy chairman respectively of the Board.
      2. Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, the chairman, the deputy chairman and each of the other members of the Board shall hold and vacate his office in accordance with the terms of the instrument appointing him.
      3. The Minister—

      (a) shall pay to any member of the Board such remuneration (whether by way of salary or fees) and such allowances as the Minister

      1463
      may with the approval of the Treasury determine; and

      (b) in the case of any member of the Board with respect to whom the Minister may with such approval determine, shall make such provision for the payment of a pension to or in respect of that member as he may so determine;

      and the Minister shall, as soon as possible after the establishment of the Board, lay before each House of Parliament a statement of the remuneration and allowances that are or will be payable under this paragraph to the members of the Board; and if any subsequent determination made by him under this paragraph involves any departure from the terms of that statement or if a determination so made provides for the payment of a pension to or in respect of any member of the Board, the Minister shall, as soon as possible after the determination, lay a statement thereof before each House of Parliament.
      4. If the Minister is satisfied that the chairman or deputy chairman of the Board is temporarily unable to discharge the functions of his office owing to illness or any other cause, he may appoint some other member of the Board to act for the time being in the place of the chairman or deputy chairman, as the case may be.
      5. If the Minister is satisfied that a member of the Board—

      (a) has without the permission of the Board been absent from meetings of the Board for a continuous period exceeding six months; or

      (b) has become bankrupt or made an arrangement with his creditors; or

      (c) has by reason of illness or any other cause become unable or unfit to act as a member of the Board,

      the Minister may, by giving notice in such manner as he thinks fit, declare that person's office as a member of the Board to have become vacant.
      6. The Board may act notwithstanding a vacancy in the membership thereof, and no act of the Board shall be invalidated by reason of any irregularity in the appointment of any member thereof or by reason of any person irregularly acting as a member thereof.
      Captain Orr: I had not expected to move the Second Reading of this new Clause quite so early in our proceedings, Mr. Speaker, and would not now be doing so had it not been for the extraordinary and premature action of the Government Whip in closing the previous debate—
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: My hon. Friend might like to emphasise the fact that the first official act of the new Government Chief Whip has been to gag Parliament by moving the Closure. It offers terrifying
      1464
      prospects for the rest of the life of this Parliament.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get on with the debate.
      Captain Orr: My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) would appear to be right.
      We have just been discussing the very important issue of Parliamentary accountability, and we now come to the general question, which I believe to be at least of equal importance, it is how this House can preserve its rights and curtail the enormous extension of monopoly in the Bill. It has been rightly said that under the Bill the new Corporation will have the monopoly of all monopolies. The new Clause, together with the new Schedule, would set up a postal and telecommunications board, while Amendment, No. 93 would leave out Clause 27, which deals with the licensing powers of the new Corporation.
      For the benefit of those who were not members of the Standing Committee, it is necessary, to underline the necessity for the Clause, to stress the enormous extension of the monopoly powers given to the new Corporation by the Bill over those monopoly powers already existing in the Post Office. I do not wish to labour at great length all the arguments which were deployed in Committee, but it is essential to enumerate the extensions of monopoly over which the new Clause seeks to exercise a modest degree of control.
      4.30 p.m.
      I invite my hon. Friends who were not on the Committee to look again at Clause 24 of the Bill. They will find words which are so wide and so little qualified by anything which appears subsequently that what we are dealing with in the Bill is not a simple transfer of the intentions of the present Post Office, but a new nationalised Corporation. Together with those powers are being transferred all the rights of the Crown which the present Post Office carries with it and all the rights of Parliament.
      We are not in this legislation nationalising one commodity; we are not nationalising coal, or electricity, or gas, We are nationalising every conceivable form of telecommunications in this country, not only existing telecommunications

      1465
      but any which it is possible to conceive will exist in the future.
      It is not creeping nationalisation. It is the most comprehensive piece of nationalisation of everything which is likely to happen in telecommunications of which man can possibly conceive. It is the most massive piece of nationalisation in advance removing all the rights of Parliament to control it in the future and handing over to the new Corporation powers to license its own competitors. It is as if one amalgamated B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. and at the same time made them the Air Transport Licensing Authority. It is just as bad.
      Mr. John Hay: And it would perhaps give them rights over space travel in the future.
      Captain Orr: I do not want to argue all the details of the monopoly which were argued in the Committee. I would remind my hon. Friends of some of the things which now come under the new Post Office monopoly which were not in the existing monopoly. They include the remote control of machinery, interconnected pipelines between chemical plants and oil refineries, burglar and fire alarm systems operated or monitored remotely, and internal services. We discussed in Committee the question of all the common services which might be supplied within blocks of flats. Because of the licensing power in Clause 27, the Corporation has the power to take over all those if it so wishes. None of that is reserved to the Minister or to Parliament.
      The common services which are involved include central heating, remote lighting control, watchmen control systems, door-opening systems, common radio and television sets. There is no point in labouring all these matters. But it goes beyond that. The Corporation will have power to control by licence its competitors in all kinds of subjects, such as vehicle control on the public highway. If anybody were to invent a system of automatic headlight dipping this would come within the scope of Clause 24 and would be an infringement of the present monopoly of the new Corporation and would require a licence from it. The new Corporation could in the future, if it wished, take such matters into its own public control. This would involve all kinds of remote signal systems—even model boats and model aeroplanes.
      1466
      The future of certain existing services, which are of great importance and which are run by private enterprise, could be totally jeopardised. In a sense the power is being given for their nationalisation in advance, in particular, the relay services. I am certain that my hon. Friends will wish to develop this matter. We have had certain assurances from the Postmaster-General. He is an honourable man and I accept them. But he will not be the Minister for ever, and the people who now comprise the Post Office will not always be in charge of the new Corporation. Power has been given to the Corporation, if it wishes totally to nationalise all the British relay services without any reference to Parliament, without its being possible even to question the Minister in the House.
      I have declared my interest in the matter of radio-telephony. There are at present a large number of private radiotelephony schemes run by ambulance authorities, police, fire services and taxis, and many schemes are run by doctors in relation to their surgeries. There are telephone-answering services as well as other kinds of radio-telephony services which are run privately, with a licence from a Minister of the Crown who can be subjected to questioning in the House about it if there is anything unfair in the licensing system.
      In future, all these schemes will require two licences. They will require a licence from the new Minister, and those concerned will have to go to their competitor, a public corporation, to get a licence. There is in the Bill at present no way in which this arbitrary power which is given to the new Corporation can be controlled. There is no referee, no kind of licensing authority of any kind.
      Before coming to the question of how one should cope with the situation, I should like to mention one great danger which may result as an extension of this monopoly. I do not know whether hon. Members have ever read a most interesting periodical called the U.K. Press Gazette. In the issue for the week beginning 24th February there is an excellent, discerning and far-seeing article by somebody who is well-known in the House, Mr. George Clark, the Assistant Political Correspondent of The Times, a man whose judgment everybody in the House has come to respect.

      1467
      I should like to read one or two excerpts from the article, which begins by saying:
      "Fleet Street and the newspaper industry generally would do well to take a closer look at the Committee debates now taking place on the Post Office Bill, a massive document of 230 pages which will establish the Post Office as a public corporation no longer answerable through the Postmaster-General to Parliament."
      The article goes on to say that the Press should take a greater interest in this matter. Mr. Clark says:
      "Admittedly, the argument has to stray into a Jules Verne realm of prediction, and the circumstances will not be accepted by all devoted 'print and paper' men as probable. Yet there are many in the industry"—
      that is, the newspaper industry—
      "who now recognise that in perhaps 30 years' time newspapers will reach the home without the delay (and expense) of type-setting, block-making, making up pages, long runs on printing presses, sending out vans and railway bundles, and relying in the end on the newspaper boy trudging up the garden path. By a pre-set device on the television set or an attachment to it, members of the family will be able to select the newspaper or newspapers they want in the morning. During the night, sensitised sheets will be fed automatically on to the screen of the reproduction unit and in the morning, in the tray beneath the apparatus, will be the morning papers. They will not be, perhaps, in the format which we now know. But the news in written form, with all the usual features, will be there ready for the husband who wants to read in the hovertrain or monorail car on the way to the office or factory."
      Later, Mr. Clark asks some very important questions about the new Corporation. He asks:
      "Would it be the right kind of body to decide which newspapers should have the available channels?"
      This is very important. At present, only the new Corporation will decide. It is true that the Minister has power over the allocation of frequencies, but the power of licensing lies with the new Corporation. Mr. Clark also asks:
      "Would monopoly control over the design of equipment at the end of the Post Office line militate against the invention of cheap reproduction units?"
      And:
      "Would newspapers be allowed to offer their own production sets in the homes of their readers?"
      He develops the argument at some length, and I hope that hon. Members who are interested in this matter will read it.
      1468
      Later, Mr. Clark says:
      "And if the future could be more clearly seen I have no doubt that newspaper proprietors, especially those in the regions with compact circulation areas, would challenge the Postmaster-General. Would it not pay a newspaper to establish its own land lines and perhaps instal rented reproduction machines?"
      Why not? But it would not be possible if the Bill is not amended and if there is not an independent body to deal with these matters and say whether the newspapers could run their own lines. At present, the new Corporation will decide whether newspapers can run their own lines. This power should be reserved either to Parliament or to an independent licensing body.
      Mr. Clark finally commends my new Clause, which in Committee was an Amendment. He says that the proposal is that
      "there shall be a Postal and Telecommunications Board sitting in judgment above the Post Office with the power 'to license the provision and performance of postal and telecommunications services, whether generally or in any area, or for any purpose or by any means or system specified in the licence'. When the new era of 'piped' newspapers arrives, one of the most serious problems facing the established newspapers could be the threat of 'free newspapers' financed and run directly by advertisers or groups of advertisers. If allowed on the channels, these publications could cause a colossal falling-off in display advertising revenue and change completely the whole basis of newspaper financing. Thus one of the questions which would have to be settled in the early days would be the extent to which the networks could be used for direct advertising purposes. Surely a task for the Board proposed by Captain Orr?"
      That is one aspect of the problem.
      4.45 p.m.
      The question which arises is: how can this monopoly position be remedied? When we were discussing Clause 24 in Committee, we sought, without great success, to preserve the licensing powers in the hands of the Minister. We thought that meantime this was the best solution. Had the Minister retained the power to license, he could well have seen fair play between the new Corporation and all its present and future competittors. But we were turned down. I thought that the Minister's reasons for turning us down were not good, but they were fairly argued. It is a pity. It would have been better if the Minister had retained the power. We would then have had a breathing space to consider the best

      1469
      method of controlling this monopoly in future.
      I am suggesting that there should be a Postal and Telecommunications Board. I have dealt with the matter with great care. The new Clause is so drafted as to be fair throughout to the new Corporation. There is a small misprint in the new Clause which is the fault either of myself or of the Table Office; it is probably mine. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), with his eagle eye, has pointed it out to me.
      Mr. Ray Mawby: It is in line 22.
      Captain Orr: Yes. The words in the new Clause are "or not adequate". They should be "not adequately provided". A new Schedule goes with the new Clause, but I am not necessarily committed to the Schedule. I should not be inflexible if the Minister wanted a different form for the Postal and Telecommunications Board.
      As an analogy, I have in mind some kind of licensing authority. In the United States there is the Federal Communications Commission, in which is vested the control and regulation of all broadcasting and communications. Its purposes could be broadly defined as regulating interstate and foreign communications by wire and radio in order to create an efficient nation-wide communications service with a reasonable level of charges. It has seven members with a seven-year tenure. The chairman, who is appointed by the President of the United States, controls the executive. It is organised into a number of executive offices and it has four main bureaux and one task force.
      The four main bureaux are of interest. One, the C.A.T.V., is responsible for the development and implementation of rules for television stations, the kind of functions which the Postmaster-General at present performs in relation to our broadcasting authorities and which it is proposed to retain in his hands.
      Mr. Hay: My hon. and gallant Friend has unwittingly misled the House. The C.A.T.V. bureau is concerned with community antenna television, what we know in this country as relay and not broadcasting as such.
      Captain Orr: I accept the correction. My hon. Friend is perfectly right: I misread my own notes. It is the broadcasting bureau which covers these functions. The C.A.T.V. is responsible for dealing with relay stations, again a function which the Postmaster-General now performs and which he proposes to hand to a competitor of the relay stations, which is very strange.
      There is the common carrier bureau which has regulations for federal and telecommunications services including rates, services, accounting methods, licensing radio facilities and communications for common carriers and which is responsible for satellite communications.
      One deals with safety and special radio services, the licensing and running of radio stations not in broadcasting and not in the common carrier category—aviation, marine, police, public agency, industry.
      The F.C.C. is extraordinarily expensive. I do not advocate a precisely similar organisation for this country, although I was formerly attracted by it. We require something a little simpler. In 1966, the F.C.C. cost 17 million dollars, about £7 million, and employed 1,550 people. Its main function is acting as a licensing and regulatory authority. It maintains its large staff to review and inspect communications services. It acts as a controller of monopoly services. It is the arbitrator between national operator, equipment supplier and customer interests.
      There is one recent interesting example of its function of arbitration. In 1965, the hearing examiners of the F.C.C. changed the interpretation of Tariff 132 giving telephone companies monopoly supply and installation rights of terminal equipment, a very important decision. The Carterfone decision in the United States was of great significance and it showed that this body was able to prevent this form of extension of monopoly.
      If we had had a similar body in this country, the G.P.O. would not be in the position of having a monopoly, as it were, beyond the front door. I would hope that there would be some body. The present proposal is that the whole decision as to the extent of the existing telephone monopoly should be taken from Parliament and from the Minister and handed

      1471
      to the Corporation, an interested party itself.
      The trouble with the F.C.C. in the United States and the first reason why I do not commend a precisely identical set up here is that it is expensive to operate. Its hearings and investigations may be lengthy. It takes a long time to get decisions. An enormous body of case law has arisen around it and in some ways it is like a jungle with enormous pickings to be made for lawyers. I do not recommend it now, although it used to attract me. We would be better with a somewhat simpler system such as I have devised. But the F.C.C.'s great advantage is that it separates the regulatory functions from monopoly control.
      I return to the new Clause. What I am suggesting is that there should be a postal and telecommunications board. The main function of this board would be to have
      "power to license the provision and performance of postal and telecommunications services, including any facilities or services ancillary or incidental to any such services, whether generally …"
      It provides that the licence so granted may be granted unconditionally or subject to any conditions which may be specified. In other words, the new board would have power to lay down whatever conditions might be necessary, say, to protect the interests of the Corporation itself, the main provider of the telecommunications services. All kinds of regulations and conditions are necessary, particularly when it comes to broadcasting.
      In subsection (4) I lay down the various things to which the board shall have regard. I ought in fairness to the new Corporation to make it plain to the Minister that this is not an anti-Post Office Clause, for the board would have to take account of the services or facilities provided by the Post Office and the general duty of the Post Office under Clause 9. It would have to take into account the extent to which the licence would authorise the provision of services or facilities not provided by the Post Office. This would apply to a wide range of communications in which the Post Office is not adequately supplied.
      For historic and many other reasons, and hon. Members opposite may say that
      1472
      it has been starved of capital, the Post Office has a monopoly the very existence of which prevents the provision of important and valuable services in telecommunications which British industry could provide. If the Minister will not agree to the judge being the Minister in Parliament, let the judge be an independent board which would be an arbitrator as to what might be in the public interest in this matter.
      The board would be entitled to take into account the extent to which the granting of a licence would permit or encourage the provision or development, whether experimentally or otherwise, of services or facilities required or likely to be useful.
      There is another important provision in subsection (4)(d) which says that any objections or representations made under subsection (7) may be allowed to go to appeal. In other words there would be an appeal procedure.
      When we were discussing parliamentary accountability, I asked an hon. Member opposite what would happen if a taxi firm in his constituency which operated and controlled its taxis by radio were aggrieved by a decision of the Post Office. Suppose that for some reason the new Post Office Corporation decided in future to do what private enterprise does now and provide the sets, the base stations, transmitters and receivers for radio taxis, ambulances, the fire service, or anything else. There is no procedure by which the present operators of those services will have any appeal.
      5.0 p.m.
      Had the last new Clause been accepted, somebody might have been able to ask a Parliamentary Question on their behalf. As the Bill is drafted, however, there is to be no appeal. The Minister will have power to allocate frequencies to those operators. If it was a question simply of denying them the frequency on which to operate or changing the frequency—which is an expensive process and involves new crystals and all kinds of things—one could ask a Question of the new Minister.
      The important thing is that under the Bill the whole situation is being changed. Not only if one wants to operate a system of radio taxis does one have to go to the Minister to get his licence to operate on a certain frequency, but one now has to go to the new Corporation to get a licence to operate these things.

      1473
      If the new Corporation were to say, "Notwithstanding the Minister's allocation of a frequency, we have decided not to renew your licence as an operator of radio taxis", what can the proprietor or the group of owner drivers who run the radio taxis do? They have absolutely no redress. They must go to their own competitor, to the man who is trying to muscle in on their business. He is to be sole judge and jury and they will have nobody to whom to appeal. They cannot appeal to Parliament or to the Minister because he has no power in the matter. All I am seeking to do by the new Clause is to set up a body to whom such people could appeal.
      My hon. Friends will, no doubt, be able to think of an enormous number of examples where this kind of development could take place. I am willing to accept what the Minister said, that it may not be the intention of the present people in the Post Office that there should be this kind of extension of nationalisation. Up to now, a very happy relationship has existed between the users of mobile radio and the Post Office. There have been a mobile radio committee and a frequency advisory committee on which users and manufacturers have been represented and frequency allocation has been discussed and has normally been well and reasonably done, to the satisfaction of everybody concerned. British frequency planning has been good, as I said in Committee upstairs, and I congratulate the Post Office upon it.
      In the new Corporation, however, we are creating something the outcome of which we are quite unable to see. First, we are discontinuing it as a Department of State. It should be remembered that the amicable arrangement of which I have spoken for the users of mobile radio came about in the first place as a result of Parliamentary pressure. It was a result of the great frequency change which had to be made at the time of the introduction of commercial television. That was its origin. Whether it would have come about in the natural course of events I do not know, but it came about originally as a result of Parliamentary pressure.
      We are now faced with the situation that we are getting a new Corporation which will not be subject to that pressure and we are giving it power to be judge
      1474
      and jury in all these matters. It may well be that the department in the Post Office which at present regulates frequencies will remain with the Minister—I understand that that is the intention—and may continue to endeavour to do the job as reasonably and as well as it has done it heretofore. That department in the Post Office, however, which is now becoming the new body which allocates and regulates these things, will no longer be the sole master because the new Corporation is to have a department which deals with licences as well.
      What will happen in the event of a clash between the two? What will happen if, on the one hand, the Minister says, "We think that a certain system of telephone answering should be licensed or that a certain system of radio telephony ought to be allowed to connect to the public network" but the Corporation, on the other, says, "No. This is infringing the monopoly which Parliament gave us. We want to supply these services. We think that they should in future be nationalised and should continue to be nationalised." The department of the Corporation could defy the Minister and force him into the position either of giving a general directive about the whole thing or of giving in. The whole thing is absolutely unsatisfactory.
      There is a need for some such body as I propose. I have done my best to make it a body which is credible and viable. If hon. Members will do me the courtesy of reading the new Clause in full, they will see that this is a genuine and serious attempt to improve the Bill. I hope that the Postmaster-General will not regard it as a political manoeuvre or a peg on which to hang a further argument about monopolies. It is nothing of the sort. It is a genuine attempt to improve the Bill.
      If the Minister has the future of the new Corporation at heart, he would not suffer in any way by accepting the new Clause. It would be to the great advantage of the Post Office. I do not believe that a public corporation would wish to be judge and jury in its own cause. I do not believe that if we asked B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. whether they would like between them to take over the functions of the Air Transport Licensing Board, they would wish to do so. I do not believe that British Road Services

      1475
      would like to take over the issue of C licences.
      It would be in the interests of the new Corporation to have a body between itself and the public and Parliament which could be seen to be apart. If it were extended with the authority and licence of my proposed Postal and Telecommunications Board everybody would see that it was just and would probably accept that it was in the national interest. I hope, therefore, that the Postmaster-General will accept the new Clause. I certainly commend it to my right hon. and hon. Friends.
      Mr. Frank Tomney: I have listened to most of the speeches in the last two days. Not having had the advantage of being a member of the Committee on the Bill one becomes engrossed in the complexities of the Bill as the picture begins to unfold, but it seems to me that it is a long way from the original Telegraph Act, 1879, or even the Telegraph Act, 1949, and that we are now approaching legislative avenues at which Parliament ought to take a long, long look, because of the way the Telegraph Acts are being shaped to operate.
      When I first read new Clause 8—and it is to that new Clause to which I want in the main to address my remarks—I did so without any great warmth for it. Then I received a communication about it from my union, and that opened completely new avenues of thought for me and I began to think deeply about it and I began to see better and with concern what it was intended to remedy.
      One of the best traditions of this House is that if one has an interest one declares it, and I declare mine on behalf of my union, and my interest, although a subsidiary one, in a relay company. I declare my interest also because it might be held to be affecting my judgment in the matter. So I gladly declare at once these two interests, my union interest, and the broader aspect of the interest in a relay television and relay broadcasting company with which I am concerned, because in the company we have a considerable stake as a union. Therefore, we view with a certain amount of apprehension some of the provisions of the Bill, especially if they
      1476
      were carried to their ultimate conclusion. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has outlined his new proposal for a board, and I think it should receive the consideration of the Minister.
      We have now in communications a situation which has grown up on the basis of invention and ingenuity, and it has effects in industrial life and social life. During the last 40 years relay services have group up in Great Britain and become a new and established business, because people find its services of use, and it serves its customers in an especially close manner. There is nothing in the Bill which would prevent the new Corporation from itself being an active competitor in this field of communications and services, and from being active to the detriment of the established companies.
      It could mean, of course, that if the Post Office were itself a competitor for a new licence it might completely disregard the applications of its competitors. In this manner it might disregard the interests of my union members. Once the Post Office became an operator in these services, perhaps producing its own programmes, it might introduce a new union and that would be the Post Office Workers' Union, which is not my particular union. My union is rather alarmed at this consideration, and it is a real one, because over the years we have negotiated with relay companies excellent wages and terms and conditions, allied with pension rights. These are now accepted features in the pattern of this industry.
      But the consideration is wider than that. One cannot easily transfer to a public corporate body the cosy customer relationship, with local counter service at a local shop dealing in television and radio services. It is not possible. To centralise these services, to make them the province of a mandatory body, some distance removed from the customers, is just asking for trouble with the public. When one's radio breaks down one wants service for it within the hour. One does not want the matter referred to somebody else a long way away. When a man wants to see the Cup Final on the television and his radio breaks down he wants it seen to within the hour. It is just this close and cosy relationship with the customers which relay companies have established

      1477
      and with which the Government at their peril would interfere.
      5.15 p.m.
      The industry has had a long run now. We have seen it grow with some faults but also with benefits for the public. We have seen competition come in, and there is great competition much to the public benefit. With this industry catering, as it does, so closely for the public need, I think, quite frankly, that the position should be left with the established concerns. It will not be easy for anyone if the relay companies are shut out from new contracts or if the new Corporation itself becomes a tenderer.
      It will not be easy for the Post Office to recover its capital costs unless it goes into the retail and rental business. When a relay company lays out its initial, heavy capital expenditure it is a long time getting it back, and even then the return is only marginal for a number of years. So there are no vast fortunes to be made in this.
      Therefore I want the Postmaster-General to look carefully at what he is doing in this industry. Despite the assurances that he gave that the position of licences will continue till 1976—I think it is—there is no guarantee that this will be so, and certainly there is no guarantee about what may happen after that time.
      It is a very arguable proposition indeed whether there would be any national dividend accruing to the nation by any direct competition with the established relay companies and their purposes and services. It would be well to leave this question alone.
      I hope the Postmaster-General will take note of what has been said on this matter. We should look objectively at the propositions contained in new Clause 7, and also at the pattern which is followed in the United States, a pattern which I know something about. It is a little cumbersome and it has taken a long time to evolve—but all United States legislation is like that. It need not take so long in Great Britain, which is a smaller country, with smaller problems, and with smaller organisations very tightly knit, and with greater inter-relationships between competing companies.
      We should seriously consider what the hon. and gallant Member for Down,
      1478
      South proposes for this separate licensing tribunal or authority or board, whatever we may call it, with a court of appeal in the Minister. That was the basis of new Clause 6 which we discussed this morning, containing, as it did, provisions for the protection of individual constituents, but it did not contain the same provisions as new Clause 7 and new Clause 8 for the protection of individual companies. If we have any sense at all in these matters, and I hope we have, we will take that into consideration, and the mandatory position of the Post Office, and whether they should be allowed to operate subsidiary services, as there at the moment, to the disadvantage of everybody concerned. I should have thought we would be in no great difficulty about that.
      I was not on the Committee and so have not had the advantage of listening to all the arguments. I have not been able to read the complete HANSARD reports, and it is almost impossible for me to follow the arguments. Certain things stand out, and certain industrial bodies pull out the things from these reports which are germane to themselves. If the Post Office becomes the owner of the rental shops it will mean a heavy inroad into the established membership of my union. Like everybody else, they have to look after their own interests. My union people have seen this and have made representations to me.
      It will probably be possible on later Amendments to discuss the aspects of relay television as they impinge directly upon the services of the Post Office, but for the moment I ask the Assistant Postmaster-General to get his Department to have another look at this situation and, if possible, accept the proposals put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South and then to take a good look at the responsible service carried out by relay operators in the interests of many thousands of trade unionists who have been in the industry for a long time and whose jobs, conditions and pensions may be endangered—perhaps not for seven, eight or nine years but eventually.
      If the Post Office would do this it would remedy a grievous fault in the Bill. It would go some way towards achieving the kind of industrial parity of competition that should exist in situations where the Government are the main

      1479
      supplier of energy potential. If we do not allow competition to run alongside the monopoly position of the Government we shall not get the best service—and this is an intimate service—and we shall be failing in our duty as Parliamentarians.
      Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Bromley-Davenport: We have had many interesting speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House—especially from the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). My only criticism is that his speech was slightly spoilt by its continuing for too long. I know that in this House nobody wants to listen, and everybody wants to speak. I can therefore tell everybody that I shall speak only for about five minutes, and so everybody had better get ready to jump to his feet.
      I have already made the point that the Bill will prove the Government's intention to destroy both small and large businesses, and to nationalise all means of production, distribution and exchange, with the inevitable result that there will be increased costs, worse service and gigantic losses. I want to depart from the general tenor of previous speeches and refer to the question of accountability. Under the Clause the Government will have power to do almost anything they like—to license almost anything they like, and to take away the licence of almost anything. It is a gigantic monopoly, with captive customers.
      What accountability will there be? Under the present system there is none, and I do not see that there will be under the new system. In all the years that I have been in the House, on occasions when nationalised industries or public corporations have been discussed, if we are lucky enough not to have any longwinded statements we start the debate at about four o'clock, and the debate continues until ten o'clock. How is the intervening time taken up? There are four Front Bench speakers who take up, say, half an hour each.
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: Three-quarters of an hour.
      Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Let us take the average. After that we are lucky if we get only four carpet sweepers, and still luckier if they take only half an hour
      1480
      each. That takes up another two hours. The carpet sweepers are known to all back-benchers—they are Privy Councillors—and the Chamber empties. How much time is left for back benchers? Two hours. The debate goes on, meandering its way to the end. It drags to its weary conclusion at Ten o'clock, when there is a Division, which the Government inevitably win with their machine-made majority of Lobby fodder.
      Under our system of debates there is no real accountability. Hon. Members should go to meetings of shareholders and hear the way they have a go at the directors. If they are dissatisfied they can all get up and make themselves heard. They can boot out the directors.
      I want to give an example of what might happen under the provisions of the Clause and the waste of public money. People may not believe it. It is referred to in a book called "The Guilty Madmen of Whitehall", with a foreword by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). For sheer lunacy it takes top prize. It is very short.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. It is across the border of being out of order.
      Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: I feel rather like a chicken that is egg-bound.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member will lay his egg, perhaps he can end his speech.
      Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: You have always been tolerant and just, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask you when I can bring out this example—one that will arise in respect of many industries which are taken over? It is an example of a waste of money which shareholders could deal with at a private meeting. Shall I ever be able to do it? Shall I be able to do it in the debate on the Clause or later? Could you stretch it, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Will you give me one minute?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will allow the hon. Member one minute.
      Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: This advertisement appeared in magazines and national dailies, sometimes every few days, in the same paper. It said:
      "Dear Public,
      Most of you see us every day, and we've been calling so long you have probably

      1481
      stopped noticing. Often you call on us—for postage stamps, savings, postal order, T.V., radio or car licences, pensions, sickness benefits, family allowances, maternity benefits or to post a parcel.
      Everybody's business is our business at some time and ours is certainly yours.
      Nowadays there are more of you and your business and ours get bigger all the time. We like it that way and we are modernising to keep pace with growth so that we may give you the kind of service you require.
      Despite mechanisation, standardisation, decimalisation and increased population we try to put our customers first and we'll still be known basically by that friendly knock on the door.
      We will be, as always,
      Yours faithfully,
      THE POST OFFICE."
      There is one advertisement which they might have done very much better. Instead of
      "Someone, somewhere, is waiting for a letter from you",
      they should have advertised
      "Someone, somewhere, is waiting, and waiting, and waiting, and waiting"—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Chair can wait any longer. Mr. Peyton.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. John Peyton: I am sure that the House is deeply indebted to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport), and therefore, indirectly, to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although I hope that you will not take my thanks as a reflection upon yourself. My hon. and gallant Friend behaved with his usual courtesy and generosity, particularly when he paid that glowing tribute to Ministers for the fact that they make only half-hour speeches. It is well-known that Ministers read out at great length whatever is put in front of them, and it nearly always takes an hour. This is particularly interesting in wind-up speeches, which are meant to be relevant to the preceding debate. Since Ministers have sat there with their ears sealed or talking to their colleagues, no reference can be made to the debate and they go on reading from the pre-set brief.
      We were all very grateful to the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), who made a telling speech. I hope that I am wrong in thinking that some of its weight was lost because the
      1482
      Minister was talking to his hon. Friend. The hon. Member had some important things to say, and his speech was an eloquent testimony to the value of competition. I would ask Ministers to get away from the dogma that a publicly-owned monopoly is the best way of doing things and to remember that, in this imperfect world, one of the very few forces which can guarantee a customer any hope of satisfaction is free competition.
      Mr. Tomney: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noted that, on other occasions, it has been my privilege, since the advent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. Harold Wilson) to the Premiership, to throw wisdom along this bench constantly, but nothing ever happens and no one ever takes it up.
      Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman speaks from the bitter experience which we can all share, but from a position of greater proximity and some sharper embarrassment than I have any need to feel. Even he has some responsibility for the Prime Minister, and he should reflect on that. I do not wish to be unkind to him, so I will not press that point.
      The hon. Gentleman spoke of the quick response to complaints. Whatever may be the virtues of the present Post Office, no one can possibly say that an over-rapid response to complaints is one of its most noticeable characteristics. I also agreed with the warning note which the hon. Gentleman sounded about the consequences of disturbing established relations and perfectly legitimate interests in a well-run industry. I have no connection with the relay industry and little knowledge of it, except that one can tell from its clients that it works.
      The hon. Member's words, which are borne of considerable experience, will, I hope, weigh with the Assistant Postmaster-General. I feel sorry for the latter. It must be very tiring to be lumbered with a Bill like this and to have to defend it as best he can. We all have a great regard for him, which gives birth to a certain sympathy, because we realise that he cannot altogether carry out his own will and that he must find it very difficult when one of his own supporters, who has been in the House for many years, makes the sort of speech that his hon. Friend made—
      The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): I have known the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for a long time now and I am grateful for his felicitations, but I shall not be closing the debate: my right hon. Friend will—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] That is a bit too unkind. Let us try to play the game if we can.
      Mr. Peyton: I am not sure what was unkind. The hon. Gentleman said that he is not going to wind up, in which case I withdraw any implied strictures on the Assistant Postmaster-General, but I understood from the hon. Gentleman's presence on the Front Bench that he would reply and I was hoping that, in doing so, he might be influenced by what his hon. Friend has said. I do not have to withdraw very much, because I thought that I spoke to the Assistant Postmaster-General, for whom I have great regard, with great courtesy.
      I hope that the words of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North will weigh with the Postmaster-General. As I have said, they are significant arguments which should not be neglected. If they go like water off a well-oiled duck's back, as I suspect they will, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be to the van in making a protest.
      We are all indebted to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) for having done his best, with the limited resources which we all have, to produce a workable alternative in this new Clause to the Government's proposal. I have no hesitation in giving it a warm welcome and saying how much I would prefer this to anything which the Government have suggested. Most of his arguments seemed thoroughly satisfactory. However, in the expectation that he may subsequently be able to put his views to a more receptive Minister and a Government of totally different leanings, perhaps he would look again at the question of revocation of a licence.
      It is very important that, if a licence is given, the undertaker should at least have some security and the licence should not be revoked except upon terms notified at the time of issue. This is not difficult. After all, subsection (3) says:
      "Any licence so granted may be granted either unconditionally or subject to any conditions
      1484
      specified in the licence and either irrevocably or subject to revocation as therein specified …"
      This is exactly what is right and desirable.
      But subsection (6) says that the Board
      "may revoke, suspend or vary the licence, but if any licence is revoked, suspended or varied by the Board otherwise than on the application of the holder of the licence, the revocation, suspension or variation shall not take effect until the expiration of the period prescribed by regulations made under subsection (7) of this section for the making of an appeal …"
      Captain Orr: I thought that that made it reasonably safe, that one could then specify the terms of a licence in the Regulations, which would be subject to the approval of this House.
      Mr. Peyton: It is a minor point to which I hope my hon. Friend will turn his attention. I assure him that I appreciate his labours in producing this proposal.
      It has been pointed out that the outcome of the Bill is unforeseeable. We are not dealing with an old-established industry like coal or the railways, but with a developing industry on the threshold of a revolution. If any industry should not be shackled with unnecessary control, it is this one.
      Amendment No. 78, which we may discuss with the new Clause, is designed to delete some peculiar words from Clause 24. That provision states that
      "… the Post Office shall have … the exclusive privilege of running systems for the conveyance, through the agency of electric, magnetic, electro-magnetic, electro-chemical or electro-mechanical energy … signals serving for the impartation …"
      of certain things. In what revolting verbal quarry did the Parliamentary draftsmen discover that new horror? "Impartation" deserves to be ranked with "a subsidiary of its" in terminology. Perhaps the latter could be inscribed on a millstone and tied round the Postmaster-General's neck with the former inscribed on a lesser millstone and tied round the neck of the Assistant Postmaster-General as they are both thrown into the deepest sea. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will touch up this part of the Bill. The provision refers to
      "… the conveyance … of … speech, music and other sounds … visual images …"

      1485
      and a number of other matters. This is a long and complex provision. Are not even the right hon. Gentleman's ideas of a monopoly going rather wide in it? Clause 24(1)(d) refers to:
      "… signals serving for the actuation or control of machinery or apparatus."
      My hon. Friends who are versed in technical matters will no doubt agree that that covers almost any invention in the sphere of communications.
      There is a discouraging future for anybody who wishes to put his money or effort into the industry. Considering that we are discussing an industry which is on the threshold of important developments, surely everybody with talent and energy should be allowed to reap every reward possible. The Inland Revenue is more than able to look after itself. If is wrong that the Minister should have the satisfaction of knowing that all human activity is being shackled in this way. This poor old country of ours is in no condition to put up with such hampering and shackling treatment.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. Tomney: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the position is far wider than he realises? For example, in the formation of capital for relays, the careful husbanding of resources has meant in some instances that new industries have been established. Often this has applied to industries which previously were the prerogative of the Americans. For example, flight simulation was an industry denied to this country, but it has been developed here by a relay company and is proving of immense value to us and Europe generally.
      Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman has given an excellent example and I am sure that there are many others. I do not desire to represent any particular firm but to see Britain making the most, in a perilous situation, of such opportunities as it has, exploiting and developing its undoubted ability. This shackling process of Government—this hampering "Elastoplast" tendency—can do no good to a cause which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has at heart.
      The Postmaster-General talked yesterday, with a gleam in his eye, of this country having the greatest communications system in the world. I hope that his forecast is correct, but it will not
      1486
      come about if the shackling process which will result from the Bill is allowed to continue.
      In Clause 24(2) we come to a delight of the Socialist mind; the savoury bit about penalties. We are told that
      "… on summary conviction"
      there will be
      "… a fine not exceeding £400 …"
      and that
      "… on conviction on indictment"—
      there will be
      "… a fine or … imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or … both."
      Is this right? How does one prove, in cases of this sort, that a term of imprisonment is warranted? A man may simply have been driven on by legitimate ambition to develop his own abilities and find himself quarrelling with this new monopolistic creature. As a result, he may find himself cooling his heels in jail for a couple of years while thinking the matter over. I do not fancy that at all and I very much hope that the House, or even the Government, will have second thoughts about it.
      The last Amendment to which I refer is Amendment No. 93, which proposes to leave out Clause 27. That is a necessary operation because it is a very offensive Clause. I hope that we shall have subsequent opportunities to speak about it so I shall not detain the House at length now, but I ask why in subsection (6) of the Clause it is provided that:
      "No person shall be concerned to inquire whether the grant of a licence under subsection (1) above was, or was not, effected with the consent of, or in accordance with the terms of a general authority given by, the Minister; and the validity of a licence granted under that subsection shall not be impugned on the ground that it was granted neither with the consent of, nor in accordance with the terms of a general authority given by him."
      This is a desirable modification of subsection (1), but it causes one to think that subsection (1) is quite unnecessarily officious. It forbids the Post Office to issue a licence without a licence or general authority from the Minister. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider the very wide way in which the subsection is drafted.
      I think I have said enough to express my abhorrence of the wide, sweeping monopoly which the Government are apparently hell-bent to set up. I do not

      1487
      believe that the prospects before such an organisation—whatever glossy reports one may be able to write, whatever achievements can be indicated or claimed under this kind of system—are likely to be comparable with what would be achieved by an effort based upon the forces of competition, initiative and thrust such as could be developed by the Minister in the fascinating promise of a new and growing industry of this kind.
      Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am in a quandary, because in discussing these new Clauses and Amendments we can cover a very wide field. If we are adequately to discuss all these matters some of us might have to speak at some length and that would not be my wish.
      Mr. Nicholas Ridley: Will the hon. Member allow me—
      Mr. Lewis: If hon. Members interrupt they cannot complain if the debate then goes on for a long time and some of their hon. Friends are squeezed out.
      Mr. Ridley: I wished to ask whether the hon. Member had had time to correct his earlier speech in the HANSARD office. It must have taken almost as long to correct as to make the speech, and I am surprised that he has been able to get back so quickly. I congratulate him.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I hope that hon. Members will come to these new Clauses and Amendments.
      Mr. Lewis: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If we had an ideal system, all the suggestions in these Clauses and Amendments could be discussed. I will not go into that.
      I support my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney), and I declare an interest in the Bill. On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask what is the position about declaring an interest? Am I right in assuming that once an hon. Member has declared his interest in discussion on a Bill it is not necessary in discussion of a subsequent matter to declare the interest again? If I have to declare my
      1488
      interest on every Clause and Amendment I may inadvertently delay the debate.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The whole question is before the Select Committee. It is not a rule at the moment but a practice to declare an interest. I am sure that the House would not wish the hon. Member to declare an interest on every item throughout discussion of the Bill. I think it would be enough to do it in this first speech.
      Mr. Lewis: That is a point I can now leave, because I declared my interest earlier, but perhaps I should explain what my interest is. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North, I have two interests. I have been a life-long trade unionist—a member of one of the biggest unions in the country. My union has a number of members working in Rediffusion and piped television. Incidentally, all the firms concerned are good and reputable firms in which the wages, hours and working conditions are very good. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity would be pleased to know that there are very rarely strikes or strife in this industry. That might be because there is encouragement for good industrial relations and appeal boards such as those suggested in these new Clauses and Amendments.
      The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and his hon. Friends have a certain amount of right on their side in putting down these Amendments, but I shall have to examine them at length because there are certain points in them which are not clear to me. Perhaps some of my hon. Friends who support my views might feel that there is no necessity for these appeal boards because the occasion for their use may never arise, but it has arisen in the past. In the early days of television a noble Lord said that these were companies which "could print their own money". That may not have been actually true. Without doubt they started with a certain amount of risk. They were not sure at that time whether or not they would be successful. It has happened to be a very lucrative business. The law would have prevented them actually printing money, but they made a lot of money out of it.

      1489
      Having made a lot of money, what happens? Along come a number of interested people who want to get in on the band-wagon. They say, "This seems a good industry. We will try to get into it". What did they do? They came in and pushed out some of the people who had—
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I find it difficult to understand how the hon. Member is relating his remarks to the new Clauses and Amendments which are concerned with a new Board which will regulate licensing taken from the authority which is at present incorporated in the Bill.
      Mr. Lewis: I am aware of that. When I first spoke I mentioned the two new Clauses and the Amendments seeking to set up an appeals board for licensing. I was giving an illustration of what had happened, and I was going on to say that had there been appeals boards in existence then no doubt these companies which found themselves kicked out after having done all the hard work in the initial stages would have had a chance to appeal. This would have been, and no doubt would still be, an admirable method of allowing people, in this instance in the telecommunications system, an opportunity of appeal.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, North mentioned Rediffusion. This company has established itself as a reputable organisation in this sphere. It has done an enormous amount of work, it has given lots of money to the Treasury, it has given employment to hundreds of thousands of workers throughout the country, and it has helped our exports. It may happen that when the Postmaster-General gives up day-to-day control, the director-general of this new board, or whatever he may be called—who knows, it may be the Radio Doctor or somebody like him who will get the job—[Interruption.] It might even be the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir Gerald Nabarro) would be appointed and would get a salary of £20,000, £30,000 or £40,000 a year. This is the kind of meagre sum that the Government pay these people.
      As the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South is present, let us assume that he gets the chairmanship, although God forbid. I am not saying that he would get
      1490
      the job, but let us assume that he did. It might be that some of his hon. Friends would get hold of his coat tails, pull him to one side, and whisper in his ear, "Gerald, old boy, we would like to get some of these companies because they are very profitable. Is there any chance of giving us a licence and your kicking them out? You know, jobs for the boys." Gerald might say, "You have been a good party man. Yes, you are all right. I will kick these people out and give you the licence." In those circumstances, there would be no appeal to anyone. Gerald gives his boys the licence and we cannot do anything about it. This is not an impossibility. It has happened with—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that even hypothetically the hon. Member is getting a little near the mark in suggesting a possible fall from the high standards of integrity of the hon. Member concerned in this kind of venture.
      Sir Gerald Nabarro: I intervene in the hon. Gentleman's speech—I trust with his permission—to remind him that in the days of the Tory Government in 1960 when the Prime Minister appointed Lord Robens as Chairman of the National Coal Board, the Daily Telegraph wrote a leading article about it pointing to the dissatisfaction expressed by coal miners that Lord Robens had received the job. The Daily Telegraph suitably concluded its leading editorial on this matter by saying that it did not understand why the coal miners were complaining about Lord Robens getting the job as Chairman of the National Coal Board; they would indeed have had a great deal to complain about if Mr. Gerald Nabarro had got the job.
      Mr. Lewis: As usual, the Daily Telegraph is probably right. I do not know. The Daily Telegraph writes excellent articles on rare occasions, and this is probably one.
      I agree with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I would not impugn the honour of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South. I think that I said I could never imagine him doing such a thing. I could never imagine him being persuaded to give his friends such lucrative licences to print money. But there are some who have done it.
      An Hon. Member: Who?
      Mr. Lewis: My point is that there is no appeal against anything like this at the moment. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South can help me on this. He suggests that there should be the opportunity to appeal to the board under a number of specified conditions. The new Clause covers almost everything. But would it cover appeals of workers employed in the industry? This is what really interests me. Take the case of a man employed by one of these highly reputable relay companies like Rediffusion. He is probably doing very well and has a good job. The hon. Gentleman criticised my right hon. Friend a moment ago. Perhaps I can now get him to listen to me. This worker in Rediffusion may have built up a good relationship with the company, have good hours, working conditions and so on. But he may find his firm is taken over, pushed out, or given a kick in the pants, and some other company comes in. He may like or dislike it. He may have an opportunity of continuing with this new company, but he may not. The new company may say, "We do not want you any longer. We are bringing in our own workers." This man, or these men for that matter, may lose pension rights wages and salaries. Under new Clause 7, would they have the right of appeal to the proposed appeals board on these matters? I have other matters to mention in a moment.
      Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case, with which I entirely agree. Obviously, if workers' jobs are in peril because of the announced intention or the actual revocation of a licence by an action of the board, I should think that such workers, under the new Clause, would have a right of appeal, provided it is laid down under subsection (7), which reads:
      "The Minister shall, by regulations make provision …
      (b) as to the persons entitled to be heard …"
      I think that the Minister in making his regulations could include the persons who would have a right to be heard. For instance, on the revocation of a licence, he could make provision for workers in an industry or a trade union or whoever might be representing them to be heard.
      1492
      That is how I read my new Clause. However, assuming that the Minister decides to accept it, if the hon. Gentleman's point is not quite covered, I give him the assurance that I, for one, will be prepared to see that it is covered in the other place.
      Mr. Lewis: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. As usual, he is very helpful in putting forward a detailed explanation. However, I am sure that he will agree that it does not say that. Subsection (7) says:
      "The Minister shall by regulations make provision …"
      For the rest, we see that the Corporation may or may not, and I accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's point that he feels that it may. With respect to him, like me, he is not a lawyer. We all know that even the best of lawyers disagree, and often they disagree violently about such minor matters as whether there should be a comma or a full-stop put here or there.
      There could be an argument about whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman is right. I am doubtful. I am not sure that, under (b), there should not be another subparagraph explaining definitely that the Minister "shall". Indeed, I go further. In my view, it should provide that not only shall the Minister give the opportunity to the workers but, if a worker so desires, the Minister shall instruct that his trade union has the right of appeal and shall be heard by the Board. I do not like these "mays", "perhapses" or "ifs". They are too loose.
      I like to give workers every possible assistance. We do not want "In Place of Strife". We want peace and tranquillity. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity would be greatly assisted in her attempts to evade strife in industry, and the Postmaster-General might be able—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I find it difficult to see how the point which the hon. Gentleman is making can be related to the new Clause.
      Mr. Lewis: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am trying to refer to both new Clauses—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is the hon. Gentleman's reference to "In Place of

      1493
      Strife" that I find difficult to relate to the new Clause.
      Mr. Lewis: The new Clause sets up what is in effect an appeal board. I was asking the hon. Gentleman whether he felt that it would permit these sorts of—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The proposed appeal board is to consider the licences issued by the Board. The appeal is to the Minister. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman's wider consideration comes into effect in this new Clause.
      Mr. Lewis: Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I am in some difficulty at this juncture, Mr. Speaker. You will not have heard my earlier remarks, so perhaps I might continue with them for a short time until you are apprised of the situation.
      Under subsection (7)(b) of the new Clause,
      "as to the persons entitled to be heard by the Board at any meeting to consider the grant, revocation, suspension or variation of any such licence",
      it does not appear who those "persons" are. It does not say that the persons shall be licence holders, or shall own the company, or shall be shareholders. It refers simply to "persons".
      I asked the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South whether his interpretation of "persons" included the workers in the industry or firm which is licensed. I went on to explain that "person" might include trade unionists. I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman agreed that trade unionists might be termed "persons". I began to develop that, and I said that trade unions could be declared "persons" in a corporate state.
      Mr. James Dempsey: We are discussing the variation or possibly the revocation of a licence. In the case of all other licensing authorities, it is normally the licence holder who has the right of appeal, and no one else. I am trying to understand how my hon. Friend can interpret the new Clause to mean that almost all and sundry may possibly be invited to state a case.
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Lewis: If my hon. Friend refers to subsection (7), he will see that it says:
      1494
      "The Minister shall by regulations make provision …"
      Paragraph (b) says:
      "as to the persons entitled to be heard by the Board at any meeting to consider the grant, revocation, suspension or variation of any such licence".
      If the Clause is agreed to, the Minister will have to introduce regulations, because it says "shall" and not "may". Amongst them, he must make provision for "persons entitled to be heard". Among the persons entitled to be heard by the Board, he could include trade unionists. Certainly he would include licence holders, because that is spelled out.
      I do not think that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South has gone far enough, and that is why, when I finally make up my mind, I may be against accepting his new Clause. He thinks that it goes far enough, but I am not sure that it does. It might be that I could support the new Clause if the Minister agreed that it means that he can include trade unionists and trade unions and he gave an assurance that, in the regulations which eventually he will bring forward, they would be included. If he did that, that would bring me nearer to supporting the principle of the new Clause.
      Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman is right in what he is saying. This is the precise point in providing in subsection (7) that the Minister shall have the power to make the regulations. It is exactly so that it could be extended to persons other than licence holders to whom, normally, as the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) pointed out, it would be confined. Certainly I would envisage amongst those other persons representatives of the accredited trade unions in any company which was likely to be severely damaged by the revocation of a licence.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has made his speech. He cannot make a second speech in the guise of an intervention. He must be brief.
      Captain Orr: I understand that, Mr. Speaker. I was simply clarifying something which perhaps I did not originally make clear. I am trying to help the hon. Member for West Ham, North. I think he has the point now.
      Mr. Lewis: I think I follow the point and, of course, we would all accept, if he says so, that that is his intention in subsection (7)(b). He is probably right, but he is not a lawyer, as I am not. It may well be that a lawyer will say that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is wrong and that the provision does not do what he thinks. Perhaps we can have some legal opinion from the Government as to whether it could include trade unionists. This industry has very good labour relations and I am concerned that there should be the right of appeal under subsection (7)(b). New Schedule 120 intrigued me. The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), whose name appears on the new Schedule, is a good friend of mine. [Interruption.] I keep being interrupted. I do not want to fall foul of Mr. Speaker.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Other hon. Members wish to speak and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reasonably brief.
      Mr. Lewis: The case is perhaps spelt out more clearly and more concisely in new Schedule 120 than in new Clause 7. Perhaps that is because the hon. Member for Totnes has a trade union background. The new Schedule says:
      "The Board shall consist of not less than five nor more than twelve members …"
      Why did the hon. Gentleman pick the limits of five and 12? Again, the new Schedule states that
      "… the Minister … shall … appoint two of those members to be chairman and deputy chairman respectively …"
      I am not sure that that is good democratic practice. Why should not the members elect their own chairman and vice-chairman? I do not see why the Minister should be called upon to do it. It could well be that, after their first meeting, the members of the Board would feel that their own choice of chairman and deputy chairman would be different from that of the Minister.
      Paragraph 3 of new Schedule 120 says that the Minister
      "shall pay to any member of the Board such remuneration (whether by way of salary or fees) and such allowances as the Minister may with the approval of the Treasury determine;"
      I had the impression that the Opposition are asking for cuts in Government expenditure but here they would give the
      1496
      Minister almost a blank cheque, though with the proviso that the Treasury should enter the discussions. With the approval of the Treasury, he could pay any fee or salary or allowance that he himself determined.
      Did the hon. Member for Totnes discuss this with his trade union colleagues? I do not know what the attitude would be of Mr. Aubrey Jones or, indeed, of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity. There is not a word in new Schedule 120 to suggest that this remuneration should not be more than the recognised norm or the fees now received by others in similar State appointments.
      New Schedule 120 would give an open cheque to these people to have virtually anything they liked in the way of hours, wages and working conditions. I am all in favour of workers getting good hours, wages and working conditions and I believe that the chairman of this board and his colleagues should have them too. But why are we always so lenient in letting such people have virtually everything they want whereas, when it comes to the nurses or the agricultural workers, we say that they cannot have 6d. or a 1s. extra—or, to put it the other way round, that they should have only 6d. or 1s. extra.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We are on Report stage and there are many Amendments to consider. Many hon. Members wish to speak. I have already appealed to the hon. Gentleman to be reasonably brief.
      Mr. Lewis: It is rare that I take part in debates in the House. Not many hon. Members on this side of the House are anxious to take part in the debate. None of them have said they wish to do so. I have an interest in this matter, which I have declared. I want to represent the interests of the workers. I want to put forward on their behalf the case that I think they are being penalised. When Ministers penalise the workers, I do not hear them being told that they must restrict their remarks because other hon. Members wish to take part. It may be inconvenient that I happen to speak at length, but the rule is suspended. The Government have plenty of time and hon. Members have plenty of opportunity.
      I want to be able to speak on behalf of those workers who so often do not get the opportunity of being heard. We are

      1497
      to have strikes tomorrow. Thousands of workers will come out on strike. If we had more opportunity to put their point of view, whether we agreed with it or not, there probably would not be so many strikes. The workers in this industry feel that they are being limited as to the increases in salaries and wages that they can get and the hon. Member for Totnes now comes forward with an appeal board, with which I agree in principle, but is being unfair to the workers, both in this industry and in industry generally, in suggesting that the Minister and the Government should have carte blanche to pay virtually anything they like.
      6.30 p.m.
      Captain Orr: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman. He is examining the proposition in the Schedule in the way in which it should be examined. Unfortunately, he was not here when I introduced the new Clause and the Schedule. I said that I was flexible about the Schedule and that if the Minister or any other hon. Member had a better suggestion about the composition of the board and other matters affecting it I was willing to consider it.
      Mr. Lewis: I have said on a previous occasion that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is always understanding, willing to put his point of view, and to make a concession where appropriate. However, kind, courteous, helpful and understanding as he undoubtedly is, the Schedule does not spell out what he hints. I am adducing arguments in favour of the principle of establishing the board but questioning whether the board should be so appointed that the Minister will have the right to put placemen on to it. Honourable Members may not think that that is an appropriate expression, but workers in the industry, on reading the Schedule, would say that the Minister will have the opportunity of appointing people at unspecified salaries, and possibly fees and expenses in addition.
      The Schedule says that the members of the board shall have, apart from salaries,
      "such allowances as the Minister may … determine".
      Does that mean that the chairman and members can have their meals free? It does not say so. Will they be charged? If so, are they to be charged on the same
      1498
      basis as the nurses are? I believe in fair shares for all. As the nurses are being charged, we should specify that these board members can have their meals free or can have them on the same basis as the nurses and be charged on that basis. I should be more happy about supporting the Schedule if it contained a provision to that effect.
      Paragraph (b) refers to
      "the payment of a pension to or in respect of that member as"
      the Minister "may so determine". This is a bit much. I know that the hon. and gallant Member and the hon. Member for Totnes are generous. Why does the Schedule provide that these board members can have such pension as the Minister may determine? I should have thought that it would be more proper to provide that the pension should be not less favourable than that received by Members of Parliament.
      Captain Orr: I would accept that.
      Mr. Lewis: They might then say that it was not good enough. Some of the Post Office Engineering Union members who are now solidly objecting to the Bill are doing so on the ground that their pension rights are being abrogated. It would be more appropriate if the Schedule said—"but on conditions not more favourable than those which are being applied to members of the Post Office Engineering Union". Whereas Post Office engineers can now retire on pension at 60, in future they will have to serve to 65. Therefore, their conditions are being worsened. I have declared my interest. I am more in favour of the members of the P.O.E.U. than I am of the 12 proposed board members who are to be appointed at unspecified salaries—the chairman probably at £20,000 or £30,000 a year. I do not see why these board members should get this kind of money.
      Captain Orr: Some at least of these 12 members could be members of the P.O.E.U.
      Mr. Lewis: The hon. and gallant Gentleman must have the gift of telepathy, because he knows just what I am thinking. I was just coming to that point. If the Schedule said,
      "The Board shall consist of not less than five nor more than twelve members appointed by the Minister, two, three or four or more

      1499
      of whom must be members of a recognised union affiliated to the T.U.C. and interested in telecommunications".
      I would say that it would not be too bad, because it would be specifying that the board should contain two or three members of a union. It is not good enough for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that some of the board members could be members of a trade union. The Schedule should provide that at least three of the board members should be members of a trade union.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument on paragraph (b). He seems to have slipped back to paragraph (a).
      Mr. Lewis: Either the hon. Gentleman has been out of the House or he needs an electronic hearing aid, which no doubt he could obtain from the Post Office. I thought I was courting a rebuke from Mr. Speaker by going into the matter in too much detail, because I dealt with the whole question of remuneration under paragraph (a). If I were to seek to go into it any further, Mr. Speaker would rule that I was guilty of tedious repetition, I suspect. There is so much in the Schedule that is loosely worded. I could quarrel with almost every one of its provisions.
      Mr. Stephen Hastings: I suggest that it might get the hon. Gentleman out of his difficulty on (b) if my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) would now accept that in the view of many of us he would be very satisfied if the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) were to join the board or even be its chairman.
      Mr. Lewis: The House might welcome that suggestion, but I doubt whether it would be acceptable to the old or the new Government Chief Whip or to the Postmaster-General. Nevertheless, the hon. Member has stressed my point that this should be specified so that the Minister cannot wriggle out. The Postmaster-General and I are good friends, but though he might think this a good idea he might not be in that office in two or three days' time, and his successor might not agree. I should like to see this provision spelled out.
      1500
      Paragraph 5 states:
      "If the Minister is satisfied that a member of a Board—
      (a) has without the permission of the Board been absent from meetings of the Board for a continuous period exceeding six months …"
      I really want to go to town on this provision.
      The newspapers are today castigating workers for taking one day off for a strike tomorrow. To be fair, some hon. Members are also castigated because they spend a week or a few days at Ascot or Epsom. If this provision goes through, a member of the Board will not only have an unspecified salary, perhaps free meals, and expenses ad lib., but may, in addition, have six months leave of absence. Beyond that period, we are told, the Minister "may" decide to do something.
      This is the way to solve our industrial difficulties. We would not need "In Place of Strife". All we need to say to the workers is "You can have six months off with pay, and after that we shall consider what we will do with you". We would have no trouble in industry then. There would not be a strike in the whole country. Let us pay all workers £20,000 or £30,000 a year, give them free meals and cars, and tell them, "You can have six months off with pay, and after that we shall consider whether or not to take action against you", and I can assure my right hon. Friend the First Secretary that there would then be no strikes. Jacky Dash and company would not mind £20,000 or £30,000 a year on those conditions—
      Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Would it not be cheaper and more efficient to give the Government six months off with full pay?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. These are interesting speculations, but we must get back to the Schedule.
      Mr. Lewis: That is exactly what I was about to say, Mr. Speaker. It is an interesting speculation, but it does not come within the new Schedule.
      Paragraph 5(b) speaks of a member of the board who
      "… has become bankrupt or made an arrangement with his creditors …"
      This is just amazing. These people are to be paid this money, and we are to

      1501
      allow them to become bankrupts. Hon. Members may laugh, but this is not a laughable matter. The hon. Members for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey) spoke of the Government. One of the faults of the Government is that they are paying out too much money—
      6.45 p.m.
      Captain Orr: And they are bankrupt.
      Mr. Lewis: The Government are cutting expenditure, but they are not cutting it in the right places—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. That argument must be developed in another debate, not in this one.
      Mr. Lewis: In the circumstances mentioned, the Minister should say that such members should be dismissed or should have their salaries stopped. In this case, action should be taken. It would be a practical way of saving Government expenditure when most people, and certainly those within the industry and within the telecommunications trade unions, would support.
      Sub-paragraph (c) is also interesting. It refers to a member of the board who
      "… has by reason of illness or any other cause become unable or unfit to act as a member of the Board …"
      To speak of illness as a reason is fair enough, but the phrase "any other cause" is a bit too loose. If a member of the board went on an overseas visit for two or three months, would no action be taken, as he would be within the six-month period? The present position is that a member of the public can remain abroad for six months or more and completely evade taxation—
      Sir Harmar Nicholls: It must be over 12 months.
      Mr. Lewis: In that 12 months one could have two six-month periods, and the person concerned could find that he was not to be removed from his job.
      In those various circumstances;
      "The Minister may"—
      it does not say that the Minister "shall" or "must",
      "… in such manner as he thinks fit, declare that person's office as a member of the Board to have become vacant."
      I do not see why this preferential treatment should be meted out to one section of the population.
      1502
      I have to return to the dockers because they form the major section in my constituency. They are always being attacked by everyone. If a docker were to stay away for six months—he could not afford to do so, of course—or did half the things that are mentioned here, would it be said that his employers might consider giving him notice? I know what would happen. That man would get his notice long before the six months were up. I cannot see why these people should be treated any differently—
      Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman reminds me that we have this six-month provision in local government.
      Mr. Lewis: That may be so, but I am not responsible for what local authorities do. But I am responsible for deciding whether or not to support the new Clause, and I say that it just is not good enough. I cannot be blamed for what happens in local authorities, but if I support the new Clause I can be blamed for that. I do not think that these people should get this preferential treatment. However, I do not want to speak at length on that, because some of my hon. Friends may wish to speak—
      Mr. Joseph Slater: My hon. Friend has chased them away.
      Mr. Lewis: The Assistant Postmaster-General says that I have chased them away. I have not moved from this spot and I have never chased anyone. I am not the Chief Whip—I do not need to chase anyone.
      I believe that I am the only hon. Member on this side who has spoken. I waited to see if there was anybody who wished to speak.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Member get back to the Schedule?
      Mr. Lewis: I go back to the new Clause. I know that the Postmaster-General will thank me for my help on this matter. No doubt I have given him a number of reasons why he should not accept the new Clause. I hope that he will realise that this is the general attitude taken by most workers in industry to the new Schedule, and he ought to take that attitude into account in any appointments which are made as a result of the Bill.
      Mr. Mawby: The hon. Member has amused himself for a considerable time and has dealt with a great deal of minutiae. Indeed he asked me a number of questions about the new Schedule. I do not propose to say any more than that it is the normal standard form which is normally applied in any Act of Parliament when one is setting up a board.
      The major issue is to consider exactly what monopoly powers are being handed over to the Corporation under the Bill if it remains unamended. In Committee we sought to ensure that the new Minister of Posts and Telecommunications would, as it were, be able to hold the corner in any dispute which might occur between the Corporation and any person applying for a licence or appealing against revocation of a licence. It is important to consider what is involved.
      The number of Amendments which it has been agreed we should discuss indicates clearly to the House the extent of the monopoly powers which will be granted to the Corporation. One has only to look at Clause 24, which is covered by Amendment No. 78 in which my hon. Friend seeks to delete paragraph (c), to see that the Clause lays down the exclusive privilege of the Post Office in respect of telecommunications. If one takes that in conjunction with Clauses 26 and 27, one sees that no method of communication of any sort can be undertaken without a licence from the Post Office, except by two people talking eyeball to eyeball. This shows the extent of the monopoly.
      The Postmaster-General at present enjoys wide monopoly powers. As Minister he appears in this House at Question Time and replies to debates on behalf of his Department. Once the Bill is passed the Corporation will become master in its own house and the new Minister will have no way of demanding that the Corporation shall or shall not issue a licence.
      We must ask whether it is right and proper to allow the Bill to go through without some form of appeal procedure by which somebody who is affected will be able to appear before an appeal board. Several sections of the community would be involved, including the wire relay services. We have an Amendment for discussion later which deals with those services, so I shall not go into them in detail.
      1504
      In our earlier deliberations the Postmaster-General made it clear that in future the Post Office intend to work towards the development of serving homes with a single-wire system, which would include the reading of gas and electricity meters, and would also provide a wire service for television and radio. He made it clear that this was one of the aims. I see no reason that the Corporation should not do this if it so desires, and I make no complaint about it. But the wire service will face the situation that it will need to apply to its main competitor, or prospective competitor, for a licence to operate. This is quite wrong and goes against the whole principle of the way in which this matter has been handled in the past.
      A second important matter which was raised in Committee is that the new Corporation will enjoy complete monopoly powers in the operation of the telecommunications system. It will insist that every subscriber must take a Post Office installed telephone and that only the Post Office may maintain it, and, in a wider context, where a building has more than 50 phones the Post Office will insist that the occupier of the building shall purchase the system of properly proved equipment, including automatic branch exchange and all the other equipment. When it is installed the Post Office Corporation will take it over, operate it, and will insist on carrying out all maintenance.
      There are organisations in this country which are quite happy to instal complete telephone systems both internal and external and to recover their money on a rental basis. This means that the man whose concern produces cement or ball bearings, or whatever it may be, does not have to tie up a large amount of capital in buying a telephone system for his office block. By having a system on the rental principle he can pay for it from income rather than capital. In many buildings the occupier has installed a system for internal purposes which is modern and efficient and each person in the building is able to communicate quickly with someone else in the building. But when someone wishes to communicate with a person in a branch office down the road another phone must be used which is maintained by the Post Office. That is the first point: a businessman does not have the choice of either

      1505
      tying up his capital in an expensive telephone system or being able to rent a telephone system.
      7.0 p.m.
      The other point concerns the difference which would be made to the Post Office Corporation. The need for capital in the Corporation is very great; demand is growing all the time. It is plain that for some time the Corporation will be forced to have a system of priorities because under its system of borrowing from the Treasury the amount of capital made available to it from year to year will be restricted. If it could concentrate upon main trunk lines and main exchanges and supply a number of lines to an establishment which was prepared to install to the proper standard G.P.O. approved equipment, it would save the Corporation a large amount of capital and would enable it to use that capital to extend the telephone system much faster.
      At the moment, if we have a problem, we can ask the Postmaster-General about it. He usually gives a dusty answer. But in future we shall not be able to ask him questions. Therefore, we shall not even get a dusty answer. The Corporation will be in a different position from any other nationalised industry. The gas and electricity industries are in competition with other suppliers of heat and light. Therefore, they are not in a monopoly position. But the Post Office is in a monopoly position. Secondly, if the electricity board runs an electricity supply to our homes, that does not mean that we must buy our radio, television set or refrigerator from it. We have a choice. However, the electricity board would soon be on us if we installed substandard equipment. Therefore, there is reasonable protection for the consumer and for the supply authority. The consumer can say, "I will see what the local electricity showrooms have and then I will go down the road to discover what a private enterprise sale room has to offer". He has a choice.
      I see no reason why the consumer should not have a choice in this matter. I do not believe that if we change the Bill thousands of Post Office users will rush to say, "We wan tto install our own instrument". But I see no reason why they should not have the opportunity of doing so. What would happen very quickly would be that a number of proprietors would cease to duplicate their communications
      1506
      equipment on every executive's desk in the building. This can come about only if somebody is holding the corner. If the Post Office Corporation is approached, it will be able to say, "We are very sorry but we believe that no other person should be allowed to handle or maintain our equipment". The rental organisation will probably say, "If we cannot maintain the equipment we cannot rent it to you. We can look after the internal equipment, but we cannot allow you to have the other equipment on a hire purchase or rental basis".
      Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;
      House counted, and, 40 Members being present—
      7.8 p.m.
      Mr. Mawby: If people feel that the Corporation is unnecessarily extending its monopoly powers, there should be an appeal body to which they can turn. It should be served by people of high technical ability who will be able to make a fair and impartial decision on whether the Corporation is wrongly using its monopoly powers.
      We are in an age of fast communications development. There is the development of optical broadcasting. We are entering fields which, not many years ago, man never dreamed of. We must not do anything in the Bill which prevents the Corporation from fully exploiting new developments. That is the last thing we should wish to do. On the other hand, we must not give it so much power that it can insist on maintaining a monopoly position and thereby deter or retard developments. What would have happened if the railways had been given the right to control all transport communications? Would the aircraft industry have got off the ground? I may be entering the realms of fantasy, but it would be undesirable if we had a monopoly which insisted upon using its power and refused to allow anyone to provide an alternative service.
      There is also the vexed question of the use of common services, a matter with which we dealt at length in Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) referred to an Amendment dealing with penalties for anyone in breach of the provisions of Clause 24. If someone may be in breach

      1507
      of Clause 24, he ought to be able to know what is a crime and what is not.
      Common services are covered by Clauses 24, 25, 26 and 27 and a number of examples of the sort of situation which they would cover were given in Standing Committee. The right hon. Gentleman was very forthcoming about what he thought the Corporation would seek to do. For instance, he gave us an assurance about toy boats on a pond. I accept that he and those who would represent the Corporation meant every word they said, but there are many things which are common services.
      For instance, people in a block of flats may share a button system at the door so that there is speaker communication between their flats and the front door of the block. If such a system were covered, there would have to be a licence from the Corporation. But the situation ought to be made much clearer to the ordinary citizen who wants to know whether he will break the law if he goes ahead with whatever he has planned.
      If there were such a board as is suggested, it might decide that licences for some of these common services was taking monopoly power too far and it might decide that some no longer required to be licensed. Such a decision would clear the air. I have no doubt that those in control of the Corporation would adopt the attitude which the G.P.O. has always adopted and adapt themselves to new situations as they arose.
      I do not accuse anyone of deliberately going out of his way to upset people, but we cannot allow a Bill to go through when it will require a person or a group of persons to apply to the main competitor for a new licence. The only way to get over that is to accept the principle of the new Clause.
      My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and I do not expect the Clause to be word perfect. But if the principle were to be adopted, we would accept the assurance of the Postmaster-General that he would provide appropriate words to incorporate the principle. If he is not prepared to accept the principle, I shall expect my hon. Friends to go into the Lobby to vote for it.
      7.15 p.m.
      The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): I am glad to be able—
      Mr. Kenneth Baker: On a point of order. As the Postmaster-General has now risen, it is probably a fair inference that the debate is drawing to its close. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you can protect the rights of back benchers if the Closure is moved after the Postmaster-General sits down. Some of us have been waiting since a quarter to four to take part in the debate. If the Closure is moved it will be the second time today that back benchers, who have been very patient, will not have been able to participate in important debates because of long speeches. I hope that we can count on your protection of our rights in these circumstances.
      Mr. Speaker: When the hon. Member has been in Parliament a little longer he will know that that is a very old gambit. Mr. Speaker, however, never discusses Closures.
      Mr. Stonehouse: It would be useful if the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) had a conversation with his hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings). If the manœuvre of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire had been successful, the debate would not be continuing even now.
      I am delighted to be able to follow the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), who has considerable experience of these matters and played a distinguished part in our proceedings in Standing Committee. Many of the points which he ventilated this evening were discussed in Standing Committee and he will not want me to comment again upon each of them. However, I want to refer to the supply of equipment for subscribers, because there is much misunderstanding about this subject.
      He referred to the example of the electricity and gas boards. They connect a supply to a home and the customer is able to buy the equipment—the gas stove or the electric stove, or the electric fire—from any supplier. Provided that the appliance is fitted by someone with proper experience and training, the gas board

      1509
      or electricity board would raise no objection. It has been suggested today and earlier that telephone installation should be similarly arranged and that it should be possible for a customer to have lines connected to a house and then choose the equipment he wishes from any supplier.
      It is an interesting suggestion, but it is defective on this main ground. The communications system of the Post Office is dissimilar from the supply of electricity or gas, which is in one direction. The communications system of the Post Office works in two or more directions. If inadequate or badly maintained equipment is attached to the system, it is not only embarrassing to the subscriber but a handicap to the system as a whole, and it could be extremely dangerous—and I use that word again—if inadequate equipment were installed.
      In the last few months we have had the example of mock antique phones drawn to our attention. Many Japanese mock antique phones have been imported and many have been sold. If they are installed for purely domestic use or internal communication within a house or club there is no objection, but if they are attached to a system they could prove dangerous to the system and a handicap not only to correct reception of calls on that telephone but an interference with other calls, and they could mess up the complicated equipment at our exchanges. That is why we have had to say that it is not possible for such unauthorised equipment to be attached to the system, and that is why the suggestion of freedom of supply for subscribers cannot be accepted.
      Captain Orr: I thank the Postmaster-General for giving way; he is always courteous. He says that he could not permit unauthorised attachments. Surely it is possible to lay down—and it has been done in the Post Office—a specification governing these things and to say that provided instruments comply with that specification anybody would be permitted to attach them to the system.
      Mr. Stonehouse: This is already done for certain PABXs to ensure that these are attached to the system and work effectively and efficiently. It would be unwise to widen this freedom in the way suggested, because the way in which we
      1510
      need to supervise the proper running of the communications system is extremely important.
      A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), raised the question of relay companies and their position. They are operating a communications network that is caught by the monopoly. If a communications network is operated by a business purely internally, it is not caught by the monopoly, but if a communications system links third persons to a network it is an infringement of the existing Post Office monopoly.
      The existing Post Office monopoly is being transferred to the Post Office Corporation. The relay companies are being allowed to continue their systems on licence from the Post Office Corporation in the same way as they continue now to operate with a licence from the Postmaster-General.
      I gave an assurance in Committee on 13th February that the position of the companies would be protected at least until 1976. I went on to say:
      "They are in no different a situation from the programme companies under I.T.A. They are not given any guarantee that they will be able to continue after that date, because the whole of broadcasting is going to be subjected to a fundamental review. It would not be right if the relay companies were given any exemption from that review. It is important that that review should be without prejudice to the future, and the reason why we have given this assurance until 1976 is to allow that review to be conducted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 13th February, 1969; c. 758–9.]
      The relay companies know their position. It has been made crystal clear to them. They will understand that it would be unfair to pre-empt the fundamental review of broadcasting which could change the pattern fundamentally from 1976 onwards. The programme companies of I.T.A. are in exactly the same position. I gave a similar assurance on 18th February at column 789. This is the only answer that I can give to the points which have been raised concerning the relay firms. We can go no further than that assurance, which is a fairly liberal one and will give them security for a large number of years.
      The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) raised a number of questions. In particular, he referred to Clause 27(6)

      1511
      and asked a number of questions about it in relation to subsection (1) of that Clause. The presence of subsection (6) does not mean that subsection (1) is ineffective. The Post Office has to get the consent of the Minister to the issue of a monopoly licence, but Clause 27(6) protects the licensee from prosecution if the Minister did not give a proper consent owing to a mistake. That is the reason why this is included.
      The hon. Member has spoken to his Amendments which would delete paragraph (c) of Clause 24(1). If he looks at Clauses 25 and 26, he will see that that subsection is qualified particularly by Clause 25(2), which states:
      "In the case of a business carried on by a person, the said privilege is not infringed by the running, for the purposes of that business, of a system"
      which is situated in the United Kingdom provided that the messages are carried for the persons employed in the business.
      The purpose of that subsection is to make clear that if there is a communications system within a business, it does not fall within the monopoly. Therefore, this deals not only with the point which has been raised, but also with the points raised by hon. Members who wondered why there should not be a data communications system between, say, different section of a Press chain. That can be done. They can have a communications system. It is not caught by the monopoly if it is conducted in a business which is owned by a single firm.
      Captain Orr: Surely, it is caught if the various points are not within a single set of premises.
      Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, of course it would be caught, because they would be communicating between different parts of the United Kingdom; but if they communicate within their own organisation, it is not caught. That is the point I wanted to make clear.
      The suggestion that we should delete paragraphs (c) and (d) of Clause 24(1) did not, I think, carry the weight which was suggested, because there are these exceptions to the monopoly.
      Mr. Peyton: Although they have not been selected, I have put down some Amendments to modify the Clause to
      1512
      which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. May I ask him to comment on the horror of impartation?
      Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member is referring to subsection (1)(c) of Clause 24. That is a form of words designed particularly to catch technological developments which could infringe the existing monopoly. This is extremely important. The monopoly is not simply in a particular form of communication. It is intended to be in all forms of communication. If we were to allow the other developments of communications systems to infringe the monopoly, the whole purpose of the Bill—which is to transfer to the Post Office Corporation the monopoly at present enjoyed by the Postmaster-General—would be undermined. It is to protect the Post Office Corporation against the infringement of its monopoly by a technological development that is caught by paragraph (c) that subsection (1) is included.
      The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who moved new Clause No. 7, has done a tremendous amount of homework on the subject. I congratulate him on the amount of time and expertise that he has devoted to it. He has suggested that there should be a new and completely separate board which would
      "have power to license the provision and performance of postal and telecommunications services, including any facilities or services ancillary or incidental to any such services, whether generally or in any area or for any purpose or by any means or system specified in the licence."
      That is an extremely wide power. The outstanding objection to it is that it infringes the very monopoly that it is the intention of the Bill to transfer from the Post Office as a Department of State to the Post Office Corporation.
      7.30 p.m.
      Furthermore, if the House will direct its attention to subsection (4)(b) it will notice that it will be possible to authorise not only the carving up of sections of the business which are now enjoyed by the Post Office, but to authorise competitive business, and
      "in addition to any service or facilities then provided by the Post Office".
      This means that there would be duplicated services; there would be competition in the area where the Post Office now enjoys a monopoly in the provision

      1513
      of telephones or in the provision of postal deliveries or in any other service in which the Post Office now enjoys a monopoly.
      That is why I emphasise to the House that, although this may appear to be an innocent proposal, it is, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, a fundamental proposition which undermines the whole concept of the monopoly which it is the real intention of this Bill to transfer.
      Captain Orr: I am much obliged to the Postmaster-General for giving way again. What it does is to make the new board the custodian of the monopoly, and I think that that is right. If I may just take up one point which the Postmaster-General made just now, when he was talking about the possibility of competition with the monopoly, I would point out that this already exists. There are private enterprise concerns operating radio telephones at this very minute, and they are in competition with the telephone service and will increasingly be so. Why should not that exist? Why should there not be an impartial judge between them and the Post Office?
      Mr. Stonehouse: For the overwhelming reason that the monopoly should be protected. If we are to have an efficient telephone and telecommunications network in this country it can be more effectively developed by having a nationally integrated monopoly, rather than by having the monopoly eaten away piecemeal, as would be possible if this board were set up.
      The other objection, of course, to this board is that it would be able to operate without reference to this House. If it is the intention of the Opposition, if they should ever win an election, to dismember the telecommunications monopoly—and they have not come completely clean about that, but if that is their intention—then the appropriate thing for them to do, if they have a majority in this House, is to bring a Bill to the House and have it properly debated; Parliament should have the opportunity of making a decision about this. If we were to allow this board to be set up it would be possible for the board to carve up the telecommunications—indeed, the postal—monopoly in a way which Parliament has not intended,
      1514
      as shown by the approval of the main purpose of the Bill.
      Sir Harmar Nicholls rose—
      Mr. Stonehouse: I think I had better not give way. I think we had better get on. We have been a very long time on this.
      There is another objection, a minor one compared with the main objection to the proposal for the new board, and that is that it would be a bureaucratic machine. It is extraordinary that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who very vigorously from time to time attack the setting up of new Governmental institutions and boards of all descriptions, who object to the building up of the Civil Service, who are wholly against skilled manpower being absorbed in the public service, and who are always asking that skilled manpower should be released for productive work in industry—it is extraordinary that they should be suggesting the setting up of a board which would be bound to absorb a lot of skilled manpower, particularly technically skilled manpower, and would be bound to be very expensive, and, because it would be wedged in between Parliament and the Minister on the one hand and the Post Office on the other, would be bound to develop in a bureaucratic way. It is extraordinary that they of all people should be proposing that this board be set up.
      These are the principal reasons why I would oppose the board suggested, and, similarly, I would oppose any appeal as suggested in new Clause 8, because all these suggestions have the effect of undermining the monopoly which it is the intention of the Bill should be transferred to the Post Office Corporation.
      The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Down, South said there were extensions of monopoly under this Bill. He is misinformed about that. There is no extension of monopoly. All this Bill is doing is transferring the existing monopoly of the Postmaster-General to the Post Office Corporation. All that we are doing in this process of this Bill is clarifying what the monopoly actually means. This has encouraged the hon. and gallant Gentleman to raise objections to various parts of the Bill and to say that there is an extension of monopoly.
      The hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to say that the new Corporation will

      1515
      control competitors in all sorts of fields. That is exactly the intention. It is the intention that the Post Office should have the monopoly and be able to control potential competitors. That is what it is all about. If there are objections being raised to that I am delighted that there are objections, because that shows we are achieving what we are aiming to achieve. We want the monopoly to be transferred from the Postmaster-General to the public Corporation which is to be given the existing monopoly of the Post Office. That is what we want to achieve and that is what we are achieving.
      The hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to take examples from the United States. He gave the examples of the F.C.C. and C.A.V.T., but no comparisons can be made with the situation in the United States, where companies operating in this field are private companies and must be subject to some public control. That will not be the situation here. We will have a public corporation subject to control, under the provisions of this Bill, by a sponsoring Minister. Therefore, the sort of control which is set up in America is entirely inappropriate here.
      The hon. and gallant Gentleman went on to talk about the A.T.L.B. which is being subjected to review by the Edwards Committee at this time. We do not know what will come out of that, but what is true about the A.T.L.B. is that it operates in a field where there is not a monopoly by B.O.A.C. or B.E.A., but where there is a mixed economy situation where B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. are operatingg in competition with private airlines. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The hon. and gallant Gentleman is coming clean. This is exactly what he wants to achieve in this field. I am entirely opposed to him on that, and that is why I am opposed to having a similar sort of board to the A.T.L.B. set up in this field. It is completely unnecessary—unless we agree with the philosophy of hon. Gentlemen opposite. If we agree to their philosophy I can understand that this board would have some function. But we do not agree with their philosophy. We are entirely opposed to their philosophy. We want to maintain the monopoly, and this board, in that context, would be entirely superfluous.
      1516
      There have been all sorts of other comparisons made, but, of course, there is no board for the gas and electricity industries, because Parliament has seen fit to give the gas and electricity industries a monopoly, and this is a field where monopoly is applicable, as in the field where the Post Office Corporation is to be given a monopoly. There is no transport board to operate in relation to British Railways, in the way suggested for this board by this new Clause. Where there is a monopoly granted by Parliament such a suggestion is entirely inappropriate.
      As this proposal as put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his hon. Friends on that side of the House is such a fundamental undermining of the main purpose behind this Bill, I have to advise the House that it should be opposed when we have the Division.
      Mr. Bryan: I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) for the work that he has put into the Clause. He has done an expert job, and I am delighted to support him.
      I would have welcomed a board of this sort many years ago, even when my party was in power. There is not the slightest doubt that had our manufacturers had the sort of freedom that the board would have given them they would have done better in the export markets. There is evidence to show that this is the case in respect of almost all the companies in the telecommunications industry. I do not doubt that the consumers would also have benefited.
      But quite apart from the practical and material benefits there is an element of justice about the provisions in the Clause. It creates the right of appeal. Never throughout the Postmaster-General's speech did we hear the word "appeal". It did not occur to him that people want to be able to appeal against decisions which adversely affect them. The right of appeal operates all the way through our law, but for some reason it is thought to be inappropriate in the case of the Post Office.
      I have already said that I would have liked to see such a board as is proposed in the Clause in days gone by. The case was strong then, but it is far stronger now,

      1517
      because we are in an entirely new situation. The Post Office, at least, was under Parliamentary scrutiny. The Postmaster-General now answers and gives an account of his office before the House of Commons. But under the new establishment which will operate from 1st October onwards there will be no scrutiny of the Posit Office. It will be in an entirely new position. That is why a new independent commission is required.
      The right hon. Gentleman's very speech underlines the requirement for such a body. He has told us why something is inadequate and why it is objectionable, but who is he to say that it is objectionable? He can say it if he likes, but every citizen should be able to appeal against a decision of this sort. The Minister may get it wrong. Time and again experts and technical men disagree among themselves, and they are always thinking in terms of a right of appeal.
      No other country functions as we do. Other countries cannot understand how a nation like ours—highly sophisticated in law and highly inventive in machinery and manufacturing—can sit down under not monopoly rules but dictatorial rules. The Post Office will be a dictator, and not just a monopoly or a commission. The Postmaster-General had the effrontery to say that the relay position would be a liberal one, and that relay companies now knew and understood the situation. They may know and understand it, but they do not approve it, because it is laughable. The Postmaster-General seems to have talked himself into feeling that it is all very well, but let us consider the situation that will arise.
      We are supposed to go to our competitors for permission to operate. We have been promised that we shall not be upset and that we shall be given what we want, but the basic background is wrong. At the end there is no appeal. We are told that there is no need for an appeal, because we shall always be given what we want. That is not the way the law usually operates, and I cannot understand why it has not sunk into the right hon. Gentleman's mind that this is a unique situation in Britain. We do not treat our citizens in this way in any other regard. We shall be discussing the relay system in greater detail when we reach Amendment No. 91.
      1518
      7.45 p.m.
      The Post Office is the sole authority for allocating frequencies. By any normal rule it is unfair, because the G.P.O. is one of the main users of the frequencies. Once again, therefore, the Post Office is acting as judge in its own cause. It is one of the interested parties. Surely there should be an appeal against its decisions.
      Even if some of the main users are not under the Post Office they consist of many Government Departments. Who, now, can challenge the rights of the defence services to have the wavelengths that they now have? No doubt they needed what they had in the years when their services were bigger. But nobody will be able to say that some of these wavelengths must be free now because the defence forces are only half what they were. Nobody is allowed to do that. The Post Office says that we may not ask, and that there is no appeal. We must take it as it is. Many experts believe that there are grave doubts whether wavelengths are being used as efficiently as possible.
      We cannot accept this brushing aside of all foreign experience. The great thing about foreign experience—never mind the technical part of it—is that it can be seen to be just. My hon. Friend mentioned, in passing, the case of the Carterfone. We have raised this matter from time to time, because it is a straight example of the situation that we are advocating. The report from the F.C.C. reads:
      "The examiner found that there was a need and a demand for a device to connect the telephone landline system with mobile radio systems which could be met in part by the Carterfone. He also found that the Carterfone had no material adverse effect upon use of the telephone system. He construed the tariff to prohibit attachment of the Carterfone whether or not it harmed the telephone system, and determined that future prohibition of its use would be unjust and unreasonable. He also found that it would be unduly discriminatory under Section 202(a) of the Act, since the telephone companies permit the use of their own interconnecting devices."
      That is an absolutely just appraisal. The rules have been made by the Bell Telephone Company, presumably, just as the Post Office makes its rules now. Then the F.C.C. examiner found for the objectors. That cannot happen in this country. We are told that we cannot put the appliance at the end of our telephone line. We cannot challenge that decision in any way.

      1519
      If the number of appeals won amounted to only one in 100 it would still be right to have a right of appeal. I do not mind what system we have so long as it contains the element of a right of appeal. That is the most important element of all.
      The Bell Telephone Co. of Canada has an Act dated 7th March, 1968. Section 5(4) says:
      "For the protection of the subscribers of the Company and of the public, any equipment apparatus, line, circuit or device not provided by the company shall only be attached to the apparatus in conformity with such reasonable requirements as may be prescribed by the Company."
      That is reasonable. Then there is the second element. Subsection (5) provides that
      "The Canadian Transport Commission"—
      the appeal body—
      "may determine, as questions of fact, whether or not any requirements … are reasonable."
      There we have an outside body deciding whether the original rules are right. Thirdly, subsection (6) provides that:
      "Any person who is affected by any requirements prescribed by the Company … may apply to the Canadian Transport Commission to determine the reasonableness …"
      An individual is given the right of appeal. Finally:
      "The decision of the Commission is subject to review and appeal pursuant to the Railway Act."
      Even that is subject to appeal. The situation is that a monopoly lays down the rules and an outside body then decides whether or not they are fair. Care is taken to preserve the right of appeal for an individual's grievance. These are obvious elements in any just and efficient arrangement.
      Therefore, thinking in terms of our history, it is unbelievable that the Post Office should have this dictatorial power. It is even more unbelievable when one considers the size of the field in which it has that power without appeal, and the growing size of the field. All hon. Members agree on this. We keep speaking about how much telecommunications will grow and how we do not know where it will end, but there is still this completely unjust basis for its expansion.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) that all sorts of adventurous inventions are killed by our system. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) that the opportunities which are thrown away make one desperate. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) toured the Bell telephone system abroad, he kept coming across Englishmen in high positions who felt that their opportunities lay there.
      The very nature of this Clause shows that a lot of thought has been given. It is not merely a gesture. For that reason, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman treated it seriously and tried to answer it in detail. But, throughout, he was fascinated by his monopoly, and anyone who challenged it was ridiculous and wrong. He could not conceive that he might be wrong on this question of an appeal. If he cannot understand that, he is not worth debating with.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Ernest G. Perry rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 235, Noes 180.

      Division No. 181.]

      AYES

      [7.53 p.m.

      Albu, Austen

      Bishop, E. S.

      Carmichael, Neil

      Allaun Frank (Salford, E.)

      Blackburn, F.

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Alldritt, Walter

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Anderson, Donald

      Boston, Terence

      Chapman, Donald

      Archer, Peter

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Coleman, Donald

      Ashley, Jack

      Boyden, James

      Conlan, Bernard

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Bradley, Tom

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Bray, Dr. Jeremy

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

      Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bagier, Cordon A. T.

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

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Barnes, Michael

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

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Barnett, Joel

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

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Buchan, Norman

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Binns, John

      Cant, R. B.

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

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

      Pannell, Rt Hn. Charles

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Park, Trevor

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Delargy, Hugh

      Judd, Frank

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Dell, Edmund

      Kelley, Richard

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Dempsey, James

      Kenyon, Clifford

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

      Dewar, Donald

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

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Dickens, James

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

      Pentland, Norman

      Dobson, Ray

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

      Doig, Peter

      Lawson, George

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

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

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Eadie, Alex

      Luard, Evan

      Price William (Rugby)

      Edelman, Maurice

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Probert, Arthur

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Rankin, John

      Ellis, John

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Rees, Merlyn

      English, Michael

      McBride, Neil

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Ennals, David

      McCann, John

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

      Ensor, David

      MacColl, James

      Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

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

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Finch, Harold

      McGuire, Michael

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Rose, Paul

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Mackie, John

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Sheldon, Robert

      Ford, Ben

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Forrester, John

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Shore, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)

      Fowler, Gerry

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

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

      Silverman, Julius

      Gardner, Tony

      Manuel, Archie

      Slater, Joseph

      Garrett, W. E.

      Mapp, Charles

      Small, William

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Marks, Kenneth

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Marquand, David

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Gregory, Arnold

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

      Mendelson, John

      Taverne, Dick

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Millan, Bruce

      Thornton, Ernest

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

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

      Tinn, James

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Molloy, William

      Tomney, Frank

      Haseldine, Norman

      Moonman, Eric

      Urwin, T. W.

      Hattersley, Roy

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Wallace, George

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Hilton, W. S.

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Hobden, Dennis

      Murray, Albert

      Wellbeloved, James

      Hooley, Frank

      Neal, Harold

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Newens, Stan

      Whitlock, William

      Howie, W.

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

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Ogden, Eric

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Hunter, Adam

      Oram, Albert E.

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Hynd, John

      Orbach, Maurice

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Orme, Stanley

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

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

      Oswald, Thomas

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Jeger, George (Goole)

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

      Woof, Robert

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

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Paget, R. T.

      Mr. Charles R. Morris and

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      NOES

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Costain, A. P.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Body, Richard

      Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Amery Rt. Hn. Julian

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Crouch, David

      Astor, John

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

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

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Dance, dames

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Bryan, Paul

      Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

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

      Dean, Paul

      Balniel, Lord

      Buck, Antony (Colchester)

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

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Drayson, G. B.

      Batsford, Brian

      Burden, F. A.

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Bell, Ronald

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Eden, Sir John

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Emery, Peter

      Bessell, Peter

      Clark, Henry

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

      Clegg, Walter

      Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

      1522

      1523

      Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Royle, Anthony

      Farr, John

      Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Fortescue, Tim

      Longden, Gilbert

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

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

      Lubbock, Eric

      Scott, Nicholas

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      MacArthur, Ian

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

      Sharples, Richard

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

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

      Goodhart, Philip

      McMaster, Stanley

      Silvester, Frederick

      Goodhew, Victor

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Gower, Raymond

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

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

      Grant, Anthony

      Maginnis, John E.

      Speed, Keith

      Grant-Ferris, R.

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Stainton, Keith

      Gresham Cooke, R.

      Marten, Neil

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Grieve, Percy

      Maude, Angus

      Summers, Sir Spencer

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Mawby, Ray

      Tapsell, Peter

      Gurden, Harold

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Taylor Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

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

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

      Monro, Hector

      Temple, John M.

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      More, Jasper

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Walker, Peter (Worcester)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Murton, Oscar

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Walters, Dennis

      Heseltine, Michael

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Hiley, Joseph

      Onslow, Cranley

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Holland, Philip

      Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

      Wiggin, A. W.

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Hornby, Richard

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Peel, John

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Hunt, John

      Percival, Ian

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Peyton, John

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Worsley, Marcus

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Pounder, Rafton

      Wright, Esmond

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Wylie, N. R.

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Younger, Hn. George

      Jopling, Michael

      Pym, Francis

      Kerby, Capt. Henry

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Mr. R. W. Elliott and

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Mr. Timothy Kitson.

      Lane, David

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Question put accordingly, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 180, Noes 238.

      Division No. 182.]

      AYES

      [8.3 p.m.

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Crouch, David

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

      Astor, John

      Dance, James

      Harrison, Brian (Maldon)

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

      Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Dean, Paul

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

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

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Balniel, Lord

      Drayson, G. B.

      Hastings, Stephen

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Hawkins, Paul

      Batsford, Brian

      Eden, Sir John

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Bell, Ronald

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

      Emery, Peter

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Hiley, Joseph

      Bessell, Peter

      Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

      Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Farr, John

      Holland, Philip

      Body, Richard

      Fortescue, Tim

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

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

      Hordern, Peter

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Hornby, Richard

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Bryan, Paul

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      Hunt, John

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

      Goodhart, Philip

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Buck, Antony (Colchester)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Gower, Raymond

      Irvine, Bryant Goodman (Rye)

      Burden, F. A.

      Grant, Anthony

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Grant-Ferris, R.

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Gresham Cooke, R.

      Jopling, Michael

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Grieve, Percy

      Kerby, Capt. Henry

      Clegg, Walter

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Costain, A. P.

      Gurden, Harold

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Kitson, Timothy

      Onslow, Cranley

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Lane, David

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Summers, Sir Spencer

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

      Longden, Gilbert

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Lubbock, Eric

      Peel, John

      Temple, John M.

      MacArthur, Ian

      Percival, Ian

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

      Peyton, John

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      McMaster, Stanley

      Pounder, Rafton

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Walker, Peter (Worcester)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Maginnis, John E.

      Pym, Francis

      Walters, Dennis

      Marples, Rt, Hn. Ernest

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Marten, Neil

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Maude, Angus

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Mawby, Ray

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Wiggin, A. W.

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Royle, Anthony

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Monro, Hector

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Scott, Nicholas

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      More, Jasper

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Sharples, Richard

      Worsley, Marcus

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

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

      Wright, Esmond

      Wylie, N. R.

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Silvester, Frederick

      Younger, Hn. George

      Murton, Oscar

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

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

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Speed, Keith

      Mr. R. W. Elliott and

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Stainton, Keith

      Mr. Reginald Eyre.

      NOES

      Albu, Austen

      Dickens, James

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Dobson, Ray

      Hunter, Adam

      Alldritt, Walter

      Doig, Peter

      Hynd, John

      Anderson, Donald

      Dunnett, Jack

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Archer, Peter

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

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

      Ashley, Jack

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

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Eadie, Alex

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

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Edelman, Maurice

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Ellis, John

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Barnes, Michael

      English, Michael

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

      Barnett, Joel

      Ennals, David

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Ensor, David

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Bidwell, Sydney

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

      Judd, Frank

      Binns, John

      Finch, Harold

      Kelley, Richard

      Bishop, E. S.

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Kenyon, Clifford

      Blackburn, F.

      Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

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

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth Central)

      Boston, Terence

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Foley, Maurice

      Lawson, George

      Boyden, James

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Bradley, Tom

      Ford, Ben

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Bray, Dr. Jeremy

      Forrester, John

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

      Fowler, Gerry

      Lomas, Kenneth

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

      Freeson, Reginald

      Luard, Evan

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

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

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

      Gardner, Tony

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Buchan, Norman

      Garrett, W. E.

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Cant, R. B.

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      McBride, Neil

      Carmichael, Neil

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      McCann, John

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      MacColl, James

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Gregory, Arnold

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Chapman, Donald

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      McGuire, Michael

      Coleman, Donald

      Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Conlan, Bernard

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Mackie, John

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Dalyell, Tam

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Darling, Rt. Hn. George

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Haseldine, Norman

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      Hattersley, Roy

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

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

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Hilton, W. S.

      Manuel, Archie

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Hobden, Dennis

      Mapp, Charles

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Hooley, Frank

      Marks, Kenneth

      Delargy, Hugh

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Marquand, David

      Dell, Edmund

      Howie, W.

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Dempsey, James

      Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Dewar, Donald

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      1526

      1527

      Mendelson, John

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Mikardo, Ian

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Millan, Bruce

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Pentland, Norman

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

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

      Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Molloy, William

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Taverne, Dick

      Moonman, Eric

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

      Thornton, Ernest

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Tinn, James

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Tomney, Frank

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Probert, Arthur

      Urwin, T. W.

      Murray, Albert

      Rankin, John

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Neal, Harold

      Rees, Merlyn

      Wallace, George

      Newens, Stan

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Watkins, David (Consett)

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

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

      Wellbeloved, James

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Ogden, Eric

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Whitlock, William

      O'Malley, Brian

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Oram, Albert E.

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Willey, Rt. Hon. Frederick

      Orbach, Maurice

      Rose, Paul

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Orme, Stanley

      Ross, Rt. Hn, William

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

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

      Sheldon, Robert

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

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

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Paget, R. T.

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Woof, Robert

      Palmer, Arthur

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Silverman, Julius

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Park, Trevor

      Slater, Joseph

      Mr. Charles R. Morris and

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Small, William

      Mr. Joseph Harper.

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

    New Clause 10

      LOCAL JOINT MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES
      (1) There shall be established in accordance with the provisions of this section a joint management committee for the management of local post offices within each of twenty-six areas to be defined by the Minister in agreement with the recognised trade unions to be called 'the Local Post Office Joint Management Committee'.

      (2) Each Joint Management Committee shall consist of a chairman to be elected by the members of the Joint Management Committee, and twenty members of whom 50 per cent. shall be appointed by the Minister and 50 per cent. elected for periods of three years by and from the organised trade union employees in the area in accordance with a procedure to be agreed by the Minister after agreement with the recognised trade unions.

      (3) Those members appointed by the Minister shall be appointed from amongst persons appearing to the Minister to have had wide experience of and to have shown capacity in matters concerning services which under this Part of this Act the Post Office has power to provide, or industrial, commercial, professional or financial matters, pure or applied science, politics, economics, technology, administration or the organisation of workers.

      (4) It shall be the duty of each Joint Management Committee to administer the provision of postal services in its area in accordance with powers conferred on it by the Post Office.—[Mr. Newens.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Stan Newens: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): With new Clause 10 new Clause 13—Joint Management Committees in subsidiaries of Post Office—and the following Amendments have been selected for debate:
      No. 12, in Clause 6, page 5, line 38, leave out from 'be' to end of subsection and insert:
      elected by the members of the Post Office, 50 per cent. of whom shall be appointed by the Minister and 50 per cent., elected for periods of three years, by and from the organised trade union employees in the Post Office in accordance with a procedure to be agreed by the Minister by consultation with the recognised trade unions'.
      No. 14, in page 6, line 1, leave out from beginning to 'shall' and insert:
      'Those members of the Post Office appointed by the Minister'.
      No. 196, in Clause 11, page 11, line 30, leave out subsection (7).
      No. 54, in page 11, line 41, after 'Minister', insert:
      'the trade unions and members of joint management committees'.
      Mr. Newens: The object of this Clause is to provide for the establishment of joint management committees representative of workers as well as of the Minister. It is to be taken in association with new Clause No. 13 and a number of Amendments which are also in the names of my hon. Friends and in my name which

      1529
      have the general objective of providing for a measure of workers' control in the Post Office. The idea of public ownership is often regarded as the hallmark of Socialism and the be-all and end-all of what we as Socialists seek to achieve. Public ownership without proper forms of administration may not be Socialism at all. Industrial democracy is just as essentian as public ownership itself if we are to achieve a Socialist state of society.
      8.15 p.m.
      The idea of industrial democracy was basic to Socialist thought in the past and was closely connected with the work of the Co-operative movement. In these circumstances, I am very disappointed that there are no provisions in the Bill for the introduction of some measure of industrial democracy. I find this particularly disconcerting at a time when interest in industrial democracy is reviving in the country, and in the Labour movement in particular, by leaps and bounds. Participation is today an "in" word and the Union of Post Office Workers accepted the notion of workers' control of industry many years ago.
      A few weeks ago I attended a conference in Sheffield called by the Institute of Workers' Control at which there were over 1,000 delegates. We shall be missing a great opportunity if at the time when we are reorganising the Post Office we do not take some steps towards the introduction of industrial democracy and workers' control through the passing of this Measure. However, we seem to be constituting a national board more or less on the model of those established for nationalised industries during the 1945–51 period. To many of us in the Labour movement, based on our experience, this set-up is no longer satisfactory.
      The proposals in new Clause 10 and the other Amendments would provide for the Post Office to be controlled by a board not of Ministerial appointees as the Bill suggests, but of 50 per cent. Ministerial appointees and 50 per cent. workers' representatives. In addition, for Post Office purposes the country would be divided into 26 areas each with a joint management committee which would be made up of 50 per cent. Ministerial appointees and 50 per cent. workers' representatives. New Clause 13 provides for similar arrangements in wholly-owned subsidiaries of the Post Office.
      1530
      The proposals put forward in the new Clauses and Amendments are comparatively moderate. My right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General went on record some time ago attacking the idea of syndicalism and pointed out what he regarded as the dangers of lack of responsibility to the community and to consumers, but new Clause 10 and these other proposals have the concept of joint management, a concept in which there would be equal provision for Ministerial appointees and workers' representatives to participate in decisions affecting the policy of the Post Office.
      Of course the Ministerial representatives would be present to defend the public interest. I do not believe it fair to suggest that workers are interested only in their own narrow, selfish interests. Practical experience suggests the opposite. Very often the pressure of public responsibility overrides workers' representatives' concern with their own constituents. This has been the experience in co-determination in West Germany in many respects. For this reason I regard it as particularly important that the workers' representatives should be subject to period reelection. I propose that they should stay for a term of three years. The possibility that they might be turned out of office would be very healthy, because the necessity of facing an election always concentrates the mind enormously.
      Workers representatives should be genuinely responsible to the workers who elect them and this proposal provides for this object to be achieved. I hope that it will be possible for workers' representatives to report back to the people who have elected them between elections and so make the form of democracy which I propose real.
      Despite the views of my hon. Friends and myself, we have not set out any very detailed hard and fast procedure. We suggest that the electoral procedures to be employed could be determined by agreement between the Minister and the trade unions within the industry.
      Mr. Walter Clegg: Whilst the hon. Gentleman is on the question of recognised trade unions, so that we can apply our minds to the practical effects, may I ask how many unions would be involved?
      Mr. Newens: I suggest all the trade unions recognised within the Post Office at present.
      Mr. Clegg: How many?
      Mr. Newens: I am not concerned to enumerate them, because I do not wish to lay down any hard and fast procedure which could not encompass changes in the present arrangements—for example, if a merger took place between the Post Office unions. I do not wish to be too detailed on this point, because I recognise that changes are taking place the whole time.
      Mr. John Mendelson: It is up to the workers.
      Mr. Newens: My hon. Friend says that it is up to the workers in the industry to determine these things. This is the objective of the new Clauses and the Amendments.
      Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: The hon. Member for North Fylde wanted to know who are the people who now hold recognition. I think that was the phrase he used.
      Mr. Newens: The unions?
      Mr. Dobson: The unions which now hold recognition. Is my hon. Friend aware that some unions hold recognition inside the Post Office purely for historical reasons and that they are bitterly opposed by other unions, in association with the T.U.C. and the Labour Party, who say that they no longer have any right to that recognition?
      Mr. Newens: I am conscious of this. For this reason I do not wish to get involved in the sort of digressive argument which the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) was tempting me to pursue. The recognition of trade unions and whether amalgamation of particular trade unions should take place must be determined by the workers in the industry. The purpose of the new Clauses or the Amendments is not to determine the recognition or non-recognition of particular trade unions. I am concerned about the possibility of introducing a real measure of workers' control into the Post Office. The number of recognised trade unions is to a large extent irrelevant to this matter.
      1532
      If the reforms which I propose are found by my right hon. Friend to be unacceptable, I am prepared to withdraw the new Clause if he will promise to come forward with something which will achieve similar results. But it is essential at this stage that provisions should be introduced which will enable the workers in the industry to play a real part in the policy making of the Post Office.
      Some people may argue that trade unions are suspicious about the notion of industrial democracy. I emphasise that this is not so with the Union of Post Office Workers, which has published a pamphlet on workers' control based on the decisions of its 1956 Annual Conference. In that pamphlet it states:
      "Workers control then is something more than you and I having a say in the making of decisions. On the contrary, it ought to mean that the responsibility for making the decisions that determine policy must be shouldered by all those who work by hand or brain within the industry."
      This document, putting forward the union's policy, goes on to state that consultation is not enough and it suggests the idea of a joint administrative council on a fifty-fifty basis.
      I have put forward my arguments on this basis. However, I emphasise that industrial democracy is not trade union control of an industry. It is important I should make this point clear. Many trade union leaders would feel compromised if they were made responsible for all policy decisions. The sort of arrangement that I believe can be worked out is one in which trade unions will continue to exercise the part which they have played in the past, but at the same time workers' representatives would exercise real powers of control over policy making.
      Perhaps I may compare the situation to that which exists in the Co-operative movement, because it may help to indicate what I am seeking. In the Co-operative movement there is a large measure of workers' control. Many workers stand for the boards which control the Co-operative movement, but at the same time the trade unions are independent of the boards and carry on the functions which they would carry on vis-à-vis other employers in other industries.

      1533
      It is quite clear that workers' representatives in the Post Office have achieved a sufficient level of knowledge and sophistication to be as capable of administering the affairs of the Post Office as others who in the past have been appointed to nationalised boards. I do not wish to be scornful of them, but when we consider the long list of retired ex-Service officers, business men, civil servants and others who have staffed the nationalised boards, I feel sure that in the Post Office today there are many people who would be as capable of exercising the functions which would be placed upon them as these other people, if not rather better. When one looks at private industry today, one can see that many of its directors, especially those who are at the head of organisations taking over other concerns as conglomerates, have no detailed knowledge of the workings of the concerns which they take over. A great deal of useful information could be provided and a very important part could be played by workers' representatives, who know the position in the industry from the workers' point of view, in helping the Post Office to be a more successful industrial and commercial concern.
      Many people are concerned about the policies being pursued by the organisations for which they work. A person who I know very well has been drafted to work on the Giro. It is clear from suggestions and ideas that he has put to me that he has given a great deal of thought to the problems involved and knows a great deal more about the possibilities of the Giro than many others do. The sort of information which could come from the bottom levels to the top through arrangements such as those that I advocate would greatly strengthen the viability of the Post Office. It would not merely serve the interests of the workers, but help to make the Post Office more efficient.
      As I have said, the new Clause and the Amendments do not raise the issue of full workers' control, or what might be described as "syndicalism". They do not raise the issue of direct workers' representation in committees based on individual Post Offices, although I support that concept and hope that the day may come when we can introduce it.
      1534
      The new Clause and its associated Amendments are very moderate in their intentions. They propose merely to take certain steps in the direction of industrial democracy. They do not go all the way along the path which I would like to see us travel.
      In these circumstances, a great deal of information must be made available to workers' representatives and trade unionists in the Post Office. Workers' representatives will require access to information to enable them to determine policies upon which they will be asked to pronounce. Amendment No. 54 provides that the Post Office shall furnish not only the Minister with such returns, accounts and other information with respect to its property and activities, and, if it has subsidiaries, with respect to their property and activities, as he may from time to time require. It provides also that they shall be furnished to the trade unions and members of joint management committees envisaged in these proposals.
      I appreciate that it may be said that there is a need for confidentiality in the use of this information. My reply to anyone who criticises the proposals on that ground is that I hope that breaches of confidence will be avoided by these representatives in the same way as they are in various other forms of control. In the case of the British Steel Corporation, we provided that certain information should be made available. It will be a retrograde step if we do not provide for equal facilities in the Post Office.
      The Post Office Bill that we are considering—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not at this juncture considering the Bill. We are discussing new Clause 10.
      Mr. Newens: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I may put it like this. The Post Office Bill which has been considered is likely to establish the shape of this great national industry for some time to come. In the years ahead, the demand for participation will grow. What we are doing today should provide some scope within which that participation can be expanded.
      I believe that, unless some such provision as new Clause 10 is incorporated in the Bill, there will be considerable dissatisfaction among postal workers which they will have no opportunity of

      1535
      expressing in the way they should. I believe that we in the community will lose from the fact that there will be no possibility of the interest of workers in their concern to be guided into channels of use to the community.
      Mr. Fergus Montgomery: This is an important new Clause but I cannot understand why, when it stands not only in the name of the hon. Gentleman but in the names of 18 of his hon. Friends, only one of them is sitting here tonight. Will he explain the lack of enthusiasm among his hon. Friends who thought that the new Clause was important enough to have their names attached to it but are not even bothering to listen to the hon. Gentleman?
      Mr. Newens: That is an irrelevant intervention. The hon. Gentleman is aware that, in this place, many things are going on at the same time and that no one knows beforehand the time at which a debate is going to take place. It may have caught the attention of several hon. Members opposite that there were certain other affairs in which I was interested earlier in our discussions but for which I could not be present. It frequently happens that there is a conflict between the demands on the time of an hon. Member. The hon. Gentleman knows that his intervention was frivolous.
      The demand for participation will glow. My hon. Friends and I intend in future to raise it on every occasion when we are considering the work of nationalised industries. I appeal to my right hon. Friend to give full consideration to the points I have raised. If he is unable to accept the new Clause precisely as it stands, I am prepared to withdraw it to make way for some other method of moving towards the same end. If he were prepared to bring forward a new provision providing for a real measure of industrial democracy, he would be doing something to make the Post Office a model for numerous other industries, particularly other nationalised industries.
      This is a vital debate. I have not introduced it in any frivolous sense. There is a great deal of demand for this sort of thing to be done, and when workers are concerned about their conditions
      1536
      and the way in which their industry is conducted, and when they have a right to demand that their interests be considered, we should, as far as possible, provide them with the means of doing is. That is the object of new Clause 10.
      Mr. Stonehouse: What discussion has my hon. Friend had with the staff side in the G.P.O. in regard to new Clause 10?
      Mr. Newens: I must confess that I have not had any official discussions with the staff side in the G.P.O. on this proposal but some of my hon. Friends who represent trade unions will be better able to speak on these matters than I. I have, however, spoken with Post Office workers and, though not in detail, have mentioned these matters to my hon. Friends in the past and I know that there is considerable interest.
      I am not sponsored by any of the unions which represent the workers in the Post Office and I regret that it is not possible for me to say that my case is the official point of view of a trade union. But the ideas I have been putting forward command a great deal of sympathy in the working-class movement in general and more and more people today recognise that, until we are prepared to make changes in order to provide opportunities for people to participate in the control of their organisations, we shall increase the tremendous amount of frustration which is felt in the nationalised industries today.
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I counsel the Minister to approach with caution the fascinating arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens). If the proposals made by the hon. Gentleman were to be implemented, much unnecessary difficulty could result. I therefore hope that the Minister will not rush into accepting these proposals unthinkingly without fully appreciating the possible consequences.
      The hon. Member, in presenting his sincere argument, applied several descriptions to his suggestions. He first called them Socialist and then indicated that they might be syndicalist. It struck me that they were very similar to the arguments and propositions which have been advanced by back-seat drivers through the ages. The hon. Gentleman mentioned his friend who knows how to run

      1537
      Giro much better than those who are running it. He must know that there are many hon. Members, perhaps even some on his side of the House, who believe that they could run the Government and lead the Cabinet even more expertly than the present Prime Minister, but this does not necessarily mean that we would automatically accept that this was so.
      The traditional problem which has faced people at all levels of industry for generations is that, just as everyone in Parliament cannot be Prime Minister, so everyone in industry cannot be managing director. It is foolish to argue on the assumption that the fruits of office can be shared equally amongst all. It is a long time since Rousseau wrote his splendid work explaining how the problems of industry and the world could best be resolved by peasants sitting under an oak tree and deciding matters in a reasonable way. All our experience of trying to resolve problems in that way teaches us that it does not necessarily lead to the right conclusions, nor does it invariably lead to harmony and acceptance amongst the participants.
      In view of the problems which the Post Office is faced with at present and the significant challenges it is facing up to, it would be a grave mistake to impose on the Post Office all the peculiarities and special features which at present apply to the London School of Economics. The Post Office has enough problems already without their being added to.
      In presenting his proposals the hon. Member for Epping meant business. If we are to approach this issue sensibly and reasonably, we must ask certain questions. The first was posed by the Minister in his very telling intervention. He asked if the trade unions have been consulted, whether they liked this proposal, and whether they thought that it would work. I was astonished to learn that the hon. Member for Epping had drawn up a new national plan for the Post Office without even taking the opportunity of finding whether the workers' elected representatives considered that it was a fair and reasonable way of running the Post Office. This astonishing proposition can be regarded only as a kind of philosophical meandering into the kind of situation which might be helpful.
      Mr. Newens: I hope that it has not escaped the notice of the hon. Gentleman that the Union of Post Office Workers has for a considerable time advocated the concept of workers' control. I have read the documents dealing with this matter.
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt admit that he belongs to several organisations which accept many things in principle, but which shift their views when faced with the stark reality of working out those things in practice. I am sure that that would be the view of the trade unions concerned, if they looked at the details.
      Mr. Clegg: The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) spoke all along the line about participation, but it seems to me that in these proposals the element of participation by the Post Office workers themselves is nil.
      Mr. Taylor: It is tragic, when we are dealing with a proposition concerned with workers' control, to find that the whole proposed set up has been decided on, not by the workers themselves, who, I am sure, would have some very interesting observations to make on it, but by one of a group of 19 people, only one of whom is now present. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson), having heard his disciple this evening, has apparently thought it safe to leave us, perhaps in case his views might be undermined by what I say.
      The hon. Member has tabled a detailed new Clause, and there is another new Clause associated with it which is equally detailed. Having read the Clause with extreme care and caution, and having listened to the hon. Member, I am still not clear precisely what the Post Office joint management committees would have to do. What precisely would be their functions? Where would they start and where would they stop? What would be the range of decision making in a committee's area?
      Would these committees have the right to make policy decisions on the service provided? Would they be able to decide on the hours of opening and closing? Would they be able to make decisions on the qualifications needed for particular tasks within an area? Would they be

      1539
      able to decide on the appropriate size for, say, a book of stamps, or for anything else supplied from a machine? Would they be able to decide on the location of Post Office letter boxes? Would they be able to decide where telephone kiosks ought to be, and on whether or not an expansion of Post Office telephone kiosks ought to be encouraged?
      I am sure that in each instance the hon. Member would say, "These are really policy decisions which should be arrived at nationally—
      Mr. Clegg: Before my hon. Friend goes further with his range of activities, perhaps one could ask—
      Mr. John Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not customary for an hon. Member to address the House, and not just his hon. Friends?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): It is the practice of hon. Members to address the Chair.
      Mr. Clegg: I am very sorry if I was not addressing the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I certainly do so in asking my hon. Friend whether, before leaving his list of activities, he will dwell upon another main activity—the right to hire and fire. I have always understood that the right to hire and fire was not one of the qualifications belonging to a union, but that, in fact, it was the one bar to membership.
      Mr. Rankin: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How far is this line of argument to be sustained? In dealing with the proposed new Clause, have we to investigate every single aspect of Post Office consultation and management, which is a topic that may be pursued ad infinitum? Is there any control over this type of extension—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member can leave it to the Chair to rule what is in order. At this stage, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) is in order.
      Mr. Taylor: I emphasise to all hon. Members, and not just to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin), who takes a very great interest in all industrial matters, that when we have a proposal to revolutionise the way in which we manage
      1540
      a major monopoly organisation, it is very important that we should give careful consideration to how it would work, and to the various aspects involved. It is one of the tragedies of many of the reforms brought into Parliament, and brought in particularly by this Administration, that new ideas have been introduced without all their implications having been thought out, and their effects on the public considered.
      Mr. Newens: The hon. Member would not suggest that in legislation we should define the exact functions of any particular committee right down to their right to decide the size of a book of stamps. Some of the points made by the hon. Member are not serious points because they cannot be determined. I was dealing with the general principle of enabling joint management committees to have powers conferred upon them as set out in the new Clause. It would not be the purpose of a new Clause or Amendment to lay down matters as minute as those to which the hon. Member referred.
      Mr. Taylor: That is the whole point. The hon. Member has just said that we cannot in detail specify everything which the joint management committees will do. What range of activities has the hon. Member in mind for a point management committee in an area?
      Mr. Rankin: On a point of order. Might I draw Mr. Deputy Speaker's attention to the fact that the hon. Member has indicated that he wants to have some knowledge of the definition of the range of matters which may be affected by the new Clause which has been moved by my hon. Friend? Has the hon. Member forgotten that he started his speech way back in the days of Rousseau? It seems to be as long ago as that since he embarked upon it.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief because they only prolong speeches.
      Mr. Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this is a desperately serious argument. It is one of the most fundamental issues since I became a Member of Parliament and we must approach it seriously.
      The hon. Member for Epping has proposed a revolution. We want to find

      1541
      out what kind of revolution he has in mind. I have the greatest admiration and respect for the Postmaster-General, but some of his Cabinet colleagues have in the past accepted ideas which involved major changes without their being thought out.
      My purpose is not to antagonise the hon. Member for Govan or any other hon. Member, but to put to the Postmaster-General some of the difficulties which I see so that he does not rush in and say, "What a splendid idea. We will have worker control in the Post Office" and then, some years later, he will find out what has been done to the Post Office, to those who work in it, and to the viability of the whole concern.
      We must have some idea what the hon. Member for Epping wants these committees to undertake. Does he envisage that a local management committee will decide upon the allocation of money to be spent within an area? Does he envisage that they will decide upon the priorities of whether money should be spent on one post office or another? This is a fundamental and important point. Is their decision to be quite out of the control of any other body or will they make their decision in consultation with others? Will other bodies be able to make representations to them?
      What about the kind of decisions which affect the public in a significant way, such as the question whether deliveries of mail should start at 6, 7 or 8 o'clock. Surely the convenience of workers must come into the matter a great deal. What is important for business and commerce as well as for individuals is that their mail should arrive at a particular time. Conflicting interests are involved.
      I talk as a former Post Office worker, although admittedly for a limited period of time. When I had the pleasure and privilege of being a student at Glasgow University, I worked at the Post Office during the Christmas holidays. It gave me a broader outlook on Post Office workers and a greater admiration for their spirit and the difficulties which they encounter. It was not a great pleasure to get up at five o'clock in the morning on a winter's day and to have to do my stint sorting and delivering letters. I appreciate now in a way that
      1542
      I did not before that this is not the most pleasant or amenable of jobs. It is a very inconvenient job. However, I appreciated that it was important for the business community and the people in the area in which I was delivering that their mail should be delivered at a reasonable hour. There was a conflict of interest between myself and others who would have preferred a long lie-in in bed.
      What would happen if this kind of decision had to be made by a local joint management committee comprised of Ministerial representatives, some of whom, according to the Clause, must have experience of the organisation of workers and fifty per cent. of whom must be representatives of workers? Although people serving on the committee must leave narrow parochial interests out of the decision, it will be very difficult entirely to dissociate their personal interests and convenience from the question of public satisfaction. Are we to make this kind of decision? The hon. Member for Epping did not tell us.
      An even more fundamental point is this: will the local joint management committee have the power to veto the suspension, sacking or employing of an individual or groups of individuals? If so, will it exercise that power directly? Will it simply have a veto over decisions made by management on the spot?
      Mr. Newens: Before the hon. Gentleman continues in this way, may I ask him to read the new Clause again? Subsection (4) provides:
      "It shall be the duty of each Joint Management Committee to administer the provision of postal services in its area in accordance with powers conferred on it by the Post Office."
      Ultimately, the Post Office will confer those powers and determine the general scope within which they will be exercised. I could have dealt at great length with every detail and all the points which the hon. Gentleman has raised down to the size of the book of stamps. It is clear from the new Clause that these powers will be conferred by the Post Office.
      Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman talks about dealing at length with every detail. We listened patiently and with interest to him for a considerable time. I do not complain about that because it was clear that he was speaking with sincerity and

      1543
      was endeavouring to interest us. I think that he succeeded. On the other hand, bearing in mind what is suggested in subsection (4) of the new Clause, he had an obligation to tell us what he had in view. I do not ask him to specify whether the joint management committee would have control over the hiring and firing of men or whether it would control mail deliveries, but I expect him to give a broad indication of the range of functions which he thinks it would be appropriate for the Post Office to allocate to it.
      What I fear is that the Government will say, "We accept this in principle", but make absolutely sure that no meaningful powers are given to the local joint management committees. I do not like the idea at all. I do not accept that the case for worker participation has been proved. The worst of all possible worlds would be for the Minister to accept the idea and say, "I shall keep the wild Left-wingers happy in the hope that they will co-operate with me in getting the Bill through", knowing all the time that he will not give the joint management committees meaningful powers. If there is one thing which my limited experience of industry has taught me, it is that to pretend that there are powers to operate, powers to manage, powers to consult, when in reality there are not, does much more damage than doing nothing.
      9.0 p.m.
      I hope that the Postmaster-General will not try to dodge the issue by saying that the Government will think of some kind of joint consultation, some kind of workers' control, some kind of joint participation, but that they will not get down to details and will leave the Post Office to decide. It would be much better for him to say that the Government will have none of this nonsense, that it does not work, that it will not work, and that it would be bad for industry and the Post Office to impose it.
      This is the first question. What would the committees do? The hon. Member for Epping gave us no indication. If they had the wide range of functions of subsection (4), they would completely interfere with the functions of management. How can one manage if, on dismissing someone for dishonesty or consistent bad timekeeping, the decision has
      1544
      to go, perhaps four weeks later, to a meeting of a joint management committee? How is it possible for management to make new working arrangements which may be inconvenient only to find that they may later be rejected by a joint management committee?
      Would the committees manage? We cannot have too many chiefs and too few Indians. There cannot be two organisations, or three organisations, or a multitude of organisations, all saying that they manage. Not everyone can make decisions. One of the tragedies of our industry and of the trade union movement itself is the problem of the demarcation of decision making. We are never clear about who is responsible for what. These problems of the demarcation of decision making can bring with them far more industrial troubles than any trade demarcation, than any dispute about who will attach wood frames to metal bulkheads and things like that.
      The second question, Mr. Gourlay—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are on Report, not in Committee.
      Mr. Taylor: I am very sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The trouble with these occasions is that one gets so fascinated by the arguments that one forgets the circumstances, and this is a fascinating argument.
      The second proposition is that the enormous advantage of workers' control and workers' participation is that the workers' representatives are not there for all time coming, that they are subject to election, say, every three years and will therefore keep in touch with their members and will therefore not make decisions or put forward proposals or recommendations which would cause trouble and which are not in touch with their membership.
      Again speaking from my limited experience of industry, of shipyards on the Clyde in particular, I suggest that the worst possible thing for any committee which has to make responsible and not just popular decisions is the prospect of a triennial election. I recall once taking part in negotiations to do with the shipyards which were attended by one trade union representative who was usually a helpful, honourable and respectable chap

      1545
      who on that occasion was particularly unreasonable. When the negotiations were over, we asked him what had gone wrong and he said, "I hope you will excuse me; I have to be very militant as I am standing for election in two months' time".
      That is the kind of thing which can happen in these joint management committees. Workers electing representatives will look for results and if they do not get them, they will choose someone else to champion their cause, someone who may lose the battles, but who will always be fighting them. If we had this system, there would be a danger that when unpopular decisions had to be made, the sober and more responsible would not have the opportunity to participate and we would have a crowd of wild people, of irresponsibles, who would contribute nothing and not add greatly to the efficiency of the Post Office.
      Mr. Newens: The hon. Member is making a strong assault on the argument for democracy. Does he not accept that in private industry, for example, at least nominally, directors are subject to reelection by their shareholders? Does not the hon. Member feel that there is a considerable danger that directors might, therefore, have to behave in a way that would please the shareholders and sacrifice the public interest on those occasions? I believe that the danger of this occurring is much greater than that the workers' representatives would sacrifice the interest of the public to the interest of their own members. Workers are generally far more intimately involved with an organisation than are the shareholders.
      Mr. Taylor: That intervention, interesting as it was, shows clearly that the hon. Member has not thought this out. How can we compare the situation of a private competitive enterprise, working within the disciplines of a capitalist system, and these rigid disciplines of monopolies in which the checks and balances of capitalism do not apply, in which there is not even competition between public industries and where one service is offered to a public who must be consumers whether they like it or not.
      The vast majority of the public are not for or against the Post Office in any way. They have to use it because it provides an
      1546
      essential service. To compare a management committee of a monopoly in the public sector with free competitive enterprise, in which all its disciplines and the checks and balances operate according to the rules of capitalism, is not comparing like with like.
      Mr. Newens: What about private monopolies?
      Mr. Taylor: I deplore private monopolies. I suggest that if the normal disciplines of a capitalist economy apply, a profitable private monopoly cannot remain a monopoly. That is one of the checks and balances of the system. If there is freedom, it is impossible for a private monopoly to continue to be a monopoly. Sadly, however, that does not apply to a loss-making public enterprise.
      However, I must not be tempted by the hon. Member away from the narrow subject which we are discussing. On another occasion we on this side look forward to fruitful and meaningful discussions with the hon. Member about the way we organise industry. Unfortunately, we cannot do that on the new Clause.
      The hon. Member suggested that representation and participation were largely the same thing. He asks for participation and, therefore, he demands representation. He is asking for union representation as a means to promote participation. These are not the same things. We already have union representation for workers in negotiating with management. Does the hon. Member seriously suggest that in industry today, irrespective of how respectable and well-meaning they may be, those who have senior positions in trade unionism are representative in the sense in which participation with the workers is in any way meaningful?
      We have long since passed the stage in industry and in the organisation of our unions, because of sheer size if for no other reason, when union representation and participation were anything like the same thing. I wonder just how representative our unions are, and, more important, just how representative the union representatives in the joint management committees would be. This is where we come to the very important question, where do the public come into all this? This, I think, is the key sector which the hon. Gentleman has left out in the

      1547
      question of participation. If we really believe in participation, if we really believe in workers' control, whom are we trying to protect and whom are we trying to serve, and where does the public interest come in?
      When I talk of public interest I am not thinking in terms of saying, can we have one representative of the general public on one of these committees? I do not want the busybodies of Britain to be sitting on these committees and allegedly representing the interests of the people. Things just do not work this way. What we must have, I believe—and this is our responsibility—is to have our organisations made in such a way that the interests of Mr. Average, who, perhaps, does not want to participate at all, are protected, simply by the way in which we construct the organisations. I suggest that we have not done that here.
      It is a sad fact and rather a paradox that in the nation at the present time, when we have probably problems of greater complexity than we have ever had before, we have a range of institutions so wide and so diverse as never before supposedly to cope with all these problems. Name one problem at all, and we find institutions and organisations which are there to cope with it. We have problems with the economy, and so we have economic planning councils and "Little Neddies" and prices and incomes boards. For every problem we have an enormous edifice of organisations and experts there to plan, to organise, to meddle in the affairs of everyone else and their own.
      Clearly, one cannot go into this broad philosophical argument now, upon this very limited question, but I would suggest to the hon. Member that it does indeed have a very real and very significant influence on the kind of proposition which he is putting forward. He is putting forward a structure, he is putting forward a plan, he is putting forward another committee, and surely, if the time which he has spent in the House has convinced him of anything, it should have convinced him of this, that the one thing we suffer from in Britain today is in having too many committees, too many boards, too many councils, too many commissions, too many organisations, too much bureaucracy, which all get in the way
      1548
      of decision making, which stop decision making from happening, which prevent us, and prevent us absolutely, from arriving at the situation where a clear decision can be made and clear responsibility can be laid on those who are to take it and to take the decisions, and who are expected to make them, and who are in fact committed to making those decisions. What he is proposing is to put yet another kind of wet sponge into the process of decision making, so that someone else can carry part of the can, but we do not know precisely what part of the can that someone else will be carrying; but he is proposing that there should be somebody else on whom responsibility can be shoved.
      I would say that, instead of making decisions, these local joint managing committees will say, "We will seek a report" and they will probably thereupon employ consultants to advise them on this job, and the consultants will probably invite experts to assist them, and they would, no doubt, appoint sub-committees, and at the end of the day the poor workers in the Post Office and the poor public will say, "Where do we come in?"—in the decision making. Where would the decisions be made? Where would the buck stop? Where would the responsibility stop?
      I am very sorry indeed that the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends have not been here. I know they would want to participate, and it is sad that when we have a discussion on participation no one, who has put his name to this new Clause, apart from the hon. Member for Epping, is here to participate. I know the hon. Gentleman is interested in this and will want to listen to this point, although I know he has competing demands upon him at this time, and I would challenge him to make a clear statement where he stands, where the "Tribune" group stands, where Socialism stands on this and on the question, who is to bring the people into these decisions? When these local joint management committees are established and they make decisions, if they are going to make decisions—
      9.15 p.m.
      Mr. Rankin: I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon. Member is rather confused. Can he tell us where he stands at the moment?
      Mr. Taylor: I am sorry, but I am not responsible for the hon. Member's lack of understanding. I have been trying to make my position crystal clear. I want the Post Office to be successful and I believe that the only way that this can happen is to make it crystal clear where decisions are made and who makes them. I am sure that I carry the hon. Member for Govan with me in this, because he is a friend of the people and speaks for them at every opportunity. That is what he regards as one of his functions. I ask him to read again through the new Clause and to ask himself where the people come in, and who protects them. If a decision is made which has an adverse effect on the people, are we simply to rely on the wishy-washy consumer councils that we shall discuss later? At what stage will they come in? Will it be after the decision has been made?
      Mr. Newens: I do not know whether the hon. Member wants a reply. He appears to be riding his hobby-horse. He has cast aside all the facts that I endeavoured to adduce. There would be joint management. Some representatives would not be elected by the workers. Only 50 per cent. would be so elected. If the Post Office is controlled by people entirely appointed by the Minister, or is responsible for those so appointed, those people allegedly protect the public interest. The 50 per cent. would still have the opportunity to speak in the public interest. Many of the workers who were involved would be just as concerned to protect the public interest as would the other representatives. I hope that the hon. Member will make it clear that he is not casting any slurs upon the devotion of the workers in the Post Office.
      Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member asks why I did not listen to the facts that he presented. I do not want to minimise the effort made by the hon. Member in presenting his case, but I ask him to read the report of his speech tomorrow in HANSARD. He will see that not only was there not an abundance of facts; there were no facts at all. There were only opinions, philosophies, thoughts and ideas. The hon. Member ended by saying that he had a great plan to revolutionise the Post Office, and that he wanted participation, but apparently
      1550
      he has not even thought of consulting the Union of Post Office Workers. How ridiculous can one get! I suggest that there was little idea of participation and little fact in what the hon. Member said.
      I return to the basic features of the Clause. We must ask how the public interest will be protected. The hon. Member says that in any of the decisions that are made 50 per cent. of the representatives must be thinking about the interests of those employed, but I suggest that we cannot think in that way when dealing with people and services. It is necessary to allocate a substantial proportion of decision-making powers—especially in a public enterprise, and a massive monopoly—to people who must use the service because they have no alternative. A 50–50 percentage does not accord with reality, or with the public interest. It does not accord with the function of the Post Office which hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to see.
      We must also have a clarification of the intention of the hon. Member for Epping and the massive group of hon. Members who have put their names to the new Clause—whom we have not seen since—on the question whether the local joint management committees would control finance or wages in any way. We must be told whether the responsibility would stop the moment finance became involved.
      Remembering the very strict responsibilities with regard to finance which we are laying on the Post Office and the disciplines which the Minister hopes will be applied, particularly over its existing commercial activities, it would be intolerable if we then said that a local joint management committee could spend money and decide where money should go. If the hon. Gentleman envisages that these committees will have control of finance, he is driving a coach and horses through the principle of the Bill and of this Corporation, because then the board would have a responsibility which it could not carry out. The direct result of the local committees making their decisions about spending or not investing would be to cut across the financial operation of the Post Office. That would make a nonsense of what we envisage as a competitive and commercial enterprise.

      1551
      But if he is not going to give them financial responsibilities—subsection (4) says that they will not have anything to do with finance, after all—then these committees will be shallow mockeries and will be able to offer nothing to the workers, to the Post Office or to the public. Therefore, if they have responsibility for finance one drives a coach and horses through the Bill's intentions and, if they do not, they will have nothing to say about investing, about new Post Offices, about locating telephone kiosks or even about the price of tea in staff canteens. This form of participation will be meaningless and it will not be workers' control.
      This brings us back to the main argument. Surely what the Post Office and all of British industry needs is clear demarcation of decision-making. How could the Government be run if we did not know who was responsible for what? I know that it is sometimes very difficult. How could we run the House or a Committee unless we knew where responsibility lay? What is intolerable is putting responsibility over a wide area. Has the hon. Gentleman discussed the Clause with a head postmaster?
      Mr. Dempsey: Why should he?
      Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) is one of the most reasonable Members and one whose opinions I admire and respect, but he cannot have fully thought out that intervention. He asks, why should his hon. Friend consult a head postmaster? I do not think that the hon. Gentleman heard us asking the previous question—
      Mr. William Molloy: Who has the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) consulted before making his speech?
      Mr. Taylor: If I were to make a speech about the organisation of the Post Office without consulting trade union officials and a head postmaster, I would not expect it to be taken seriously.
      Mr. Dempsey rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We must leave the question of whom hon. Members have consulted and come back to the new Clause.
      Mr. Dempsey: The hon. Member referred laughingly to consulting postmasters, but he originally said that one should consult a postmaster. Does he seriously suggest that someone is incapable of making a study and formulating an attitude about a joint management committee in a postal district without consulting a head postmaster?
      Mr. Taylor: Some people have superb intelligence and can consider all the ramifications of an issue and say, "This is the answer". The hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie is such a man. Fortunately, in our history such men have come to the fore and have made the right decisions. Does anyone suggest, however, that the 19 sponsors of the new Clause are in this category? Rather than save Britain and the Post Office, their proposals would only add to our difficulties.
      Consultation is vital. After all, the Clause is about participation. However, it proposes not a change but a revolution in the way in which the Post Office is organised. Will this change be practicable? In previous revolutions the banners and flags have been hoisted and the march has taken place, the participants hoping for the best. That may be the way to have a revolution, but it is not the way to run the Post Office. The revolutionary, syndicalist ideas of the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) may be suitable for a London School of Economics lecture, but they are not suitable for running the Post Office, on which the nation depends.
      If the Postmaster-General presented a proposal like this to the House saying, "I have not consulted the unions or postmasters about this, but I feel sure that my decision is right", he would be jumped on and called crazy, foolish and anti-Socialist by the very hon. Members who are proposing the new Clause.
      Mr. Newens rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) seeking to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), or has the hon. Member for Cathcart finished his speech?
      Mr. Rankin: Has he finished? He has been speaking for only an hour.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Cathcart must decide whether he has finished his speech or is giving way.
      Mr. Taylor: To be honest, Mr. Speaker, I had only just begun my speech. I had intended to adduce a number of arguments. Although few hon. Gentlemen have been present on the benches opposite, those who have been here have intervened in a way which has made it necessary for me to develop my case at some length. I promise to bring my remarks to as speedy a conclusion as possible.
      Mr. Newens: I have been enjoying the hon. Gentleman's comedy turn as much as anybody else. If he thinks that I did not consult anybody before making this proposal, he must be tilting at windmills for the entertainment of the House. Is he aware—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are on Report and not in Committee. He made a speech of some length earlier. If he wishes to intervene, he must be brief.
      9.30 p.m.
      Mr. Newens: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Cathcart knows well that I have consulted people and that I have considerable connections with people in the Post Office. I have not come here with a clear mandate from the National Union of Post Office Workers on every jot and tittle in the drafting of new Clauses.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I said that interventions must be brief. Mr. Taylor.
      Mr. Taylor: The hon. Member gave himself away—[Interruption.]—and now he is going away. He gave himself away when he said that he was bringing forward such a Clause on every Bill like this dealing with gas, electricity, hygiene, agriculture or Scotland, with exactly the same provisions. In the main the people he has consulted have not therefore been concerned with detailed management of the Post Office but are revolutionary Socialists, syndicalists, marchers and protesters who may have ideas for revolutionising Britain but who could not run a Sunday school.
      We have a unique situation. We are discussing a new Clause which has been signed by 19 hon. Members and presented as revolutionary Socialism vital for
      1554
      the health of Britain, yet not one of those 19 is present. This shows that they do not regard this new Clause as of great priority for Britain or for Socialism.
      I have gone through only a fraction of what I ought to say, but time is limited and many other hon. Members want to speak in this debate. I do not want to take an unfair advantage of the opportunity of the good fortune I had in catching your eye, Mr. Speaker. This new Clause is revolutionary Socialism which has not been thought out. We have seen two hon. Members who signed the Clause, but now there is none present. They are running away from their responsibilities and their argument as quickly as I hope the Postmaster-General will clearly say that not only do we not approve of this rubbish but we want good management and a progressive go-ahead Post Office in which there will be decision making and service to the public. If he will do that and give a straight answer to his hon. Friend who have been talking nonsense, we shall support him all the way.
      Mr. Stonehouse: We have had a debate of over an hour's duration. We have had two lengthy speeches and a number of interesting interventions of some length by at least four hon. Members from both sides of the Chamber. I think it would he appropriate for me to intervene so that other hon. Members contributing to the discussion will be under no misapprehension about the position taken by my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General and me. We have had experience in negotiations with trade unions. My hon. Friend in particular, as he has been doing his job for the past four and a half years, has great experience in this field. It is appropriate that I should express our view on the proposal made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Newens). I am sorry that he is not present at the moment.
      Mr. David Crouch: On a point of order. Could we have your guidance, Mr. Speaker? The Minister is intervening to give his view on a new Clause which has been signed by a number of Government Members, but not one signatory is present to hear that intervention. Can you guide the House as to whether this is a sensible time for the Postmaster-General to intervene?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker has many loads on his shoulders, but not one to secure the attendance of Members of Parliament even for discussion of Amendments to which they have given their names. The Minister intervenes when he will. If he rises, Mr. Speaker calls him.
      Mr. Stonehouse: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping will be back shortly. I expect that his absence from the Chamber will be of short duration.
      I thought that it would be useful to intervene now so that other hon. Members, who have the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, should be under no misapprehension about the position that I take on the new Clause.
      I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) who made a very valuable intervention, even if at some unnecessary length. However, I thought that his questions were pertinent. I say that his intervention seemed unnecessarily lengthy, but I thought that he made his points so well and so pungently that it was unnecessary for him to repeat them in the dramatic way that he did. I was convinced that he had some very good points to make within five minutes of him commencing his speech. He had no need to go on for the lengthy time that he did to persuade me at least that he had some good points.
      I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping has returned to the Chamber. I should tell him that I agree with many observations put forward by the hon. Member for Cathcart. I think that the questions he asked about the responsibilities of these committees are extremely important, and they are not satisfied by reference to subsection (4), which begs the question and leads me to envisage a sharp conflict of managerial responsibility between the main board of the Post Office Corporation and the management committees which my hon. Friend proposes should be set up.
      I should like to go through the details of my hon. Friend's proposal because he does not appear to have considered some of the defective points in it. The new Clause proposes that management committees should be set up within each of 26 areas to be defined by the Minister. I
      1556
      do not recognise the figure 26. It does not correspond to any administrative division of responsibility within the Post Office and it does not correspond to the regions, so I do not see any relevance in it. If the new Clause was accepted we would be stuck with the quite ridiculous figure of 26 areas in which to establish these committees.
      I will not repeat all the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart. I want to take up some new points to which, surprisingly, he did not refer. Subsection (2) indicates that of the members of the committees 50 per cent. will be appointed by the Minister. There are to be 26 areas. This means that 260 individuals will be appointed directly by the Minister to undertake a management job in areas yet to be defined. We are not told how they are to be remunerated. I presume that as they are to give up their time they will be remunerated for this job. Therefore, the Minister will be responsible for appointing a main Post Office Corporation board of a chairman and up to 12 directors and at the same time appointing 260 managers to sit on committees all over the country who may want to make decisions against the decisions of the Post Office board if, under subsection (4), the Post Office board decides to delegate some serious managerial responsibilities to the committees.
      If the proposal is accepted, I foresee some serious conflicts between the management committees and the main Post Office board, because its authority and responsibilties would be severely undermined by these various committees.
      It is suggested that the committees themselves should elect their chairmen. But the committees are evenly balanced. What if there is no unity of view between the two sides of a committee and they are unable to produce a chairman? The result is complete deadlock. Even if a chairman is elected from a committee, what if the workers' representatives take a narrow sectional view on some questions where workers' interests are directly involved and the management representatives appointed by the Minister take another view? There is a direct clash of opinion, but, because of the equality of representation on the committee, the result will be a simple paralysis of the decision-making process.

      1557
      If the Post Office is to be run efficiently, it is necessary for the activities of these various management committees to be properly co-ordinated one with another. Is this job to be done by the Post Office Corporation as a whole, or are the management committees to set up their own liaison machinery to ensure that, in their separate and democratic decisions, they are in no way influenced by the overriding management decisions taken by the main board but are operating quite independently of the main board of the Post Office? If that were to be the case, bureaucratic and expensive machinery would have to be set up in order that the work of these various management committees could be co-ordinated.
      They might decide to have a national organisation to which they would send representatives to discuss the problems of common interest which involve them all, not only vis-à-vis their responsibilities in the areas but also their relations with the Post Office board as a whole. A national structure would be created. There could even be a national conference of all the committee representatives, which 520 individuals would be entitled to attend.
      All this would throw doubt on the ability of the board of the Post Office Corporation to do the job which we are asking it to do. I wonder whether we would be able to persuade men of the right calibre to serve on the board and take over the very wide responsibilities and powers which the Bill gives to the board if they were hampered by a plethora of management committees all over the country acting in the way that my hon. Friend suggests.
      The overwhelming objection to my hon. Friend's proposals is that at no stage have they been discussed with the staff sides in the Post Office. At the end of my hon. Friend's speech, I asked him what official discussions there have been, and he acknowledged that there have been none.
      We in the Post Office are very proud of our staff relations. Occasionally, they go wrong but, generally, our relations are extremely good. We have some very well-developed staff consultative arrangements, and we want them to be improved even further in the future. If we were to accept my hon. Friend's proposals
      1558
      without any discussion with the staff sides, it would be extremely embarrassing to the consultations in which my hon. Friend the Assistant Postmaster-General and I are involved with the staff sides with a view to moving towards an even better relationship between the staff and the Corporation when it is set up.
      Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend saying that he is opposed to the principle of the workers sharing in the management and administration of the Post Office?
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. Stonehouse: I am saying no such thing. I am saying that we are involved in discussion with the trade unions in order even further to improve the consultative arrangements which already exist and which have been fairly successful within the Post Office. We want them to improve and, indeed, a memorandum has been sent to the staff side setting out a great many interesting suggestions which we hope they will consider in the fullness of time and bring back with their considered points of view. I have made suggestions myself in public speeches about the improvement of industrial democracy, and I am anxious that some way should be found of improving staff participation. But that must work both ways, and if the staff participate in the management process they must be prepared to accept responsibility for their actions and not impede the management process and make decision-making slower than it is. We must have staff representatives who will be prepared to act without going back to the branches and having to thrash things out over many months before decisions are made. I have made many suggestions to the staff side about ways in which this could be improved and our discussions could be made abortive if the House accepted new Clause 10.
      Mr. Newens: Will my right hon. Friend make clear whether his discussions with the staff envisage workers' control and decision making or whether he is merely talking about consultation? There is a clear distinction between the two ideas. Many of us feel—and this is the policy, I understand, of the Union of Post Office Workers, expressed in its pamphlet—that consultation is not enough.
      Mr. Stonehouse: When we have a management structure we must recognise that it is indivisible. We cannot expect to be able to share the management's responsibilities in the complicated way suggested by new Clause 10. So I would put the emphasis on consultation and participation rather than accept—and I do not want to mislead the House on this—that workers' representatives themselves should have a major say in management decisions in the Post Office, because, as the hon. Member for Cathcart said, there are other interests to bear in mind—those of the public, of the taxpayer and of the community as a whole. Those interests are represented by the Post Office Corporation as a whole, which is appointed by the Minister, who is responsible to this House. That is the way in which the interests of the community as a whole are being protected. If a major part of management decision were to be taken by workers' representatives, that principle would be invaded.
      There has recently been an interesting and worthy development on the trade union side of the Post Office. An organisation called the Council of Post Office Unions has been set up and this is a welcome linking together of various trade unions in the Post Office which we applaud. I mention this because the organisation is the one that will play a very big part in improving the consultative machinery as I have described it.
      Furthermore, there has been a welcome amalgamation between trade unions representing the higher grades in the G.P.O. We are very glad about that because the smaller the number of unions representing the staff in the Post Office, the better it is for the efficient relationships we want to establish. These are very welcome developments and it is in that direction that we can better go rather than accepting an ill-thought-out, ill-considered and badly drafted new Clause.
      Several Hon. Members rose—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. For the second time this evening I remind the House that we are on the Report stage of a Bill. There are some 20 or 30 debates ahead of us. Mr. Speaker is anxious to call a number of Members in a debate
      1560
      so as to make a debate a debate. The first two speeches in this debate lasted between them 69 minutes. I hope that the hon. Members will think of their colleagues and make reasonably brief speeches.
      Mr. Clegg: The last two speeches absolutely devastated the case advanced by the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens). It may seem rather superfluous to carry on with that process, but we are compelled to do so because there is nobody on the Government benches who has heard the arguments advanced either by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) or by the Postmaster-General.
      Mr. Dobson: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that I have been sitting here all the time listening to this debate?
      Mr. Clegg: I hope you will forgive me, but I did not think you would wish to be associated with the remarks of the hon. Member for Epping.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not bring Mr. Speaker into it.
      Mr. Clegg: I am sorry, Sir. I seem to be doing a remarkable number of things today. None of the signatories to the Clause other than the hon. Member for Epping has heard the Postmaster-General's reply. It is important to continue the attack, because the hon. Member for Epping and his co-signatories represent a very trendy group. We hear much about participation. The hon. Gentleman himself said that today it is a "with-it" thing. It is indeed. We hear much about industrial democracy. However, an analysis shows that when an idea is put forward it is nothing but wild, wet and woolly.
      The Clause contains no hard thinking. It has not been thought out in any detail. Each of the questions which have been put to the hon. Gentleman has been unsatisfactorily dealt with. For example, I ask the hon. Gentleman how many unions were likely to be involved in electing members to the committee. The hon. Gentleman did not know—or at least if he did know he was not telling us. It is essential that we know such details. Under subsection (2) unions are to get together to appoint elected members.

      1561
      That will be a cause of in-built tension; there can be inter-union dispute. We have seen a recent example in relation to the negotiating committee at Fords. There was a joint negotiating committee composed of all the unions, but because it took a simple vote instead of one representing the manpower of the unions the whole thing became completely chaotic and an expensive strike ensued. That sort of tension is just as likely to result from this ill thought out proposal.
      Mr. Newens: This is a red herring.
      Mr. Clegg: It is not. I want to consider the effects of subsection (2). We are told that a union will elect somebody to the management committee for three years. The hon. Gentleman said that the fact that people were elected for three years would keep them up to the mark. I visualise someone elected by his union attending a meeting of the management committee and then going back to his union and telling the union what had happened and the union instructing him how to vote in the management committee. This could lead to delays of the type of which my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart spoke.
      How independent would these people elected from unions be during the three years? As it got nearer to election time, they would be more concerned about what their union thought about the solution to a problem than about the general interest of the whole organisation of the Post Office.
      Mr. Newens: This shows a crass lack of ignorance about the way—[Interruption.]—things go on in some of the organisations where this has been tried. The organisation which I referred to was the Co-operative movement. The people there concerned do not behave in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests. I wish the hon. Gentleman would apply himself to the facts.
      Mr. Clegg: I confess that on the score of ignorance—
      Sir Douglas Glover: May I point out that the case cited by the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) is that of the one organisation in the United Kingdom which in the last 20 years, a period of enormous expansion—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have interventions on interventions.
      Sir D. Glover: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) was giving way to me. It was not an intervention.
      Mr. Speaker: I understood that the hon. Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) had given way to the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens). Having given way to the hon. Member for Epping, he must be allowed to continue for a time before the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) intervenes.
      Mr. Clegg: I am in some difficulty here, Mr. Speaker, because I thought that I had given way to my hon. Friend. However, I will continue my speech for a moment, and then, perhaps, give way to him. I was dealing with the ignorance attributed to me by the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens).
      Sir D. Glover: Perhaps I may help my hon. Friend in the matter of the Co-operative movement by saying that it is the one organisation which in a period of the largest expansion in our economy—the last 20 years—has gone backwards.
      Mr. Clegg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has in part anticipated what I intended to say, which was that I was not aware that the Co-op paid the best wages in the areas in which it operates.
      I turn now to the difficulties in subsection (3) of the proposed new Clause. The subsection deals with the members who would be appointed by the Minister and a very shadowy group they are. We should have more information about them. According to the subsection they must
      "… have had wide experience of and to have shown capacity in matters concerning services which under this Part of this Act the Post Office has power to provide, or industrial, commercial, professional or financial matters, pure or applied science, politics, economics, technology, administration or the organisation of workers."
      That is a pretty broad range.
      The hon. Gentleman did not tell us what sort of men he had in mind. We were not told, as the Postmaster-General has pointed out, how much they would be

      1563
      paid, or whether they would be full time or part time, or for how long they would be appointed. Would they be appointed for three-year periods? It is very important to know the sort of people who would be put on the joint management committees because, as I understand it, those committees would conduct the day-to-day running of the area, whatever the area might be—
      Mr. Taylor: We are not told whether one of the functions would be negotiating with trade unions on wages and working conditions.
      Mr. Clegg: We are told singularly little about these mysterious people.
      Before we could get people to serve on these committees, and perhaps give up other jobs, we would have to tell them what they were expected to do. We would have the workers, and presumably they would be represented by the unions. We would have people with industrial, commercial and financial experience. Does the hon. Gentleman envisage that such people as postmasters and those in the senior ranks of the Post Office would be
      eligible? We get no clear indication of this at all.
      The Clause has been singularly ill-thought out. It has left the House in a sort of miasma, trying to think out what the hon. Gentleman is getting at. My hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart suggested that the hon. Member for Epping was aiming at a revolution. It would be a dull revolution. It is not the sort of Clause which one would defend with flags flying. In fact, it is so miserable a Clause that the hon. Members whose names are on the Order Paper with that of the hon. Member for Epping have so little interest in it that they cannot come here and argue with us. I do not know where they are.
      It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question put,
      That the Proceedings on the Post Office Bill, the Education (Scotland) Bill and on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Agriculture (Spring Traps) (Scotland) Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Stonehouse.]
      The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 169.

      Division No. 183.]

      AYES

      [10.0 p.m.

      Albu, Austen

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Alldritt, Walter

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Gregory, Arnold

      Anderson, Donald

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Archer, Peter

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

      Ashley, Jack

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Delargy, Hugh

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Dempsey, James

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice

      Dewar, Donald

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Dickens, James

      Harper, Joseph

      Barnes, Michael

      Dobson, Ray

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Barnett, Joel

      Doig, Peter

      Haseldine, Norman

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hattersley, Roy

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Binns, John

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

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Bishop, E. S.

      Eadie Alex

      Hobden, Dennis

      Blackburn, F.

      Edelman, Maurice

      Hooley, Frank

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Ellis, John

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Boston, Terence

      English, Michael

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Boyden, James

      Ennals, David

      Howie, W.

      Bradley, Tom

      Ensor, David

      Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)

      Bray, Dr. Jeremy

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

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

      Finch, Harold

      Hunter, Adam

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

      Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric (Islington, E.)

      Hynd, John

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

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

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Buchan Norman

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

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

      Cant, R. B.

      Foley, Maurice

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Carmichael, Neil

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

      Ford, Ben

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

      Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

      Forrester, John

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Chapman, Donald

      Fowler, Gerry

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Coleman, Donald

      Freeson, Reginald

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Galpern, Sir Myer

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

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Gardner, Tony

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Garrett, W. E.

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Judd, Frank

      Kelley, Richard

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Rose, Paul

      Kenyon, Clifford

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

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

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Sheldon, Robert

      Lawson, George

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Murray, Albert

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

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Neal, Harold

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Newens, Stan

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Lomas, Kenneth

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

      Silverman, Julius

      Luard, Evan

      Oakes, Gordon

      Skeffington, Arthur

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Ogden, Eric

      Slater, Joseph

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Small, William

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Oram, Albert E.

      Spriggs, Leslie

      McCann, John

      Orbach, Maurice

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      MacColl, James

      Orme, Stanley

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Oswald, Thomas

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      McGuire, Michael

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

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Taverne, Dick

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

      Mackie, John

      Palmer, Arthur

      Thornton, Ernest

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Tinn, James

      Maclennan, Robert

      Park, Trevor

      Urwin, T. W.

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Wallace, George

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Wellbeloved, James

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

      Pentland, Norman

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Manuel, Archie

      Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

      Whitlock, William

      Mapp, Charles

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Marks, Kenneth

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Marquand, David

      Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Probert, Arthur

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Mendelson, John

      Rees, Mertyn

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Millan, Bruce

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

      Woof, Robert

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

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

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Molloy, William

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Mr. Alan Fitch and

      Moonman, Eric

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Mr. Neil McBride.

      NOES

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Emery, Peter

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

      Jopling, Michael

      Astor, John

      Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

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

      Farr, John

      Kerby, Capt. Henry

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Fortescue, Tim

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

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

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Kitson, Timothy

      Batsford, Brian

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Lane, David

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Goodhart, Philip

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Bessell, Peter

      Goodhew, Victor

      Longden, Gilbert

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

      Gower, Raymond

      Lubbock, Eric

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Grant, Anthony

      MacArthur, Ian

      Body, Richard

      Grant-Ferris, R.

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Gresham Cooke, R.

      McMaster, Stanley

      Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

      Grieve, Percy

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Gurden, Harold

      Maginnis, John E.

      Bryan, Paul

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

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

      Buck, Antony (Colchester)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Marten, Neil

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Maude, Angus

      Burden, F. A.

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Mawby, Ray

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Harvie, Anderson, Miss

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Hastings, Stephen

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Clark, Henry

      Hawkins, Paul

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Clegg, Walter

      Hay, John

      Monro, Hector

      Costain, A. P.

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Crouch, David

      Heseltine, Michael

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      Dance, James

      Hiley, Joseph

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Murton, Oscar

      Dean, Paul

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

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

      Holland, Philip

      Neave, Alrey

      Drayson, G. B.

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Hordern, Peter

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Onslow, Cranley

      Eden, Sir John

      Hornby, Richard

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Hunt, John

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

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

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

      1566

      1567

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

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

      Ward, Dane Irene

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Silvester, Frederick

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Peel, John

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Percival, Ian

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

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Peyton, John

      Speed, Keith

      Wiggin, A. W.

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Stainton, Keith

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Summers, Sir Spencer

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Pym, Francis

      Tapsel, Peter

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

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

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Worsley, Marcus

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Temple, John M.

      Wright, Esmond

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Wylie, N. R.

      Royle, Anthony

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Mr. Jasper More and

      Scott, Nicholas

      Walker, Peter (Worcester)

      Mr. Reginald Eyre.

      Sharples, Richard

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Clegg: Before the break, I was talking about the absence from the debate of the main sponsors of the Clause, with the honourable exception of the hon. Member for Epping. I see that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) is now present and I regret that he has missed—
      Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will come to the Clause and not the absentees or presentees.
      Mr. Clegg: I shall certainly come to the Clause. I was about to refer the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale to the magnificent speeches by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart and, although I find it embarrassing to say so, the Postmaster-General. If the hon. Gentleman had been here—
      Mr. Speaker: We are discussing a new Clause, not the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot).
      Mr. Clegg: I wish we were.
      I come to the Clause and the Left-wing intellectual thought which lies behind it. We are told that a joint management committee is to have 50 per cent. of its membership nominated by the Minister, a very shadowy group, and 50 per cent. by the unions. We assume that one of its tasks would be to negotiate wages, pay scales, overtime payments, promotion and so on. With representatives of the union serving on a management committee in that form, great tension would arise between management and the unions, because part of the management would be people nominated by the unions themselves. This sort of conflict is inherent in this ill-thought-out new Clause and makes it a non-starter.
      1568
      The hon. Member spoke of industrial democracy and of workers having a share in management. If there be anything in that argument, this is not the way to achieve it. The best way to help industrial democracy is to make sure that promotion in the Post Office is clearly open from the very bottom to the top. There, one would get real worker participation—[interruption.]
      Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for the hon. Member to address the House against a background of conversation.
      10.15 p.m.
      Mr. Clegg: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.
      I was saying that, in my view, the best sort of industrial democracy is where the worker can rise up from one grade to another to take part in top management. Many of the leaders of private industry—and, indeed, the nationalised industries—have come up from the shop floor. That is real industrial democracy. When there are at the top, as there would be in the suggested joint management committees, workers taking part in decisions which could adversely affect their own people, there would be, not real participation, but bitterness creeping in, because the men would say, "The chaps we elect from the union boss us around and we become redundant because of their policies". A worse industrial situation would then develop.
      I am mindful, Mr. Speaker, of the words with which you preceded my contribution to the debate, and I now conclude. The arguments against the new Clause are overwhelming and have been well demonstrated. If the new Clause represents the thinking of the "Tribune" group or the other sponsors of the Left in this House, it is no wonder that the Labour Party is in such a hell of a state.
      Mr. Ian Gilmour: In moving the new Clause, the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Newens) said that he was beginning to wonder whether nationalisation was necessarily Socialism. I would not like to follow him too closely into what is Socialism, but what has always seemed to me to be very odd is the way that hon. Members opposite have automatically assumed that the setting up of these grandiose, monopolistic corporations had much to do with what they imagined to be Socialism.
      The hon. Member for Epping made it plain that the intention of the new Clause was to establish worker control, or, at least, half control. Last night, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Hugh D. Brown) said that the idea that there was to be worker democracy or worker control was pure fantasy. He coupled the fantasy with the idea that there were Radicals on his Front Bench. Certainly, the Postmaster-General will not have disproved his hon. Friend's prophecy by the excellent speech he made this evening.
      It is a fantasy, but it is a fairly old one. As the hon. Member for Epping has pointed out, the Bill is very much on the same lines—it is virtually identical—as the Bills that were passed by the House during the 1945 Parliament. Indeed, at least once in Committee, when we tried to bring some new points into the Bill, the Postmaster-General repudiated them specifically on the ground that they were new. He proved sometimes to be a very great Conservative and was most eloquent on the virtues of democracy in capitalism on more than one occasion. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has been fully consistent in his repudiation of the new Clause tonight.
      What the hon. Member for Epping and his absent supporters have put forward is syndicalism, which is an even older idea than the nationalised corporation which the Bill sets up. It is not quite the same as the pre-First World War syndicalism because it is not revolutionary, and it does not, as far as I know, propose any form of revolution. Similarly, it is only half syndicalism because only half of the people on the committees are to be appointed by the workers.
      But what syndicalism means, as the right hon. Gentleman clearly pointed out, is that the industry or service is run for the benefit of those who are taking part
      1570
      in it rather than the consumers? The consumer always comes second according to the ideas put forward by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, and that is an idea which, of course, can never be accepted by those of us on this side of the House. We can well imagine that if the hon. Gentleman's new Clause had been accepted, sooner or later the workers would have decided that they did not like working on Sundays, and so there would have been no telephone service on Sundays, and there would have been many other things of that sort.
      However, the most conspicuous silence which there has been during this debate has, of course, been that of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson), who is closely associated with one of the main unions in the Post Office. He, very conspicuously, has not given his support to this new Clause. He did not put his name to it. Nor did the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead, West (Mr. Randall), nor did the hon. Gentleman the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden). In other words, this new Clause is not supported by the representatives or members of the Post Office unions in this House.
      It is, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg) said, a "Tribune" Amendment. It is none the worse for that; "Tribune" is an excellent paper. I see the managing director is here, and I am wondering, since he put his name to the new Clause, whether he would consider running "Tribune" according to these principles.
      Hon. Members: Why not?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I would be very interested to hear a debate on "Tribune", but not on this new Clause.
      Mr. Gilmour: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, if we are considering the best way of running a service, surely we are entitled to consider whether those who are putting forward the ideas in this new Clause would put them into practice in their own businesses? The very brilliant articles which are printed in "Tribune" are written by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot). They are certainly not committee efforts; they are certainly not decided on in consultation with the printers; they

      1571
      are certainly not worked out in conjunction with the type setters or those who sell "Tribune". In other words, there is a complete differentiation of functions. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale is a very good writer, and he does the writing, and the printers are very good printers, and they do the printing; and they make certain that they do not muddle up these functions.
      There is an even greater paradox, surely, in this being a "Tribune" new Clause, because here we have the "Tribune" group trying to prescribe by law certain very definite ways in which the unions should participate in the running of the Post Office. This is a very different attitude from that which they take up when it is suggested that the unions should be made in some ways subject to law in the matter of trade disputes. If it is right for the Government to lay down exactly how unions should participate in the management of the Post Office, and how they should be elected, and so forth, then surely, long before that, it would be logical to bring the law into far more fundamental matters concerning—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. This is the Post Office Bill, and this is a new Clause to it, and we cannot now traverse the whole political field.
      Mr. Gilmour: I accept that. On the other hand, the new Clause puts forward a fundamental change in our whole industrial structure and it is a little difficult to consider it taken in isolation. However, it seems to me that there are at least two fundamental inconsistencies in the behaviour of those who support the new Clause.
      As the Postmaster-General said, there is much to be said for workers' participation. My hon. Friends and I support that. It could take a variety of forms. Not only is there scope for workers' participation; there is scope for workers' promotion. There is no reason why members of the Post Office board should not come from among those who have served in the Post Office. Therefore, it is all the more surprising that there is a Government Amendment to delete Clause 6(4), which lays down that the chairman and other members of the Post Office board
      1572
      "shall be appointed from amongst persons appearing to the Minister to have had wide experience of … administration or the organisation of workers."
      In its original form the Bill would appear to have encouraged ex-trade unionists to take up membership of the board, but there appears to have been a retreat from that position on Report.
      Administration is very different from workers' control, as the President of the Board of Trade has laid down on many occasions—as has the Postmaster-General. When he was asked about it this evening by the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey), I understood him to say, "I am not saying that we are opposed to the participation of workers in management." He slightly altered it later, but I understood him to say that at first.
      In any event, that was very different from what he said in a speech he made at the Fabian Society Summer School on 4th August 1968, when he made one of his best speeches and came down a good deal more firmly in this matter than he did in his intervention. He said:
      "Workers' control is indefensible because it is grossly unfair to the rest of the community whether identified as consumers who buy the product or as taxpayers who provide the capital. The management function is indivisible …. For the Post Office, which is a public service monopoly, I rule workers' control out entirely. It would not be consistent with the public good, nor would it necessarily provide a management seeking efficiency and the best use of a huge publicly provided capital."
      He went on to say that there was a strong case for workers' participation but he knocked the idea of workers' control very firmly on the head.
      The hon. Member for Epping skated ery carefully round all the technical difficulties of his proposal. He did not explain why he had chosen the magic number 26, which does not correspond with any region of the Post Office or any region of a nationalised organisation. He did not say how the difficulties over unions opposed to each other would be resolved, in the matter of election, or how numbers would be worked out—as to how many representatives each union should have. Although we are fully in sympathy with the hon. Member's difficulties and his quest for finding true Socialism, we do not believe that

      1573
      he has found it this evening. Therefore although we sympathise with him, for once we are in full agreement with the Postmaster-General about not accepting the new Clause.
      Mr. Alan Fitch (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury)rose in his place and
      claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 168.

      Division No. 184.]

      AYES

      [10.30 p.m.

      Albu, Austen

      Gregory, Arnold

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

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Molloy, William

      Alldritt, Walter

      Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Anderson, Donald

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Archer, Peter

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Hamling, William

      Murray, Albert

      Barnes, Michael

      Harper, Joseph

      Neal, Harold

      Barnett, Joel

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Newens, Stan

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Haseldine, Norman

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

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hattersley, Roy

      Oakes, Gordon

      Binns, John

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Ogden, Eric

      Bishop, E. S.

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      O'Malley, Brian

      Blackburn, F.

      Hobden, Dennis

      Oram, Albert E.

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Hooley, Frank

      Orbach, Maurice

      Boston, Terence

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Orme, Stanley

      Boyden, James

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Bradley, Tom

      Howie, W.

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

      Bray, Dr. Jeremy

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Owen, Will (Morpeth)

      Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

      Hunter, Adam

      Page, Derek (King's Lynn)

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

      Hynd, John

      Paget, R. T.

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

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Palmer, Arthur

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

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

      Park, Trevor

      Buchan, Norman

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Parker, John (Dagenham)

      Cant, R. B.

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

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Carmichael, Neil

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Chapman, Donald

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)

      Coleman, Donald

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Conlan, Bernard

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

      Pentland, Norman

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Judd, Frank

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Lawson, George

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Probert, Arthur

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Rees, Merlyn

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Delargy, Hugh

      Luard, Evan

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy

      Dempsey, James

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)

      Dewar, Donald

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Dickens, James

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Dobson, Ray

      McCann, John

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Doig, Peter

      MacColl, James

      Rose, Paul

      Dunnett, Jack

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      McGuire, Michael

      Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)

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

      McKay, Mrs. Margaret

      Sheldon, Robert

      Eadie, Alex

      Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Edelman, Maurice

      Mackie, John

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

      Ellis, John

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)

      English, Michael

      Maclennan, Robert

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Ennals, David

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Silverman, Julius

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

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Skeffington, Arthur

      Finch, Harold

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Slater, Joseph

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Small, William

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Foley, Maurice

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

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Manuel, Archia

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Ford, Ben

      Mapp, Charles

      Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.

      Forrester, John

      Marks, Kenneth

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Fowler, Gerry

      Marquand, David

      Taverne, Dick

      Freeson, Reginald

      Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Tinn, James

      Gardner, Tony

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Urwin, T. W.

      Garrett, W. E.

      Mendelson, John

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.

      Mikardo, Ian

      Wallace, George

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Millan, Bruce

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Wellbeloved, James

      Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Woof, Robert

      Whitlock, William

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Mr. Alan Fitch and

      Mr. Neil McBride.

      NOES

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Neave, Airey

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Gurden, Harold

      Nicholls, Sir Harmar

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Astor, John

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Onslow, Cranley

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

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Balniel, Lord

      Hastings, Stephen

      Peel, John

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Hawkins, Paul

      Percival, Ian

      Batsford, Brian

      Hay, John

      Peyton, John

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Higgins, Terence L.

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Bessell, Peter

      Hiley, Joseph

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Pym, Francis

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Body, Richard

      Holland, Philip

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Braine, Bernard

      Hordern, Peter

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hornby, Richard

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Hunt, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Bryan, Paul

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Sharples, Richard

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

      Iremonger, T. L.

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

      Buck, Antony (Colchester)

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Silvester, Frederick

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Burden, F. A.

      Jopling, Michael

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

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, w.)

      Kaberry, Sir Donald

      Speed, Keith

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Kerby, Capt. Henry

      Stainton, Keith

      Clegg, Walter

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Costain, A. P.

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Summers, Sir Spencer

      Crouch, David

      Kilson, Timothy

      Tapsell, Peter

      Cunningham, Sir Knox

      Lane, David

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

      Dance, James

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Temple, John M.

      Dean, Paul

      Longden, Gilbert

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

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

      Lubbock, Eric

      van Straubenzee, W. R.

      Drayson, G. B.

      MacArthur, Ian

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Eden, Sir John

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Walker, Peter (Worcester)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      McMaster, Stanley

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

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

      McNair-Wilson, M. (Walthamstow, E.)

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Emery, Peter

      McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Evans, Gwynfor (C'marthen)

      Maginnis, John E.

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

      Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest

      Wiggin, A. W.

      Eyre, Reginald

      Marten, Neil

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Farr, John

      Maude, Angus

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Fortescue, Tim

      Mawby, Ray

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

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

      Maxwell-Hyslop R. J.

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Worsley, Marcus

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      Monro, Hector

      Wright, Esmond

      Goodhart, Philip

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wylie, N. R.

      Goodhew, Victor

      More, Jasper

      Younger, Hn. George

      Gower, Raymond

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Grant, Anthony

      Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Grant-Ferris, R.

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Mr. Anthony Royle and

      Gresham Cooke, R.

      Murton, Oscar

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

      Grieve, Percy

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Question put accordingly and negatived.

    New Clause 11

      AMENDMENT OF SECTION 17 OF POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANK ACT 1954
      To section 17 of the Post Office Savings Bank Act 1954 (Securities in which the Commissioners may invest) there shall be added the following sub-paragraph of subsection (1):—
      '(e) In equity shares'.—[Mr. Ridley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      This new Clause brings us to a part of the Bill which was not explored in Committee; the part dealing with National Savings and the Post Office Savings Bank. It is a natural corollary of making the Post Office into a corporation that its savings bank functions must be transferred elsewhere. It is proposed in the Bill to set up a Director of Savings, whose task will be to administer the Savings Bank, in the position of the Commissioners, who have hitherto performed that function.
      Hon. Members will be aware of the circumstances of the Post Office Savings Bank by which people may deposit up to £5,000 per head in it and withdraw their money at quite short notice. This varies from between four and eight days depending on whether it is to be a cash or cheque transaction. The money deposited pays interest of 2½ per cent.
      The terms of the Post Office Savings Bank have been enshrined in its constitution by law for many years, I know not how many, and the new Clause gives the House an opportunity to consider whether the time has come to look at its ancient, conservative type of structure to see if, in modern conditions, it is suitable for the circumstances which we are experiencing.
      The question of the security of deposits is not in dispute, since the Treasury, by law, guarantees that depositors will be repaid as to the full amount of their deposits. Thus, whatever we say or do tonight, there is no threat to the deposits or guarantee of the Treasury.
      The 1954 Act specifies two conditions; first, that 2½ per cent. is the rate of interest to be paid—that will be the subject of the next debate on which I will not
      1578
      trespass now—and, secondly, that the Post Office Savings Bank shall invest its funds only in Government stocks or quasi-Government stocks of all sorts. One can easily see a list of the large range of Government stocks in which the Post Office Savings Bank has invested its funds.
      10.45 p.m.
      The constitution of the National Savings Movement has an obligation, which I quote:
      "The aim of the National Savings Committee is to educate and encourage the public to save for the benefit of the individual and the country."
      Although it may or may not be to the benefit of the country that these transactions should go on, I am beginning to question whether it is to the benefit of the individual that he should be persuaded to put his money in the Post Office Savings Bank and leave it there at a rate of 2½ per cent. for many years in the financial conditions we are experiencing. This is an extraordinarily low rate of interest and compares very unfavourably with rates of interest that depositors could get from almost any other source.
      The disadvantage of this procedure is that as the value of money is whittled away by the inflationary policies of Governments, not only this but all Governments, the value of these deposits becomes less and less and there is no possibility of growth in view of the effects of 6 per cent. inflation of the last few years. Reduction of value in holding these securities is at the root of the trouble and the public are not prepared to buy Government securities, let alone undated securities and we have the well known collapse of the gilt-edged market.
      Mr. Stonehouse: On a point of order. As this debate seems to be overlapping into a debate on new Clause 12, I wonder, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether it would be to the general convenience if we debated new Clause 11 and new Clause 12 together so that there should be no restriction on observations made on this subject?
      Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: No.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): If it is the wish of the House

      1579
      these two Clauses can be discussed together.
      Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order. I understand that two Clauses cannot be taken together if objection is raised, and objection has been raised.
      Mr. Ridley: I concur with the view of the right hon. Gentleman that it would be possible to do so, but since my hon. Friend objects, it would be better to keep the two debates separate. I shall endeavour to do that, but I hope that I shall be forgiven if occasionally I trespass into the realms of interest because it is difficult to separate capital considerations from interest considerations.
      The concession in the Budget for Capital Gains Tax has made precious little difference, and gilt-edged stocks are unattractive to practically every class of investor. The market has not responded. Undated gilt-edged stocks are particularly unattractive in times of rapid inflation. The result has been, as it would not have been difficult to predict, that savers and depositors in the Post Office Savings Bank have seen fit to withdraw their money. In 1963–64 £11·4 million was withdrawn net. This is the difference between new money deposited and money taken out. In 1964–65 that amount went up to £29·7 million. In 1965–66 it rose to £41·8 million, in 1966–67 £153 million was taken out, and in 1967–68 £105·6 million was withdrawn. The poor British investor for whom these deposits are supposed to be of benefit has at least realised that he can do better with his money elsewhere and he is taking his money out. I do not blame him. If any word of this debate gets to the outside world, it should be that it is in his interests to take out his money, even at this late stage. After all, he can lend it to a local authority at 9 per cent., or put it into Government stock at interest rates approaching that. Why he should be required, out of patriotism, to go on leaving it in the Post Office Savings Bank at 2½ per cent. and with the capital value being eaten away, I find it hard to understand.
      We have come to the point where these traditional savings media are highly suspect, not only because they are proving totally ineffectual, but because they represent
      1580
      a bargain which is so bad that we should be ashamed of ourselves in recommending people to accept them.
      The economic effects should be mentioned in passing. If £105 million last year and £153 million the year before was pushed into the economy through net withdrawals, this is a highly inflationary factor affecting the money supply, and it is a consideration relevant to the Amendment that the money supply should not be increased in this way, if it is possible. I expect that the bulk of the money was switched out of this unfavourable form of deposit into some other form of holding which is more profitable. At the same time, I suspect that some of it has been used for consumption as well.
      If we are to have official savings media of this sort, we have to come to terms with the financial times in which we live, when the only possible way of maintaining the capital value of savings is to put a large share of them into the equity of some company or other, perhaps even abroad. Investment is still quite free in the sterling area. If we are to encourage people officially to save and invest by setting up such bodies as the Post Office Savings Bank, we must give the Bank a little more freedom to make what it considers to be the right investments. I would not say that now was the right moment at which to invest in equities. I am not sufficiently skilled in investment decisions to say what is the right investment at present. But it is restricting to say that the Post Office Savings Bank can invest only in gilt-edged stocks. I may be wrong. Perhaps gilt-edged stocks are the right investment at the moment. But to look at this matter as if gilt-edged stocks were still the safest investment is an outdated and completely wrong attitude.
      I will be accused by hon. Gentlemen opposite of suggesting that we gamble with depositors' money, but if anything has been a forlorn gamble it has been the investment of large sums in War Loan, which stands today at a little over 38. The Post Office Savings Bank has £108 million in War Loan, which has come down from 100 to 38. If that is not gambling and losing, I do not know what is. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell us at what price the War Loan was bought and how much in

      1581
      terms of millions of £s has been lost in this investment. There is a whole series of other long stocks and undated stocks on which enormous losses have been made by the persons managing the Post Office Savings Bank.
      We have to leave the bankers free to make the investments that they think to be right. It may be that this is a moment to invest in "shorts". I would not quarrel with that. But we must give them the power for all time to take the decision on what is the best investment for savers' money. This type of investment has to be made considerably more attractive if it is thought worth while going on.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), has doubts whether it is right for Governments to promote savings. I do not want to enter into that argument now, because it would probably be out of order. But if we are to have State agencies persuading people to invest and to put money on deposit with them, we must first make sure that they are reasonably competitive with other forms of investment which they might make. Secondly, we must divorce the benefit of the saver from any possible advantage which the State might make by getting these investments to be made.
      What is objectionable about this practice in the Post Office Savings Bank is that one man's gain is another man's loss. The loss of the depositor, the small saver who has put his money into the Post Office Savings Bank, has been the Government's gain because they are getting money at far below the market rate. What is more, they have subsidised gilt-edged stocks and held on to them at a time when a massive change out of gilt-edged stocks might have brought the Government to their senses over their policies in relation to inflation and their management of the money supply.
      These considerations have enabled not only this Government but all Governments, to go on in their sloppy financial way, well knowing that they had a certain captive investor with his savings deposited in the likes of the Post Office Savings Bank.
      Over the last year the value of gilt-edged stocks has dropped. The Financial Times Index has gone down from 76 to
      1582
      67. This is a clear indication that in the last 12 months there has been a further massive loss in the Post Office Savings Bank.
      I do not underestimate the difficulties which will be raised. There will be a need to think out a transitional phase from the old traditional pattern of the Post Office Savings Bank which will accept money on deposit and pay 2½ per cent. and which is always invested in gilt-edged stocks. If we are to go on we must be prepared to build in perhaps some growth in its stocks and matters of that sort. I do not want to go out of order, but if we are to go on with these inducements to save, we must make the Post Office Savings Bank competitive and attractive.
      I agree that there will be transitional problems. One question will be whether we can offer existing depositors better terms and conditions. That can be got over, because I think that change is always possible.
      The Postmaster-General, in Committee, showed himself to be remarkably resistant to change of any sort, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) said just now. He resisted all ideas of change in our nationalised industries just as much from behind him as from the Opposition. All ideas for modernising and improving the way that we try to run our public industries were turned down, often with the curt, though not discourteous, argument that what had always been was the best thing to go on with and there was no case for change.
      Mr. Stonehouse: Does this line of argument and criticism of my conduct in Committee imply that the hon. Gentleman now applauds the action that we have taken in deleting Clause 13 and substituting a new Clause?
      Mr. Ridley: The Postmaster-General seems to have fallen from grace in that instance.
      Mr. Stonehouse: I changed.
      Mr. Ridley: The right hon. Gentleman changed for the worse. Had I been in his position I would have kept quiet about that. I would not have wished to advertise, before a fairly full House, that I had been prepared to give way

      1583
      to my Left wing but not to hon. Gentlemen in Committee who were attempting to make something commercial, successful and forward-looking out of the Post Office in the way that we tried to do.
      It may be alleged that what I am suggesting is too big a gamble. There is a strange feeling among some people that for any risk investment to be made is an intolerable, almost sinful risk to take, whereas to invest in Government stocks is a laudable, patriotic and worthy thing to do, involving no risk. This myth must have been exploded as we watch the value of Government stocks dwindle and the increasing reluctance of the public to hold them. The fact that this may not go on is abundantly clear to me, but there is no investment of any sort—in land, in shares, in factories, in stocks, or in anything else—which is safe. There is no such thing as a safe investment. Even currencies are apt to crumble, as we are beginning to see. There is no such thing as an investment which is free from risk and free from gamble.
      11.0 p.m.
      But if I were to make an investment in the next five years or so I should tend to think that it would be safer to put it into an equity share than in War Loan. I gather that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West suggests gold. That is another opinion. It may be that if the new Clause were accepted we could invest in gold shares. The Post Office Savings Bank could then invest in gold shares—and what would be wrong about that?
      I do not want to say in detail what should or should not be done with these investments, but I urge the Committee to break out of this mentality which suggests that a 2½ per cent. guaranteed gilt-edged investment is, as it were, a worthy investment. If the Government are to try to attract funds and to give the investor a good deal, they must do much better than that, and the underlying investments of the savings banks, in which the deposits are placed, may have to be improved, too. We cannot continue with the whole of the paraphernalia of the National Savings Movement, the Trustee Savings Banks and the Post Office Savings Bank all pretending that in some way they are serving the national interest and benefiting the individual.
      1584
      We must introduce a streamlined, modern look such as that of the unit trusts or even the investment trusts in considering the question of attracting the savings of the ordinary people, whether they be rich or poor. Savings are vitally important, but we shall not achieve them by an approach such as that used at present. I hope that the House will seriously consider whether the time has come to move away from these old-fashioned and conservative deposit accounts into something slightly more modern.
      Mr. Stonehouse: The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) served with some distinction on the Standing Committee, and I am surprised that he did not seek to move this proposal in Committee. Hon. Members of that Committee will remember that he enlivened the proceedings frequently with some brilliant speeches which we much enjoyed.
      But the hon. Member knows that the main purpose of the Bill is not to consider the detailed operations of the Post Office Savings Bank, as the new Clause implies. The purpose of the Bill is to transfer the major trading activities of the Post Office from a Department of State to a new Post Office Corporation and to transfer the Post Office Savings Bank from the responsibility of the Postmaster-General to a new National Savings Bank under a Director of Savings who from vesting day, under my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, will be responsible for the Savings Bank thus transferred. That is the purpose of the Bill, and it should not be used as a vehicle for ventilating the far-ranging ideas which have been put forward tonight by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury.
      As he has raised the subject, it is important that the House should spend some time on it, rather than dismiss it out of hand. As hon. Members know, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury is one of the leading Powellites in this House. In a recent debate on a new Clause, reference was made by hon. Members opposite to the "Tribune" group on this side, so it would be in order to make a reference to the group on that side known as Powellites. It is interesting that the hon. Member's leader is here tonight in the

      1585
      person of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). We are delighted to welcome him to the proceedings of the Post Office Bill.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. Member is under a misapprehension. This is not a group. This is another name for common-sense.
      Mr. Stonehouse: We are getting used to the right hon. Gentleman heaping glory on himself. He is adding to that aspect of his reputation tonight, but it would be interesting to know whether the student of Powellism in the person of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury has the wholehearted support of the leader in the proposal he has brought forward.
      What he has suggested is, or could be interpreted as being, a far-reaching Socialist proposal. The funds of the Post Office Savings Bank, amounting to £1,500 million would, under his suggestion, be available for large-scale investment in equity shares. If this means anything, it means that the Government will be using the investments of millions of small savers to invest in small insurance companies and similar shares, thus obtaining a holding in industrial groups. Because the new Clause has no geographical limit on investment in equity shares, the Government would be able, if the Clause were accepted, to invest hundreds of millions of pounds in investments abroad in all sorts of odd directions. There would be no restriction and there would be implied authority that this would be allowed to the National Debt Commissioners who run the investments of the Bank.
      Mr. Hay: Is not the Postmaster-General confusing the position of those who have the trust of all Post Office Savings Bank and Debt Commissioners funds with the position of the Government? Is not his argument based completely on fallacy, and is the proposal of my hon. Friend not that the Government should have the power to invest but only these people who hold a special place under Statute?
      Mr. Stonehouse: Yes, but, as I was saying, responsibility is not in the hands of the Postmaster-General but in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners.
      1586
      This Clause specifically adds equity shares to the list of investments they can make and there is no point in moving it unless it is expected that the Commissioners will follow the instructions of the House and invest in these shares. It would follow that a substantial part of the £1,500 million investment of small savers in the Post Office Savings Bank would be invested in a large number of industrial companies, which would have the effect of giving the Government a far greater share in the operation of industry in Britain.
      Mr. Hay: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the National Debt Commissioners do what Ministers tell them? That is what he is asking us to accept. If that is not so, his argument breaks down.
      Mr. Stonehouse: I am not suggesting that. If the new Clause is accepted and equity shares are added to the list of investments which can be made, it would be an open invitation, if not instruction, to the Commissioners by Parliament to invest in these shares. If the House were mistakenly to follow the advice of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury, it would be surprising if the Commissioners did not act on it. They would obviously make a certain amount of investment in this direction.
      Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Does not my right hon. Friend think that this proposal is a disguised method of augmenting the funds of the Conservative Party? Would not the equity shares in which the trustees would invest for the most part be shares which would contribute to Conservative Party funds? Is not this the sinister process behind the thinking of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)?
      Mr. Stonehouse: I have been trying to calculate exactly what is in the hon. Gentleman's mind but I do not think that I would visit that motive on him. I doubt whether he had it in the back of his labyrinthine mind.
      I was asked what was the holding of the 3½ per cent. war stock and the original price. I regret that I cannot, without lengthy and detailed inquiry, give the information about the original price. It is a question of some complexity. The value of the holding at the end of 1967 was £108 million.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in 1965, when the Act was going through, it was apparent that the total market value of the securities held by the Post Office Savings Bank was £200 million less than the money owed to depositors, that probably the position has since deteriorated substantially and that it is only the Government's guarantee that keeps the Fund solvent?
      Mr. Stonehouse: On the next new Clause I shall want to make some observations on the current income of the Post Office Savings Bank which exceeds the management expenses and the cost of paying interest to depositors. There is a surplus on that.
      What the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury has misunderstood is that the savers in the Post Office Savings Bank do not regard it as a means of maximising the return on their investment as they would do if they invested on other directions. They invest in the Post Office Savings Bank because it is a convenient way of saving, and it must be remembered that the cost of operating this small savings business is far greater than operating other types of investment. The lower rate of interest
      1588
      must be balanced against the convenience of the small savings system and, in particular, the convenience of withdrawal. It is important that the security of the Bank, backed as it is by Exchequer guarantee, should continue to be underwritten by investment in gilt-edged securities as has been the practice heretofore. For all these reasons, I hope that the House will see fit not to accept the new Clause.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the debate be now adjourned.—[Mr. Harper.]
      Mr. Stratton Mills: On a point of order. There has been only one speech moving the Clause—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. There can be no points of order on this Motion.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Debate to be resumed Tomorrow.

      ADJOURNMENT
      Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
      Adjourned accordingly at a quarter past Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
Morning Sitting
Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Ten o'clock, a.m.

POST OFFICE BILL

  New Clause 6
  Question again proposed, That the Clause be read a Second time.
  10.0 a.m.
  Mr. Dobson: Last night, when we were dealing with new Clause 6, my right hon. Friend was assaulted from all sides because he did not appear to want the Clause. I endeavoured to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, to put a different point of view from that which we had so far heard. I do so briefly now because I know my right hon. Friend wants to get on with discussion of the Bill.
  I believe that the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), or it could have been the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), said that hon. Members were not to be allowed to inquire into Post Office mistakes or misdemeanours. That is completely wrong, because there is nothing in the Bill which would stop hon. Members doing their job and representing their constituents. What is quite clear, however, is that we could not go on putting the sort of Questions in precisely the same form about day-to-day management as we have been able to put hitherto. I think that is a good thing; at any rate not a bad thing.
  One thing which has astonished me, coming to this House after nearly 20 years in the Post Office, is that we should clutter up business on the Floor of the House with trivia which could be dealt with more expeditiously and better by other methods. Hon. Members know that at all times they can address letters to the Postmaster-General. At the moment they can address Questions to him, and they can also initiate Adjournment debates. We have Post Office reports which can be debated. Under the new situation with the Corporation only one thing would be changed in this respect. That would be a limitation—I put it no higher—on the Questions on day-to-day affairs of the Post Office. I
  1332
  realise that this will tax the ingenuity of hon. Members rather more, but my understanding is that the Postmaster-General will be obliged to answer Questions roughly in the same way as other sponsoring Ministers—for instance, the Minister of Power—have to do.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Not only will an hon. Member be prohibited from asking Questions on day-to-day administration but if he writes to the successor of the Postmaster-General that successor will refer him to the Corporation. In future he will not get an answer from the Postmaster-General or his successor.
  Mr. Dobson: That will depend on what the Question or the letter is about. If it is something which is appropriate to day-to-day management, clearly it will go to the chairman of the Post Office Board. I am sure that we shall get a reasonable and courteous answer and one which is as useful from the chairman of the Corporation as from the Minister. I cannot see that we should be any worse off in that respect.
  I do not think we should clutter the Floor of the House with questions on trivia. If we want to talk about what makes the Post Office "tick" and in what direction it is going in future we should have more time to talk about it in Parliament. I suppose it is easy for hon. Members, when they have a letter saying that someone's mail has been delayed by an hour or two hours or has perhaps missed a particular delivery, to raise the matter in a Question in the House. It would be much simpler if they went to the local postmaster and asked for an explanation. An hon. Member opposite, speaking yesterday, said that he had done just that.
  I regretted very much one speech made by an hon. Member opposite which seemed to suggest that if a case of this nature were reported to the local postmaster or telephone manager one would get no satisfaction. That is absolute nonsense, and any hon. Member should know that it is nonsense. If one goes to the local postmaster or telephone manager with a complaint, it receives better than average treatment. It receives an examination going to the root of the matter to try to find where the trouble has been caused. Often the trouble has been caused through no direct fault of the Post Office, or it may be a secondary

  1333
  cause for which the Post Office is only partly responsible.
  The new Clause as drafted would not do what many hon. Members seem to want to do. That is, to make it possible to continue questioning my right hon. Friend about matters of day-to-day management as they affect the Post Office. As drafted, the Clause specifically rules out the opportunity for continuing to question about day-to-day administration. Therefore I shall not be able to support it.
  In Committee my right hon. Friend said:
  "There will also be ample opportunity for Members to raise Questions on the Floor of the House, and these will be answered in the same way as that in which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power, for instance, or the Minister of Transport replies on the Floor of the House. I do not think that hon. Members need have any doubt at all that Members of the House of Commons will find some way, if they have serious points to raise on behalf of their constituents, of cross-examining the Ministers responsible. That will continue to be the case."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 3rd December 1968; c. 138.]
  When we look at the Order Paper we see that it is clear that Questions can be asked, as they were of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Power yesterday, without much difficulty. It is possible to get penetrating Questions put to the sponsoring Minister.
  This is a restrictive Amendment in the way in which it lays down changes to be made. I hope that it will not be accepted.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I do not propose immediately to follow the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson). I apologise for my relatively late intervention in these debates. I was not a member of the Standing Committee and I have not, therefore, listened to all the arguments put before the Committee and on other occasions about the accountability of the Post Office on the Floor of the House of Commons.
  The most intelligent speech on this matter to which I have listened so far came from the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. Will Griffiths) late last night. He went back to the origins of the disputation about accountability of nationalised industries—namely the Morrisonian concept of how they should be conducted—which was the root of the matter. It is broadly that they
  1334
  should be bereft of Parliamentary control and that they should be dealt with on an utterly autonomous basis, and only on very infrequent occasions and on major issues should their policies and finances be subject to scrutiny in this House.
  I have always rejected absolutely that Morrisonian concept. It was born of early Socialist and Fabian theories. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. I do not want to get out of order too soon and I shall come back to this matter later. My impression is that it was born of early Socialist and Fabian theory. It was certainly culled by the late Herbert Morrison from his experience as a Minister in the first Coalition Government involving Labour and after the war in discussions with the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), who was responsible for the nationalisation of the first three major industries brought into public ownership after the war—coal, gas and electricity.
  The trouble is that in everything the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East said in this debate he is prepared to put himself utterly at the mercy and at the discretion of the learned Clerks at the Table. I am not. I have fought a long battle with them over nearly 20 years about the correct definition of day-to-day administration within a nationalised industry. Occasionally I got away with something, but not very often.
  The interpretation of "day-to-day administration" in this House is very harsh. It is futile for the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East to talk about Questions yesterday, for example, to the Minister of Power being of a penetrating character. They were nothing of the kind. Neither were the Questions a few days earlier to the Minister of Transport of a penetrating character.
  I will give the hon. Gentleman an exact analogy, relating it to the new Clause, and say what I am afraid of, because I support the new Clause as being better than nothing. I will illustrate my point in the context of transport, because the hon. Gentleman chose transport. He was thinking of railways, so I will talk about railways analogous to the new Clause. There is one main line through my constituency, Oxford-Worcester-Malvern-Hereford. Recently the Western Region took off the stopping

  1335
  of an important train in the early morning at two stations in Malvern. That means that workers who had to be at work in Worcester at 8 o'clock in the morning had no train to get to Worcester, and, as there were no bus services, they were completely dependent on their own transport. They went to the local authority and to the Railways Board. They got no satisfaction, so they came to me.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue his analogy in too much detail.
  Sir G. Nabarro: No. This is an analogy. I will be brief.
  After representations to Bristol, to the management of the railways directly, I had the stops reinstated at Malvern, but not until after I had tried to get a Parliamentary Question through on it and could not.
  Mr. Ridley: Does not this little tale illustrate that there are more effective ways of getting these things done than through Parliamentary Questions?
  Sir G. Nabarro: I think not, because on this occasion there were other circumstances, which I do not wish to go into in detail, which caused the railways to concede directly. But this should have been a matter on which I could have asked a Parliamentary Question. It affected employment and productivity. But I was refused the opportunity to put my Question, as I have been refused scores of Questions on nationalised industries. Although I would not go as far as the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), who wanted a Minister for each nationalised industry—coal, gas, electricity, the Post Office and the railways; a proliferation of public corporation Ministers, which would be wasteful, if not ridiculous—I want much greater accountability of all nationalised industries to this House.
  Criticism does not relate only to this Labour Government. It relates also to earlier Tory Governments.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not widen the debate. We are discussing accountability of the Post Office to Parliament through Questions to Ministers.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Yes.
  Mr. Dobson: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves his analogy, will he say how the passage of the new Clause would allow him, if that is what he is trying to get, the right to raise his railway case on the Floor of the House?
  Sir G. Nabarro: I think that it would enable me to do that, because the last few words of the new Clause are
  "other than those of day to day administration".
  I do not think that the stopping of the railway train was a matter of day-to-day administration. I think that it goes much wider. It seems to be an important matter of principle whether a nationalised industry can make changes of this kind on an autonomous basis affecting the employment and productivity of a large number of working men and women, because there is no method of challenging these arbitrary decisions by a nationalised industry.
  10.15 a.m.
  I come back to accountability. We are arguing a Parliamentary matter of very great importance. After the Morrisonian concept, to which I referred earlier, there came a long period of anguish in the Tory Party about how these nationalised industries were to be conducted in the context of accountability and whether we should go for the whole measure of the Post Office system of accountability to Parliament—what the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East referred to as trivia. I do not regard them as trivia. My right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) carried it to a ridiculous limit in talking about crossed nibs in Post Offices. That is not the issue. I will come to the issue in a moment on these day-to-day questions.
  After the Morrisonian concept there was a great conflict of opinion in the Tory Party whether we went on to a postalisation basis, as it was called—that is, complete accountability to Parliament, including Parliamentary Questions on so-called trivia—or whether we went half way by a number of alternative recourses.
  On 10th May, 1956—13 years ago—I put all this to the test, with the help of the late Mr. Speaker Morrison, by putting down a reasoned Amendment on the Order Paper to the Second Reading

  1337
  of the Coal Industry Bill and causing 35 of my hon. Friends to support it. Many of my hon. Friends who are in the House today supported that Amendment, which I propose to read in a moment, because—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot pursue on the new Clause the whole history of the accountability of all nationalised industries and the part that the hon. Member has played. He must not enter into too great detail.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I shall not go in great detail into the matter, other than to say that at the end of the day we made no progress on Parliamentary Questions, but we made progress in that the Ministry was caused to undertake to lay a White Paper annually on the investment programme of, in that case, the coal industry; and later the same principle was applied to electricity and to gas.
  I believe that the Post Office Bill in its present form is highly unsatisfactory, because, without prejudice to anything that the Minister may say in reply to the debate, it seems to embrace the Morrisonian concept for the conduct of nationalised industries. It seems to say to the House of Commons that, other than an annual debate—if we are lucky—we shall not be able to examine what is happening in the Post Office Corporation.
  The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) has achieved great distinction in his conduct of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, which I support. It has proved a valuable adjunct to work on nationalised industries in all aspects of Parliamentary affairs. But the Select Committee examines the affairs of a public corporation in retrospect; not its future policy. Parliamentary Questions and debates on the Floor of the House may deal with future policy. I am concerned with future policy. That is why I support the new Clause as being a short and faltering step in the direction of day-to-day accountability without prejudice to the proper management of the Post Office Corporation.
  The reconciliation of these two factors has been eternally difficult. If the executive management of a great State corporation is continually looking over its shoulder at back-bench Members of the House of Commons firing off rockets at
  1338
  it and criticising almost daily what is happening in the Corporation on a commercial basis—and most of us agree that its activities should be conducted as far as possible on a commercial basis—the top management of that Corporation will not suffer these slings and arrows, day-by-day frustrations of its efficient management: its members will resign their executive positions.
  Parliament, on the other hand, wants to know what is going on. It is a matter of balance. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-East regards Parliamentary Questions in the context of the Post Office as being trivia. He did not say that it was a matter of balance. I will give him an example before I pass to the difficult matter of defining what is day-to-day administration. Would the hon. Gentleman consider this to be day-to-day administration? On 17th April I asked the Postmaster-General
  "… why the status of Evesham as head post office has been abolished, with transfer of essential functions to Worcester, 15 miles distant; whether he is aware of public concern about postal services in the Vale of Evesham resulting from this abolition; what improvement in services he expects following such abolition; and whether he will make a statement."
  The Assistant Postmaster-General replied:
  "To increase administrative efficiency and cut costs as explained in my right hon. Friend the then Postmaster-General's answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Consett … on 19th December, 1967. I am not aware of any public concern as there has been no change in the services provided in the area."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1969; Vol. 781, c. 288.]
  My case is that there has been a progressive deterioration in the postal services in the area of the Vale of Evesham. I know. I live there. I can never consistently receive first-class mail letters posted in London at a reasonable hour the previous night at my home the following morning. I want to be able, within a reasonable time, to be allowed to ask about any misdemeanour on the part of the Post Office—and, of course, I use the word "misdemeanour" metaphorically because I am not suggesting that any officials are guilty of it. But the post has misfired in my area. It is no good taking that to a Select Committee. I have to be allowed to ask Parliamentary Questions. But my troubles do not count with the learned Clerks at the Table. They argue

  1339
  that this is a day-to-day matter. I shall argue that it is a matter of great and important principle.
  Mr. Dobson indicated dissent.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Why does not the hon. Gentleman think so?
  Mr. Dobson: The position is that we should have an opportunity for a debate not on questions of Evesham head post office—the new Clause would not allow that anyway—but on whether or not it is right that there should be a recasting of head post office boundaries—which is what happened in the Vale of Evesham case—throughout the country. That is the debate which should take place.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot debate whether debates should take place in the House on a new Clause which asks for Questions to be allowed to be put to the Minister.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I was relating the difficulty of the learned Clerks at the Table, who are the adjudicators. You yourself, Sir, are, of course, eventually the adjudicator, since if an hon. Member likes to be tedious and tiresome he can keep on insisting, when the Clerks rule a Question out of order, that it should go to you for decision. But, of course, hon. Members do not do that because it causes so much trouble and disturbance. Here I am relating deliberately a case which will demonstrate to the right hon. Gentleman, because I want him to treat it leniently in his reply, how difficult it is to decide what is day-to-day administration and what is a matter of broad principle.
  Earlier, I used the word "misdemeanour". Does the right hon. Gentleman know why letters do not get to the Vale of Evesham on time? I do not expect an answer off the cuff this morning without notice, but I can answer my own question. The reason has nothing to do with the postal staffs. It is because the letters are put on a railway train to Birmingham and from Birmingham they go to Worcester—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot pursue in detail the example he is putting of the kind of Question he still wants to ask.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I will finish the reference briefly, Mr. Speaker. This is a question of routing, and it affects other nationalised industries. That is the point. It is not just a case of a few postmen being late for work but a matter of major postal service organisation.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: If new Clause 6 is carried, the hon. Gentleman will be able to ask the sort of Questions he wants to put, and if it is not carried he will not.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. We are poles apart politically but there are two good causes of his that I espouse. One is his efforts in the matter of Parliamentary accountability of the Post Office and the other is aircraft noise. They are both laudable causes. In this matter concerning the Post Office, I think that he is nearer to the point of truth than the opposition which is represented by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East. Any short and faltering step towards improved accountability of these gargantuan State corporations to Parliament on the Floor of the House of Commons, to enable hon. Members to make their individual contributions to the future policies of the corporations, is acceptable and very welcome.
  If the right hon. Gentleman accepts this new Clause, I shall try to make arrangements at a later stage for the last eight words of it to be struck out. The effect of that would be that we could return to the present system of asking Questions about the Post Office. That is what I want. I am perfectly honest and forthright about it. This Bill has to go through another place yet and their Lordships' Amendments have to come back here.
  It is only a short and faltering step towards improved accountability that I am seeking in supporting new Clause 6. I make no apology for having spoken at some length. I have a long history of speeches and work in this House in trying to improve the accountability of the nationalised industries. I do not accept that a Select Committee or Adjournment debates or an annual debate or any of these other Parliamentary devices are any effective substitute for the day-to-day examination of individual Post Office matters—which are stigmatised by the

  1341
  hon. Member for Bristol, North-East as "trivia"—which I regard as a proper and democratic protection of the interests of my constituents, every one of whom uses the postal, telegraph and other associated services.
  10.30 a.m.
  Mr. Peyton: I am glad to be able to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)—
  Sir G. Nabarro: Not for the first time.
  Mr. Peyton: I will not comment on that—if only because it allows me a chance of acknowledging what is a good deal more than a colloquialism when I say that few hon. Members have done more to stake a claim in this House for some credit on the very hard road of trying to obtain some control for Parliament over nationalised industries. Tribute should be paid to him for his hard and sustained effort in this direction, which is sometimes forgotten.
  The suggestion has been made from time to time in the debate that, as an alternative to Parliamentary Questions, we might rely upon correspondence. The whole point of proceedings in Parliament and of Questions is that they are public affairs. I utterly reject the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) that Parliament or individual Members should be content in all cases with a resort to correspondence with Ministers, no matter how civil or helpful the reply. Though the Postmaster-General's answers are always substantially what one would require, few Departments in correspondence can rival either his own or the Assistant Postmaster-General's courtesy, civility and promptness. I am very grateful to them for that, but I still say that correspondence is no adequate alternative to the Parliamentary Question.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) stated the case for the Clause with both skill and accuracy. The main burden of his argument was that there was nothing radical about the Clause: it was simply a re-statement of the present rights enjoyed by Parliament. I am, therefore, puzzled as to why it should be necessary to have this protracted discussion, instead of the
  1342
  Minister saying, "I can accept the Clause because it does not involve any alteration whatsoever. It is merely an acceptable statement of Parliament's rights. I understand that the House in these days, when events seem always to favour the Executive, is anxious not to let the Clause go by default".
  My suspicions are considerably aroused by the fact that the Postmaster-General evidently does not want to have such a Clause in the Bill, because otherwise he could have terminated the discussion long ago. I accept the opinion of the hon. Member for Poplar that there are many better ways of obtaining information, but I do not accept that because Questions concerning the affairs of the nationalised industries can relate to what have been described as trivia they are necessarily bad. Much of human life is a mosaic of trivia. If we in this House are suddenly to accept the doctrine that we eschew, avoid and shun all mention of anything which can properly be described as a triviality, we shall lend great weight to the charge which is often levelled against politicians of all parties that they are very remote from the affairs of ordinary, every-day life.
  Moreover, I think that much less time is wasted by means of a Parliamentary Question, which is a very useful device, not only for calling attention to important matters, but also for sounding the horn of public indignation and concern about complaints which occur every day but which seem to be extraordinarily obstinate and resistant to cures of any kind. I therefore believe that the institution of the Parliamentary Question as applying to the nationalised industries is very important.
  It is only fair, however, that against the value of that institution should be weighed the intense irritation which must be felt by people occupying positions of senior management in nationalised industries, who must find it exceedingly hard and maddening at times to be subjected to the pressure of constant, though well-meaning, inquisitions from people who they believe only imperfectly understand the problems. I understand this, but this difficulty is one which flows naturally and predictably from the very institution of nationalised industries.
  This is no occasion to go into the merits or otherwise of the system of

  1343
  public ownership. I would simply say those who are the constant advocates of the system that this kind of difficulty flows inevitably from the system, and before they laud it to the skies they should pay a little more attention to the snags which we constantly meet in practice and to which no Government have ever been able to propound an adequate solution.
  We in the House would be wrong not to take note of the fact that few managers—I use the term in the widest sense—of industries have a more difficult task than those who are responsible for the nationalised industries, if only because they are the subject of all sorts of totally irrelevant pressures. I do not say that the pressures are improper: that is a wrong word and has a wrong connotation. They are pressures of totally wrong kinds which often have a large content of politics, which I know makes the task of these managers unnecessarily difficult.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is drifting into the merits or demerits of nationalised industries. We are talking about their accountability to Parliament through Questions.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is not one of the virtues of public enterprise the fact that it is publicly accountable, in contrast with private enterprise which is not accountable to anybody?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Now we can get back to the new Clause.
  Mr. Peyton: I will not be tempted too much by the hon. Gentleman, who says that public enterprise is accountable. We are discussing how to make it accountable.
  I am pointing out that, though the Parliamentary Question seems all right, it has many defects. From the point of view of those who have the job of running nationalised industries, such devices as Questions have very severe drawbacks. Whatever one may think of the merits of the whole system, it would be very unfair not to acknowledge the real difficulties and obstacles which are put in the way, almost deliberately, of those who are responsible for managing these industries.
  1344
  One of the reasons a Question is necessary, or is thought to be desirable—in the case of these vast corporations is that in these industries, and in the one which we are presently considering, competition has been largely eliminated. There is no pressure from either banker or shareholder. I know that it is a favourite belief of the Treasury that it imposes the most tremendous disciplines on nationalised industries. It simply does not know how to begin to play the game. It is rather like a child's steeplechase: a very easy course is constructed in which nobody can possibly come to any harm. If there is a water jump, the water is taken out and there is a rubber mattress to fall into. There are absolutely no hazards.
  Any skilled chairman of a nationalised industry can romp round that course and leave every Treasury official miles behind him. Anyhow, in the end he has always got the blackmail, if he cares to use it, of saying, "If you do not let me have this, if you do not let me increase my prices"—as a matter of fact, nationalised industries never want to increase their prices, whether they should or not—"if you do not let me have what I want, there will be awful trouble. I now tell you what the specific trouble will be and I will let you have all this in writing".
  On very few occasions would the Treasury, or, for that matter, any Department, stand up against such tough treatment. It is driven into a tight corner. I, for one, consider that the usefulness of Treasury control over nationalised industries is currently, and has always been, grossly over-estimated.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss Treasury control of nationalised industries. We are discussing whether there should be accountability by Questions in the House of Commons.
  Mr. Peyton: I accept that Ruling, Sir. It is a little difficult to dwell on one measure of control and accountability without mentioning some of the others. I wish to do so only to observe that all suffer from snags and weaknesses, as does the Parliamentary Question, with which we are, I accept, principally concerned.
  I do not wish to prolong my remarks any further except to say that, on balance,

  1345
  I have no doubt whatever that the Question as applied to nationalised industries is a useful device. I do not believe that it takes up nearly so much time or has so many vices as the repetition of other forms of inquisition. The Select Committee has already been rightly praised, but if one piles Mr. Aubrey Jones on top of the Select Committee as a result one gets a plethora of inquiries.
  Every change made in parliamentary procedure over the years has favoured the Executive, no matter which party is in power. I should be reluctant indeed to see Parliament abdicate any more of its rights in favour of the Executive which already has the rub in every argument. The overwhelming advantage is always in favour of the Executive.
  We are in this instance told that there is slight inconvenience about enshrining in an Act of Parliament the right to ask a Parliamentary Question about a nationalised industry. I would not find concessions in this matter to be acceptable at any time, but since we live in days which have seen, not only the decline of Parliament but the washing off on to Parliament of the discredit which the Executive richly earns for itself, I am not inclined to make concessions in respect of Parliament's rights.
  When one looks at the method of government and the position occupied by the right hon. Gentleman, it is easy to see how much more smooth running things would be if some of our parliamentary anachronisms and awkwardnesses were done away with, for instance the Parliamentary Question. But in these days I should be most reluctant to see Parliament abdicate its rights and to withdraw from the struggle to hold the existing bastions, the devices which have not yet been swept away. This involves not our personal rights, but public rights which exist to defend the individual against the steady encroaching tide of Executive power, which I dislike, have learnt to suspect, and of which I am becoming more jealous as the years go by.
  10.45 a.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I agree with the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton). I, too, am worried at the continual vesting of power in the Executive, with its failure to understand that the ordinary Member of
  1346
  Parliament should have a right to question what Ministers have done or intend to do.
  I agree that this is a fault not only of this Government, although they do offend in this respect. As in many matters they have been anxious to copy their predecessors. It would appear that all the bad things which the Tory Government have done in the past this Government want either to copy, or to take action—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a general debate on the faults of this and previous Governments. We are dealing with accountability of the Post Office through Questions on the Order Paper.
  Mr. Lewis: I was coming to that, but the hon. Gentleman spent a good deal of time explaining why he was against giving power to the Executive with no right to question. I was making a few remarks on the words used by the hon. Member. I agree that one cannot use the time to discuss the faults of the previous Government, or we should be here for four or five years, which would exacerbate even your patience, Mr. Speaker. I would not wish to do that.
  In this particular instance there is once again an attempt to try to deprive Members of the right to ask questions on the day to day affairs of this vast industry. It is sought to deprive Members of even the limited opportunities which they now possess in this respect.
  I was tempted to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), but I thought that if I caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, I could then take the opportunity of dealing with what he said. The hon. Member made great play of the fact that his mail in South Worcestershire was delayed because of, among other things, transport difficulties and the conditions in other nationalised industries.
  I should like to disabuse the hon. Member on that matter. It is not the case. I can quote to him many instances in which mail sent from the Ministry of Transport, which is situated in the S.E.1 district just across the bridge from the House of Commons, travelling by first-class mail, takes three days to get here. I could quote dozens of cases—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will remember that I prevented the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) discussing the merits of the problem which he wished to examine in detail on the Floor of the House. It is a matter of whether he could ask a Question on the floor, which is what the new Clause is about.
  Mr. Lewis: I was not seeking to go into detail on the merits of the matter, as did the hon. Member, but was quoting one or two examples. I was explaining how and why there is the necessity to have the power to question.
  I sought to give an illustration that, within the London boroughs in general, it has taken three to four days for urgent mail to be sent from one London borough to another. I was going on to explain that when one takes these matters up with the Minister, there is then a further delay of three or four weeks before one gets an answer from him. One is then compelled to put down a Question, which at least one now has the opportunity to do.
  I am in favour of the principle behind the new Clause. It is better than nothing and I should like to see it accepted. But I should like to see the Amendment contain a good deal more than it does. If the Amendment is carried we would be able to put down Questions, but it does not deal with the point—
  Sir G. Nabarro: It would not leave us as we are at present. If the new Clause were accepted, it would exclude day-to-day administration, on which we are now allowed to ask Questions in relation to the Post Office.
  Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member as always is somewhat impetuous. I was going on to explain that, although theoretically we can raise day-to-day matters, what in reality happens is this. The Question is asked and the Minister omits to do anything about it, except to say either that the hon. Member in question is wrong, or that the Minister has received a letter and, after a wait of three or four weeks, that letter is sent. But when the letter is received, it does not contain an adequate reply. The Minister then says "The mail was delayed for three or four days"—and conveniently overlooks the fact that he has taken three or four weeks to tell the
  1348
  hon. Member. Even with the chance of questioning, one does not have much opportunity of doing anything about it.
  There is a continual taking away, not of the power of hon. Members—hon. Members do not have much power—but of our limited opportunities of raising issues. I hope that the Minister will go a little further and say that, while he accepts the principle of the Clause, he will take the necessary action in another place so that we may continue to have the opportunity of raising issues, including matters of day-to-day administration.
  The question of the postal service has been mentioned. I could refer to the telephone service, telegrams and other services which, generally, the Post Office run very well. Even with the opportunity of putting simple Questions in the House, we do not always get reasonable replies. What will happen when we have to approach the boss of the Post Office, who, I assume, will want £40,000 a year because Lord Melchett is to receive an increase in salary? Will he answer letters more promptly than the Postmaster-General?
  I have been waiting a fortnight or three weeks for replies to a whole batch of letters which I have sent to my right hon. Friend about delays in mail sent from S.E.1 to S.W.1. I have tabled Questions. I have had no satisfaction. If that is the position now, what will happen when I try to take up matters with the new boss of the Post Office? Reference has been made to Aubrey Jones. I cannot be held responsible for the fact that, as usual, a Tory has been appointed to the job he does.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not see any reference to Aubrey Jones in the new Clause.
  Mr. Lewis: If I write to Aubrey Jones, knowing that he is getting £20,000 a year, and he does not send me a reply for three or four weeks, I might wish to table a Question asking why this good, ex-Tory receiving £20,000 or £30,000—the amount seems to change every day—does not have the decency to send me a printed acknowledgment card. At the moment, I can table a Question asking why I have not had the courtesy of an acknowledgment. At present, I can table a Question asking my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General why I am

  1349
  still awaiting, after three weeks, a reply to my queries about delays in the postal services. I will not get very far, but at least I can table a Question. I can even raise the matter with the Prime Minister. Again, I will not get very far because he will refer it back to the Postmaster-General, and then I am back where I started.
  I shudder to think what will happen when this chap—for want of a better name I will call him Aubrey Jones—
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: A Melchett.
  Mr. Lewis: He might be a Melchett.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Or a Robens.
  Mr. Lewis: Or a Robens.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no point in bandying names about. We are debating a new Clause.
  Mr. Lewis: Let me refer to them as these hard pressed, underpaid, overworked chairmen; that takes in all of them.
  When I write to this chap, whatever he might be called, he will have a big staff and all the secretarial assistance he needs. Perhaps he will be a little backward in dealing with my correspondence. I deal with my mail by return of post. I have to write to my constituents and say, "If there is delay in dealing with this important matter, I want you to know that it is not my fault. I cannot get a reply from the Minister". If I cannot get a Ministerial reply, I can table a Question. But unless something like the new Clause is accepted I will not be able to table a Question to the Postmaster-General. That is not progress.
  I joined the Labour Party on the first day that I started in business. I have been an active member of the Labour, trade union and Co-operative movements all my working life. I thought that this Government would introduce progressive measures.
  Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: You did not!
  Mr. Speaker: The biography of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and his disappointment with the Government's programme are not matters for this debate.
  Mr. Lewis: I think that you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that if this proposal is accepted I could table Questions to the Postmaster-General. Alternatively, I could put a letter in the post to him giving all these biographical details and asking whether he is aware that it is important that he should bear certain matters in mind. But, if my right hon. Friend has his way, I shall be precluded by the Bill from putting Questions to him.
  I thought that one of our objectives was to achieve more public accountability. We never argue about the principle of greater public accountability. All that we argue about is the means and method of achieving it. We may argue about whether an undertaking should be nationalised. We have always agreed that we should have the opportunity to discuss these matters. The late Herbert Morrison, who never wished to hamstring the nationalised industries, went to the extent of saying that we should have the opportunity of questioning Ministers, but not on day-to-day activities. Many of us disagreed with him at that time. I think that many of us still disagree with him. We should like to see the principle extended to include discussions of day-to-day activities.
  I accept the principle of the new Clause. But it does not go far enough. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) always wishes to be helpful to the Government and to help them to make progress with their business. Therefore, perhaps he would shorten the debate by agreeing with me that if the Minister were to intervene to say that he accepts the principle and will introduce in another place that which we wish to see—namely, the new Clause plus—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wished to see that he should have tabled an Amendment. He can discreetly mention his hopes about an Amendment, but we are not debating an Amendment to delete the last few lines of the Clause.
  Mr. Lewis: I was about to say that if the Postmaster-General would intervene to say that he accepts the principle of the Clause my hon. Friend the Member for Putney might be willing not to press it to a Division.
  11.0 a.m.
  Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. I am in considerable doubt about two of your Rulings, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can clarify them. As I understand, we are now engaged on a Second Reading debate of a new Clause. In a Second Reading debate it is my understanding that we can refer to what is not contained in the Clause as well as what is contained in it. Have not both the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and I been seeking to refer certain factors which were not included in the form of words in the new Clause? Is it not in order to refer to points not contained in the new Clause?
  Mr. Speaker: Yes. The hon. Member will remember that I did not intervene when he was raising that kind of point. All that I have been dealing with is a procedural point. There is no Amendment on the Notice Paper to delete the words
  "other than those of day to day administration."
  I said that such an Amendment can be referred to but that we cannot deal with it procedurally.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: I forgot where I had got to.
  Mr. Mikardo: Start again!
  Mr. Lewis: I think that I was saying that if my hon. Friend could obtain an assurance, perhaps going even as far as such an Amendment would go, it would help me. That does not transgress the rules of order. If my hon. Friend or the Minister were to say that he accepted the principle of my argument and would try to do something in another place we could save a lot of Government time.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I am very ready to accept my hon. Friend's invitation. If, in his reply, my right hon. Friend will say that he accepts the principle of the new Clause I shall certainly ask the leave of the House to withdraw it. It might even be that my right hon. Friend could go further.
  Mr. Lewis: That helps me a lot. I was rather worried about the situation, because I never like voting against my Government, or abstaining. I do not like voting against them when they are doing
  1352
  progressive things, as they have been and are doing, and if my right hon. Friend can give such an undertaking it will take a load off my mind. At the moment, however, reluctantly as I would do so, I would have to support the Clause. I hope that my right hon. Friend will seek to intervene in order to curtail this discussion—it appears that he will not. We shall have to try to give him a further opportunity—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, you have called me to order on many occasions, as other Speakers have done, saying that we should not have committee meetings in the House.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I was seeking to protect the hon. Member.
  Mr. Lewis: My right hon. Friend now seems to be getting the necessary information—the evidence which we have already. He seems to be getting it from his boss. He may not know that the evidence is available. At any time now we shall find that the Post Office—late, as is now usual—has supplied him with the information that we all have.
  There are many occasions when we should like to raise, by means of Question and Answer, matters concerning telephones, telegrams, delays in the mail and broken parcels. In the past we have had an opportunity of doing this, limited though the opportunity has been. Hon. Members are jealous of their reputation for telling their constituents, "In the last resort, if we cannot resolve this problem with the Minister we give you an assurance that we shall raise the matter in the House of Commons. We shall put down a Question to the Minister concerned."
  When we say this we have two purposes—first, to show the Minister that there is a need for action to be taken, and, secondly, to show the constituent—and that is more important—that we are acting on his behalf.
  This is a vital privilege, which most of our constituents, irrespective of party—whether or not they vote at all—cherish. This privilege means that Bill Smith, or John Brown—or George Brown—can ask Questions of Ministers, through his elected representative, and

  1353
  be able to feel that the Minister is personally acquainted with the circumstances. Even if an unsatisfactory Answer is given an hon. Member knows that his constituent will usually say, "I am very pleased that you raised this matter with the Minister. Although there has been a dusty reply I am happy that the matter has been raised."
  Mr. Costain: Has the hon. Gentleman also considered that Questions give a Minister the opportunity to know what is going on in his own Department? Does he recall that I intervened yesterday and said that the Estimates Committee—on which both the hon. Member and I sit—was given information about the cost of issuing a radio licence, and that the Minister contradicted what I said? It seems that the Minister does not know what his Department is doing because, having checked my information, I find that it was correct and the Minister's was not.
  Mr. Lewis: I intervene in the hon. Member's interjection because I saw that Mr. Speaker was about to rise and I thought that he was going to say that it was a long interjection. It was the sort of thing that the hon. Member could have said by way of a speech.
  I was here last night when the occurrence referred to by the hon. Member took place. I am also a member of the Estimates Committee. It is true that the point raised by the hon. Member is relevant to the new Clause. If, as was the case, the Minister inadvertently—perhaps by a slip of the tongue—gave the House the wrong information—
  Mr. Stonehouse indicated dissent.
  Mr. Lewis: My right hon. Friend shakes his head. The Estimates Committee was told officially by the Post Office that the cost was a sum completely different from what my right hon. Friend said it was last night. He can sort it out with his official advisers. Either they are wrong or he is wrong. Probably, as my right hon. Friend spoke off the cuff, he made a slip.
  If an hon. Member wanted to question the Minister about the point that has just been referred to he could put down a Question asking why, last night, my right hon. Friend said that it costs 7s. 6d.—I am sorry, that is for a dog licence.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member need not put down his Question at this moment.
  Mr. Lewis: I was about to explain that the Minister made a statement which was completely contrary to that which had been made to the Estimates Committee concerning the cost of servicing and collecting licences in the Post Office. It appears that one licence when written out, saying "dog" costs X shillings and another licence, when written out, saying "wireless" costs ten X shillings. We could not understand why it should cost ten times as much to write two extra letters.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot go over last night's debate. The question is whether Ministers should be subject to Questions in the House. The hon. Member must come back to the terms of the Clause.
  Mr. Lewis: I agree, Mr. Speaker. I did not want to go over last night's debate. I wanted to make the point, however, that the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) is relevant to the Clause. We can ask my right hon. Friend a Question on this issue at the moment, but unless we accept the new Clause or something similar we shall not be able to ask such a Question in future. Why should it cost ten times as much to issue a television licence as it does to issue a dog licence?
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not repeat his point.
  Mr. Lewis: I think that this is the first time that I have mentioned the cost, Mr. Speaker. We can now put these Questions down but unless the new Clause is accepted, we shall not be able to.
  Suppose that an old-age pensioner or a widow in my constituency went to draw her pension from the Post Office, where, despite the normal kindness and great courtesy of the staff, an employee was accidentally rude. I might think that, while the incident is fresh in the minds of those concerned, I would put down a Question to get the matter settled quickly. That would relieve my constituent, because, in two or three days, she would have an answer or even an apology. Then she would not be upset for weeks.
  Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend must know that the easiest way to deal with

  1355
  that sort of problem is to telephone his local head postmaster, who will give him an answer which he can transmit immediately to his constituent. He will also know that the most detailed inquiries will be made to put his mind at rest and that raising the matter in the House without any previous inquiry is to the detriment of the Post Office counter clerk who might have been involved.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Interventions must be brief.
  Mr. Lewis: I thank my hon. Friend. He is partially right.
  That would be the best method in most cases, but there might be only one occasion when the aggrieved person and I would rather a Question was asked. I am sometimes accused of being awkward, which I am not, but I want to put down a Question and I do not want to the Minister or the Whips to tell me that I may not. Only the Clerks or Mr. Speaker could say that, and then only if the Question were out of Order. I am sure that the Table would help me so that I would eventually get the Question down.
  Without the new Clause, I could not do that. I am interested in having a go at the Executive and its representatives. If I am wrong, I do not mind being slapped down by the Minister. My constituent would know that the matter had been raised in the House and, if the information given was wrong, could discuss it with me.
  This is a vital principle. We lose so many opportunities because Ministers say that things are not their responsibility and refer us to high-falutin civil servants. I resent having to ask my Questions of civil servants. I can do that now and could do so under the Bill, but I object to being deprived of the opportunity of putting a Question. My hon. Friend is right: I might be able to contact this civil servant by telephone and that, with kindness and courtesy, he might put it right. But he might not and I would then be able to come back in the House.
  11.15 a.m.
  Mr. Walter Clegg: I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman's speech, but he is talking about being able to raise the matter in the House. Is it any
  1356
  solution, does he think, that he can now go to the Post Office Users' Consultative Committee?
  Mr. Lewis: That is a new line of thought which I had not considered. No doubt these admirable bodies are helpful and to some extent successful, but even if things were satisfactory in 99 cases out of 100, they might not be in the one case, and I want to be able to have a go at the Postmaster-General in the House. That is not a good alternative, though it might be a good addition.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, although the experience of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) might be splendid for him, it certainly is not suitable for Glasgow, since because of the great difficulties of S.T.D., it is quicker to put down a Question than to be connected to Glasgow?
  Mr. Lewis: I do not have the worry of telephoning Glasgow, so I cannot confirm or deny that. I take the hon. Member's point, although he is probably exaggerating a little, as some Tories do. But he should still have the right to ask a Question if he feels that that is a more satisfactory method than telephoning, going to the chief executive officer, or seeing the Postmaster-General. I am concerned not with the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) personally, but for his constituents. If they ask him to table a Question what is his reaction now?
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I do so.
  Mr. Lewis: I said that I was not concerned with the hon. Gentleman personally. A number of his hon. Friends, however, would not be prepared to table such a Question if a Tory Government were in power and they thought that the Question might embarrass them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shocking."] If my constituents ask me to put a Question I do so, as long as it is in order. Although I can probably anticipate the reply correctly, it often gives one's constituents a feeling of satisfaction to have a matter aired in the House.
  Mr. Hay: The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to the possibility of telephoning or otherwise communicating with civil servants to obtain replies. Is he aware of

  1357
  the long-standing convention that an hon. Member does not normally communicate with a civil servcant and that if, by accident or design, he does, convention requires the Minister responsible for the civil servant's activities to at once be informed; and the Minister would normally reply himself? This is relevant to the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol, North East (Mr. Dobson).
  Mr. Lewis: I am aware of that custom, but it is not strictly relevant to the point I am making, which is that however courteous and helpful civil servants may be—with one or two exceptions they are extremely helpful; I have always found the Postmaster-General's private secretary kind, courteous and helpful on all matters—they have not been unable to give satisfactory answers because they have not been in a position to give them. That is why I have raised matters in the House, normally through Questions.
  If the Bill becomes law unamended I may not have that recourse. I am nowable to say, because of Ministerial responsibility, to the Postmaster-General, "You are getting nearly £10,000 a year and I want you to look into this matter. I do not want you to pass it on to somebody who is earning £15,000 or £20,000 a year. This is your job." If my right hon. Friend's Answers do not satisfy me I can, if I am lucky in the Ballot, raise the matter in the House in an Adjournment debate.
  With the establishment of a corporation and board for the Post Office and with a decline in Ministerial responsibility, will that course still be open to me? I doubt it. The same can be said of other industries. For example, if one wanted to question the desire of Lord Melchett to increase the price of steel—which, understand, was one of the facets of his reappointment—I do not think that one would be entitled to do that in an Adjournment debate.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North East (Mr. Dobson) said that it would be better to write to the local head postmaster than to table a Question? What will be the position if we lost Parliarmentary accountability for the Post Office?
  Mr. Lewis: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North East, being so much more able than any hon. Gentleman opposite, would no doubt pick up the telephone and settle the problem in a matter of minutes. He does not have the antediluvian approach of the Tories.
  I have no doubt that in nine cases out of 10 hon. Members will have their problems resolved. I am worried about the tenth case. If we do not get satisfaction by writing or telephoning—the latter being the modern, technological approach which my hon. Friends use—what will be the result? Does the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) at present spend six weeks writing and waiting for replies before deciding to raise a matter in the House? Even if he does, will he be able to raise it in the House when the Post Office is a corporation? These are important questions which my right hon. Friend must answer.
  As hon. Gentlemen opposite clamour for cuts in public expenditure—they never specify where the cuts should be made; indeed, they are always calling for increased expenditure—I suppose that they would support the Bill if it resulted in reduced Government expenditure. But I would not support it if it meant hon. Members being precluded from raising matters affecting the Post Office in the House. On the other hand, I would support cuts in arms and the Armed Forces.
  I cannot see that it would cost more. The very able, capable, overworked, underpaid learned Clerks would not charge extra because I put down a Question about the Post Office. I am sure that Mr. Speaker, after seeing that the Question was in order, would not ask for more money. I am sure my right hon. Friend would not say, "I want double rate for answering Questions." I hope that the able, courteous, efficient Private Secretary who had prepared the Answer for my right hon. Friend, would not say, "P.M.G., I have the Answer to this awkward Member's Question and I want an extra couple of pounds because I have supplied the Answer." I do not think it would cost the Treasury more. Even backwoodsmen of the Tory Party should not be against this proposal because it

  1359
  would not involve an increase in Government expenditure.
  11.30 a.m.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: My hon. Friend would be wrong to suggest that the Opposition would oppose the new Clause. I hope that he will not drive hon. Members opposite into opposing by the suggestion that they are likely to oppose. If my right hon. Friend does not accept the Clause as I still hope and believe he will do, being convinced by the debate, I believe that many hon. Members opposite will go into the Lobby in its support. I hope, however, that my right hon. Friend will make that unnecessary.
  Mr. Lewis: Far be it from me to say anything which would in any way influence hon. Members opposite about the way in which they should vote. Certainly, the hon. Member for Yeovil would not be persuaded to stay out of the Division Lobby because I was there. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), if he knew that I was to be there, would be encouraged to vote with me. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) is chuckling and not even listening to the debate. I am sure that if he felt this was a question of upholding Parliamentary rights against the Executive, even though I might be in the Division Lobby, he would support me. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Putney need worry about this.
  Mr. Peyton: The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is being altogether too modest. I assure him that I would welcome the opportunity of his company in the Lobby. I propose to enjoy it if the right hon. Gentleman does not give way. The hon. Member was also a little modest when he suggested that someone in Whitehall might describe him as "this awkward Member". He might be described by that person in more colourful terms.
  Mr. Lewis: We might be able to debate that matter on a subsequent Clause. I do not think it will be in order to do so on this one. I am pleased—indeed I have no doubt—to know that the hon. Member for Yeovil would follow me into the Division Lobby in asserting the rights of Parliament.
  Mr. Ridley: I wanted to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) earlier, and now I come to the head of the queue. I wished to warn him that he was on dangerous ground when he suggested that the Minister might demand more money for answering Questions. Mr. Aubrey Jones suggested that teachers should get more money for doing more teaching. If the idea got around in Whitehall that Ministers could increase their activity and thereby their salaries, there would be no end to Government expenditure.
  Mr. Lewis: I could develop this. The question of whether we have more Questions is relevant. So also is the question of whether extra money should be paid. What about hon. Members getting more money for asking more Questions? That would help me. I may be at the top of the list.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Oh, no.
  Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member for Worcestershire, South and I may be running neck and neck, but my neck is a little longer than his and I think that I would probably be there.
  I am not joking when I say that many in official Government circles from Ministers downwards, or civil servants upwards—I do not know in which way we should put the order—resent hon. Members asking Questions. They consider that they can be awkward and difficult. I remember when a new Minister came to the Box for the first time to answer Questions. He had not been schooled in answering Questions and the Answer he had been given to read had typed on it supplementary questions which might be asked. That was to help him to be prepared for the sort of thing that might be asked. In his inexperience, after reading the main Answer, he went on to read the supplementary questions, one of which suggested, "You have to be careful how you answer the so-and-so Member, because he is a so-and-so nuisance."
  This could not happen with reference to the Post Office, but we know that there are people in the Departments who would love to have the opportunity of stopping hon. Members asking Quetions. This has happened in a number of instances. Minister's lives would be much happier if they knew that they did not have to answer Questions and did not have to

  1361
  come here every five or six weeks to be fired at. We must stop this attempt to preclude hon. Members from asking Questions. I am not concerned about whether a Question is good or bad, or should or should not be asked, or whether an hon. Member has gone through the channels suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) is a very active Member. He has done much over the years for his constituents. He and I have asked Questions about South Ockendon Hospital. I shall not go into that matter because an inquiry is pending, but I know that my hon. Friend's constituents are happy that he has raised it.
  I am sure that if Mrs. Smith—Mrs. Arthur Smith, not Mrs. John Smith—loses a parcel at Christmas time she would like to know that an hon. Member at her request could raise the issue and get an explanation from the Postmaster-General. I emphasise that these small things do matter.
  Mr. James Dance: To emphasise what the hon. Member has said, I can relate what happened about two parcels which were sent to my children before Christmas. One of them arrived at the end of March and one in April. One contained a box of liqueur chocolates and was badly damaged. I have taken this matter up by letter, but have not been able to get any satisfaction yet. It might have helped if I had raised it by a Question on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Lewis: I was about to say that the hon. Member should not make a dance about it on the Floor of the House.
  The hon. Gentleman underlines what I said earlier. He mentioned his parcel. I mentioned something more ludicrous than that. If he had come in earlier he would have heard about it. For instance, an air mail letter from America took three days to get from New York to London. It also took three days for a post-card to get from the Ministry of Transport at Southwark Bridge to the House of Commons at Westminster Bridge—by first class mail. That was from one Minister's Department to another. I do not know who will claim
  1362
  to be worse off—possibly the hon. Gentleman, because he could not suck his liqueurs.
  I agree that we ought to raise these matters on the Floor of the House. If there is neglect or something wrong it should be looked at immediately.
  The point of a Question is to raise a matter immediately. If a matter is raised two or three days afterwards, let alone two or three weeks afterwards, the issue becomes rather involved, probably bogged down a bit, and people forget. It is not a good thing to allow a long time to elapse before preparing the Answer to a Question. We know that a Question can be put down literally within a few hours of an incident occurring. Phones ring, the Department gets moving, and everyone is on the Q.V. to say, "This Question has to be answered. Get cracking. What is it all about?". Everyone is alive to the issue, the whole thing is looked at, and we get fresh information about what is happening.
  If the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance) goes through the procedure which he has mentioned, no doubt his liqueurs will have deteriorated even more by the time he gets an acknowledgment, or there will be no liqueur in the chocolates by the time he gets them.
  Mr. Speed: Is there not a danger that people listening to the debate will think that the Postmaster-General is concerned purely with delays in the delivery of letters and parcels? These are important matters, but there are other matters affecting the community which can be of great importance to rural districts, such as the provision of telephone kiosks and sub-post offices which may affect thousands of people. This is an important point, but I do not think that we should concentrate the whole time on the shortcomings in the postal system. There is a constructive side as well.
  Mr. Lewis: I agree. But the hon. Member for Meriden (Mr. Speed) has not been here the whole time. He has only just come in. I accept that he has not been here for very good reasons. I had only just started to explain when I got on to the postal service. I was intending to deal with the question of telephone kiosks in particular.

  1363
  In my constituency there are a lot of rather hot-headed young boys, and probably girls as well. Some people call them hooligans, some call them louts and others call them villains. I will be kind, as usual, and say that they are rather a hotheaded group of people. Unfortunately, they go around persistently smashing up telephone kiosks. Whole areas in my constituency have been reported to the G.P.O. where the phones are out of order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. We are not discussing the efficiency of the Post Office on the new Clause. It will be in order for the hon. Member to make incidental references to reasons why Questions should be addressed to Ministers.
  Mr. Lewis: I was about to use this as an illustration, besides postal services, which does not affect efficiency. I am not on efficiency.
  11.45 a.m.
  Some of these telephone kiosks have been so badly damaged that they are not in existence now. If I raise matters like this in correspondence and I do not get satisfaction I can raise them by Questions. I may get Ministerial replies which repeat a written explanation that I have already received which may not satisfy either my constituents or myself.
  By raising matters on the Floor of the House two things happen at the moment. First, which is vital and important, my constituents feel happier and more satisfied. Secondly, thanks to the Press of this country, to which we all pay tribute, there may be publication of them in the Press. Then Mrs. Smith—I apologise to the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. John Smith) for continually taking his name. Perhaps I should say Mrs. Brown. She will see in the local paper or in the national Press that the hon. Member for West Ham, North has raised a Question and that the Postmaster-General in his reply has said X.Y.Z. She immediately says, "That is not true. I can produce evidence, because I was present. This is not in accordance with the facts."
  Mrs. Brown then writes to her Member and gives him new information. He is then able, with the additional information,
  1364
  probably to negative the Answer given by the Postmaster-General. I have not said a word against my right hon. Friend yet, and I will not do so now. Being a good Postmaster-General he will say, "I appreciate that the hon. Member has this new information. Had I known about it earlier I would have given a different Answer". So he will probably completely change the negative reply that he had previously given, both in writing and orally, and he will say to the Member, "Thank you for raising the Question. I now have this new information. I will completely change my approach to the matter".
  That situation would arise because Mrs. Smith was responsible for letting her Member know—[Interruption.] Perhaps I should have said Mrs. Brown.
  Sir D. Glover: Why not Mrs. Lewis.
  Mr. Lewis: Mrs. Lewis never complains about anything. That is quite right because she has no need or cause for complaint. I do not often get complaints from her. I apologise for continually bringing the hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster into the debate. I know that he will probably wish to contribute and help us. I should not like him to think that Mrs. Smith has shifted from the City of Westminster to West Ham. I can assure him that there are other Mrs. Smiths.
  Mr. John Smith: Actually, I do not know where Mrs. Smith is at the moment.
  Mr. Lewis: There are other Mrs. Smiths. I can assure the hon. Gentleman it is another Mrs. Smith, not the Mrs. Smith, to whom I was referring. I see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you probably do not want me to develop this point about Mrs. Smith, because we are debating the rights of Members to raise Questions.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor rose—
  Mr. Lewis: I was about to leave this aspect and get on to another. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not delay me.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions prolong speeches. Debate on

  1365
  Report is much more formal than in Committee.
  Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does not the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) agree that the question of telephone kiosk vandalism is an excellent example of the importance of Parliamentary Questions? The new and sustained and vigorous action by the Post Office in introducing new materials less susceptible to vandalism followed a sustained Parliamentary campaign in which the hon. Gentleman and others played an honourable part.
  Mr. Lewis: I agree with the hon. Gentleman but I thought that I had already made that point. I hope that I do not have to start again. I have pointed out that there is need to raise such matters in the House but I do not want to go into too much detail on it.
  Even more important is the fact that hundreds of thousands of people—certainly many in my constituency—rightly or wrongly get annoyed about television reception. I cannot understand it because I rarely watch television and cannot see what they get excited about. But, next to having a good roof over their heads, my constituents want a good television and good reception of the picture. They like to listen to the party political broadcasts in which the Government can tell them what excellent work they are doing. They want to get all the channels perfectly.
  But often, for some unexplained reason, reception goes wrong and my constituents then write to me. Now, I can raise the matter with the G.P.O., which has a section dealing with the reception of television programmes. I am sure that the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe will support me when I pay tribute to the excellent work the B.B.C. is doing about this because he and I saw it yesterday.
  I see that you are rising to your feet, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am trying to explain that this is a question of whether we can raise Questions in this House on the matter. I must not refer to advice which you may give, but in case you may be thinking that this is not relevant, I would point out that it is relevant to my constituents who are anxious to get good television pictures. They may feel that there is something wrong with the
  1366
  service and the way in which the B.B.C. is dealing with the channels and the rest of it. They may raise these matters with me, and I know that, if I want to maintain my slender majority I must deal with these complaints immediately.
  It is no good my telling a complainant that I shall write to the Postmaster-General or to the Director-General of the B.B.C. or someone else, because he will say, "That will take too long. I want my television picture." I can now put down a Question asking for the matter to be investigated. The hon. Baronet the Member for Worcestershire, South—
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am not an hon. Baronet.
  Mr. Lewis: The hon. Gentleman will be able to get in.
  Sir G. Nabarro rose—
  Mr. Lewis: I am not backward in giving way but the hon. Gentleman is always on television.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss the question of television too widely.
  Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When Mr. Deputy Speaker is on his feet hon. Members must not interrupt.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I rose when you resumed your seat, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was on my feet when the hon. Gentleman tried to intervene.
  Sir G. Nabarro: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was a split second. I was a little premature and apologise and withdraw absolutely for being a split second too far forward.
  On a point of order. You have ruled on television. The evasion of the payment of television licences is a major and national scandal. It is also properly a topic for Parliamentary Questions. If the Bill goes through in its present form, I could be excluded from asking such Parliamentary Questions. This is a major national scandal. What I want to put to you in connection with your earlier Ruling, to which I listened carefully, is that I hope that you will exclude from it a

  1367
  full debate this morning on the admissibility of Parliamentary Questions on this specialised topic of evasion of payment of television licences, which costs the taxpayer £10·3 million last year.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Any hon. Member in this debate is in order in making incidental reference to any matters which are the responsibility of the Minister but it is not permissible on the Second Reading of this new Clause to go too wide and into too much detail on questions of Ministerial responsibility.
  Mr. Lewis: I am obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South always does this. He comes in and then starts to take away the points which I have in my notes. I have told him that already. I was just coming to the point he has raised with you. I had only just started on the subject of television.
  I was saying that the hon. Member is always on television. Supposing Mrs. Smith—I am sorry that she comes into it again—objects to always seeing this walrus-moustached Member on her television. Supposing she says, as she could, "Will you do something to get this man off television?".
  Mr. Clegg: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have just heard the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) refer to a Member with a walrus moustache. It is not a walrus moustache. It turns up, not down.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Lewis: I never named an hon. Member. I referred to a walrus-moustached Member. I am not necessarily saying that the moustache is walrused—I do not know—but the hon. Member may be on television and my constituent may ask me to raise it as a Question in the House. She may say, "I do not want you to write to the Postmaster-General. I want you to raise it by a Question in the House". At the moment, I can put a Question down and raise the matter in the House, and if I do not get a satisfactory reply I can raise it on the Adjournment. Without new Clause 6, I shall not be able to do that in future.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: There is nothing in the Bill that would prevent my hon. Friend from dealing with such a point, because it makes not the slightest difference in relation to television, which is not one of the functions transferred to the new Corporation. The residual Minister will still be responsible, as the Postmaster-General is now, for answering Questions on the subject.
  12 noon.
  Mr. Lewis: But there is the question whether programmes are obscene or offensive. The Postmaster-General helps on this matter. My hon. Friend, who has an honourable association with Equity, would not agree to there being obscene plays. Nor would I. A constituent might ask me to raise the matter by asking a Question. I am never backward in coming forward with Questions.
  Mr. Bryan: To what extent does the hon. Gentleman think that he should be able to ask Questions about the quality and content of programmes?
  Mr. Lewis: I gather it is suggested that we should have the opportunity of raising the question of the content and quality of programmes, but Mr. Deputy Speaker might rule that such a question would not be in order in the debate on this Clause. At the moment I could ask the Postmaster-General to deal with a Question affecting the quality or type of a programme and to take action to bring this within his ambit so that I could continue asking Questions. I shall not be able to do so in future if the Clause is not accepted.
  On previous occasions I have raised the question of tax evasion—I forget in precisely what respect!
  Captain Orr: Deal with it now.
  Mr. Lewis: It is suggested that I should deal now with the question of road fund licence evasion. I am not sure that I cannot deal with it and remain in order, because the Postmaster-General has something to do with this. At his offices all over the country motorists can pay a fee and collect a road fund licence. I might want to ask a Question as to why greater facilities are not provided for backward motorists to pay their road fund licence fees. I might want to ask how much revenue has been obtained in

  1369
  road fund licence fees compared with various previous periods. The Department gets a commission on the money taken. I might want to point out that, as about 25 per cent. of motorists do not pay their licence fees, the Department's receipts could be increased if my right hon. Friend would work in conjunction with the appropriate authorities to ensure that all revenue due in this respect was collected. I could ask my right hon. Friend whether he was aware that the evasion of television licence fees to the tune of £10 million was infinitesimal compared with the hundreds of millions of £s lost through motorists not paying road fund licence fees.
  Sir G. Nabarro: No.
  Mr. Lewis: Yes. At £300 to £400 per lorry, not many lorries are needed to make an enormous sum, especially when they are in arrears for 10 years.
  On the question of the evasion of television licence fees, at the moment the Postmaster-General sends vans around to detect evasion. I do not know how many vans there are at the moment. I am not sure how much at the last count—[Interruption.] I wish the hon. Gentleman would not think that he was at Epsom Racecourse. We shall get to it in the end. I may take a little time, but there is time.
  These vans are resulting in extra licence money being secured, but I do not know how much. If I want to get the latest figure—say up to the end of last year—I only have to table a Question to the Postmaster-General. He will tell me how many vans there are, how many workers are engaged on this operation, how much tax evasion has been prevented, how much it has cost to get the revenue in, whether there is a profit to his Department, and whether there is a profit to the Treasury.
  Unless the new Clause is accepted, I shall not be able to table such a Question in future. More important still, at the moment such a Question would enable me to raise the matter on the Adjournment, subject to Mr. Speaker and the Ballot permitting. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I see that you are about to rise, probably to say that this is not in order. I submit that it is.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I was just thinking that it is repetition, because
  1370
  the hon. Gentleman has already referred to the question of an Adjournment.
  Mr. Lewis: But not on the question of television licence fee evasion. Although the question of telephones and post offices was important, this matter is even more important. Telephones affect only those who have them; they affect almost everyone. In my constituency televisions are even more important than telephones, because, strange to say, all my constituents have televisions. Unless the Clause is accepted, not only shall I be debarred from asking my Question, but I shall be deprived of the right of having an Adjournment debate on the question of television licence fee evasion.
  I could not raise the matter, but would say, "Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I will take the first opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment." I would be precluded from the opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
  Another aspect is the question of colour television.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: Has the hon. Member considered whether it might be possible for somebody other than the new Post Office to collect television licences? If the new Clause is defeated, it would not be possible to raise consideration of that matter in the Commons.
  Mr. Lewis: I must think the matter out as I go along, and no doubt it will be said that this is out of order. If I were to begin to explain that probably television licence fees should be dealt with by local authorities that would probably not be relevant to the new Clause. Furthermore, Mr. Deputy Speaker might say that it would not be in order to put an alternative method of drawing in television revenue or to stop evasion.
  Captain Orr: The hon. Member is doing himself an injustice. In pursuing that matter he would be in order since we are discussing accountability.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not tempt the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).
  Sir G. Nabarro: As the House is aware, the cost of a colour television licence is £11, which is collected by the General Post Office. At present, by the rules of the

  1371
  House we can ask Parliamentary Questions on colour television and the cost of a licence for it. Is it not in order in the debate to talk about the amount of the colour television licence, the admissibility of Questions, and all the technical considerations associated with colour television, since colour television will be ubiquitous within 12 to 18 months in the United Kingdom? As this matter would not be covered from the point of view of a Question if the Bill goes through as at present drafted, then surely we should be able to talk at length and in detail about every aspect of colour television.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker has already ruled that it would not be in order to discuss the merits of the television licence. It would be in order, as the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) is doing, to draw attention to the asking of Questions of the Postmaster-General.
  Mr. Lewis: As I correctly guessed, my remarks were in order, as has been confirmed. I can touch on the matter, but will not go into detail.
  I said that I would touch upon the matter of colour television. I have a few constituents who can afford colour television. The licence fee is somewhat excessive for them, on top of the cost of the set. I know that I cannot argue whether that is too much or too little since it is not dealt with within the new Clause, and the Postmaster-General is not ministerially responsible since he acts only as agent for the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  I can argue whether or not hon. Members should be able to ask Questions on the facilities which the Minister gives to my constituents to pay the fee, whether there are adequate facilities for collecting the licence fee, and so on. I can raise such a matter in correspondence or subsequently by Question, but if the Bill goes through unamended, and the new Clause is not accepted, I will be unable to ask a Question on the Floor of the House or in writing.
  12.15 p.m.
  Sir D. Glover: The hon. Member is now obviously one of the greatest experts on the Post Office in the House. We listen with great interest to what he
  1372
  is saying. So far, he has not mentioned telegrams and the telegraphic service, which is a subject upon which hon. Members ask the Minister more Questions than anything else.
  Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member must have been engaged on his correspondence or on extra-mural activities, for he could not have been here when we started the debate. I then dealt with the point mentioned by the hon. Member. I am sure that it would not be the wish of the House that I should go back to deal with that particular subject, because I have one or two other important matters to deal with.
  Mr. Dudley Smith rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that we are debating the Report stage of the Bill, which is more formal than a Committee stage. Since interventions prolong speeches, interventions are not greatly welcomed.
  Sir D. Glover: In fact, we are on the Second Reading of new Clause 6.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are on the Report stage.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: I apologise for not being here for the first half hour of the hon. Member's speech since I was upstairs in Committee. I have listened with great interest to the examples he has deployed, and I hope that he will go on doing so. Does he realise that there is important political aspect to the new Clause over and above the interests of constituents? Ministerial reputations are often made or broken at the Dispatch Box at Question Time. It is important, if we wish to have the most able Ministers, that they should be able to answer at the Dispatch Box at Question Time. The more restrictions there are of this type, the less will be the opportunity for Ministers to answer Parliamentary Questions. It so happens that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions ought to be brief.
  Mr. Lewis: The hon. Member has answered his own point. He said that he was not here for the first half hour of this debate. I wish that he had been. He would have heard me dealing with the point that, fortunately, we now have very

  1373
  good Ministers who do not have to be criticised. During the years of the Tory Government there were many criticisms of Ministers. Since this will not be necessary for many years to come, it is a trivial point.
  The point with which I wish to deal is of more substance and affects many important people. I understand that there is a grievance by Post Office engineering staffs, who claim that if they are taken over because of the provisions of the Bill their pension rights will be adversely affected. They will have less opportunity to deal with their pensions. Such people, who have given a lifetime of service, are drawing towards retirement age, having kept themselves in a rather low-paid job when they could have gone out into other industries and obtained better wages and conditions. They have probably hung on in the expectation of a good pension, but they now find that they will lose the opportunity of taking pension at 60 and have to go on to the age of 65. This is wrong.
  The Post Office Engineering Union, which is a very good union and does an excellent job, has circulated every hon. Member. If hon. Gentlemen look in their post they will find enough information to enable them to help me to debate this issue. It is shocking that these workers, without consultation and without agreement, are to have their pension rights worsened.
  At the moment I could table a Question on the matter and raise it in debate. I might ask the Postmaster-General whether he would ask his friend Mr. Aubrey Jones to consider the matter. If the pension conditions of the Post Office engineering workers are to be worsened, they may well ask for an increase in salary as compensation. I hope that the Minister would support them in their claim for a salary increase. If he did not, I could table a Question asking why. Unless the new Clause is accepted, and the Bill is amended, I shall not be able to raise the matter.
  There is a lot of talk about "In Place of Strife". This is encouraging strife. I am sure that the Postmaster-General does not wish to encourage strife in the engineering section of the Post Office. But that is what will happen unless something like the new Clause is accepted. He
  1374
  might be persuaded by questions and debate in the House that he should support the claim of the Post Office Engineering Union that the conditions of its members should not be worsened.
  I declare an interest. I have been a trade unionist all my working life. The Postmaster-General should not worsen the conditions of the Post Office engineering workers. This is a very backward step. It is suggested that the Post Office workers pension conditions should be similar to the backward and terrible pension conditions which we enjoy.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not pursue this matter too far on the Second Reading of the new Clause.
  Mr. Lewis: It is proposed that the Post Office engineering workers should have to wait until they are 65 before they draw their pension. This is a retrograde step.
  At the moment, I could table a Question on the matter or write to the Postmaster-General. I could speak to my right hon. Friend about it. He is always kind, courteous and helpful and I am sure that he would do his utmost to help. However, occasionally he may have to say, for reasons outside his control, "I should like to do something to help, but I cannot". I would say, "I want to push this matter". He might then say, "I should like you to push it because I, too, want my workers to have the best possible conditions. I should like you to raise the matter in the House. Table a Question. I should like to give a helpful reply".
  I might then table a Question. The Minister, in his usual helpful way, would say that he could not give me what I wanted. Then I should be allowed to raise the matter on the Adjournment when I could go into all the details. I could say how many Post Office workers were affected. I could explain how many of them would have their conditions worsened. I could refer to the difficulty of recruiting engineering workers for the Post Office because of the worsening of the pension conditions. Hon. Members could take part in the debate.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Putney has at long last left the Chamber. I do not blame him. If I were in his position, I should have left by now. He is

  1375
  to be congratulated on putting forward the new Clause, because it safeguards the interests of Post Office engineering workers. Unless it is accepted, we cannot debate these vital issues. I hope that the Postmaster-General will realise that there is a need for the new Clause.
  I must draw my remarks to a close. I have gone on rather longer than I intended.
  Captain Orr: It would be a pity if the hon. Gentleman were to spoil the comprehensiveness of his speech by leaving out a very important field for Parliamentary questioning. The new Corporation will have immense power in respect of licensing formerly held by the Crown. It will deal with radio taxis and the relay services for piped television. The hon. Gentleman may have taxi-men in his constituency who may be aggrieved—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak in the debate.
  Captain Orr: That was why my intervention was as brief as it could possibly be, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Lewis: You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure unconsciously, have put me in a difficult position. I was about to say that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) could make his point in a speech. But apparently he has exhausted his right to speak. The hon. and gallant Gentleman and I have a personal friendship as well as a political understanding. He would not be so friendly and kindly disposed towards me if I did not briefly touch on the point which he has raised.
  I have taxi-cab drivers, both owners and in association, in my constituency. They have a system of licensed calls. There are complaints from time to time, although not many because the Post Office does a thorough job. If it did not, and if there were complaints, I could raise the matter with the Postmaster-General in the House. I can question the Postmaster-General—not at the moment because he is busily engaged talking to the Deputy Chief Whip, who should have been the Chief Whip. I am paying a tribute to the Deputy Chief
  1376
  Whip. I have a great regard and respect for him.
  The Postmaster-General is always kind and helpful and does a wonderful service, through his Department, for the radio taxes. There are very rarely any complaints, because it is such a good service. Nevertheless, on occasion I might want to put a Question to him, and if he did not give his usual very satisfactory reply I could then raise the matter on the Floor of the House with the Prime Minister.
  12.30 p.m.
  Under the new procedure I shall not be able to do this. I claim to know something about Parliamentary procedure, and rules and orders. I can usually get myself into and out of most difficulties. I can put a Question to the Postmaster-General and if the reply is bad, good or indifferent, I can put a Question to the Prime Minister, asking him whether he is aware that the Postmaster-General has given me a good, bad or indifferent Answer to my Question to him. If the Bill goes through unamended I shall not be able to put such a Question to the Prime Minister. This is of vital importance to me, because I like asking the Prime Minister Questions—as do most hon. Members.
  The Bill will preclude me from asking such Questions of the Prime Minister. I do not believe that hon. Members opposite understand the situation. All hon. Members rights are being precluded, and not only mine. I admit that I am rather selfish, because I look after my own interests.
  I was going on to deal with the question of Rediffusion—
  Mr. Stratton Mills: The hon. Member has presented arguments in favour of the Clause. In fairness to the House, will he not consider putting the arguments on the other side—against the Clause? Would not that balance his speech?
  Mr. Lewis: If I were tempted to do that I should have to go on at length, and I do not think that the House would like that. If the House insists, however, I may do so.
  There is one aspect that I apologise for not having touched upon. I agree that it is rather regrettable that I have not put balancing arguments. Perhaps, when I am winding up my remarks, my Permanent Parliamentary Secretary will obtain

  1377
  from the Department a brief which will help me to prepare a case.
  I was going to refer to the question of Rediffusion. It provides a vital service. Arguments are now going on about what is to happen. In some new towns an argument is going on whether such a service is good, bad or indifferent. I shall not go into details about the advantages or disadvantages of piped television compared with direct television. In terms of initial outlay and continuing costs, however, it is cheaper to obtain television reception through Rediffusion or by the piped system than by buying a set outright, or even through hire purchase. Many of my constituents are now using this service.
  If a fault develops in the piped service and in the lines offered by the Post Office—which it charges for—the problem can be discussed with the Postmaster-General, and if we are dissatisfied we can raise a Question on the Floor of the House and explain and argue the matter out. If need be, we can have an Adjournment debate. If the Bill goes through un-amended, however, this procedure will not be possible.
  Another almost topical aspect to which I want to refer is the Cup Final. Like many other hon. Members, I was interested in the Cup Final—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I suggest that to elaborate an indefinite number of instances of a principle verges on the bounds of tedious repetition.
  Mr. Lewis: I agree. I do not want to elaborate. That is why I have never gone into any detail on these issues. I have touched upon them only in passing.
  Mr. Cranley Onslow: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker, do not you consider that the fact that the hon. Member has so much to say, which we should not regret, illustrates the extraordinary importance—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
  Mr. Onslow: Surely the question of tedious repetition cannot apply when it is a matter of illustrating, by numerous examples, the importance of the whole principle at issue. That is not repetition; it is addition.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have ruled that the giving of unlimited examples of a general principle is tedious repetition, and I must stick to that decision.
  Mr. Lewis: I repeat that I have purposely refrained—as many hon. Members who are present—
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order. You have made a very important Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, saying that these examples must not be unlimited. I agree that they should not be, but for our guidance can you say how many examples would be in order?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair never rules hypothetically. The hon. Member is now verging on the borderline.
  Mr. Lewis: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have emphasised the fact that an hon. Member is not allowed to elaborate, and I have not attempted to do so. I am sorry that I do not have my notes with me, but I ask hon. Members to bear me out in saying that I have not gone into details on any matters to which I have referred.
  We are now dealing with something entirely new, which has not been previously considered but which affects thousands, if not millions, of people not only in this country but throughout the world. I was speaking of the Cup Final. Millions of people watch it on television, and Britain derives income from it. It helps sport. I would have liked to see the "Minister for Sport" here, because he would be interested in this debate.
  Difficulties arose over the televising of the Cup Final. I pay tribute to the way the B.B.C. do it. Hon. Members may have seen reports in the newspapers, last Saturday or Sunday, that there was almost a fight between the I.T.A. and the B.B.C. on the reporting of the Cup Final.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: On a point of order. May I point out that the sponsors of the Clause are not desirous of an extensive debate, and would be very happy if it were possible for my right hon. Friend the Minister, to reply to the debate, so that we could come to a decision before lunch?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will co-operate to that end.
  Mr. Bryan: Further to that point of order. Surely, what the promoters want has nothing to do with the case. It is what the House in general wants what counts.
  Mr. Lewis: I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and was going to say that the battle between the I.T.A. and B.B.C. might be a subject for a Question. I could put one at the moment, but not if the Bill is un-amended. It would be tragic if there were another such squabble, since both companies do a good job. I hope that the Minister will consider the points I have put to him.
  12.45 p.m.
  Mr. Stonehouse: This has been a fascinating debate, which lasted two hours last night and two and a half hours this morning, of which time my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) has spoken for more than an hour and a half. [HON. MEMBERS: "Two hours."] He has attracted a good deal of interest and I am sure that the House will appreciate that he has managed to prove at least one point, to which I shall return.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) has achieved his purpose of drawing attention to a matter of great importance. I am only too anxious to endorse the observations of those who are anxious to protect their constituents' interests and ensure that the Post Office Corporation is accountable to the House under the general terms of the Bill and on the same lines as the other nationalised industries.
  My hon. Friend said last night of the new Corporation:
  ".. we are removing it from the effective control of this House, and removing the element of public accountability which has been an essential feature of the operation of the Post Office for so many years …"—OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April 1969; Vol. 782, c. 1279.]
  That is the basic premise, but I beg to disagree with it fundamentally.
  The Bill is not removing the accountability of the Post Office to this House. There are many ways in which the Corporation's activities can be questioned through the responsible Minister. The House is discussing the Bill, it will have other Post Office Bills to discuss, there will be debates on the borrowing powers
  1380
  Orders under Clause 36 and there will be further Bills to raise the borrowing limit of the Corporation from time to time.
  There will be debates on Supply days or on annual reports and accounts and other general questions. There are also opportunities for Adjournment debates. I can tell those who asked that there will be the same opportunities for raising general, and, indeed, detailed, subjects about the Post Office on Adjournment debates as for any other Department or Ministerial responsibility.
  In the Report of the Select Committee on Ministerial Control of the Nationalised Industries, paragraph 849, we read:
  "One of the best opportunities for raising matters in some detail, without absorbing too much time, are the short adjournment debates at the end of each day's business. Any aspect of the affairs of any industry may be raised on these occasions, and hence Members frequently raised detailed matters for which Ministers are not directly responsible, so obliging the Minister to explain and sometimes defend, on their behalf, the actions of the Boards …"
  That will be the position for the Post Office Corporation. The Minister sponsoring it will have to answer detailed questions on adjournment debates. There will, therefore, be that opportunity as well for hon. Members to raise questions.
  They will also be able to put direct Questions to the Minister on his responsibility. The ingenuity which hon. Members have shown in this debate in keeping within the rules of order shows how successful they can be in raising subjects for the attention of Ministers. Page 479 of the Select Committee's Report gives a large number of examples of Questions to Ministers which the learned Clerks have allowed and which have enabled hon. Members to raise various matters.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), whose great experience on these questions I recognise, said last night that the intention was to secure for hon. Members' relationship to the Post Office exactly the same relationship as exists with the British Steel Corporation or the National Coal Board. He went on to say that the Steel Corporation carries on its job as a commercial organisation, because it is subject, "no more and no less", to the same public accountability as contained in the new Clause.

  1381
  I beg to disagree. There is no such Clause in the Bill establishing the B.S.C. or any other of these authorities. This Clause is not necessary to ensure that the Post Office Corporation is given the same relationship to a Minister as those other authorities. So the Clause is superfluous to achieving what my hon. Friend wants. It will still be possible for the similar Questions which are put down to other Ministers to be put down to the future Minister sponsoring the Post Office.
  Mr. Mikardo: Inadvertently, of course, my right hon. Friend is slightly misquoting me. I did not say that the new Clause would make the same statutory provision as binds the British Steel Corporation. I said that its effect would be to put the new Post Office Corporation in the same position as the Steel Corporation and I added that its purpose was the avoidance of doubt, because the Bill is not absolutely clear on this point whereas the Iron and Steel Bill was.
  Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to disagree with my hon. Friend. I was quoting from the transcript of his speech last night. If he wants to achieve the same objective as has been achieved with the British Steel Corporation, the new Clause is quite unnecessary. I gave an assurance in Standing Committee, which was referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) and Ealing (Mr. Molloy), who served with distinction on the Committee, that the sponsoring Minister would be in the same position as the Minister of Power and the Minister of Transport when replying to Questions on general subjects. So the new Clause is not required to achieve that objective.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar served with great distinction—I endorse everything that has been said about the work he did—as Chairman of the Select Committee. He will recall that that Committee's Report included this important paragraph which I believe disposes of the whole case that has been made for the new Clause and which is apposite to the subject under discussion:
  "Subject to these considerations, therefore, the Committee are satisfied that, in the interests of both Parliament and the efficient management of the industries, the present rules and practices governing Parliamentary Questions should remain unchanged. They are confident that present procedures and practice on Parliamentary
  1382
  Questions enable individual Members to ask reasonably detailed Questions by one means or other and give them adequate opportunity to obtain the information they need to perform their duties as critics of both Ministers and industries. If further opportunities for obtaining information or expressing criticism are required they should be sought through other forms of Parliamentary proceedings."
  That referred to the practice concerning other public authorities. I have already confirmed that that will be the practice under the Bill. The Post Office Corporation will be in exactly the same position as other public authorities in relation to the sponsoring Minister. The new Clause is, therefore, not required to achieve the object as explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar last night. Nor would it be consistent with the Select Committee's Report, of which he was Chairman.
  Mr. Mikardo indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, would not he agree that it would be entirely consistent for him to accept the new Clause?
  Mr. Stonehouse: I will explain why the Clause is not required.
  The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) made an interesting speech, in which he said that the Bill would, in effect, strengthen the Executive. It will do nothing of the kind. Its effect will be to take away from the Minister detailed control of a Department of State and transfer it to a public corporation which is not under his detailed control. In this sense the Executive is being weakened by the Bill and certainly not strengthened in the way the hon. Gentleman suggested.
  Mr. Peyton: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, but it seems to weaken his case. He says that the Minister is losing power. To that extent, he is that much less answerable to Parliament. This means that parliamentary control over the new creature will be considerably less.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Parliamentary control over the general exercise of the Post Office Corporation's monopoly and business activities generally will be continued and there will be ample opportunity, on the lines I have described—they are also fully set out in the memorandum submitted by the Clerk of the House to the

  1383
  Select Committee on 12th July, 1967; I urge hon. Members to refresh their memories by re-reading that memorandum—for hon. Members to see that this and other public corporations are fully accountable to the House. I do not believe that the Clause would be of value in increasing that accountability.
  It is apparently the wish of the new Clause to confirm what my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar suggested; that is, the establishment of the Post Office Corporation in exactly the same form as all the other authorities in relation to the Minister. If that is the intention, the new Clause is superfluous because that is the position under the Bill as drafted.
  If, however, it is the intention of the Clause to extend the opportunities of hon. Members to question the activities of public corporations, then it is a dangerous proposal which I must ask the House to reject. It would lead to confusion and misunderstanding if it were passed in its present form because it would go further than existing practice. If that is the intention of the proposal, then I must again ask the House to reject it. Either it is superfluous or dangerous. Whichever it is, the House should reject it.
  Mr. Bryan: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned in a general way the various opportunities that hon. Members will have to debate the Post Office. This year there have been plenty of such opportunities, for reasons which are obvious. In a normal year this is not the case. Would the right hon. Gentleman list the opportunities which will occur in a normal Parliamentary year?
  Mr. Stonehouse: I have already given such a list and I do not want to delay the House. I referred to the memorandum submitted by the Clerk of the House, which is printed on pages 472–8 of Volume II of the Select Committee's Report. That contains 35 paragraphs describing the opportunities which hon. Members have to raise subjects on the accountability of an authority.
  I have given five general illustrations in my speech. I believe that these will give hon. Members, many of whom display extraordinary ingenuity in pursuing the interests of their constituents, ample opportunity to make the Post Office Corporation's affairs fully accountable to the
  1384
  House. I therefore ask the House to reject the new Clause.
  Mr. Driberg: Why did my right hon. Friend say that the new Clause would be dangerous? We are not living in the age of Herbert Morrison.
  Mr. Stonehouse: It would be dangerous because I believe that it would be subject to grave misinterpretation and misunderstanding. It might defeat the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to allow a commercial corporation to get on with the business of running the Post Office without day-to-day interference from hon. Members questioning the work that it is doing. That is the general intention of the Bill which has been endorsed by the House on Second Reading and in Committee upstairs. For all these reasons it would be both unwise and dangerous to go back on that, and I therefore advise the House to reject the new Clause.
  Mr. Bryan: We are having a good debate. I say "are having" because I hope that you will allow the debate to continue after my speech, Mr. Speaker.
  We are in a special position today following the two-hour speech of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). He made a valuable contribution, but you will acknowledge, Sir, that it prevented a number of my hon. Friends, who have speeches prepared and who would normally have been called, from making a contribution before this point of time. I hope that after my speech they will have an opportunity to speak.
  1.0 p.m.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: My hon. Friend is going through the normal preliminaries, and it is courteous that he should do so, but I should like him to give an indication to our side of the House on an important issue. The Postmaster-General said that this new Clause was irrelevant because the powers were already there to do what the new Clause asks. If so, is there anything in the view of my hon. Friend against putting these words into the Bill? This is an indication which we should have from the Minister?
  Mr. Bryan: That was a point about the speech of the Postmaster-General that I was coming to later. I entirely agree that the Postmaster-General has merely said that this Clause is not necessary, but

  1385
  the whole House is clamouring for this improvement and it is suggested that it is harmless. We could not have had a more united House on this subject. Support for the Clause has come not only from hon. Members opposite, but from this side of the House. I think that it will be agreed that no subject has created more interest in this Bill than this debate. That is why so many hon. Members on both sides of the House still want to speak.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Did my hon. Friend note that towards the end of his remarks the Postmaster-General said that he was determined that the new Corporation should get on with its job without interference by Members of Parliament? I thought that a rather serious statement. Did it not betray a rather curious state of mind? Is not that all the more reason why a Clause of this kind should be pressed?
  Mr. Bryan: I did notice that. There is the danger, I fear, of this instinct gradually coming through concerning any member of the Executive, however well-meaning he is.
  This brings me back to a remark made by the last Postmaster-General but one, when we were discussing the White Paper. [HON. MEMBERS: "Which right hon. Gentleman?"] He represents one of the northern constituencies and is now Secretary of State for Education and Science.
  Mr. Joseph Slater: He was a very good Minister.
  Mr. Bryan: Good Minister as he was, it suddenly came out that the Post Office could then be free of the apron strings of Parliament. That was an exact parallel of the remark which slipped out in the speech of the present Postmaster-General a few moments ago.
  Mr. Hay: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is no unanimity of view that the right hon. Gentleman referred to was a good Postmaster-General, not least for the reason to which my hon. Friend has referred?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot see that this is in order under this Clause.
  Mr. Bryan: If we started to discuss the merits of Postmasters-General that
  1386
  would give a new opportunity for the hon. Member for West Ham, North to fill in the gaps which he left in his speech.
  I come back to the only intervention I made in the Postmaster-General's short speech. He gave a list of opportunities which he said we would have to debate Post Office affairs. In fact, he did not give a list; referred us to a paragraph in the Select Committee's Report. That is not good enough. This question of accountability is very serious. If we are to lose the opportunity of asking Questions we must know in more detail what those other opportunities will be. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls) nodding. He has been a Minister in the Department and he knows very well what those opportunities used to be.
  Mr. Mikardo: Those potential opportunities for debate—that is all they are, not opportunities for which time is provided, were listed in the Report. The point is valid only in so far as time is provided, and it is not always provided. My right hon. Friend was quick to lean on the Select Committee's Report on the Post Office, but that has not been debated in the House.
  Mr. Bryan: That illustrates clearly what I am about to say. These remarks cannot be substantiated in detail, as I have not the details before me.
  I have been the Front Bench spokesman for the Opposition on this subject during the tenure of office of four Postmasters-General. As I said in my brief intervention, obviously we have no cause whatever for complaint about the amount of debate we have had on the Post Office in the last 18 months, starting with the Select Committee's Report and the White Paper. This has been a bumper year for Post Office debates; an historic year. There is no complaint about the past year, but when I was first in this position there were very few debates. We were constantly asking for them in business questions on Thursdays. We were either promised them and the promise was never fulfilled or, if we were given them, they were in a miserable part of the Parliamentary programme, probably on a Friday morning.
  One came to realise that Post Office Questions were the one and only reliable

  1387
  opportunity on which we could expect to probe the Postmaster-General. We usually were able to get a debate in an obscure part of the programme on Post Office prospects. A little later in the summer, but not always, we had a debate on Post Office accounts. I remember a year when the accounts were taken formally for some reason. So I take this suggestion of many other opportunities for debate with a very large pinch of salt. We had a time from July to Christmas in which the Post Office simply did not figure in our deliberations.
  This debate has been of the highest quality. I say this sincerely because, of the 12 hon. Members who know more about the subject of accountability than anyone else, 10 have taken part in the debate. Hon. Members on both sides interested in the subject have been on parade. We were very pleased that the Chairman of the Select Committee took part in the debate.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: I am not clear whether, under the Bill, we are to have a Postmaster-General or someone who is very much downgraded, and the effect of that on Answers to Questions.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I find it difficult to see the relevance of that to the new Clause.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order. I think it most relevant. The answer from the Dispatch Box is that there will be facilities, if we do not accept this Clause, which will give hon. Members a chance to do this probing. One reason for accepting the Clause is that the new Minister may be downgraded.
  Mr. Bryan: I think that that is a very valid point, because the opportunities will depend very much on what kind of facility we are given. The status of the Post Office at present is very low in the order of time we are given for debate. Clearly, the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications will have a still lower status. I entirely distrust this theme that we are to be given new and unprecedented time for debate on the Floor of the House.
  Mr. Onslow: Could my hon. Friend tell us how soon it is likely that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries will again investigate the Post Office?
  1388
  How long have we to wait for the advantage of that sort of exhaustive inquiry?
  Mr. Bryan: Possibly it would be out of order for me to reply to that. It is also beyond my capability or that of anyone to prophesy about it. We have had only one inquiry of that sort into the Post Office, but I do not complain about the amount of inquiry into the Post Office over the last two years. There have been parliamentary inquiries, the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, the consultants and, of course, Mr. Aubrey Jones. Therefore, I think that it has just about had "the treatment", and that will do for a few years to come.
  I was saying that this has been a highly informed debate, because of those who have taken part in it. Frankly, the subject has had the quality of debate that it deserved. I feel that, although we had 24 sittings upstairs, one subject we did not over-discuss was accountability. This was an error, because the loss of accountability is the price we are agreeing to pay in exchange for the new Post Office Corporation.
  But this is not the price that we want to pay, The whole debate which has taken place over the last few years has been: must we pay this amount? Is what we are getting—the new Corporation—so much better than the Post Office was? Are there such advantages in commercialism and so on that we should be willing to surrender our accountability to this extent?
  Mr. David Howell: Will my hon. Friend agree that when the Postmaster-General, in his argument for getting the Bill, says that he wants a free Post Office Corporation able to get on with the job, he is using the word "free" in a curious sense? It may be free from Parliamentary Questions, if the right hon. Gentleman gets his way, but that will not include freedom from the sponsoring Minister, from the Treasury and from the whole paraphernalia of bureaucratic control, and it is in this area that it is important for Parliament to have some probing powers.
  Mr. Bryan: I agree with my hon. Friend. If anyone disagrees with him, I advise him to read the first Report from the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries about Ministerial control of

  1389
  the nationalised industries. There we have the argument put in great detail with massive evidence.
  Returning to the question: are we right, must we pay this price—this loss in our accountability—for what we are to get?, I am not surprised that the debate has gone as it has. As my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) said, we are very tender about conceding anything more to the Executive than we have. This keeps happening. If we do it any more we want a price for it.
  What is more, the area of questioning which we are asked to concede is one where hon. Members feel that at the moment they have influence. Therefore, we do not specially want to lose it. I do not mind losing some of the debates that we are offered, because half of them never take place anyway. But I very much object to losing Question Time in its strongest form.
  My hon. Friend the Member for, I think, Norfolk, North-East has recently written a very good book on politics. I noticed on one page a quotation from Lord Strang, who knew about these things:
  "The tension relaxes in Departments when Parliament rises."
  I dare say that hon. Members here who have been Ministers will agree.
  Mr. George Wallace: Perhaps I may be allowed to correct the hon. Gentleman. The Member referred to is not the Member for Norfolk, North-East, but Norfolk Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour). I happen to know the constituencies rather better than the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bryan: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I did not really want to attribute this book to the hon. Gentleman. Possibly there may be some passages in it with which he would not entirely agree.
  Mr. Speed: There is one point which perhaps my hon. Friend might like to consider. Reference has been made to the position of the other nationalised industry. But surely the Post Office is in a unique situation. We do not need to use electricity with the alternative in the private sector of oil, or the British Steel Corporation, British Railways, B.O.A.C., or the B.B.C. But all of us, unless we happen to live in Hull, need
  1390
  to use the Post Office telephone system and the Post Office mail. Therefore, the Post Office is much more akin to the Health Service than the other nationalised industries.
  1.15 p.m.
  Mr. Bryan: This is a valid point. My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I shall be dealing with it later, because I consider it to be almost the most important point of the lot.
  Whereas the Postmaster-General has been explaining that the position will be exactly similar to the fuel and power industries and so on, I shall argue why it is not similar on the lines my hon. Friend has just mentioned.
  Sir G. Nabarro: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that I talked at length about the fuel and power industries, or as much as the Chair would allow. There is this fundamental difference between the two. The Post Office carries out all kinds of agency duties for the Treasury. The Coal Board does not—[Interruption.] I do not wish to get involved in the Coal Board's affairs, but it does not act as an agent for the Treasury. The Post Office acts as an agent for the Treasury in the context of old age pensions, television licences and other similar duties. I think that we should apply ourselves to this point or we shall be totally bereft of the power of interrogation of Ministers on these important functions.
  Mr. Bryan: Clearly, my hon. Friend has a point here. Owing to the nature of these agency services we have an organisation which deals with the daily life of everybody in this country. I think that my hon. Friend said earlier that every man, woman, if not child, used the postal services.
  But it is not only the postal services. There are all these agency services—pensions, Giro, savings bank, and so on—about which we can ask Questions now. We are talking about a very wide range of subjects covering the normal life of every citizen, quite unlike any other nationalised industry.
  Captain Orr: My hon. Friend will know that the Post Office, in addition to these services, has the power, which no other nationalised industry has, to license its competitors or to withhold

  1391
  licences from them, which is a very important area of Parliamentary questioning.
  Mr. Bryan: I think that this comes under the broad heading of monopoly. In a monopoly the consumer has no appeal. In the situation envisaged by my hon. Friend, the relay companies have no appeal against their licensee which is also its competitor.
  If we are to surrender this accountability, this power to ask Questions, we should think carefully about what it means, first, to the consumer. We should think carefully, and try to be frank about it, how effective the Parliamentary Question is in general, so far as it concerns the consumer, and in the Post Office.
  Secondly, if we are to consider giving it up, we should consider what other better method there is for the consumer to vent his grievances.
  Mr. Molloy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the logic of the interventions that we have had from his hon. Friends and from some of my hon. Friends on the importance of this new Corporation and its accountability to Parliament, suggests that it is absurd merely to have one Minister and one Parliamentary Secretary to cover all the points that have been made and that there ought to be a Minister of State as well?
  Mr. Bryan: What is one more among so many? If we were told that the reason we could not have Question Time was because we were one Minister short I am certain that we would consider that point, but I doubt whether that is the answer we shall get.
  From the consumer's point of view, we have to consider whether there is any other and better method which can take the place of the present system, such as the Consumer Council or whether the Ombudsman's duties can be developed, and so on. If we are to insist on Question Time, we have to decide whether the Minister will be in a position to answer Questions put in the new situation, since he will not be closely in touch with the Department, and whether he has the staff to cope with it.
  I think that we have seriously to discuss, also, since it appears greatly in
  1392
  the Select Committee's Reports, whether Question Time is fair on the Department concerned, whether it impedes or stimulates its efficiency. Lastly, we have to discuss the necessity for the Post Office to be accountable in its very particular position.
  I do not think that there is the slightest doubt that Questions constitute a superb way in which the consumer can express his grievances. The system is unique. The Member of Parliament is the champion of the consumer because the consumer knows that his Member has a duty to look after him. In most cases, he is the only man to whom the ordinary citizen can go and say, "It is your duty to sort out my troubles." This is unique. It is, therefore, a question whether hon. Members will be able to carry out such duties in the House.
  But the Member of Parliament is not the only consumer's champion, but the consumer's local champion. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) said earlier, "I know. I live there." That was a pertinent remark. In my constituency, people write to me about the telephones at Pocklington and tell me that it is the worst service in the world. I know that that is true, because my agent lives there and I am constantly in touch with the place.
  We all know that the reason we are effective as Members of this House in looking into people's worries is because not only are we their champions but their local champions and, almost more important, their personal champions. In other words, a constituent can get hold of his Member of Parliament personally and say, "Please see the Minister about this." We are in a position to see and to question the Minister. The constituent is in such a relationship with no other individual.
  Mrs. Winifred Ewing: Does not the hon. Gentleman also agree that an important function of the Parliamentary Question is not just to seek information on behalf of a particular consumer, but also on behalf of the inarticulate consumers who may never consult their Member of Parliament? Through the Parliamentary Question, an hon. Member can seek to influence Government policy and change it. I do not think that the

  1393
  Postmaster-General touched on this function of Parliamentary Questions.
  Mr. Bryan: That is an extremely good point. It goes back to what I said about personal champions. That sort of message will not get through to the Government from the inarticulate public unless it be through a Member of Parliament, whom a constituent will be willing and unfrightened to see. This illustrates our enormously strong position. I think that we will all agree that one of the great difficulties of this age is the frustration of the general public, as they become more and more educated and know more and more about events, in the feeling that they can have no influence on people in authority. This is a good channel in which to get rid of some of that frustration.
  Mr. Hay: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend's conclusion as to the importance of the individual M.P. but is it not the case that the argument is hypothecated upon the belief that the Minister Of Posts and Telecommunications will be in this House? Is it not possible that he may be a Member of another place? If that is so, am I not right in thinking that many of the points my hon. Friend has made, quite rightly, about the desirability of hon. Members acting in the interests of the consumers, fall away, because it would be extremely difficult to question a Minister in another place in the same way as we could question him here?
  Mr. Bryan: I had not thought of that point and it is obviously extremely important. We might ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider it between now and the time when the Bll goes to another place. If a Member of another place were to get the new appointment, he would be out of range to us. This is a serious point but I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can give us an assurance about it since he is not the new Chief Whip and is not in a position to advise his leader or lay down whether or not the new Minister should be in another place. However, the right hon. Gentleman should give thought to the matter, because it is a serious snag.
  Mr. Molloy: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that a situation can become dangerous when hon. Members cannot
  1394
  even discuss certain things which should be discussed, nor put down Questions about them? The classic example of this is the unfortunate situation in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman for Howden (Mr. Bryan) will not be tempted to debate Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Bryan: I do not think you should blame me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not foreseeing the type of intervention the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) intended to make. I am Irish by blood but not by birth and that is not, in any case, sufficient background to answer his question with confidence.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely this is a United Kingdom Measure and will apply to Northern Ireland? Surely, therefore, it will be in order to discuss that implications of this new Clause for Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was pointing out that a general debate on Northern Ireland would be out of order on this new Clause and I must adhere to that Ruling.
  Mr. Bryan: If we could have such a debate, then the Opposition Front Bench, as always, would be strongly armed because my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) was on television last night explaining the situation in Northern Ireland and could give a repeat performance to the House for everyone's edification.
  One could have no better illustration of our case—and it is fresh in our mind—than that of the two-tier postal system. I shall not go into the pros and cons of that system, which we have argued time and again, but I do not think it will be denied that, for one reason or another, in the first two weeks there was utter chaos. Yet people could do nothing about it. Their letters were not being delivered. The second tier got in a mess. Post was being delayed in all directions. But one thing was happening—and this was that the public could write to their M.P.s and get it off their chests. Hon. Members got thousands of letters and I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman got even more.

  1395
  It might be said that this did not do any good, but if they had not been able to complain to that extent, if they had not heard Questions asked in the House, what would there have been? Even if it is not their own personal Question, the fact that we are all questioning in toto about the grievances of the two-tier system is the only thing that shows the mass of the populace that something is being done. Otherwise there would have been chaos at post offices. After the general advertisement programme going across the papers to the effect, "You lucky people. You have the choice of two reliable tiers", they were champing at the bit to get hold of somebody. We were able to put it across in the House so that something was done, and we had a considerable effect.
  1.30 p.m.
  Mr. Clegg: Before my hon. Friend leaves the question of the ability of hon. Members to raise an issue in the House, does he not agree that the provisions in the Bill for a consultative council to receive complaints go nothing like far enough? A Member of Parliament has something that no consultative council can ever have, in that he is elected and not appointed.
  Mr. Bryan: I will mention the consultative council in a minute, because clearly if it could be proved that the consultative council was an adequate alternative this would very much weaken our argument. The short answer is the extent to which people use the consultative council. I said just now that we all got a tremendous mailbag at the time of the first workings of the two-tier system. I doubt if the mailbag of the Consumer Council increased to any great extent; that is not the quarter to which people turn.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend has been a member of an Administration. Can he give us any example of a consumer council or a consultative body which has justified itself and performed the service which the Postmaster-General claims it could perform in this case? I cannot think of a single case. Therefore, it is entirely inadequate to argue that this council could take the place of questioning across the Floor of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Bryan: As this was obviously a point which would be raised, I have prepared the matter for discussion in some detail a little later. In Committee, we were very keen to improve the consultative committee. We took the view that we have had nationalised industries for 20 years and that by now this experience ought to bring something and that we should be able to produce something more effective. We obviously devoted much thought to this question and discussed it with many outside bodies. However, at the end of the day, as the Bill as it stands now shows, we have not produced anything extraordinary. We have produced an almost exact parallel with what the other nationalised industries have.
  Mr. John Mendelson: The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the question of how the two-tier system was raised in the House. If the Bill as drawn is exactly parallel with what we have in the case of the other public corporations—for instance, the National Coal Board—the two-tier system could have been raised many times most effectively. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then my right hon. Friend should be heard on this. We are raising similar questions on the quality of smokeless fuel, for example, all the time with the Minister of Power.
  Mr. Bryan: I will readily take up this point, because I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The only thing that was wrong with the two-tier system was the day-to-day details. For instance, for a long time the Postmaster-General said—I think that he honestly believed it—that there was no delay. I live in the country and I know that in the country there was a delay, because there had never previously been segregation. In the village of Brompton to which my post comes, all the post came in and the open envelopes came with the rest; there was no segregation. With the two-tier system they had instructions that the top tier would take one day and the second tier would take two days. The postman came to the house and said, "Here is some mail for you. We have some more down at the Post Office, but we cannot bring it to you till tomorrow". This is true.
  Mr. Mendelson: The question of delay arose after a general change in major overall policy, namely, the moving away

  1397
  from a single system of stamping to a two-tier system. It is certain that if the position is analogous with that of the National Coal Board this could have been raised in the House on many occasions. I see my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General indicating his agreement. Why destroy the value of the Bill with this interpretation?
  Mr. Bryan: It was only these vivid illustrations—I say, "vivid" because they were true, and homely and understandable people could see it—which brought home to the Postmaster-General that this was happening and that, whether he thought it was or not, it must be put right. I therefore believe that what is wanted are the detailed pressures as opposed to a general question as to whether the policy is right. We on this side did not oppose the two-tier system as a policy. We certainly opposed its detailed implementation.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: Recently in the West Midlands we have had natural gas conversion. I personally have had nearly 1,000 complaints from constituents against this operation. In every case I had to take the matter up with the West Midlands Gas Board and not with the Minister, whereas, if this were a Post Office matter, we could take it up direct with the right hon. Gentleman. We can envisage all sorts of developments like this in the future where it is absolutely essential to have Ministerial accountability.
  Mr. Bryan: I have had exactly the same experience with North Sea gas. I have a feeling that the matter has quietened down because it has not got the outlet of the Parliamentary Question. It is a very similar thing to what happened with the two-tier post. Many people are bringing forward this year's bill and last year's bill, with this year's bill nearly twice as heavy as last year's bill although there is supposed to be only a 10 per cent. increase. If there had been the possibility of asking Parliamentary Questions, there would have been a storm.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The other day the Postmaster-General wrote me a letter explaining that there were no delays in the post. He posted the letter on 23rd April and I received it yesterday, the 29th. The letter took six days to come from the
  1398
  Postmaster-General's office. After the Bill is passed, if indeed it is passed, how can I have some alternative to what I have at the moment, namely, putting it straight to the Postmaster-General, who is always very courteous, across the Floor of the House?
  Mr. Bryan: Much as I should like to be able to give my hon. Friend this assurance, it is the very one I cannot give. We have said that a Question in the House is obviously an effective step for consumers to let off steam. The next question is: how effective is it for consumers qua results? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has said, all of us receive the standard letter. We get an envelope pinned to another envelope, with a postmark showing that it has taken a week, say. We forward it to the Postmaster-General. We then all get the same very courteous letter back saying that 93 per cent. of first-class mail is delivered the day after posting and 94 per cent. of second-class mail is delivered two days after posting. We all know the letter by heart. What we are far more interested in is why the letters in Bagthorpe are doing so badly. As I have said several times before, it would be more effective if the Postmaster-General had a much more local system of judging performance. Let him have the satisfaction of quoting his 93 per cent., and 94 per cent., but it would be much more impressive to the consumer if he sometimes said, "On the whole our service is very good. We have the results which I have detailed, but I discover that in this area the performance is 70 per cent." One gets these patches, every Member meets them, where a figure of 93 or 94 per cent. cannot be true.
  I find that I get much better results on the matter of telephones. It may be my good luck, but that is certainly as the matter appears to me. I get a good many business complaints through the post about the Telex system and so far I have made no progress in that direction. Could the Postmaster say what percentage of effective action he achieves? He gets a massive post on a variety of fronts and in any big business the post would be recorded and monitored so that the results could be matched against the action which is taken.
  Mr. Molloy: In big business one could meet the same number of complaints, the

  1399
  same kind of frustration but one could not ask anybody any questions about it.
  Mr. Bryan: That may or may not be true, depending on the big business, but if it is a good business it would always record results. If it is requested to do something and if it claims to provide a service there will be some countervailing recording system which would show to what degree it provided that service.
  Dame Joan Vickers: Would these arguments apply on the matter of sub-post offices which the State is always trying to take over. How would it be possible to try to protect a constituent who may be a very fine sub-postmaster or postmistress in such a matter in the future?
  Mr. Bryan: I imagine that the Minister, in his second speech, may be able to give us the answer to that matter. It is certainly an important matter for the Postmaster of a particular sub-post office.
  I do not need to labour the fact that we are all violently biased in favour of Parliamentary Questions. They suit our way of life and it is one area in which we are almost confident that we do some good. Let us look at the other alternatives.
  Mr. Speed: Does the hon. Member not appreciate that the Postmaster-General is a political animal like ourselves and is subject to the same democratic pressures or processes which operate upon all of us as Members of Parliament? In this way the Minister is perhaps more sympathetic and helpful than would be any appointed official. The Postmaster-General like any other hon. Member can be thrown out in an election. From this point of view I find Ministerial replies invariably to be more helpful than those one receives from permanent paid officials.
  Mr. Bryan: The Postmaster-General has perhaps been more sensitive on these matters than his predecessors. I remember that he did away with the ludicrous decision on the London telephone directories. This shows that he is sensitive to legitimate political pressures.
  I was about to deal with the possibilities of other ways of expressing one's
  1400
  grievance. During the 1964 General Election the present Prime Minister introduced the new system of the Ombudsman who, he said, would play a great part in dealing with people's grievances. The idea was put forward in good faith and we did not oppose it. The Ombudsman has now been in existence for four years. What has the new system proved? Has it lived up to the hopes of his creators? It has had a fair trial in the hands of the man who was appointed to the job of Ombudsman. There could hardly have been a man of higher standing, a more efficient and painstaking individual, than Sir Edmund Compton.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is getting a little away from the new Clause. He is certainly not relating his words to the Clause.
  Mr. Bryan: I was trying to play the Postmaster-General's game. I was saying that the only way we could be defeated is if it could be proved that there was some alternative way in which people could express their grievances. However much one racks one's brains one finds that the only possible runners in this matter are the Ombudsman and the Consumer Council. These are put forward seriously as two official channels for the handling of grievances. If we could say that these were working well then the Postmaster-General would have a strong case for saying that possibly Parliamentary Questions are not as necessary in matters of detail as they have been.
  I shall not talk very long about the Ombudsman for regrettably the experience so far has not been successful enough. The argument is fairly quickly dismissed. First of all, there is the limited scope of what one can submit to the Ombudsman. It is limited not only by the rules but by the human factor involved. There is a limit to what one man can do however big the staff. Then if a staff gets too big it becomes impersonal and if it is too small the volume of work with which it can cope is very small.
  Secondly, unlike about the position of the Member of Parliament, his service is bound to be impersonal and unfamiliar. It will be lucky if he has any idea of the local circumstances of the person who gets in touch with him. The proof is that the Ombudsman has not been a very

  1401
  great success, since he means almost nothing to the consumer.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: The Parliamentary Commissioner is unable to investigate grievances against other public corporations. Is an exception to be made in the case of the Post Office Corporation?
  Mr. Bryan: No. This is an interesting Question. I should imagine, thinking about the matter for the first time, that he would now be in a position to investigate a matter which affects a Government Department but he might not be in a similar position with a public corporation. If that is the case then that is important to my argument.
  To sum up—
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is there a decisive argument in the case of the Ombudsman? I do not agree that the Ombudsman has failed.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: We cannot delve too far in debating the Parliamentary Commissioner on this new Clause. The hon. Gentleman has had some latitude to make his point and I think that he has exhausted it.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order. The point to which I was coming when you rightly interrupted me was simply that we are discussing the Clause that the Minister should answer Questions addressed to him on all matters concerning the Post Office. My hon. Friend was endeavouring to suggest an alternative, namely, the Ombudsman. The difficulty with the Ombudsman is that he has to consider the rights involved. In this matter we are considering the financial accountability of Parliament which would be achieved by the Clause and would not be achieved if the Ombudsman were dragged in.
  Mr. Bryan: He cannot be dragged in.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot go on indefinitely elaborating the argument about the Parliamentary Commissioner.
  Mr. Bryan: I have only one more sentence to say about the Ombudsman. I thought that the hon. Member who related the effectiveness of the Ombudsman to a corporation made a good point and it almost brought us back into
  1402
  order. The point is that the public hardly know who the Ombudsman is. If they do, they seldom make use of him.
  Mr. Clegg: Has my hon. Friend considered the setting up of a series of administrative courts to deal with complaints of this sort such as the French droit administratif?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are interesting possibilities in that point, but I hope that the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) will not go too far down that lane.
  Mr. Bryan: I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for North Fylde (Mr. Clegg), with his fertile mind and knowledge of other countries, had been a member of the Standing Committee, because he might have helped us on the question of the Consumer Council.
  In Committee, before we reached Clause 14, and in expectation of the loss of accountability which the Bill entails, we gave a great deal of thought to how we could improve the consumer councils and whether they would have any effect in making up for the loss or lack of accountability. We did not get very far. We tried to make it more informed by one Amendment. We tried to make it more independent by another Amendment.
  In each case, we were defeated. But that did not involve the destruction of anything very great. We did not succeed in devising anything revolutionary in the way of a consumer protection organisation. We tried to get away from 20 years of failure—that is all one can call the Consumer Council. We failed to do so. If we accept the situation for the Post Office Corporation, we shall be no better off—in fact, we shall be a lot worse off because of the nature of the Post Office—than the users of gas.
  Not only has the question of consumer councils been studied in the House, but a very good study of it has been made by the Consumer Council. In the report which it published appear all the enactments of the gas and electricity boards. They are all much of a muchness. They are very similar to the Bill.
  The Consumer Council made a study of 5,000 people. They were, presumably, a representative sample. It discovered

  1403
  that 10 per cent. of them had not heard of the Consumer Council and those who knew about it did not use it. The only recommendation of the Consumer Council was that consumer councils should receive more publicity. But, clearly, it was made half-heartedly. I cannot imagine that people do not use them because of a lack of publicity films.
  Sir Frank Pearson: Would the structure of the Consumer Council be of any value as a check on such activities as the operation of the Post Office giro or the handling of Post Office savings, two activities totally alien to any other commercial organisation?
  Mr. Bryan: All these things might be effective if the public used them. But if, after 20 years, nobody uses the Consumer Council and people do not think about it, then any problem one finds for it to consider is irrelevant. First, the public must know about it. Secondly, they must like what they know about it and recognise it as useful. With all the good will in the world, that has not happened.
  No one in our debates on the subject blamed the personnel. Obviously, many selfless and highly competent people have put literally years of work into the fairly idealistic idea of consumer councils. We have masses of experience about them, but, in the event, people write to their Members of Parliament—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is elaborating on the subject too much.
  Mr. Bryan: I was returning to the fairway, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having been in the rough. In all the Post Office turmoil of the last year, our mail has increase to an enormous extent. I doubt whether the mail of the Consumer Council has increased at all.
  As a result of the Bill, the consumer clearly will be in a markedly weaker position. He will have lost access to authority through his Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Dance: Does my hon. Friend agree that constituents would not write so many letters to us asking us to take up matters on their behalf if they did
  1404
  not know that we had the sanction of asking questions of the Minister?
  Mr. Bryan: I have made that point fairly strongly. Mr. Deputy Speaker might check me if I made it again—unless I could think of a fresh way of making it at which the hon. Member for West Ham, North is so adept.
  As I say, as a result of the Bill, the consumer will be in a markedly weaker position. He will have lost access to authority through his Member of Parliament and he will have nothing credible to put in its place. To be fair, I do not suppose hon. Members have lost out altogether.
  It is possible for the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Dobson) to write to his local postmaster or he could telephone him if the telephone worked.
  Mr. Molloy: Suppose that a constituent has a problem to raise with the Post Office when he is on holiday or is visiting someone 200 or 300 miles away. It is not easy for a Member of Parliament to pick up the telephone and contact the postmaster. One can deal with the matter only by putting a Question to the Postmaster-General.
  Mr. Bryan: That is a real problem.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East that we can take up matters with our own local postmasters, as I do. But that is not as easy as the other way of dealing with them. In our daily round in the House we receive mail, complaints, grievances and personal problems and we have equipment to deal with them here. We would not do that if we had to phone up Driffield or Pocklington. We might determine to do it for a bit but that is not the easy way to do it.
  Sir D. Glover: Suppose that my hon. Friend finds the line out of order when he wishes to ring up Pocklington or Driffield. To whom does he complain then?
  Mr. Bryan: I should then need the judgment of Mr. Speaker on whether that was trivial or a matter of heavy policy.
  The alternative is that we shall all be able to write to the chairman of the Post Office Corporation. I honestly do not think that that will be satisfactory. Most of us have little complaint about the

  1405
  letters that we receive in return to our letters to the heads of various corporations and nationalised industries, but they are not people whom we know personally. Probably none of us knows more than a few of them personally, and we do not meet them from day to day. Our letters go off to them, and if we get replies which are not satisfactory we cannot take the matter up—
  It being Two o'clock the debate stood adjourned pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Debate to be resumed this day.

  New Clause 6

    ADJOURNMENT
    Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put.
    Adjourned at Two o'clock, p.m.

BOARD OF TRADE
  Timber Imports
  Timber Imports
  Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board
  Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board
  Holland-Martin Report
  Holland-Martin Report
  Republic of South Africa (United Kingdom Firms)
  Republic of South Africa (United Kingdom Firms)
  Cars (Export to Norway)
  Cars (Export to Norway)
  Export Trade
  Export Trade
  Cheese
  Cheese
  Cotton Textile Imports
  Cotton Textile Imports
  Northern Region
  Northern Region
  Industrial Development (Scotland)
  Industrial Development (Scotland)
  Advance Factories (Scotland)
  Advance Factories (Scotland)
  Aberdeen
  Aberdeen
  Imported Goods (Country of Origin)
  Imported Goods (Country of Origin)
  Aberdeen—Northern Europe (Transport Services)
  Aberdeen—Northern Europe (Transport Services)
  Shipping (Container Fleets)
  Shipping (Container Fleets)
  English Electric Company's Factory, Netherton
  English Electric Company's Factory, Netherton
  Employment (Merseyside)
  Employment (Merseyside)
  Pulse Electronics Limited (Loan)
  Pulse Electronics Limited (Loan)
  Beer (Monopolies Commission's Report)
  Beer (Monopolies Commission's Report)
  Baby Sealskins (Imports)
  Baby Sealskins (Imports)
  State Fair, Mogadishu (British Stand)
  State Fair, Mogadishu (British Stand)
  Easter Eggs
  Easter Eggs
  Industrial Location
  Industrial Location
  Uruguayan and Argentine (Meat Imports)
  Uruguayan and Argentine (Meat Imports)
  Butter Imports (E.F.T.A. Discussions)
  Butter Imports (E.F.T.A. Discussions)
  English Tourist Board
  English Tourist Board
  Shipping (British Registration)
  Shipping (British Registration)
  Trade with Angola and Mozambique
  Trade with Angola and Mozambique
  Edwards Committee
  Edwards Committee
AVIATION
  Luton Airport (Training Flights)
  Luton Airport (Training Flights)
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Navigation Service Charges
  Navigation Service Charges
  Foulness
  Foulness
  Gatwick Airport (Night Jet Movements)
  Gatwick Airport (Night Jet Movements)
  Aircraft Accident (Fyfield)
  Aircraft Accident (Fyfield)
  Regional Airports (Facilities)
  Regional Airports (Facilities)
  Commonwealth Air Transport Council
  Commonwealth Air Transport Council
  Aberdeen Airport
  Aberdeen Airport
  Inclusive Tour Prices
  Inclusive Tour Prices
  Statistics (Publication)
  Statistics (Publication)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Transport Vehicles (Sales to Norway)
  Transport Vehicles (Sales to Norway)
  Lossiemouth (Aircraft Diversions)
  Lossiemouth (Aircraft Diversions)
  Supply of Arms
  Supply of Arms
  Army Medal Office
  Army Medal Office
  Medals
  Medals
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Danish Bacon
  Danish Bacon
  Animal Feedingstuffs (Antibiotics)
  Animal Feedingstuffs (Antibiotics)
  Liver Fluke (Wales)
  Liver Fluke (Wales)
  Kew Gardens
  Kew Gardens
  Foot and Mouth Disease (Compensation)
  Foot and Mouth Disease (Compensation)
  Pigs
  Pigs
  Labelling of Food (Amending Regulations)
  Labelling of Food (Amending Regulations)
TECHNOLOGY
  Office Machinery and Equipment (Decimalisation)
  Office Machinery and Equipment (Decimalisation)
  Typewriters and Dictating Machines (Spare Parts)
  Typewriters and Dictating Machines (Spare Parts)
  Atomic Energy Establishments (Non-cash Expenditure)
  Atomic Energy Establishments (Non-cash Expenditure)
  Electronics and Telecommunications Industries (Scotland)
  Electronics and Telecommunications Industries (Scotland)
  Concorde Aircraft (Supersonic Flight Tests)
  Concorde Aircraft (Supersonic Flight Tests)
SCOTLAND
  Anglers (Sale of Fish)
  Anglers (Sale of Fish)
  Fishing (Use of Poison or Explosives)
  Fishing (Use of Poison or Explosives)
  Quinquennial Review
  Quinquennial Review
  Hospital Admissions, Midlothian (Waiting Periods)
  Hospital Admissions, Midlothian (Waiting Periods)
  C.S. Gas (Police Stocks)
  C.S. Gas (Police Stocks)
  Highlands and Islands (Selective Employment Tax)
  Highlands and Islands (Selective Employment Tax)
  Religious Instruction in Schools
  Religious Instruction in Schools
  Oil Complex, Longhaugh Point
  Oil Complex, Longhaugh Point
  Lochaber Study
  Lochaber Study
  European Conservation Year
  European Conservation Year
  Trawler Industry (Fish Boxing)
  Trawler Industry (Fish Boxing)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Private Industry (Government Grants)
  Private Industry (Government Grants)
  Invisible Earnings
  Invisible Earnings
  Central and Local Government Expenditure
  Central and Local Government Expenditure
  Bank Loans
  Bank Loans
  National Loan Fund
  National Loan Fund
  Local Authorities (Foreign Currency Borrowing)
  Local Authorities (Foreign Currency Borrowing)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Government Agencies (Scotland)
  Government Agencies (Scotland)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Guildford College of Art (Dismissed Teachers)
  Guildford College of Art (Dismissed Teachers)
  Guildford and Farnham Colleges of Art
  Guildford and Farnham Colleges of Art
  European Conservation Year
  European Conservation Year
  Health Education
  Health Education
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Command Paper No. 2231 (Fuel Prices)
  Command Paper No. 2231 (Fuel Prices)
  Local Authorities, Scotland (Staff)
  Local Authorities, Scotland (Staff)
  Government Training Centres (Scotland)
  Government Training Centres (Scotland)
  Regional Employment Premium (Scotland)
  Regional Employment Premium (Scotland)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Patents Convention
  European Patents Convention
  Mr. Anthony Grey
  Mr. Anthony Grey
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Public Boards (Appointments)
  Public Boards (Appointments)
  Land Commission (Mr. A. B. Martyr)
  Land Commission (Mr. A. B. Martyr)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
HOSPITALS
  Building Programme (Portsmouth)
  Building Programme (Portsmouth)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
TRANSPORT
  Italian Customs (Delays)
  Italian Customs (Delays)
  Trailer Caravans (Speed Limit)
  Trailer Caravans (Speed Limit)
RAILWAYS
  Station Refreshment Rooms
  Station Refreshment Rooms
ROADS
  A5 Accidents (Grendon/Tamworth)
  A5 Accidents (Grendon/Tamworth)
WALES
  Heads of Valleys Road
  Heads of Valleys Road
  Cardiff—Bridgend Motorway
  Cardiff—Bridgend Motorway

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

UPPER CLYDE SHIPBUILDERS, LIMITED
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: 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 how much money is now invested by the Government in Upper Clyde Shipbuilders, Ltd.—

(1) as share capital

(2) as loans; and

(3) as grants;

what are the terms of the loans and grant; and, in view of the sums involved, whether they consider their present representation on the Board of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders to be adequate.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the Government own 875,000 £1 shares in the company, as well as £940,000 of 7 per cent. loan stock in its Fairfield subsidiary. In addition, the Shipbuilding Industry Board has made grants of £3 million to the company and has promised to lend up to £5½ million and to provide relief of any interest due on such loans up to the end of 1970. The loan stock is redeemable in 1975. The interest on the Board's loans varies according to the Government lending rate at the time each advance is made and all are to be repaid in 16 half-yearly instalments beginning on December 31, 1975. One director of the company is nominated by the Shipbuilding Industry Board and this is considered adequate representation.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for his very full Answer to my Question. Since putting the Question on the Order Paper, I gather that negotiations are proceeding for further financial assistance. Would my noble friend accept that it is extremely difficult to run an industry of this kind unless there is some long-term assurance of financial support? May I ask when may we expect a statement in that regard? In view of the fact that Government involvement in this company is much in excess of the equity of the company, would my noble friend accept that to have one nominated representative on the Board is hardly adequate?
LORD KENNET: No, my Lords. It is the opinion of my right honourable friend that one nominated representative—Mr. Mackenzie, a leading Scottish chartered accountant—is a sufficient balance at the moment. It is true that the Shipbuilding Industry Board is considering requests for further assistance to the company. My right honourable friend the Minister of Technology is keeping in touch with the situation, but it would not be appropriate to discuss these commercial matters at this juncture.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his answer. Perhaps I should explain—may I ask him to accept that my supplementary question was no reflection upon the adequacy of the distinguished chartered accountant who represents the Government?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, asking a Minister to accept something is not a question in the sense in which it is interpreted in this House. If my noble friend could reframe his question a third time, I think he might be successful.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I regard the representative of the Government, Mr. Mackenzie, as perfectly adequate?
Loma KENNET: Yes, my Lords.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of the Minister's first reply, may I ask whether he can give any definition of

843
why this industry in particular has received such massive subvention from the Government, as against what might be the case with other industries credited with substantial export performance, who are well known to operate in such a way that the return on invested capital is lower than the average?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it is a question of the grouping of units on the Clyde which were too small. This has been done. The matter was fully discussed in the recent debate in your Lordships' House on the Shipbuilding Industry Bill.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, does that answer foreshadow the expectation that assistance may be accorded also to other industries?

PEERS AND PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS
2.40 p.m.
LORD RATHCAVAN: 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, in view of the decision not to proceed with the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, they will introduce without delay a Bill to abolish the disqualification of Peers from voting at elections for Members of the House of Commons.]
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the Government's position remains as indicated in their White Paper on House of Lords Reform (Cmnd. 3799, November, 1968), that it would not, in the context of a reformed House of Lords, be any longer appropriate to maintain a Peer's disqualification from voting in Parliamentary elections, whether or not he is entitled to sit in the House of Lords. But the Government have no plans for singling out for legislative action this particular aspect of their proposals for House of Lords reform as a whole.
LORD RATHCAVAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that not very helpful reply, may I ask whether it is not an extraordinary thing that this reform of the franchise, which in my opinion has noth-
844
ing to do with reform of the House of Lords, to which the Government have committed themselves and which, as it would apply to all Peers, including hereditary Peers, is very desirable, should be shelved?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think that we shall just have to wait on events.

BARROW (ARNSIDE) LINK ROAD
LORD RHODES: 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 indicate when a starting date for the proposed (Barrow) (Arnside) Link Road can be announced.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, an announcement on an estimated starting date cannot yet be made. The North-Western Road Construction Unit is at present making a study of the proposal in the detail needed to decide the priority it should have in the firm programme in competition with many other road schemes. After this, the statutory procedures of the Highways Act 1959 for the establishment of the line, which will involve a major bridge crossing of the River Kent estuary and the procedure for the acquisition of land, have to be gone through. There are all the other procedures that have to be gone through, including the questions of appeals and compulsory purchase. It may be possible for tenders to be invited by about the early part of 1971.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, would the Minister assure me that this is not just part of a series of delaying tactics? Is he aware that 63,000 people live in Barrow itself, 40,000 on the Furness peninsula; that large sums of public money are going into this area, which is a development area, and that much of it will be wasted unless first-class communications are established with the M.6 motorway.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is clearly an important development for that area. I can assure my noble friend that

845
this is not a delaying tactic. If it were, as I told the Department this morning, it is unlikely that they could succeed as they have, I gather, a rather good Lord Lieutenant.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that it is not just Barrow-in-Furness that depends for its future life on improved communications, but also the southern part of the West Cumberland coast, where there is considerable industrial development which urgently requires improved communications but which will gain no benefit from the link road through Penrith? Is he aware that there is a great fear in that district—because the population is not very great, and the traffic counts on these roads will not be high as against the counts on roads joining up two large towns—that they will never get sufficiently high up the list for this work to be started?
LORD RHODES: My Lords, before the Minister answers that question, may I ask him—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but we shall get into chaos at Question Time if we have two questioners interpreting one another.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, quite clearly in this particular area, with its rapid development, there are many areas that need major development; and these are all being considered by my right honourable friend.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the economic returns on this road have been proven; that the estimated return is 26 per cent., and on that basis the economics are assured, and the road would be well used?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of the question that my noble friend has put.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the decision to construct this road is now many years old—possibly two decades old; that North-West Lancashire, Cumberland and Westmorland require it, and that the North-West of England has been noted in a very recent Report as an area that requires development?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I fully agree with the noble Lord. The unfortunate fact is that there are other areas which can make an equally strong case. This is the point that my right honourable friend has to take into account, judging one with another.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is no area in the United Kingdom with a concentrated population like this which is so isolated, and that what it needs above everything else is a link with the outside world?

THE PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements have been made to meet the current need for search room and storage accommodation in the Public Record Office and what proposals they have for meeting those needs in future.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, accommodation in Her Majesty's Land Registry in Lincoln's Inn Fields, which is no longer needed because of the establishment of district land registries, has been made available to the Public Record Office. A search room for fifty readers was opened there last May and a further search room for a similar number this April. From 1st May, 15,000 feet of records are being stored there, consisting of Cabinet Office and Foreign Office records, Census returns and other intensively used records. There is additional space in Lincoln's Inn Fields for further search room and storage accommodation which will come into operation as need arises. The accommodation thus made available should meet the current and short-term needs of the Office. Plans for the long term are being actively pursued and I hope to be able to make a further Statement upon them before the Summer Recess.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that encouraging reply, I should like to ask two further questions arising out of it. The first, on the short-term current requirements, is whether Her

847
Majesty's Government will give such publicity as they can, to these new arrangements, not only at home but overseas, where those involved in research have in the past expressed concern at coming to this country and finding that facilities have been on the short side? Secondly, while welcoming the prospect of a further Statement on the long-term need, may I ask that Her Majesty's Government will do everything possible to expedite such a decision?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in answer to the first supplementary question may I say that we will certainly give the present position as much publicity as we can. Some newspapers gave considerable publicity to complaints at the time when there was a lack of facilities. I hope that the same newspapers will now give the same publicity to the existing facilities. As to the second supplementary question, we are most actively pursuing the long-term plans and, as I have said, I hope to be able to make an announcement about them before the Summer Recess.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, in regard to the Land Registry, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he is having more success in getting permission to take on civil servants for the district land registries than he was having when he last mentioned that matter to the House?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, very active negotiations on the subject are going on.

THE HUMBERSIDE REPORT
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Humberside Report.

REORGANISATION OF THE PORTS
2.50 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN rose to call attention to the Government White Paper, The Reorganisation of the Ports (Cmnd. 3903); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, I beg
848
to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper. In one way this Motion could be described as timely, for only this morning the National Ports Council's Port Progress Report has been issued and will, I hope, be given the wider publicity that it certainly deserves. On the other hand, your Lordships will not have had time to study it, and I must confess that I had to prepare my speech before I had a chance to look at it, although through the good offices of the noble Lord the Chief Whip I was able to see it a little in advance of publication, for which I am duly grateful.
Very broadly, the White Paper proposes that all ports in which more than 5 million tons of goods are handled in a year should be taken into public ownership; that the National Ports Council should cease to exist and be replaced by a National Ports Authority to which the ports so taken over, and also the ports now controlled by the British Transport Docks Board, would be transferred; that the National Ports Authority would be responsible for planning, investment, pricing policies and promotion of research and development in the nationalised sector; that subsidiary authorities based in the main on the principal estuaries should be set up under a scheme of reorganisation prepared by the National Ports Authority and approved by the Minister; that these subsidiary authorities should be made responsible to the National Ports Authority for the efficient and economical management, maintenance and operation of facilities and services, and the preparation and submission of proposals for the development and improvement of the harbours for which they are responsible; that the functions, property rights and liabilities of the National and Local Dock Labour Boards should be vested in the National Ports, Authority, which would exercise those functions subject to the consent of the National Dock Labour Committee and local committees established by Statute; and that the powers of the Minister in relation to ports outside the nationalised industries should be strengthened.
The National Ports Authority would be required to submit to the Minister within one year schemes for the acquisition of businesses providing port services, including stevedoring, within the nationalised ports, subject to the right of such

849
businesses to object and to public inquiry. Finally, it is proposed to set up advisory committees appointed by the Minister to assist the subsidiary authorities, and these advisory committees would have the right to be given information and also to make representations to the National Ports Authority and, if they are not satisfied, to the Minister, who would have power to give directions on the matters in question to the National Ports Authority except on dues and charges. I hope I have with reasonable accuracy summarised the proposals.
There are so many noble Lords with incomparably more experience of the ports than I have that it would be quite inappropriate for me to go into all these proposals in detail. I hope, however, that your Lordships will bear with me while I attempt to cover what seem to me and to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe the main issues. We have at least done our best to visit some of the major ports and to inform ourselves as best we could on this very important problem. The problem we are considering to-day is the best form of organisation of our ports, which are, and will remain, an indispensable link in the supply of food and raw materials on which we depend as an island nation. It is true that air freight is growing and will continue to grow. In value, 10·7 per cent. of our imports and 12·2 per cent. of our exports in 1967 were carried by air, although the proportion by volume of course was rather lower. It is highly desirable that we should remain in the forefront of constructing the means of carrying freight by air as well as by sea, and of developing our airports as well as our sea ports. This is particularly true of relatively short-haul aircraft, for over two-fifths of our exports to Europe, and over one-fifth of our exports to France, West Germany and Italy already go by air.
Sea transport no longer, therefore, has the complete monopoly as the means of carrying goods to and from this island, and indeed is in many respects at a considerable disadvantage in comparison with air transport. But it is through our sea ports that the bulk of our imports and exports will undoubtedly continue to pass. For a country which has to import such a high proportion of its food and raw materials, and has to export so much of what it produces if it is to maintain a high and growing standard of living, it is
850
particularly important to ensure that our imports and exports should be handled at our ports as efficiently and economically as at anywhere else in the world and, if possible, more so.
All this is common ground and obvious enough. What I should like to do is first to establish the common ground between us and then to point to aspects of the White Paper on which we on this side are not yet satisfied. On one thing I would suggest we can all be agreed. The first paragraph of the White Paper pays a tribute to what the National Ports Council have achieved and expresses the gratitude of the Government, albeit perhaps somewhat tepidly. Yet the fact is that since 1964, when the Harbours Act was passed setting up the National Ports Council, there has been a tremendous surge forward. I see that speaking in Bristol in February, Sir Alexander Glen, the Chairman of the British Exports Council for Europe, and since 1966 a member of the National Ports Council, said that while in certain respects he thought we had lost time, perhaps more has been achieved in the past four years than in the last half century. For all this we owe a deep debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lord Rochdale, who presided not only over the Committee of Inquiry which bears his name but also over the National Ports Council themselves until, I think, 1966.
There have been other developments. First of all, there has been the development of container facilities at Tilbury, Liverpool, Southampton, Greenock and Manchester for the deep sea trades. in passing, I would say that Manchester is a shining example of physical handicaps being overcome by highly successful private enterprise combined with municipal participation, with all the advantages to be derived from a strong sense of local loyalty and a keen desire to win trade by competition in service and price.
Secondly, we have seen the development of unit-load services—both roll-on/roll-off and lift-on/lift-off container services—for the Continental and Irish ports. Palletised services have made considerable progress in the same period. Thirdly, we have seen the construction of the new harbour and iron ore terminal at Port Talbot which will be capable of handling ships up to 100,000 d.w.t. and can be improved to accommodate ships up to

851
150,000 tons. Fourthly, we have seen the development of the docks at Tilbury, at Liverpool, and at Leith for not only the handling but the milling of grain; and but for the Government's veto, against the advice of the National Ports Council, we should have seen also a major development at Bristol.
Fifthly, we have seen also the grouping of port authorities on an estuary basis in the Clyde, the Forth, the Tees, the Tyne, the Mersey, the Humber and at Southampton. Sixthly, we have seen developments for the handling of packaged timber, including provision for large bulk carriers at London, Liverpool and Newport. All that we are agreed on. The second general thing on which we are agreed is that come what may—even nationalisation— competition not only in service but in rates must be maintained. The White Paper says so, and we welcome the Government's statement in paragraph 22 of the White Paper that:
"It is, indeed, important to ensure that there should be competition on service and on price between individual ports in the public sector,"
although it is not clear how that can be ensured under national ownership. I shall come back to that point.
The third point on which we are in agreement is that services which we provide at our ports and the ways in which we ship our goods must be compatible with those elsewhere, especially on the Continent of Europe. There must be comparable facilities at both ends of the sea journey, and the manner in which goods are consigned for export must be compatible with the way in which they will he handled after arrival at the other end, whether by road, rail, air or inland waterways.
So far as general cargo is concerned the National Ports Council have expressed the view that the conventional facilities we now have in this country are a match for those anywhere overseas. So far as bulk carriers are concerned, these, of course, are continually increasing in size. Oil carriers have already reached 300,000 tons, and I am told that they may easily double, or more, in size over the next few years. Therefore we are agreed that we must be equipped here to deal with the largest carriers, both specialised, such as for oil and ore, and also ships
852
of the combined type which are now being built. This means not only deep water ports but space on land at the port, both to handle and to process the materials imported. We are agreed about the need, but no decisions have been taken as to how and where to meet it. Then we are agreed that some smaller ports, and some parts of the larger ports, are obsolescent or redundant. The major ports can no doubt cope with their own problems in this regard; the minor ports are outside the proposed scope of national ownership.
On the unification of port services, I am not sure that we are all agreed about this, but I for my part would certainly agree on the importance of ensuring that it should be quite clear in every case where the responsibility lies. Each port authority must be the master in its own house. Not all port authorities want to be the sole employers of labour; some do and some do not. Legislation already provides powers to acquire port service undertakings, including stevedoring, by agreement. I do not think any of us would object to conferring compulsory powers to be exercised in accordance with schemes submitted and duly approved.
Finally, we are agreed on the need for standardisation of accounting procedures and for reorganising the capital structure of the various authorities, in much the same way as the British Transport Dock Board has already done. The first, I believe, could be done by regulations under the existing powers of the Harbours Act. If not, powers could be taken by legislation to do both these things. So much for the consensus.
The impression which the first sentence of the White Paper seems to convey is that everyone at all levels of the ports industry accepts that the present structure of the industry is inadequate to ensure that the best possible service is provided to the nation. From my inquiries I must say that I have not found this to be so. There are ports and port users who think that the structure is adequate. That is not to say that the services and facilities at our ports, individually or collectively, are already perfect and that improvements are not desirable—of course not. But many have expressed the view that the National Ports Council should be allowed to finish their job.
My Lords, I have re-read the debates on the 1964 Harbours Act, and the one thing that stands out is that everyone at that time was in favour of those provisions. Indeed, the speakers from the Labour Front Bench were almost fulsome about them—and I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, is here. Above all, they welcomed the central feature of the Act, which was that the National Ports Council should prepare a national ports plan and that development should proceed in accordance with that plan. The first need, of course, to quote paragraph 30 of the Annual Report of the National Ports Council, was:
"to bring about rapid improvements to the general cargo facilities at the main ports."
That was all contained in the Interim Plan, which the Government then welcomed. The same Report of the National Ports Council outlined what they called "the considerations which must affect the formulation of the national ports plan". These considerations could be summarised as follows.
First, the plan could not take the form of comprehensive lists of facilities to be constructed at selected places on specified dates for a long period ahead. Second, technological innovation in the port transport industry calls for a continuous revision of ideas about investment, so that a high degree of flexibility in the planning process would be required. Third, national needs should be more fully considered than they have been in the past, and to enable this to be done more information would be required—information which they have set about obtaining with the aid of the powers conferred on them by the 1964 and 1966 Acts. This information should provide the background to enable the National Ports Council to consider schemes submitted to the Government, and to make recommendations on them. Fourth, each major port would be required to prepare an outline scheme of development for a long period, together with an investment programme for the ensuing five years, and periodically the Council would publish a five-year plan. Lastly, where the port authorities' proposals do not include particular development which the Council consider desirable in the national interest, the Council would urge them to do it.
My Lords, here we come to the nub of the matter. Is urging enough? Ought
854
not the Council or Authority to have power to direct them to do it? And if they have the power, who is to provide the finance for a development which a port authority does not consider to be commercially worth while? Or, to put it colloquially, who is to "carry the can" if the direction proves to have been misconceived and the development misplaced or mistaken in scope or timing, or in any other way?
The White Paper says flatly that a National Ports Authority must have power to determine the nature and shape of the British ports industry, and goes on to say:
"Such power can only be entrusted to a body which has the discipline of knowing that it is fully responsible for the success or failure of its policies."—
and then, with a most astonishing non sequitur—
"This must mean national ownership".
But not national ownership of all the ports—only of some of them; only those which handle more than 5 million tons of trade a year—at present. And in case any other port should prove too efficient and prosper too greatly, the threat of compulsory acquisition is dangled over it—though, to be fair to the Government, the new Authority are to be given power at any time to submit to the Minister schemes for the take-over of any statutory harbour authority, large or small, successful or otherwise, if the Authority think it in the interests of efficient and economic management and operation of a national ports system. It is difficult to see how such a continuing threat could engender any confidence or sense of security in the ports outside the national sector, let alone encourage them to develop and to be as efficient and economical as possible.
I should be less than frank, my Lords, if I were not to tell your Lordships that while I have found differing shades of opinion, ranging from one extreme to the other, among those responsible for managing our major ports—differing even within individual authorities—there are many who favour national ownership. This is hardly surprising. What most of them seem to want is to end the present uncertainty—an uncertainty that was created by the White Paper—and they think that nationalisation under the present Government is inevitable. As one would expect, some even think that

855
nationalisation is the right solution. But this is certainly not self-evident, and it is not necessary in order to achieve the purposes on which we are agreed. And it is not supported by any argument in the White Paper, only by innuendoes.
For example, it is said that
"the first necessity is to enable the proposed Authority to concentrate resources in management on essentials";
and the White Paper speaks also of the present diffusion and misdirection of resources. But already schemes costing more than £500,000 have to be approved by the Government. If resources are being misdirected, whose fault is it? Proposals need the approval of the Government It is not as if the Government have always accepted submissions made to them or the recommendations of the National Ports Council; they do not always accept them. It is not even as if the Government have always consulted the National Ports Council. For example, I am told that the Government did not consult them about the proposed bauxite terminals at Holyhead and Invergordon. They did consult them about the terminal at Blyth and the National Ports Council advised against the proposal, as they considered the water not deep enough to take carriers of economic size. Moreover, the Government are proposing to retain their power to veto schemes in the non-nationalised sector costing more than £500,000, but not apparently to extend their power over schemes costing less. So they are obviously not going to have complete control here.
We are often told that we cannot afford any duplication and that therefore there must be an overall control of expenditure on ports. No doubt an overall control was necessary at the time when a great programme of modernisation was about to be launched. Someone had to determine the priorities. But once that is done—and apart from the big developments it seems largely to have been done or to be in the way of being done at the present time—is it necessary to continue to exercise such a control? Where no public money is involved, why should not any port authority which can raise money in the market for a scheme which the market considers viable and com
856
mercially sound be able to go ahead with that scheme? That is the very essence of competition.
But even if it is still necessary for the time being for all these matters to be reserved to a centralised authority to arrange in conjunction with the various interests, under the White Paper proposals the subsidiary authorities will be competing with one arm tied behind their backs. In that case, it may well be that the Authority will have to demand special priority for one port in preference to others at a particular time in the national interest. But otherwise each subsidiary authority must be allowed to compete in the fullest sense. I believe that local problems with which they will be faced can be best solved locally.
If it is accepted that subsidiary authorities under national ownership and statutory port authorities outside national ownership should compete freely with one another, what is the object of national ownership? How will the subsidiary authorities be better off? I do not know, but presumably they will then lose their 20 per cent. investment allowance, while the non-nationalised ports will, again presumably, continue to qualify. Or is the investment allowance to be withdrawn from all ports, thereby increasing the cost of handling goods?
In the 270 or so ports to be left out of the take-over any misdirection of resources that exists—and there is likely to be some misdirection under any system—will apparently continue, quite apart from the mistakes that the Authority itself will make from time to time. But there was one reservation about nationalisation that even those who either wanted it or were prepared to acquiesce in it expressed to me in every case, and that is that the power of decision should remain with each individual major port authority. The White Paper envisages that subsidiary authorities, who are to be based in the main on principal estuaries, should be responsible first of all for the efficient and economical management, maintenance and operation of their harbours; secondly, for the preparation and submission to the National Ports Authority of the development and improvement of these harbours; and, thirdly, for preparing and submitting annual reports containing statements of their financial results.
They are also to compete among themselves in service and on price. But competition means rivalry, in the sphere of ports, in attracting shipowners and especially shipping lines. The amount of freight passing through a port depends on the success of the authority in attracting them, and that in turn will depend not only on the facilities and quality of service provided within the port but on factors such as road and rail access and the markets which the port serves.
We on this side (at least, I speak for myself and I believe for my noble friends) agree that the powers of the National Ports Council could usefully be increased. We believe that the Council should be reconstituted. It should be charged in existing circumstances with the duty not only of co-ordinating the planning of all port facilities—not just the major ports—but so long as overall control of expenditure is needed of submitting programmes of expenditure to the Government from time to time and agreeing with the Government the ceiling of investment year by year. Within those ceilings and programmes the Authority should have the duty of authorising schemes submitted to it by port authorities.
We really cannot go on with the present system at any rate, where an immense amount of work is done by port authorities with feasibility studies and all the rest of it; then they submit a scheme for the Government who in turn submit the scheme to the National Ports Council; the same procedure is gone through again there, and then their recommendations go back to the Government and the same thing is done all over again. Whatever happens, we cannot go on with that.
So far as the possibility of a development coming along which a local port authority does not want to carry out, it seems highly improbable that any port authority would decline to submit a scheme for development which the National Ports Authority considered necessary in the national interest; but if they did the National Ports Authority should be given power to direct them to carry it out. It seems an extremely unlikely possibility. Any such scheme at present is approved by the Government only if the port authority can show that it is likely to be economic in terms of return on
858
capital on a discounted cash flow basis. The Government would, of course, have the usual power to give the National Ports Authority directions of a general character in the national interest, and such power would clearly cover the return on capital to be expected from developments in general. So within that framework there is no need for this complicated present procedure.
Is it not quite clear that if such powers were conferred national ownership of major ports would be quite unnecessary in any circumstances? There are in the case of ports several ways in which national ownership would not only he unnecessary but positively detrimental to the national interest. For example, it would be bound to lessen the sense of individual responsibility of the major port authorities. It would tend to restrict genuine competition between them. Centralisation would be likely to retard decision and action. It would certainly diminish local loyalty and support, and most harmful of all would be the centralisation of labour relations. As one authority put it to me, the implementation of this section in the White Paper on Employees in the Ports Industry would set back sensible labour relations a hundred years. Labour participation is absolutely essential, but surely this should be negotiated at local level. Port authorities could be placed under a statutory duty to work out local schemes with employee organisations by a certain time. It would be asking for trouble to put all this on the national level. Any local dispute would be all too apt to become a national issue. The Government must allow the consequences of decasualisation to be worked out sensibly at local level without committing themselves in advance to a system which could only make labour relations stagnate and fester. The Government's proposals are far too legalistic and far too inflexible in this regard.
Lastly, there is one aspect of port development which is bound to require special Government attention; namely, what is becoming known as MIDAS—Maritime Industrial Development Area Schemes. Other countries are spending the equivalent of hundreds of millions of pounds on port schemes coupled with industrial development alongside, often involving land reclamation. One can mention Rotterdam, Le Havre and Le

859
For (Marseilles), in Europe, and Kobe, in Japan, which I believe is the biggest of them all. All are heavily subsidised. It may well be that we shall want to promote similar developments. It may well be that we shall want also to subsidise them heavily. The oil companies and the British Steel Corporation can probably do these things for their own imports of oil and iron ore, but we may well want to create new deep water ports with ample room for general industrial development before them—at Foulness perhaps, or in the Clyde. Such new developments might well be under national ownership, like New Towns, at least to start with.
Here again, such developments do not require other existing ports to be brought into national ownership. Nor would the National Ports Authority, with all their other commitments, necessarily be the best body to make responsible for their development. For example, any such developments in the Clyde would best be left to the Clyde Ports Authority, or at least done in close co-operation with them.
To sum up, I suggest that the Government should think again about national ownership. It is absurd to maintain that an authority can be fully responsible only if it owns everything it has to supervise. That is not what authorities are for. Moreover, in a major port development the members of an authority will probably all be dead by the time it is known whether the development is a success or a failure. So you can hardly say that they should take responsibility for success or failure, or at any rate that it can be brought home to them. We believe that the port authorities should retain their autonomy; they should be truly masters in their own house and should be empowered to make themselves so. They should put their accounts in order and standardise their presentation. They should be responsible for their own labour relations and should prepare schemes of employee participation. And we believe that they should do all this under the guidance and supervision of a National Ports Authority with substantially strengthened powers.
There is so much common ground that it would be a pity if the Government were to take over the major ports against the wishes of almost all port users and a substantial proportion of people in the port
860
authorities themselves. We do not oppose nationalisation in all circumstances; but in this case we think it would be a thoroughly retrograde step—unnecessary and in some respects positively harmful. We beg the Government to think again. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.23 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this debate arises from the Government's White Paper, and since it is the first debate on this White Paper in either House I thought it would be right for me to speak early, to set out the Government's case for these proposals and then, with permission of your Lordships, to speak at the end of the debate to answer any of the points that are made.
I do not think there is any doubt that the efficiency of our ports system is of crucial importance to the industrial and commercial enterprise of this country, and indeed to the life of the whole community. Efficient ports sharpen our competitive ability. If our ports system is not efficient our costs, clearly, will go up and we shall lose out to overseas competitors. Also with our growing production, with its effect on exports and also on imports, we need ports so styled, so equipped that no bottlenecks should occur. This is why this White Paper and this debate are of such great importance. For that reason I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for having made this debate possible, and to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the manner in which he has spoken in introducing the Motion. I will seek to answer some of his points in the course of my own speech.
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, himself said, much has been accomplished since the Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, made their important Report on the major ports in 1962. On most, if not all, of the conclusions to which the Committee attached special importance significant progress has been made. Investment in ports has increased enormously, from an average of £18 million per year up to 1964 to something like £50 million, a level which is likely to be maintained for some years, helped by Government grants and loans. Here may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that it is our intention that the grants should continue to be paid, both to the nationalised sector and to the sector

861
outside, because we believe that this industry is of such great importance to the country that the grants should continue.
Then we had the decasualisation of dock labour which took place in 1967, following the recommendations of the Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Devlin. A reduction in the number of port employers—an essential part of the decasualisation programme—has been brought about under the licensing provisions of the Docks and Harbours Act 1966. On the main estuaries, responsibilities are now concentrated in the hands of one harbour authority. Tremendous strides have also been made in collecting statistical information which is so vital to proper planning. The National Ports Council, initially under the chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, and now under Sir Arthur Kirby, have played a significant role in these advances.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred to the important Report that was made available to-day and is to be found in our Printed Paper Office. It is called a Port Progress Report; it reviews the development which has taken place in the docks during the last five years, and it states the principles on which the Council themselves think that port planning should be based and contains information and guidance to assist port authorities in their own planning. I think that this is an admirable document. It is well set out, and I would recommend all to read it. As I say, it is a notable work of reference and a valuable contribution to overall port planning.
I am sorry that the noble Lord did not think we gave proper justice to the Ports Council. It is right that credit should be given to the National Ports Council and to the port authorities for the important advances that have been made. But no one viewing our ports objectively could claim that the position is yet satisfactory. Much still remains to be done. The world over, ports are facing tremendous changes in transport technology. In the general cargo field the most notable example is containerisation, in which the British shipping industry is moving ahead fast; and a whole new concept of through-transport operation is emerging, offering the pros
862
pect of greater efficiency and opening up new opportunities in competitive trade. In the movement of bulk cargoes, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, the changes are equally striking. Enormous tankers will shortly be on the seas. The same applies in the case of bulk carriers. The whole pace of change is quickening, and our ports are reacting to it. But this change in itself brings problems.
The question is also raised whether the pace is quick enough. The rapid rate of technological and economic change that has affected the ports industry in recent years has greatly increased the urgency of the need, recognised and emphasised by the Rochdale Committee in 1962, for a properly planned programme of port development and for the concentration of ownership and operation of port and related undertakings. The impact of change will be greatest in the harbours where the great hulk of our trade is handled. These harbours include the harbours on the main estuaries on which the Rochdale Report said development should be concentrated.
It is against this background, my Lords, that the White Paper has been prepared. At all levels of the ports industry it is accepted that changes in the present organisation are required, though there are differing views on what should be done. This is bound to be so with such a complex industry. It is therefore quite understandable that there should be differing views, but I think one thing that will be agreed is that the day of decision cannot now be put off. Nobody—and least of all those vitally concerned in the ports industry—wants a cloud of uncertainty left hanging over the industry. If the uncertainty is not removed now it may persist for a number of years. I believe that it would be a tragedy if, as a result of doctrinaire arguments and the taking up of irrelevant political attitudes, we were to miss this opportunity of implementing what we believe to be a workable scheme which could give the industry the stability it needs. The Government believe that the White Paper proposes a workable scheme which could give the industry stability. As I said at the time the White Paper was published, the scheme of reorganisation is no being put forward in any doctrinaire way.
We have been much heartened by the reception given to the White Paper from

863
all sides. Of course there are points in it that one interest or the other would criticise and would like to see improved. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, who was President of the Chamber of Shipping when the White Paper was published, referred to
"the potential for good which the White Paper undoubtedly contains."
That is a statesmanlike approach, and I believe it is one which the industry itself shares. His successor as President of the Chamber of Shipping, Mr. Francis Hill, has taken an equally statesmanlike and practical line in saying, as he did recently, that he sees sufficient flexibility to meet the points the shipping industry considers to be of real importance. I stress the words that "he sees sufficient flexibility". That is what we were seeking to achieve in our White Paper. It is noteworthy that Sir Andrew Crichton. Chairman of Overseas Containers, Ltd., welcomed the decision that, at long last, there should be a National Ports Authority. He remarked that one thing we could not afford to ignore was the dispersal of investment and efforts as between ports. Other representative bodies say they accept primary points in the White Paper proposals.
The main proposal in the White Paper is to set up a National Ports Authority with responsibility from the outset for the major harbours. The noble Viscount. Lord Rochdale, to whom we owe so mach for his work in this sphere, did in fact recommend the establishment of a National Ports Authority in his Report of 1962. I do not suggest here that he was recommending the sort of reorganisation now proposed in the White Pacer. But the noble Viscount advocated a central planning body which would have authority. The National Ports Council. which was set up in 1964 has, however. only advisory functions. It has done a great deal. but its terms of reference arc limited and it has no real authority.
It has been argued—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn argued this afternoon—that we do not need such a radical reorganisation as is proposed in the White Paper. It is suggested that we could do all that is necessary by strengthening the National Ports Council and relying, in large part, on voluntary arrangements. The difficulty
864
we see in this suggestion is a fundamental one. If a strengthened National Ports Council were given adequate authority and wider powers in relation to the carrying out of port development considered necessary by them in the national interest, this would be bound to mean. if it were to be effective at all, that the Council should have powers to tell the port authorities what to do, at least in some important areas of activity. But if the port authority were to be left independent this arrangement could mean that the port authority would be left to bear the burden for the success or failure of policies with which it did not itself necessarily agree.
This is why the Government consider that a National Ports Authority is needed, but that such a body can be entrusted with powers to shape the future of the British ports industry only if it has the discipline of responsibility for what it does—the sort of responsibility which goes with the responsibility of ownership. The major ports are already mainly in public ownership, and this proposal naturally means an extension of national ownership. I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, at least seemed to indicate that ownership was not necessary to instil discipline. It is my experience, both as a businessman and now as a Minister that if you are required to take decisions, those decisions are better taken when you are responsible for them and you own the possessions.
The major ports which will be affected by these proposals will, in addition to the already nationalised British Transport Docks Board, be all those harbours where more than 5 million tons of goods are handled in a year. After considering all the relevant factors the Government decided that this was the appropriate criterion. Five million marks a clear dividing line between the ports of major significance to our trade and the ports of lesser importance. The Port of Manchester is the only port included which is not at present in public ownership. But the ports covered by this criterion are those of major significance, irrespective of present ownership. This is true also of Milford Haven, where the tonnage is largely of one commodity—oil.
I know that other views are held on this. But I would emphasise (I think there may be some misunderstanding)

865
that there is no intention to take over the oil companies' own jetties. All these major ports are common-user ports, open to users generally. Of course when one draws a line one must have some criteria. We have drawn the line at 5 million tons per annum. These ports have a total trade of some 267 million tons, as compared with the total annual trade of all ports of some 305 million tons. The Forth group of docks has some 7·3 million tons per year, as compared with Blyth, which is the next in importance (but the first one that is excluded) with some 3 million tons. So your Lordships will see that there is a significant difference between the ports that we are taking over and the ports that have been let out.
The oil companies have, nevertheless, expressed fears that the ship dues they pay at Milford Haven will be increased to prop up declining ports elsewhere in the public sector. My Lords, let me repeat the assurance given by my right honourable friend. The oil companies need have no fear that they will be "milked" in this way. That will not be allowed to happen. And as there will be rights of objection to the Minister of Transport about the level of dues charged, my right honourable friend gives an assurance that he will not see this happen.
The establishment of the National Ports Authority will not mean operation of the ports from some remote centre. The intention is that the ports will be managed by subsidiary authorities of the N.P.A. The N.P.A. will, in practical management terms, stand somewhat in the relationship of a holding company to its wholly-owned subsidiaries. This is essential to the whole framework of the organisation. We are not going to stifle local initiative and competition. The proposed organisation will provide the stimulus for local enterprise and for effective competition both on service and on price between ports. The subsidiary authorities are expected to be based in the main on the principal estuaries, and they will be encouraged to plan the developments called for by the needs of the regions, working in close consultation with the regional economic planning councils.
It will be a priority task of the National Ports Authority to prepare a scheme of
866
organisation for the efficient management of their ports and submit it to the Minister of Transport for approval. Until this has been done it would not be appropriate for decisions to be taken by the Government about the shape of the subsidiary organisation. But I can assure the House that my right honourable friend has taken careful note of the representations already made to him about establishing separate authorities for Milford Haven, the Medway, Manchester and Bristol. He will certainly bring these views to the notice of the Organising Committee which he proposes to set up after the Second Reading of the Bill in another place and, subsequently, to the notice of the National Ports Authority.
The N.P.A. will be given powers to submit schemes to the Minister for the take-over of further ports. It has been suggested—I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, put this forward—that there should he a "cooling-off" period of five years free from take-over, but I doubt whether that is necessary or would be a satisfactory answer. Further ports will be taken over only if there are good and sound reasons. and objections will he considered at a public inquiry. If approved by the Minister the scheme will be laid before Parliament.
While the boards of the N.P.A. and of the subsidiary authorities would not be appointed on a representative basis noble Lords will appreciate the risks there could be of divided loyalties in such. Appointments—it is the intention that persons with experience of transport, whether inland or sea transport, and of industrial and commercial activities, as well as other experience, including the organisation of workers, should be eligible to be appointed to the boards. Moreover, we think it important to make appointments to the boards of the subsidiary authorities which will ensure that local pride and interest in the ports for which the authorities are responsible are given a proper place in the forefront of the boards' thinking.
We also propose new machinery for giving users and local and other interests an effective voice in the way the ports are managed. This will be done through local advisory committees, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has said. I have heard criticism of the machinery which

867
was set up in other nationalised industries, but in the end the effectiveness of the machinery will depend on the willingness to use it. But these will not be bodies with no teeth. If all else fails they will have a right to make recommendations to the Minister, and he will be able to give directions to the N.P.A. on the matters dealt with.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, did not dwell a great deal on the facilities within the docks, and in view of the time I will leave that subject aside, but clearly it is one of the most important and most complex areas in the reorganisation, and careful thought will have to be given to it throughout the country, because there are many varying interests. There are cases where shipping companies have their own labour, do their own stevedoring and the like, and all of these will need to be most carefully considered. But it is quite clear to Her Majesty's Government that the subsidiaries must have as much power and responsibility as possible, and, in particular, we must see a reduction in the number of companies involved.
I think anyone who read the speech that was made by Sir Arthur Kirby in 1965 will agree that, to a certain extent, what he said is still true. It indicates the problem of fragmentation that exists in the docks. He said:
"To anyone making no more than a cursory study of our ports it must surely seem that had we set out to devise the most difficult way to work our ports we could not have succeeded better than the existing state of affairs in which labour has no regularity of employment, in which there is excessive fragmentation in cargo handling, unco-ordinated transport to and from the ports, a multitude of clearing and forwarding agencies and, within all this, the inertia of long established custom. No one can wholly be blamed, all concerned are able to pass the buck and no port authority has complete authority, or if it has it does not exercise it."
Clearly, since 1965 there has been a major change in the docks, but there is still the basic weakness of fragmentation. We shall be consulting with all those concerned with our ports, on both sides of industry—workers and management. During the passing of the weeks—clearly, the Bill will not be introduced in this Session—we shall be carefully examining all the points of view that are expressed to us, as well as the points of view that may be expressed in the debate to-day.
868
As I said earlier, I believe that this White Paper gives us enough flexibility to meet many of the difficulties and uncertainties that are in the minds of industry. I am now going to sit down, and will listen to noble Lords who have spent most of their industrial lives, in one way or another, in the docks and the ports. If there are any points to which I can reply I will do so at the end. But I hope that we shall have a debate on the basis of advice, suggestions and thoughts of a constructive nature, so that this major industry can be developed, as it must be developed if this country is to expand economically.

HUMBERSIDE DEVELOPMENT
3.47 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement being made by the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs on the Humberside Feasibility Study, which was published to-day by the Stationery Office and copies of which are available in the Printed Paper Office. The Statement is as follows:
"This is the first Report of the Central Unit for Environmental Planning—a planning team drawn from five Government Departments under the chairmanship of one of my senior officials."—
that is, one of the senior officials from the Department of Economic Affairs—
"It is an important document dealing with issues of concern to people in all parts of the country. By the end of the century the population of Great Britain is expected to increase by nearly 15 million, a scale of increase without precedent. Regional and sub-regional strategies for population growth are being developed in all regions with the advice of the Regional Economic Planning Councils. In order, however, to consider well in advance the possibility of placing some part of this great increase in population in major new centres, three areas were selected for detailed study—Humberside, Severnside and Tayside.
"The Humberside Study accordingly makes a detailed factual appraisal of the costs and benefits to the nation

869
of promoting a major influx of population into that area which is well clear of the country's main existing concentrations of industry and population.
"The Report concludes that Humberside has the physical potential to absorb three-quarters of a million people and so become an attractive community of nearly 2 million people by the end of the century. It estimates, however, that existing plans, including new towns and town expansion schemes, should be adequate to cope with the increase in the country's population until about 1980, so that an immediate decision whether or not to go ahead on Humberside is not required. Moreover, further study is needed of how the costs and benefits of Humberside would compare with those of other possible ways of locating the same population. Nevertheless, Humberside should be regarded as an area which may well be needed as a site of major population growth after 1980. Accordingly, the Report recommends that measures should be taken in the interim to sustain the area's momentum of economic growth and preserve its potential as a major growth centre. A key factor here is the unification of the two sides of the Humber into a single economic area. To this end the Report recommends early completion of a Humber Bridge.
"The Government are consulting the Yorkshire and Humberside Council and the local planning authorities about the Report and its recommendations.
"The Government accept the Report's conclusion that the Humber Bridge and associated linking roads should be constructed in time for service in 1976. To meet this timetable, the necessary preparatory work will be continued so that construction can start in 1972.
"Like other major estuarial crossings, the bridge will be financed by loan, and tolled. The greater part of the cost will count against the road programme in the usual way, whilst the remainder will form part of the roads element in the programme for additional expenditure in intermediate areas which I announced in the House last Thursday."—
and this was circulated in our own OFFICIAL REPORT.
870
"When completed, the Humber Bridge will be the longest suspension bridge in the country, and one of the longest in the world."
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement, which is of particular interest to me for its reference to the Central Unit for Environmental Planning—the planning team. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord could give us any further information about the composition of that particular Unit, and the Departments from which its members were drawn. For myself, I believe that these great estuarial sites are of tremendous potential importance. I should also be grateful if the noble Lord would let us know when we may expect to receive the other two Studies, the Studies on Severnside and Tayside.
My Lords, I am quite certain that all those on Humberside who are affected, who have been so long pressing for this bridge, will greatly welcome the Government's decision to implement this particular recommendation in the Study. I should like to ask just two questions related to that decision. In the first place, can the noble Lord give us an estimate of the cost of this scheme, the bridge; and, secondly, when the Statement talks of "associated linking roads" is it there referring to the eastward extensions of the M.62? Is that what is intended?
3.55 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I will do my best to answer the noble Earl. I know that he is deeply interested in this type of activity. The composition of the Central Unit consists of economists, statisticians, planners and administrators seconded from Goverment Departments. I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Earl which particular Departments, though I think he could probably guess as easily as I could. I would assume that, obviously, the D.E.A. is very much in the lead, with such Departments as Transport, and Housing and Local Government; and I should be surprised it the Treasury were not around somewhere. But I speak now without any clear authorisation, because the important thing is that these members do not act as representatives of these Departments. The idea of the Unit and its techniques

871
are its own, and it commits neither the parent Departments nor the Government. It also has help from other bodies, in particular the Physical Planning Unit; and when the noble Earl sees this really very attractive and fascinating Report he will see that a number of individuals from the Physical Planning Unit, very largely from local authorities, have participated.
On the particular points which the noble Earl put to me, I would say that it is likely that the bridge and associated linking roads will together cost something of the order of £23 million; but an accurate estimate must await detailed decisions on the design and method of construction. On the point about the connection with other roads, I am not absolutely certain of the particular road to which the noble Earl refers, but certainly the Government's decision on the Humber Bridge in no way lessens our determination also to secure major improvements as quickly as possible in the East—West roads of both North and South Humberside. I hope that this answers the question. The noble Earl asked, finally, when the other Reports would be available. I am sorry; but I cannot tell him. These are very exhaustive Studies; and, obviously, the sooner we have the Reports the better. I will inquire when the others are likely to appear, but I do not think it will be just yet.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I, too, greatly welcome the Government's immediate acceptance of the main recommendation of the Study, because it seems to me that even if it were to turn out that Humberside was not the right site for this kind of development—and we do not have to arrive at that decision until 1972—this bridge linking up the two sides of the Humber will nevertheless be a very important and valuable step in helping the North-East. I hope that the Government will also follow up the other preparatory recommendations of the Report—those on ancillary roads, and also those on housing—and that they will keep in the forefront of their mind the continued economic growth of this area: for without its continuance there might be a loss of confidence which would defeat the possibility of this scheme's eventually coming to fruition.
872
With regard to the other Studies, I note that the noble Lord cannot give us a date for Tayside or Severnside, but I hope that the other estuarial propositions will not be completely forgotten—places like the Solway, for example.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may briefly reply to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I am grateful to him—indeed, I should have expressed toy appreciation, also, to the noble Earl. I have checked again. I cannot say when Severnside or Tayside will be complete, I am afraid. I now find that the answer which I gave "off the cuff" accords, in fact, with my brief, so that is correct. I do not know, I fear, the answer as to Solway, but I fully take the noble Lord's point. One of the purposes of this announcement, and the way the Government are intending to proceed, is in fact to ensure that the options really are open, and that the necessary development work does go on. Obviously, the decision on the bridge, which stands whatever happens, provides the incentive for the continued progress which is anticipated. so that at the new time a proper decision will be made and that progress will not have been held up meanwhile.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it might be inferred from this Statement that the completion of the East—West motorways towards Hull—the M.62 and the M.18—is going to be delayed until 1976; and that, if that is so, it will certainly come as a disappointment to those who are interested in Humberside development? Can he tell us, since none of us has had time to read this Report, whether there is attention given to the possibility of developing Spurn Bight as a MIDA? Further, what attention is given to the question of water supply, in view of the rather limited resources of the Yorkshire Ouse and Hull Authority? Finally, when the noble Lord refers to further development in the region meantime, is he supporting the Hunt Committee's suggestion that the Yorkshire and Humberside Council should nick out prospective development areas, having in mind that they have already picked out the Ferrybridge area on the A.1?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has

873
obviously more expert knowledge of the area than I have. I should like to make it very clear on this rather crucial issue of the East—West roads that the Government were concerned that this Statement might possibly lead to precisely the questions that have been asked, and therefore I stated categorically that the Government's policy in regard to that (and I must say that I have not had an opportunity to probe into the previous statements of policy) is in no way diminished or influenced in a contrary way: it is their determination to secure as quickly as possible the major improvements in the East—West roads of both North and South Humberside.
On the particular point relating to the Hunt Report, the noble Earl will recall that the Government did in fact make a Statement (to which I drew attenion in this House last week) which did not fully accept all the Hunt proposals. It was a more selective approach and the proposal for the special arrangements for the so-called intermediate area should apply, in the Government's view, only to North Humberside. They will be having discussions as to the exact limits of the area involved. This is properly a matter for discussion with local regional planning and economic councils. I hope that I have answered all the noble Earl's questions. If there are any more and I do not have the answers now, I will gladly let him know.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I am confident that the promise contained in the Statement that we have just heard, that the Government will proceed with the construction of the Humber Bridge will be the most popular news, the most welcome news, that the people of Hull and Humbersome will have heard in many years. It comes as a culmination of a long hard struggle. I am personally particularly grateful that this decision means the fulfilment of the implied promises made in the debate on Humberside which I introduced some months ago. It is interesting to realise, as the Government obviously do, that this bridge will make the Humberside area into a composite whole. I remember the arguments urged when I was a small boy, that the bridge should be constructed for making contact between the North and the South. But the real argument, which is now accepted by the Government, is that that area will be
874
developed as a complete unity. Although it is suggested that the cost of £23 million—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord is making a very helpful speech; but we are always on the borderline area with discussions on Statements, where, although certain relaxations are permitted, it is contrary to our procedure to have speeches on Statements. Encouraging remarks are welcome, but perhaps the noble Lord could now ask a question.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I think the Government are entitled to the encouraging remarks; but I personally should find greater encouragement if the noble Lord were able to tell me the precise date when work on the bridge will commence.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords. I have in fact given it. I said that it was proposed that it should start in 1972. I think it is 1972 but I had better make sure. I think I may have to refer the noble Lord to the Statement which he will see in the Official Report. I think it is to start in 1972 with the intention of completion in 1976. He will find that it is in fact a positive statement

REORGANISATION OF THE PORTS
4.4 p.m.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT ROCHDALE: My Lords, I should like to start by making two personal points. In the first place, I am at this moment presiding over a committee of inquiry into the shipping industry. It might be thought that it was questionable whether it would be possible to talk about ports without introducing the subject of shipping. Nevertheless, I was anxious to speak in this debate and therefore I will do my utmost to keep off shipping as such, as it would clearly be improper for me to say anything about that industry. I hope that your Lordships will not have any reason to criticise me on that score even though you may criticise me for other things that I am going to say. The second point is that the noble Lord, Load Shepherd, ended his speech by saying that he

875
hoped that this debate would be a constructive one. I hope I shall be constructive; but at the same time I know that I shall be somewhat critical and I shall try to avoid my strong feelings getting the better of me. I hope I shall be successful in that for I will then avoid embarrassing some of my friends in the port industry.
It might be helpful if I were to start by going some way back in time to explore some of the background that led up to the publication of this White Paper. I would go right back to the autumn of 1964 when the Labour Government came into office. The Harbours Act had just been placed on the Statute Book. That Act, although covering much of the ground in the Rochdale Report, was, in certain respects, admittedly very weak. To be specific, we recommended against a purely advisory council. It is true that, as has been said, we recommended a National Ports Authority; but it was a very different kind of authority from the authority now proposed in the White Paper.
Our authority, while having some advisory functions, also had some definite powers. I am not going to catalogue them here. Those noble Lords who are interested can see them in paragraph 146 of the Rochdale Report where they are clearly laid out. I would mention just one power which is fundamental to our present discussion and which is a subject which has already been talked about a good deal today, that is, the question of the control of capital expenditure. What we recommended was that investment in excess of a minimum figure (a figure which was to be determined by the Minister) was to be controlled by the National Ports Authority but with a right of appeal to the Minister by the port authorities if they were dissatisfied with the reception the Authority gave to their applications for investment approval.
The Act placed the matter entirely the other way round and placed control on the Minister subject to his being advised by the Council. However, despite the Harbours Act being very weak in many respects, it had one particularly strong merit. This was due to the fact that the then Minister of Transport, the then
876
Parliamentary Secretary, Admiral Hughes-Hallett, the then leader of the Front Bench of the Labour Opposition at that time, Mr. Mellish (whose name we read in the newspapers this morning), cooperated so well together that the Bill went through both Houses more or less as an agreed measure. So it looked then as if the backing of the Minister of Transport—of whatever colour he might turn out to be following the General Election of 1964—was assured; and that, therefore, something really good could be achieved by the Council and the industry during the following years.
It was my earnest hope at the time that, unlike what we had experienced in other sections of the transport industry, we should find that politics was not allowed to interfere with what was done. It was, however, all too soon before this seemingly bright prospect was seen to be little more than a pipe dream. Admittedly, if we look back to that first winter, the winter of 1964/65, there were considerable difficulties and considerable delays in the major ports. There were many reasons for those delays, largely outside the field of today's discussion, though it is, I think, pertinent to mention one in particular. The fear in the country just before the Election that the Labour Party might introduce considerable import controls resulted in exceptionally heavy buying overseas of all kinds of goods, which in turn resulted in, or aggravated, congestion in the ports. That was peculiarly troublesome because at that time as your Lordships will remember, there was in London a ban on overtime which spread elsewhere, so the situation was particularly unhelpful at that early time.
At any rate, serious congestion that winter in some of the major ports eventually provided a ready-made excuse for some important personage—I do not know whom, though one may hazard a guess—to float the idea of nationalising the port industry, perhaps as an alternative to nationalising the steel industry which, as your Lordships will remember, was a highly controversial matter at the time and clearly impossible of achievement with a Government majority of only one. So it came about that as far back as 1965 the uncertainty of possible nationalisation began to permeate the industry.

877
My Lords, I am not going to catalogue the rather tedious history of events. Some of them are referred to at the beginning of the White Paper in a sort of prologue; some, perhaps, it is in the interests of the Government to forget. But I would make the point—in effect it has been referred to already, I think, by both noble Lords—that five years of ebb and flow, of political uncertainty, is the most damaging climate in which any industry should have to operate, particularly an industry which has already embarked on a major reorganisation. However, my Lords, I am most anxious to be absolutely fair about the assistance or otherwise that we were given in those earlier years.
There were a few bright spots and I should particularly like to pay a most sincere tribute to the then Minister of Labour, Mr. Ray Gunter, because it was his determination to push ahead with the Docks and Harbours Act 1966, which followed my Committee's Report and then Lord Devlin's Report, that succeeded in implementing the most important points, namely, the decasualisation of labour and the reduction in the number of employers by licensing. This was of immense importance, and in that context I should like to pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, which was very important. I would also pay tribute to the individual officials in the Ministry of Transport who, I am sure, were anxious to help if they could. But, my Lords, their political masters, I am sorry to have to say, created a situation which to me seemed to indicate that they were trying to work constantly against the Council rather than to spur it on to do more and to do it it quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made a very pertinent remark that the effectiveness of any organisation depends on the willingness of those who have to operate it. He went on to say that while something obviously had been done during these years, a great deal more should have been done and needed to be done. I would agree with him. Had we had enthusiastic backing from the then Minister of Transport, carrying her colleagues with her and using—if I may put it this way—all the fire and cajolery which we have come to expect of her, a great deal more would have been done during those first few years of the history of the
878
Council. But, my Lords, that enthusiastic backing was not forthcoming.
Despite all this, and the frustration and uncertainty that it engendered, the industry and the Council together have achieved a fair amount; and here I should like to pay a great tribute to my successor, Sir Arthur Kirby, and his colleagues for what they have done. Like other noble Lords, I would pay tribute to this new publication which I also have had the opportunity to look at rather briefly, and I commend it to all those who are interested in this subject. It is a very remarkable and worthwhile document.
My Lords, I feel that it is against this background that we should assess the proposals in the present White Paper. The proposals in the working document, which are also referred to at the beginning of the White Paper, have certainly been watered down very substantially, and in very good cause. I would go along with those who congratulate the Minister on having had the courage to bring the proposals down as far as he has. I imagine that in so doing he hardly pleased his colleagues on the extreme Left. Yet, on the other hand, these watered-down proposals are still basically bad, in my opinion, and they become even more irrelevant in their present guise.
At the risk of appearing to your Lordships to be insufferably conceited, may I say that I am still of the opinion that the basic structure which my Committee recommended in 1962 was right then and is basically right to-day; though of course I recognise that every structure, whatever it is, must be capable of constant adaptation and flexibility to meet changes, whether in the pattern of trade, technology or in any other circumstance. So my first real question on the White Paper is this: having had the courage to water down the proposals so far, why make this change at all? In other words, I repeat what my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn has already said: why not try to improve what you have already, even if it is of Conservative origin?
Let me remind your Lordships that the Labour Opposition did not vote against the Harbours Act at its Second Reading. In fact, right at the beginning of his speech in another place Mr. Mellish said that he could assure Members

879
that the Bill would get an unopposed Second Reading. Is the reason for going ahead that, having dangled the carrot of nationalisation for so long before the Left wing, there is no going back? I should be shocked to feel that it was due to any really strong support from the leaders in the industry that the Minister finds encouragement to go ahead. But, whatever the excuse, I, like my noble friend, can find no real answer in the White Paper.
Looking at the White Paper, one sees that there are two main objectives which seem to stand out. The first is in the field of port investment and is referred to in paragraph 6. It is that misdirection of resources shall not continue. The second is that there shall be a greater concentration of general stevedoring into the hands of the harbour authority. Since 1964 port investment, as we already know, has been in the hands of the Minister for approval; over half a million pounds for each project. So I find it difficult to interpret the White Paper other than by saying that when the Minister says that without national ownership misdirection of resources will continue, what he in fact is saying is that his immediate predecessor, the First Secretary of State, and to a less extent himself during the last year or so, have been guilty of the misdirection of very considerable resources. I cannot feel that he thinks that, and I do not honestly believe it myself. A scheme put up by the port authorities, following their own most careful planning, has to go to the National Ports Council and they have another rigorous assessment of it. Then it goes on to the Ministry of Transport and is assessed again. In passing, I would say that this is needless duplication and highly wasteful.
I know that it has been said that in some cases there has been misdirection. Let me take the case of deep-sea container berths. Some people think that approval has been given for too many. The total number of berths which have been approved is 16 and in the order of 12 have been completed, and all are in use except some in London. for regrettable reasons about which we know and which are best not spoken about much more. The present indications fire that there are not too
880
many container berths planned. That is particularly true when the number is compared with the numbers being planned for New York and in Japan.
Perhaps it would be as well to look for a moment at the overall figures. This massive document contains some important tables on port investment, where your Lordships will find a great deal of information about the schemes that have been approved, that have been completed or that are being put in hand. There is information about both major schemes and minor schemes under half-a-million pounds. I find it difficult to deduce from the totals the actual amount of major schemes approved by the present Government, whether completed or not, but I judge the total to be of the order of £150 to £170 million for major schemes and of the order of £90 million for minor schemes.
The important point I would make is that this latter figure will include schemes in many ports which the Government have no intention of taking over under these proposals and which are therefore outside present discussion. They will also include some minor schemes which have been approved by the Government, of necessity, because Government approval must he obtained when a grant is needed; so the balance of schemes relating to ports which will be included in the White Paper proposals, over which the Minister could, on nationalisation, assume control, becomes much more limited. In any event, even to-day the Minister could, if he wanted, get more control over those minor schemes under the provisions of Section 9(12) of the Harbours Act. But this would be restrictive and could only act against the adaptability and competitive prospects of the industry. The point I am asking is that I find it difficult to see how there can have been misdirection that needs radical change to put it right.
But what about the future? The position, as I see it, is that the broad pattern of major port investment is already in being and while, of course, there will be need for continuing heavy investment, it will largely be within the framework that has already been determined. To sum up on investment, I do not feel that a charge of misdirection holds water. At any rate, it offers no excuse for nationalisation. In my view, the present

881
machinery, with some improvements, provides a sensible and perfectly adequate measure of control.
I should like to move to port operations and I want to divide what I have to say about this under two headings: operations between ports and operations within ports. Paragraph 4 of the White Paper refers to some 300 harbour authorities, but, I would suggest to your Lordships, putting it in that way is misleading and tends to over-emphasise existing fragmentation and to discount the considerable amount of work already done in grouping port authorities in the major estuaries. Those that have been grouped have already been referred to and I will not repeat the list and so take up your Lordships' time. But, bearing in mind that of these 300 harbour authorities it is not proposed to nationalise at least 250—although somebody referred to 270—it really means that these nationalisation proposals will have no effect whatsoever on the so-called damaging fragmentation.
If we take the major groups referred to in Annex I of the White Paper and the fact that they are responsible for 87 per cent. of the total trade, what is important and what both noble Lords who have spoken have emphasised is that there should be the ability for competition between them. The White Paper says:
"It is, indeed, important to ensure that there should be competition on service and on price between individual ports in the public sector."—[Paragraph 22.]
In passing, it is interesting to mention that in a recent speech I read, the Chairman of the British Transport DocksBoard said that he allowed his own ports competition on service but not on price, whereas the White Paper says that there must be competition on service and on price.
In paragraphs 19 to 22 of the White Paper the Government set out in some detail how the authorities should in general conduct their affairs, and it is summed up in paragraph 22, which says this:
"… as a result of these arrangements there will be co-ordination of investment and planning, and of operations within the ports,…"
I feel pretty sure that as he was writing this, the draftsman must have felt that
882
he was running into difficulties, and thought perhaps that at that stage he had better say something about competition, so he went on to say:
"… this will not mean the elimination of competition."
That is completely ridiculous. The more facilities are controlled, the fewer must be the opportunities for competition. As I see this happening, port authorities will increasingly become the puppets of the central Authority. The result will be that they will not attract to them the individual members they have to-day, their structure will gradually become solidified and charges will rise. I do not see how that can be avoided. Yet the White Paper says that this will not interfere with competition. I do not see how that is possible. However, I will leave that point, and go on to say something about operating within ports.
I should not disagree in any way with the 15. Indeed, I have considerable sympathy with the comment in that paragraph where it points out that, despite the greatly reduced number of port employers brought about by licensing under the 1966 Act, the pattern is still complex and leading to divided responsibility. This question of divided responsibility in the ports is of enormous importance. I have always felt that it provided a serious weakness in our ports system. So I should not object in any way to paragraph 16, where it says that the port authority,
"should become the principal operators of port services and facilities within their ports, and, by virtue of this, the principal employers of port labour."
That seems to me to be sensible and right: indeed, the move is already well on the way now under the 1966 Act.
I must qualify that by saying that I feel very strongly that there should be allowed to continue and develop the specialist operator, whether he be a shipowner, a through transport operator, or whoever he may be, being allowed to lease and operate, if he wants to, his own premises in the port. This already happens in this country very effectively, and it happens to an even greater extent in some of the most efficient continental and overseas ports. But I go further still and say that in the very long course I believe there may be room for one or two independent

883
providers of common user services, as well as the port authority itself, to operate in clearly defined areas of the port set aside for their sole use. These, and the specialist firms to which I have already referred, must be free to carry on and develop their business without the Sword of Damocles referred to in paragraph 17 being always there threatening to take them over if they do too well. In many respects, I cannot but think that the Minister would agree with much of what I am saying in this particular context, but he may feel that he has his hands tied and cannot do it. However, I put the suggestion forward.
There is another aspect which is absolutely essential. Jumping forward to paragraph 30 of the White Paper, it says:
"… the Government attaches considerable importance to fostering the direct relationship between registered dock workers and their operational employers …"
This, of course, is of absolutely transcending importance, and it really comes back to Lord Shepherd's point on the question of willingness to make the thing work. It was never possible with a casual labour system, but now that we have decasualisation the way should be open to reaching the position of normal employer/employee relationship, with some accepted form of joint negotiating machinery.
That more progress has not already been made with the advantages of decasualisation must, I am afraid, to some degree be laid at the door of the threat of nationalisation. I am sure that this has held up progress because the employers have not been willing. In saying that, I am not decrying the National Dock Labour Board. I would certainly pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Crook, who was for a long time the Chairman of that Board, and the present Chairman, Mr. Grint, and to others. But I believe there is evidence to think that even Ernest Bevin, when he originally created the National Dock Labour Board, regarded it as a transitional and not a final answer to the problem. This was a point that was entirely endorsed by the Leggett Committee when they reported in 1951. The question is: if that is so (and I believe it is so), why does the White Paper evade the issue?—because it does evade the issue. It
884
changes the name from "boards" to "committees", but the system seems to continue in perpetuity.
I have tried to confine my remarks to these three main issues of investment, organisation and operations, employer and employee relationship because I think they are the most important. I would not for one moment say that I have taken them in the most important order, but I have taken them in the order in which they occur in the White Paper. The conclusion that I come to is much the same as the conclusion to which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn came; namely, that we are under present legislation already moving forward. There is much still to be done. There is certainly room for some legislation to improve the present situation and to strengthen the National Ports Council—and maybe to change the name to the National Ports Authority. The sort of changes which my noble friend suggested I should endorse 100 per cent. But there is absolutely no case for nationalisation. This, to me, is quite irrelevant, and I earnestly ask the Minister whether he will think again. I say that not in any Party spirit, not from any blind dogma or even resentment on my part, but because I am convinced that such an upheaval as is envisaged here must result in a set-back just when the industry is on the move forward, and when it needs to go faster and not slower.
4.36 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships long, not least because I do not want to keep you long from the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. Your Lordships may wonder why a Bishop should desire to take part in this debate, and particularly a Bishop from a diocese in the very centre of this country and, therefore, as far as possible from the sea and the ports of this land. I can only say that for over forty years I have been deeply interested in, and concerned about, the employers and the labour force of the docks, ever since I was privileged to be curate to that very remarkable man the Reverend Tubby Clayton, founder partly of Toc H, and with him began to move around among the labour force in Dockland in London, and subsequently, a few years later, was a little responsible for the starting of what is now known as the South London Industrial Mission.

885
I suppose it is true to say that there can be few industries in this country with a more unhappy history than the docks, partially because of what we have already heard, the fragmentation of ownership—which, thank God, has been greatly reduced of recent years—but also because of the longstanding insecurity of the labour force, which also, thank God, has been very much improved since the decasualisation of the labour force, due in no small extent to the noble Lords, Lord Rochdale and Lord Devlin. There has been, also, a silent revolution in the handling and shipping of cargoes. Even so, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, there is a great deal of ground for improvement if one looks at the ownership of the docks.
I wonder how many of your Lordships know the full extent of this incredible division of ownership. There is just no uniform system of port ownership in Britain. Some ports are controlled by the British Transport Docks Board; some are organised independently as trusts under the management of statutory port authorities; a few are municipally owned, and a number are owned by private companies. Even in London, where the general impression prevails that the Port of London Authority own everything, ownership is in fact diffuse. The Port of London Authority own the closed docks, but not the river wharves; and there are more ship wharves on the river than there are ship berths in the enclosed docks. Furthermore, in the enclosed docks the Authority carry out all capital development schemes, including building of docks, quays, warehouses and sheds, and providing cranes, railways, forklift trucks, et cetera. But the Authority have no power to control the use of these facilities, even though they have been provided from public funds.
Side by side with these port authorities are a multitude of private firms and other bodies, covering such varied functions as pilotage, lighterage, conservancy, warehousing, and so on. In other words, in almost every port still there is a large number of employers of labour which leads to divisions of responsibility in the loading and unloading of ships. As we have heard in the debate of to-day, much has been done through the unifying of ownership under the National Ports Council, but much still remains to be done.
886
When we turn to the labour force we find that the port industry is, and always has been, at the mercy of wind, weather and harvest. The uncertainties of shipping and cargo have caused to gather around the ports small communities, as I well know, of a rather tough, independent breed of men, whose way of life is curiously isolated from the larger community in which they live. The insecurity of work—and how marked it was thirty years ago, when one saw them standing in hordes outside the dock gates!—has bred a determined independence in Dockland. The work can be hard, dirty, difficult, cold, hot, smelly, and often disagreeable. The former system of employment—the "free calls", as it used to be called—prior to decasualisation, encouraged the very worst in human behaviour. Men presented themselves for work and waited to be selected. Although this system ended with decasualisation, it has left an indelible mark in the minds of those who suffered from it for far too long.
To turn to the unions, the two main unions representing the interests of the dockers are of course, on the one hand, the Transport and General Workers' Union, and, on the other, the National Amalgamated Stevedores' and Dockers' Union. The latter has a smaller but very militant membership and a considerable foothold in London, Liverpool and Hull. The ground is ripe for unofficial activity, and the leader of almost every subversive sect in the country has a following in one or other of the docks. Although the unofficial port workers' committees were recently disbanded, the influence is none the less still there, and it would be difficult, I think, to estimate the numbers involved. The fact is that the militant, and often impossible, demands made by the leaders give the men a sense that someone cares for them and is prepared to fight their case; whereas their union officials do not always appear to do so. Agitators in the London Docks, in particular, are able to subsist on voluntary contributions from the men, leaving them free to pursue their destructive work, dividing the men more and more from each other, from their elected leaders and from the employers.
Let me now turn to the White Paper, which, like so many others, I have not had long enough to digest. Whether or

887
not we approve of the Government's plan for nationalisation of the docks is, of course, a matter of personal persuasion, but I can only say, as a layman, that one is rather doubtful whether there will be time to undertake legislation on so complex a matter, remembering in particular the vast number of owners, within the life span of this Government. And a Conservative Government are openly committed to unravelling any attempt in that direction. Surely this will present additional uncertainty in an industry already riddled with uncertainty and fear.
But, of course, the picture is not wholly without hope. Ever since the Second World War there has been progressive change in the way of management, in the movement of cargo and ships—larger and deeper vessels, up to 200,000 tons; heavier loads; greater use of road vehicles; greater cargo capacity. In other words, what bas been called the container age is definitely with us. Goods can now be packed at the point of origin and delivered, without repacking, to the point of destination.
My Lords, it is just at this point that the two main factors in industry meet and seem to be pulling in divergent directions. I believe that this is true not only of this particular industry but in many industries. On the one hand is the necessity to introduce to an ever-increasing degree mechanical aids and modern methods in the handling of goods, and on the other is the resistance to such change—vested interests at every point fighting to preserve the status quo. And, as in the case of so many other industries, the technological advance seems to have outstripped man's ability to release himself from the bondage of prejudice in favour of the wider vision. Technical development and advance, changing structures in industry, mergers and closures all bring in their train fear and insecurity. Many dockers to-day, particularly the older men, fear for their livelihood. To dismiss this fear as stupid, and the unrest it causes as mere intransigence, is not helpful to the situation; for the fear is very real, very understandable and of long standing. Many working practices which were not previously restrictive will become so under the impact of this technical advance.
Unions are frequently blamed for out-moded practices, and popular opinion
888
would have the unions give up such restrictions in the national interest. But every craftsman knows that it is his duty to the union and to his fellows to prevent trespass and, if possible, to gain more ground. Anything deliberately done to reduce even slightly the existing territory is suspect, because people think that it will lead eventually to the destruction of their craft.
My Lords, I believe that the solution lies more along what I would call human lines rather than along organisational lines—perhaps that is a Bishop speaking. Nevertheless, I believe that what is needed is an understanding of the nature of the man himself; of his background, his fears, his weaknesses and his longstanding pride; and, above all, a better communication. How often one hears this in every industry in the country to-day: a sharing of information, plans and hopes, between those who are responsible for the industry and the men whose livelihood depends on them! Were this to come about it would go a very long way to the elimination of many of the fears that grow in the human heart and fester there. It is, I believe, along these human lines of better understanding and communication that progress towards peace and unity in this very turbulent history may be found.
4.47 p.m.
LORD GEDDES: My Lords, I must first of all declare an interest. When the White Paper was published I was still President of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom. As such I led a deputation from the Chamber to the Minister of Transport, when we made known to him the preliminary views of the shipping industry. Those exchanges have since continued with my successor as President. I can no longer, therefore, speak to your Lordships with the authority of that office, but I know that as a director of a shipping company, and as one who is still closely associated with the Chamber of Shipping, I can reflect in what I say the views of an industry which is a major user of our ports.
And it is the user who, in the last analysis, must count most of all. It is one thing for committees or Governments to work out and proclaim a plan for port reorganisation. It may sound splendid, full of promise for this interest or that,

889
and bowing to this principle or that; but if in hard practice its end result is to increase the real costs of transport, then to the provider of transport, the user of the ports, it will have failed. That is the test which the shipping industry must apply. We are not concerned with theory or dogma; what we are concerned with is, first, to end the uncertainty which for so long has bedevilled the port industry of this country and secondly, to ensure that what is finally done really works in practice, that it does so efficiently and that it reduces, rather than increases, port costs.
These costs are high. To a liner company they represent something like 30 per cent. of total costs. We all, Government included, have an interest in such a high proportionate level of costs, for it directly affects our exports which are the staple liner traffic. In 1967 British ships themselves earned £460 million in gross exports, which is a measure both of the importance of the shipping industry as an invisible earner—the largest single contributor, in fact—and also, though only partly or indirectly, of the significance of port costs as a major factor affecting this contribution.
To speak plainly, port costs here in this country compare badly with those elsewhere in similar circumstances. This is the heart of the matter. It is therefore practical, pragmatic considerations that have governed the attitude of the shipping industry to the White Paper. We had been frankly worried by the previous proposals that the Government had aired. The new White Paper is unquestionably more realistic, and we welcome the changes in it. In particular, we were glad to see that the wholly unnecessary third-tier structure—the regional port authorities—had been dropped. There were other improvements, too, such as the exclusion, at least for the time being, of ports such as Felixstowe and Shoreham.
Nevertheless, there were also serious blemishes. These we have made clear to the Minister, and there has been a frank and valuable exchange of views. We have left him in no doubt that we regard the inclusion in the list of harbour authorities to be taken over of Milford Haven and the Medway, and also Finnart, as unnecessary and unjustified.
890
These authorities are almost exclusively engaged in the oil business. If the volume of oil handled in the privately owned terminals within the harbours were excluded there would be no question of the trade of these authorities approaching the criterion of 5 million tons per annum. The existing port authorities there arc concerned mainly with the conservancy work required by the traffic at the private oil terminals with whom they work very closely. The port authorities own few assets, and they have none of the dock labour problems that exist elsewhere. This is a highly specialised business, requiring and achieving close collaboration between the conservancy authority and the operators of the private terminals. The result is a degree of efficiency which is satisfactory to all concerned. Why, then, take them over? Who is to benefit; and how?
The Minister has told us that he will look to the National Ports Authority to put to him a scheme of organisation which it considers could be the means of providing for the most economical and efficient running of these ports. These are fine words, and I know that the Minister intends them to be helpful and positive. Clearly, once one assumes the basic decision to take over these ports much can be done, in terms of the constitution of the proposed subsidiary port authorities, to leave well alone in practice. The Minister can be sure that the Chamber of Shipping will co-operate to the full in this, if so invited by the N.P.A. But I must urge the Government to think once again before they bring these magnificent installations within the scope of this legislation at all.
For that matter, why include Manchester? Here is a port which, so far as I can see, already has all those qualities and attributes that we arc assured will be conferred by nationalisation. But it is independently and efficiently run. Why bring it within the scope of the Bill, just for the sake of it? What will be gained? What could well be lost? At the very least, give it an independent existence as an estuarial authority in its own right. Let us hope, here again, that the N.P.A.'s scheme of organisation will prove sufficiently flexible, in the event, to cope with this need, and similarly with the different but equally important problem of Bristol. I will not presume to put

891
the City's case for total exclusion, but what I will do is to emphasise how strong is the case for keeping Bristol separate from the South Wales ports. They may all be on one estuary, but there the resemblance ends.
I should like to say one last word on organisation. The ports which are not to be taken over have had a new lease of life; and how glad we all are! They will make the most of it and will provide that necessary competitive element, that sort of gadfly, which will be so very important. I know and appreciate that the Minister means to provide sound and adequate safeguards against further acquisitions merely at the whim of the N.P.A.—the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has assured us of that this afternoon. But would it not give these ports some rather more certain scope for enterprise if they were to know that there was a definite cooling-off period of, say, five years before further takeovers could be made? The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, made it clear that that was not in mind, but he did not explain why. Surely this is not very much to ask.
Let me now state briefly but clearly those matters for which the Bill ought to provide, if it is to work effectively. First of all, there must be competition between the ports. I know that the White Paper promises to preserve this as a principle, and again this is a matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has referred. But let it be genuine, in price as well as in service. The one is no good without the other. Together they mean everything to the shipowner, be he British or foreign. Second, it should be made clear that each port will stand on its own feet, with no cross-subsidisation. Then we can all see which is doing well and which is not. There is no better spur to efficiency. Third, port users must have an effective voice in port affairs. By this we do not mean, any more than the Minister does, that representatives of the shipping industry as such should be appointed to the N.P.A. or its subsidiary authorities. But what we do mean is that shipping men with hard practical experience in the use of ports should be included. Their voice and their experience do matter; and I know that the Minister agrees. We trust that the Bill will say so in specific terms.
892
Finally, my Lords—and this is probably the most important of all—the Bill should provide a realistic degree of flexibility as to the provision of port services and port labour. I wish I could feel confident that control of port labour by the N.P.A. will promote the desperately needed improvement in industrial attitudes and relations which we have all hoped would flow from the implementation of far different proposals for regularising employment put forward by Lord Devlin, after exhaustive inquiry, and, so I thought, approved by this Government. Such a fundamental change of direction at this stage carries grave risks.
As to services, what is to remain on the independent side of the line? Over many years most regular sea carriers have been involved in stevedoring activities to ensure total and continuous control over the movement of goods, since their handling from initial receipt to ultimate delivery constitutes a single process. In many cases port authorities are by agreement now playing a valuable supplementary part in this field, but to transfer the whole of it to them by Statute is a very different matter. This traditional involvement in through control becomes even more vital with the introduction of containerisation and other forms of unitisation, and shipowners believe that the concept of through transportation, which is rightly recognised as one of the cornerstones of more efficient maritime transport, would be seriously undermined by the wider division of responsibility between ship and shore which must result from the imposition of a totally autonomous cargo-handling organisation between the shipowner and his customers.
In our view, the creation of a monopoly by which the nationalised authorities became the sole operators of port services and facilities within their ports would undermine the degree of through control already exercised by a number of shipowners, and it is felt that the high level of efficiency obtained by it which is so essential to the rapid turnround of shipping would be lost. I would ask the Government to think again on this issue, and to think very carefully. We do not dispute the right of port authorities, including the nationalised authorities, to be substantial operators of port services and facilities, but we strongly oppose the creation of a monopoly situation and the

893
consequential elimination of competition. Let the Bill, therefore, leave scope for practical, realistic negotiation in this vital matter. Otherwise, we are convinced that there will inevitably be all-round increases in cargo-handling costs, which will put us at a still greater disadvantage with the highly competitive Continental ports, which, though publicly owned, arc privately operated.
In this connection I draw attention to a major example of the diversion of traffic to Rotterdam. The two British shipping consortia who have built the largest, fastest and more sophisticated container ships now afloat to serve the trade between the United Kingdom and Australia, and who planned to use a specially designed terminal at Tilbury, in the Port of London, as their base, have been frustrated in their purpose by the action of a lay committee of the union in imposing a ban on the implementation of all package deals and new agreements directed to the introduction of modern methods of handling cargo, pending the satisfaction of demands for revised pay and conditions throughout the entire port.
This ban was imposed last year and is being maintained in the face of an agreement freely entered into with the men in Tilbury and supported fully by their shop stewards and their union officials at all levels and after full consultation. The consortia were determined to honour their contracts with the wide and important range of exporters who wished to use the modern service being provided, and with the delivery of their new ships had no option but to make alternative arrangements to operate from Rotterdam. The service has received considerable support and it is only sad that this important volume of British trade is now passing through a foreign port rather than through London for which it was destined, and where great sums have been invested to provide some of the finest facilities available in Europe, if not in the world.
It is perhaps some consolation that the consortia, in being forced to move the trade across the North Sea, have proved convincingly one of the basic characteristics of the modern method of containerisation; that is to say, its flexibility. Nevertheless, the dangers to
894
British interests, including, of course, those of the workers in the ports of this country, are obvious, and it is a situation that requires urgent solution if a pattern is not to be established which would risk leaving Britain as a mere point of trans-shipment.
Be that as it may, what the shipping industry as a whole is saying to the Government is briefly this. "Your White Paper is not what we should have liked and it is doubtful whether it will achieve the efficiency in port operation which it claims. Even so, it offers a basis of re-organisation on which a lasting, effective ports system could be built. We, as port users, have a real stake in ensuring that this is achieved. We also have constructive contributions to provide, based on our practical experience and our need to be competitive world-wide. We know that you have taken careful note of what we have had to say. Let us now work together to make the Bill and its subsequent administration as good and effective as it can possibly be."
5.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I should like to offer your Lordships a few ideas of a practical nature about the White Paper, but before doing so I must declare my double interest, both as Chairman of the Port of London Authority, one of the ports which is proposed to be transferred to the National Ports Authority, and also as a member of the National Ports Council. Needless to say, any views I express are not the views of either of those two authorities. I do not want to talk at all about the pros and cons of nationalisation, except perhaps to remark that, listening to this debate, I have been struck by how narrow really the margin is between the two sides of the House. The sort of structure that we are all looking for seems to me to be a structure that could be equally adapted to a nationalised industry and to an industry organised without nationalisation. What is essential, I feel sure, is to get right the relationship between the Minister, with his responsibilities to Parliament, the National Ports Authority and the subsidiary authorities.
When I came to examine the White Paper, like everyone else I started at the beginning, and when I reached paragraph 2, which has, I think, already been

895
quoted, I felt very much encouraged. It says that the National Ports Authority
"… must have power to determine the nature and shape of the British ports industry …";
and if we are to have a central controlling authority that is precisely what it ought to have. But this power is very considerably whittled away as we go on through the Paper. First of all, we come to paragraph 8, which I think may be open to two interpretations, because at the end it says:
"The take-over … will be supplemented by the continuation of the Minister's power under section 9 of the Harbours Act … to control major harbour developments."
There is a sentence then that says:
"This will provide means of ensuring that investment in non-nationalised harbours does not conflict with the national interest."
But I have made some inquiries and I am told—the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will correct me if I am wrong—that the Section 9 principle will also apply in the nationalised sector. So, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, pointed out, we shall be perpetuating this system by which proposals for development have to be approved not only, obviously, by the central Authority which will be in charge but also by the Minister. In what way is the central Authority really in control of the shape of the ports industry?
Again, when we come to paragraph 42, we find it says:
"The Minister's relationship with the … Authority … will be seen "—
to be—
"the normal one between a sponsoring Minister and a nationalised undertaking."
I wonder whether we feel sure that the operation of nationalised undertakings has been so generally successful that we must assume that the normal relationship established in the past between a Minister and a nationalised undertaking is the right one. It seems to me that a far better system would be for the national Authority to be, as the White Paper says, in control of its policy, subject to very general directions from the Minister. These general directions, I suggest, and the framework within which they work, should be made known to
896
everybody. The Minister should then advise, let us say, that, "During the coming year you may approve of £50 million of capital expenditure, of which I shall expect 25 per cent. to come out of cash flow; there will be the port modernisation grant, and the rest you are free to borrow". Then it should be left to the national Authority to decide how that money should be laid out.
If, as one can well imagine, there are claims for more than £50 million in a particular year—I have taken that figure at random—it should be for the National Ports Authority to say, "Having looked at the whole position, we feel that the cut will have to fall on that one". How do they have control over the position if the Minister can say, "No, you are not to cut that one but some other one"? I do not see how the national Authority get the position of power described in paragraph 2 unless the Minister's control in that direction can be limited. When I have discussed this subject with people they have said, "That is quite impossible, because the Minister is responsible to Parliament and he has to answer for everything that happens". But is it not a fact that a line is drawn beyond which the Minister is perfectly free to say, and does say, "This is a matter for the management and I have no power to intervene"?
If Parliament wants to achieve this, it must write the limit into the Bill in the right place, because, of course, every time you give the Minister power to intervene you give every Member of Parliament, whether in your Lordships' House or in another place, and indeed everybody outside, the right to urge him to intervene. And so a policy which might be a perfectly sound and proper policy to produce economic ports for the users is distorted by pressures from outside. I should have thought the Minister would he very pleased to accept in the Bill something which limits very strictly his powers of intervention so that he could properly resist the pressures which will undoubtedly be brought to bear upon him.
Now what about the relationship between the national Authority and the subsidiaries? There is one passage in paragraph 3 of the White Paper to which I should like to call your Lordships' attention where it lays down the task

897
of the National Ports Authority, which is,
"to plan the future development and rationalisation of physical facilities"—
that is all right; and then it goes on,
"whilst at the same time adopting the organisation of work in the ports to modern needs."
Surely that is the responsibility of the subsidiary authorities who are doing the work. I do not see the responsibility resting on the national authority to,
"adapt the organisation of work … to modern needs."
That seems to me essentially a problem for the management of the subsidiary authorities, and I would hope that in the course of time that might be established.
Leaving that point aside, I come to ask myself, where is the thinking going to be done? Ultimately, there must obviously be thinking both in the subsidiary authorities and in the national Authority. But as I would visualise it, in the first place at any rate, the subsidiary authorities will be doing most of the thinking about future development. They will then bring their plans to the national Authority, whose duty it will be to mould these proposals from the different subsidiaries into a comprehensive whole—in fact, to be making the national plan which the National Ports Council has as its present duty. Of course there will be an exchange of ideas, a constant dialogue between the two; and as the national Authority becomes more, shall I say, well aware of the problems there will no doubt be increasing proposals coming in the other direction. There will be this constant discussion, and out of it will arise, I hope, a national plan that can be properly applied.
If I am right in visualising this sort of picture one thing follows. There has been some discussion, I know, as to whether the members, or some of them, perhaps the chairmen of the subsidiary authorities, should be members of the national Authority, the central body. I should have thought that that was quite wrong. In some cases it may work. The Minister has reminded us of what is in the White Paper, that the set-up is to be something like a holding company and its subsidiaries. Of course, there are as many different kinds of holding companies and their subsidiaries as one can
898
almost count, and there are certainly some where the practice is for the chairmen or the managing directors of the subsidiaries to sit on the parent board. I think that in most such cases it would be because the subsidiaries are rather more complementary to each other than competing with each other. In this particular case I should have thought that the danger of having representatives, if you can put it that way, of the subsidiary authorities on the central board is that it would almost inevitably lead to log rolling, and would make the task of the national Authority more difficult.
As a matter of fact, there is a particular point here because it is suggested—your Lordships will forgive me for not having the paragraph to hand—that members of the national Authority might be members of one or more subsidiary authorities. As I have said, I do not think they should be. On that point, all I would say is that if any of the subsidiary companies is going to be represented at the centre then I think all should be, otherwise I feel that we should have a situation that where decisions are taken, however objectively, it will be hard to convince the people who are not represented on the central authority that their interests and their proposals were adequately weighed up.
Before I leave this part of my argument, there is one point in paragraph 13 about the National Ports Authority. It is suggested that the national Authority might become the harbour authority and provide port facilities at any newly developed harbour such as a maritime industrial development area. This seems to me to be completely unsound. If the principle is that there is a national Authority controlling a number of subsidiary authorities, then any new harbour should either be absorbed into one of the existing subsidiary authorities or should be created a subsidiary authority in its own right. I cannot believe it is right to have some branches managed direct from the centre.
I want to move on from there perhaps to one other point about subsidiary authorities. If we get a set-up such as I have suggested—and I do not think it is far removed from what is in the White Paper—is there any reason why the, subsidiary authorities should all be set up in precisely the same way? Your Lordships will remember that the assets are

899
in fact vested in the national Authority, so that the subsidiary authority—I do not know whether they will lease them or what financial arrangement will be made—does not own the assets; it is simply operating under the general directions of the national Authority.
I do not see that there is any reason, in those circumstances, why all the subsidiary authorities should be set up in precisely the same way. I do not see why, supposing there were a subsidiary authority in the port of Bristol, a committee of the City Corporation could not continue to carry it on, having the duties and responsibilities to the national Authority that the other subsidiaries have. As your Lordships know, there are several ports where there has been a considerable reorganisation in recent times, where new authorities have been set up. I am told that they are working well. They are quite new and it seems a great pity to tear them up and start all over again.
The right reverend Prelate said, and we are always properly reminded of this, that dealing with industrial labour is a human problem. I would venture to suggest that managers are human too, and that when you have a new management structure set up a few years ago it is hard to tear it up and say that we are going to have a new structure just in order to fit in with some overall plan. Why should not the Hartlepools and Tees Authority, or the Forth Authority, which have been set up only in the last few years, be the subsidiary authorities for those harbours? I should like to put that view before the Minister, and no doubt the organising committee when it comes into being.
Apart from the actual harbours themselves, I should like to say a few words about the stevedoring services and other ancillary services. In spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said. I believe that there are tremendous advantages in bringing public stevedoring services under one hat, and if that is done I think it must be under the port authority, in this case the subsidiary authority. The noble Lord said (and this is a real danger) that we then get monopoly conditions and no proper competition. I must admit that that gave me a lot of concern when I first tried to think about this arrangement.
900
But if in fact the provisions about charging can be properly seen through, the effect will be that there will be keen competition; because if charges are to to be related to costs we all know that in a service industry the costs are extremely sensitive to changes in throughput; and I can be sure that the managers will be anxious to maximise their through-put in order to keep down their costs and to keep down their charges. There is no doubt of that, because otherwise they will be losing traffic to other ports, and the effect will be like having two people at one end of a seesaw: as their charges go up they will lose more traffic and the position will go from bad to worse. So I do not believe that we need be too worried about lack of competition. And, happily, under this scheme we shall always have the small ports outside the gadflies to which the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, referred, which I do not always like but which I welcome, if I may put it in that way.
I am not at all so sure about some of the other services that are mentioned in the White Paper. I do not see why lighterage should be taken over. This is a special problem in only a few ports, including London. Lighterage is just one way in which the shipper of cargo sends his cargo to the ship, or the receiver takes it away. It is an alternative to a lorry. Nobody suggests that the Port Authority should nationalise all the lorries that come into the docks, so why nationalise the lighterage? I am afraid the reason for it—and it is a very difficult one—is that running all through these proposals is the desire to nationalise the employers of dock labour. In the original Dock Labour Scheme dock labour was defined in certain ways, including the lighterage, and that is why this proposal is put in. I venture to suggest, however, that from the point of view of the efficient running of the port there is no need to consider the nationalisation of lighterage—and I put warehousing in very much the same category. In fact, the general tendency now is to get warehouses away from the port areas where land is expensive. The warehousing in the port is in any case in competition with warehousing outside the port, and I do not see that it is an essential part of a port's function, although for historical reasons some ports have engaged in the warehousing business.

901
Just a word about the ports outside the scheme. I welcome the decision to leave out the small ports, if for no other reason than that I think the National Ports Authority are going to have a tremendous job to do and it will be a pity to clutter them up with a number of very small ports which are of relatively little importance to the country's economy and which are, from all accounts, run very efficiently and well—they are, in my opinion—and they can very well be left alone.
I had a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, when he spoke about Milford Haven. This is indeed a very difficult question. Everybody agrees, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, that the oil installations themselves are outside the nationalisation scheme; and whether it is really worth while nationalising a conservancy authority that is serving, practically speaking, nobody except those oil companies, I must say I rather doubt. I am not quite so sure that I go with him over the Medway, not because it is so close to the Thames, but because if there is to be any real forward planning in the Thames Estuary I think it must be done to include the Medway.
May I just say a few words about the question of employees? As is said in the White Paper, the two Reports of the Lord Devlin's Committee have provided an improved basis for better industrial relations. Certainly I should like to see that given a chance to work, but I agree with what has been said, that the many changes and the overhanging clouds have made this a little more difficult. Negotiations have been drawn out, and I blame, I suppose, both sides. I certainly cannot lay all the blame on one side for that. It is of tremendous importance to get these negotiations through, and I do not myself feel convinced that the measures here proposed will help to get them through. Will fundamental changes at this time really help us? I agree that in the schemes put forward by the National Port Authority under the White Paper the question is one of immense importance, and it is one that must be borne in mind.
There is a very peculiar provision in paragraph 32. The dock labour scheme, in my opinion, is not perfect. As I
902
think the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, said, even when the scheme was introduced it was regarded only as a first step, not necessarily as something upon which to build but as something on which to experiment. It has, unhappily, become an emotional issue, and I thoroughly agree with paragraph 34 of the White Paper which says that no attempt should be made to alter it now. It seems to me that paragraph 32, with the interim proposals, is quite unacceptable. It is provided, as your Lordships will remember, that the duties and functions of those dock labour boards are to be handed over to the nationalised authorities but to be exercised only with the consent of dock labour committees. If that is not power without responsibility, on one side, and responsibility without power, on the other, I simply do not recognise it. It seems to me a quite impossible suggestion. Of course it has been left in the White Paper that this proposal shall be open for further discussion, and I trust that further discussion will take place. I should have thought it was much better to continue the present National Dock Labour Board and local dock labour boards, with all their faults, until the new organisation is working, when the two sides can sit down and really try to work out a substitute.
While on this subject, I would mention one small point. The suggestion in the White Paper is that on these local dock labour committees the nationalised industry should always have the majority of employer representatives. I do not know whether it was overlooked that the district in which the dock labour board is organised includes districts in which there will not be any nationalised employers. I think Plymouth is a district on its own: Aberdeen is a district on its own; so is the whole of Cornwall. The only way in which the proposals in the White Paper could become effective would be by making the districts larger. But this, of course, would defeat the main object of having a local board, which is that when difficulties arise the men will realise they have someone on the spot, or reasonably near to the spot where they work, whom they can go and see. I think that that particular proposal also needs some further consideration.
My Lords, I apologise if I have spoken for too long. I have been rather living

903
with this problem for a long time now, and I could go on for a great deal longer; but I do not think I should try your Lordships' patience any more. I have tried to outline the sort of structure which I feel is what we all want to aim at, and I would only repeat what I said at the beginning: that it seems to me that that sort of structure is almost equally applicable to the proposals of Her Majesty's Government and to the proposals of the Opposition.
5.28 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am very glad to be able to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who of course is chairman of that great port organisation, the Port of London Authority. In the first year of World War II, before I went to sea, I had the honour to be the Naval Control Service Officer in charge of merchant shipping movement in the Port of London, and I need hardly say that I found the ramifications of this port very great indeed, and that they were admirably administered by the Port of London Authority. I am sorry to see from the White Paper that it will soon disappear into this new nationalised organisation.
I should like to deal for a few minutes with the small ports in this country. I would say that the shipping industry fully appreciates the reprieve which it has been given in the White Paper from the maw of nationalisation. It is interesting to note that two ports which handle less than 5 million tons of goods per annum and which, therefore, come under the reprieve, are Felixstowe and Ipswich. Under their present management expansion has really been phenomenal. For instance, at Felixstowe cargo handled has increased from 81,000-odd tons in 1957 to 1,242,000 tons in 1967, a very good example, I would say, of private enterprise at its best. I suggest that Her Majesty's Government should give these small ports a reasonable degree of security into the future, such as some definite period of time which should elapse before any acquisition can be made. I also hope that when the Bill is drafted the National Ports Authority will be precluded from acquiring other ports, unless it can be amply demonstrated that it is, in fact, in the national interest.
904
Your Lordships will be aware from the White Paper that it is intended to transfer to the National Ports Authority all the ports owned by the British Transport Docks Board. This will mean the inclusion of a number of small ports, such as King's Lynn and Lowestoft. I suggest that those ports will not really fit into the new organisation, and that it would be very much better to offer them for sale to their local municipal authority or, perhaps, to transfer them to private enterprise. In the past, the port of Whitstable was transferred from State ownership to the local authority with great success, and it is now a very thriving port. I hope that the national Authority will not be given powers which will enable it to veto harbour developments outside the nationalised sector, which developments would clearly be in the interests of trade and shipping. I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can give the House some assurance on that point.
There is one other matter which I should like to raise. It is stated in paragraph 30 of the White Paper that:
"It is, however, the Government's general intention that all employees in the industry, including those in the residual private sector, should benefit from the arrangements for participation established for the nationalised sector, and be guaranteed terms and conditions of employment not less favourable than those obtaining under the National Ports Authority for similar work in the same area."
I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is intended that that statement should be interpreted to mean that precisely the same terms and conditions of employment as at the large nationalised ports must also be applied to the small independent ports, where conditions can be vastly different.
Finally, as quite a separate issue, I should like to emphasise that any port, large or small, is only as efficient as its lines of communication. Better port facilities and improved cargo handling methods are all very well, but if there is a bottle-neck, due, for instance, to transit sheds being used as warehouses, to road congestion or to a shortage of railway rolling stock, delays to cargo and to the turn-round of ships are bound to occur.
As a case in point, I would instance the present position at the port of Immingham, where a British ship, the "Stephano" is discharging a cargo of

905
steel from Australia. I think that the ship arrived on April 10 and berthed on April 17, almost a fortnight ago. In that time, less than half the cargo of 21,500 tons has been discharged, because British Rail have been unable to provide the necessary bogie bolster wagons. I understand that at a time when steel business is brisk, British Rail take the view that priority must be given to their own normal domestic movements, and they are not prepared to give any degree of priority to the supply of rolling stock for the discharge of this vessel.
That may be the commercial approach which we should now expect, and perhaps accept, from British Rail, but is it in the overall national interest? If this ship is not discharged by the end of this week, a valuable dollar-earning time charter for a minimum period of four months will be frustrated, to the detriment of the nation's balance of payments. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will undertake to look into this particular matter, as well as to consider the overall position regarding transport facilities to and from our ports. I hope that when the proposals in the White Paper are drafted into a Bill, they will prove a satisfactory basis for the working of our ports. But I cannot help feeling that they will, in the end, produce a top-heavy structure which will be detrimental to our shipping and trade generally.
5.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in seeking to intervene in the debate after so many noble Lords with great knowledge of the industry and great experience of sea-going or ship-owning, I must declare an interest in that my practice, as a consultant in economic geography, advising companies on location, involves my continually looking at the facilities and availabilities of ports, of container bases and of the communication links in between. The words I have to say are those of a layman, and I hope that experts among your Lordships will be tolerant as ever in putting up with the adumbrations of a layman's observations.
First of all, ports are not mere docks; they are active nodal interchanges within a vast organic network of communications, whereby goods and services flow and provide the life blood for our civilisation. The debate this afternoon has been
906
more about organisation than about the narrow and, I suggest with respect, somewhat tarnished and discredited issue of nationalisation as such. After all, it has been said many times that 18 out of the 19 ports being considered are already under public ownership and control. It is surely a question of their organisation. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, stressed the problem of fragmentation within this organic net, and I could not help feeling that there was much point in the stress that he laid. The question is one of efficiency but, surely, also of something more. Are we not looking for the sight of a recovery of what I might call, mixing metaphors, the spirit of the Hansa ports, great merchant venturer ports where all bent their energies and enthusiasm and love to the creation of great trade? This is something that those of us who have been to Felixstowe have sensed, something that some of us recognised again when we read that two private enterprise consortia were willing to talk in terms of raising £1,000 million for the Maplin development in the Thames estuary. If we are thinking in terms of recovery or restoring something like the Hansa spirit to our transport industry I believe that the White Paper fails.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, called for constructive proposals and one feature of this debate has been a desire on the part of every participant to help and not hinder a vital national interest. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, spoke of the White Paper as a basis for collaboration and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, remarked how narrow overall are the differences that appear to divide us.
With regard to paragraph 2 and the argument that the discipline of ownership is necessary to ensure efficiency and that this in turn must mean national ownership, my words are scarcely needed on top of those of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and, indeed, of others both inside and outside this House, who have described that as a gross, a gargantuan non sequitur. We find other shortcomings in the White Paper before we come on to the positive and welcome part of it. In paragraph 21 we are told that the subsidiaries are to consult with the Regional Economic Planning Councils. What if they do not agree? What about Portbury, a project supported by the South-West Regional Economic

907
Planning Council but turned down in London? What about Humberside's claim for a share of the liner traffic that is now running from Scotland to Parkestone? The Yorkshire and Humberside Council would dearly like to see some of that traffic going to Humberside. We are told that port users—I refer to paragraph 37—are to have an effective voice through consultative committees. It is also admitted that those committees may—and I cannot help thinking that the word "may" means "will" in this case—well be chaired by a member of the National Ports Authority Board itself or of one of its subsidiaries.
My Lords, my friends in the shipping industry tell me that specialisation is the critical factor in contemporary development, and certainly the most obvious example to-day is the port of Immingham. Not many years ago that port was dead, but thanks to its concentration on cars on the hoof, as it were, roll-on and roll-off, on liquid sulphur and on cement, it has gone forward immensely.
If there is a case for the kind of conglomerate amalgamation proposed in the White Paper, surely it would extend also to specialised, and increasingly specialised, activities. But, of course, the White Paper dodges the isue of the most specialist case of all, the oil industry, and one can well understand why. If it dodges that issue, what about the other features of the transport industry relating to the ports that surely should come under this nationalisation proposal if it had any sense in it at all?
If the ports are to be nationalised, why not the container bases? And if the one and then the other, what about the road links between? Liverpool and London do not even have a motorway except the other side of densely-peopled areas. Southampton and Hull have no motorway at all. The packet ports lie at the end of roads that go back to coaching days, and the East Anglian ports are at the end of country lanes. Surely, if one is going to say that the entire operation should come under a single authority for management and control, then you take the lot. And, if so, what about erosion? Spurn Bight, on the Humber, is a case which comes to mind. If you are going to amalgamate the whole thing, can you
908
separate one function from another? There is either a case for nationalising the lot, which really means the lot, or else there is no case at all. But, having said that, we now find we are promised competition under this set-up. That is fine if we are able to believe it. But are we really able to believe that, for example, British and Irish Steamships would be as free under the new set-up proposed as under the present to switch their inquiries for roll-on and roll-off facilities from Liverpool to Swansea?
No, my Lords; surely the competition which exists between the ports is less between the ports for trade than between the ports for the investment which will enable them to hunt the particular kind of trade on which they have, rightly or wrongly, set their hearts in, of course, the proper spirit of specialisation. And, having regard to the immense, rapid and terrifying technical progress which we have seen, from the luffing cranes and 10-ton waggons of yesterday to the portrainer gantries and liner-trains of to-day, when we see the claims of the pallet, and the facilities for the roll-on/ roll-off, and maybe to-morrow the claims for special gear for handling cargo hovercraft—we know that all these make very great demands on capital. And of course the critical function (and here is where the White Paper is helpful and on the right lines) which has been stressed by one speaker after another in devising and implementing a national plan for port development is some screening of capital demands and some way of guiding this and perhaps discouraging that. There is always the danger of over-provision. Some people ask the question—I only repeat it here—whether there is not perhaps some overlap in the container provisions of Greenock and Liverpool at the same time. But certainly specialisation is happening. Bristol is going for trade with the smaller East coast ports of America; Manchester has concentrated to a considerable degree on Canadian ports; we have seen Newport going for the short sea routes to Ireland. Specialisation surely must come, must come further, must be developed, must be encouraged in a sophisticated and effective fashion—specialisation both as to destination and as to cargo types. Surely, my Lords, the lesson of this debate, the truth at the heart of this well-intentioned White Paper, is that by

909
a sophisticated handling and administration of Government grant and of subsidised loan so as to provide the critical component of any viable proposal for capital expenditure that draws upon the public's savings—by such a means, by such an administration, a financially viable ports system can be worked out and indeed the viability of particular projects can be made or broken.
We are talking, are we not, of capital investment that would involve amortisation over very considerable periods—possibly 50 years, possibly 60 years, perhaps even more. To determine the kind of priorities and the merits of this scheme over that, very wise men are needed. I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, will not take it amiss (I do not for a moment think he will) if I say that great men have also sometimes been wrong; and despite the immense value of the Rochdale Report there are one or two statements in that great and valuable document which, after a lapse of only seven years, look a little stranger than when they were written.
It was suggested, unless I misread the Report, that the Humber development lower down than the Salt End jetties was unlikely and not particularly desirable; that on the Clyde no great new port development was needed, that ore carriers were unlikely to go much beyond 50,000 tons. Those were judgments made, in good faith, by great and good and experienced men. But the fallability of such judgments surely illustrates that in the National Ports Authority, whatever its functions, there must be men of very far sight who can take account of highly recondite considerations. In order not to leave the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, alone, what about Esso? Esso's management in 1947 considered themselves far-sighted when they picked Fawley as a refinery site in the belief that tankers were unlikely to go above 60,000 tons.
My Lords, I cannot, of course, as a Scottish Peer, intervene without some reference to my own country. First of all, I think we shall all welcome (though I speak now entirely for myself) the mention in paragraph 19 of the White Paper that there shall be a Scottish Authority. We in Scotland are well accustomed to taking our own decisions; and that may well be why the motorway system in Scotland, instead of avoiding the ports as
910
it does in England, is designed to link them, from Greenock and the Lower Clyde to Grangemouth and Leith. We are accustomed to taking our own decisions; and we think that we take them very well and, on the whole, with very limited infringement of the public purse of the Kingdom as a whole. But we do think that we know our own business, and therefore when there is some sort of offer in this White Paper of a Scottish Authority, I would say, speaking for myself, "Yes". But this must be a independent Scottish Authority, not one subject to decisions by an N.P.A. in London—London-based and London-thinking—but having direct access to the Minister of Transport with, of course, inevitably flanking support from the Secretary of State.
My Lords, what about steel? There has been little reference in this debate to steel. I think it is fair to say that the steel industry, certainly in Scotland, possibly in Britain as a whole, has been spoon-fed with ore from small carriers. Ore has been unloaded at Glasgow from ships of 28,000 tons or thereabouts, and now we face a proposal from the Clyde Port Authority that a great ore discharge point should be established at Hunterston to take, not 3 million tons a year but 8 million tons from the gigantic tankers at a suggested saving in freight of 15s. a ton, so that some 3 million or 4 million tons of ore could be used in Scotland and the balance transhipped and sent down by pusher barge to the Mersey and the Midlands. It would be helpful perhaps if the noble Lord, when he replies, could make some comment on that very exciting proposal which has already won the hearts of a great many of my fellow countrymen.
My Lords, when we are thinking about the National Ports Authority's composition, are we—at any rate those of us who are laymen—not bound to consider; are not its members bound, looking 60 years ahead if possible, to ask: "How big are the ships going to get?" At present there are more than 20 ore carriers afloat of more than 80,000 tons each; double that number are on order. There is talk of ore carriers going to 150,000 or even 200,000 tons. With regard to tankers I am told by the best sources to which I can have access that there are already a dozen tankers afloat of more than 150,000 tons

911
but that there are another 150 major tankers on order, including 120 of more than 200,000 tons and about a dozen of more than 250,000 tons. There is talk of their even going bigger than that, to about half a million tons or even three-quarters of a million tons. We know that quarter-million tonners need 60 feet of water.
Whatever the naval architects may decide in the future about beam and draught, surely one thing is clear. Attention was drawn, first in the Rochdale Report and then in the successive Reports from the National Ports Council, including the document that we have been given to-day, to the vital importance of deep water sites, but still more, the importance of deep water with flat land beside it. This is a lot rarer. It is a matter not merely of finding deep water (which geology often provides as a continuation of a steep mountain or a hill) but of finding deep water in abundance with flat land beside it. This is rare unless you are forced to consider—and this seems to be the current line of thinking—land reclamation in the shallow waters beside the deep waters. This may be expensive; £5,000 an acre is often thought about.
It is because of this that I wonder whether the Minister of Transport was right when, as I believe, and I will certainly accept correction if I am wrong, his Department never gave a moment's serious thought to Loch Eriboll on the North coast of Scotland. I know the geographical disadvantages; I know that the population is only three and that all are in favour of the thing; but there are geographical factors there which I believe have never been considered. The Minister was kind enough to write to me in December about the navigational hazards in its use as a possible M.I.D.A., but inquiries that I have made among those with operational experience have not confirmed them.
But whether that is so or not, the wise men that we need for the National Ports Council of the future will have to be very wise indeed. They will need to take a view on some very fundamental questions. How are we to regard the North Sea? Is this something which lies between Britain and Europe or is it simply an extension of the estuary of the
912
Rhine, with Britain a convenient island in the middle of the estuary? What are going to be the best approaches for the very big ships of the future? Through the Western Approaches and the narrow Straits of Dover, or North about and around the North coast? We know that 60 ft. draught vessels, having cleared the Straits, can get up the North Sea well enough; but there are hazards; and it would be foolish not to bear in mind the great hazards in the North Sea and the Channel. They will not get less as ships get greater.
Some 300,000 ships pass through the Straits of Dover every year. At any one time there can be 40 in the Straits together. Half the world's shipping collisions occur between the Baltic and the Western Approaches. At Southampton something like 40 days of the year see visibility due to fog down to 1,000 yards. These are serious restrictions when thinking of big ships and the provisions for them in the future. And in thinking of the future we must ask ourselves which is the route most likely to be favoured by the bigger ships? Are we not bound to ask ourselves whether perhaps the West coast of Britain, or the West and North coasts, may not have a better chance and be geographically better suited to accommodate these ships than the East Coast?
Then what about the choice between the Humber and the Thames? The Thames already handles one-third of our overseas trade. London is so sited in the triangle between Paris, Birmingham and the Rhur as to be an ideal end port where ships could discharge their cargo for trans-shipping elsewhere. That these are not wild dreams is testified to by the proposal of two private enterprise consortia to arrange a £1,000 million development scheme for Maplin. But dredging will always be a problem. This is not so on the Clyde. The Clyde, with 100 ft. of water, can take ships up to 500,000 tons with no dredging. Loch Eriboll is better still, with 120 ft. What about the Humber? It is 12 hours sail from Rotterdam, and when the M.62 and the M.18 are complete the Humber and Hull will be less than four hours road distance from three-quarters of Britain's population. But once again dredging is a problem. The Bar is a problem and there is the shifting river bed.

913
One might suppose that only the Almighty could evaluate this nice calculation of the less or more that belongs to judgments of the sort I have been referring to. But the market forces are already taking decisions on their own with respect to one-half of all the cargoes carried. I refer to the private enterprise companies which are putting immense moneys at risk in the interests of the oil business. There is a moral surely in that.
Is there not another moral in the words of the National Port Council's 1967 Report in reference to the great Brunel? As was said of Brunel, the Report quotes:
"He was bold in his plans, and right … great things are not done by those who sit down and count the cost of every thought and act."
And the National Ports Council continue with a final moral: "Time is not on Britain's side."
5.57 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, we have been looking this afternoon at a vital area of our economy. It is right that we should do so at this time when, according to Mr. Stonehouse, we are fighting for our economic survival. It is perhaps appropriate that this White Paper should first be considered by your Lordships' House in view of the unquestioned expertise which some Members of it—not, I fear, myself—axe able to bring to this matter. That is why I am glad that we have heard to-day from our "holy port trinity", if I may so term them. I am glad that we have heard the Grand Inquisitor himself, my noble friend Lord Rochdale; the immediate past president of the Chamber of Shipping, my noble friend Lord Geddes; and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who for so long has presided over the destinies of our greatest port. I am glad, too, that some ecclesiastical light has illumined our discussions this afternoon. But I confess to a certain sadness that there was no Liberal light shed upon them. Looking at those empty Benches to my right I feel that in a way they are the expression of a certain historical lack of gratitude given the fact that the Gladstonian fortunes were largely founded on the Port of Liverpool.
I should like to make one thing straight away clear. As my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn pointed out in introducing my
914
Motion in his wide-ranging, lucid and moderate speech, there is indeed a large measure of common ground between the major Parties on this matter—perhaps not quite so wide a measure of agreement as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was trying to persuade us that there is; but nevertheless I think that most of us accept Rochdale—warts, authority and all. I think that most of us accept the need here for a degree of strategic national planning. I believe most of us feel that there is much that Government can do, and indeed should do, in this field, especially when public moneys are employed, directly or indirectly, in the determining of investment priorities and so on.
Above all, my Lords, I accept that here there is a field for a fruitful partnership between Government and public and private enterprise and I should like to instance two examples. There is the question of inland communication upon which my noble friend Lord Lauderdale was expatiating, I think so rightly. It was touched on in the Statement which the noble Lord the Leader of the House repeated to your Lordships earlier this afternoon. The National Ports Council, in this admirable blue and white document which some of us have just seen, draws attention, in a chapter headed "Land Access to the Ports", to the need for better West-East land communications linking the Western industrial areas of this country with their Eastern port outlets. I quote from paragraph 197 of that Report:
"There is therefore a good case on port grounds for first-class East-West lateral communications to supplement traditional lines of communication focused on London."
They talk of the need for better communications between the Mersey and the Humber. And they draw attention to the need to complete by the middle 1970s the whole system based on the extension of the M.62 to link up with North and South Humberside. There is also the crying need for a motorway communication between the Midlands and Southampton. That is the sort of strategic area to which the Government can make a very real contribution. I am not singling out any particular Government but in the past there has not been close enough co-ordination in planning or the execution of plans in this field.

915
Another area, which was referred to by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, is the very interesting concept of MIDAS, the Maritime Industrial Development Area Scheme. Since my noble friend dealt with this I will not dwell on it, save to mention what seemed to me a rather barbed comment in the Progress Report from the National Ports Council. This is what the Council said in paragraph 172 of the Report:
"The council are therefore acutely concerned with the apparent slow progress up to now and they hope that the Government will press forward its examination of the concept with all possible speed."
I echo that hope. Although those words have been carefully drafted, a note of exasperated frustration seems to run through them. This again is the kind of area where I believe the Government have a big contribution to make.
These are the examples of the areas which demand broad strategic planning decisions; which involve the determination and allocation of major national resources and which call for, even cry for, a fruitful participation between public and private enterprise. Those, I submit, are the sort of areas which are properly the concern of Government. They illustrate the sort of broad approach to port policy which a modern Government, to my mind, should have. I do not wish to be unfair. All I can say is that in some aspects of this White Paper, in its more niggling aspects, I do not find that sort of approach. I come straight away to the White Paper.
I should like to acknowledge with my noble friends Lord Rochdale and Lord Geddes, that this White Paper is a very considerable improvement on its predecessor, the working document of July, 1967, in two major respects: first, the abandonment of the concept, by Mikardo out of Castle, of the Regional Port Authority. I think that even the most ardent Mikardoites are not shedding many tears over the abandonment of that particular concept. Secondly, the raising of the ceiling of exclusion to leave out those smaller and very enterprising ports which are thriving under private enterprise. I believe that here credit is due—I do not wish to embarrass him with his political colleagues—to the present Minister of
916
Transport for his more sensible and flexible approach.
Yet, my Lords, there is to my mind—and in the minds of many of my noble friends—one major defect, one major blemish, in the White Paper. It is the determination to bring under national ownership, under sole ownership, all the major ports in this country. The Government seek to justify that policy decision in a few bland paragraphs in their White Paper. A Government in 1949 might have got away with this sort of approach; I hope that a Government in 1969, with 25 years of post-war experience of nationalisation, will not get away so easily with that sort of approach. I should have thought that a few trips on British Railways would be enough to destroy many of the illusions which many of us may have entertained in the past. I believe that this aspect of the document at least is plainly doctrinaire, and has been produced for doctrinaire and Party political reasons. That said, it is no excuse for being counter-doctrinaire one-self.
I am an admirer of the Port of Manchester, and of Manchester itself for that matter, but now, in the middle of the twentieth century, I am not a particular adherent of the Manchester school of economics, of the doctrine of complete laissez-faire and of the economic free-for-all. My right honourable friend Mr. Enoch Powell has not yet seriously applied his acute and penetrating mind to ports. Since he seldom fails to lift the stones off the corners of our national life, I am certain that our ports are in for a Powellite probe before long. But I am prepared to leave that to my right honourable friend. I would only say that if it could be shown—and no attempt is made to do so in this White Paper—that nationalisation, the principle of sole ownership for our ports, was really necessary and desirable, I for one would be prepared to examine the proposition very carefully indeed. After all, we are dealing with an area of vast national importance. But, my Lords, it is really not so shown. I know that in what I am about to say I am very much "recapping" on what has been said already this afternoon. But is sole ownership really necessary for investment purposes, for the provision of the physical facilities? We have heard to-day of all the progress—and goodness

917
knows! a lot of progress was needed—which has been made in investment and in the provision of physical facilities since the Rochdale Report. Average port investment pre-Rochdale was running at about £20 million a year. It is now in the region of £50 million plus. There are, of course, still two crying needs among the many needs. There is a need for provision to be made for suitable deep water terminals for the bulk import of iron ore. But, my Lords, that is something which the British Steel Corporation will be able to cope with.
There is the need, which doubtless will expand, for further facilities for the import of oil cargoes. But, the oil companies are not entirely impoverished. They should be able to look after this. I wish only to quote again what is said in the Progress Report, in paragraph 16, bearing on this point:
"The broad pattern of nationalisation of ports as projected in the recent White Paper does not affect the validity of anything stated in this survey and most of the changes in development? will come about or will be necessary irrespective of over-all ownership."
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said at the start of this debate, I believe that nationalisation, sole ownership, is in this context a total irrelevancy. Is it necessary for modernisation? I doubt it. The most significant modernisation in progress has been the container revolution. Admittedly, British Railways have played a notable part here. Nevertheless the real impetus, the real spur, has come from private entrprise. Again is nationalisation necessary to bring about the MIDAS concept? I should have thought this was essentially a concept that called for a partnership between Government and private enterprise. Are the well-run ports abroad under national ownership? I beg leave to doubt it.
Last, but not least, is nationalisation necessary for labour? I think that most of us will recognise that labour is perhaps the most crucial problem in its organisation in the ports; but will nationalisation, sole ownership, render this problem any easier? Again I beg leave to doubt it. It certainly has not, at least to my lay eye, rendered labour relations in the steel industry and on the railways any easier. Would it not indeed entail a greater danger than exists under the present set-up—a danger to which my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn
918
so rightly drew attention? I think that we all know that labour disputes in the ports tend, unfortunately, to be contagious. Will not sole ownership of our ports render the risk of that sort of contagion yet greater? If one comes out, may not all come out? I pose the question.
My Lords, I personally find little positive justification in the White Paper for this principle. Indeed, I see grave disadvantages. I would remind your Lordships that the Government are proposing here to create a total monopoly. In other areas of our economic life,—for example, in energy,—where our resources are in national ownership, there is a choice to the consumer between different forms of energy, be it Lord Robens and his coal, Sir Norman Elliot and his electricity, or Sir Henry Jones and his gas, or Dr. Hill and his nuclear power. But here for the consumer there is no effective choice.
Secondly, I believe—and here I know that I am only retreading the ground which my noble friend Lord Rochdale has already trod before me—that in this, as in other areas, it is a mistake always to be digging up the plant to examine the roots. We have had the ports industry under a microscope now for the best part of tea years. There have been the Rochdale Committee, the 1964 Act and the 1966 Act. There is surely a lot to be said for allowing the system to settle down and for getting on with the job, for giving it some years of stability. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, dwelt on this question of stability. He seemed to indicate that this White Paper would serve as a basis for stability. I very much doubt it. I fear that we are in danger of introducing into our ports the sort of instability which Mr. Healey has created in our Armed Forces by constant reviews, and constant chops and constant changes. And this is something which I very much deplore.
Finally, there is the political volte face. Again following what my noble friend Lord Rochdale said, I would remind your Lordships that the 1964 Act was introduced with bipartisan support from both major Parties. Now there is a danger of the discussion of ports policy. and of the whole approach to the subject, becoming a political football or shuttlecock. Is this really sensible? Before going down that road, I would ask

919
the Government to ponder carefully. I should like to reiterate that appeal to the Government to think again. I believe that all the main ends, most of which I think we hold in common, in this White Paper—save perhaps the Party political ends—are obtainable without clamping this bureaucratic rigidity on our new ports system, with far less disturbance to the whole ports system and with less waste of Parliamentary time by some simple amendments to the existing legislation. I very much hope that the Government, late in the day though it may be, will ponder this possibility.
I hope I have made it clear that I, for one, from this place cannot accept this principle of sole ownership. Even if it were accepted, I hold that in certain major aspects the proposals in the White Paper are defective, or at least that the Government's intention should be spelled out with greater clarity. I will run over the ground very quickly, because it has already been traversed pretty thoroughly this afternoon. In the first place, there are the undertakings to be transferred. Like my noble friend Lord Geddes, I find the case for taking over Milford Haven very difficult to follow. It seems hardly compatible with the principle enunciated in paragraph 7 of the White Paper, where it states:
"It is neither practicable nor necessary to take over port facilities which are controlled by manufacturers wholly or mainly for the transport of their own goods or raw materials …".
Milford Haven is designed solely for the oil industry. Is there any real reason for taking this port into national ownership, apart from the constitutional danger that if it is excluded any resulting Bill might be described as hybrid legislation?
Secondly, there is the threat to smaller ports—the Geddes "gadflies". Here again we find that the Sword of Marsh, is to be suspended over them more or less indefinitely. This must be a disincentive to the progress. The prize which a thrusting and successful independent port will receive is nationalisation. This seems a poor carrot to hold out to private enterprise. Therefore, I support the plea of my noble friend Lord Geddes for some form of moratorium for the excluded ports. I noted the assurance given by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that before
920
any further ports were drawn into national owership there would be a process of public inquiry, and that a decision would also be subject to Parliamentary approval. I was glad to hear it. I hope that this will be written into any Bill which may emerge, and I hope also that the criteria for taking any smaller port into national ownership will be clearly spelled out in any such Bill.
Then there is the question of the possible concentration of port services in the hands of the nationalised port authorities. I do not wish to be dogmatic: the idea of a single port employer may or may not be right. It may be significant that Manchester is a sole employer of labour. I see that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, is a "one hat" man in this respect, while the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, are both prepared to wear more hats. Personally I share their doubts as to whether the principle of one sole employer is right for our larger ports.
Certainly—and I know that I carry the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, with me here—the larger specialist operators should be excluded. I should like to know, incidentally, from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, how that exclusion will be carried out. In any event, I believe that instability should be avoided. But here again this Government of de-stabilisers introduce the principle of instability into the middle of their White Paper. They say that the Authority will be able to put forward supplementary schemes subsequently if necessary. Once more we find the Sword of Marsh suspended over the private enterprise operator.
Is there not another and a better method? The Port of New York Authority operates all its waterfront operations through leasing arrangements. At Rotterdam, a municipal port, the facilities are all available either for leasing or for sale. Is not such a system more likely to lead to commercial competition, the keen commercial competition which the Government profess to wish to encourage? Such a system also seems to me to be perfectly compatible with a system whereby most of the port enterprises come under the control of a single operator. To have at least some of the common user services in private hands would give the large port operators a useful yardstick to gauge the

921
efficiency of their own services. But I will listen with attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has to say in this respect.
As for competition between the different port authorities, clearly this is possible only if these authorities are to be given real autonomy; such autonomy is unobtainable without a firm prohibition on cross-subsidisation between the various ports. Here again, if I understood him correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, gave us an assurance. I hope that that assurance, too, can be written into any resulting Bill, as indeed should the principle of independent accounting, which goes with it.
As to the Authority itself, I must emphasise as forcibly as I can the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. One thing that we must try to get away from is the present system of double harness under which, as my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn explained, the boffins of the Port of London Authority produce a scheme with a great deal of care, and work it out, and it goes to the Ministry; the Ministry convey it to the National Ports Council, and their boffins look at it for weeks or months, as the case may be; then they pass it back to the Ministry, and their boffins look at it, maybe for months, and very possibly, as in the case of Bristol, they overrule the recommendation of the National Ports Council. This seems to me to be a time wasting process and, above all, a skill and manpower wasting process which must be avoided in whatever new system is established.
That is why I listened with some disquiet to what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, had to say about Ministerial responsibility. It seemed to me that his approach is likely to lead to just that form of day-to-day Ministerial interference with the Authority which at all costs must be avoided. The noble Lord shakes his bead, arid I am glad to see him do so; I am pleased that we are in agreement here. But anything that he can say about how the basic autonomy of the new Authority, if it is set up, is to be preserved, I shall be glad to hear.
I turn, in conclusion, to the question of manpower, which has featured quite prominently in the course of this discussion. I personally have grave doubts
922
about the perpetuation of the present existing labour organisation which seems to be foreshadowed (I find the weasel words of the White Paper in this respect extremely difficult to follow, but it: seems to be foreshadowed, if I read them rightly) in the White Paper. That would perpetuate the artificial distinction. which exists at present between the 50,000 or so registered dock workers in our ports system and the remaining 70,000 or so employees in the system, a distinction which makes neither for modern, sensible labour relations nor for efficiency. It would perpetuate the existing committee structure, which is in many cases a sure recipe for frustration.
It seems to me (and I speak on a subject on which I know there are many noble Lords in this House who are far more expert than I am) that if the Government continue to tread this path we are in danger of perpetuating a relic of an industrial age which is passing and of a primitive labour relations system which should be a relic of the past. New, with the decasualisation not only of employees but also of employers, we should he looking to, and working for, a more normal and more modern employer/employee relationship throughout the whole ports system, with very great emphasis laid on negotiation at the level of the Port Authority itself.
Those, my Lords, are my comments in summing up this discussion from this side of the House. I have voiced certain doubts, one of them very grave and others not unimportant, about the proposals in this White Paper. But, of course, the White Paper is not all black: there are white spots in it. Much of it is grey, as so much of the present policies of this Administration are grey. Nevertheless, I should hope—and in expressing this hope I have in mind the accommodating tone of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, earlier in this debate—that the Government will really reflect on the more important criticisms and suggestions which have been voiced in your Lordships' House to-day. I am not always an admirer of the Government's cerebral processes. But I have been impressed by their considerable capacity for Re-Think. I hope that they will use that capacity to the hilt in their consideration of their future action with regard to this White Paper.
6.28 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to say a few words at the end of what I have found to be a debate of great interest. Clearly, it was going to be such a debate when one considered the noble Lords who had undertaken to take part. I should like again to express my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for having put down this Motion, and for having marshalled such wise and experienced support for the debate.
I feel that I ought to comment particularly on the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry. I think he brought into our debate the other side of the problem of our ports and docks. It is not purely a question of bricks and mortar, or even of management. It is a question of labour relations, and the attitude of the men who work in the docks. Over the years they have gone through hard times, and I cannot help feeling that many of the problems which we find utterly frustrating, and which sometimes we find it difficult to understand, can only go back to the hard days which clearly are imprinted on their minds and create their attitudes. Therefore, I think that, when we are considering the changes that should take place within the ports and docks, the views and attitudes of these men need to be taken into account.
I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, that we have not put these proposals before the country or before Parliament in any way of capitulating to our Left Wing. If I may say so, I think that this Government for very many years are the Government who have been able to withstand the pressures of their wings; but I can well remember (my memory is not all that short, or even all that long) the noble Lord's Party opposite being forced to capitulate to its Right Wing on a certain economic tradesman's Bill.
It seems to me that the issue that is really before us is the question of nationalisation. We seem to have pretty well unanimous agreement as to the end we wish to see. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that in many ways we are in very close agreement as to the means of achieving this. I think that if we got down to nuts and bolts, if there were any differences they could surely
924
well be hammered out very quickly by all of us. I think we all accept the three quotations which I take from the Rochdale Report. If I may, I will repeat them:
"the need for a properly planned programme of port development, which should be supervised by a non-operational National Ports Authority equipped with statutory powers; the need to concentrate development (with the exception of development to meet the special requirements of the oil and ore trades) at selected existing major ports on the main estuaries which already dominate the country's foreign trade …the need for a revision of port statutes and concentration of ownership and operation of port and related undertakings."
I do not doubt that we all agree with that. The question is: How do we achieve it, and under what form of structure?
I know that noble Lords opposite, clearly for Party reasons (I do not put that remark forward in any cheap sense, because Parties believe in certain things), believe in free enterprise. They also however, I believe, agree to a mixed economy. If I may say so, I thought the debate lowered itself for only a slight moment when the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, made, I thought, a rather "snide" remark about nationalised industries by reference to travelling on three trains. I have travelled on trains throughout the world but I do not myself judge a railway structure by local inconveniences, even if they are perhaps more regular than we would wish. But I am sure the noble Earl would be one of the first to applaud the nationalised industries of this country such as the Atomic Energy Authority, gas, electricity, and many others, which have played a very dominant role, and, in fact, have given a great deal of "spin-off", for which private industry itself is grateful.
However, I look merely at the question: how best to achieve our objective? If I were the director of (shall we say?) a big electricity generating manufacturing firm and I wished to see development, not only of my company but of my industry, I would say that this desire is what has brought about mergers. Mergers have been brought about by people who wish to see not only their own firms but their own industry, and indeed their country, develop. Mergers have always been about ownership, because without ownership one cannot get the development, the drive, the co-ordination and

925
planning and, in many cases, the capital that are so necessary for that development.
I think that this bogey of nationalisation in terms of the docks is really too much to take seriously. What are we taking over? We are in fact taking over ports and docks—with one exception, I grant—which are this very day under public ownership. All we are doing is to group them together under some form of holding company organisation for their proper development. To take the one company that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, spoke about with so much fervour as a great example of free enterprise—the Manchester Docks—I am sure the noble Lord himself is aware of the capital structure of the Manchester Docks. Is it about some £10 million of private capital and some £11 million of public money? So here we have a mixed organisation. Although there is private capital in the Manchester Docks, there is a very large element of public money also. Perhaps the noble Lord may like to be reminded that in the case of Manchester the majority of the directors are in fact appointed by the Manchester Corporation, a local authority.
My Lords, this is the issue that appears to divide us: whether we should reorganise existing public authorities, corporations, statutory bodies. I do not see any great political principle involved in that. True, we are taking over one private—half private—company; but this is in order that there should be proper co-ordination, proper development, of clocks and ports that are basically in the same category. No doubt this is something we shall be able to argue about from time to time. But I myself do not see that here is a great political issue that needs to divide us. What we should now be concentrating on is how best, within this flexible scheme which is set out in the White Paper, and which I sought to outline to-day, we can build the framework within the docks for their development.
I said earlier in the debate that I intended to listen with the greatest of care. I intend to see the Minister of Transport to-morrow—no; unfortunately I cannot see him to-morrow, because I do not think that Hansard will be available to-morrow; but I will promise noble
926
Lords who have spoken that as soon as Hansard containing this debate is available I will. make arrangements to see my right honourable friend and with him to go through the various points and suggestions that have been made. If I am going to enter that scheme of things in this spirit, clearly I do not want to get into any debating position with noble Lords who have made these points. Therefore, I do not intend to answer the debate as such.
However, may I deal with just three questions that were put to me? The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, asked me about MIDAS. This, as the noble Earl himself will know, is a very complex subject. It involves a great deal of costing as to projects and the like. But I understand that we hope to be able to make a statement on this subject in the near future. I do not think the noble Earl should read into the words of the National Ports Council any criticism. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, asked me whether I would look into the question of the ship that is having trouble with British Rail over cargo. I understand that no wagons are available at the moment, but both British Rail and the Road Services are doing whit they can to help in this matter. I will see whether I can get some further information from the Ministry to-morrow and I will drop the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, a line.
The other question the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, put to me was whether the Minister would deny agreement to capital projects to companies outside the nationalised field. I find it inconceivable that a Minister would do so in any sense of doing it because he is opposed to the private sector. Clearly he would have to take into account, as he now does, the national interest in the way in which the ports and docks as a whole should develop. But clearly no Minister would act so irresponsibly that where there was a proper scheme, where there was a real need for that development and the capital was in fact available, he would refuse such a grant.
The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, has gone. I gather that he has great interest in the proposed ore terminal on the Clyde. My understanding is that this is receiving great support in Scotland, and clearly must be most attractive to

927
the Scottish economy. I understand that the British Steel Corporation are now considering the position as to whether a further plant should be developed there, because clearly this would be necessary if such an ore terminal was to prove economic.
There were a number of other points raised. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, asked me one or two detailed questions. I am going to be quite honest with him and say that, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, or the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, I have not worked in the ports industry. I am a mere Minister of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, asked to reply to a debate on a very difficult and complex subject. Therefore, I do not intend to try to give the noble Earl an answer off the cuff; what I will do is to communicate with him on those points.
In conclusion, my Lords, may I say that this has been for the Government a helpful and valuable debate. We shall certainly look at all that has been said; we may even want to have further consultations. We look on this debate as being of great help and use, and we shall make the best use that we can of it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before asking leave to withdraw the Motion I should like, first, to thank the noble Lord for the way in which he has replied to this debate. He has been extremely conciliatory and he is obviously going to take a further interest in the subject. I should like to make one further comment on what he has said. He said that he saw no political principle or issue in this matter. My Lords, nor do we. As I said in opening this debate, we are concerned with the best form of organisation for our ports—an absolutely practical issue: how much control is needed, how it should be exercised, and where it should be exercised from. These are the issues, and if the noble Lord talks of a merger then he must consider what are the benefits that are expected to flow from that merger in terms of economies or otherwise and where the interests of this country really lie.
Having said that, on behalf of my noble friend I should like to thank all those who have taken part in this debate and all who have spoken from their very
928
great knowledge. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that this has been a most useful debate. Having said that, I ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

CIVIL AVIATION (NAVIGATION SERVICES CHARGES) (THIRD AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1969
6.44 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE LORD TREFGARNE rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Civil Aviation (Navigation Services Charges) (Third Amendment) Regulations 1969 [S.I. 1969 No. 510] laid before the House under Standing Order No. 62 on the 9th of April, be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should first like to say that, unlike the weighty and far-ranging speeches to which we have been listening in the major debate this afternoon, my remarks will not take so long. I hope to be able to despatch what I have to say in a few moments, because I believe that the points are quite clearly defined and easy to identify.
My motion seeks to draw your Lordships' attention to an increase of no less than 50 per cent. in the navigation service charges at present levied at nine British airports whose air traffic control services are provided by the Board of Trade. The new charge, like the old one, is related to the maximum permitted weight of the aircraft and is to be raised under this new Instrument from 3s. per 1,000 lb. to 4s. 6d. per 1,000 lb. of permitted weight. For example, the charge that will now be levied on a BAC 1–11 is to be increased under the Order from £13 4s. (if my arithmetic is right) to £19 16s.
I have two particular avenues that I should like to pursue. First, the question of the timing of this increase. Why has it been levied at this time of the year? In the month of April or May the inclusive tour season is just beginning, and at this stage there is no time, nor is it indeed possible, to alter the charter contracts that have been entered into, nor is it possible to arrange for fare increases to cover the operations for this summer. Perhaps the Government wanted to obtain the maximum revenue increase for this year.

929
No doubt they did, and had they delayed the introduction by consultation with the authorities this would have affected their revenue. But in the past it has always been the practice, when changes in legislation of this nature have been introduced, for considerable notice to be given before the increase has taken effect. For example, it is normal for the increase to be announced, say, in January or February of this year and to take effect in 1970 instead of 1969.
Secondly, why have Heathrow, Gatwick, Prestwick and Stansted—airports run by the British Airports Authority, although of course they do not run the A.T.C. services—been excluded from the increase? Can it be that the Government feared such an outcry from the major operators using those excluded airports, plus, of course, the inevitable application for an increase in fares on the scheduled services, that they hesitated to apply the charge to those airports and decided not to do so? Or can it be, alternatively, that the Government feared international repercussions on such a scale, particularly from the operators using Heathrow and Gatwick, that they would have again been obliged to postpone or cancel the increase?
It is interesting to note that if the increase had been applied to all the airports instead of excluding the major ones, the same amount of extra revenue could have been raised by an increase of only 3d. instead of 1s. 6d. in the standard rate. That works out, I think, at 8 per cent.—a far cry from the 50 per cent. increase that was in fact imposed. Perhaps the Government think that even that modest increase at the major airports would have brought such a welter of retribution on their heads that they would have been obliged to postpone or cancel the increase. Because of the exclusion of these major airports, in my view the extra charge will discriminate most unfairly against the independent operators who, by and large, tend to use the provincial airports. It is now, as I have said, too late for them to increase their charter prices for the inclusive tour programmes this summer, and it is also too late for them to apply for fare increases on their scheduled services out of provincial airports, because the licensing procedure is such that it is bound to take three or six months after it has been to the Board and gone to appeal.
930
So there can be no possibility of the increase taking effect before the autumn at the earliest. Indeed, for a purely summer service, therefore, the increase could not take effect until next year, by which time they would have had to operate for a whole summer at the lower fare rate, despite their higher costs.
It is normal procedure and I suggest also common courtesy for some consultation with the authorities concerned to take place before a new charge is implemented. When this charge was first intimated in November of last year the Board of Trade was approached by the authorities of the airports particularly affected, who, not unnaturally, objected to the increase. Their grounds, of course, were—and this, I should have thought, was an almost overwhelming argument against the increase—that the increase in service charge would result in even more traffic being channelled away from the provincial airports towards Heathrow and Gatwick, with an inevitable increase in the traffic density at those airports and a decrease in the traffic density at the other airports. I suggest that that will aggravate the situation which this increase is allegedly designed to avert.
However, despite the representations that were made by those affected authorities, no answer was given by the Board of Trade, or at least so I am advised. I can show the noble Lord I have some photocopies of letters which I have asking for information, which was not forthcoming. At one time a reply was received by the affected airports saying that the matter was under consideration and that their representations were being considered. Then out of the blue, without any warning whatever, the Statutory Instrument is laid before Parliament on April 9 last, and we see that it was to take effect in only three weeks from that date, on May 1. What sort of consultation is that? No wonder this Government are often accused, and rightly, I suggest, of authoritarian and arbitrary rule.
Finally, can I say that this measure increases the costs for those least able to bear them, is applied at short notice at the worst possible time of year, and is introduced without consultation and without even the minimum courtesy to those most directly involved. I beg to move.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the

931
Civil Aviation (Navigation Services Charges) (Third Amendment) Regulations 1969 [S.I. 1969 No. 510] laid before the House under Standing Order No. 62 on the 9th April, be annulled.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
6.52 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, in supporting this Motion of the noble Lord that this Prayer should be presented to Her Majesty, I should like to support everything he has said in the Motion and in his speech on the broad issues. But I want to speak on the narrower issue of the Edinburgh Airport. I may say, in passing, that I do not altogether enjoy seeing that Stansted is one of the main airports exempted from the application of this Order. However, be that as it may, the fact is that Edinburgh Airport is not properly equipped. I am open to correction, but I think I am right in saying that in regard to the normal minimum standards of radar equipment it is not properly equipped, and blind landing arrangements are non-existent. Furthermore, as the noble Lord who is to reply is well aware, it is short of a major runway, the existing runway being so situated that diversions on account of cross winds are a frequent occurrence during the poor weather season. I am a regular fair-weather traveller from that airport, having found that it is quite impossible to rely on the service during winter or periods of high winds.
I feel, however, that it is proper to place before your Lordships the case of the Edinburgh Airport and to suggest that it is unreasonable that operators should be asked to pay this additional charge for putting their aircraft into this airfield, which is a very tricky one in which to land and is not properly equipped, either from the flying point of view or indeed from the point of view of the air terminal. Admittedly the reconstruction of the air terminal obviously must await a final decision as to a second runway. The Commonwealth Games are going to take place in Edinburgh next year. The airport is not properly equipped, and it seems to me unreasonable that operators should be asked to carry this extra burden imposed upon them at unreasonably short notice and without adequate consultation. I support the noble Lord's Motion.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I rise merely to support my noble friend Lord Ferrier and ask that if this Order is not annulled special consideration be given to the fact that as it applies to Turnhouse there will be no equivalent service for the increased charge.
6.55 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, asked a number of questions, and I rather wish procedure permitted me to put a number of questions to him in return. First, I would ask the noble Lord whether he believes that the services that we are considering are essential. I think the answer which he and the noble Lords, Lord Ferrier, and Lord Balerno, would give is that certainly they are essential. The two noble Lords from Scotland seemed to suggest that the services were not adequate and ought to be extended. All I would say to them about Edinburgh is that I know that this Order will not limit the services which are offered at Edinburgh; it will not prejudice them in any way. I will see that the points which have been made about the adequacy of other arrangements are brought to the attention of those concerned. But I do not believe that the possibility of another runway, for example, comes strictly within the Order we are considering. Nevertheless, I will certainly see that what has been said is considered again, and I accept the importance of Edinburgh, in particular with the Games coming along.
I turn again to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, who no doubt accepts that the services are essential. I would then go on to ask him whether he believes that they are being provided as economically and efficiently as possible. I think the answer to that would be "Yes". I have no reason to believe that any criticism is made about the efficiency of the quite devoted persons who operate those services. but to make certain on this point the Board of Trade are about to appoint outside consultants to consider the cost efficiency of the services provided at these airports.
If, therefore, the services are necessary, and if everything possible is being done to ensure that they are efficient, then the next question I put to the noble Lord is, "Who is going to pay for them?" I am

933
not quite sure what the noble Lord's answer to that would be, but successive Governments have said that those who use the services should pay for them. The Maybury Committee as far back as 1937 recommended that Government assistance to civil aviation should be of a temporary nature only and that the objective should be an economically self-supporting industry. There is therefore no Party issue between us on this matter. That objective expressed by the Maybury Committee was emphasised again in a White Paper which the Conservative Government of 1961 published.
There is another objective, I agree, which is shared between the Parties and between the noble Lord and myself, and that is that we should do all we can to encourage the development of civil aviation I accept that if the decision was made that civil aviation should be self supporting next week then we should cripple the industry with extra charges and our larger objective would not be reached. But no fair-minded person can say that Her Majesty's Government are applying precipitately the charges which are necessary to balance costs. After all, we are here talking about, and the Order against which the noble Lord is praying refers only to, aerodrome navigation services—that is to say, the navigation services and intercommunications necessary for the approach. landing and takeoff of aircraft. We are not considering, certainly not as yet, the much more costly en route services which, as the noble Lord will know from his intimate experience, are needed and used when the aircraft is clear of the aerodrome departure or arrival.
The noble Lord asked about timing and I think he gave the answer to the question he put. If the Order had been delayed, if this increase had been delayed, the deficits would have been increased by that amount. I take his point about the charter flights: that the increase comes at an inconvenient moment. On the other hand, I doubt whether there is ever any time which is appropriate for increasing charges. There is always some reason why somebody should say, "Not at this point of time." Incidentally, I feel that the noble Lord is exaggerating the effect of these charges. I gather from B.E.A. that on a Trident aircraft, with a 70 per cent. load factor the extra for the
934
return journey between London and Glasgow—I am sorry that I have this example and not that of London to Edinburgh, but I imagine that it would be about the same—
LORD BALERNO: B.E.A. do not come into Edinburgh; they cannot.
LORD BESWICK: —would be 2s. 7d. per passenger for the return journey. So really we are not talking about any increase which is going to cripple any charter operator or scheduled service operator.
I am afraid that I do not quite understand what the noble Lord was talking about in regard to consultation.
LORD TREFGARNE: There was none; that is the trouble.
LORD BESWICK: Municipal authorities were told as far back as last November that it would be necessary to have increased charges. They were given an indication of what the Government had in mind. They were invited to give their comments. These comments were considered. Eventually, someone has to make the decision; and of course it is the Government. I do not know whether the noble Lord wishes to intervene
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, the noble Lord gives me the chance to intervene which I shall take. The first point is that the noble Lord has given an example of the B.E.A. return journey between London and Glasgow. My particular point was that B.E.A. are not the people chiefly concerned in this increase. The other point he made was that the consultations started in November. My point is that although the Ministry might have indicated that this increase was on the way in November, they did not really enter into consultation at all. I understand that they invited comment, but then refused to discuss the matter further; they merely said that it was being considered; and, then, two weeks later, o less, they announced the increase.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord has made his case before, and he makes it again. I content myself with giving him the facts. Certainly B E.A., operating from Heathrow, are not immediately concerned with this, but the example which I Rave would apply

935
equally to other operators flying over a similar distance for about the same fare charges.
I thought it would be interesting if I gave the deficits about which we are talking. For 1967–68 there was a deficit for the provision of these navigation services at the six municipal airports of £1,321,000, and at the three Board of Trade aerodromes of £514,000. It is anticipated that the 50 per cent. increase provided for by the Order will, even so, reduce these deficits by only some 25 per cent. So here again there is really no evidence of any undue rushing into the implementation of an objective which, as I have said, was established as far back as 1937.
The noble Lord asked me why the 50 per cent. increase was directed at these nine airports and not to others. The answer to that, I suggest to him, is because the Goverment are being selective and fair, and eminently reasonable in their approach, and are mindful of the special problems experienced in different parts of the country. It is this fair-minded approach which has led them to exclude from the provisions of this Order the aerodromes in the Highlands and Islands. In the same financial year, 1967–68, there was a deficit on the provision of these services at these aerodromes amounting to £309,000; but those airports are not brought within the provisions of this Order for reasons which I am sure the noble Lords, Lord Ferrier, and Lord Balerno, will approve.
There is no increase proposed either, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, at the British Airports Authority aerodromes. The reason for that is that the Government collect some £420,000 more than it costs to provide the services at the four airports within the control of the Authority. Fairmindedness and good commercial judgment do not suggest that there should be another increase in this case, when in fact there is already a surplus in the revenue received from them.
As the noble Lord knows—he complained about it at the time—there was an increase, anyhow, at those airports of 12½ per cent. on landing charges following devaluation, to bring the revenue, in terms of foreign currency, to the level received prior to devaluation. Incident
936
ally, I would say that that 12½ per cent. increase in those cases where there were international services is the only increase in charges that has taken place since 1964, when the original attempt was made to recoup to some extent expenditure on the provision of these services. There are still other costs. The noble Lord did not ask me the other questions which I rather thought he would put to me: for example, the question as to what was being done to collect the en route costs. I have been talking here in terms of £1,300,000 for the nine municipal aerodromes, £309,000 for the Highlands and Islands, and £514,000 for the three Board of Trade airports. But there is still something like £11 million spent on the provision of en route services. The Government do not propose to collect anything in repayment of these. This will be a matter for international agreement. Discussions have already been started with our near European neighbours, and eventually I hope that it will be possible to get a fair and workable scheme for the recouping of payment for necessary, efficient services to the airlines which use the en route facilities. When that charge is eventually implemented—it will not, I think, be before 1971—I hope that the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to pray against whatever Order is brought for ward. I hope that, on the basis of what I have been able to tell him this evening. he will feel able to withdraw his Prayer.
7.8 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I think I have the right to make a few short remarks to close this brief debate. First of all, I should like to deal with the point about Edinburgh Airport. I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, quite missed the point of what I was suggesting. The point made by my noble friend was, I think, that the services there were now inadequate, that operators were incurring additional expense by having to divert their aircraft from that airport when weather conditions were unsuitable, and that weather conditions could be unsuitable not only because the runways are wrong but also because the radar equipment there is not so good as it might be. But, he said, despite these inadequacies, and the extra costs that operators had to bear, an increase was being made in the charges. This brings me on to my principal point, that the

937
noble Lord is asking us to provide cars before there are roads to put them on; in other words, he is licensing the cars before there are any roads on which to drive the cars.
The next point is the question of en route facilities, which he dealt with quite briefly. I am glad to hear that consultation is going on about how to collect en route charges. I think this is a good development, and I look forward to hearing the results of this, although I cannot promise that I shall not pray against the conclusion. Following on that point, he said that a firm of management consultants, or efficiency consultants, had been taken on to look at the facilities provided at these airports at which the charge is now being applied. That, too, I welcome, and look forward to reading their report should I be lucky enough to obtain a copy, if it is not kept among the secret archives of Westminster.
My principal objection to this Order and to the imposition of these charges is the timing. There is no doubt that to impose them at this juncture in the operating season, in the Spring, without proper notice is altogether irresponsible. Had we been given the usual 14 or 18 months' notice, then the charter contracts, to which I referred before, could have reflected the increase in costs; and had any increase in fares been necessary for the schedule operators then that too could have been applied for in good time, with proper
938
grounds for the application. The noble Lord's example of an increase of 2s. 7d. between Heathrow and Glasgow was altogether misleading. I suggest, because first of all, the charge is not applicable at Heathrow, as he admitted. My objection is that the operations between these domestic provincial airports—admittedly on a smaller scale than the Glasgow/ Heathrow operation—will have double the incidence of the charge, because, of course, they will have to pay the increase at both their destination and their departure point. However, having said all that, there is little I can do by pursuing the matter, and I would thank the noble Lords on my side of the House and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, himself, for participating in this debate, and beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

SAINT STEPHEN, CLAPHAM PARK BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

BRISTOL, CLIFTON AND WEST OF ENGLAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY BILL [H.L.]
Reported, without amendment.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past seven o'clock.