Sitting of 22 July 1969

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

    INCOME TAX
    The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSE-HOLD reported Her Majesty's Answers to the Addresses, as follows:—
    I have received your Address praying that on the ratification by the Republic of Austria of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Austria) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before your House, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.
    I will comply with your request.
    I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Jamaica) Order 1969 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.
    I will comply with your request.
    I have received your Address praying that on the ratification by the Government of the Italian Republic of the protocol set out in the Schedule to the order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Italy) Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before your House, an order may be made in the form of that draft.
    I will comply with your request.

  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE WATER BILL
    Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.
    BLACKPOOL CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Consideration, as amended, deferred till Thursday.
  PETITION

    Amusement Arcades
    Mr. Lomas: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a Petition, signed by 3,340 constituents of the County Borough of Huddersfield and the Urban District of Kirkburton, who are concerned about the growth of amusement arcades and the urgent need for greater control.
    The Petitioners pray that Her Majesty's Government do three things:
    One, to introduce legislation to give local authorities power in every instance to approve or reject any application for the establishment of an amusement arcade or centre;
    Two, to introduce legislation to prohibit the admission of young persons under school leaving age to amusement arcades or amusement centres, unless accompanied by a parent or guardian;
    Three, to introduce legislation to give local authorities power to impose conditions on amusement arcades and centres on such matters as the opening hours, and the number and types of machines therein.
    The Petition concludes in the customary way, with the words
    And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  POWER

    Natural Gas
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Minister of Power what percentage of the country has now been converted to natural gas; and what is the provisional date for the completion of this operation.
    Mr. Laneasked the Minister of Power whether he is satisfied with the progress of the natural gas conversion programme; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): About 5 per cent. of consumers

    1461
    have now had their appliances converted. The programme is planned to be completed by 1977–78. There was some delay last year in the planned rate of build-up, but the gas industry is confident that the programme will be completed in this period.
    Mr. Smith: Is the Ministry satisfied that the standard of conversion, which left so much to be desired in the first place, is now much improved? Is it still confident that natural gas is more efficient and effective than the old variety?
    Mr. Freeson: On the first point, it would he wrong to generalise, as I think I have said to the hon. Gentleman before. There was a percentage of call-back and complaints. This is now reducing. I believe that the figure last year was 25 per cent. call-back, and it is now down to 22 per cent. I have reason to believe that it will continue in that direction.
    Mr. Lane: I appreciate the helpfulness of the Chairman of the Eastern Gas Board and his staff, both in the conversion programme and in dealing with complaints, but is the Minister aware that there is great concern among many consumers about the increases in gas bills since conversion? Would he not agree that if natural gas is to be nationally acceptable, the confusion about charges must be cleared up urgently?
    Mr. Freeson: Yes, Sir, and the confusion about charges would be helped it hon. Gentlemen were to spread the facts a little more often. There has been quite a number of Written Questions on the subject, in reply to which we have provided first-class information. Further information has been made available, and even more could be made available by the gas boards concerned, which could explain fully, as I am prepared to explain, the reasons for the increased gas bills for the consumption earlier this year.
    Mr. Emery: Will the Minister consider this point yet again? The figures he has given in Parliamentary Answers in no way explain some of the major increases, and unless this matter is explained to consumers the success of conversion will be in doubt. We all want it to succeed, and the Minister has a duty here.
    Mr. Freeson: And so have hon. Members. To some extent there is a stirring up of difficulty by hon. Members who are not prepared to make a little more effort in spreading full information.
    An Hon. Member: That is a generalised slur.
    Mr. Freeson: It is not a generalised slur. I have correspondence to prove this. We and the boards have been quite prepared to explain the position. If hon. Gentlemen wish to put down Questions, they will get factual Answers, and some of the Answers have explained the position to date.
    Sir J. Gilmourasked the Minister of Power (1) when he expects North Sea gas to be generally available in Scotland;
    (2) what proportion of the gas supply in Scotland will be from sources other than North Sea gas once this is generally available to customers of the Scottish Gas Board.
    Mr. Freeson: The trunk line should reach into Scotland in the spring of 1970. On present plans, one-quarter of the Board's customers will receive natural gas direct by 1974. The Board hopes to convert all except the outlying areas.
    Sir J. Gilmour: Since Scottish gas prices are considerably above prices in England, may I ask the hon. Gentleman to say whether, as a result of this change, the price of gas in Scotland will come down to the same level as that in England?
    Mr. Freeson: The bulk supply price or tariff for natural gas will be on a uniform basis throughout the country, but there will still be the influence of local costs in addition which will be decided by the boards.
    Mr. Ashton: Can my hon. Friend say if, by the dates he mentioned, there will be introduced a national hydrocarbon corporation to control the marketing and leasing of North Sea gas?
    Mr. Freeson: That is a different question.
    Mr. Ashton: But a good one.
    Mr. Freeson: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an important issue, and

    1463
    I assure him that my right hon. Friend is studying it closely.
    Mr. Dudley Smithasked the Minister of Power how many complaints the West Midlands Gas Board has received from consumers about increased gas bills, following conversion to natural gas.
    Mr. Freeson: I am informed that, since conversion started last year, about 3 per cent. of the 75,000 consumers so far converted to natural gas have raised complaints.
    Mr. Smith: However much the hon. Gentleman and the gas board contend that natural gas does not cost the consumer more, is he aware that hundreds of my constituents know from personal experience that it does cost more? If the hon. Gentleman is right, will he explain why so many people are apparently labouring under such a serious misapprehension?
    Mr. Freeson: One reason arises from what I said earlier; that hon. Members as well as Ministers and the industry have a responsibility in this matter. There is no evidence whatever to suggest that natural gas means higher costs for the consumer.
    Mr. Emery: Would the hon. Gentleman make it clear to his right hon. Friend that the proposition which he propounds—that it is the Opposition's job to put forward Governmental or Gas Council policy—is absolutely incorrect?
    Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman is talking a piece of nonsense. I made no such suggestion. I said, and I repeat, that there is a responsibility on hon. Members as well as on Ministers and the industry to spread the facts and not to spread distortions.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Has the hon. Gentleman read the letter which I sent to his Department a month ago about 18 of my constituents at Congleton whose gas bills for natural gas have gone up by between 50 per cent. and 80 per cent.? Will the hon. Gentleman do something about these alarming increases?
    Mr. Freeson: It would take a considerable time—I would be prepared to do so on a siutable occasion or perhaps by correspondence—to explain all the factors that have given rise in certain instances
    1464
    to rising bills as a result of consumption earlier this year. However, these factors had nothing whatever to do with natural gas conversions.

    Electricity Supply Industry (Reorganisation)
    Sir J. Edenasked the Minister of Power whether he will now make a statement about the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry.
    Mr. Palmerasked the Minister of Power if he is now able to make a statement on the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry.
    The Minister of Power (Mr. Roy Mason): I made a statement on the reorganisation of the electricity supply industry last Friday.—[Vol. 787, c. 1091.]
    Sir J. Eden: Arising from that statement, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Central Electricity Generating Board will still be much the dominant force and major spending element in the new Authority? As such, does not he agree that there would have been some greater advantage from having more than one generating authority? Why does he not go for that at this stage? Will he say something about cross-posting between boards? Would not he agree that there are so many questions still to be answered arising from his statement that a White Paper would be helpful?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Long supplementary questions mean fewer questions.
    Mr. Mason: I have not closed my mind to the possibility of issuing a White Paper. I hope that cross-posting will be encouraged. The Central Electricity Generating Board will be the biggest spender, but I think that the Authority, given its new powers, will be able to control the spending, and because it will have power over the capital investment programme of the industry as a whole. I shall be better advised.
    Mr. Palmer: When does my right hon. Friend hope to bring the legislation forward?
    Mr. Mason: Next Session, I hope.

    New Mines
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Power how many coal pits or mines were

    1465
    sunk post-war in Scotland, England and Wales; and what are the capital charges for each country.
    Mr. Freeson: Major sinkings have been: Scotland 14, England 15 and Wales 6, costing respectively £75 million, £91 million and £30 million. Capital charges on colliery activities for the financial year ended March, 1968, were: Scotland £8 million, England £59 million, Wales £9 million.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that, although we in Scotland appreciate the new capital investment that has been made, there is a feeling and belief that, with the operation of capital charges and the like, this is the thinking and motive behind the operation of differential coal price policy, which is grossly to the disadvantage of Scotland?
    Mr. Freeson: I am afraid that I do not quite follow my hon. Friend's observations. The position is that there has been a balance, if anything, in favour of Scotland in capital investment in the industry—14 sinkings in Scotland, 15 in England and 6 in Wales. Pricing policy reflects, as far as possible, the costs of production in the different areas concerned.

    Energy Production (Ownership)
    Mr. Eadieasked the Minister of Power, in terms of energy produced in Scotland, England and Wales, what are the percentages in these three countries that are produced, publicly owned and privately.
    Mr. Freeson: Excluding oil which is nearly all imported, the public sector is responsible, at least in part, for most of the energy produced in Britain. Complex exchanges of energy between the public and private sectors make it difficult to give percentages in answer to the Question as it is worded. In any case the answers can vary widely according to the system of measurement adopted.
    Mr. Eadie: Is it the Minister's intention to encourage more new private enterprise in energy supplies, bearing in mind that the nation has invested millions of pounds to ensure adequate energy capacity?
    Mr. Freeson: If my hon. Friend is referring to the position with regard to investment in private generating capacity, this is a subject we look at regularly. So far as encouraging investment is concerned; it is our responsibility to ensure sound investment in the public energy industries.

    Electricity Generating Capacity
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Power what additional capacity for electricity generation he proposes to authorise in the current year.
    Mr. Mason: I have not yet completed my review of the current investment programmes of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales and am unable to anticipate its outcome.
    Mr. Osborn: Can the right hon. Gentleman state what has been approved so far this year? Can he indicate the capacity he will be approving, bearing in mind that electrical plant manufacturers want sustained orders and he has planned 66,000 megawatts, which is an increase of 20,000 megawatts over the next five to six years—that is, an annual demand for 3,000–4,000 megawatts? Is it a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing?
    Mr. Mason: No new stations have been approved this year. I am aware of the difficulties of the power plant manufacturers but that is really a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.
    Mr. Ridley: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the electricity industry can provide capacity according to its own estimate of the rate of national growth rather than the estimate of the Department of Economic Affairs, which has proved slightly wrong in the past?
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman should keep his tongue in his cheek when talking of estimated demand. There is surplus generating capacity at the moment because of the Conservative Government's bad estimating. Too many stations were built too quickly.
    Sir J. Edenasked the Minister of Power what was the percentage margin of electricity capacity last winter over average cold spell conditions and over maximum demand, respectively.
    Mr. Freeson: About 18 per cent. in each case.
    Sir J. Eden: Will the hon. Gentleman try to help the House by clearing up some of the confusion to which I frankly admit? A number of different figures have been given by different Ministers. For example, can he explain what the Prime Minister meant when he said that the margin over peak demand was 25 per cent.? What contribution to success has the Winter Emergency Committee made?
    Mr. Freeson: I would have to have notice of the reference to the statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Winter Emergency Committee, as the hon. Gentleman knows, reviews all the factors relating to winter conditions annually and it continues in that job.

    Nationalised Industries (Financial Targets)
    Mr. Emeryasked the Minister of Power why he has not yet published financial targets for the nationalised industries for which he is responsible; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mason: The White Paper on the Financial and Economic Objectives of Nationalised Industries (Cmnd. 3437) indicates the relevant criteria but their application has posed difficult problems. The over-riding considerations are that we get the right answers and that the industries should be properly consulted. All this has taken longer than I had hoped.
    Mr. Emery: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, as we will not have a statement now, it means that we will not be able to have Parliamentary inquiry into the financial target for next year until 55 per cent. of the year is past? How can he possibly sustain the view that the chairmen of the nationalised industries know what the eventual target will be already but that he will not tell the House at the moment? This is despicable.
    Mr. Mason: The seething indignation on the hon. Gentleman's face does not disturb me. The chairmen are being closely consulted. But we have not finalised what the objective shall be. Until we do, I cannot inform the House.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember his undertaking in Committee on the Iron and Steel Act to give financial directions to the B.S.C. at the earliest opportunity? When can we expect him to do so?
    Mr. Mason: I did give that undertaking but I have not yet concluded my talks with the Corporation.

    Nationalised Industries (New Investment)
    Mr. Laneasked the Minister of Power what consultations he has had, at what times, and with whom, on the test rate of discount applied to new investment by the nationalised industries.
    Mr. J. H. Osbornasked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement about the test rate of discount to be applied to new investment by the fuel and power nationalised industries.
    Mr. Staintonasked the Minister of Power what test rate of discount is currently applied to new investment in the fuel and power industries.
    Mr. Freeson: Cmnd. 3437 announced that nationalised industries—other than the B.S.C.—should use a test discount rate of 8 per cent. The nationalised fuel industries were consulted in the preparation of the White Paper. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury informed the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) on 8th July, [Vol. 786, c. 1139] the rate is at present being reviewed, and the House will be informed of the result.
    The rate for the B.S.C., which is still under consideration, will take account of the fact that unlike other nationalised industries, it receives investment grants.
    Mr. Lane: As it is now well over a year since Government witnesses before the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries implied that the 8 per cent. figure was out of date, and as apparently we are not to have a chance before the autumn now, is not this an intolerable delay by a Government who claim to be dynamic and modernising?
    Mr. Freeson: I am aware of the views expressed with regard to reviewing the position of the discount rate in relation

    1469
    to higher interest rates and it is one of the factors that will be taken into account.
    Mr. Osborn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that commercial rates are well above this figure? Is he further aware that, since the Treasury has raised this issue, some £1,500 million worth of investment has been carried out? Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any time for the revised target?
    Mr. Freeson: I am not in a position to give information to the House at present, but the matter is the subject of a review. All the points made by the hon. Gentlemen will be taken into account.
    Mr. Ridley: Since the Treasury has just issued a stock with a 9 per cent. coupon, will the hon. Gentleman bring to its notice the fact that it is high time that this discount rate was raised? When will he make an announcement? He has been talking about it all summer.
    Mr. Freeson: If I were able to tell the House when I could make an announcement I would be able to give the answer today. I will draw the Treasury's attention to the hon. Gentleman's observations.

    National Coal Board (Borrowing)
    Mr. Emeryasked the Minister of Power what is the sum of extra borrowing taken up by the National Coal Board since the passing of the 1967 Coal Industry Act for additional coal-burn by the gas and electricity industries.
    Mr. Mason: No additional borrowing has been entailed.
    Mr. Emery: Does this mean that it will not be essential for the National Coal Board to add any further in borrowing to the £45 million allowed under the Act for the further coal-burn?
    Mr. Mason: The Question is about extra borrowing. None has been involved. The National Coal Board is allowed up to the £45 million limit in the four years up to the end of 1969–71. I am not visualising anything beyond that at the moment.

    Coal Mining (Productivity)
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Minister of Power how the growth of coalmining productivity in the first half
    1470
    of 1969 compares with that achieved in the corresponding periods of the years 1967 and 1968.
    Mr. Mason: Productivity in the first half of 1969 was 44·2 cwt. per manshift, 6·6 per cent. higher than in the corresponding period in 1968. The comparable increases in 1968 and 1967 were 9·1 per cent. and 3·0 per cent. respectively.
    Mr. Wainwright: Will the impetus towards greater production continue? Do not the achievements of the men working in the nationalised coal mining industry warrant greater help from the Government? Will the Government further consider that industry when deciding the fuel to be used by future power stations?
    Mr. Mason: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have given much financial aid to the coal mining industry, totting up to about £550 million, while we have been in office. The Tories closed 350 pits and 250,000 men left the industry while the Tories were in office and the Tories did not give a penny to the miners or the Board. There has been a slight falling off of output per man shift this year, but I hope that it will pick up later. It may be due to higher recruitment in recent months.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is not the £2,000 million investment in the coal mining and ancillary industries during the 13 years of Tory rule the reason for the great increase in productivity in coal mines today?
    Mr. Mason: No. If we had not nationalised the industry and had allowed the anarchy of the market place of Tory rule to continue, 200 pits would not be in production today.

    Ore Terminals and Steel Works (Siting)
    Mr. Gordon Campbellasked the Minister of Power what consultations he has had, or proposes to have, with the steel industry on the present world trend towards larger ore-carriers requiring deep water and its likely effects upon the siting of future ore terminals and steel works.
    Mr. Mason: The size of ore carriers and the need for deep water approaches are amongst the factors which the British

    1471
    Steel Corporation and the Government will continue to take into account in their studies on ore terminals.
    Mr. Campbell: Will the Minister also bear in mind that the deepest water around the shores of Britain is in the Firth of Clyde and that if the present trend of building larger and larger ships continues, that fact will be of considerable help to the British steel industry?
    Mr. Mason: Yes, Sir. The Metra-Weddell Report has drawn attention to the natural advantages of the Clyde and they will undoubtedly be borne in mind by the British Steel Corporation in the forthcoming study which it is to undertake in conjunction with the Clyde Port Authority.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: In his consultations with the British Steel Corporation, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the proposed Uskmouth iron ore terminal in South Wales is kept under constant review and that the proposal is not put into cold storage? In the meanwhile, will he seek agreement with the British Transport Docks Board to modernise the existing iron-ore handling facilities at Newport Docks as a temporary measure?
    Mr. Mason: I am obliged to my hon. Friend and all other hon. Members who have constituency interests for drawing these matters to my attention. I will convey what they have said to the B.S.C.
    Sir J. Gilmour: What ports and estuaries, apart from the Clyde, are available to take the largest projected ore carriers without dredging?
    Mr. Mason: Port Talbot will be able to take 100,000-tonners quite soon and eventually 150,000-tonners and Redcar is now being developed to take 100,000-tonners.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that facilities on the Clyde will not help Summers Steel Works on Mersey? Is it not essential that there should be a berth on Mersey to cater for the needs of Summers Steel Works? Will my right hon. Friend have consultations with the steel industry in this connection?
    Mr. Mason: As I hinted, hon. Members who have small ports who want them to be large ports adjacent to steel works would best serve their interests by writing to the B.S.C. instead of question-
    1472
    ing me at length on what is a Scottish demand for a major ore terminal.

    North Thames Gas Board (Private Contractors)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Power if he will issue a general direction to the North Thames Gas Board to cease using private contractors on work in connection with the overhaul of new re-forming plants so long as craftsmen employed by the Board and capable of doing the same work are being declared redundant, and that such work should be done, wherever possible, by the Board's own employees.
    Mr. Freeson: No, Sir. This is a matter for the Board, and I have asked the Chairman to write to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Driberg: If the Minister has no responsibility in this matter, why did the Table accept this Question? Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Table erred? That is unthinkable. Is he aware of the strong concern and anger felt at the Beckton gas works and elsewhere at this unfair and uneconomic practice?
    Mr. Freeson: I think that the Question was accepted as a matter of courtesy.
    Mr. Driberg: No.
    Mr. Freeson: The Table Office is not responsible for the administration of the gas industry.
    The issue is essentially a managerial matter. Channels are available for complaints about managerial decisions of this kind to be taken up by the men concerned, and I do not think that this is an appropriate matter for the Minister.
    Mr. Driberg: On a point of order. Am I not right in suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that if the Table accepts a Question, the Minister has some responsibility or the Question would not have been accepted in the first instance?
    Mr. Speaker: A Minister may disown responsibility even after a Question has been tabled. He may reply in whatever way he likes.
    Mr. Ridley: Are the contractors' men employed by the gas boards to have selective employment tax paid in respect of them, unlike the private contractors' men for whom it has to be paid, in line with the decision about gas showrooms?
    Mr. Freeson: That is another matter of detail which I suggest the hon. Gentleman takes up with the board in question.

    Coking Coal (Scotland)
    Mr. Gordon Campbellasked the Minister of Power whether he has completed his inquiry into the availability in Scotland of coking coal suitable for the steel industry and into the economic advantages or disadvantages of using local deposits or transporting such coal from elsewhere; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mason: This is being examined by the National Coal Board and British Steel Corporation.
    Mr. Campbell: As there are at least three nationalised industries concerned with this problem, will the Government ensure that the study of the whole problem continues in order to find the best solution in the long term?
    Mr. Mason: Yes. I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he phrases questions. There is no general shortage of coking coal in Scotland and the British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board are now carrying out a number of blending experiments to see whether they can find a wider range of coals which will satisfy the Corporation's requirements.
    Mr. Eadie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that after the war a pit was sunk in Scotland exclusively to exploit seams of coking coal, but was subsequently abandoned because the steel industry then thought that there would be no demand for it? What will my right hon. Friend do to investigate this?
    Mr. Mason: To which pit does my hon. Friend refer?
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hooley to ask the next Question.
    Mr. Eadie: On a point of order. Is it in order for my right hon. Friend to pose a question to me in answer to my question?
    Mr. Speaker: I have no power to direct Ministers to answer Questions in the way hon. Members would like.
    Mr. Eadie: It was Airth.

    National Coal Board and British Steel Corporation (Regional Policy)
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Power what progress has been made in his consultations with the National Coal Board and British Steel Corporation on aspects of regional policy; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mason: Discussions continue at various levels to ensure the fullest exchange of ideas and information and the best use of both.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary recently discussed with the two chairmen their constructive ideas for assisting regional policy.
    Mr. Hooley: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that reply and I am glad to know that these discussions are going on. What specific measures of support for regional policy have these two industries proposed?
    Mr. Mason: The British Steel Corporation and the National Coal Board are to use the influence of their organisation to support Government measures to attract industry to areas which might be hit by coalfield and steel plant closures. The Corporation is to appoint a social policy adviser purposely to deal with these problems and to help particularly in areas where steel plants may be closing down after there have been problems with coal mines.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly tell us in this regional context what is to be done to help the Tyne now that it has been decided to take ore shipments from the Tyne and to transfer them to Tees-side? There is far too much talk; we never hear about action.
    Mr. Mason: I am sorry, but the hon. Lady has risen too late. The point she raises was answered two Questions ago.
    The answer to her question about regional policy is that last year we spent £260 million on aid to the development areas, a strong contrast to what the Tories managed when they were in power.
    Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have in the past urged hon. Members to, if possible, raise points of order at the end of Question Time. Mr. Swain.
    Dame Irene Ward: But would the Minister—
    Mr. Swain: Perhaps I may interrupt the hon. Lady to put a question to my right hon. Friend. Has he forgotten, or is he still considering, implementing paragraphs 58 to 62 of the 1968 T.U.C. policy White Paper referring to regional policies where rationalisation of coal and steel is taking place?
    Mr. Mason: I cannot call to mind the precise paragraphs to which my hon Friend refers, but if he will table a Question on the subject or see me about it after Question Time or on another occasion I will gladly discuss the matter with him.

    Coal Output (Industrial Disputes)
    Mr. Woofasked the Minister of Power how much coal output was lost last year as a result of industrial disputes; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mason: About 329,000 tons. This is one-fifth of 1 per cent. of the total output, and to maintain good relations to this degree is a remarkable achievement of which the coal industry as a whole can be justifiably proud.
    Mr. Woof: To what degree have industrial relations between the National Coal Board and the Durham miners been instrumental in guaranteeing continuity of coal production?
    Mr. Mason: Although the Durham coalfield has suffered quite harshly from pit closures in the last two years, not one ounce of coal has been lost through industrial stoppages during that time, which is a fantastic achievement.

    Coal Supplies (Consumption and Exports)
    Mr. Woofasked the Minister of Power how much coal he estimates will be used this year in the United Kingdom; how much he estimates will be exported; and how the figures compare with 1968 and 1967, respectively.
    Mr. Mason: In 1967, inland consumption was 163·9 million tons and exports 1·9 million tons. The corresponding figures for 1968 were 164·4 million tons and 2·7 million tons. For this year home demand may be slightly lower and exports higher.
    Mr. Woof: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the decline in the demand for coal has been halted, at least temporarily? Would he further agree that this is the time for him to consider reviewing the estimates for coal production in the 'seventies?
    Mr. Mason: There has certainly been a levelling off between supply and demand and this is encouraging for the mining industry. I am now considering what aid, if any, and to what extent, should be given to the industry after March, 1971.
    Mr. Swain: Will not this levelling off—I agree that sales are now equalling output—have a disastrous effect in the near future, with 40 pits being closed this year, with an average of 1,000 men each, compared with 70 last year, with an average of 500 men each?
    Mr. Mason: No, Sir. My hon. Friend is quite wrong. It so happens that in the first three months of this financial year only seven pits were closed.

    Total Energy and District Heating Schemes
    Mr. Gregoryasked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied with the arrangements within his Department to keep in touch with overseas developments in district heating and total energy schemes; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeson: We fully recognise the potential importance of total energy and district heating schemes and take steps to keep in touch with overseas experience as well as information in the United Kingdom. As an example, I have visited Denmark and Sweden to inspect and discuss a number of such schemes. In addition, there is the normal collection of information in the Department, and my right hon. Friend and I hope to attend an international conference on total energy and district heating in London next April.
    Mr. Gregory: While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer, may I ask him if he is really satisfied with the progress that we have made? Should not we be doing more to match the performance of the Scandinavians in this sphere?
    Mr. Freeson: I am certainly not satisfied with the progress that we have made and I believe that there is considerable scope for enlarging total energy and district heating schemes. It is correct to say that the Scandinavians and other Western European countries are ahead of us in this matter.
    Mr. Palmer: Has his Department any objection to electricity boards proposing schemes for total energy arrangements?
    Mr. Freeson: We have no objection in principle. These schemes would have to be considered, as they are submitted, by the Electricity Council, the C.E.G.B. and the Department. I have very recently had discussions with representatives of the Electricity Council, and this point was considered.

    Electricity (National Control Centre)
    Mr. Gregoryasked the Minister of Power why he gave his consent to the Central Electricity Generating Board to establish a new national control centre less than 10 years after the completion of the present centre; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mason: The present national control centre was built in 1961 and is reaching the limit of its capability. The growth of the power system has led to a need for more advanced information display facilities to assist continuous surveillance of operating conditions on the system. This need will be met by the C.E.G.B's. new national control centre which, when completed, will be one of the most up to date in the world.
    Mr. Gregory: Would my right hon. Friend assure the House that a British computer will be used at this new centre? Will the centre be open for viewing by potential foreign buyers?
    Mr. Mason: I understand that two British Ferranti Argus 500 computers will be used in the new centre. The C.E.G.B. will be only too pleased to demonstrate the operation and performance to potential purchasers.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: What has been the cost of the new centre? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do with the old centre when it becomes redundant?
    Mr. Mason: The cost has been £1·8 million. The new centre has been built within the old one.

    Non-toxic Gas Supplies (Scotland)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Minister of Power what progress is being made in providing adequate supplies of non-toxic gas to Scottish consumers; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeson: I am informed by the Scottish Gas Board that with the exception of certain smaller plants outside the main grids the average toxic content of gas in the area has been reduced from 24 per cent. in 1960 to approximately 6 per cent. now.
    Mr. Dempsey: That is very good progress, but would my hon. Friend bear in mind that Scotland has many old properties with dilapidated gas piping which frequently results in leaks and fatal accidents? Would he ask the authorities to do their best to complete the job?
    Mr. Freeson: I am aware of the sad accident which I believe gave rise to the Question. We shall convey the representations which have been made today to the board concerned, but I have every confidence it is doing the job well.

    National Coal Board (Scotland)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Power what manpower savings have been achieved by the changes made by his department in the organisation in the National Coal Board in Scotland.
    Mr. Mason: The reorganisation was the responsibility of the National Coal Board and I have asked the Chairman to write to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Dalyell: Has contraction on the office side of the Coal Board kept pace with the contraction of the collieries?
    Mr. Mason: That is a matter for the Board. But no doubt my hon. Friend recognises that in 1967 the Scottish Division was disbanded and the five areas were reduced to two—North Scotland and

    1479
    South Scotland. Consequently great savings must have been made.

    Reserve Collieries
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Power how many collieries are currently not producing coal, but are being held in reserve in the event of an upsurge in coal demand, in Scotland, England, and Wales, respectively.
    Mr. Mason: One, in Yorkshire.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Lord Robens told a colleague and I that another colliery in Fife was being held in reserve and that in the event of a rise in the coal market it would be reopened? Can he give an assurance that the Coal Board is satisfied that the manpower will be available to man the pits in the event of an upsurge in demand for coal?
    Mr. Mason: No. The Michael Colliery is closed and it would be very costly to reopen it. It has lost its labour force. Even an indication that it might be reopened would undermine the efforts of the Government and the local authority to bring new alternative industry to the area. It would not be right to raise hopes that it might be reopened.

    Steel Bars (Price)
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the effect on exports and employment of the decision by the British Steel Corporation to increase the price of steel bars by 24 per cent.; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Mason: The product my hon. Friend has in mind is a very specialised type of bar with a limited sale. I have no reason to believe that the increase in its price will have any general economic effect.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recently the Scottish Region of British Railways gave a contract to an Italian concern to build a steamer and that one of the reasons for it was that Italian steel is 10 per cent. cheaper than ours? If steel bars are increased by this amount, will it not seriously affect the competitiveness of British steel?
    Mr. Mason: I am not aware of the comparison which my hon. Friend makes.
    1480
    This is a special product. It has a very limited sale. It is technically difficult to make. There are 2,500 tons made a year. I know that the firm concerned is in my hon. Friend's constituency. I have asked the British Steel Corporation to contact my hon. Friend.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Is not this a general problem? Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that when I tackled him about steel prices a couple of months ago he said that the average increase was about 9 per cent., whereas in this instance it is 24 per cent., which represents an invitation to continental producers to flood our market with foreign steel to the detriment of British steel?
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman is responsible for ridiculous exaggerations. This is a very special type of product of which only 2,500 tons are made out of a total production in Britain of about 26 or 27 million tons.

    Longannet Power Station, Fife (Coal Supplies)
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied that supplies of coal to the Longannet Power Station in Fife will be adequate when the station is in full production in 1973; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Freeson: I am informed by the National Coal Board that supplies will be adequate.

    Continental Shelf (Production Licences)
    Mr. Alisonasked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement on the issue of production licences under the Continental Shelf Act, 1964, in respect of areas for which licences were granted in 1964 and 1965.
    Mr. Staintonasked the Minister of Power whether he will undertake to make a statement to the House on the issue of production licences under the Continental Shelf Act, 1964, in respect of areas for which licences were granted in 1964 and 1965 before coming to any decision.
    Mr. Mason: I hope to be able to make a statement on licensing policy before the House rises. Areas to be surrendered under licences awarded in 1964 and 1965

    1481
    will not become available for relicensing until the autumn of next year.
    Mr. Alison: Is the Minister aware that the rather sneering remarks which he made in a recent speech about abortive expenditure by the exploration companies has caused widespread offence to the exploration industry? When will he make a statement about the abortive expenditure by the Americans in getting to the moon?
    Mr. Mason: I am not aware of any sneering remarks about abortive expenditure on the exploitation of North Sea gas. In fact, we are very grateful that the international oil companies have taken a very keen interest in taking up licences and working out their work programme within the six years in which they were required to do it before giving up 50 per cent. of their blocks. I am not aware of the sneering comments to which the hon. Gentleman refers.
    Sir J. Eden: Was not the right hon. Gentleman reported in the Northern Echo of 28th June as having said that £40 million of the money spent in exploration was wasted? It is the use of the word "wasted" which is regarded as being highly offensive in this high risk area.
    Mr. Mason: I cannot make a serious reply without looking at the reference. This is not "wasted" in the sense that the hon. Gentleman uses the word. There is a high risk in the North Sea, which is a very hazardous area for drilling operations. Consequently a lot of dry holes can be drilled without any return. Money may be wasted in that sense, but this is a high risk venture.

    ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Prime Minister when he expects to receive the results of the inter-departmental investigation into the control of environmental pollution.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): As I said in reply to Questions from my hon. Friend and from my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) on 26th June, this has recently been discussed by the Central Advisory Council for Science and Technology and the Government are now
    1482
    considering the matter in the light of the Council's advice.—[Vol. 785, c. 302.]
    Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the proposal of the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science that legislation should be introduced to the effect that before any chemical or insecticide is released on the market a long-term analysis of the likely effects should be made?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the proposal to my attention. The Government investigation will cover the co-ordination of measures for controlling environmental pollutants, both those which are known and potential ones, as a result of commercial or other research. Different Departments will be responsible for looking at the possible effects of new materials used in medicine, veterinary medicine, pest control and other fields where there is potential danger.
    Dr. Winstanley: Is it not apparent that man excels all other animals in his ability to foul his nest and that unless we take positive steps our descendants will be poisoned with pollutants, choked by fumes and deafened by noise before finally being smothered under mountains of waste? Is it not time that we established a Department to deal with this very important subject?
    The Prime Minister: I am sure that even the hon. Gentleman has missed out one or two potential dangers. All these questions with regard to the marine environment, rivers and the atmosphere are being studied by the Central Advisory Council for Science and Technology.

    PRESIDENT NIXON (TALKS)
    Mr. Ridsdaleasked the Prime Minister whether he will invite President Nixon to London for conversations either before or after his visit to Rumania.
    Mr. Luardasked the Prime Minister if he will seek an opportunity to consult with President Nixon on matters concerning the forthcoming discussions between the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on strategic missiles.
    The Prime Minister: It was announced last week that I shall be having an informal talk with President Nixon on 3rd August when he makes a brief stop n Britain on his way home. There is no formal agenda for the talks.
    On strategic arms limitation, intensive consultations have been under way in the North Atlantic Council about the possible bilateral talks between the United States and the Soviet Union, and our views have been made known.
    Mr. Ridsdale: When the Prime Minister meets the American President, will he congratulate him, not only on the magnificent courage of the American spacemen, but on the great achievements of American technology? To make up for our own shortcomings, will the right hon. Gentleman take the advice of the Select Committee on Science and Technology and establish a Select Committee on Defence?
    The Prime Minister: On the first part of the supplementary question, the serious part, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be aware that I took the opportunity on the Atlantic telephone yesterday when President Nixon phoned Downing Street to express to him exactly the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman, which indeed I had done on three American television networks the night before. I am sure that the whole House would endorse the words of congratulations of the hon. Gentleman and those which have poured out from this country to the United States to the astronauts and on the technological achievement and planning which underlay it.
    On the second part of the supplementary question, I am not aware that anyone has suggested that this country, under this or a previous Government, should have entered the moon race, with all the resources involved. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of our very high degree of technological and scientific advance in the past three or four years.
    Mr. Luard: Regarding the strategic arms limitation talks, is it not a fact that Europe has important interests in this field which are by no means identical with those of the United States? Has not this country, as the only country
    1484
    with a viable strategic missile capacity, a particular right to be heard in this respect? Therefore, is it not important that we should remain in very close touch with the United States throughout these talks?
    The Prime Minister: It is a fact that Europe has an interest in these talks, which may not be exactly the same as that of the United States. For that reason, the United States and her European allies have been discussing all aspects of this problem in the North Atlantic Council. With regard to the position of Britain, we shall, of course, hope to keep in very close touch with the United States Government on this matter, and I would be very surprised if this was not one of the subjects which we shall be discussing a week on Sunday.
    Mr. Thorpe: Although there is no fixed agenda, may we assume that the Prime Minister will discuss the possibility of an American, if not a British, initiative towards control of the supply of arms, etc., to the Middle East, Nigeria or any other part of the world where they are likely to cause a breach of the peace?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman can be satisfied that we are in close touch with the United States about this. If he looks up HANSARD, he will find that two Questions were answered by my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on that part of his question which dealt with arms supplies to Nigeria and relief.
    Mr. E. L. Mallalieu: While understanding as a legitimate Parliamentary ploy the desire of hon. Members opposite to have the Prime Minister out of the country as much as possible, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that quite a few Members of this House think that he is quite capable of deciding for himself whom he shall meet and when?
    The Prime Minister: The meeting with the President will take place in this country. It is very convenient that there is this opportunity.
    Mr. Tapsell: Do not the Prime Minister's relations with the President seem to have become more informal than has been the custom with British Prime Ministers in the past?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I have already informed the House of our discussion about my visiting there in the spring and again this summer, which certainly has been possible. But I had the opportunity of a very full discussion with the President on his visit to this country in February and while we have been discussing the possibility of a further meeting, next week's opportunity has now occurred.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend convey to the President of the United States how important many hon. Members on this side of the House consider it to be that such bilateral contacts should be made with East European countries? Will he also make it quite clear to the President of the United States that we are extremely concerned and interested in the development of a European security conference, which would include the United States, which could lead ultimately to a European security pact?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. On the first part of the question, my hon. Friend will be aware of the line taken by N.A.T.O., including, of course, the United States, in Iceland last year and, again, the declaration which was made in Washington at the N.A.T.O. 20th anniversary celebrations on this question, which can best be explored, I agree, by bilateral contacts.
    With regard to the second part of the question, there has been the recent Finnish initiative, which I discussed last week with the President of Finland. As I have already told the House, there now seems to be understanding on both sides that the United States and other non-European countries interested in Europe could be involved. I have also expressed hope after my talks with Herr Brandt that the difficulty about the two Germany's looks like being within reach of solution. Even so, it is important that this conference should be properly prepared.

    GANDHI (CENTENARY)
    Mr. Huntasked the Prime Minister whether he will outline his proposed arrangements for the commemoration of Gandhi Centenary year.
    Mr. Carter-Jonesasked the Prime Minister what steps are being taken to
    1486
    commemorate the Gandhi Centenary year; and if he will make a statement.
    The Prime Minister: Her Majesty's Government have contributed £5,000 to the United Kingdom Committee for the Gandhi Centenary. In addition, we contributed £4,000 towards the cost of the statue of Gandhi in Tavistock Square and some £10,000 to cover the cost of a British Pavilion at the Gandhi International Exhibition in Delhi. Apart from this, the Post Office is issuing a special commemorative stamp and the India Office Library is mounting a special exhibition.
    Mr. Hunt: While acknowledging that help and the issue of the commemorative stamp, to which the Prime Minister has referred—very fittingly designed by an Indian resident of this country—may I ask the Prime Minister also to continue to encourage positive participation by the Government in the centenary activities, partly as a tribute to a very great man and also as a means of furthering Indo-British relations, which in recent years, as the Prime Minister is well aware, have from time to time suffered considerable strains and stresses?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I agree with the objectives in the hon. Member's question. He was probably present at the great festival in Tavistock Square last year when I unveiled the Gandhi memorial. I hope, as, indeed, do other Ministers to be able to attend the very special centenary tribute at the Royal Albert Hall in October as part of the Gandhi centenary celebrations.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: In thanking my right hon. Friend for his observations, may I ask whether, in view of Mahatma Gandhi's contribution to securing the peaceful transfer of power from His Majesty's Government to the peoples of the sub-continent in India, it would not now be appropriate for the Government to initiate, in this particular year, a study of the rôle of non-violence in the conduct of world affairs today?
    The Prime Minister: That raises a much wider issue and, of course, a much wider geographical setting. But those of us who have been called upon to pay tribute to the memory of the late Mahatma Gandhi, as I have, not only in speeches, but in writing, while not agreeing with everything he did in relation to

    1487
    the United Kingdom at certain critical times, will, I think, pay tribute to the extent to which he tried, in the solution of this problem and other problems with which India was later concerned, to bring the concept of non-violent solutions.
    Sir J. Rodgers: While the whole House will welcome the contribution by the Government to the Mahatma Gandhi commemoration, may I ask the Prime Minister to explain why his attitude with regard to a statue to Sir Winston Churchill in Parliament Square is so ambivalent? Why does not the Prime Minister make the same generous gesture for the provision of a statue to Sir Winston Churchill?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has introduced a rather sour note into an issue of great importance in Anglo-Indian relations, quite apart from our desire to pay tribute at this centenary time. The hon. Gentleman will have heard the Answers I gave concerning a statue to Sir Winston Churchill. What I said was that we were prepared—and I think that this carries the support of those sponsoring the proposal—to make an appropriate contribution to it but that it would mean far more if those involved could make it the subject of a nation-wide appeal, with support from the many thousands, perhaps millions, who wish to pay tribute to Sir Winston Churchill. I do not think that that is on a parallel with this issue.

    NUCLEAR WEAPONS
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyneasked the Prime Minister if he will undertake discussions with the Prime Minister of France regarding the eventual co-ordination of the British and French nuclear deterrents.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to what I said in reply to Questions by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) on 17th July.—[Vol. 787, c. 878–81.]
    Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Last week, the Prime Minister told my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that he had no proposals to make to the French Government on this matter. The French
    1488
    Prime Minister has, however, made a specific proposal suggesting that the co-ordination of the British and French deterrents would form the logical follow through of British entry into the European Community. What are the Prime Minister's views about that specific proposal?
    The Prime Minister: That was not a specific proposal. The French Prime Minister said in his speech—it was not at all misquoted by the hon. Member—that he envisaged this as something which would follow after British entry into the Community. It is, therefore, not an immediate proposal by the Prime Minister of France or, as far as I am aware, by anyone else. Our view, as I told the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon) on 17th July, is that while I favour the setting-up of arrangements for much closer co-operation on defence matters by the European countries, not least between France and ourselves, this should be done within N.A.T.O. and the overall control of N.A.T.O.
    Mr. Mendelson: Will my right hon. Friend take note, however, that there is growing opposition in France to the tremendous expenditure envisaged on nuclear weapons, as there is growing opposition to this expenditure in this country? Will he not, therefore, listen to this advice and take up this point but rather correspond to the policy on foreign affairs of the French Government, which wishes for an overall agreement with Eastern Europe? Is there not a more fruitful field of joint co-operation there than in these nuclear proposals?
    The Prime Minister: The question of public opinion in France and any review of nuclear policy in France must be a matter for the French Government and people. Our concern in these proposals is to express our hope that France will now come back fully within the framework of N.A.T.O. in all these defence matters and that any question of this kind is best discussed in the Nuclear Planning Group of N.A.T.O. With French co-operation there, I am sure that we could make the best possible progress in the direction which most hon. Members would wish to see. With regard to both parts of Europe and further afield, I have already referred

    1489
    to the European Security Conference and also to the vitally important strategic arms limitation which I shall be discussing with the President in the near future.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister dispose of the myth on his own benches that there is anything in the Non-Proliferation Treaty to prevent Anglo-French collaboration? Will not he also agree that Britain has advantages to gain, both in technology and in finance, from collaborating with the French?
    The Prime Minister: I think I have made it clear that on any reading of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, there is no question of proliferation, as far as collaboration between two nuclear Powers is concerned, such as Britain and France, Britain and America or any other two nuclear Powers. The question of a breach of that treaty would arise if there were, for example, a European deterrent which went beyond the existing nuclear Powers, unless, as the treaty obviously envisages, there were at some distant future time a single country in Europe with a single defence administration and a single foreign policy, and which inherited any nuclear equipment or nuclear potentialities of its individual members.
    Mr. Mayhew: Is not there a very great difference between the idea of a European deterrent, to which the objections are obvious, and the idea of an agreement between Britain and France confined to the joint control of their existing nuclear weapons, which would reduce the number of independent deterrents from five to four and might have considerable advantages to both countries?
    The Prime Minister: The answer I gave to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) was in relation to the provisions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and I think that I gave the right interpretation of it. Certainly I agree that there is a very big difference between a European nuclear deterrent, as my hon. Friend has said, and co-operation between individual nuclear Powers. But, so far, co-operation between Britain and France has been largely precluded by the specific nuclear policy of the previous French Govern-
    1490
    ment and by the fact that the French Government have not been taking part actively in N.A.T.O. and particularly within the Nuclear Planning Group. If France were to come within the nuclear planning group, that might help to create a new situation.
    Mr. Amery: Seeing that there is both a British national plan and an Anglo-American plan for the utilisation of the British deterrent, will the Prime Minister at least keep an open mind about the possibility of an Anglo-French plan if other circumstances, economic, Common Market and so on, should hake this seem desirable?
    The Prime Minister: The answer is, as I have said, that this is a matter within the alliance of N.A.T.O. and of the Nuclear Planning Group. We should be more than happy to have the opportunity of talking to the French within the Nuclear Planning Group of N.A.T.O. So far France has not been playing any part in it.
    Mr. Heath: The Prime Minister will agree that we still have national control over our own nuclear deterrent, within the terms of the negotiation of its attribution to N.A.T.O. when required. If the French Prime Minister comes forward with proposals for Anglo-French co-operation in the nuclear field in the context of discussions about the Common Market, is the Prime Minister prepared to consider and discuss these proposals?
    The Prime Minister: I know that the right hon. Gentleman for some time, since long before the French Prime Minister's speech, has been advocating something of this kind in connection with the European negotiations, particularly during the period of government of President de Gaulle. In my view, it would be extremely unwise to link this with negotiations for entering into the Common Market. I have seen no disposition on the part of the Six to attempt to extract from us a deal of that kind, linking two things which are very different indeed. There is room for co-operation, on the other hand, between Britain and France on a wide issue of subjects and for an improvement in relations which have not been all that good for several years. The right forum for talks with the French in the nuclear military field is not the Common Market but N.A.T.O.
    Mr. Philip Noel-Baker: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that the most important fact about nuclear weapons is that the world stock has grown in 10 years by one hundred times to the present stock of a million megatons? Will he reaffirm that this is regarded by the Government as a growing danger and that it is still their policy to work for the abolition of all weapons of mass destruction?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, it is our aim to work for that. Without commenting on the figures quoted by my right hon. Friend, I will go one stage further and say that there is a danger of a new qualitative as well as quantitative risk in the arms race with the introduction of A.B.M.s and things of that kind. That is why we attach so much importance to the forthcoming talks, if they are held, as we hope they will be, between the Soviet Union and the United States of America. It would of course be most valuable if France now felt able to sign the test ban and the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Failure to take these two steps is the most important factor which inhibits further co-operation.
    Mr. Heath: While we are accustomed to the Prime Minister saying what he would like the French Government to do, my question to him was quite specific If the French Prime Minister comes forward with proposals for Anglo-French co-operation, is the Prime Minister prepared to consider and discuss them?
    The Prime Minister: I replied to that question the first time it was asked, and I will repeat what I said, even though it is a hypothetical question. The French Prime Minister has come forward with no such proposals. We are prepared to discuss nuclear military co-operation, whether with France or with other allies, in the proper forum, which is the Nuclear Planning Group of N.A.T.O. I hope that is the answer which the right hon. Gentleman wants, and that he will support it, because it is right. I said also that it would help if the French were to sign the test ban treaty and the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and I hope that he will support that. The answer is yes, in the proper forum, which is the nuclear planning group of N.A.T.O.

ACHIEVEMENT IN SPACE (EARLY DAY MOTIONS)
Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order. I apologise for not having given notice of wishing to raise this point of order, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the unique and unparalled nature of the American achievement in landing men on the moon, and the fact that there are on the Order Paper three separate Early Day Motions congratulating the three American astronauts on this fantastic achievement, could not means be found to express the feelings which are unanimous on all sides, transcending party politics as they do, in a form which would enable a resolution to be passed by the House as opposed to Early Day Motions which appear on the Order Paper and are never debated?
[That this House, recognising the unparalleled triumph of intelligence and courage that the landing on the moon represents, offers its profound congratulations to Mr. Neil Armstrong, Colonel Edwin Aldrin and Colonel Michael Collins, to the scientific and technical staff in support, and to the entire American people in their achievement of a new vision for the human race.]
[That this House congratulates the crew of Apollo 11, N.A.S.A., United States industry and the American people on achieving the first landing of man on the moon and wishes the crew a safe return.]
[That this House salutes the courage of the first men on the moon; congratulates the United States Government and the entire Apollo team on the imagination and high technical skills that made this historic feat possible, and further expresses the conviction that in exploring outer space men will find better methods of safeguarding world peace and improving the human condition.]
In view of the transcendent importance of the achievement by the Americans, I feel sure that the House will wish to express its feelings in this way.
The Prime Minister: We have a Motion on the Order Paper, and so have many other hon. Gentlemen. It is free for all hon. Members of the House to sign one or the other and, if it would help

1493
to get a single Early Day Motion, I shall be glad to discuss with the leaders of the other two parties the possibility of an all-party Motion which any hon. Member who wishes to do so could sign. That would be as good a declaration of all-party support as we could have.

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AND COMMON- WEALTH AFFAIRS (STATE- MENT)
The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. SHINWELL: To ask the Prime Minister whether the public statement by the Foreign Secretary in Brussels on 15th July, concerning a supranational system governing the Common Market, represents the policy of the Government.
Mr. RAPHAEL TUCK: To ask the Prime Minister if the public statement of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in Brussels on 15th July on the Common Market represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
Mrs. RENÉE SHORT: To ask the Prime Minister if the public speech of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 15th July in Brussels on the Common Market represents Government policy.
Mr. MILNE: To ask the Prime Minister whether the public statement by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary on 15th July in Brussels, on the subject of the Common Market, represents Government policy.
Mr. ORME: To ask the Prime Minister whether the public statement made by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in Brussels on 15th July on the Common Market represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. With great respect, this concerns the Prime Minister and perhaps he would be kind enough to remain while I am putting the point of order. I apologise for putting the matter in that way.
Mr. Speaker, you may have observed a series of Questions at the end of the
1494
section dealing with Questions to the Prime Minister. Those Questions refer to what appears to be a conflict of opinion as between the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. Some of us are anxious to obtain clarification on this issue before the Recess, since we shall have no opportunity to have the matter clarified in the House until we return some time in October.
In the circumstances, I am wondering whether, since the Prime Minister has remained to hear my point of order, he would care to clear up this apparent confusion in statements made by himself and the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no request from the Prime Minister to answer any of the later Questions except Q26, which I hope he will soon be answering.
The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order. I was not aware of any confusion. I did not know what anxieties lay behind Questions Nos. Q19 to 22 and 24. Since the answer is short, I would be happy to alleviate these anxieties by giving the answer that I would have given, that my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made no public statement during his visit to Brussels on 15th July.
Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. I am sorry to hear the Prime Minister say that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made no public statement. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary was present at a meeting in Brussels last week, of the Monnet Group. The Monnet Group has nothing official about it; it is not related to the British Government or any other Government. The Foreign Secretary attended that meeting and made an unequivocal statement relating to our attitude on the Common Market. As this statement obviously conflicts with statements which have been repeatedly made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, surely we are entitled to some clarification.
Mr. Speaker: Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen are entitled to put Questions at the appropriate place. We have not reached those Questions on the Order Paper. The right hon. Gentleman's point is not a matter for the Chair and it is not a point of order.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I would remind the House that the habit of raising points of order is growing and that points of order, genuine or not, cut into the business of the day.
Sir Harmar Nicholls: My point of order is as follows. Whether accidentally or deliberately, we have had the Answer to Questions by the Prime Minister, and it is the normal practice in Parliament that when an answer is given to a Question on the Order Paper, supplementary questions are then allowed. Here is a situation in which the House has had an answer and we are not allowed to cross-examine upon it, which is the only way Parliament can fulfil its proper rôle.
Mr. Speaker: Order. It cannot be done by points of order.
Mr. Orme: On a point of order.
Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker can take only one point of order at a time. Dame Irene Ward.
Dame Irene Ward: I will not refer to the point of order I wanted to raise after Question Time, as you, Mr. Speaker, requested me, except to say that I did not put my question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power because in your wisdom Mr. Speaker, you did not call me to put the question.
May I raise this point of order? Would you kindly advise the House why, at this late stage, we have not yet seen the list following the ballot for those selected to raise subjects on the Consolidated Fund Bill. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, what recent practice has been. I think that you referred to this matter last week.
Mr. Speaker: I will deal with the point briefly. When I came to the Chair the ballot had been completed and my staff were typing out the result of the ballot. It happened to be rather longer because this year we have broken all records. There are 65 debates tomorrow night on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I think that the list will be up by now.
Mr. Orme: Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the
1496
Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), the Prime Minister in his reply said that this was a private meeting, attended by the Foreign Secretary. I understood that the Prime Minister had given a direction that all Ministers were to follow out Government policy wherever they might be, whether it be at Brussels or at the National Executive of the Labour Party. How is it that the Foreign Secretary could make a statement in Brussels which was in contradiction of what the Prime Minister had said in the House of Commons?
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is an interesting point, but it is not a point of order. Mr. Thorpe.
Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order.
Dame Irene Ward rose—
Mr. Speaker: I thought that I had satisfied the hon. Lady.
Dame Irene Ward: I merely wanted to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your courteous reply, which the House will be very glad to hear.
Mr. Speaker: I am so grateful.
Mr. Heath: On a point of order. Would I be right—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has the right, like anyone else, to put a point of order.
Mr. Thorpe: Did I hear you correctly, Mr. Speaker, to call me on a point of order just before the hon. Lady rose?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has reminded me that I did. I interrupted the proceedings to have a gracious conversation with the hon. Lady. Mr. Thorpe.
Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order. Could you help us, Mr. Speaker, on your Ruling? When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) made certain representations the Prime Minister got up and, as far as some of us could see, was asking permission to answer some Questions. If that is so, can we take it that they then become normal Questions, subject to the normal rights to ask supplementary questions.
Mr. Speaker: Two of the points of order which have since emerged were disguised supplementary questions. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. Mr. Heath.
Mr. Heath: I wished to raise the same point of order, Sir. The House is in the position that the Prime Minister has been allowed to answer Questions and there have been no supplementary questions presumably because they were interrupted by the points of order which then arose. I wish to inquire when the opportunity for supplementaries will arise.
Mr. Speaker: The House will be able to help if it refrains from putting any more points of order.
Mr. Jennings: May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker, and, at the same time, make a request, following what was said by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? The Prime Minister has answered a number of Questions. In view of that, may I be allowed to ask a supplementary question?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may ask one.
Mr. Jennings: Last week, in answer to a supplementary question of mine, the Prime Minister stated that I had no need to worry about the prospects of this country being committed by him to joining a federal Europe. In view of the statement by the Foreign Secretary in Brussels, who is answering for the Government—the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary?
The Prime Minister: Nothing the Foreign Secretary has said has departed in the slightest from the line taken at this Box by himself and by myself. I think that perhaps I might have misunderstood what my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington had in mind, because my information has been that such anxiety as has arisen has emanated from reports, which I do not consider to be accurate, of an unattributable Press conference and not to reports of the meeting of the Monnet Committee. That perhaps explains the misunderstanding and the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) a moment ago.
That is all I know as to what was said there. I have checked on the matter. The position is exactly as it has been in
1498
relation to any federal or political commitments in Europe. There is no change in what I have previously stated in the House is the position of the Government.
The only political implications that we are asked to assume by joining the Treaty of Rome are those structural and other provisions within the treaty itself. It carries with it no implications for other forms. On my return from Sweden I quoted with warm approval what Herr Brandt said, that if there were further moves towards political unity they would have to be done by an entirely separate organisation.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: How does my right hon. Friend reconcile the assurance which he gave me on 10th June, that as far as Great Britain was concerned a federal Europe was just "not on", with the continued membership of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary of the Monnet Committee for a United States of Europe, which has as its avowed objective a federal Europe?
The Prime Minister: There is nothing inconsistent. I have said repeatedly that there is no immediate proposal by us or by other Governments for any federal get-together or structure in Europe, and it is not involved in any way by our application to join the Treaty of Rome. Some right hon. and hon. Members look forward to a federal Europe very many years from now. I believe that to be very hypothetical. It does not fit in with the general opinion of this House or the country as an immediate proposition. I have often quoted the late Hugh Gaitskell on that point. On the other hand, it may come in the much more distant future, and there is nothing inconsistent between the present position and the work of the Monnet Committee.
Mrs. Renée Short: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the concern of many right hon. and hon. Members about the alleged statement of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in Brussels stems from the fact that my right hon. Friend consistently refuses to give us information which we ask for consistenly, namely, the cost to this country of entry into the Common Market?
Is my right hon. Friend aware that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told me on 23rd June that it would do a disservice to the House to give a

1499
detailed calculation on the cost of entry; yet, a few days afterwards, we read in the Press that a Government survey is carrying out a statistical investigation and that the estimate of agricultural costs alone to this country is between £400 and £500 million a year—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot have a speech disguised as a supplementary question.
Mrs. Short: Is it surprising, therefore, that we are very concerned about the whole question?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is being less than fair to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I myself have answered many questions about the cost and the impossibility in present circumstances of making an accurate estimate of costs, particularly since we cannot forecast what changes there will be in the Common Agricultural Policy.
I have already informed the House that references to a certain article in a newspaper about a fortnight ago as being a Government document are without foundation. There has been no Government document giving that information.
Mr. Maudling: Is it not a fact that the Foreign Secretary attended this meeting not as Foreign Secretary, but as a representative of the Labour Party? Would the Prime Minister confirm that the views both of the Labour Party and of the Government not only on federation, but on the supranational powers of any institution, are no more than anything that he has said in the House?
The Prime Minister: That is the position of the Government and of my right hon. Friend. Every Foreign Minister and other Ministers from a number of countries who attend the Monnet Committee do so in a personal capacity or representing their parties and not representing their Governments. This has been the position for very many years.
As for that meeting, my right hon. Friend answer a Question about it on 21st July, put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis). But I thought that the anxiety—this is why I sought to answer the Questions; I was concerned about what my right hon. Friend the Member
1500
for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) said—arose not from what was said in that confidential meeting, but from what was said and, I think, unfairly reported as a result of an unattributable Press conference. I thought it right to put the record straight so that my hon. Friends should feel less anxious about what they read.
Mr. Peyton: Since when have Ministers had anything other than an official capacity? How can it be that the Foreign Secretary can attend the meeting in a purely personal capacity? This arises directly out of what the Prime Minister has just said. I had no intention of intervening in these exchanges until he made that extraordinary remark.
The Prime Minister: There are abundant precedents for that kind of meeting. But, as the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, although it was a confidential meeting, I know that my right hon. Friend did not at that meeting or any other attempt in any capacity to go beyond what has been said repeatedly by me in this House, or beyond the policy of the Government. I have that from my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Molloy: Now that we seem to be getting into all sorts of difficulties with regard to the nuclear deterrent and to being part of a federated Europe, does not my right hon. Friend consider that we ought to make a clean break and a fresh start? Does not my right hon. Friend consider, further, that he ought to make a public statement to the effect that we will have nothing to do with the Common Market and that we will look again at our position vis-à-vis Europe?
Mr. Maudling: This meeting was confidential. I was there, and I do not intend to reveal what happened. But is it right for the Prime Minister to say what was the attitude taken by his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at a confidential meeting?
The Prime Minister: I thought that I was repeating what the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said. If I had misunderstood him, I regret it. I thought that he said that my right hon. Friend stuck throughout to the line adopted by the Government. If he excluded the confidential meeting from that, which is quite fair, I regret the misunderstanding.
Mr. Thorpe: Whatever one's views for or against the Common Market, would the Prime Minister agree that nothing would be more disastrous than for us to be thought to take one view in Europe and a different one in this House and the country? Is he aware that during the meeting of the Monnet Committee there was a discussion on the Hallstein proposals for political integration? Since the Prime Minister has mentioned the nature of the discussions which took place in those talks, is he aware that the Foreign Secretary, as a result of close questioning, led all those present to believe that the Government had no reservations upon that matter?
The Prime Minister: All I know is that my right hon. Friend at all times has stood firmly on the line that we have taken as a Government in all these matters.
Mr. English: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that when he says he does not wish to go into the federal Europe he means that he does not wish to see the E.E.C. structure democratised, for example, in the way that Dr. Hallstein has suggested?
The Prime Minister: The only commitments of my right hon. Friend and myself on the question of entering the Common Market is that we accept the political institutions included in the Treaty of Rome. I have heard Professor Hallstein seek to make proposals going beyond the Treaty of Rome. That is a matter for him. He is free to do so. But it is not what we are committed to in our application.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister to answer Question No. Q26.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (OMBUDSMAN SYSTEM)
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
Mr. WHITAKER: To ask the Prime Minister what plans he now has for extending the field of the Parliamentary Commissioner.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, I will now answer Question No. Q26.
1502
At Question Time on 24th June I told the House that the Government were considering urgently whether there should be an ombudsman for local government and, also, what similar arrangement might be considered for the National Health Service, and that I hoped to be able to make a statement shortly.
I am now able to inform the House that the Government accept in principle that an ombudsman system should be by law established for investigating complaints of maladministration by local government. The activities of local authorities impinge upon the daily life of the citizens directly and over a wide range and the introduction of a system analogous to that of the Parliamentary Commissioner into the local government sphere would be a major extension of the citizen's right to seek redress.
We envisage that a local ombudsman system would be separate from the Parliamentary Commissioner system; that its scope in relation to local government affairs would be similar to the scope of the P.C.A. in central Government affairs; and that the independent reports would be considered by the appropriate local authority.
The Government will, therefore, enter into discussions with the local authority associations and other bodies concerned with a view to introducing the necessary legislation; and will then present detailed proposals in the context of local government reorganisation.
As to Health Service administration, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services informed the House on 19th May that he was convinced that there was a substantial case for a health commissioner, though such an office should not be confused in its functions with the new hospital advisory service that he is now in process of setting up.
It will be necessary to consider, in consultation with the professional and other interests, how far the new service, when it is established, meets one side of the problem; the relationship of any commissioner to the new service; and also other problems of definition, for example, where complaints may involve clinical matters. These are questions which the Health Ministers will be considering as part of the proposals now being worked

1503
out for the future administrative structure of the health service.
I think that the House will be glad to have this statement of the Government's intentions in this matter, which represent a further important step in the consistent line of policy which we began with the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner.
Mr. Whitaker: Are not these very welcome extensions of this institution for the democratic safeguard of individual rights, which was initiated by the Labour Government after the Tories had refused to do so? Will the present and future Labour Governments also consider the extension of the same principle of independent investigation for allegations against the police and the nationalised industries, and personal cases of members of the Armed Forces and Civil Service?
The Prime Minister: That is widening it very much further. I think that this is the right step to take at present. As I said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is considering the position in relation to the Health Service. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary answered a Question about the police on 19th June, when he said that he was keeping the matter of the existing procedures for complaints about the police under review.
Mr. Carlisle: Can the Prime Minister say how many people he envisages serving as ombudsmen in local government? It will be a very large number, will it not?
The Prime Minister: That is a matter that we must discuss in the first instance with the local authorities, and this we intend to do in the discussions we shall have with them later this year about the Redcliffe-Maud proposals.
Mr. C. Pannell: Will my right hon. Friend consider a suggestion, from one who supports him on the present boundaries agitation, that this matter might wait for Redcliffe-Maud?
The Prime Minister: I have said that it will be discussed with the local authorities in our discussions about the Redcliffe-Maud proposals. Clearly, it will be a great deal easier to make permanent arrangements for a local ombuds-
1504
man service when we have the precise boundaries following the Redcliffe-Maud Report, but I would have thought that it would be possible to make progress ahead of that. For example, there are London and certain other big cities, whose position will not be very much changed even under the Redcliffe-Maud proposals, where a start should be made.
Sir D. Renton: Will local councillors have the same opportunities and responsibilities with regard to the local government ombudsman as Members of Parliament have in relation to the Parliamentary Commissioner?
The Prime Minister: That is very much a question we shall want to discuss with the local authorities. We do not want to be too hard and fast on how the system should work in matters which will involve reports which will have to be considered by the local councils. One important problem arising out of that question is that in the House we have the advantage also of a Select Committee to guide the work of the Parliamentary Commissioner. We shall want to consider whether it would be possible to have anything similar to that in at any rate major local authorities.
Dr. John Dunwoody: I enthusiastically welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement that we are to have a Parliamentary Commissioner to deal with local authority affairs. Many of us would feel that the arrangements by which referrals to the Parliamentary Commissioner so far have been by Members of the House should be continued when we consider complaints about local authority matters.
The Prime Minister: This will also have to be considered.
Mr. Hooson: While I welcome both announcements, may I ask whether the Prime Minister will confirm that it is not in his mind that complaints against health authorities should come from Members of Parliament, and that the people should have direct recourse to the Commissioner? Has he any time scale in mind for the setting up of the ombudsman system in respect of, one, local government, and two, health authorities?
The Prime Minister: I have said that my right hon. Friend was considering

1505
the very special problems, which are different, in relation to the Health Service, and considering that as part of the future administrative structure of the Service.
With regard to the local government ombudsman, this is a matter we shall discuss later in the year with the local authority associations. I hope that we can make reasonably rapid progress thereafter.
Mr. Lawson: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in the making of this decision, the opinion of the Select Committee was taken into account, and, if so, what that opinion was?
The Prime Minister: We did not ask it to report on the question of local government. It is an entirely separate question, outside the present Act, and legislation will be needed. What we took into account was what I think many hon. Members will feel to have been the successful working of the Parliamentary Commissioner within the statutory limitations, and the great help given by the Select Committee. That was why I said that I hoped it might be possible to follow the example of having a Select Committee when we do what should be done in local government.
Mr. Hogg: Obviously, it is rather difficult to comment on the proposals in their present nebulous form. Can the Prime Minister say what is in his mind as regards publishing to the House the results of his consultations with local authorities? When is that likely to be? Will he contemplate publishing the results in the form of a White Paper, so that we can discuss them?
The Prime Minister: I certainly hope that very full information will be given to the House after the consultations with the local authorities. I cannot forecast an exact time, but we shall start them at the same time as we start on the Redcliffe-Maud discussions with them. Whether that should then be done by a White Paper, or included in the White Paper we have already said will be published following the Redcliffe-Maud discussions, or by some other appropriate Parliamentary means, I would like to consider a little nearer the time.
If the proposals are understandably somewhat nelbuous at this stage, it is
1506
because I thought it right that we should have full consultation with the local authorities. I thought, equally, that the House should be told about them even before we started.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be received very warmly, especially by the citizens of large cities and towns? Does he agree that if there must be any delay in the application of the idea it would be helpful at least to make an early start with the larger cities and towns, and will he commend that to the local authorities?
The Prime Minister: That was one of the things I mentioned as a possibility in answer to an earlier supplementary Question, because I do not think that it is necessary to wait for the new post-Maud local authority boundaries to be established and the new authorities to be in existence. In some cases—perhaps in the Manchester area that my hon. Friend has in mind—it would perhaps be possible to start the idea earlier, even before the new Maud boundaries came into effect.
If the trend is to be to a smaller number of large local authorities, that means that there will be fewer local councillors with executive responsibility in the fields that most touch the citizen and general public, and that strengthens the case for getting on with the proposals.
Dr. Bennett: Can the Prime Minister explain why it is not practicable, apparently, for him to extend the functions of the present ombudsman to local government, from which he is excluded, instead of setting up a completely new authority, and are not police matters local government matters, in any case?
The Prime Minister: They are a very special form of local administration, and I have nothing to add at this stage to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said.
We considered whether our purpose could be achieved by extending the powers of the Parliamentary Commissioner, but many of these questions require local investigations on the spot, and even if the Parliamentary Commissioner were put in charge of the whole machine he would have to have a considerable number of outposts, assistant commissioners who would have to have direct

1507
contact with the local authorities and make reports to be considered by the local authorities. On balance—more than on balance—the argument is against extending our own Parliamentary Commissioner's powers.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Crosland. Statement.

COTTON AND ALLIED TEXTILES (REPORT)
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Anthony Crosland): The Government have now completed their examination of the Textile Council's Report on Cotton and Allied Textiles.
The report addressed a number of recommendations to both the Government and the industry, and these have been the subject of continuing consultations with the council.
The recommendations to the industry concerned, in particular, the need to increase the rate of re-equipment, to extend multi-shift working, and to develop closer technical and commercial links between the different stages of production and marketing. I attach great importance to these three requirements, and I am working closely with the Textile Council on their implementation.
The main recommendations to the Government concerned future policy on imports and financial assistance to encourage re-equipment.
On import policy, the council recommended that the present quota system should be replaced by a tariff on imports of cotton textiles from the Commonwealth preference area at a rate not less than 85 per cent. of the most-favoured-nation duties. On cotton cloth, the main item of trade, this would mean a duty of 15 per cent. The council believes that a tariff would be a better solution both for the industry and the country than a continuation of quotas. It would offer a margin of protection that was both stable and predictable, so enabling the industry to plan ahead with confidence. A continuation of quotas, on the other hand, would not give the industry the confidence or the incentive to undertake the investment needed to make it more competitive.
1508
Imports of cotton textiles into Britain, the greater part of which enter duty-free, have now reached 53 per cent. of total domestic consumption. This is a far higher proportion than in any other major developed country. In these circumstances, we have the alternatives of re-negotiating the present unsatisfactory quota arrangements, or adopting a tariff which would be broadly in line with those of other developed countries.
The Government have decided that the right course is to introduce, as from 1st January, 1972, a tariff on imports from the Commonwealth preference area on the lines proposed by the Textile Council. From that date the existing general quota system would be terminated; and the Government would consider the use of quotas only on particular products under the Long-Term Cotton Arrangement of the G.A.T.T., and only if total imports of cotton textiles rose significantly above the present level and caused disruption to the market in those particular products. These decisions would, of course, be subject to any modifications that might be required if we joined the E.E.C.
In reaching this decision I have taken account of the fact that a number of countries in the Commonwealth have rights to duty-free entry into the United Kingdom market; and I shall now initiate the necessary discussions with the Governments concerned. I am equally conscious, on the other hand, that cotton textiles have long been treated internationally as a special case; and this decision will not create a precedent for further departures from our traditional policy on Commonwealth trade in advance of any general change of system which might be required by our entry into the E.E.C.
The effect of the new arrangement should be to reduce imports from the developed countries which have benefited markedly from the existence of quota restrictions on imports from the developing countries. There is no reason to think that, with the possible exception of India, the developing countries of the Commonwealth generally will be able to export less to Britain over a tariff of this amount than they would under a continuation of the quota system.
So far as India is concerned, the Government will, when the time comes to

1509
determine the level of aid to India after 1972, take into account, against the background of India's general aid requirements at that time, any adverse effects on her exports arising from the tariff.
I turn to the question of financial assistance to the industry. The Textile Council proposed that firms in the traditional textile areas should be offered the 40 per cent. rate of investment grant which is payable in the development areas. The Government have decided against this both on general grounds of regional policy and because in present circumstances, including, in particular, the position on public expenditure, we would not be justified in singling out this industry for financial assistance on such a scale.
The council also proposed that plant worked on a multi-shift basis should qualify for a higher than normal annual allowance for depreciation. The Government attach importance to any proposal which might increase the utilisation of new machinery, and the Inland Revenue is prepared to consider an application by the Textile Council for an increase in the depreciation allowances on textile machinery.
In addition, the two consultants whom I have appointed to advise me on mergers between medium and small-sized firms in the industry are in close touch with the I.R.C. They have seen more than 70 firms, and enough progress has been made to enable the I.R.C. to begin discussions on prospective mergers.
The proposal to replace quotas by a tariff forms an essential part of a developing policy designed to help this industry to survive and compete in an international environment. I have already announced decisions on the structure of the industry which should give the large firms the stability they need to proceed with their internal reorganisation and integration, while encouraging a much-needed process of amalgamation amongst the small and medium firms.
Today's decisions carry the policy a crucial stage further. Successive Governments have failed to come to grips with the industry's basic problems; and the industry itself has failed to adapt sufficiently to changing circumstances. I hope that the decisions that I have announced, provided that they are accompanied by a clear determination on the part of both
1510
sides of the industry to carry out the changes recommended by the Textile Council, will enable the Lancashire textile industry once again to take its place in the forefront of British industry.
Sir K. Joseph: This is a departure from the Ottowa Agreement and, although it is in connection with the textile industry, which occupies a unique position in our international trade, a number of questions need to be asked.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the main impact of these tariff proposals would fall on exports from the developed countries. Would he tell the House what proportion of total domestic consumption of cotton textiles now comes from developed countries?
Secondly, will he tell us what proportion of total domestic consumption of cotton textiles, remembering that it is now a multi-fibre industry, will come from all imports after 1972? It is now at the large figure of 53 per cent.
Thirdlly, not once in his statement did the right hon. Gentleman mention a point on which the Textile Council laid enormous emphasis—that the change from quota to tariff must be accompanied, in the view of the council, by stronger action against dumping. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the Government propose any action to protect the British industry from exports from countries which indulge in hidden export aids and other dumping practices?
Will the special depreciation consideration to be given for the multi-shift use of textile machinery be extended to other industries whose machinery is used on a multi-shift basis?
The right hon. Gentleman promised that when he made this statement he would give the Government's answer to the Monopoly Commission's recommendations in connection with rayon cellulosic fibres. Will he now give the Government's answers on those recommendations.
Mr. Crosland: I do not have a precise figure for the proportion of consumption that comes from imports from developed as opposed to developing countries, but, being a mathematician, the right hon. Gentleman can work it out if I say that one-quarter of total imports come from developed countries and that total imports take 53 per cent. of domestic

1511
consumption—these are volume figures—I leave the right hon. Gentleman to work out the exact answer.
Naturally, one cannot give any precise figure of the proportion that imports will take of the the total market after 1972, but I judge that it will be lower than the present proportion of 53 per cent.
I have told the Textile Council that in my view the powers we now have to deal with dumping, powers that have been strengthened in legislation which went through Parliament last Session, are fully adequate to deal with any of the problems which the textile industry may meet in that respect.
As for extending the higher depreciation allowance to other industries, I prefer to wait and see what happens when the industry makes its application to the Inland Revenue.
I answered a Question about the Monopolies Commission's recommendations on cellulosic fibres which was put this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Mapp).
Mr. Thornton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement of the substitution of tariffs for quotas will be generally if not universally acclaimed in the industry? To what extent do his proposals fit in with the discussions which I presume he and his Department have had with the employer and trade union organisations in the industry?
Mr. Crosland: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his first question. I am sure that he is right to say that the decision will be welcomed by all the most progressive elements on both sides of the industry. The main discussions which I have had since the publication of the Textile Council's Report on 31st March have been with the council itself, which, of course, represents both sides of industry.
Sir Frank Pearson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in so far as his statement gives certainty to the industry, it will be welcome? However, does he recognise that the fact that there is to be no transitional period, coupled with the fact that he has refused the 40 per cent. investment grant, will place a great number of small firms in an extremely difficult trading position? Will he re-
1512
consider the question of the advisability of having an intermediate transitional period particularly to protect that type of firm?
Mr. Crosland: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that an element of certainty is the key to the whole problem. This is one of the strongest arguments for the tariff solution. There will, of course, be a transitional period of one year, 1971, while the present quota system is continued before the tariff comes into effect on 1st January, 1972.
I thought closely about the 40 per cent. investment grant, but, given the fact that many large and medium-sized firms have money which I think they will now spend on investment following the decision that I have announced, and that there are amalgamations among the smaller and medium-sized firms, which I hope will be encouraged by the I.R.C., I did not think that one could make out a case for singling out this particular industry for this kind of exceptional treatment.
Mr. Blackburn: While the industry will, of course, be grateful for anything that happens along these lines, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that there is at least one dissentient voice on the question of the 15 per cent. tariff, particularly if it is to be limited to Commonwealth countries? Would he explain why the Government are repeatedly so adamant on the question of the most effective method of dealing with our problems? I refer to import controls. Would he explain the effect of his statement on the E.F.T.A. countries?
Mr. Crosland: It comes as no surprise to find that there is one dissentient voice. Indeed, I shall be surprised if there is only one such voice as the discussion on this decision develops. My hon. Friend asks why we have not imposed import controls as opposed to a tariff. The reason is that I have been convinced by the careful arguments made by the Textile Council that this is the best method of restricting imports. The E.F.T.A. countries are not affected by this decision; in other words, imports from E.F.T.A. remain duty free.
Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: Would the right hon. Gentleman clarify what he has said

1513
about the level of the tariff? Does he realise that all depends on the level of the tariff, since the industry may find that it has thrown away the shield of quotas and has received an even flimsier shield in exchange?
Mr. Crosland: The level of the tariff is the level proposed in the Report of the Textile Council; that is, 6½ per cent. on yarn, 15 per cent. on cotton cloth, which accounts for the greater part of the trade, and 17 per cent. on most garments. It is, therefore, the same level as that proposed by the council.
Mr. Barnett: Is there not some evidence to show that the dissentient voice on the Textile Council had some merit in that at least some of the 15 per cent. could be absorbed by foreign textile producers? Before agreeing to remove the quota system altogether, would my right hon. Friend make inquiries abroad to see just how this will affect the total imports of textiles into this country?
Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), since E.F.T.A. countries like Portugal will be able to continue to export to us, is my right hon. Friend aware that this will be viewed with considerable concern in that Portugal will be able to continue exporting to the detriment of Lancashire?
Mr. Crosland: Portugal is only one of a number of problems that will arise under the tariff solution. I must make it clear that the alternative solution—that is, a continuation of quotas—besides being much less satisfactory for the industry would have led to as many, if not more, international complications than the imposition of a tariff.
The answer to my hon. Friend's question about the likely effect on imports is that I have made the best calculations that I can and I believe that this decision will have the effect of reducing imports as a proportion of total consumption.
Dr. Winstanley: I join hon. Members in welcoming the end of uncertainty, thus enabling the people of the North-West to get on with the job at long last. Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that perhaps his statement will do more to help the industry than the places in which the industry has hitherto
1514
been placed? In other words, might it not have been better to have done more to implement all of the Hunt Report?
Mr. Crosland: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about places as opposed to the industry in general is that, decisions on intermediate areas following the Hunt Report having been taken, my concern was to provide a policy for the industry rather than for an area.
Mr. Mapp: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the scope of his statement will be generally welcomed on this side of the House, by the industry and by the country? Did he consider—and, if so, did he ultimately reject—the idea of having a common tariff for the multi-fibre industry, thereby rejecting the idea of having separate proposals, one for multi-fibres and the one he has announced today?
Would my right hon. Friend consider opening negotiations, possibly of an informal nature, with E.F.T.A. countries such as Portugal, Austria and the Irish Free State on this subject? Although his statement will be broadly welcomed, has he considered the possibility of it opening back doors for those countries to the detriment of Lancashire?
Mr. Crosland: I considered the question of having a single tariff for all textile fibres, whatever sort they are, but I did not think that the case was sufficiently made out for it, although the tariff which I have announced is broadly the same as the one we now have for man-made fibres. I do not have any intention at present of entering into the sort of consultations my hon. Friend mentioned at the end of his questions.
Mr. Amery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the quota system at least has the advantage of discriminating in favour of Commonwealth producers? Is he satisfied that the new system will not sacrifice the interests of Pakistan, India and Hong Kong to Japan, Korea and other equally more or less underdeveloped countries?
Mr. Crosland: One must take the countries separately. It is impossible to generalise. One must consider them one by one. I said that India may possibly come out less well under a tariff system than under a quota system, though, in practice, I think that even under a quota

1515
system India's exports might have dropped. For this reason I particularly referred to India. I think it unlikely that either Hong Kong or Pakistan will suffer significantly under a tariff system.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be doubly welcome in North-East Lancashire, since it follows the announcement of massive Government help for that area? Without wishing to be grudging, will my right hon. Friend look at the position of Portugal, the levels of imports from which have all along been of great concern to the Lancashire industry?
Mr. Frank Allaun: Ten bob a day wages in Portugal.
Mr. Crosland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson) for his opening remarks. I assure him that I am very much aware of the concern which is felt in the industry on the question of Portugal. This is, naturally, an issue which I keep very carefully under review.
Mr. Robert Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his acceptance of many of the recommendations of the Textile Council will be widely welcomed, as will his claim that he expects to see the proportion of imported textiles reduced? Will he assure us that if that does not happen he will propose further action to ensure that the industry is protected?
Mr. Crosland: I would at present prefer not to look ahead to any further or subsequent changes in the policy I have announced.
Mr. A. Royle: I, too, urge the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the position of Portugal. Is he aware that Hong Kong might suffer badly from the institution of tariffs and will feel particularly resentful at the position of Portugal when Hong Kong is our largest dependent territory overseas?
Mr. Crosland: I have said that I carefully and closely watch the case of Portugal. However, one must not get Portugal out of perspective in considering this matter. Our imports from Portugal over the last year or two have been
1516
running at substantially lower levels than they were three or four years ago.
Mr. Albu: Would my right hon. Friend assure the House that in reaching this decision he has got a correct balance between the needs of Lancashire and the various other needs of, for example, the developing countries along with our own needs, taking into account the movement of capital goods and goods of a technological character in the export market?
Mr. Crosland: I think that this is a solution which preserves a balance between these various factors. I am certain that it is the right solution for Lancashire. On the other hand, on the best calculations that we can make, the effect will be felt not so much in the developing countries as a whole as in those developed countries which have recently significantly increased their exports to us, partly because of the existence of quotas on the developed countries.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH SECRETARY (STATEMENT)
Mr. Peyton: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the ambivalent position of Her Majesty's Government on the question of a federal Europe following reported statements of the Foreign Secretary in Brussels on 15th July when attending in a capacity described by the Prime Minister as private an allegedly confidential meeting; and the apparent conflict between those statements and the declared policies of the British Government."
It would be an affront, Mr. Speaker, to your very considerable powers of perception if I were to expand on the arguments for this case. You were present yourself and heard the statements made by the Prime Minister, and you will be aware, without my reminding you, of the very deep anxieties in the House to understand where precisely Her Majesty's Government stand in this very important matter. You will not require me, either,

1517
Mr. Speaker, to remind you that our remaining days of sittings are, perhaps, limited.
Perhaps with those remarks I may commend this request to you with the greatest respect.
Mr. Shinwell: Before you come to a decision, Mr. Speaker, may I raise one matter with you—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I am capable now of making a decision: I have listened to the exchanges and I have heard the submission.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the ambivalent position of Her Majesty's Government on the question of a federal Europe following reported statements of the Foreign Secretary in Brussels on 15th July when attending in a capacity described by the Prime Minister as private an allegedly confidential meeting; and the apparent conflict between those statements and the declared policies of the British Government."
As the House knows, under the revised Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reasons for my decision. I have listened to every word that took place in the interchange after Question Time.
I have listened to the submission which the hon. Gentleman has made to me. I have given all these points careful consideration, but I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provision of the revised Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to this House.
Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I do not intend to venture to argue with your decision, of course—this is a matter within your discretion. All I have to say is that confusion remains.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The message which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) has given will be conveyed, I think, to the appropriate quarter. It has nothing to do with me.

BILL PRESENTED
  AMUSEMENT ARCADES (REGULATION)
  Bill to enable local authorities to regulate the establishment and conduct of amusement arcades; to restrict the admission of young persons; and for purposes connected therewith, presented by Mr. Lomas, supported by Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier, Mr. Ray Mawby, Mr. Richard Wainwright, Mr. Gordon Oakes, Mr. Frank Judd, Mr. Ben Ford, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. John Binns, and Mr. Eddie Griffiths; read the first time; to be read a second time upon Friday and to be printed. [Bill 207.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)
  Ordered,
  That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock, and that if any Motion for the Adjournment of the House moved by a Minister of the Crown shall have been disposed of before Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall proceed to put forthwith the Questions which he is directed to put at Ten o'clock by paragraphs (8) and (9) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply).—[Mr. Fitch.]

  TEN MINUTE RULE BILLS
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) to seek leave of the House under the Ten Minute Rule to introduce a Bill, I feel that it is my duty to remind the House that, under the rule, only a brief explanatory statement from the hon. Member who moves and, if necessary, one from a Member who opposes are permitted in a Ten Minute Rule debate; and that interventions by other hon. Members are out of order.

  BILL OF RIGHTS (No. 2)
  4.25 p.m.
  Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to declare the inalienable rights and liberties of the subject.
  I am conscious of the fact that I am continuing a debate which is exciting more and more interest among thinking members of our society. There is a deep-seated feeling, which I think is entirely justified by the facts, that individual liberty is gradually being eroded, and that there is an increasing invasion of privacy, aided by technological development, for which our law, as at present defined, does not appear to provide adequate remedies.
  We are rightly proud of our heritage of liberty. It is probably true that no citizens enjoy greater freedom than British citizens, and that our real freedom is very much greater than that of people in many other countries who appear, on paper, to have greater freedom. We pride ourselves on our unwritten constitution, and on the fact that the common law has been the bulwark of our liberty for centuries. Why, therefore, do I seek to bring in a Bill of Rights? Is it necessary?
  It is necessary, Mr. Speaker. We have reached the stage of development where the courts and the people need a guiding legislative code of individual rights to help them. It would help the judges in defining the law more clearly and in delimiting those areas where individual rights should be sacrosanct. It would help liberalise public opinion. Indeed, the greatest threat to our liberty today perhaps arises from the fact that we do take such pride in our unwritten constitution, and from our blind faith that there is a remedy for every wrong. It is under this complacent assumption that all is well that liberty is being eroded.
  I do not seek to make a Second Reading speech, or to go over points that have been covered before on this matter, but it seems to me that certain developments make a Bill of Rights, or something like it, essential today.
  First, there is the growth of administrative power or bureaucracy. How often have we read the phrase in our official
  1520
  correspondence, "The Department cannot intervene"? It has become almost a musical hall joke. How many of us realise that 10,000 officers of local and national government have a legal right to enter private homes? Should they always be allowed to do so if they have just followed the letter of the law, when common justice would suggest that they have overstepped their powers? Was it right that the house of Lady Diana Duff Cooper should have been searched because an anonymous telephone caller alleged to the police that they would find drugs there? Should she not have a remedy?
  Secondly, there is the necessity to assert the right of individuals to privacy. The refinements of surveillance technology, as it is now called, with its huge paraphernalia of listening and recording devices, necessitate this. What are the rights of the individual with regard to the Press? Were all the interviews, carried out under the glare of the cameras, following the tragedy of Aberfan, really justified? Had the individuals concerned no right to their private grief? It is an important matter for this House to consider.
  Third, there is the crucial rôle of the Crown in our daily affairs. The Government act through the Crown. Is it right that, in 1969, the courts are still unable to grant injunctions against the Crown, whereas they can grant injunctions against individuals or corporations? Does this not give our civil servants a protection which is unjustified in modern conditions?
  Fourthly, there is the increasing vulnerability of the individual arising from the development of the computer, and its potential for misuse. To what degree is an individual entitled to protection from wrongful disclosure by a body or bodies to whom he has disclosed confidential information for a particular purpose? The "Computer threat to Freedom", as it has been called, is a very real thing indeed, and this House should examine it in detail.
  These are just some of the problems arising in modern society upon which I have become convinced that the present means of protection are insufficient. Parliament is over-worked and the older process of the common law whereby our rights are declared as a result of actions

  1521
  taken to remedy specific wrongs are inadequate in the modern world. In another place, the Lord Chancellor said that the difficulty he always finds about a Bill of Rights is either that it contains something which is already law, or is in such general terms that it is impossible to say what effect it would have. With the greatest respect to the Lord Chancellor, I think this difficulty is more apparent than real.
  I think that some of the Lord Chancellor's objections to the draft Bill prepared by Mr. John Macdonald and a team of Liberal lawyers, in many respects lacked conviction. It was found, after very careful consideration, that it was better to couch the Bill in general terms, thin in more detailed and specific terms and thereby to allow the judges to have plenty of scope in interpretation. We have come to the conclusion that what is needed are guide-lines and a statement of principles. In pursuance of his criticism, the Lord Chancellor referred to the Clause in the draft Bill on the right to leisure, which says:
  "No person shall be required as a condition of employment or continued employment or otherwise, to work excessive hours or to do without reasonable rest and leisure time."
  The Lord Chancellor had great fun. He went on to say:
  "Think of the judge's difficulty in saying what 'excessive hours' are for every individuals."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th June 1969; Vol. 302, c. 1047.]
  Yet our judges are every day interpreting what is excessive speed. Our appeal judges are every day considering whether damages awarded are excessively high. Have they actually had difficulty in interpreting the word "excessive" in those circumstances? Would they have any greater difficulty in interpreting the word "excessive" in the Bill? I think not.
  We have reached a stage in the development of our sophisticated society where it is necessary for the citizen to know clearly what his rights are, even if it is necessary to state those rights in general terms. It does not mean that they are unenforceable. The Bill of Rights which is embodied in the constitution of the
  1522
  United States, and its subsequent amendments, have been a veritable anchor of freedom in that country. We have had a different constitutional development, but I am convinced that a Bill to safeguard individual liberty, to declare what an individual's rights are, is now essential. Indeed, I subscribe to the view that we are gradually moving, and that we should move, towards a written constitution. This may come under some of our constitutional changes,
  In the meantime, I am sure that the debate on the pros and cons of a Bill of Rights should continue. It is not enough that a debate should take place in the abstract. If one is to have a purposeful discussion, one must have specific proposals to consider. Therefore, if given leave, I intend to introduce a Bill along the lines of that drafted by Mr. John Macdonald and the panel of Liberal lawyers who assisted him.
  Even those who are not convinced that a Bill of Rights is the right way forward, feel I am sure that we need an extensive debate on the matter in the House in the near future. If my Bill is given its First Reading, and is printed, it will be available for any hon. Member to introduce next Session and it may be hoped that there will be much more extensive debates on the principles involved, and matters of the greatest concern to individuals in this country whatever political creed they follow and to whatever political party they subscribe.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hooson, Mr. Lubbock, Mr. Richard Wainwright, Dr. Winstanley, Mr. Russell Johnston, Mr. Grimond, Mr. David Steel, Mr. James Davidson, Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie, Mr. John Pardoe, Mr. Peter Bessell and Mr. Wallace Lawler.

  BILL OF RIGHTS (No. 2)
  Bill to declare the inalienable rights and liberties of the subject; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 205.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
SUPPLY [29TH ALLOTTED DAY], considered.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Fitch.]

  BROADCASTING IN THE SEVENTIES (B.B.C. PLAN)
  4.44 p.m.
  Mr. Paul Bryan: The fact that we are devoting the last of our Supply Days to the B.B.C.s plan for radio in the 1970s indicates the importance which we attach to this subject. The fact that it has already been debated by the public and in the Press so persistently, and for so long, shows that it is of very great public interest. The House would have been in a better position to debate had the Postmaster-General made his expected statement. We have left this debate as late in the Session as possible to give him an opportunity to do so. We are disappointed that he did not see fit at least to let us have a statement yesterday in time for us to consider before this debate today.
  We have reached a critical moment in British broadcasting. Both public service and commercial broadcasting are suffering from intractable money trouble. Our licence system, so far considered sacrosanct, is increasingly questioned now that the national rise in licences has reached a plateau and the costly inefficiency of collecting the fees becomes apparent. As things stand, the B.B.C. looks like running chronically short of money while retaining an appetite for expansion into other broadcasting fields however unsuitable for public service. At the same time, by the use of the levy the Government have reduced profit in the television companies to the level of a public utility. If this continues Independent Television will become about as adventurous as British Railways.
  Our policy on radio follows the logical sequence of our policy on television. In 1954, against passionate opposition from the Labour Party, we established Independent Television. Hon. Members opposite promised—I think it
  1524
  was more than a promise; a pledge—to abolish commercial television as soon as they came to power. Like other pledges, that was not honoured. It was not honoured because by then it had become obvious that competition and the breaking of the monopoly had stimulated the B.B.C. into better programmes and people enjoyed a better choice. Second, the breaking of the monopoly gave those working in television the freedom to choose among a number of employers. Third, many millions of pounds have been injected into television without cost to the public.
  I wonder whether hon. Members opposite have ever worked out what the licence fees would be today if we had followed their advice and given the B.B.C. all the television channels. I suppose it would be £8 or £9, not £6, and the Government would be out of pocket to the extent of £35 million a year from the levy and taxation. In radio we acknowledge the importance of the public service type of broadcasting which the B.B.C. provides, or should provide, but when it comes to broadcasting, which could quite easily he supplied free by commercial radio, we inquire why the public should be asked for an increased licence fee. For this reason we would introduce local commercial radio.
  I have said that this can be done by a combination of the v.h.f. and medium-wave frequencies. At one time the Postmaster-General said that this was not possible, but the Director-General of the B.B.C. clearly does not think it impossible for in an interview in the Sunday Times he said he did not relish commercial radio because he did not want to lose his mass audience. I think the whole tone of the document it has issued shows that the B.B.C. takes commercial radio seriously enough. We may take it that if the Government of the day decided on commercial radio they would see that facilities for it were provided.
  In the same Sunday Times interview, the Director-General said that the advent of commercial radio would put up the cost of "material". Presumably he meant human material. There once again speaks the voice of the monopoly employer. If decisions are to be made as to what type of programme is suited to public service broadcasting, we must define public service broadcasting. Without going back to Reithian definitions,

  1525
  which would seem out of date today, we probably all agree that minimum requirements would be, first, the provision of programmes for minorities at times and on frequencies which made them generally available and, second, a deliberate policy aimed, to some extent, at raising the level of public taste.
  For many years, the B.B.C. has fulfilled those requirements to the satisfaction of listeners and to the admiration of the world. The orchestras it maintains and the quality of serious music freely available to us all, even in our motor cars, shows a concern for this music-loving minority exactly in keeping with public service. The fact that many listeners have acquired a taste for serious music only through B.B.C. programmes reflects a coherent policy of the corporation to raise public taste. People say that today London is the musical capital of the world. If so, the B.B.C. can claim a large slice of the credit.
  When we examine the B.B.C.'s new proposals, we wonder whether it appreciates its own achievements, for it appears to be tending to throw them away lightly. The axe seems to be falling almost exclusively on the educational and cultural services appealing to minorities which a commercial broadcasting system is unlikely to supply. If this blueprint materialises, we shall be left with little more than a facade of public service broadcasting. Radio One is to be all Caroline. Radio Two is to be all sweet music, or 390. Radio Three is mostly serious music, but, as the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) rightly pointed out the other day, in reality it has been cut by being limited to v.h.f. It would not be available in motor cars. The audience would be decimated. It will be cut to a great extent by this new restriction. Radio Four is largely a speech programme. Therefore, catering for minorities has been reduced to the truncated Radio Three and some talks and drama on Radio Four. The policy of trying to improve public taste has been quietly but completely abandoned.
  Under the heading "Network Radio", we lead on page 3 of the pamphlet:
  "Traditionally, broadcasting has been based on the principle of mixed programming. On a single channel, the public is offered the whole range: news, documentaries, plays, music, light entertainment, serials, sport—all types of programmes, covering all interests and all 'brow' levels".
  1526
  Exactly. That was how listeners were introduced to better music and drama. The pamphlet continues:
  "But experience, both in this country and abroad, suggests that many listeners now expect radio to be based more on a different principle—that of the specialised network, offering a continuous stream of one particular type of programme, meeting one particular interest. One channel might offer pop, another serious music, another talk programmes, and so on".
  That is a straight description of commercial radio. For advertising effectiveness, a station likes to attract a complete age or market group to one programme. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but it is not compatible with public service broadcasting if, as I suggest, one of its requirements is to educate and lead people towards better things. Network broadcasting may or not be an inevitable development, but it should not be adopted without a clear realisation of its implications. At no time in this B.B.C. publication is our attention drawn to these implications.
  I have considerable respect for the B.B.C., but I think that one of its faults in the past has been that it has always over-reacted to competition and criticism, be it Mrs. Whitehouse or Radio Caroline. Radio One was the reaction to, and imitation of, Caroline. The new plans are the reaction to the threat of commercial radio. The B.B.C. argues that as a national corporation it must have a mass audience, otherwise people will not want to pay the licence fee. But it has gone too far. People are now saying, "If the B.B.C. production is to be 90 per cent. neo-commercial, why pay for a licence when we can get this sort of thing from commercial radio?".
  Having discussed the public service rôle, I turn to a proposal which I think astonishing—the plan to embark on 40 local stations at a yearly cost of over £5 million, equal to nearly a quarter of the entire radio revenue of the B.B.C., at the very time when, for shortage of money, orchestras are being disbanded, Radio Three cut, staffs dismissed and the regions abolished or cut down. One wonders what the unions will say about this, particularly the Musicians Union.
  Here I aim my criticism not at the Corporation but at the Government, for it was the last Postmaster-General but one who started the B.B.C. on this trail

  1527
  —this irresponsible trail, as it is turning out. When he imposed the first eight experimental stations on the corporation, we told him that the financial basis for them was not merely unrealistic but laughable. Let us recall to mind the basis. The White Paper states:
  "Since the essential purpose of the local station is to give expression to local interests and aspirations, it seems right that its income should derive so far as is possible from local sources and not from a general licence fee. These would not include general subvention from the rates; however the local authority, particularly for its educational services, might wish to contribute…There are also in local life various other bodies which might well be prepared to make financial contribution to the costs of the station…the local university…the Open University; Chambers of Trade and Commerce; local Councils of Churches; arts associations; and other representative bodies active in the social and cultural life of the community".
  Has a serious project ever been built on a more rickety financial basis than that? In the event, as we foretold, the money coming from these sources has been hopelessly insufficient, and unless the Government intervene the stations will undoubtedly grind to a halt.
  We are told on page 6 of the pamphlet that the eight stations have proved "viable". My dictionary defines viable as "capable of living". But living on what? Apparently no lessons have been learned. Forty of these viable stations have been thrust on the Postmaster-General with no visible means of support. He is simply told on page 10,
  "…we will need additional revenue of £5,200,000 a year".
  But from where? From advertising? Apparently not. From a Government grant? Apparently not. From an increased licence? Surely not, for the licence was increased only last January, and, as I have said, the public would rightly resent paying for a service which could be supplied free by commercial radio.
  No doubt the Postmaster-General will give his reaction to this challenge. It would be interesting to know how he has allowed himself to get into this highly embarrassing position. Why, one wonders, did he not settle the matter one way or the other with the B.B.C. before it published the plan so that we could know where he stands—or perhaps he is not on speaking terms with the
  1528
  corporation. Perhaps I could have acted as a go-between.
  Mr. Michael English: The hon. Gentleman has made play with the word "viable" in relation to the B.B.C.'s proposals and he has twice said that this broadcasting could quite easily be supplied free by commercial radio. Would he explain how that remarkable feat is to be achieved?
  Mr. Bryan: I take it that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the word "free". I have had exchanges with the Postmaster-General on this matter. If the hon. Gentleman asks one of his constituents whether he thinks that he is paying for a commercial television, he will say that he does not think that he is paying for it, except that he probably thinks that he is paying for it through his licence. He is not conscious of paying for the advertisement for, say, Daz. I believe that he would have the same reaction to commercial radio.
  Having condemned the future plans, I should like to pay tribute to the tremendous efforts of the B.B.C. staff at the present local stations, many of which I have visited. I said, when they were launched, that in terms of acceptability, if not in financial terms, I thought that they would be successful. I thought that they would be professionally run, as they have been, and any extra choice at no cost is always acceptable.
  Frankly, I do not consider that they have produced the right sort of programme for a local station. Even without the handicap of going out on v.h.f. only, I do not believe that they would attract a large audience. If a local station is to be a significant part of the community and community life, it must attract a community audience.
  The rôle of a local newspaper is comparable. For example, the Halifax Courier and Guardian appears to be in every house in the town. It has a very wide appeal. That is why it is part of the life of Halifax. This can be said of many local papers.
  The same should apply to local radio. That is why it is particularly suitable to commercial radio, which demands a big audience. Hon. Members will gather from this that I do not believe that the B.B.C. should embark on local radio.

  1529
  Lord Hill, in his foreword to the pamphlet, says:
  "Whatever else happens the public service which the B.B.C. provides should be complete, nationally and locally."
  I disagree. If the B.B.C. is to snap at every broadcasting opportunity that v.h.f. will make possible in future years, whether or not the opportunity could be better taken by other means, its public service element will suffer, and I think that these plans give the plainest possible warning of that fact.
  "Broadcasting in the Seventies" is particularly vague about the actual savings effected by the various cuts. I hope that the Postmaster-General will be able to enlarge on this. For instance, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the abolition of the English regions means in terms of cash and staff redundancies? The B.B.C., in its evidence to the Pilkington Committee, and on many occasions since, has stressed the value of the regions. If so apparently valuable an asset is to be sacrificed, we should know what figures are involved. What are the savings to be made by the cuts in drama, in orchestras and in education programmes?
  It is even more vague in its references to the Musicians Union. From this pamphlet we certainly would not appreciate the formidable obstacles described in the memorandum that many of us have received from the Musicians Union. Would it not have been wiser to delay publication of the B.B.C. plans until negotiations had at least made some headway and the possibilities become clearer?
  The House will also be grateful for the Government's view on the B.B.C.'s attitude to orchestras. In these days of superlative recordings, if we pursue to its logical conclusion the argument that the B.B.C. has no obligation to employ more orchestras than it needs, it would employ very few musicians indeed.
  Therefore the question arises: how far should the obligation of the B.B.C. extend? If it is not required to continue its present rôle of patron to music, who is to take it on? The Government must, clearly, have a policy on this before orchestras are unnecessarily disbanded and irreparable harm is done to the nation's music.
  1530
  The launching of the two-tier postal system came to grief because the Postmaster-General tried to do two things at once. He tried to introduce a price rise and disguise it with the introduction of an entirely new system.
  In its radio plans for the seventies, the B.B.C. is trying to do three incompatible things. It is trying to save money, expand into the large new sphere of local radio, and alter the nature of its production to take on commercial radio. In attempting the impossible it is in danger of succeeding only in achieving a part abdication if its public service rôle. One newspaper says that it has decided to convert itself into a branch of the light entertainment industry sustained by public funds.
  I said earlier that these plans are an attempt to forestall commercial radio. In fact, they are trying to forestall more than is threatened. We have proposed local commercial radio: hence the 40 B.B.C. stations. But there is no doubt that the B.B.C. is also setting itself up to take on commercial radio right across the board.
  The paper talks of the pressures to maximise audiences
  "which a commercial system cannot as easily resist."
  But these are the very pressures which the B.B.C. is showing itself unable to resist even before they are exerted. It is retreating before the ghosts of these pressures.
  We all take pride in the independence of the B.B.C. from the Government. However, the Government, through their charter, lay down a general guidance about the type of broadcastng that they expect. I suggest that when the Government of the day issued the current charter they certainly were not conscious then of sanctioning so pronounced a departure from the traditional public service rôle of the B.B.C.
  We on this side of the House are, frankly, disturbed at the look of these new plans. I say "look" because they are a long way from fruition. We do not know what is to happen. But if they are brought into effect, it would appear that they will alter the whole broadcasting situation. When we get into power we shall examine the position carefully and we shall reserve the right to adjust the

  1531
  charter and our plans for commercial radio however then seems right.
  5.8 p.m.
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): I think that the whole House is grateful to the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) for choosing this subject for a Supply day and for the moderate, as well as illuminating, way that he has opened the debate.
  We are helping today to set the pattern of broadcasting for at least another five years, if not another 10 years. It is important that the public debate, as well as the debate in this House, should continue before the Government come to any final decision about this subject. Therefore, I do not intend this afternoon to make any final statement about our position in relation to the plans that the B.B.C. has put forward.
  There are five general considerations to be borne in mind when approaching this subject. First, broadcasting is very young. Although the spoken word has been used by the human race for tens of thousands of years and the written word for thousands of years, broadcasting has been in existence for less than 50 years. It is a young and dynamic means of communication. It is dynamic because, as we have seen in the last three days, millions of people can take instantaneous participation in the events of our time. I am told that no fewer than 600 million people all over the world saw the landing on the moon just a few days ago. This is a new dimension in democratic participation in the events of our times.
  It is also a shocking medium, because it brings home to people events to which they could have an apathetic approach but which, when conveyed into their own homes through television—for instance, events in Vietnam or Biafra—can have a numbing and traumatic effect.
  Broadcasting is an educational medium also. T.V. and radio are the best teaching machines so far invented. There were those who a few years ago lamented the development of T.V. and suggested that it would have a curbing effect on the development of culture. I think they have been proved absolutely wrong. Any hon. Member who saw the civilisation programmes on T.V. some time ago will, I am sure, agree that the reverse is true.
  1532
  People are buying more books than they did before the development of T.V., and they still flock to the Proms.
  Broadcasting can also be propaganda, and I think that it is relevant to bear this aspect in mind when we consider the future structure of broadcasting, and particularly when we consider the proposals for commercial radio which have been put forward this afternoon by the hon. Member for Howden. I believe that this medium is so important that it is necessary for the public, and indeed for this House, to continue to take a very close interest in the way that it is used.
  Nor should the medium be hogged by professional broadcasters, because there is an inherent danger that their professionalism and their specialisation could lead to an isolation from new ideas emerging in our free society. There is also a danger that the professionals can exercise an arrogance that can curb innovation and bend the public to preconceived ideas of their own, rather than allowing ideas to emerge as they would do through free communication.
  I therefore believe that it is necessary for the medium to give minorities not only the opportunity of hearing the programmes that they want to hear but also of participating in the production of those programmes. I believe that this also is highly relevant to the suggestion that we should have commercial radio in this country.
  Broadcasting is a medium that is owned by the whole community, and therefore I believe that there is another factor that we should bear in mind. It is wrong for commercial interests to cream off the benefit of the exploitation of such a network. Our broadcasting institutions are the best in the world. It is recognised that radio and T.V. broadcasting in this country reach standards higher than achieved elsewhere, and the variety of programmes is the envy of the world. I believe that the I.T.A. does an excellent job. There is no doubt that there is some room for improvement in that field, but today we have as the main interest of our debate the future of the B.B.C., particularly sound radio.
  Sir John Rodgers: Following the right hon. Gentleman's last statement, is he saying that if commercial

  1533
  radio came in it would cream off the best? If he belives that, does he think that I.T.A. has creamed off the best in television? if he does, that contradicts his earlier remarks.
  Mr. Stonehouse: I am saying that the medium is one that belongs to the whole community, and it is important that the community should have an interest in the way it is exploited. I believe that we have that with the I.T.A.
  The B.B.C. is recognised as one of the best broadcasting institutions in the world. I was struck by the correspondence in The Times this morning, where Sir Tom O'Brien said:
  "The B.B.C. is a unique institution in the world. It has added lustre to British prestige everywhere, in times of war and peace. The miracle is, not that these magnificent services have continued but that it has survived at all."
  I believe that the B.B.C. is a magnificent institution, and that as well as analysing some of the proposals that it makes for the future we should pay tribute to the magnificent job that it has done and the dedication of those who serve it.
  Sir Tom O'Brien says that the B.B.C. is the Cinderella. I do not know whether I agree with him on that. This matron of nearly 50 certainly has many admirers of her virtues, and dozens of Princes Charming who will rush to her aid against the Ugly Sisters.
  The problems of the B.B.C. are financial, and I want to come to these immediately because I think that they should be put frankly before the House. The B.B.C.'s costs are going up. The demands for its services are going up, and there is no automatic increase in its income. The financial results for 1968–69 will show a gross licence revenue of about £86 million, of which less than 5 per cent. is for sound-only fees, at about £4 million. When the G.P.O.'s expenses of about £5 million are deducted—and of that £5 million about £1½ million would be saved if the sound-only fee were abolished—the B.B.C.'s net income in the last financial year is about £81 million. Expenditure on radio was about £22 million and on T.V. about £64 million. When other income of about £½ million cones into the account, the deficit for last year lies between £4 million and £5 million.
  Financially, the position of the B.B.C. becomes progressively worse as its costs
  1534
  continue to rise, and its income does not continue to rise at the same rate as before because, as the hon. Member for Howden said, we have reached a certain plateau in the number of T.V. fees, although we can expect in a few years' time the number of colour T.V. fees to go up considerably, which will produce a rising income for the B.B.C.
  What are the solutions to the problem? I believe that there are six, although one can have a mixture of them. The first is to cut down on the programmes. The second is to accept advertising. The third is to increase the fee. The fourth is to increase the other sources of income of the B.B.C., such as for the selling of T.V. programmes to the United States. The fifth is to increase efficiency, and the sixth is to counter evasion. Evasion of payment, particularly of T.V. fees, is still a very serious drag on the income of the B.B.C., and costs about £7½ million a year.
  I should like to deal with each of those suggestions. The first is the suggestion that we should ask the B.B.C. to cut down on its programmes. There is enormous public demand for the programmes that the B.B.C. puts out. I do not accept the philosophy, apparently supported on the other side of the House, that because the B.B.C. is a public institution is should for some strange reason not supply what the public as a majority want. I believe that as a public institution it has such a responsibility and should cater for majorities as well as minorities.
  It is reasonable that the B.B.C. should put forward a proposal to meet the demand, for instance, for pop music. This is a sensible suggestion. We should not sneer at it. But the pattern of demand not only for pop but for sound broadcasting as a whole has changed considerably. Twenty years ago there were only 120,000 television sets; now there are about 16 million. During the evening most people are absorbed in watching television programmes. The radio audience drops considerably during the evening. However, it is very high during the day.
  In its prospectus the B.B.C. proposes that sound broadcasting should be streamlined to provide for the considerable demand during the day and to give the customer a certain amount of choice without trying to force him to twiddle the knob on his set in order to find the programme

  1535
  that he wants to hear. This suggestion makes a lot of sense. But I am a little more doubtful about the cost-effective argument used by the B.B.C. I do not believe that it is possible to discuss the problem of providing programmes as though it were the same as selling soap-flakes. The B.B.C. points out that the cost per hour of radio is £378 at breakfast time, when the audience is 7·7 million, and £720 in the evening, when the audience is 1 million. It shows that the Third Programme costs £967 per hour for an audience of about 50,000.
  It also demonstrates the fact that providing pop music is cheaper than providing any other form of broadcasting. But we should not draw the conclusion—and I am glad that the B.B.C. does not draw the conclusion—that therefore the only broadcasting should be the pop service. That is the error that broadcasters abroad, especially commercial broadcasters, have fallen into, and it is a pitfall that we should avoid.
  Besides the cost of producing programmes we should also consider the effect on the public who hear them. Pop music has been called musical wallpaper. It does not command one's whole attention. It is regarded as a background. I believe that there is as much distinction between pop music and a live serious music concert as there is between mass-produced wallpaper and original works of art in the Tate. I do not suggest that the B.B.C. is anxious to cut out all serious programmes—quite the reverse—but I counsel it against following to its conclusion the logic of the efficiency experts. The B.B.C. is the guardian of our cultural inheritance, and it is one of the raisons d'etre for the public service institution that it is. If we were to operate on purely commercial criteria in broadcasting it could be as well for commercial organisations to do the job. The B.B.C. must bear that point in mind.
  Mr. John Lee: I do not want to interrupt the normal sequence of my right hon. Friend's speech, but he talked a little about cost efficiency. At some stage will he say something about the reason for the introduction of American efficiency people to the B.B.C., which some of us questioned some time ago, especially as the corporation is supposed
  1536
  to have its own organisation and methods and grading department?
  Mr. Stonehouse: I shall come to that point in a moment.
  The second way out of the B.B.C.'s financial dilemma is to accept advertisements. The B.B.C. emphatically rejects this. It fears that it would be the thin end of the wedge and that once it was accepted in respect of pop music programmes future Ministers might suggest that when the B.B.C. ran into future financial problems it would be natural for advertising to be accepted elsewhere—on television as well. I share its reluctance to move down that road. The B.B.C.'s view on this must be respected
  The third suggestion is that the licence fee should be increased. I do not want to make any announcement this afternoon, but the House should bear in mind the fact that our licence fee is one of the cheapest in the world for a service that is among the best in the world. We are charging £6 for the combined fee. In most of Europe it is much higher than that. In France it is £8 5s.; in West Germany it is £8 15s., and in Norway it is also £8 15s. The Swedes pay £14 5s., and in Switzerland the fee is £11 17s. 6d. Only in Ireland is the fee less than it is in the United Kingdom. Our colour fee, at £11, is very low compared with that of Denmark, where it is £18, and that of Sweden, where it is £22.
  Mr. Angus Maude: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us how the sound-only fee compares with that of other countries? That also seems very cheap.
  Mr. Stonehouse: Yes. The sound-only fee, at 25s., is much lower than elsewhere. I believe that in Switzerland it is £2 and that elsewhere it is also considerably higher than it is here.
  There is a case for the B.B.C.'s increasing its income from the sale of programmes abroad. Television programmes should not be made with a view to obtaining an audience in the United States. This could tend to change the character of the programmes, and we might end up with a mid-Atlantic type of programme. But the B.B.C. should bear in mind the eventual exportability of a programme without affecting the character of that programme. The B.B.C. could be

  1537
  much more energetic in promoting its sales abroad. In this respect it could take a leaf out of the book of A.T.V.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Does not the Minister think that the B.B.C. could cut its teeth in respect of the export of programmes to other countries by providing its own programme matter to the leading commercial broadcasting companies in this country?
  Mr. Stonehouse: I believe that the case made out for commercial radio in Britain is a very thin one. I would not support it. Therefore, I do not believe that there should be an opportunity for the B.B.C. to provide material on the lines suggested.
  I now come to the question of increasing efficiency. The B.B.C. was very wise to bring in outside consultants to investigate the way in which it ran its business. Many successful organisations have been able to learn a lot from the use of consultants. I believe that the B.B.C. has been in that position. I have seen the detailed reports of the McKinsey consultants, and I was very impressed with the job that they have done. In terms of productivity improvements the B.B.C. expects to save about £5 million during the next four or five years.
  But cost-effectiveness contains certain inherent dangers. As I have found in the G.P.O., there is the danger that in the case of a social service that must, as a public responsibility, be continued—such as delivering mail to the remote islands at considerable expense—a lack of efficiency is induced elsewhere in the set-up. I believe that the B.B.C. could well have suffered from this in the past. Because of its public service responsibilities, it has become in some parts of its organisation flabby and inefficient in its approach. I believe that is being put right and that there will be considerable savings from increasing efficiency in the next few years.
  I very much disagree, however, with the development of thought in the B.B.C. about patronage. I see a certain equivocation in the approach to this matter. I saw an article by the Director-General in the last edition of Crossbow, for instance, in which, in replying to questions, he said:
  "It seems to me when you ask a question about patronage you must also ask the ques-
  1538
  tion how far is it right for the licence fee for radio to be used for the purposes of patronage when the patronage itself is not essential to the broadcasting service. This is the kind of question one has to consider."
  I find myself rather frightened by those words. If we relate the patronage function merely to the broadcasting requirement, we find that there is a lot of sense in the disbandment of the orchestras and a lot of sense in cutting back on a great many of the activities that the B.B.C. now does. If it is related merely to its commercial cost-effective responsibilities, this is a dangerous road indeed and it throws into question the whole matter of the public service concept. I counsel the B.B.C. against that.
  If the B.B.C. were to abolish the orchestras on the lines suggested, it could save millions of pounds a year and increase canned music. I recognise that there is a case for needle time being increased. It is lower than in some countries, but I believe, as a listener, that there is more enjoyment in listening to a live concert, even if it is not technically perfect, than in hearing a recording. There is, even if remote, some audience participation, and I believe the B.B.C. should look again at the proposals it has put forward for disbanding orchestras. It should look at the suggestions made by Yehudi Menuhin for repositioning them so that they can play a more effective part in the cultural activities of the times in which they are based.
  I have set out some of the solutions to the problem of financing the B.B.C. I shall, of course, pay very close attention to any other suggestions that are brought forward because we must weigh up the considerations here before any final decision is made.
  There is also the problem of how the local radio developments will be financed if we allow the extension of the experiment that has been conducted with very great success during the past year or so.
  Mr. Tom Boardman: Could the right hon. Gentleman clarify one point? The White Paper on page 6 refers to the B.B.C. as saying:
  "We make no claim for monopoly."
  That means, surely, that the B.B.C. accepts competition from commercial radio. Is the right hon. Gentleman in agreement with that?
  Mr. Stonehouse: I shall be coming on to that point. I believe that commercialism will tend to lower standards, and I do not support it.
  I was coming on to discuss the radio experiment, which we have debated in the House before, and on which I have consulted every Member of the House whose constituency has been affected by it. I should like to express my thanks to them for replying to my request for their reactions. It has been extremely helpful to have their views about the results of this experiment. There is no doubt that the experiment has been a very great success. A very real demand for local community broadcasting has been shown. The sale of v.h.f. sets in the towns of the experiment have gone up. There has been a very great deal of local participation. It has opened up new means of communication. Each of the stations has been broadcasting material produced on the spot for about 48 hours a week and the total audience has reached 1 million. I believe that this is a significant figure, bearing in mind that the experiment has so far been restricted to only eight towns.
  I reject the commercialism that is propounded from the other side of the House because I do not believe the public want their radio spoilt by high-pitch advertising. I think that it would tend to pander to the lowest common denominator of demand and would produce a great deal of mush—a word, I may say, that I have extracted from a speech by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), who used it in describing the pirate experience some time ago. I believe we should have a lot of mush here if the commercial radio which is being propounded from the other side of the House were allowed to be developed in Britain.
  I believe also that commercialism would militate against local participation. Certainly if we had 100 broadcasting stations, as suggested, these could he viable on the basis of continuous canned pop music, and the possibility of local participation would be very low indeed. Fourth, if we had local advertising on the radio this would tend to drain advertising from the Press in the localities and tend to undermine their economic viability.
  1540
  I have had an opportunity in the last year of consulting a great many interests on this subject. One of the most significant contacts I have had has been with the representatives of the municipalities which themselves have been involved in the experiment. When I saw them, one one of them put forward commercial advertising as the way to finance the development of this service. I believe that is extremely significant, and I believe that their point of view would be supported by the majority of municipalities in Britain. I know that a small number of them favour commercial broadcasting, believing that it will give them some sort of an income. I believe they are gravely misled in that respect. The majority of municipalities would not welcome commercialism in their localities.
  Mr. Robert Cooke: The right hon. Gentleman used the word "mush". He will appreciate, of course, the tremendous distinction here. The pirates were operating illegally and all the "mush" they broadcast was copyright free, whereas the sort of commercial radio that we advocate would be wholly different.
  Mr. Stonehouse: I very much doubt whether that would be the case. A commercial broadcaster is anxious to maximise the audience because the advertising rates depend on it. He would, therefore, tend to play the material that will attract the highest possible public, and this tends, as the pirates discovered, to be mush.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker rose—
  Mr. Stonehouse: I propose not to give way again. As time is restricted, I think that I should be allowed to conclude my speech.
  The B.B.C. put forward plans for 40 radio stations established in England. I believe that it has got its priorities slightly wrong and that it is important to bear in mind the needs of Wales and Scotland as well. I should like to discuss with it further, and also with some of the other interests involved, the way in which this proposal could be financed.
  Debates about broadcasting will go on. It is an immense subject. There are new developments in technology also which affect it, developments which perhaps are not yet invented. There is,

  1541
  for instance, electronic video-recording, which will have an immense impact on the way in which we use our T.V. sets. There will be improvements in v.h.f. and u.h.f. which will affect the quality and scale of broadcasting of the future. I believe that there are many other considerations which we can bear in mind, and this debate is only a contribution to the great debate which must continue.
  Finally, we should remember that this country has an immense investment in broadcasting. The consumers have equipped themselves in their own homes to the tune of over £1,000 million in equipment. They are also paying rentals of up to £100 a year. It is partly our responsibility and the responsibility of the broadcasting institutions to ensure that the public get the value for the money which they are investing—and this includes the minorities as well as the majority.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. In view of the very large number of hon. Members wishing to take part and the limited amount of time remaining, I would ask for the cooperation of all right hon. and hon. Members in keeping their speeches short.
  5.42 p.m.
  Mr. W. F. Deedes: I agree with the Postmaster-General that this is an important debate. It is important because we are not really discussing the B.B.C.'s Music Programme or local sound radio, or the B.B.C.'s recent paper on its own future. What we are discussing today is the future of the B.B.C. itself. We are not simply discussing, critically, as everyone else has been doing, with a certain amount of enjoyment, the B.B.C.'s plans for the 1970s. We should, as the Postmaster-General did to an extent, be discussing our plans for the B.B.C.
  Two questions arise here. First, do we want the B.B.C. to remain an independent public service corporation? Second, if we do, are we prepared to exact from the people the price which is required? In answering those questions, I fear that I shall give some offence to some of my hon. Friends. There were passages in the right hon. Gentleman's speech with which I found myself alarmingly in agreement, but this is a respectable place
  1542
  to disagree, even with one's hon. Friends, and I am fortified by that reflection.
  The B.B.C.'s finances are in a mess. Like others, it faces rising costs on virtually a static income. It is by no means blameless for the financial predicament in which it finds itself. Whether it is extravagant or not, whether it is efficient or not, I am not qualified to say, but the B.B.C. is certainly a bold spender —or perhaps a bold investor would be a fairer expression. It stakes a claim in practically everything that is going—a second channel, colour, local sound radio —and this becomes expensive.
  To sustain the public service image as it seeks to do, it also does a good deal for free which, I think, should be chargeable to other people's accounts. I am thinking in particular of the educational broadcasting. In addition, the B.B.C. loses £7½ million to defaulters, or we lose it for them. It is also a fair criticism to say that it may be a good spender but that it is not a very forceful salesman. I hope that what the Postmaster-General said about the value of the goods which it has to sell will not be lost on the B.B.C.
  A strong case may be made out on those lines, but I am bound to add, when we are talking of this financial mess, that the blame resides largely here, with successive Governments who have resisted to the last ditch—or, rather, to the B.B.C.s last ditch—the odious task of raising the licence fee. The right hon. Gentleman said that this is relatively one of the lowest in Europe and one of the lowest in the world. In effect, we are trying to get a very good public service broadcasting system on the cheap. That is a principal reason for some current difficulties. That is partly what this crisis is about.
  I accept that this is not how everyone sees it. Many have seized on the initiative over local radio as an example of the B.B.Cs irresponsibility. The picture has been plausibly presented of a corporation so determined to pre-empt our plans for local commercial sound radio that it has jettisoned its cargo, with some good cargo among it—the regions and the orchestras—and launched something which it cannot afford. It certainly cannot afford it: In its own paper, the B.B.C. asks the Government for about £5½ million to support it.

  1543
  I thought that the right hon. Gentleman brushed lightly aside the question of how, under his dispensation, local sound radio will be financed. We did, not hear much about that. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I that none of these municipalities is very enthusiastic about continuing financial support, so where is the money coming from?
  Personally—although this is not my main point—I retain considerable reservations about local radio under any dispensation. Notwithstanding what the right hon. Gentleman said, the year's experiment with these eight pilot stations, in which I have tried to take an interest, does not prove public enthusiasm. It may have worked out as well as the right hon. Gentleman hoped, but it does not prove public enthusiasm and it certainly does not prove financial viability. A decade ago, some of us went into this and found no public demand for local radio. It has been said that the "pirates" changed this mood, but I wonder whether that is true. They established that pop music is popular, but they did not also established that local sound radio is popular.
  I am not very sanguine, therefore, about the B.B.C.'s plans and I would not readily defend its 40 broadcasting stations. I am bound to add, and some of my hon. Friends will be annoyed when I do, that I am anything but enchanted with our own ideas. I will not dwell on this. It is a sensitive point. I have always thought that there was a strong case for breaking the television monopoly —what the Postmaster-General called a "young, dynamic force". I can see no such compelling principle at stake over sound radio, whether national or local, and I fear that this policy may ultimately injure quality, of which we do not have a superabundance. But I do not want to irritate my hon. Friends any further, and they are being unduly patient. It is a factor, albeit a small one, in what concerns me most—the independence of the B.B.C.
  My hon. Friends have a very good answer for this—let the B.B.C. take a limited amount of advertising on Radio One, for example, and the deficit will be made up. Putting my foot yet deeper in it, I am bound to add that I am wholly
  1544
  in sympathy with the B.B.C.'s thinking here—that, once one admits advertising to any degree, that is the end of public service broadcasting, and the standards which we are discussing will fall. The pressure of the advertisers is quite inexorable. So—this is much more significant —is the pressure of those who pay for the licences. That is the real point.
  The fact is—and the B.B.C. and the Postmaster-General know it—that the licence fee is extraordinarily vulnerable, not because so many people do not pay it but because so many people dislike paying it, and Governments dislike asking them to pay more. The delay over the last licence fee increase of about a year cost the B.B.C. about £12 million. I expect that our Government was responsible for even larger losses.
  So the B.B.C. is caught between a Scylla and Charybdis has a thoroughly unpopular way of securing money, and advertising, which, once started, as it sees it, would destroy the concept it wants to defend. That is what it fears, and I wish to goodness that some time it would state it a little more plainly.
  My hon. Friend the Member for How-den (Mr. Bryan) said that it had been unfaithful to its charge of public service. To an extent, I think that that is true. But it is partly, I suspect, because it fears that if mass audiences fall below a certain point, the licence system will be challenged and the pressure to go commercial will become very strong. Some of my hon. Friends will say that it would not matter very much. Those who feel like that are entitled to their view, but I think that it would matter a great deal. It is an old-fashioned view, but I think that the B.B.C. gives us a great deal that the commercial sphere will never give us.
  We all suffer from subjective thinking on this matter. Many are primarily concerned with political aspects, particularly political balance. The B.B.C. is less interested in politics than many of us suppose. I have always found that its prime interest is survival, which is a reasonable interest. The bitterness it feels about its predicament has not been lost on me for a number of years. It is the difference between a matron of 50, as the Postmaster-General put it, dependent for her housekeeping on a fairly tight-fisted and rather unaccountable husband, and a woman who can

  1545
  raise her money by more vicarious means. I will not take it any further than that.
  I have long thought the way we go about raising money by the licence fee to be ludicrous. It is intolerable for an independent Corporation to have to go cap-in-hand to Ministers when it wants to raise more money. What happens if the B.B.C. quarrels with the Postmaster-General, with the Government, or—it is just conceivable—with the Prime inister? With or without a quarrel of that sort, we have a situation which we are at pains to avoid with the universities, and we should avoid it for the B.B.C. There is urgent need for the equivalent of the University Grants Commission, an independent body to determine what the fee should be. That would leave the Government free as air to accept or reject the recommendations. But it would be done openly, and there would not be all that shuffling of Postmasters-General in and out of Cabinet meetings, when the Postmaster-General has to say that the licence fee must be raised, and his colleagues look at him and say, "Not today, brother", and send him away. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has experienced that in his time.
  I beg my hon. Friends who sincerely feel that to give wholehearted backing to a public corporation is to give a political hostage to fortune to reflect on, this. In other spheres, I am as strong for private enterprise as anybody—much stronger than the Postmaster-General. But in this matter I am persuaded that there are rational grounds for an exception.
  A decade ago there was a strong case for re-energising the B.B.C. with commercial corporations. That has proved, in a sense, to have been the right step. Today, the need is to raise not very high standards—I am being generous—particularly on television, the product of over-riding majority catering. To that end, our right course is to restore a strong, independent and confident public service element. It is worth paying for, and it rests with us to persuade people that it is worth paying for.
  5.54 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker: I hope that it will not embarrass the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)
  1546
  if I congratulate him on a very thoughtful and courageous speech, which I liked a great deal better than that of his hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan). He was right to say that the basic problem in sound broadcasting is financial. The yield of the licence is remaining stable at about £21 million a year and costs are going up. Since 1965, when the licence fee was last raised, costs have risen by 20 per cent., though the B.B.C. has improved productivity in the same period by about 5 or 10 per cent.
  The stark fact we must face is that if the B.B.C. does not get more revenue by one means or another, by 1974 it will have an annual deficit of £4½ million and an accumulated deficit of £12 million. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the House must bear part of the blame, because we alone under the existing system can raise the B.B.C.'s revenue by increasing the licence fee, and it is because we have not done so that the B.B.C. has got into the present terrible financial mess. That is the basis of the proposals put forward in "Broadcasting in the Seventies".
  I want to say only a word or two about the specific proposals. In the circumstances that the B.B.C. and we face, I think that they are pretty good. They are fairly well-balanced, and are much better than making a serious cut in the output. Some of the proposals are desirable in themselves. I like the proposals for local radio. The hon. Member for Howden praised public service broadcasting, and it seems to me that local audiences have a right to that kind of public service broadcast. Certainly, local minorities have a right to be catered for, and they would not be catered for at all if commercial broadcasting companies were doing it.
  On the matter of orchestras, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General that anything that checks the training and employment of musicians is deplorable. I support what he said, but if a considerable patronage element is to continue in the B.B.C.'s expenditure on music, we must give it enough money to discharge this function. Patronage is not a possible function for a corporation that we are keeping very short of money. My right hon. Friend wants to maintain this patronage, and he must know that that can be done only if the B.B.C. receives more money. I therefore deduce

  1547
  that he is really in favour of raising the licence fee.
  It is arguable that patronage belongs not really to a broadcasting corporation but to bodies like the Arts Councils. We should think about that proposition. But whether patronage of orchestras is through the Arts Councils, the B.B.C., or both, we as a Parliament must provide the necessary money. It is no good saying that we want the patronage to continue but will not allow them to have the money.
  I turn to the question of advertising as an extra source of revenue. Some of the proposals are that the B.B.C. should take advertising, particularly on Radio One, or that independent companies should be set up for local broadcasting or broadcasting elsewhere. One thing that has not been realised is that if the B.B.C. took advertising on Radio One it would not raise anything like enough revenue. It would raise £1 million or £2 million a year at the most, and the price, as the right hon. Member for Ashford said, would be appalling. Advertising would spread very quickly to the whole of the public service, or at any rate sound broadcasting, because once the Government and Parliament have a relatively easy alternative to raising the licence fee the political pressures and temptation to spread advertising instead of raising the fee would be irresistible. The right hon. Gentleman was right; the public service concept of sound broadcasting would disappear.
  There is very little to be said for allowing companies to make local or other broadcasts of pop or whatever it may be. There would be no patronage element. Second, the B.B.C. would have to compete with such companies for the biggest audiences and would probably have to divert more and more money to that. There would be still less money for things like orchestras and patronage. There would also be less choice, for the B.B.C. and the companies would quickly discover which programmes and hours attracted the biggest audience, and there would be similar programmes on both, just as on the whole there are on B.B.C. and I.T.V. now. The only choice is between B.B.C. 1 and B.B.C. 2. One of the paradoxes of broadcasting is that if
  1548
  one has competition one gets uniformity. It is only if one has a monopoly which can afford to lose audiences here and there that one gets choice. If B.B.C. 2 were being run by a company, all three channels would be alike, just as the nine channels are alike in the United States at all hours of the day and night.
  The right hon. Member for Ashford made an interesting suggestion about some kind of body like the U.G.C. to finance the B.B.C. Another suggestion is to grant the money from the State, putting it on the Consolidated Fund so that it could not be reached or voted about. A third possibility, to which there are obvious objections, is that the Government and Parliament should forgo the right to raise the licence and hand it over to the B.B.C. The odium would then lie where it should—not with us—and we should get away from this problem which is like the problem of M.P.s salaries. We always flinch from raising them. In the case of the B.B.C., when the corporation gets in a mess because we have flinched from raising the fee, we have to raise it in the end more than we would have done originally.
  Other public bodies and corporations are allowed to raise their prices, subject to the Prices and Incomes Board and so on. The B.B.C. would be able to raise the licence fee by smaller and more acceptable amounts. When we finally steel ourselves to do it, we have to raise it by tremendous amounts. It could be argued that a monopoly should not have such power, but other bodies, such as the Post Office, have it. The B.B.C. is so sensitive to public reaction that it is unthinkable that it would over-raise the licence fee.
  Mr. Maude: I see the force of the argument that other public bodies are able to pass on increased costs to their customers while the B.B.C. is not, as Sir Tom O'Brien pointed out this morning. Could the right hon. Gentleman enlarge on how he envisages enforcement? About £7½ million a year goes astray despite enforcement through the criminal law. Is he suggesting that it should remain a crime to operate a receiver without a licence, or would he have enforcement by the B.B.C. through civil proceedings?
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I would keep that part of it the same. The Post Office

  1549
  is to be a public corporation and it would continue to act as the agent for levying the licence fee as it does now and would try to catch the evaders.
  If all these ideas of a U.G.C.-like body or the B.B.C. raising its own licence fee and so forth do not win acceptance, there is a simple and stark choice. We either accept cuts and changes of the kinds put forward in the document or we increase the sound licence fee. If we are faced with this choice, I hope that we find some way. I declare myself as one who favours the raising of the sound licence fee to an appropriate amount.
  6.3 p.m.
  Sir John Rodgers: I am sure the House will generally endorse the remarks of the Postmaster-General about the excellence of the B.B.C. It enjoys a unique reputation throughout the world. It is very much admired in this country. I served for six years on its General Advisory Council and I would do all I could to preserve what I think is best in the B.B.C. But that did not prevent me years ago in this House from trying to break its monopoly position.
  For the benefit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), I remind him that the battle was fought on the principle of monopoly. What we were pressing the House to do was not just to break the television monopoly. We wanted to break the B.B.C. monopoly. The Postmaster-General of the day did not realise the dynamic growth and potentialities of the communications medium of television. He thought that radio was far more important than television—which it is not today. He said to us, "If you take the television side and break that monopoly, we will go along with you, but more people listen to radio than watch television." I maintain my position as pure today as my right hon. Friend maintains his—I want to break the B.B.C. monopoly in sound as well as in television. I am delighted to see that in the paper the B.B C. says:
  "We make no claim for monopoly The B.B.C. has matched up to competition in televisioin and given equal opportunities, it could do so on radio."
  I cannot understand therefore why the Postmaster-General held forth as though any form of competiton in radio would be anathema to the B.B.C. and lead to the lowering of standards.
  1550
  Of course, the B.B.C. is in something of a dilemma. It wants to advance on all fronts equally at once. The Government know that this cannot be done, that there must be priorities. While sympathising with the B.B.C. in its position of being driven by Government policy into deficit and debt, nevertheless I say that it would be extremely unpopular at the moment to try to raise the licence fee for the provision of local radio. A vast amount of money has to be spent by the B.B.C. on colour television, and there is the question of the extension of hours to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. All this will make a demand for an increased licence fee without any question of local radio.
  Do not let us get away from the fact that if local radio disappears and service is provided by other sources there will be less pressure for some increase in the B.B.C.'s financial resources. There will be the payment which we shall be discussing later. The B.B.C. has asked for £5½ million from the Government per annum. It has rightly suggested that educational programmes should be paid for through the Department of Education and Science and not through the B.B.C. So the pressure will be there anyway.
  The B.B.C. Charter does not require that the Corporation should put on pop and ceaseless sweet music, particularly when there are commercial companies which would like to satisfy these particularly contemporary tastes. I want to approach this subject from an angle slightly different from anything mentioned so far today. Recently the International Chamber of Commerce put out a draft resolution on the availability of television and radio as advertising media, and I want to quote from it. It says:
  "In this connection, advertising plays an increasingly important rôle since, by stimulating and expanding purchases, it enables production to progress at the same rate as consumption. Moreover, advertising makes it possible to familiarize the greatest possible number of consumers with the advantages of the technical inventions which have been made in all fields and thus contributes to the building of a happier world.
  While respecting the rules designed to protect the consumer, as defined in the I.C.C.'s international Code of Advertising Practice, advertising should be able to use all present-day information media. Consumers, similarly, should not be denied the facility of receiving news of products and services via all media."

  1551
  That is enough to show what I have in mind. The resolution says:
  "…the I.C.C. recommends that advertising on television and radio be authorized in those countries where it is still forbidden. It invites the government of those countries to seek ways of putting those media to use which, while respecting the rights of the public and the laws and regulations in force at the national level, will enable advertisers to reach the greatest possible number of potential purchasers. It also recommends that on the occasion of the introduction of radio and television advertising, due consideration be given to the interests of the other media, but recognising the need of the advertiser to be free to select the medium of his choice."
  I know that the Postmaster-General is aware of this, but I wonder whether hon. Members and people in the country are aware that we are the only English-speaking country that does not have commercial radio.
  As the immediate Past President of the Institute of Practitioners in Advertising, I say that we believe that the '70s are right for the introduction of commercial radio, and this is the view which is shared by the Incorporated Society of British Advertisers and by manufacturers.
  Experience of commercial television has shown that its introduction does not lead to a decline of broadcasting standards. In that connection, I should like to quote the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, who was Opposition Deputy Chief Whip when we debated the B.B.C. monopoly position in 1954. He said that as Deputy Chief Whip he had made sure that his political colleagues voted against commercial television, but he went on to say that today
  "any Government looking for money for broadcasting could consider the use of advertisement revenue without the study being bedevilled by the fears of 14 years ago. It has been demonstrated that recourse to advertising revenue and the introduction of competition do not mean the death of the public service tradition in broadcasting. It has also been demonstrated that the opening of our television screens to advertising has in one way and another brought about a vast improvement in the quality of British advertising—a totally unexpected bonus to the consumer."
  Mr. Maude: Does my hon. Friend think that the noble Lord is a very good witness? Is not a Chief Whip turned Chairman of the I.T.A. a perfect example of the poacher turned gamekeeper?
  Sir J. Rodgers: The evidence of the sinner who repenteth is worth a great
  1552
  deal more than that of the man who was right all the way through.
  The advertising agents do not necessarily advocate that the B.B.C. should devote one of its channels to advertising, although it is free to do so under its charter if it wishes. I respect the view of Lord Hill that that may lead to pressures which he could not resist and that, therefore, it is not necessarily the right way to do it. But it is possible that there could be commercial radio stations under the umbrella of the I.T.A., or a third public service corporation could be set up to foster them and to protect the public in the provision of local radio programmes. All these possibilities are open.
  The figure mentioned by the right hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Gordon Walker) was wrong. He said that if the B.B.C. were to go commercial in one of its channels the cost would be £1 million. The best media people in the country believe that the immediate figure would be about £5 million to start with.
  The next question is what effect local radio would have on other local media, a subject to which the Postmaster-General referred. The evidence from other countries with local Press and commercial radio side by side does not bear out the contention that the local Press would suffer. In point of fact, it flourishes, not in spite of, but because of local radio. I will not go into detail, but hon. Members who do not agree with me should consider the position of the local Press in countries like Ireland or Australia where they will see that what I am saying is amply borne out. The provincial Press has not suffered since the coming of commercial television. It still has, and for the last eight or ten years has had, 20 per cent. of the advertising money spent in this country, and it would continue to get around that sum.
  There is a genuine demand for a look at radio as we looked at television, for radio is a most important medium of communication. We hampered printing, saying that printing could be used only to print the Bible, and we taxed it and had licensed printers, but we cannot—and I assure the Postmaster-General that I know I am right here—any longer hide behind the lack of technical resources, the shortage of wavelengths and

  1553
  things like that and sustain the monopoly position of the B.B.C. The B.B.C. must sustain it as a public corporation publicly financed.
  But do not let hon. Members doubt that the coming of v.h.f. opens an enormous area for expansion. As the right hon. Gentleman himself said, still further technical advances are just around the corner and they will make it possible to have many stations in many towns.
  That is the background to the debate. I hope that the B.B.C. will think again carefully about whether it wants to go into local radio—I do not wish to prevent it if it so desires—or whether it would be better to concentrate on an extension of hours and the provision of good colour television and the like, leaving it to the I.T.A., or another body to be set up by the Government, to deal with the provision of local radio financed through advertising.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. Terence Boston: After the speech of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), I thought that there would be a remarkable degree of agreement between the back bench Members on the two sides of the House. Unhappily, I do not find myself on the sane wavelength, if I may put it that way, as the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers).
  I begin by declaring a past interest in that I used to work for the B.B.C. As others have said, this is an important debate, for broadcasting clearly makes a tremendous impact on the lives of people and over the next weeks and months we shall be deciding the future of broadcasting for a period of some years. I should like later to refer to the B.B.C.s proposals, particularly those for Radio Three and the music output and local radio, but I should first like to mention the B.B.C.'s financial position, because most of its problems stem from its financial difficulties. Those of us with views about new plans for broadcasting have a duty to face this problem of seeing that the B.B.C.'s financial position is sound. I should like to make a proposal for meeting this need.
  My right hon. Friend has already enumerated the traditional methods of raising revenue. The main methods are:
  1554
  first, by increasing the licence fee; secondly, by direct Government subsidy; thirdly, through advertisements on B.B.C. programmes. If no other way can be found, we must be prepared to face an increase in the licence fee. As my right hon. Friend has said, it is less than that in most comparable countries. The radio licence has gone up from only 5s. to 25s. in more than 20 years. There are obvious difficulties about increasing the licence fee, but we should be prepared to say that it may need to be increased if there is no other way.
  Secondly, there is the proposal that the B.B.C. should gets its revenue by direct Exchequer subsidy. The Corporation has always been reluctant—and I entirely agree with its view—because it fears that its independence would be jeopardised.
  Thirdly, I fully share the view of the B.B.C. that advertising would inevitably mean that the Corporation would always be dogged by the need to go for the bigger audience all the time, and the result would undoubtedly be a lowering of standards. The Chairman of the B.B.C., Lord Hill of Luton, is already on record as asserting that view, and I am glad that he takes a robust view about it.
  My suggestion is that the Exchequer should indemnify the B.B.C. against loss through licence evasion. The B.B.C. is now losing £10 million a year through licence evasion, £7½ million from the combined radio and television licence and another £2½ million from unpaid car radio licences.
  The B.B.C. is fully entitled to this money. One can describe the licence dodgers as pirates who are depriving all other listeners and viewers of improved and continuing services. Under my proposal, the Exchequer would provide the B.B.C. with a sum equal to the estimated loss from licence evasion. This indemnity proposal would undoubtedly meet the B.B.C.s present needs.
  It is said in Broadcasting in the Seventies that, on current levels of expenditure, by 1974 there will be an annual radio deficit of £4½ million. It is also said in the document that the proposal to set up local radio stations will cost £5·2 million. The indemnity proposal which I have made, and which would bring in £10 million a year, would cover

  1555
  all of these items, including the existing orchestras.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman began by saying that he was against a Government grant. His suggested scheme of covering the sums which people are not paying represents the payment of a Government grant.
  Mr. Boston: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my next words. It is clearly possible to calculate the amount of money because the loss from evasion has been worked out for many years. My proposal would enable the Government to provide money without any of the political pitfalls associated with a direct Government subsidy. I hope that that answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls).
  The calculation would be based on the amount the B.B.C. is losing—this has already been calculated—from licence evasion. In addition, the Government would have a greater incentive to tighten up on licence dodgers because the more money they recouped from them the less the Exchequer would have to provide in in the indemnity amount. There would also be greater moral blame attached to evaders because they would be seen to be imposing a burden on all taxpayers.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that his plan virtually asks the Government to indemnify law breaking? If such a payment were made to the B.B.C. and special treatment were given in this case, would he recommend extending it to those who cheat on railway tickets, tax, gas, electricity and telephone bills and pay an indemnity to the concerns responsible for those things? Is he not suggesting an open-ended commitment?
  Mr. Boston: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. I do not want to go into the question of evading railway fares and so on, except to say that if we followed through his argument to its logical conclusion, the concerns which he mentioned would all be run down to the extent of the money that they are not receiving by the evasion of which he spoke. My argument is that the B.B.C. is entitled to this money. My indemnity proposal would be a way of getting over
  1556
  the difficulty of a tied Government subsidy.
  In Broadcasting in the Seventies the B.B.C. outlines a number of plans, but before coming to two specific points I want to mention it is worth remembering that the proposals in the document are so far-reaching that they are on the sort of scale that would normally arise from the recommendations of a Royal Commission. For this reason it is important that the bulk of the proposals are based on decisions made by this House.
  A meeting took place yesterday of members of the Radio and Television Council of the National Union of Journalists. While I am a member of the N.U.J., I carry no brief for that organisation. The Council represents about 1,000 journalists working in broadcasting and the Union's Executive Committee on Broadcasting Matters endorsed a proposal of the Federation of Broadcasting Unions that the B.B.C. should be given the necessary finance to maintain its services at least at their existing levels until an independent inquiry into Broadcasting in the Seventies and into the B.B.C.'s rôle in the provision of broadcasting services could be conducted.
  While I do not go along with the proposal that the B.B.C.'s plans should be held up pending such an inquiry, I do suggest that we have reached the stage where we need another Royal Commission on broadcasting covering the whole of broadcasting and particularly developments in television. The N.U.J.'s statement would be met in part by my indemnity proposal. It would rescue the B.B.C. from its financial difficulties. It would enable it to carry out some of its major proposals in "Broadcasting in the Seventies" and would provide that stability which would give precisely the time necessary for further consultations to take place about some of the B.B.C.'s other plans—something the unions are concerned about.
  I said that there were two points in "Broadcasting in the Seventies" to which I particularly wished to refer. The first is the B.B.C.'s plans for Radio Three, the Third Programme and The Music Programme. This proposal has caused one of the main outcries about the B.B.C.'s plans. Concern about this service is seen partly by the fact that more

  1557
  than 200 hon. Members have signed Motion No. 337 which aims at safeguarding the service and which urges the B.B.C. not to reduce the quality and quantity of its serious music output.
  One proposal which I find unacceptable is the B.B.C.'s plan to stop broadcasting this service on medium wave and to keep it only on v.h.f. This would undoubtedly deprive many listeners of this service, notably those who do not have or cannot afford v.h.f. sets, including the vast majority of car radio owners because these instruments are not equipped to receive v.h.f.
  The B.B.C. proposes to made Radio Four a mainly speech programme, with the emphasis on news and topical events. People who get their serious music mainly on Radio Four would have to rely on Radio Three, and without v.h.f. sets they would not be able to get it. It is said that a higher proportion of Radio Three music listeners have v.h.f.—the figure quoted is 60 per cent. —compared with Radio Four, the figure for which is given as between 40 per cent. and 45 per cent.
  The argument, therefore, is that a smaller number would be affected by putting Radio Three on v.h.f. only. However, this is a misleading argument because the larger number and higher proportion of Radio Four music listeners without v.h.f. would not get Radio Three, anyway.
  Further, the extent to which people use v.h.f. sets is an interesting question to consider. My wife mentioned to me the other day that many people with v.h.f. sets in, for example, their living rooms—this particularly applies to housewives—carry about portable radios from room to room when doing their housework and so on, and these instruments are not equipped with v.h.f. Thus, if one is quoting figures in this connection one must quote not merely the bare proportions but the extent to which people are using their v.h.f. sets.
  The B.B.C. points out that there is a choice between using the present Radio Three medium wavelengths to extend the other services, notably Radio Four, to those who cannot get them at present, and continuing to use the Radio Three wavelengths for the more limited number of listeners to that service. But by taking Radio Three off medium wave the B.B.C.
  1558
  would be depriving listeners of a service which they already have.
  The B.B.C. says that it would be possible to use the medium wave for Radio Three during the day time, pointing out that in the evening medium wave reception is poor in parts of the country. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) and I, who recently saw the Chairman of the B.B.C. and others, were interested in this what one might call half-way house suggestion. This would be help. We agreed, however, that it would still not meet the need.
  The proposal to drop Radio Three from medium wave would represent a retrograde step. After all, there is a duty on the B.B.C. to maintain this service and one must not forget the disabled, the blind and organisations like Wireless for the Blind which would have to replace their existing sets with those capable of receiving v.h.f. at a considerable cost.
  The B.B.C.'s decision not to close down Radio Three was welcome. There is no doubt that the B.B.C. is the finest broadcasting service in the world. The B.B.C. has also seen a vast growth in the number of people who appreciate serious music, partly as a result of its efforts. There has been a steady growth in demand for this output over the years. This is clear from the increase in the B.B.C.'s serious music output. In 1963–64, the total of serious music hours was 3,455. In 1967–68, the last year for which figures are available, the total was 5,749 hours. Far from reducing or even simply maintaining this coverage, it needs to be further developed to meet growing demand.
  I should like to make a passing reference to the B.B.C.'s orchestras. I was glad to hear the view put forward by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General today. Others will no doubt deal with this matter in greater detail. I should feel less justified in criticising the proposed orchestra cuts if I had not put forward a proposal for financing the B.B.C. Many of us have been distressed by the proposal to disband some of these fine orchestras and the B.B.C. chorus, some of which have achieved international reputation. There is also the position of the devoted staff of these orchestras.
  I was particularly surprised by the proposal to disband the Training

  1559
  Orchestra, especially as the B.B.C. has praised it in its own publications. In describing the training orchestra, the latest B.B.C. Handbook for 1969 points out that it was set up
  "at the beginning of 1966 for the specific purpose of training qualified young musicians aged 18 to 26 and to provide extensive orchestral experience immediately following an instrumentalist's course at a school of music. It is hoped through the establishment of this orchestra to ensure a steady stream of experienced players of the standard required by the leading orchestras in the United Kingdom."
  What was worth putting in the B.B.C's Handbook which came out in January this year is worth repeating and continuing now.
  I wish to mention the B.B.C's proposals for local radio stations and regions, particularly from the point of view of local radio, because this is the biggest single advance now open in radio. I am among those who feel that the existing regional set-up has been long outdated because it coincides neither with regional community interests nor with the new economic regions being created. The B.B.C. is right to tackle this admittedly very difficult problem.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will allow the B.B.C. to go ahead in the very near future with local stations on a permanent basis. There is no doubt that the Corporation's local radio experiment begun in 1967 has been an outstanding success. It is right for us to find out at first hand about these stations before passing judgment. It was with that thought in mind that I spent a whole day at B.B.C. Radio Leeds during the last Recess. This is a very lively station indeed. It is clear that when listeners are provided with the opportunity to have local radio there is a ready demand for it. The response from young people is particularly encouraging.
  I have been particularly disturbed at the level of some of the propaganda being put out by some of the commercial radio lobby, and in particular a statement put out by an organisation called Commercial Broadcasting Consultants Ltd. with a proposal for local commercial radio run by a corporation on a national basis. It says of the B.B.C's local radio experiment that
  1560
  "Local radio on v.h.f. has proved a failure due to lack of funds for programming."
  The B.B.C's local stations might not have excessive funds, at least at the moment, but their output has been tremendously varied, informative and entertaining. One has only to look at a brief resume of the past year's activities of Radio Leeds to see the extent of this variety. It says:
  "Radio Leeds, the walk-in-and-talk station, has given ear time to about 4,750 walk-in-and talkers during its first year of operation. In addition, recorded interviews, talks and musical programmes by local people have brought a huge number of Leeds people in front of the microphone. In Teenage Week alone"—
  when over the whole week the station was operated by teenagers—
  "there were 1,000 new broadcasters. The station's first year ends on Tuesday, 24th June, and by then the small team will have put out more than 3,300 hours of local material…News and current affairs account for about 1,000 hours: sport 300; discussion 300; light magazine 600; children and women's programmes 350; education 250; serious music 200 and minority programmes 300 hours. The rest is made up of council affairs, municipal elections, record programmes, outside broadcasts and other output difficult to classify."
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Since the hon. Gentleman is opposed to commercial broadcasting, why is he giving a commercial for the B.B.C.?
  Mr. Boston: I share some of the hon. Gentleman's views on other matters. But we should take pride in the achievement of this public Corporation. We should pay tribute to that.
  Without going into further detail, for reasons given in previous debates I am wholly against running local stations commercially, partly because of the adverse effects which they would have on the quality of output, but not least because of the adverse effects that they would have on local Press by syphoning off advertising revenue and endangering local papers, as has been made clear by the bulk of newspaper interests in their evidence, including the Newspaper Society, to the Pilkington Commission and repeated only recently.
  I hope that we shall no longer hear the sort of humbug which we have heard previously that commercial radio can be set up free of charge to the public. I hope that those who have been trying

  1561
  to con the public with that grotesque distortion will have the grace to drop it. They must have a poor view of the British public if they think that they are as gullible as that. Of course, people would have to pay for commercial local radio. Consumers would have to pay through the advertising included in the cost of the goods they buy.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will allow local radio to be developed under a reputable body, the B.B.C. I hope that the B.B.C. will live up to its reputation by keeping Radio Three on the medium wave, and I hope that my suggestion about B.B.C. finance will be of use as a constructive idea for meeting the Corporation's financial needs.
  6.37 p.m.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: It is pleasant to hear someone speak, as the hen. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) has, so very well of his former employers. I trust that he will not take too much exception to it if I say that I hope that after the next election he will be able to go back to them and get on with the job.
  Looking round the Chamber, it is noticeable that a lot of people want to take part in this debate. As we all listen to sound radio, there are probably 630 different "experts" on it in the House. I find it useful, in one's capacity as a Member of Parliament, to listen to the news, current affairs, "Today in Parliament" and "What the Papers Say". We are all "experts" in our own way, or claim to be, on the subject.
  I have some reservations about the method by which the B.B.C.'s publication was handled by the Corporation. We had well-informed leaks of what was being considered, starting right back in January. Then we had considerable secrecy about what was happening. It was like the Ku Klux Klan. There was a period of alarm among many responsible bodies and in the B.B.C. regions. There was alarm among orchestras and about what would happen to the music programmes. Then we had the announcement.
  I believe that Mr. Kenneth Adams' remarks in the Daily Mirror were very fair comment. He said:
  "The B.B.C. appears to regard the current reshaping of its programmes as an internal
  1562
  matter which neither the P.M.G., its own staff or the public has any right to discuss".
  It is unfortunate that the matter has been handled by the B.B.C. in this way.
  The B.B.C's publication is deficient in that it was probably misconceived in aim. It asked the wrong question. To put it another way, it did not set out the range of alternative policies which might have been discussed in such a document so that the public would have the opportunity of considering the various alternatives. The Sunday Times put this very well in an editorial headed, for some reason, "Doctoring radio". It said that the first choice might have been what the B.B.C. could do with a £2 radio licence fee; the second, what it could do if the Charter was amended to admit advertising; and the third, what the B.B.C. could do given the existing licence fee and the exclusion of advertising. I believe the document which we are discussing was unduly narrow in concept. It would have helped public debate of these matters if a rather different type of document had been presented.
  I turn now to the question of serious music. Many have paid tribute to the B.B.C.'s patronage in all fields of the arts, and this is in my view entirely justified. One tends to take it very much for granted but it is well worth repeating. I was very glad to hear what the Postmaster-General said about this today. He put it well and fairly.
  Now, however, we have the situation that the B.B.C. appears to aim at running down orchestras to maintain Radio One and Radio Two and so as to avoid advertising. This is unfortunate. I take my own example from Northern Ireland, where the Northern Ireland Orchestra, which was founded by the B.B.C., has done excellent work in promoting music.
  The B.B.C. now says that it is "unable to bear the full cost" of the orchestra, but I hope that it may have second thoughts in the light of the helpful comments today by the Postmaster-General concerning local orchestras. Obviously, the whole question is in the melting pot, but I hope that the B.B.C. will be generous in its support of music in Northern Ireland.
  Turning to Radio Three and the Third Programme, I join with what has been said about how unfortunate it would be if this programme were to be broadcast

  1563
  only on v.h.f. The interest of the motorist, particularly, is important in relation to the music programme. I rather got the impression from some of the comments from the B.B.C. since the paper was produced that one was, perhaps, pushing at a partially open door in this respect. I certainly hope that a firm decision has not been taken.
  A part of the White Paper which I find pleasing is the references to Radio Three where it speaks about the extension of music during the evening. I have always felt that during the evening the Third Programme missed a great potential audience for which it was not fully catering. It is in my opinion too high-brow and too narrow in character and, accordingly, it has much too small an audience.
  I would have thought that Radio Three should have aimed at the rather wider audience which has grown up in the 25 years since the programme commenced—the audience who have stayed on at school until the age of 18, who have gone on to technical college and university, who read the serious weekly magazines and who read the heavy Sunday newspapers. If I have read correctly between the lines of the document. I hope that that is the audience which the B.B.C. will be aiming at more in the years ahead in Radio Three.
  I think it is particularly significant that the section of the paper concerning finances is sandwiched in at the end between frequencies and music. I would have expected it to be right at the beginning of the document after setting out the problems, because it is obviously the key matter which arises for the B.B.C.
  I feel that the way that we are seeing a cut-down in minority programmes to maintain the mass programmes is particularly undesirable. It was well put in the Sunday Telegraph of 13th July, which set out the matter very clearly when it said that there were three main questions to which hon. Members should be addressing their minds in these debates.
  The first question, which to me is the most important, is whether we accept that the B.B.C. must not raise money by advertising. This is something on which there is a fairly clear division of opinion between the two sides of the House
  1564
  although, after hearing the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), you might consider, Mr. Deputy Speaker, calling another hon. Member from this side to help balance the debate. I hope that my right hon. Friend does not take that unkindly.
  The question of advertising is put by Lord Hill in his foreword when he says:
  "The B.B.C. unhesitatingly accepts that this implies a responsibility to provide a comprehensive service meeting the needs of minorities as well as majorities. It is convinced that it will be the better able to remain truly comprehensive and securely independent if it continues to be financed by the licence fee method and is not exposed to the pressures which a commercial system cannot as easily resist."
  When Lord Hill was at the I.T.A., I did not notice that he protested so firmly about the commercial pressures to which he refers in his foreword.
  I find it difficult to believe that a fundamental change in the character of Radio One would be brought about by a few minutes' advertising in every hour. Is it something so essentially British that we want to preserve intact? Would its whole fundamental character be so altered for the worse by advertising? I find this difficult to believe. It does not seem to me that Radio One is a vital part of public service broadcasting principles. If, as in politics and as in broadcasting, one inevitably has to take choices, for my part I would rather see advertising on Radio One plus a continuation of the B.B.C.'s position as a major patron of the arts.
  The Sunday Telegraph poses the second question of whether we are prepared to face an increase in the licence fee. Many hon. Members, in debates in this House, may say that the B.B.C.'s is the cheapest licence fee in Europe and that compared with the quality of the programmes, the increase would be small. Against that, however, one has to put into perspective the fact that for many people an increase in the B.B.C. licence fee is a major increase in their annual household budget and would hit particularly hard elderly people who rely very much upon radio and television for comforts.
  The third point which the Sunday Telegraph raises is consideration of additional methods of collecting the £10 million which licence dodgers should be paying.

  1565
  I do not think very much of the proposal by the hon. Member for Faversham. My hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Kenneth Baker) put the objection to it very well.
  I find it astonishing that there should be over 10 per cent. of the B.B.C. revenue which no Government are able to collect. I would have expected the Wireless Telegraphy Act to cover new television sets, and that the house to house cards and the detector vans would have made a substantial impact on the older sets, which are the most difficult problem. I would have thought that a new system through motor taxation might succeed in catching the motor radio licence dodgers who should pay £2·5 million a year. By tightening up inside the Post Office, and by some such methods as I have referred to we should in this House be able to help the B.B.C., who should not be denied this substantial sum.
  Mr. Boston: Since the hon. Gentleman has referred to the proposals which we are putting forward, may I ask him to bear in mind that, far from condoning criminal evasion, as his hon. Friend was suggesting, this proposal will be a direct incentive to Governments to take tightening up action against licence dodgers.
  Mr. Mills: If I understood my hon. Friend correctly, I thought his point was that this was a matter of wider principle —should it be extended for example to the railways, to gas bills and telephone accounts? I would have thought it was a matter of wider principle on which objection could be taken to the scheme put forward by the hon. Gentleman.
  I come now to local radio. I tried to intervene during the right hon. Gentleman's speech, as I found this the most astonishing part of his speech. He said that he had read what the B.B.C. had said. He paid tribute to the work of the B B.C. and, although at an earlier stage he had said that there would be a review of the whole subject terminating in July, all he was able to say this afternoon was that he would have a discussion about it.
  He did not set out the alternatives. He did not say how his mind was working. Although he said that none of the local authorities liked the commercial principle, he neglected to say that seven out of eight have already made it clear that they do not want to continue with
  1566
  the existing scheme. The House is about to go into recess and the right hon. Gentleman appears to be running away from this decision.
  The B.B.C's plans for local radio are the central matter of the debate. Are there or are there not to be B.B.C. stations? Is the B.B.C. to get additional finance for it? Will there be advertising? These are questions which could reasonably have been answered today by the right hon. Gentleman. Many hon. Members will be disappointed if we do not get more information on the Government's thinking on this matter when the Assistant Postmaster-General replies tonight.
  Several editorials have referred to the aim of the B.B.C. of pre-empting the next Government by getting established 40 local stations. I do not know whether or not that is the aim of the B.B.C. I hope it is not, because the B.B.C. as a public body depends on its good relations with all parties in the House, and an attempt to jump the gun and to try to make the rôle of the next Government more difficult in this field would not be in the long-term interests of the B.B.C.
  I was surprised to see chat the B.B.C. at page 6 of the White Paper referred to the way in which it had always championed local radio. I recall the B.B.C. evidence to the Pilkington Committee, in which it said that in its view there was no demand for local radio but, if such a demand was shown to exist, it was the B.B.C. who should be given the job of catering for it. This indicates a certain hesitancy of memory on the part of the Corporation.
  I believe that there is still a great future for radio—radio at certain times of the day, car radio, serious music, news, current affairs, pop music for the young and local radio, but this can happen only if we endeavour to release broadcasting from the straitjacket of B.B.C. traditional methods of finance, and if the monopoly of the B.B.C. can be broken to let other minds into this exciting new medium.
  6.56 p.m.
  Mr. Jack Ashley: One of the major accomplishments of the B.B.C. proposals has been to bring to the forum of public debate some of the many issues in broadcasting which have been neglected for far too long. The time is long overdue for the

  1567
  reappraisal of sound broadcasting which the B.B.C. is now conducting.
  I am glad that in the proposals put forward the B.B.C. is now rejecting the old-fashioned concept of giving all of the people some of the things which they do not like for some of the time. That is the old Reithian concept of introducing a little culture into frivolous programmes, and vice versa. The B.B.C. is now providing the kind of programmes which the people require.
  The B.B.C. has no alternative, because there is now convincing evidence that the public are not prepared with sound radio to switch over programmes as they do with television; they simply switch off. The public are at last beginning to get the programmes which they want. That is the reason why the B.B.C. has now come to the proper view that audiences should be given the programmes which they require.
  I believe this is a right decision, and, on the same basis, it is a right decision to go ahead with local radio. The experiments conducted have, if not proved, certainly given a clear indication that there is a demand for local radio. People want programmes with local interest. In my constituency, Radio Stoke-on-Trent is a highly popular station and has now taken its place as an accepted and popular institution in the community, despite the limitations of v.h.f.
  The critics of local radio tend to confuse local radio with the whole question of economics, and they tend to believe that local radio is a substitute for orchestral programmes and other types of national network radio. This is nonsensical, because the B.B.C. has reiterated time and time again, and I believe it, that the financing of local radio is entirely different from the financing of national networks. It is regrettable that people should still confuse the economics of local radio and the national network; the two are entirely divorced.
  The economies which are being made by the B.B.C. are to a large extent to be welcomed. The economies were inevitable because in a situation of a static income and rising costs the B.B.C. is under an obligation to try to meet this difficult financial problem. What it has done is to formulate principles in advance
  1568
  rather than detailed plans. I believe that no conclusive judgment can be made until the full consequences of the detailed plans are known and until a number of questions are answered.
  It is unfortunate that the B.B.C. has created hostility among the broadcasting trade unions by its refusal to discuss in a meaningful way its proposals with the unions. By that I mean that the B.B.C. refuses to allow the unions to discuss these issues with their members. This was an entirely wrong decision and quite contrary to the normal methods of negotiation.
  I assure the House, after 14 years' experience as a sound radio and television producer, that the B.B.C. is a highly civilised organisation. In fact, it is not only civilised; it is a paternal organisation. The House will note that I refer to it as paternal, not maternal, since it sometimes likes to wield the big stick.
  In all my negotiations with the B.B.C. when I was chairman of the producers' branch of the union I found the B.B.C. administration to be a curious mixture of quite extraordinary charm and absolutely implacable obstinacy. Once it had decided what was best for the B.B.C. and for B.B.C. staff, then in the best possible civilized manner that was that. One was carefully listened to, given a cup of tea—and, if one was fortunate, a few biscuits—and ushered to the door, having gained not a single concession. But the corporation did as it thought right because it was behaving in a paternalistic way and was concerned with the well-being of the B.B.C. as a whole.
  But I believe that at Present it is creating dangers for itself by its refusal to negotiate with the trade unions. I emphasise that it should be negotiation in a meaningful way. It is creating hostility, and there will be a backlash from the unions which may result in industrial unrest in the B.B.C. I hope that the corporation will think again about its attitude to the unions which are involved.
  The B.B.C. has admitted that there will be redundancies. How many redundancies will there be? How many of the displaced staff will be reabsorbed in different jobs? What kind of effort

  1569
  will be made by the B.B.C. to find other work for the displaced staff? These are all questions which should be considered, I do not say considered in detail at this advanced stage but considered in such a manner as to win the confidence of the unions. No other employer in. Britain, certainly no other monopolistic employer, could possibly present a plan of what it intends to do without full consultation and negotiation with the unions.
  I believe that the financial problems with which the B.B.C. is confronted will increase rather than diminish. In the next few years costs will inevitably rise as inflation continues, and the fact is that growth in the licence revenue has now stopped. The B.B.C. is in a serious situation and needs to get all the co-operation it can.
  On the matter of redundancies, as a former producer I hope that the B.B.C. will not fail to look very closely at its administration. It would be most unfortunate if the programme staff of the B.B.C. were to be curtailed and pruned and the long and very worthy tail of administration and the supporting structure were not to be scrutinised very carefully and cut, perhaps rather more than the creative staff on the production side. If the corporation fails to do that, programmes themselves will suffer as will the standards of public service broadcascing as a whole.
  I am still not clear in my mind—I do not think that the B.B.C. has made it clear—whether the changes which are now put forward are advanced because the B.B.C. desires the changes or because they are forced on the B.B.C. by financial stringency.
  Many of the speeches by Lord Hill and Charles Curran and the other distinguished leaders of the B.B.C. tend rather to obfuscate the issue by saying, "Of course the new plans are desirable, but on the other hand there are financial pressures." One does not quite know which is which. But if the corporation needs an increased licence fee it should say so. It should say exactly how much it requires in order to present to the public the high level of programmes to which we are accustomed to receive from the B.B.C. If, on the other hand, it does not require an increase in licence fee, it should state what the consequences will
  1570
  be in the curtailment of serious programmes, in the cutting down of staff and the other economies which will necessarily follow.
  Some people have suggested that the way in which economies can be made and the financial problems solved is by the introduction of commercial radio. We have heard eloquent contributions—some of us have lip-read them—by right hon. and hon. Members opposite about the merits of commercial radio. It is interesting that these now fall into three separate and distinct categories. The first is to have a hundred or so local radio stations which have been described by some hon. Members opposite. The second is that the B.B.C. should accept advertisements on Radio One. The third is that Radio One should be hived off completely, should be able to broadcast advertisements, and that the revenue should be put to beneficial broadcasting purposes. This idea was advanced quite recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins).
  I believe that commercial radio is the easy way out. But every single committee of inquiry, from Crawford in 1925, through Beveridge, to Pilkington in 1960, has rejected the idea of commercial radio. The basic argument against it, without a shadow of doubt, is that commercial local radio is the thin end of the wedge. The House must decide the simple issue: the issue of public service broadcasting versus broadcasting for private profit. If advertisements are accepted on Radio One, the B.B.C.s whole future will be jeopardised and, in the long run, the corporation as such will cease to exist. Governments are dependent on votes, just as we all are. Inevitably, Governments will say to the B.B.C. when they are approached for increases in licence fees, "Now that you have it on Radio One, why not extend it to Radio Two, Three, Four and ultimately Radio Five, with local broadcasting?" The pass would be sold if commercial advertisements were given to Radio One, and the B.B.C. would have no effective answer once the principle was breached.
  I remember the debates about the establishment of I.T.V. I am prepared to admit now that I was wrong. I was against the establishment of I.T.V. Today I am glad that I.T.V. was established, but that in no way invalidates the case

  1571
  that I am making. We were told distinctly that it was in order to have advertisements on I.T.V. because the B.B.C. was conducting public service broadcasting. That was a convincing argument to many, and Independent Television was accepted because public service broadcasting was provided by the B.B.C. Now the argument is being deployed that the B.B.C. is living in a mixed broadcasting economy. In view of that, the critics say, it ought to accept commercials on Radio One. The logic is clear and simple. I.T.V. is established and a mixed economy is created. In a mixed broadcasting economy, the public service principle is breached by introducing advertising to Radio One. Once commercials are established on Radio One, because of the financial problems attention moves to Radio Two and Radio Three, and then to B.B.C. 2 and eventually to B.B.C. 1. As a result, ultimately the whole of British broadcasting will be commercial, and the only difference between broadcasting in the United States and in Britain will be one of dialect. Minority programmes will either be dropped in mid-Atlantic or draped around midnight.
  I do not want to contribute to the illusion that the argument against commercial radio is based solely on a concern for minority programmes. One of the most powerful arguments against the introduction of commercials on B.B.C. programmes is that of concern for the majority. If Radio One is hived off, as my hon. Friend has suggested, and commercials are given to the new Radio One, the B.B.C. will be failing to provide the majority of listeners with a service. It will be confining its programmes to a minority. Because the B.B.C. has a responsibility to provide pop or any other kind of programme that the majority wants as much as it has serious programmes to the minority, this argument should carry a great deal of weight with the House.
  Once the argument is conceded that Radio One is to be hived off and given commercials, the B.B.C. will no longer serve the young, and young listeners will then demand vociferously that they should no longer pay the licence fee. If hon. Members doubt that that demand would be made, I would ask them to remember that in the early 'sixties when I.T.V. had
  1572
  big ratings and the B.B.C. had a minority audience on television, many people were demanding that they should not pay the B.B.C. licence fee because they did not watch the B.B.C. but watched only I.T.V. That same argument can be advanced by the young once Radio One is hived off and turns commercial.
  Apart from that consideration, the historic independence of the B.B.C. could be seriously jeopardised once commercial pressures were accepted. I do not believe that those pressures would dominate, but they would influence. I would regard that as a regrettable and dangerous situation. Far too few people in Britain appreciate what a magnificent concept public service broadcasting is and how greatly admired the B.B.C. is throughout the world. This House should cherish the independence of the B.B.C. Although we are all critical of it at some time or other, it would be a profound error of judgment to allow temporary financial difficulties to begin to erode that freedom.
  If the B.B.C. is subject to these financial pressures and one is against the idea of advertising, ultimately one must put forward suggestions for solving the problem. In my view, the licence fee is the only proper solution. However, that provides a new problem, quite apart from the one which I mentioned earlier about the reluctance of Governments to increase the licence fee.
  The problem is not only that the Government are unwilling to increase the licence fee but that the number of licences is no longer increasing. I suggest, therefore, that my right hon. Friend should hold annual or biennial reviews of the licence fee so that the cost of inflation can be taken into account automatically. If that is done, a major part of the problem will be solved. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reject the idea of a direct Government grant, because that can involve some kind of Government control, and I believe that most hon. Members would be against that. This proposal for the licence fee being realistically assessed and automatically increased annually or biennially with living costs ought to solve the financial problems with which the corporation is confronted. It is only by resisting the commercial pressures and providing adequate finance for the B.B.C. that we can ensure that it

  1573
  continues to provide an outstanding system of public service broadcasting.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: The House will have been struck by what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said, with his great experience, about consultations with staff in the B.B.C. and about the possibility of industrial trouble. But I felt that his logic went sadly awry when he said that, having been wrong about commercial television, he was now against the introduction of commercial radio. The hon. Gentleman said that this would mean the commercialisation of the B.B.C. But it would not mean that at all; it would merely mean that a competing service would be set up to compete with the B.B.C. just as the I.T.A. competes with the B.B.C. in television.
  The hon. Gentleman accused the B.B.C. of obfuscating the issue; but the obfuscator-in-chief has been the Postmaster-General. I was prepared to criticise the right hon. Gentleman for not making a statement before the debate. Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I should not criticise him for not having made a statement. It would have made no difference whether he made a statement before or after the debate. He told us nothing at all. He made a non-speech. The right hon. Gentleman was meant to be carrying out a review of local radio and was meant to tell us what the Government's decision was to be. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) pointed out, all that he said was that he was to have discussions. This is non-government. The right hon. Gentleman is refusing to make decisions which are incumbent upon him.
  Since the Postmaster-General told us nothing, it means that the debate must go back to the B.B.C.'s proposals for "Broadcasting in the Seventies".
  I want to consider what the B.B.C. says in its financial statement. The essence of its case is that the economies that it proposes should be separated from the expenditure proposed on local radio. It says that these two things are not connected because the economies were to be made anyway. But that is absolute nonsense. One cannot have great retrenchment and great extravagance in the same statement
  1574
  and claim that they are not connected. Obviously, they are connected. In this statement the B.B.C. seems to me to be behaving like a man going up to a very rich friend and saying, "I am in terrible financial trouble. I have no money. I am badly overspent. I have told my wife that she cannot buy any more clothes. I am cutting down on the children's food. I have sacked my secretaries whom I have been employing for years. I hope that you will be very much impressed by this financial economy. I should now like you to lend me £100,000 because I want to buy an aeroplane and build a swimming pool."
  Any friend approached in that way would point out to the approacher that he had his priorities absolutely wrong, that great economy and extravagance did not go together, that he should concentrate on what he was set up to do, and did very well, and not indulge in luxuries which did not suit him.
  It seems that the reason for what the B.B.C. is proposing is that it is anxious to hold on to its monopoly. We all know the right hon. Gentleman's attitude to monopolies. We heard him on the Post Office Bill talking about the Post Office monopoly with immense enthusiasm. No nun ever looked at a cardinal with greater admiration and wonder than the right hon. Gentleman looks at a monopoly. Indeed, it is not only the Post Office monopoly but also the B.B.C. monopoly which gives him so much pleasure. The B.B.C.'s attitude is exactly the same.
  What has not yet been sufficiently considered is what justification there is for a monopoly. That question can best be answered by examining the phrase "public service broadcasting" Everybody uses it a great deal. I thought that even my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) used it a trifle more loosely than he usually uses words. The phrase "public service broadcasting" is a great favourite with the B.B.C. It occurs seven times in the first one and a half pages of the document which we are considering. It is a great mystical expression for the B.B.C.
  To my mind, there are two legitimate and separate meanings of "public service broadcasting". The first is the Reithian concept that broadcasting should elevate and educate the public taste. This is what Lord Reith called a policy of

  1575
  "moral responsibility". While that policy can easily be criticised and ridiculed, it certainly lent reality to the idea of public service broadcasting. In its later manifestations it came to look on life as a sort of cultural obstacle course. The listener started off listening to the Light Programme and, by assiduous application, he graduated to the Home Service and so up to the Third Programme. That concept was held by the B.B.C. until quite recently. When Radio Manx applied for increased needle time, the B.B.C. opposed its application on the ground that this would lead to an unbalanced programme. The B.B.C. is no longer in favour of balanced programmes. It introduced Radio One—and there is no balance about that programme—and in this document it goes over to the concept of specialised programmes and abandons the idea of balance.
  The second meaning of "public service broadcasting" is simply a service financed by the public out of licences or taxes and not by advertising. In this sense the B.B.C. is plainly a public service, but equally in this sense the phrase is not an incantation; it is absolutely neutral. In this sense there is no reason why the public service should be a monopoly.
  For example, London Transport runs all the buses and underground trains in London, but it does not have a transport monopoly. Although it is a public service, it allows the public a choice. The public can go by taxi or by private car if they wish.
  Obviously, once the B.B.C. has thrown out Reith, it has thrown out the case for a monopoly. It has thrown out the baby with the bath water. Whether one agreed with the Reithian policy or not, its inevitable corollary was a monopoly. Once that policy goes, the inevitable corollary is choice. The B.B.C. is now saying that it is not trying to educate people but trying to give them what they want. If one is trying to give people what they want, why should only one body be allowed to give them what they want? The B.B.C. is saying that it will give the public what they want, but there is no reason why somebody else should not also give the public what they want. The phrase "public service broadcasting" in this sense does not seem to carry any implication that
  1576
  there should be a monopoly for the B.B.C.
  Indeed, the B.B.C. seems to have realised this because it has taken to adding a new word to "public service". That new magic word is "comprehensive". That word occurs three times in the first four sentences of Lord Hill's introduction. This is very much the new idea.
  With the abandonment of Reith, there is no more reason for the service to be comprehensive than for it to be a monopoly or for London Transport to have a monopoly of all transport in London. With the new concept, the B.B.C. should provide what it is uniquely fitted to provide; namely, a choice for those who do not like popular programmes financed by advertising. Therefore, I do not favour the B.B.C. taking advertising. One of the genuine choices that should be allowed is freedom from advertising on broadcasting for those people who do not want to have it.
  Unfortunately, instead of attempting to do what it is uniquely fitted to do and leaving out what it is not, the B.B.C. appears to be intent on doing the exact opposite. The sacking of orchestras, which has been commented upon by many hon. Members, seems to be excessive. I have received the memorandum from the Musicians Union which I gather has been sent to the right hon. Gentleman. It says:
  "The broadcasting organisation of France provides continuous employment in its own orchestras for 467 musicians. The organisation in the Federal Republic of Germany provides employment for (when the figures were last obtained) at least 1,200 musicians. The B.B.C., with a high international reputation, and a tradition of patronage, propose to adopt a plan that would guarantee employment for no more than 279 musicians."
  If these figures are correct the B.B.C. would seem to be abandoning its tradition of patronage in a wholly unjustified manner. I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said about patronage and the B.B.C.'s duties to protect and employ musicians.
  The logic of the B.B.C.'s financial stringency, the logic of the desire to have local radio of some sort or another, and the logic of the competition already taking place in television suggest that part of the solution to the problem of the future of radio is to set up commercial

  1577
  local radio. The justification for a monopoly has disappeared. On the grounds of economy and freedom and on the ground of choice that monopoly should be broken, and I look forward to a system that will provide a choice for the listeners and a choice for the performers and that will also provide minority and cultural programmes of a high order. That is the sort of system that we should aim for.
  7.33 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I am astonished that the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) should make a case for commercial radio apparently on grounds of choice. The comments made by some of my hon. Friends have clearly demonstrated that choice is precisely that commercial programmes do not provide, in all the experience of those countries who, unfortunately suffer under commercial systems. It is precisely the problem in the United States, where there are masses of precisely the same programmes on every channel at a certain time. My hon. Friends made that devastatingly clear. If we want choice, that is the main argument for a public service system.
  I start from the belief that the major threat to our society comes from the danger of domination of narrow commercial values. That is why this debate is so important. If we are to preserve choice in the way we are to live in the 'seventies we must preserve a wide area of our lives where commercial advertising is not in control. That is why it is desperately important that the field that has already been taken over by commercialism in one form or another should be halted at this point. That is why it is desperately important that such a vital element in our lives—in education, in social matters and in every other way —as the B.B.C. should be retained in its present form. We have all heard comments made by sociologists that many of our young people receive far more in the way of education from what they see and hear on television and radio than from their normal official schooling.
  The influence of these main channels is of immense importance. That is why I strongly believe that it would be wrong for the B.B.C. to open the door to advertising in any form. We have gone too far along that road already. Much of
  1578
  the social disease that we fear and suffer from today is traceable to this origin.
  Having said that, I agree that I face the same problem as that which other hon. Members have to face. That being so, if we are denying the B.B.C.—and if it is denying itself—this source of easy revenue we must face the other challenge: how do we ensure that the B.B.C. obtains the revenue that it requires. We must face the problem frankly. We are deluding ourselves into considering the public rejection of paying an increased licence fee a danger. We are making this a bigger bogy than it need be. I am very conscious that many people are not paying the existing licence fee. I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend did not say more about the problem of evasion, which is a grave one. It is something of a scandal that these enormous sums of money—some people have mentioned £7½ million and others as much as £10 million—should be lost to the B.B.C.
  Various ideas have been put forward to remedy the situation. It has been suggested that the Government should guarantee that sum, whatever it is, to give the Government and the Postmaster-General or his successor some incentive to claim that money back. I am far from satisfied that the Post Office is doing what it should be doing to get in that money. It is precious little interested in doing so. It has no immediate encouragement to do so. I fear that this is one of the matters in respect of which we could make a great advance. It is quite unacceptable that such a large number of people should batten on those who are paying the proper fee.
  Mr. R. F. H. Dobson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a large increase in the number of detector vans used by the Post Office? Is he also aware that the cost of recovery in this way represents a loss in terms of the total amount expended in trying to find those people who have evaded their licence fees.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I am prepared to believe that, and I am not satisfied that we have gone far enough in other ways to check this evasion. We might do so at the time of purchase of sets. There are also ways of overcoming the evasion of the payment of car radio licence fees.

  1579
  Simple methods are available, if the Post Office were prepared to use them, to bring in that revenue. I hope to hear something from the Minister about the steps that the Post Office intends to take in this matter.
  I agree that this would make a very big difference. Nevertheless, it is necessary to face the need for an increased licence fee. The proposal put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) might be a wise one, that is to say, the introduction of some form of annual or biennial collection of revenue that is fairly automatic, which would allow proper investigations being made. I agree with many hon. Members who suggest that there is some uncertainty about what the B.B.C. is really proposing. I agree that it would have been better if the B.B.C. had said, "We put before you our two proposals. First, what we want to give and what we believe we ought to give is a public service, maintaining as we think we ought to maintain the existing services. This is what it would mean financially, with proper economies where they can be achieved." They ought to put that before us and say, "This is what you will have to provide us with if you want us to do this job for you. If you deny us these funds, then alternatively this is what we shall be driven to do. These are the stark alternatives."
  It would have been better if that approach had been made. I agree with some of my hon. Friends who have suggested—the point was made by the Postmaster-General himself—that the B.B.C. appears to be adopting purely commercial criteria, whereas we are saying that the maintenance of the work of the B.B.C. ought not to be tested purely on commercial grounds. We want the B.B.C. to be as efficient as possible. We accept that it is carrying out a most important function for the country, involving certain expenses that would not be met by a commercial channel. Therefore, in that respect I support strongly the warnings made by my right hon. Friend, but the corollary of the warning is the clear declaration that we are willing to find the money. This is what we must make clear tonight.
  There are many proposals in the Report that we should welcome. Coming from the North-East as I do, I wel-
  1580
  come strongly the proposed changes with regard to the regions. I do not believe that the proposal to have eight regions in the future as against six is necessarily adequate. I accept that this is a part-time proposal and that it might be reviewed as time goes on and as finances become available. I know how bitterly we in the North-East have felt about the difficulty of control from Manchester of a whole northern region, including both the north-east and the north-west. I believe this has stifled a lot of initiative and fresh ideas in the development of both sound and television programmes. I welcome the possibility of that restriction being lifted as soon as possible, but, of course, this will mean money if it is going to be developed.
  Some anxiety has been expressed as to whether the new proposals would mean the end of some of the very effective new developments in drama and in other fields which have come about with the assistance of the B.B.C. I hope very much that that will no be so. The new set-up of regions should ensure not the closing down of initiative but rather the encouragement of new initiative in many other areas. Therefore, some of the criticism of these proposals is misplaced, but we want to ensure that if it is to be done, finance will be provided for it.
  The proposals relating to music programmes illustrate to some extent the uncertainty there must be in our minds. I accept that there is a limit to the level of patronage which the B.B.C. can provide. Even accepting the wide view about the B.B.C.'s public service duty, nevertheless it is right that from time to time there should be a review of what is being provided to ascertain whether it is of real value. I am not in a position to judge whether every one of the orchestras today would meet that kind of challenge. Therefore, one is fully entitled to carry out a review, but one has to justify any cut that is made. The Musicians' Union is quite right to direct attention to the guarantee that it thought it had from the B.B.C. about the maintenance of adequate employment of musicians. This again is a field where the B.B.C. will have to look again, bearing in mind that we should be prepared to face the financial commitments which are bound to be involved.
  I come back to the point at which I started. I hope very much that this

  1581
  House will make clear that we are firmly opposed to the concept of extending the influence of commercialism and commercial advertising through the B.B.C. I hope that we shall make clear that we accept a public rôle for the B.B.C. which goes far beyond the restricted rôle of meeting a market demand, and that because we accept that wider rôle for the B.B.C., we ourselves accept the need to provide the finance that is needed.
  7.47 p.m.
  Dr. M. P. Winstanley: I can say one thing at least which will not be contradicted. I shall be the only Liberal Member to speak in this debate. That means that I cannot do as other Members and concentrate on one particular aspect of the subject, leaving other colleagues to deal with the other aspects. I have to do my best to make a contribution on the whole, but within that important limitation I shall do my best to be brief. At the same time, I cannot regard the fact that a lot of hon. Members of other parties wish to speak as an acceptable reason for limiting the single contribution which will be made on the subject from this bench.
  It would not be strictly accurate if I were to say that I was disappointed in this Report, since I was not expecting to be very pleased by it. But I think that, seen in relation to other B.B.C. reports on a variety of topics, this is disappointing. I believe that the future verdict of the B.B.C. itself will be that it is a disappointing report which might have been better had it not been made at all.
  I accept that the B.B.C. has a right and a duty to give its views from time to time on any matters relating to broadcasting on which it wishes its views to be known, but I share the views expressed by the hon. Members for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) that the B.B.C. should have given us a more helpful document to discuss. In many ways the B.B.C. has been doing the wrong job. I do not accept that the broadcasting coat must now be cut from some arbitrarily fixed length of cloth. In other words, we should first decide what the nation needs in the way of radio and television broadcasting and then turn our attention to the complex question of how to finance
  1582
  it. The B.B.C. could have helped us by giving us a report more adapted to that particular end.
  I wish to deal mainly with the regional aspects of this Report, but before doing so I want to make some general comments on various points in the Report. As I have said, it was in a way a mistaken exercise. We understand that the intention of the Report is to effect economies.
  The economies which the Report recommends are almost all in programmes and there is very little about economies in the expensive field of engineering where there is scope for it. There is nothing about the conflict of interest with the Post Office over the renting of land lines as against the possible use of microwave links and, generally, nothing about economies in engineering. Also, there is nothing about major economies in the considerable public relations activities of the B.B.C., another important aspect, or about economies in administration and all the general questions which might come under the heading of "establishment"
  I know that it may be argued that by the unwinding and dismantling of the regional headquarters some minor economy in administration, and possibly even in engineering, might be effected, but anyone who examines these proposals carefully will realise that this is not a valid answer to that argument.
  It is astonishing that the B.B.C. should find it possible to put out a document which first recommends a cut in the number of musicians and orchestras, with redundancies of about 300, and then refers to the necessity for an extension of needle time. To put those two together suggests a lack of reality.
  Third, there is a proposal for substantial changes to v.h.f. yet no recognition that the supplies of v.h.f. equipment are limited. Indeed, people in the industry believe that there may be a shortfall of more than half a million next year in the supply of v.h.f. sets and equipment to meet existing demand. If the Third Programme is to go over to v.h.f., for instance, other things have to be done if the supply of sets is to be adequate.
  My fourth point is the general one which has already been made, that it is extraordinary that a document mainly concerned with economies should propose

  1583
  the spending of an additional £5·2 million on providing local radio.
  Are the cuts necessary? I underline the points made about the importance of getting in licence money. The point was made by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston), and has often been made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris), that if a method could be found of ensuring that the B.B.C. collected the licence revenue, many of its financial difficulties would be over. I also endorse the point made in a Question by the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) the other day, about the need for the payment by education authorities to the B.B.C. for certain educational programmes. One could look for better arrangements with the Post Office over certain payments, and there are other sources of income, such as the sale of programmes overseas. Substantial savings or additional revenue could be derived which might make any cuts unnecessary.
  We could occupy a whole debate with the question of advertising alone. We should all recognise that, by providing a continuous pop music channel, the B.B.C. is entering a field monopolised in other countries by commercial radio and is providing a programme identical to Radio Luxembourg, except that it does not have adverts. I do not wish to commit my party to ardent support of advertising as a source of income, but I do not turn my back on it or accept that if one wanted to introduce advertising on a continuous pop music channel one would somehow open the flood gates and would have to let it in on all the other channels. The continuous pop music channel is used to advertising and always has advertising in other countries. Advertising there would not be objectionable and would not lead to a spread of advertising to other programmes.
  I would be prepared to support advertising as a source of income to finance local radio, if the body responsible for the sale of advertising time were totally separate from that responsible for the preparation and presentation of programmes. In other words, if there were an independent corporation charged with selling advertising time, totally separate from the units which made programmes, this might be acceptable. I should be
  1584
  willing to discuss it sympathetically and possibly to support it if that were the only way of deriving the revenue needed.
  I endorse fully what many other hon. Members have said about orchestras and the need for patronage. This is not patronage in the sense of a charity. The B.B.C. is desperately dependent upon musicians. Without musicians and orchestras the B.B.C. would grind to a halt. It must recognise this with a better grace and much be ready to pay more fully for what it fully enjoys.
  Has it yet been established that we need local radio? Maybe we do, but, if we do, has it yet been established what sort of price we should pay for it, what we are prepared to do without in order to have it? I should like more thought given to this. I commend highly the work already done on small budgets, which has achieved a considerable amount in the experimental stations, but whether we can at the moment afford to embark on this wholesale extension of local radio, as a public service has not yet been established. We should not take any steps on the basis of its being established yet.
  The success of local radio hitherto has been purely because it is local. Because it has been serving a narrow catchment area, it has been able to secure a degree of audience involvement and participation which is not possible in other ways. Any tendency to extend the catchment areas of local radio—this is clearly what the Report envisages, since it appears to be pushing local radio almost as a substitute for regional broadcasting—would destroy local radio as it now is, yet provide nothing worthwhile in its place.
  I have been concerned about the readiness with which people would allow local radio to be financed by or dependent upon local authorities. It would be paid for by the rates and there would be local broadcasting councils occupied by eminent, reliable and good people, but people who are often members of local councils. We have taken great care to separate the control of national broadcasting from national Government. This is the reason for the B.B.C. Charter and the Television Act—to keep broadcasting separate from this place. If this is so important in a national context, it is equally important to keep local broadcasting separate from local government. The business of local radio is to criticise

  1585
  local government and not to act as its mouthpiece. I do not suggest that it does so now, or would do so immediately, but I warn hon. Members on both sides, even those interested in commercial local radio provided under the control of local councils, that they should look again at this.
  I am primarily concerned with regional broadcasting. Under the heading "The Regions", the Report says that the three nation regions serve homogeneous communities, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. It says that the English regions have no such homogeneity and gives evidence of this by demonstrating that the Northern Region must cover Liverpool and Newcastle and Manchester and Hull. Yet it is perfectly prepared to regard as homogeneous a Scottish region including Glasgow and the Orkneys. I cannot accept that as a logical argument.
  My conception of regional broadcasting is not a region talking to a region. If something is interesting from the broadcasting point of view, it is interesting wherever it happens. If it is not interesting, it does not become interesting merely because it is happening nearby. In local radio, yes—Mrs. Jones may be interested in what is happening to Mrs. Smith if Mrs. Smith lives half a mile away. But if it is happening further away, outside the community, broadcasting material depends on its innate interest, and not its local characteristics. In other words, the activities of Bolton are of no more interest to people in Bury than if they were happening in Bognor Regis.
  My idea of regional broadcasting is not parochial broadcasting, but an opportunity for a region to make its own individual regional contribution to the national whole. I would like to see the Northern and other regions looking at national and international events through regional eyes and doing programmes for the national network. I do not say that they will be any better. I do not say that a programme produced and initiated in Manchester is better than one similarly produced in London, but it is different, and its difference is of a kind that we should try to protect. The regions should be able to give a regional flavour to universal themes and make their regional contribution to the national whole. I do not think that the document
  1586
  provides for that, though it may provide more opportunities for parochial broadcasting.
  The hon. Member for South Shields talks about distributing the resources of a region better over a region. I would accept that. If he wants to say that we should redistribute and redispose the resources in the Northern Region over the Northern Region as a whole, I would accept it, provided there is an increase in the regional resources as a whole, and somewhere in the region there is a mother or father station capable of doing the major programmes, and feeding them through to the national network. A region should be able to put out major drama on television—this debate concerns television as well—major light entertainment, and major current affairs programmes—not all the time, but sometimes. If we divide the present limited resources of the region into small pieces dotted about over the region, we destroy its capacity to do that.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the hon. Gentleman accept the need to ensure that an area as big as the North East has an opportunity to develop its own talents?
  Dr. Winstanley: I entirely accept that, and I want to see it in the regions and parts of regions.
  Again, I quote Manchester, which has an interesting history, as has the whole North West, in terms of the drama, producing playwrights, actors and so on. Liverpool is now the home of light entertainment. It is important to establish the principle that people who feel that they can make a major contribution to broadcasting, whether in radio or television, should have an opportunity—I do not say a big one—to make it without having to move to London. There has grown up within B.B.C. staffs in the regions the feeling that the only badge of a successful B.B.C. career is a single ticket to London. There have remained loyally in the Northern Region talented people who could, given the opportunity, make major contributions. They have stuck it out because they expected an expansion of their opportunities and not what they now see, a probable contraction. It seems to me that in all these particulars the document points in the opposite direction to Redcliffe-Maud and I find this very regrettable.

  1587
  I would quote many authorities for this, but time prevents me. I could quote Sir William Mather, Chairman of the North West Region Economic Planning Council and his predecessor, Mr. Charles Carter. To those who say that the present plan provides these regional opportunities I would quote Mr. Kenneth Adam's article in the Evening News on 10th July, when he said:
  "Reading not even between the lines, but actually as they are printed for all to see, this document foreshadows the end of Regional Broadcasting as it has been known for a generation and more, … there is little or no provision for England outside London to make a national contribution.
  "The proposal to enable the new eight centres to work up a total of 400 new programmes a year is one for local consumption only.
  "As for the idea of having a 'senior executive' to nourish creative talent in Birmingham, Bristol and Manchester, one wonders what the controllers and programme heads of these centres think they have been doing all this time.
  "The creation of a 'senior controller' representing the regions and local stations to central management is a throwback to an experiment in the thirties which failed absymally."
  I quote that for the benefit of those who feel that the plan offers additional regional opportunities. I do not think that it does. Even Mr. Robert Stead, the North Region Controller, has expressed anxieties about the kind of opportunities he and his staff in the North might have, under these proposals, of making major contributions to the national whole.
  I am glad that the Postmaster-General has not swallowed the whole document and said that the Government accept it all. I do not criticise him, as others have done, for not saying, "We are going to do this or that." I am glad that he did not say, "We shall do this with local radio", because I believe that local radio is one part of the whole, and we should look at broadcasting policy as a whole.
  Some time ago I had the honour of opening a debate for the Liberal Party here on a so-called half Supply day in 1967, the first we had had for 20 or 30 years, when the present Secretary of State for Education and Science, then Postmaster-General, said:
  "There remains beyond all this the question of the longer-term organisation of broadcasting in Britain … I cannot see the present
  1588
  kind of organisation lasting for more than the decade which we have ahead of us …"
  He then explained why he had arranged that the I.T.A., B.B.C. and relay companies' licences would all terminate at the same time. He added that with the new arrangements for Post Office reorganization
  "… the … Minister will be able to devote a great deal more of his time to broadcasting, and I hope that, in the spring of 1969, a long, cool look will begin at the whole system of broadcasting in this country."
  He concluded:
  "I believe that a much more original solution than Pilkington will be required. I regard it as a supremely suitable topic for this House to rise above party politics and try to find a consensus."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th June, 1967; Vol. 749, c. 455–6]
  When the right hon. Gentleman makes that attempt to find a consensus, we shall be with him and shall assist him along those lines.
  8.7 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Jenkins: In speaking to this subject, I should remind the House that I am a part-time member of the staff of Actors' Equity, but what I am about to say will not necessarily command the support of that body.
  Nevertheless, I would like to begin by referring to a statement issued by the Federation of Broadcasting Unions, which includes Equity, the Musicians Union, the Association of Broadcasting Staffs—the B.B.C.'s own organization, the National Union of Journalists and the Writers Guild. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) quoted from that statement, but what he did not say was that those organisations all collectively reject the B.B.C.'s document "Broadcasting in the Seventies". It is important to make the point that the unions reject it outright.
  The unions' main reasons for this rejection are that the document involves a serious reduction in the provision of music programmes; involves the destruction of a number of B.B.C. orchestras and the B.B.C. Chorus; jeopardises the livelihood of the specialist staff associated with their output; and implies a reduction in the provision of drama, light entertainment and feature programmes.
  I was therefore very pleased by the somewhat astringent attitude my right hon. Friend brought to it in opening the

  1589
  debate. Here I share the view of the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley), and I found myself in agreement with one or two of his other points. He asked for some indulgence because he was speaking for the Liberal Party, and as I am taking up some of my time in giving the views of organisations representing all those who work for the B.B.C. I hope that the House will be good enough to grant me a similar indulgence, beyond the three or four minutes that I normally think should limit my contributions to debate.
  The rejection which the unions bring to the document is one which I support. I think that the B.B.C.'s proposals constitute an attempt to spread the butter of entertainment and the arts even more thinly over a larger number of slices of broadcasting bread. That is the substance of the objection. The B.B.C.'s attitude comes out in the attempt to extend even further its monopoly control of sound radio. I think that, despite what is says, the B.B.C. is really concerned to maintain its rule over the sound waves and that it is prepared to accept the consequence that the quality of the products that those waves carry will be reduced as a result of that determination.
  The B.B.C. has consistently refused any consultation, in the sense of participation in decision-making, with the unions whose members provide the material which it broadcasts and the means by which it is transmitted. If, as a result of an unwise attempt to implement these proposals without effective consultation, the public should be deprived for any period of broadcasting by television or sound radio, it is as well to say now that the responsibility for that would lie firmly on the shoulders of the B.B.C. because there are in these proposals the seeds of the first really major dispute, uniting all those who work for the B.B.C. against the corporation. It is as well to say at this time that the seeds are there, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend brought an approach to this problem which I think will not precipitate the sort of thing that all of us would deeply regret if it were to occur.
  Mr. H. P. G. Channon: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether any negotiations have taken place since the publication of this
  1590
  document between the unions and the B.B.C. and, if so, the state of play?
  Mr. Jenkins: I shall be saying something of what has been said. There has been discussion since publication of this document. I say "discussion" rather than "negotiation" because I have myself some knowledge of what goes on in talking with the B.B.C. They are really more discussions than negotiations. One is told things rather than invited to express views.
  As the Federation of Broadcasting Unions has said, it is not for the B.B.C. to say what the nature of broadcasting in the 1970s should be. As has been said on the benches opposite, it is for Parliament to decide, and also for Parliament to decide what shall be the rôle of the B.B.C. in the providing of these services.
  If the B.B.C. suggests that saturation point has been reached in the number of licences which can be sold, then some other means of providing it with increasing revenue must be found if the corporation is not to face an annual decline in real income. In other words, a new situation seems to have arisen—and the B.B.C.'s response is to ignore it, to propose to expand the physical quantity of broadcasting at the cost of depreciating the product. "Never mind the quality", it says, "Feel the width".
  The B.B.C. did not say in its public statement what it told the unions—and here I come to the point the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) inquired about—that it proposed to cut expenditure on sound radio by between 11 and 14 per cent. This means not only the music cuts which have been announced but also cuts in drama, light entertainment and features. The B.B.C.'s eight local radio stations have not employed between them a solitary professional performer even at minimum rates, and the B.B.C. has made it clear to the unions that, if it gets its project of 40 stations, they will still not employ one man or woman between them as professional performers or writers in any sector at the normal minimum rates negotiated by the unions concerned. The B.B.C. has admitted this to the unions. Therefore, where is this implementation of the White Paper on Broadcasting, what the White Paper called, in discussing the development of local radio, the "wide basis" on

  1591
  which to raise the musical culture of the country?
  Where in these proposals is that wide basis? Where is the balanced output of top class drama? Where are the features and the light entertainment programmes which the White Paper said would be the consequence of this spread of sound radio? These things are nowhere in the B.B.C. document. All there is in it is a spreading out over a larger area. These proposals do not fulfil the White Paper. They throw it out of the window.
  Should there then perhaps be a fresh look at the broadcasting scene or perhaps the whole communications scene? It is no use having Royal Commissions if their recommendations are ignored. It was a doctrinaire Conservative Government and perhaps a not very virile Opposition which allowed the programme companies to get their hands on the advertising revenue and to keep their hands on it instead of it being given to the I.T.A. itself, which was the original intention and which was recommended by the Pilkington Report.
  It will be our fault and not the B.B.C.'s if this instrument of communication is allowed to take the foolish course which the corporation proposes for itself in its document. The B.B.C. is not only a means of communication but has been a great force for good in its own right. It is a patron, an educator, an enhancer of appreciation—which is what civilisation is about and not the moon—on a scale previously unknown to mankind. Inspite of her faults, there is something noble about "Auntie" B.B.C., and beside her the commercial radio lobby looks a rather paltry group. That group seems to think that the function of this tremendous medium is to stuff people with pap so that they will never want anything better.
  The Labour Party is concerned about communications. In its policy statement adopted at the last annual conference it said that three problems arise from the multiplication of the communications media. Two of them I will mention in passing—the superficiality of treatment and the question of the indoctrination of children. The policy statement said:
  " … the cost of modern media services is so high that advertising revenue presents itself as central to the needs of otherwise non-commercial communications."
  1592
  The Labour Party regards, in other words, the question of advertising revenue as an essential part of the whole communications problem. I think that it is well to do that. It recommended that the communications scene should be looked at as a whole, and I agree.
  This the B.B.C. is unable to do, but we are able to do it, and if we fail to do it we shall betray our functions and, what is more, come to the wrong conclusions. If we take a glance at the communications wood and avoid becoming bemused by the great B.B.C. tree, we shall be astonished by its strangeness. The newspapers are privately owned, radio is publicly owned and television is a mixed economy. Each of them is equally convinced that any change in the form of its financing would be injurious to its freedom and to the welfare of society as a whole. This is possibly attributable to the conservatism of the human race but it does not make much sense. The nature of the transmission is what counts, and it is affected by the nature of the control of the ownership and not by the source of revenue.
  The point is that it is necessary to set up a form of apartheid between advertisers and communicators so that the first may be prevented from influencing the second. If we make this separation and kept advertising in its proper place, it could be used for the public benefit. For example, this is done with most newspapers and certainly with the weeklies. Nobody suggests that the opinions of the weeklies or even of the major Sundays, or the major daily newspapers, are conditioned, governed or controlled by advertising, although, of course, there are certain exceptions. Generally the advertising is kept on one side and is used instead of being allowed to become the master.
  If we allowed advertisers to control the medium, as in American television and radio, they could destroy it. Water can either irrigate parched land or flood it to destruction—it depends on whether it is controlled. Exactly the same is the case with advertisers and their influence.
  What is wrong with the Conservative Party proposals is that they propose to hand over the medium of radio to the advertisers. That would be disastrous. We have seen what the advertisers can do when they are out of control in pirate

  1593
  radio and in America. We can see on our own screens that they can spoil a medium even when under partial control, as is the case with the I.T.A.
  The proposals which I have placed before the Prime Minister and the Postmaster-General and which were outlined in the Sunday Times ten days ago are designed to use the revenue from advertising for the public benefit and simultaneously to reduce the influence of advertising over the media.
  First, the Independent Television Authority would be reorganised. It would receive the advertising revenue which now goes to the programme contractors. It would hire the programme contractors, as was recommended by the Pilkington Committee, and as was the original and proper intention. It would be responsible for Radio One and perhaps for Radio Two and it would be a parent station for local radio. All these channels would take advertising, but only between programmes. The so-called "natural break" would come to an end.
  After deduction of its programme costs, the I.T.A. would hand over the balance of the advertising revenue to the Postmaster-General. It would not go to the Treasury as at present. This sum, now over £20 million a year and growing still, the Postmaster-General would redistribute to the B.B.C. and the local radio stations according to their needs. This huge sum would provide the money solely needed in the communications media, and it would be the means of preventing the B.B.C. from going the way the B.B.C. suggests in its document that it must go.
  Mr. Bryan: I appreciate that much thought has gone into the hon. Gentleman's plan. However, the great snag about it, as with so many other plans by hon. Members opposite, is money. The sum is not £20 million but £29 million. This year that sum will be paid as a levy. It is not likely that a Chancellor of the Exchequer of my party or of the hon. Gentleman's party would give up that sum. Such a chance is not a basis on which to base a programme.
  Mr. Jenkins: This is the most difficult part of my proposals—getting the money out of the Treasury. But let us consider the Treasury's justification for receiving this money. It is that a franchise has been given to private enterprise which is so
  1594
  profitable that large sums of money are going into the pockets of individuals and that even a Conservative Government found it necessary to impose a levy, because of the consequences of the franchise which had been given to individuals and which some of them described as being like to a licence to print money. But once the money is going not into the pockets of private companies and individuals but to a public authority the Treasury loses its justification for the levy. The authority would have to pay taxation as much as anybody else and the Treasury's argument for hanging on to the levy would be much weakened.
  Under my proposal, the B.B.C. would take no advertising but would subsist on licence revenue, which I personally would not hesitate to increase if necessary, but which would not need to be increased under these proposals, because the B.B.C. could acquire ample revenue for its two television channels and for Radio Three and Radio Four, even in their present form and in their more flourishing form as they would be with my proposals for a redistribution.
  The Treasury would not lightly give up the money and it would have to be a Cabinet decision, but a wise Cabinet would do well to come to the conclusion which I have suggested. The essential consideration is that the medium shall be publicly and not commercially owned. The distinction which I wish to draw is that my proposal is for public service radio financed by advertising revenue.
  8.27 p.m.
  Mr. Ray Mawby: I hope that the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) will forgive me if I do not comment on his speech, have already decided to dispense with many of the comments I intended to make so that I may keep my remarks as short as possible in the interests of other hon. Members who wish to speak.
  What concerns me about the plan is its constant reference to v.h.f. Hon. Members will probably have raised their eyebrows on seeing my name accompanying that of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Whitaker) as signatories to a Motion urging the B.B.C. not to transfer its music programme on Radio Three to very high frequency.
  In its document, the B.B.C. says that there are still people without television,

  1595
  or with a personal preference for radio, but that most people now regard radio as being mainly for the daytime. There are a few people, such as those who drive in the evening, who cannot watch television, but what is important is that most radios are still capable of receiving medium and long wave length signals and there is no reason why, with the technical advances since the Copenhagen Convention, most programmes now going out on medium or long wavelengths should not continue to do so. There seem to be other considerations preventing this from happening.
  The G.P.O. issued a Press statement for release on 25th June last in which it referred to the European Broadcasting Convention of 1948. That laid down programme wavelengths agreed between member nations and said that if a country wished to make a change it could apply under Article 8 of the Convention for a change to be made. The G.P.O.s statement pointed out that
  "… the United Kingdom has never invoked Article 8 for the U.K. domestic broadcasting services"
  Although that was a firm statement, I had received a letter dated 1st March, 1968, from the G.P.O.—it was addressed to the Inter-telecommunications Union—the last sentence of which said:
  "I have to request that you will apply Article 8 of the above mentioned Convention and inform all other administrations of these proposals"
  I naturally thought that the G.P.O. Press statement had contained a misprint. Accordingly, I tabled a Question to the Postmaster-General asking him on 3rd July last
  "… whether the United Kingdom has at any time made use of the procedures prescribed in Article 8 of the Copenhagen European Broadcasting Convention for the establishment of medium frequency broadcasting services"
  The Answer I received was:
  "Yes, in respect only of frequencies allocated in the plan for the use of the United Kingdom." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1969; Vol. 786, c. 118–9.]
  The mystery deepens because notification was given to I.T.U. when Radio Nicosia was brought into operation; and the name of the operator of that station is registered as the United Kingdom Government. This station was, and still is, using the same frequency as that used by Radio Luxembourg.
  1596
  Far from our never having applied under Article 8, we have applied on a number of occasions, not only for domestic programmes but also for overseas programmes. One need only study the various applications that we have made to see that a lot of nonsense has been talked about the sanctity of the Copenhagen Convention. For example, one application was made for Malta and another for Halfaya. They share wavelengths with stations in other parts of the world. Right now on 202 metres there are at least 108 sharing stations.
  The latest technical advances, with sophisticated aerial systems enable broadcasting services to share wavelengths without any possibility of them interfering with one another. As I have explained, this is happening now. Nicosia is not interfering with Luxembourg and Malta and Halfaya are not interfering with some of the high-powered stations in Spain and points even nearer.
  If we clear our minds of the suggestion that we should not apply under Article 8 for changes to be made in the wavelength and if we really consider the technical question of the possibility of sharing, we can reach the right decisions. I am assured by the technical experts that, with modern sophisticated aerial systems, it is even possible for local radio to be operated—by of course either the B.B.C. or commercial companies—on the medium wavelength without interfering with other stations. It is, therefore, important that the B.B.C. and the G.P.O. should seriously consider this point because it could solve a number of problems.
  It is said that local broadcasting goes out on v.h.f. and is a success. How much more of a success would it be on the medium wavelength, remembering that elderly people may have no intention of changing their sets or cannot afford to do so? How many listeners would suddenly be added to these services if they were transmitted on the medium wavelength?
  It is also said that music programmes have a higher fidelity on v.h.f., and nobody questions this. However, if these programmes could also be received on the medium or long wave bands the listenership would be vastly increased. This would provide an alternative in that people could receive local broadcasting, particularly with Radio Three on v.h.f.

  1597
  If local broadcasting can be received only on v.h.f., a large number of people will be unable to enjoy it.
  Mr. Dobson: Is there not plenty of technical evidence to the effect that it is not possible to restrict local radio to medium waves and that it is very difficult internationally to control medium waves, despite all the modern advances in aerial and other propagation systems?
  Mr. Mawby: If that is so, I wonder why the Post Office adopts its present attitude. Rather than argue out the technical difficulties, it tends to say, as in the Press handout, that there is the difficulty of the Copenhagen Convention and then goes on to say that the United Kingdom has never applied under Article 8, whereas I have sought to prove that it has done so on a number of occasions. This should be confined to a technical discussion. Whenever someone says, "I have a sophisticated aerial structure which will be able to form a pattern of broadcasting which I can guarantee will not interfere with someone operating another station on the same wavelength", opportunity should be given to try it out so that we do not deliberately turn down new ideas which could be of great assistance to a number of people who either have no intention of buying v.h.f. sets or, even if they did, could not afford them.
  8.37 p.m.
  Mr. William Hannan: We all have great sympathy with any body like the B.B.C. in dealing with problems such as those outlined in its publication. But I am disappointed that the various facets and alternatives to remedy the situation in which it touches and then seems to run away from are not put more starkly and clearly. There seems to be a lack of candour and clarity, and it is very much a matter of inference and implication. Only two issues seem to be emphasised, and they are made to appear to be the only issues worth troubling about. One is that there is an economic crisis for radio, and the other is that the regional orchestras are at risk. It is with the threatened abandonment of the Scottish Symphony Orchestra that I wish particularly to deal. However, before doing so, I owe it to the House, like other hon. Members, to state a view as to how the B.B.C. might try to find the necessary money either within
  1598
  its present allocation and resources or by increasing its income.
  There seem to be three assumptions in the publication which we are asked to accept and which are implicit. One is that local radio systems should continue to be developed. The second is that pop music should continue to be provided for 21 out of 24 hours as a public service. The third is that we should continue to pay what is generally accepted to be the lowest radio fee in the world for what is undoubtedly the best service. I do not accept one of those three assumptions.
  I am sorry to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) about whether local radio has all the advantages claimed for it. However, if it is suggested that local radio stations should be developed at the expense of the orchestras and their musicians, I do not accept it. The B.B.C.s answer to the pirate stations was to provide Radio One, which stopped the pirates, but ruined the B.B.C.'s finances. It was at that point that the B.B.C. should have dug itself in and asked who was to pay for it. I leave that argument to pass on to the next point.
  Much more to the point of this debate—and here I agree heartily with the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes)—is whether Radio One is to be allowed to ruin other well-established standards, too. Socially, it seems inappropriate to me that a public corporation operating under Royal Charter should be trafficking in the modern opium of the people called pop. I should like to qualify that by saying that I am not against a reasonable provision of it, but 21 out of 24 hours is just too much.
  What really is at stake is nothing else than the whole purpose and future of the B.B.C. I agree with Patrick Huther, who wrote in the Sunday Telegraph of 13th July, when he referred to Radio One. This point is stressed by the Musicians Union, of which at one time I had the honour of being a member. He said of Radio One that
  "Its main hearers are teenagers who (a) are in general affluent and (b) pay nothing for the privilege of listening since their transistor sets do not require separate licensing if their parents hold a licence. Simple economic judgment might suggest charging them something."
  There, too, is a source of cutting back and getting revenue.

  1599
  The third point, however, is that which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) when he drew attention—this is a point for my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General—to the need for firm action to deal with the thieves and cheats who are indulging in licence evasion to the extent of £10 million a year. This is done by the same type of irresponsible citizen who hides behind his newspaper on the top of a bus in an effort to avoid paying his fare. My right hon. Friend must deal with this abuse urgently and effectively on behalf of the vast majority of citizens who are responsible and are called upon to carry the can either by the loss of valuable orchestras such as we are threatened with or by increased licence fees.
  The B.B.C. admits that disbanding the Scottish Symphony Orchestra would be disastrous and it implies that some other body should take the responsibility. Why is it not frank about it? If the B.B.C. means to abandon its patronage of the arts, let it say so. That would mean an amendment of its Charter. If, on the other hand, as I suspect, the corporation is saying that it needs an extra subvention to continue its patronage, this is a matter for the House. Together with my hon. Friends, I would be prepared to say that if the radio fee has to be increased to do this, the people get such value for the fee which they pay that this is a reasonable suggestion.
  The B.B.C. Controller in Scotland has already said that the dropping of the orchestra would be disastrous. He said:
  "It is high time anyway that the people of Scotland and the Arts Council carried a greater burden than they do at present."
  What he did not say, however—and this is important—was whether, in that event, the B.B.C. would continue to engage the orchestra on a similar number of occasions as hitherto.
  That impression was strengthened in my assessment of the talks which took place last week at Broadcasting House between Lord Hill and Scottish Members, from both sides of the House, when the term "only minimum use" was used. Nor does the B.B.C., apparently, desire to suggest an increase in the licence fee. It avoids that odium, presumably, because it wants the Government to do it. It
  1600
  was much more encouraging to hear my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, in opening the debate, say what he did about the orchestras, and we are very much encouraged by that.
  The B.B.C. is getting into an imbalance. If the B.B.C. intends, as it says, not only to maintain but to develop these responsibilities, it is proceeding in a peculiar way by proposing to disband an orchestra of the quality of the Scottish Symphony Orchestra. The B.B.C. refuses to follow the logic of its case, and if further evidence of its logic is needed, hon. Members have already been referred to the terms of the White Paper.
  I hope that I can convey to my right hon. Friend, to Ministers and to the Governors of the B.B.C. adequately and in measured terms the strong feelings of resentment and opposition to the proposal about the Scottish Symphony Orchestra. The services which this orchestra gives to the community, not only in the provision of music but as by-products of its presence in Scotland, have not been adequately stated.
  There is dismay and apprehension for the future of musical education, the appreciation of music and the quality of listening in Scotland should this grievous prospect become a reality. It comes at a time when there is an increasing demand for orchestral music, and increasing interest among our young people and virtually a renaissance in Scotland, much of which, ironically enough, is due to the public patronage of music in the past by the B.B.C. The B.B.C. has been badly and sadly advised on this matter and must be urged to reconsider it.
  The Chairman of the Scottish Arts Council has protested to the B.B.C. The Council does not accept the grounds and principles on which this proposal is based, and regrets that the B.B.C. did not seek the views of any representative body in Scotland, other than the Corporation's own Broadcasting Council for Scotland, before taking the decision.
  One of the strongest criticisms is that Mr. John Noble, the Chairman of the Music Committee of the B.B.C.'s Scottish Broadcasting Council was not even consulted. Mr. John Noble is known to many hon. Members, and particularly to the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Michael Noble). Mr. Noble has been

  1601
  one of the letter-writers to Press editors who has complained bitterly at the prospective loss of the orchestra. On Friday of last week in the Glasgow Herald Mr. Noble wrote this:
  "So far as I can discover, no one in Scotland with real knowledge of the state of affairs was consulted, either in the preliminary or in the concluding stages of the enquiry, about the effect on our musical life."
  The Press in Scotland has unanimously condemned this proposal, so-called responsible and popular papers alike. One of the more forthright letters appeared in a so-called popular paper, and, if I shock the House by quoting, the House will appreciate that the letter was printed. This letter to the Evening Times of 6th July contains this passage:
  "It goes without saying that … the B.B.C. will go on handing out fantastic fees to the never-ending string of long haired gyrating gits who pass themselves off as guitarists. Few of them would know the treble clef from the bass, but they earn as much in a night as would maintain a decent sized orchestra of legitimate musicians for a week."
  This may not be elegant language, but, by God, it is accurate and true.
  The Trades Council of Glasgow and other working class organisations are expressing themselves strongly. The protests are coming not only from certain select sections of the community. The elevation of the mediocre and the encouragement of pop programmes are doing great damage. The impression is abroad that the B.B.C. is more concerned with counting heads than with the pursuit of ideals and that it has abandoned the previous rôle and purpose of its predecessors.
  Some 500 young people from school orchestras meet together every year at Toward Castle and members of the S.S.O. become their instructors and conductors. Members of the orchestra teach in the Royal Academy of Music, and the conductor of the orchestra has undertaken the onerous job of agreeing to conduct the Royal Academy Orchestra in Glasgow. These are some of the facts.
  The third aspect is that the Scottish National Orchestra will itself suffer if S.S.O. goes since both are complementary. If left on the scene on its own, the Scottish National Orchestra will not be able to carry out its job as well as it undertakes it at the moment. Employment opportunities for young graduates of the academy will go and they will be forced
  1602
  to come south to England instead of remaining in Scotland. The orchestra has rendered wonderful service in accompanying choral and amateur operatic societies who are placed in a critical situation owing to a shortage of professional accompaniment and advice.
  Scottish opera, which is such a recent and valuable acquisition to the musical life of Scotland, and to which so many worthy people have devoted time, money and energy will be dealt a body blow if the orchestra is lost. Visiting ballet companies at the Edinburgh Festival and the Theatre Ballet Company, which has also recently come to Scotland, will suffer greatly. The Scottish Symphony Orchestra, almost alone, plays new works by Scottish composers, of whom there are now 12 in Scotland, whereas 30 years ago there were only two or three.
  The policies of successive controllers, supported in the last 15 years by the National Broadcasting Council for Scotland, have been to give two-year engagements to young assistant conductors rather than to have a visiting conductor each week, I apologise to the House for speaking so strongly, but the B.B.C. Governors must be under no misapprehension. If the orchestra goes it will be a disaster for the future educational prospects of young people in Scotland.
  8.55 p.m.
  Mr. George Younger: I will not repeat anything that has been said by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan); in that way I hope that I shall manage to keep down the length of time for which I will detain the House. However, I should like to say that I entirely agree with everything the hon. Gentleman said. He put the case extremely well. The proposal of the B.B.C. to remove the Scottish Symphony Orchestra is a matter which has disturbed everybody.
  I was extremely pleased to hear what was said by the Postmaster-General when he opened the debate this afternoon. It seemed to me that he struck the right note and made clear the view he expressed, which I think will be supported by hon. Members on all sides of the House, that the B.B.C. must think again about this proposal. I refer particularly to the proposal as it affects Scotland.
  The sum and substance of the case is that we cannot maintain the present most

  1603
  encouraging and successful musical life which we are at the moment building up in Scotland on the basis of only one major, professional, full-time orchestra—since that is what would be left if the B.B.C. Scottish Symphony Orchestra were to be abolished as planned. We could not maintain Scottish opera and ballet and the series of weekly public concerts in the main cities. The National Orchestra could not undertake to carry on the job of the Scottish Symphony Orchestra and could not get as far afield.
  The effect on the teaching of music in Scotland is desperately serious. I happen to be a Governor of the Royal Scottish Academy of Music. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill mentioned that the Academy Orchestra is exceptionally good, and its efforts will be greatly depreciated if Mr. James Loughran, the conductor of the B.B.C. Scottish Symphony Orchestra, is removed from the scene. Another aspect worthy of mention is that of the members of the Orchestra no fewer than nine are teachers of instruments in the Royal Scottish Academy of Music.
  I ask any hon. Member who cares to think about it to imagine what he would do if he were the principal of an academy of music teaching music students the widest possible musical experience if, suddenly, within the next year, he had no fewer than nine of his instrumental teachers removed from his classes. Who is to find fresh teachers for such unusual instruments as the contrabassoon, the cor anglais or the harp, all of which are essential for the full functioning of a modern academy of music?
  It is sometimes forgotten that the removal of this orchestra will reduce by about one-third the number of full-time professional musicians engaged in orchestral work in Scotland. I hope that the most encouraging attitude taken up by the Postmaster-General will be passed on to the very top of the B.B.C., so that it is made to realise that, if it goes ahead with its intention to disband the orchestra, its action will be a clear abandonment of what we have all come to expect in the way of a pratronage rôle for the B.B.C.
  We are the people who must give the B.B.C. its brief. This House must decide what it wants the B.B.C. to do. Do we want the British Broadcasting Corpora-
  1604
  tion, which we have known for so long, to abandon this orchestra simply because it is not needed for broadcasting? That is what we have been told time and time again. We can produce all the arguments that we like about damage to the musical life of Scotland, but continually we come back to the fact that the orchestra is not needed for broadcasting.
  Where does that argument lead us? If it is not necessary to have live orchestras for broadcasting, is it necessary to have live actors and actresses? Could not the B.B.C. fill the hours of broadcasting by replaying 20-year-old recordings of, say, "Man and Superman"? Could it not replay talks by distinguished people of the past in order to fill broadcasting time? This argument leads us down a slippery slope. The B.B.C. cannot abandon its rôle as a producer of live entertainment. It cannot take to the needle and the tape recorder and fill its hours of broadcasting at a cheap cost with recorded music, drama and talks by looking back through its archives for its material.
  We must insist that the advantage of having a public service broadcasting system is that it is encouraged and has the means to produce live music and entertainment. If it is to abandon that rôle, the whole concept of public service broadcasting will come into question.
  I would greatly regret that. It distresses me to be in disagreement with the B.B.C. because, ever since I was a boy, I have had the greatest admiration for it. The whole concept of the right to charge licence fees throughout the country and to give, in return, a truly public service broadcasting system is most valuable and successful, and we should be proud of it.
  We are now told that there are too many orchestras to produce the music that is needed and that, instead, the B.B.C. will have more needle time. It is argued how good this will be for audiences who will be able to hear the Vienna Philharmonic Orchestra and the Boston Symphony Orchestra on records. We are asked to believe that this is better than hearing our own musicians playing in their own way and making their own contribution to music as they go along.
  Mr. Dudley Smith: The public will hear these records only if they have v.h.f.
  Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
  I now turn to the use of records for everything. If we are to have the argument produced that it is better to have a wider choice from records from all over the world rather than our own orchestras, the B.B.C. is abandoning its production of live entertainment and setting itself up as a sort of musical public library. I contend that if we want to hear records of famous overseas orchestras and other records which are on sale, we can buy a radiogram or a record player, buy the records, and play them for ourselves. What we cannot do particularly if we live in remote areas, is hear our own musicians and orchestras and get pleasure from feeling that this is our contribution to musical life.
  I should like to raise one point concerning the performance of B.B.C. Scotland. I know that the Controller has expressed himself as disturbed by the loss that he faces of his orchestra. Is it our wish that B.B.C. Scotland's contribution to broadcasting and art generally should be confined to the production of Scottish dance music, Scottish Highland music, Scottish songs and general Scottish light music? Excellent though that is, and much though I should deplore any reduction of it, is that all we wish B.B.C. Scotland to do? I believe that we require more of it than that.
  If Scotland, Wales or any other nation is to have its place in the artistic and musical world, it must be able to give a full spectrum of contribution in art. It is not enough for a nation to produce its art in its own way and to send it to others. Although that is a very important function, it is also essential that Scotland should make its contribution to international art to show the world, through its broadcasting services, that it can produce a first rate orchestra to produce music of international standard as well as providing music of a very high standard in this country.
  The justification for the B.B.C.'s Charter and its existence as a public broadcasting system depends upon its willingness to contribute live music and live art entertainment and to use its public service position to those ends. That is why I should deplore any suggestion that the B.B.C. be allowed to go ahead with the
  1606
  disbanding of the B.B.C. Scottish Orchestra.
  What is to be done about this orchestra? I understand that no final decision has yet been taken. The B.B.C. made this clear last week. I welcome that very much. I hope that that decision will never be taken. But it is essential that we know before too long whether this orchestra is to survive. If uncertainty is allowed to drift on for weeks, months, or even more, obviously the members of this orchestra will feel that they have to think about their future and we will begin to lose the best players. The Minister has spoken in a most encouraging way today, but I beg the Government to tell the B.B.C. that it must make up its mind fairly quickly about the future of this orchestra or it will begin to disintegrate.
  Should the worst happen, that the B.B.C. decides that this orchestra must go—I hate the thought of that and would never agree to it—it is absolutely unacceptable that it should be done at once. If the decision is that it has to go, we must be given at least two years of grace in which to find some substitute for all the work and the activities which this orchestra provides at present. Therefore, the least that we should be allowed to contemplate is a two-year reprieve as a warning that we must replace it somehow.
  Those are the two things which I hope the Minister will now try to do, but because of all the arguments which have been advanced, I feel that we must now come to the conclusion that the B.B.C. should not be allowed to do this at all.
  Finally, will the B.B.C. consider the timing of what it has suggested? This is the worst moment of all moments to remove one of the orchestras from Scotland. Over the past five years, musical life in Scotland has really begun to get under way in one of the most encouraging trends that I have seen. Suddenly our great orchestras, the National Orchestra, and the B.B.C. Orchestra., have blossomed forth. Their standards have gone up out of all recognition from what they were 10 to 15 years ago. We have the nucleus of a first-class international opera company in Scottish opera. People are beginning to believe that we can produce the best in music in Scotland, and beginning to see it when they go to concerts and Scottish opera. I hope that the B.B.C

  1607
  will not spoil this just when it is getting off the ground by withdrawing the B.B.C. Scottish Symphony Orchestra.
  9.6 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has just returned to the Chamber. He made a most felicitous and courageous speech. Indeed he made it possible for some of us to speak much more briefly than we might otherwise have done. He deployed arguments which many of us on this side of the House would strongly endorse, but I think they came better from the right hon. Gentleman than they might have done from some of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
  It will be unfortunate for the continuing discussion of this document on the future of broadcasting if the division of opinion is along party lines. There are others opposite, all of them honourable men, who share the views of the right hon. Member for Ashford, and I had hoped that there would be time for them to express themselves in this debate. I should have liked particularly to hear the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maude). I honour him very much for the intellectual quality of his approach to this subject, and I know that he reflects a substantial measure of conservative opinion in this country.
  I turn now to the speech with which the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) opened the debate. I agree with him that this debate is of great public interest and importance. At times the hon. Gentleman was slighting of the B.B.C.'s achievements, and at others he was obscurantist. In his references to the experiment in local broadcasting he was at once slighting and obscurantist. The hon. Gentleman referred to the word "viable". These stations, as hon. Gentlemen speaking officially for the Opposition ought in justice to recognise, have been exciting, stimulating, and remarkably successful. Moreover, what has been achieved in the local broadcasting experiment is in keeping with the highest traditions of public service broadcasting in this country.
  Mr. Bryan rose—
  Mr. Morris: I have given an undertaking that I shall not speak at great
  1608
  length. The hon. Gentleman did not give way to me, and I hope that in view of my lack of time he will understand if I do not give way to him.
  The hon. Gentleman recognised the intimidating financial problems of the B.B.C. But his mind appeared to be fixed on only one solution; that is, the admission of advertising revenue, especially in local broadcasting.
  As my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General indicated, there are many other ways of dealing with the financial problems of the B.B.C. I believe that the suggestions of the hon. Member for Howden would carry little support, given any genuine measurement of Parliamentary opinion. He cleverly gave the impression that only the B.B.C. was against the idea of advertising in local broadcasting. I remind the House of the effect on our local Press of allowing advertising in local broadcasting. Regrettably, little mention has been made in the debate of the effect upon our local newspapers of siphoning off advertising revenue to local broadcasting stations.
  Mr. Stonehouse: My hon. Friend forgets, inadvertently, that I referred to that point.
  Mr. Morris: My right hon. Friend made a fleeting reference to the local Press, but if there had been more time I am sure that he would have dwelt on the very experienced viewpoint of the Newspaper Society and the National Union of Journalists. He may perhaps also have made the point that even if the amount of revenue lost to the local Press is marginal it could nevertheless be enough to ensure the deaths of many excellent local newspapers. Marginal revenue can be extremely important.
  It was a bad day for the hon. Member for Howden to speak so enthusiastically about the advantages of advertising in broadcasting. The Daily Express is not noted for its dislike of commercial television, but I notice that when referring to the historic happenings of Sunday and Monday, the great achievements of the American spacemen, it said:
  "It was I.T.V.'s coverage of the most exciting moment in history—and as I suspected it could not have been in worse taste … This mixture of high history and

  1609
  low variety I found in the lowest possible taste. How do you match great achievement with such out-of-date humour?"
  In previous debates I have referred to the way in which broadcasting can be debased if commercial interests are given a free rein. Thus, I am happy that my right hon. Friend dismissed the idea of allowing advertising in local broadcasting. He said that he would welcome suggestions about how to meet the financial problems of the B.B.C., and he has already received some suggestions from my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston), which to some extent reflect proposals I put forward on 3rd July.
  I should like my right hon. Friend to consider the suggestion that whoever collects licence fees should have a cash interest in the result. The collector should benefit in proportion to his success in collecting. One of the present difficulties is that, although the B.B.C. pays £4½ million to the Government in collecting costs, it receives some £10 million less than its entitlement in licence fees. My proposiiton is that there should be a cash interest in the result for the institution which collects the fees. Second, why is it not made compulsory to produce a licence when a television set or radio is purchased or when a hire-purchase arrangement is renewed? Third, what consideration is being given to the question of grants in aid for educational broadcasting programmes put out by the B.B.C.?
  Time is pressing very heavily and I must conclude this brief intervention as quickly as possible. In my approach to "Broadcasting in the Seventies" I have anxieties which reflect those of many other people who live in the B.B.C's English regions. They are anxieties about the balance of power between London on the one hand, and England outside London on the other. I hope very much that the B.B.C. will take careful note of the anxieties that have been expressed about the future of the English regions.
  I had hoped also to refer to the B.B.C. as a patron of the arts and, in particular, to the future of the B.B.C's orchestras. It has been put to me by several hon. Members present tonight that we should recall what was said about the future of the orchestras in the Radio Times of
  1610
  18th July, 1968, and there are those who wish to remind the B.B.C. of what they regarded as an undertaking in the statement of that date. While I would not agree that the B.B.C. Scottish Orchestra is as good as the Northern Symphony Orchestra, nevertheless I hope it will be possible to save some of the orchestras now facing disbandment.
  My right hon. Friend referred to what the Director-General said in a recent issue of Crossbow. He said that the Director-General had made a rather dangerous statement in that he appeared to be concerned almost exclusively with cost-effectiveness. But if an organisation has financial problems as intimidating as those of the B.B.C., it is very difficult not to have regard to the importance of costs. What else can the B.B.C. do if its financial problems make it necessary to look at the cost-effectiveness of every penny spent? One ought not to be criticised for taking the kind of exercises that the B.B.C. has been obliged to take because of its lack of adequate resources.
  My final point is that I hope this debate will continue in the country and that the outcome will ensure the future of public service broadcasting in this country.
  9.17 p.m.
  Mr. H. P. G. Channon: The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) has been unfortunate in having spoken for only a few minutes. It is, indeed, unfortunate that this debate has had to be truncated and that a number of hon. Members who would have liked to take part have been unable to do so. That is very sad, but I am certain that this is the first of several debates on this important issue.
  I have no wish to be unduly critical this evening, but I must tell the right hon. Gentleman how very disappointed people both inside and outside the House are that he has been unable to make any statement this afternoon about the future of local radio. This has turned the debate, as has already been said, into a total non-event. Instead of being told the Government's plans for local radio we are now arguing in the dark. Nobody knows what the future will bring forward.

  1611
  As long ago as 11th November last year, the Postmaster-General said in the House:
  "By July next year the eight stations will have been running for a year or so, and that will be the right time, I think, to review the experiment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th November, 1968; Vol. 772, c. 171.]
  Will the right hon. Gentleman now give his conclusions on the experiment and tell us what the future is? If he is not in a position to do that, what is his plan? Will he announce these very important decisions about the future during the Recess or wait until we come back in October? What is his programme? It is very inconvenient that the House has been asked to debate the plans today, for we have heard no plans from the Postmaster-General although there have been repeated requests that we should do so.
  The Leader of the House said last Thursday:
  "… my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General feels that the statement should await that debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1969; Vol. 787, c. 886.]
  There has been no statement about the future of local broadcasting. It will be a great pity if the statement is given during the Recess. We must know what the Government's plans are. The House naturally wants to know, and so do people outside the House, including the B.B.C. The people in the local radio stations must know. I must press the right hon. Gentleman. This is the most important single issue in the debate. Is there really nothing further that he can say about the future of local broadcasting today? If he cannot today when will he be able to say something about this? This has aroused widespread interest and all hon. Members are entitled to have an answer and to a debate on the Government's decision.
  The paper "Broadcasting in the Seventies" goes far wider than only the issue of local broadcasting. Since its publication there has been a very full debate both inside and outside the House about the future of broadcasting in the seventies. Indeed, one hon. Member wisely pointed out that it is, of course, for Parliament to decide what the future of broadcasting should be in the seventies and what the rôle of the B.B.C. should
  1612
  be in any dispositions that Parliament chooses to make for the seventies.
  The first question which this House has to answer is, why should we have a public service corporation, a British Broadcasting Corporation at all? Why is it essential to have a monopoly of sound broadcasting? What are the arguments in favour of this? My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour) did the House a service when he analysed the two interpretations that can be put on the term "public service corporation". But surely the reason for having a public service corporation, even if it sounds a little Reithian is that it is argued that such a service can provide the old Reithian function of elevating taste and catering for minorities. Lord Hill himself says in his Foreword to "Broadcasting in the Seventies":
  "The B.B.C. unhesitatingly accepts that this Implies a responsibility to provide a comprehensive service meeting the needs of minorities as well as majorities."
  And I think a lot of the debate has resolved today around whether or not the B.B.C. had managed to achieve what Lord Hill sets out in his Foreword.
  Many hon. Members have said how widely admired the B.B.C. has been and still is, how it still probably provides the best broadcasting service in the world. I would like to add my tribute. It is unnecessary to go on at great length; this is deeply felt by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and deeply felt by the general public. I have considerable sympathy for the B.B.C. In its financial difficulties, it was faced with unpalatable alternatives and had to try to produce a rational plan for the 1970s. But has it succeeded in providing a plan that this House should approve? What will we get? On Radio One we will get a pop programme, on Radio Two light music, Radio Three will possibly be moved to V.H.F., the speech network on Radio Four, local stations, perhaps—if the Postmaster-General will provide the cash—and the disbandment of orchestras. Does that add up to a package which we should accept?
  How will this proposal he implemented anyway? What will happen about needle time? We heard from the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and other hon. Members about the reaction of the Musicians Union and the other unions to this proposal. It is rather

  1613
  curious procedure for the B.B.C. first of all to say that it will sack many musicians and at the same time also ask the Musicians Union to make a concession on needle time in order to help it to do so. Is this a practical proposal? Will it happen? I wish that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. O'Malley) could take part in this debate, because we should be very interested in his views on that matter. Are we wasting our time discussing this document. Will it never come off at all? I have grave doubts as to whether it is practical at all.
  The second point is that, at a time when the B.B.C. is arguing that it faces penury in the seventies, that it has to cut its coat to according to its cloth, at a time when these beggars cannot be choosers, it is suggested to us that an extra £5 million a year should be given to it for providing a whole series of local radio stations. At present, sound radio costs are about £21 million a year. The B.B.C. is asking for an extra £5 million a year, or a little more, to provide a new local radio service at a time when it is having to reduce its standards in the traditional rôle it has played in the past. I wonder whether the £5 million which has been quoted will be enough, even if it is available—and I wish that we were told whether it is to be made available to the B.B.C. from the Government. If it is, is it the right priority to spend the £5 million in providing a service that could be provided by others?
  But perhaps it might be argued that that is an unfair criticism, that even if there is to be no extension of local radio something must be done because by 1974 there will be a deficit of nearly £12 million. But is that inevitable? I think that the right hon. Gentleman said that the evasion of licence fees accounts for about £7½ million a year. Is there no way of overcoming this? The Postmaster-General said that one of the things we may be able to do is to try to reduce the evasion. He did not say how he would set about this, perhaps wisely. We should be told what steps are being taken to reduce evasion. When it is running at £7½ million a year, are we seriously to take so dramatically a £12 million deficit over a five-year period? If even half the evasion were prevented, there would be a dramatic change in the finances of the B.B.C.
  1614
  The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) produced his revolutionary plan for solving the B.B.C.s financial problems. It is very attractive for the B.B.C., but I cannot see it being very attractive for the Government. It would provide a very expensive guarantee to the B.B.C. from general taxation of about £10 million a year, and I very much doubt that the Postmaster-General will tell us to night that that is a starter.
  The B.B.C. often says that this is not just a question of financial considerations but that it is in favour of the proposals in any case, and thinks that they stand up on their merits. The House should subject that to critical analysis. The paper has not had a good reception, either in or outside the House.
  The B.B.C. has always been a great musical patron. Until today I thought that it was the greatest musical patron in the world, but, having read the very interesting document from the Musicians Union, I am not so certain as I was. The broadcasting organisations of France and the Federal Republic of Germany provide employment for many more musicians than the B.B.C. But whether or not it is the greatest musical patron in the world, it is certainly a great musical patron. It provides an enormous amount of music for the general public, and satisfies a substantial public demand. If an organisation is to provide so much music and satisfy that demand, it has a responsibility to music—and live music. Do the proposals measure up to that responsibility?
  The B.B.C. wants to cut out three orchestras, the B.B.C. Chorus and the training orchestra, and discussions are going on with the Arts Council about a number of other orchestras. I have no idea what the Arts Council can do. It does not possess a bottomless purse. The B.B.C. might as well have discussions with the Government about providing extra cash. Lord Goodman does not produce cash out of the air, magician though he is in many ways. The Government will have to provide the cash, and if it is to be provided, that is a decision for Parliament.
  Musical standards have risen enormously in this country over the past few years, and opportunities have also greatly, increased, but there is still much to be

  1615
  done. There is a great deal to be done in musical education. The B.B.C. has played an important rôle in this, but the musical education system in this country is not yet satisfactory.
  We need a clear study of our orchestral requirements. What do we need? What can we afford? How can our orchestras be provided and financed? We need a clear plan. Fortunately, we have a chance to solve these problems. The Arts Council has set up the Peacock Committee to make recommendations on the development and financing of our professional orchestral resources with particular reference to a whole number of matters. I draw attention to one of them in particular—broadcasting, television and recording.
  Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the B.B.C. will be giving evidence to that Committee? Can we also have an assurance that the B.B.C. will not disband these orchestras while the Peacock Committee is sitting? The Committee is to report in a short time, and while the matter is under public inquiry it would be scandalous if the B.B.C. were to jump the gun and wind up these orchestras.
  I am sorriest of all for the musicians whose careers have been threatened. Hon. Members have referred to the article in the Radio Times on 18th July, and I have great sympathy for what was said there. The B.B.C. took credit for setting up the Training Orchestra. The article said:
  "To balance the long term effects of gramophone record time, the B.B.C. has given a guarantee of full time employment in its permanent orchestras to at least 500 musicians."
  Some guarantee! People who thought they had good and safe jobs with the B.B.C. have been sadly disillusioned. I often think that the people who criticise or who are not so keen on subsidies to the Arts overlook the fact that the people really subsidising the Arts are not this House and the country but the performers—the actors and musicians, who are over-worked and underpaid. These proposals are a serious blow to them.
  Of course the B.B.C. has a right to look at its rôle as a patron of the arts, and I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about that. Of course over a period of time it is right that its rôle should be
  1616
  changed if it is in the public interest to do so. But this is not the time to do it, particularly when the whole orchestral scene is being impartially examined. I hope that no decision will be taken until the Peacock Committee has reported.
  I agree very much with what the hon. Member for Cheadle (Dr. Winstanley) said about the effect of the proposals on regional drama on the young playwrights and people getting their chance. I hope that chances will be available to them under the new set-up as under the old regional set-up.
  To me and to many hon. Members the most objectionable feature of these proposals is the transfer of Radio Three to v.h.f. Radio Three, the Music Programme, is to me the crowning triumph of the B.B.C. for which it has won worldwide renown and acclaim. It is true that on v.h.f. one gets better reception and no interference. But most of the population do not have v.h.f. sets. There is an enormous car audience. I have heard it suggested that perhaps not many of the car audience listen to Radio Three. I declare my interest. There has hardly been a day during the past six months when I have not listened to it on my car radio. Perhaps I am a prejudiced party, but I would lay a bet that a large number of other hon. Members do the same and that an enormous number of people listen to Radio Three on their car radios.
  I understand that the B.B.C. says that there is no financial gain whatever to it in transferring Radio Three to v.h.f. There is no financial argument involved. It will make the transfer on its merits in that there are other items which, it says—but not in the paper—are better entitled to be on the medium wave than Radio Three.
  The right hon. Gentleman went a long way this afternoon to satisfy us about the position in relation to the orchestras. Can he say something about the question of Radio Three going on to v.h.f. He cannot instruct the B.B.C.—perhaps he can, but I am not sure that he would want to. But can he at least tell the B.B.C. that it would be unfortunate if it carried out its proposal to transfer Radio Three to v.h.f.? This change would not allow the B.B.C. to effect any financial savings but it would cause much resentment and disappointment. I pay

  1617
  my tribute to the hon. Member for Faversham and my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) and other hon. Members who have signed the relevant Motion for the part that they have played in forcing this issue to the attention of the public. I also include the Press and particularly the Sunday Times and I hope that the Postmaster-General will take serious note of what that Motion says.
  I do not have the time to deal with the many other issues which have been raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) outlined our views about local radio. We do not agree with the Postmaster-General and hon. Members opposite about that, but I need not take up time by arguing that case because the arguments on either side are well known.
  I listened to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) with a great deal of respect and attention, as every hon. Member listens to all his speeches. But after the experience of local radio in other parts of the world I do not know how he imagines that we shall not have learned from the mistakes made elsewhere. I am certain that if commercial local radio is set up in this country the dangers of mush and slush which the Postmaster-General mentioned will be avoided—the right hon. Gentleman always likes to catch the headlines by referring at the end of his speeches to "squalid capitalism", or "mush and slush", or something of the kind. It requires far more time than I now have to argue the case in detail.
  Several hon. Members referred to a different way of financing the B.B.C. There are all sorts of possibilities. The Postmaster-General seemed to be clearly hinting at an increase in the licence fee, at least in due course. I ask him to be more specific. What are his proposals? Is there to be an increase in the licence fee, or can he tell us this evening that he does not propose to finance any of the suggested changes by an increase in the licence fee? He gave very clear hints, and it is not unfair to ask him what his proposals are.
  This will no doubt be a continuing debate. We shall have to debate the subject again when the Postmaster-General gives his decision about local radio. It is an important and fascinating topic, not
  1618
  only for the '70s, but from then on. In his article in the Sunday Times, the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) said that we should look at the whole of the communications scene as a package and not at each bit of it in isolation That is probably right. Before the renewal of the Charter and before all the changes that may or may not take place, there will have to be a major review of broadcasting.
  My hon. Friends and I and the Postmaster-General all have the same intentions, although we may disagree about detail. Should it fall to us to be in office in the next few years, we shall do everything in our power to ensure the continuation of the B.B.C.s magnificent record of providing an outstanding service which the country has come to know and to expect of the B.B.C., something of which every hon. Member is proud and which we are all determined to preserve and enhance and not allow to be weakened from whatever source.
  9.40 p.m.
  Mr. Stonehouse: With the leave of the House I will speak again.
  This has been a remarkable debate. It has been marked by an absence of political controversy and by compliments and congratulations to the B.B.C. on the excellent job it does. The general view has been expressed that the B.B.C. is performing a valuable service.
  There have been disagreements between the parties and within them about the way in which we should deal with this matter. An outstanding aspect of the debate has been the fact that so many hon. Members have come prepared with fresh ideas that they have worked out for themselves. These have been worked out with a great sense of objectivity, and this has been heartening.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) on his summing up of the debate for the Opposition, and I will respond, first, to some of the questions he asked. As for transferring Radio Three to v.h.f., I entirely endorse his remarks. It would be a most regrettable development. It would have the effect of reducing the potential audience for the music programme by about 60 per cent.
  It is technically difficult as well as extremely expensive—if, indeed, it can

  1619
  be achieved—to install v.h.f. sets in motor cars to give good reception when vehicles are on the move. While I believe that it can be done, the prospect of its being done on a wide scale is extremely unlikely. Thus, the net effect of transferring the music programme to v.h.f. would be to prevent the reception of this programme in virtually 3 million cars, and that would be most regrettable.
  The hon. Gentleman questioned me about the Peacock Committee of the Arts Council. I am sure that there will be no decision or action by the B.B.C. before this committee has considered its remit.
  There have been some strictures on me because I have not given the House a clear statement of our intentions. How ever, the House must recognise that the document produced by the B.B.C. was issued only a fortnight ago, on 10th July. Several deputations have asked to see me, and I have arranged to discuss with them the implications of the announcement. It would have been wrong for me to have made a final statement on the local radio experiment before the House had had a chance to debate the wider issues raised in the announcements that have been made by the corporation.
  Mr. Bryan rose—
  Mr. Stonehouse: I think I can anticipate the hon. Gentleman. It was at one time my hope to be able to make an announcement about the results of the experiment. I have said that it has been extremely successful, but I think that it would have been a mistake to have reached a final decision about an extension of the experiment before the views of the House had been expressed.
  Mr. Bryan: We have expressed surprise at the lack of a statement in view of what the Leader of the House said last Thursday when he commented, after pointing out that it was an important subject:
  "…my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General feels that the statement should await that debate."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th July, 1969; Vol. 787, c. 886.]
  The right hon. Gentleman was referring to this debate. That is why we expected a statement today.
  Mr. Stonehouse: I have made a statement applauding the results of the experiment. What I have sought from this debate and what I think I have obtained is some guidance from the House as to how this experiment should be financed. I agree that there is not a unanimous view on this. Some believe that advertising is the way to develop the service. Others are prepared to grasp the problem of increasing the fee, and strong arguments have been adduced for doing that.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) talked about the leaks of the B.B.C. proposals. He is less than fair to the corporation, because during the process of debating and discussing the proposals internally there were found to be some leaks and it would have been quite wrong of the higher executives of the B.B.C. to have made public announcements about their proposals before the advisory committees had been consulted and other internal discussions had taken place. They have behaved in an entirely proper way. As they made clear, these are proposals, and they are prepared to respond to the points of view of the public and of the House. There cannot be any complaint about the way in which the corporation has brought forward its proposals.
  As the House appreciates, the B.B.C. is in a very difficult dilemma. It has these demands put upon it to run certain services, and its financial restrictions are enormous. A number of suggestions have been made in the debate about how this matter should be dealt with. I was particularly pleased to hear various proposals for dealing with evasion. I applaud some of the suggestions, although the idea that the Government should guarantee the hypothecated amount which should be obtained from all those who have sets is open to very grave objections. First, the B.B.C. does not have a prescriptive right to the whole of this income. Indeed, the Treasury has the power to vary the percentage which the B.B.C. will receive. As the House may know, some of it has been retained in the past, but even if we were to guarantee the whole amount to the B.B.C. there can be no certainty exactly how much the amount should be. There could be a great deal of dispute about that.

  1621
  However, the biggest objection to this proposal is that it is tantamount to providing some sort of subsidy from the Exchequer. That would be a dangerous precedent to establish, and it would undermine the independence of the corporation, which I think we all admire and want to protect.
  Dr. Winstanley: How does the right hon. Gentleman relate his statement just then with his previous willingness to rely on the rates for the support of local radio?
  Mr. Stonehouse: We believe that the rates may be able to play a part in financing broadcasting; but there is no suggestion that they should be the major source of finance. They are simply a vehicle for the local municipalities to participate in the experiment.
  We in the Post Office are very keen that evasion should be cut. I think that we can claim that in this respect we have achieved a great deal of success.
  Mr. Boston: My right hon. Friend has referred to the question of indemnifying the B.B.C. against loss from evasion and said that there may be some dangers, which we can appreciate, in that this could be regarded as a Government subsidy. But this proposal can be distinguished completely from any direct subsidy. Further, does my right hon. Friend appreciate that we have reason to believe that there are those in the highest quarters in the corporation who would not regard this proposal as a threat to their independence?
  Mr. Stonehouse: I have borne all that in mind, but on balance I reject the point of view.
  I turn to the question of dealing with evasion. We have achieved a great deal. In January, 1967, there were just under 14 million television licence holders and 2 million evaders. The proportion of evaders was about 12 per cent. We now have 15½ million licence holders and the number of evaders is down to £1½ million, or down to 7 per cent. We can claim that in two years the percentage has been decreased quite considerably.
  Since January, 1968, we have had the advantage of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1967, and we have been receiving from the dealers the names and addresses of all those to whom they sell or rent
  1622
  television sets. This has helped us to catch up on a good deal of evasion. I would like to thank the dealers for the way they have co-operated with us in that.
  I am inaugurating a new scheme to increase the detection of evasion. As the House knows, we have decided to increase the number of detector vans by 18 from the 20 which we now have or have on order. I am increasing the amount of advertising against evasion, both in the Press and on television. I hope that we shall be able to increase the income that we get as a result of this increased detection by at least £3½ million a year, so reducing the evasion to, perhaps, what will be the basic hard core that will be unavoidable; namely, about 5 per cent. of those who have television sets.
  The House will also know that we have developed computerisation of the list that we receive from the dealers. We have a pilot scheme in Croydon, and in time all those who have television sets will be computerised and it will be possible for our evasion detection techniques to become even more efficient. I believe that in this way we shall reduce evasion to the very minimum that is acceptable.
  Mr. English: Will my right hon. Friend concentrate on the London area? Is it not the case that 45 per cent. of the evaders are in London? If that is the case, why should the rest of us pay for the fact that half a million Londoners are successful crooks?
  Mr. Stonehouse: I do not know whether I accept that percentage, but I accept that the Metropolis contains a great many evaders. One of the reasons for this is that so many of them are on the move. When dealing with the big towns, and particularly the Metropolis, where so many people live for only a short time in a flat or house, it is not particularly easy—and, indeed, it is extremely expensive—to try to catch up on all of them. We are, however, turning our attention to deal with evasion whether in the Metropolis or elsewhere.
  I should like to thank hon. Member as for what they have said about the patronage responsibility of the B.B.C. I belive that this point has been received with unanimity in the House. I do not think that any speech today has absolved

  1623
  the B.B.C. from that responsibility. I hope that the corporation takes note of this and that the House, on its side, takes note of its responsibility in providing for the B.B.C. the financial wherewithal that it requires so that it can meet its financial responsibilities.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: The right hon. Gentleman suggested earlier that he thought that a case had been made today for an increase in the licence fee. Does this mean that a request has been made to him for an increase in the B.B.C. licence fee? Does one detect a favourable glint in his eye towards it?
  Mr. Stonehousse: I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that the logic of today's debate seems to point in that direction. In speeches made from both sides of the House, it has been recognised that our fee in this country is less than most others. Indeed, it is as much as £2 less than the fees being charged in the rest of Europe. I believe that the House generally accepts that this is a reasonable way out of the B.B.C.'s dilemma. I am sure that the Deputy Chief Whip, who has attended most of the debate, would have been delighted, wearing his other hat, to have heard the speeches which have been made about the position of the musicians.
  There is general acceptance on both sides of the House that the B.B.C. has a patronage responsibility beyond its simple broadcasting requirements to maintain its orchestras.
  I was most impressed with the points put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) against the concept of commercialism. I agree absolutely that commercial radio will not provide a choice. If we were to follow the road suggested by some Opposition spokesmen, we should be lowering radio's standards in Britain and providing a great deal of "mush"—a word which I did not myself invent but which I borrowed from the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), who used it about the "pirates".
  I believe that the B.B.C. has done an excellent job in the local radio experiment. In the communities that have enjoyed the experiment a great anxiety has been shown that it should continue. Hon. Members in whose constituencies
  1624
  the experiment has been conducted have reported to me that it has been a fair success. There has been divided views about the way in which it should continue, but, generally speaking, hon. Members support the idea that the experiment in these eight towns should continue. We must now look seriously at the ways in which the experiment can be financed, and I undertake at the earliest time to make a statement about the decisions at which I arrive in this respect.
  I accept that today's debate is by no means the end of the road. There will have to be continuing debate on all these subjects, which are of great concern to all our constituents, not only about radio but also about television. There are many considerations which we must have in mind about the future of television and the extension of broadcasting. The House today has gained credit for the way in which it has approached the subject, stimulated by the document produced by the B.B.C., which, on balance, has been extremely helpful in our consideration of the situation.
  Mr. J. D. Concannon: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CIVIL AND DEFENCE VOTES
  Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to Order, to put forthwith the Question which he had been directed to put by paragraphs (8) and (9) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) That the total amount of the Votes outstanding for the year 1969–70 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund for the services defined in those Votes.

  CIVIL AND DEFENCE ESTIMATES, 1969ߝ70 (OUTSTANDING VOTES)
  Question,
  That a sum not exceeding £7,294,158,700 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Civil and Defence Services for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1970,
  put and agreed to.
  Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to paragraph (8) of Standing Order No. 18 (Business of Supply) to put severally the Questions on Motions relating to Navy, Army and Air Services expenditure.

  NAVY EXPENDITURE, 1967–68
  Question,
  That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £2,789,492 1s. 9d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Navy Services for the year ended 31st March, 1968 to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minutes of 27th January, 1969 (H.C. 95) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 276),
  put and agreed to.

  ARMY EXPENDITURE, 1967ߝ68
  Question,
  That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £1,749,632 16s. 4d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Army Services for the year ended 31st March, 1968 to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet a deficit in receipts in one of those Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 24th January, 1969 (H.C. 122) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 276),
  put and agreed to.

  AIR SERVICES EXPENDITURE, 1967–68
  Question,
  That sanction be given to the application of the sum of £10,663,439 10s. 11d. out of surpluses arising out of certain Votes for Air Services for the year ended 31st March, 1968 to defray expenditure in excess of that appropriated to certain other Votes for those Services and to meet deficits in receipts not offset by savings in expenditure from the respective Votes as set out in and temporarily authorised in the Treasury Minute of 27th January, 1969
  1626
  (H.C. 94) and reported upon by the Committee of Public Accounts in their Second Report (H.C. 276),
  put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the Resolution relating to Civil and Defence Estimates by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Harold Lever and Mr. Dick Taverne.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION)
  Bill to apply a sum out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31st March, 1970, and to appropriate the supplies granted in this Session of Parliament, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 197.]

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That the Proceedings on Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Post Office Bill and to the Education (Scotland) Bill and on the Trustee Savings Banks Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed—[Mr. Concannon.]

  BROADCASTING
  Licence and Agreement dated 7th July 1969, between Her Majesty's Postmaster General and the British Broadcasting Corporation, [copy laid before the House, 7th July] approved.—[Mr. Stonehouse.]
  POST OFFICE BILL
  Lords Amendments considered.
  POST OFFICE BILL
    Clause 2

      THE MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
      Lords Amendment No. 1: In page line 7, at end insert:
      "( ) In consequence of subsection (3) above—

      (a) in Schedule 2 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957, immediately before the words "Minister of Power" there shall be inserted the words "Minister of Posts and Telecommunications" and immediately before the words "Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power" there shall be inserted the words "Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications"; and

      (b) in Schedule 1 to the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act 1965, immediately before the entry relating to the Minister of Power there shall be inserted the following entry—

      "Minister of Posts and Telecommunications

      £8,500",

      and immediately before the entry (under the heading "Parliamentary Secretaries") relating to the Ministry of Power there shall be inserted the following entry—

      "Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications

      £3,750"

      10.2 p.m.
      The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Joseph Slater): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This is a drafting Amendment arising out of Clause 2(3). The House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957, contains a provision for the reprinting of that Act as amended from time to time by any other Act. As Clause 2(3)(a) does not make any verbal Amendment of the text of the 1957 Act, it would not, on its own, without this Amendment, afford sufficient authority to alter the text when the 1957 Act is reprinted. The Amendment also makes an amendment to the text of the Ministerial Salaries Consolidation Act 1965, consequential upon Clause 2(3)(b).
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 7

      POWERS OF THE POST OFFICE
      Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 6, line 30, leave out from "that" to second "to" in line 31 and insert:
      "appears to the Post Office to be requisite, advantageous or convenient for it".
      Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The House will recall that my right hon. Friend agreed to look again at the drafting of this part of Clause 7 after it had been criticised on Report in this House by the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and also by the hon. Member for Norfolk, Central (Mr. Ian Gilmour). Their friends in another place put forward this Amendment which the Government were happy to accept.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 9

      GENERAL DUTY OF THE POST OFFICE
      Lords Amendment No. 3: In page 9, line 30, leave out "provision thereof is, in its opinion," and insert:
      "Post Office, after consultation with the Minister, considers the provision thereof".
      The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This part of the subsection imposes particular duties in respect of the Post Office's services. The Post Office is to have the duty, subject to the qualification in brackets, to provide throughout the British Isles such services as satisfy all reasonable demands for them. The words in brackets recognise the practical problems which the Post Office is bound to run into in carrying out this duty. The Bill should not oblige the Post Office to do what is impracticable or not reasonably practicable. The Amendment acknowledges this, but proposes that the practicability of providing a service should be judged not by the Post Office but by the Post Office in consultation with the Minister.
      These words are concerned with the details of day to day management. The

      1629
      Post Office will have a job to do and certain resources with which to do it. Post Office plant and facilities are laid out in what it judges to be the best way to meet the prospective demand for them. But it is not superhuman, and conflicts of priority for the use of its resources are bound to arise in individual cases. If the Amendment stands, every single case of this kind will require the involvement of the Minister. Thus, the Amendment will have the effect of putting the Post Office's customer into a worse position than at present because two bodies—the Ministry and the Post Office—will be involved, rather than one as now. It is hard to believe that this could lead to improved service or less red tape. In my view, it would lead to much more red tape and bureaucracy.
      This all comes back to the question of what protection for the Post Office's customers should be built into the Bill. If in order to protect the customers, Parliament really wants the Minister and through the Minister Parliament itself to have a say in the day-to-day questions of the Post Office, it would be better to let the Post Office remain a Department of State. But that is not what we want. Both sides have accepted that the Post Office should become a public corporation. We have to weigh the advantages of giving the Post Office freedom from controls against the need to protect the interests of the customers in the ways that have been suggested.
      The Bill as drafted achieves a careful balance in this respect. It sets the new Post Office in an interlocking framework of checks and controls. There are the users' councils which will be quite independent of Post Office organisation and in particular provide a forum where regional views can be voiced. The National Users' Council will be able to consider any case brought to its notice where it may seem as if the Post Office is interpreting its duty unreasonably, and to bring such cases to the Minister's attention. It can also bring cases to the Minister's attention on its own initiative. It will therefore be possible in suitable cases for the Minister to be involved in the kind of way that the Amendment suggests. The Minister has certain powers of direction over the Post Office and he will of course be answerable to Parliament in the usual way in connection
      1630
      with his sponsorship function over the Post Office.
      This framework, while not actually involving the Minister in the decision-making process on day-to-day matters, is sufficient to ensure that the Post Office will be sensitive to public opinion, especially in the kind of case that we are discussing here, where there is a reasonable demand for the services that it provides.
      I have read with great interest the debate in another place. However, I regard the Amendment as unrealistic and inconsistent with the basic principles of the Bill, and I advise the House to disagree with it.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: The right hon. Gentleman has set out the background to the Clause as he sees it. I suggest that there is another way of looking at the reason for the Amendment and the whole background of Clause 9.
      Clause 9 is headed,
      "General duty of the Post Office."
      It puts on the Post Office a duty
      "to meet the social, industrial and commercial needs of the British Islands ߪ and, in particular, to provide"—
      and I emphasise this—
      "throughout those Islands … services for the conveyance of letters and such telephone services".
      The important part of the Clause is
      "the social, industrial and commercial needs"
      and particularly the words "throughout those Islands". I am sure that it was the intention of the Committee to put considerable emphasis on the social obligations "throughout those Islands".
      In the original Bill, the Post Office could opt out of these arrangements if the Post Office alone considered them to be impracticable. The Lords' Amendment seeks to alter the Bill so that the Post Office will have to consult—no moreߞthe Minister on any such measures. The small addition to the Clause would put on the Post Office the duty of consultation.
      The real problem to consider is the range of matters which would be covered. The noble Lord, Lord Erroll, in another place, set out certain examples of the kind of thing about which he was worried. I would add my own worries about the Clause. For example, if the

      1631
      Post Office thought it impracticable in its view only to deliver mail in remote country areas, or to continue sub-post offices again in remote country areas, or to provide telephone services in such areas. These are matters on which the Post Office may or may not be right, but these are really social and political decisions in which this House ought to have some say and be able to question the right hon. Gentleman about the result of consultations on which he has been engaged.
      The Government have put forward arguments against accepting this compartively minor Amendment. There were really three objections. First, the right hon. Gentleman said that he would be getting involved in the day-to-day organisation of the Post Office and that there would be two authorities involved, himself and the Post Office, rather than the Post Office alone.
      As I have said, I believe that the operative words "provide throughout those Islands" are extremely relevant. These are matters in which the Minister should be involved and should have an opportunity of expressing a view. I believe that it is wrong that a monopoly like the Post Office should alone make this decision.
      The right hon. Gentleman's second argument is that the Post Office Users' Councils can, under Clause 14(8)(a),
      bring the matters to the Minister for his consideration. This depends on the Post Office Users' Councils being adequate watchdogs. I am not convinced, from past experience, that users' councils as such are always adequate watchdogs, but we will depend entirely on the Post Office Users' Council bringing matters to the attention of the Minister. I believe that many hon. Members would wish an opportunity to bring certain matters before the Minister. This is a matter for which the House should have ultimate responsibility.
      The right hon. Gentleman's third argument—and it was used with some force in the other place—was that he had general powers under Clause 11. Subsection (2) says that if there is
      "a defect in the general plans or arrangements of the Post Office for exercising any of its powers …"
      the Minister may give it directions. I am not certain that the word "defect" is adequate to cover the kind of social responsibility which I have outlined, and which Lord Erroll outlined in another place. Clause 11 is for other types of circumstances, and for those reasons I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the Government's proposals.
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 185. Noes 123.

      Division No. 341.]

      AYES

      [10.15 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Anderson, Donald

      Dempsey, James

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Archer, Peter

      Dewar, Donald

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

      Dobson, Ray

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Doig, Peter

      Hannan, William

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Dunnett, Jack

      Harper, Joseph

      Beaney, Alan

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Bence, Cyril

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

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Eadie, Alex

      Haseldine, Norman

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Edelman, Maurice

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Bishop, E. S.

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Blackburn, F.

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Hilton, W. S.

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Ellis, John

      Hooley, Frank

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Ennals, David

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Booth, Albert

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Boyden, James

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

      Howie, W.

      Brooks, Edwin

      Faulds, Andrew

      Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Fernyhough, E.

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

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

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Buchan, Norman

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Hunter, Adam

      Cant, R. B.

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Hynd,John

      Carmichael, Neil

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Coleman, Donald

      Ford, Ben

      Janner, Sir Barnett

      Conlan, Bernard

      Forrester, John

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Freeson, Reginald

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Ginsburg, David

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Gregory, Arnold

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

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Silverman, Julius

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Mendelson, John

      Slater, Joseph

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Small, William

      Judd, Frank

      Millan, Bruce

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Kelley, Richard

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Kenyon, Clifford

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

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

      Molloy, William

      Taverne, Dick

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Moonman, Eric

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

      Lawson, George

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Thornton, Ernest

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Tinn, James

      Lee, John (Reading)

      Murray, Albert

      Tomney, Frank

      Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

      Neal, Harold

      Tuck, Raphael

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Newens, Stan

      Urwin, T. W.

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip

      Varley, Eric G.

      Loughlin, Charles

      Norwood, Christopher

      Wallace, George

      Luard, Evan

      Ogden, Eric

      watkins, David (Consett)

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Wellbeloved, James

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Paget, R. T.

      Whitaker, Ben

      McBride, Neil

      Palmer, Arthur

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      McCann, John

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Wilkins, W. A.

      MacColl, James

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Williams, Alan Lee (Horncnurch)

      MacDermot, Niall

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

      Macdonald, A, H.

      Pentland, Norman

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      McGuire, Michael

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Mackie, John

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Maclennan, Robert

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Probert, Arthur

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      McMamara, J. Kevin

      Rankin, John

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Woof, Robert

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

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

      Rose, Paul

      Mr. J. D. Concannon and

      Manuel, Archie

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

      Marks, Kenneth

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      NOES

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      Peel, John

      Astor, John

      Goodhew, Victor

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

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

      Gower, Raymond

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Gurden, Harold

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Pym, Francis

      Balniel, Lord

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Hastings, Stephen

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Bell, Ronald

      Hawkins, Paul

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Bessell, Peter

      Hay, John

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Biffen, John

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Heseltine, Michael

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel

      Holland, Philip

      Royle, Anthony

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Hunt, John

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Board man, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Scott, Nicholas

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Braine, Bernard

      Kimball, Marcus

      Sharples, Richard

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Kirk, Peter

      Silvester, Frederick

      Bryan, Paul

      Kitson, Timothy

      Speed, Keith

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

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Stainton, Keith

      Burden, F. A.

      Lawler, Wallace

      Stodart, Anthony

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Longden, Gilbert

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Lubbock, Eric

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      MacArthur, Ian

      Temple, John M.

      Clark, Henry

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Cooke, Robert

      McMaster, Stanley

      Waddington, David

      Corfield, F. V.

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Marten, Neil

      Walters, Dennis

      Dean, Paul

      Maude, Angus

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

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

      Mawby, Ray

      Wiggin, A. W.

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Drayson, G. B.

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

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

      More, Jasper

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Eyre, Reginald

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Wright, Esmond

      Farr, John

      Murton, Oscar

      Wylie, N. R.

      Fisher, Nigel

      Neave, Airey

      Younger, Hn. George

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Nott, John

      Fortescue, Tim

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Galbraith, Hn. T. C.

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Mr. Anthony Grant and

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, c.)

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Mr. Hector Monro.

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

    Clause 16

      VESTING IN THE POST OFFICE OF PROPERTY, RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES GENERALLY
      Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 19, line 24, at end insert:
      "( ) all estates and interests in land in the Channel Islands which, immediately before that day, are vested in Her Majesty, being estates and interests in land then occupied or used, in whole or in part, by the Postmaster General or (for, or in connection with, the exercise and performance of any of the Postmaster General's functions) by an officer or servant of the Crown;".
      Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This Amendment is to ensure that interests in land in the Channel Islands held by the Crown for the purposes of the Postmaster-General's functions will vest in the Post Office. I can say that the Amendment is acceptable to the States.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 21, line 8, leave out "the next but one following section" and insert "section 18 of this Act".
      Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The hon. Members for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) and for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) suggested on Report that Clause 16(2)(j) would be clearer if it were altered along these lines and my right hon. Friend agreed to look at it again. The Opposition, in another place, moved this Amendment which was accepted by the Government.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 24

      EXCLUSIVE PRIVILEGE OF THE POST OFFICE WITH RESPECT TO TELE COMMUNICATION
      Lords Amendment No. 6: In page 26, line 39, leave out "this Part of".
      Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This is a drafting Amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 7: In page 27, line 8, after "infringement" insert
      ", in relation to a system not extending beyond the British Islands"
      Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: It has been suggested that we take with this Amendment, Amendments 8 and 9 together.
      Mr. Stonehouse: I agree, Mr. Speaker.
      These are drafting Amendments to subsection (2) which deals with the offence of infringing the Post Office's telecommunications monopoly. They make it clear how the subsection works when the telecommunications system in relation to which the offence occurs is a system extending beyond these islands.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 26

      ACTS RELATING TO BROADCASTING NOT INFRINGING THE TELECOMMUNICA TION PRIVILEGE
      Lords Amendment No. 10: In page 29, line 23, at the end insert
      "or through the medium of a relay service licensed under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949."
      Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: I suggest that we take Lords Amendment No. 11 with this Amendment.
      Mr. Stonehouse: May I request that we take these two Amendments separately, Mr. Speaker? I make this request on new advice that I have received, and I should be grateful if we could deal with Amendment No. 10 on its own.
      Mr. Speaker: So be it.
      Mr. Stonehouse: I have given special consideration to this Amendment, and I believe that there is some value in it. An individual customer of a rediffusion service could be construed as infringing the monopoly. It was our intention to allow the rediffusion companies to issue part of the agreement that they had to

      1637
      the individual customers under a general indemnity, but I have on further examination decided that this Amendment No. 10 achieves the same purpose, and achieves it in a far cleaner way.
      Mr. John Hay: May I express to the right hon. Gentleman appreciation—it would be unkind to say, of his death bed repentance, but of his last-minute acceptance of the point we made on Report and which was pressed again in the Lords. As he said, this is intended to benefit the individual subscriber to a relay system and I am certain that the words, as he said, will provide a much cleaner way of dealing with this problem. He has almost redeemed himself in my eyes after refusing to accept some extremely pertinent and useful Amendments that we urged on him on Report. I cannot say that he has completely redeemed himself until I hear what he has to say about Lords Amendment No. 11, but at the moment I thank him very much for having given us this one concession.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 11: In page 29, line 26, after "reception" insert
      "or to operate a broadcast relay service".
      10.30 p.m.
      Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      I am sorry to upset the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) on this. But if we allowed the Amendment to go through it would undermine the Post Office monopoly, and as the House well knows I am very anxious that the monopoly as it now exists within a Department of State should be transferred to the Corporation, and should not be undermined in the way suggested in the Amendment.
      Contrary to the views expressed by some hon. Members in Committee on 6th February, which also appear to be held by some noble Lords, the relay of broadcast programmes falls within the Postmaster-General's monopoly, and relay companies have had licences within the terms of the Telegraph Act, 1869 since the early days of broadcasting. Programme distribution is not technically different from any other forms of telecommunication, and exemption of the relay services from the monopoly would un-
      1638
      doubtedly lead to other interests seeking similar exemption. This could lead to such erosion of the monopoly that its whole purpose would be frustrated.
      The House has frequently run over the ground of this question, and would not wish me to delay it any longer on this, as our point of view on this side of the House is well known.
      Mr. Hay: The right hon. Gentleman has been rather cursory at this stage in dismissing the very pertinent and powerful arguments put in another place in connection with the Amendment. It is true that both in Committee and on Report in this House we have covered the ground concerning the position of the relay services at some length. But that does not make what I regard as a bad case on the Government's side a good one.
      The relay services are privately-owned, in the hands of private shareholders, and since they are dependent on the Postmaster-General for the grant of a licence their situation has been fairly clear. But in recent years there has been a development by the Post Office of trying to enter this type of business in competition. The effect of the Bill is henceforth to require the privately-owned relay companies to go to the Post Office Corporation, their competitor, to obtain a licence. It is this simple and single point of principle that has been the crux of our case throughout.
      The right hon. Gentleman has often said that since one of the main purposes of the Bill is to renew and extend the monopoly at present operated by the G.P.O. and confer that new and extended monopoly upon the Post Office Corporation, nothing must be done which will whittle that away and make it more difficult for the Post Office in future to operate its monopoly. Intrinsic in this situation, he says, must be the power conferred by statute upon the Post Office to licence anyone who wishes to carry on a particular activity which falls within the Post Office monopoly.
      So the House is once again face to face with a single point of principle: do we consider that it is right, just and proper that if someone running a business faces competition from a powerful monopoly—an all-powerful monopoly, I might almost say—that person or company should be obliged to go to that competitor to obtain a licence to carry

      1639
      on business? That is the situation as it will be once this Bill has become law. I must in fairness admit what the right hon. Gentleman has already told us often—that he intends to grant a licence to existing operations covering them until 1976. But, as I said when I spoke on this subject on Report, we are writing a statute which may exist for many years and what may be the position up to 1976 will not necessarily be the position which will obtain for all time.
      Therefore, it seems to us that it would be a perfectly sensible and simple matter to exclude relays altogether from the monopoly, and that, I understand, is the effect of the Amendment. This was another of those cases where the Amendment was supported not only by Conservatives but by a number of Liberal and cross-bench peers. Indeed, I believe that several Labour peers also voted for it because they saw that there was here a major issue of principle.
      I am sorry to say that, even at this late stage, the right hon. Gentleman persists in believing that some form of broadcasting is involved in what a relay service does. I ask him again to accept that what a relay service does is to provide an improved method of reception and therefore one should not equate a relay service with the broadcasting authorities. I think that confusion has been at the root of the thinking of the right hon. Gentleman and his Department throughout this Bill. They have misconceived what a relay system is.
      Tonight we have had a fresh argument from the right hon. Gentleman. This is the argument very familiar from the lips of Ministers—I have used it myself—that we should not do this because it would create a precedent and would open the door to all manner of difficulties. I do not accept that in this case, since the licensing powers are in the hands of the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and of the Post Office to draw the line as hard as they will.
      The House is faced with a simple issue of principle. Should a relay operator be obliged to go to his competitor to obtain a licence to carry on his business? It is that which divides the two sides. What a wonderful thing it will be if, on our deciding to disagree with the Amendment, the Lords do not
      1640
      weary of well doing as they did yesterday on the gerrymandering Bill and decide to insist on this Amendment.
      Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I declare what is for me, unhappily, a very minor financial interest in this matter, although no doubt in print it would be regarded as of great importance financially. I have some connection with a relay system and I am a director of a company in the far west which gives relay services. The only reason I became associated with relay was because, unhappily, the B.B.C. was not able to provide the particular service which my constituents would like to receive and, therefore, in many parts of that area the people rely upon a relay system. That is how I originally came into the picture.
      What I find distressing in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was the horror with which he contemplated a situation in which there would be an erosion of monopoly. He spoke as though it would be an offence against the Holy Ghost. It would be out of order now to go into the merits of the different doctrines of this matter. I have always taken the view that where the private sector cannot provide a service, it is the duty of the State to provide it, and for that reason there are many Acts of nationalisation which my colleagues and I have supported and—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman warned himself about getting out of order.
      Mr. Thorpe: I shall therefore echo what I said, Mr. Speaker, so that it will penetrate to my inner ear drums and merely say that it seems a most extraordinary situation that when a service, which has existed for many years and which has involved large capital investment and has provided a service which the Post Office and the broadcasting authorities on their own admission have not been able to provide, applies for the right to continue, it should be unable to apply to some impartial authority for the right either to continue or to have its licence discontinued, but that the application must be made to those who, according to the Postmaster-General's own speech, are claiming total monopoly and who would look askance at any erosion of those monopolistic powers.

      1641
      With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think that it is out of order to say that when the right hon. Gentleman dealt with a very similar situation, namely, the grant of the valuable franchise for independent television companies, they did not have to go to the existing independent companies or to the B.B.C., but to an independent authority for the granting or withholding or variation of the franchise. That is all that is asked in this instance, that after 1976—I understand the operative date to be 31st July—those who have provided a service if applying for a continuation of their licences shall be able to go to an impartial body, which I suggest should be the right hon. Gentleman, to ask to be allowed to continue and that they should not be expected to put their case before those who are themselves seeking monopoly and would therefore be biased against them. All we are asking is that the Corporation should not be judge and jury in its own case.
      That seems to be a fairly basic doctrine which I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman, who is a good democrat, would see his way to accept. If he does not see fit to accept it, one will be able to conclude only that for him the phrase "erosion of monopoly" is a far greater spectre of horror than even his speech would lead us to believe and that what he wants to do is not only to create a monopoly, but to give that monopoly power to decide whether any potential competitor should have the right to survive. That is a very wrong concept.
      Mr. Paul Bryan: The case has been made extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), as well it should have been, for he has often made it, as have the rest of us who were on the Standing Committee which considered the Bill. Not only do I support my hon. Friend, but I advise my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote against the Government Motion.
      The right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) showed some surprise at the rigidity of the attitude of the Postmaster-General towards monopoly. We are certainly not surprised, because that has been his attitude all through our consideration of the Bill and this just happens to be the most glaring and spectacular illustration of this rigidity.
      I was not surprised that the Postmaster-General made so short a speech, because he has made this case so often and it is so bad that by now he is presumably slightly sensitive about it. It must be an embarrassing speech for him to have to make.
      Our case still remains utterly unanswerable. We shall still have the ludicrous position in which a company will be asked to apply to its competitor for a licence, without appeal. How anything could be more wrong that that I do not know and I am amazed that we have not made any progress in this case.
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 129.

      Division No. 342.]

      AYES

      [10.44 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Anderson, Donald

      Dalyell, Tam

      Ford, Ben

      Archer, Peter

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Forrester, John

      Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Ginsburg, David

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Beaney, Alan

      Dempsey, James

      Gregory, Arnold

      Bence, Cyril

      Dewar, Donald

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Benn, Rt. Hn Anthony Wedgwood

      Dobson, Ray

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Doig, Peter

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Dunnett, Jack

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Blackburn, F.

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Hannan, William

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

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

      Harper, Joseph

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Eadie, Alex

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Booth, Albert

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Haseldine, Norman

      Boston, Terence

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Boyden, James

      Ellis, John

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Brooks, Edwin

      Ennals, David

      Hilton, W. S.

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Hooley, Frank

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

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

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

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

      Faulds, Andrew

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Buchan, Norman

      Fernyhough, E.

      Howie, W.

      Cant, R. B.

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

      Carmichael, Neil

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Coleman, Donald

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Hunter, Adam

      Hynd, John

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

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

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Janner, Sir Barnett

      Manuel, Archie

      Rose, Paul

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Marks, Kenneth

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Silverman, Julius

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Mendelson, John

      Slater, Joseph

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

      Mikardo, Ian

      Small, William

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Millan, Bruce

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Taverne, Dick

      Judd, Frank

      Molloy, William

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

      Kelley, Richard

      Moonman, Eric

      Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

      Kenyon, Clifford

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Tinn, James

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

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Tuck, Raphael

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Urwin, T. W.

      Lawson, George

      Murray, Albert

      Varley, Eric G.

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Neal, Harold

      Wallace, George

      Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)

      Newens, Stan

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip

      Wellbeloved, James

      Loughlin, Charles

      Norwood, Christopher

      Whitaker, Ben

      Luard, Evan

      Ogden, Eric

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Paget, R. T.

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      McBride, Neil

      Palmer, Arthur

      Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

      McCann, John

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      MacColl, James

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      MacDermot, Niall

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Pentland, Norman

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      McGuire, Michael

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Mackie, John

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Maclennan, Robert

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Woof, Robert

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Probert, Arthur

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Rankin, John

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Mr. J. D. Concannon and

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Mr. Ernest Armstrong.

      NOES

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Astor, John

      Goodhew, Victor

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

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

      Gower, Raymond

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Grant, Anthony

      Peel, John

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Gurden, Harold

      Percival, Ian

      Balniel, Lord

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Harris, Reader (Heston)

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Bessell, Peter

      Hastings, Stephen

      Pym, Francis

      Biffen, John

      Hawkins, Paul

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Hay, John

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Heseltine, Michael

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Holland, Philip

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Brains, Bernard

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Scott, Nicholas

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hunt, John

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

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

      Bryan, Paul

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Silvester, Frederick

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

      Kimball, Marcus

      Speed, Keith

      Burden, F. A.

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Stainton, Keith

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Kirk, Peter

      Stodart, Anthony

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Kitson, Timothy

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Carlisle, Mark

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Lawler, Wallace

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Clark, Henry

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Temple, John M.

      Cooke, Robert

      Longden, Gilbert

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Corfield, F. V.

      Lubbock, Eric

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

      MacArthur, Ian

      Waddington, David

      Dean, Paul

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

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

      McMaster, Stanley

      Wall, Patrick

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Whitelaw. Rt. Hn. William

      Drayson, G. B.

      Marten, Neil

      Wiggin, A. W.

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Maude, Angus

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Eden, Sir John

      Mawby, Ray

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Eyre, Reginald

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Farr, John

      Monro, Hector

      Wright, Esmond

      Fisher, Nigel

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wylie, N. R.

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      More, Jasper

      Younger, Hn. George

      Fortescue, Tim

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Murton, Oscar

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Neave, Airey

      Mr. Anthony Royle and

      Nott, John

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

    Clause 27

      SAVING FOR THINGS DONE UNDER LICENCE
      Lords Amendment No. 12: In page 29, line 28, leave out from beginning to "either" in line 30 and insert:
      "The Minister may grant a licence".
      Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, That this. House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      There was discussion on the last Amendment about the shortness of my speech. Perhaps it will be appropriate if I make a slightly longer speech on this Amendment, succinctly to put the case for the monopoly. The purpose of the Bill, which the House considered at great length in Committee upstairs and on the Floor of the House, is that the Post Office Corporation should have the telecommunications monopoly at present enjoyed by the Postmaster-General. The only major change in its scope is that the new monopoly catches the British ends of the overseas systems and the old one did not.
      The Government believe that it is important to have a single, publicly-owned system with a monopoly by Act of Parliament because the communications network has an essential job to do in the economy and in the country, and the communications network is a natural monopoly. The bigger it is, the more valuable it is to its users. The various facilities—the telegraph, telephone, vision and data aspects—of the system use a common plant and techniques, and many users need to use several of these. It is obviously right to have one body providing them.
      This communications network requires planning for many years ahead on a secure basis; and finances permanently secure against "creaming-off" of the specially profitable bits of the system. Nothing short of an Act of Parliament can give this security. A monopoly at the gift of a Minister, which he could revoke when he feels like it, simply will not do. Furthermore, the staff must be given a real sense of security for the future.
      If we were to allow the Amendment to stand, it would be possible for a future Minister gradually to erode the monopoly without any further reference
      1646
      to this House, and I believe that the House would regard it as wrong for such an important decision to be made by a Minister without a new Bill.
      When the Amendment was discussed on Report in another place, the view of those who supported the Amendment seemed to be that the Post Office should have a statutory monopoly but not the power to grant monopoly licences. In their view, this was a function of Ministers, and they saw licensing by an impartial Minister as a protection for the consumer.
      The point was not made specifically on either side in the other place that the Amendment would leave open the possibility that a Minister could use it to dismantle the monopoly, in particular by opening the provision of the communications system to private enterprise. As I have said, this is an important point, and I believe that on both sides of the House there would be support for the view that, if this important departure were to be made from a monopoly by a future Minister, the issue should be brought to the House, and should not be decided by a Minister without the House having an opportunity to discuss a fresh Bill on it.
      If this unique network is to be preserved, inbuilt safeguards must be provided for it, and it is important that the telecommunications monopoly that at present resides in the Postmaster-General should reside in the public Corporation of the future, so that the Corporation will be able to do the job which this House expects it to do to maintain and develop efficiently the communications system.
      The noble Lord Lord Helsby in another place gave as his reason for pressing the Amendment that involving the Minister enabled Parliament to be brought in. But licensing is only one of the many ways in which the Post Office will be fulfilling its functions, and there is no reason to involve Parliament directly in this function.
      I hope the House will agree with me in disagreeing with the Amendment.
      11.0 p.m.
      Captain L. P. S. Orr: This Amendment raises the whole matter of monopoly, not merely in the narrower sense, but over the whole wide range of telecommunications. The Minister

      1647
      has produced the extraordinary argument that he wants to transfer the present monopoly of telecommunications enjoyed by the Postmaster-General, a Minister of the Crown, to a new public corporation which is not subject to day to day questioning in this House. The two concepts are absolutely different.
      To begin with, the monopoly which he proposes to transfer is a widely extended one. If it were simply a case, as the Postmaster-General has argued, of wanting to protect against erosion the present telecommunications network as it exists, there is an easy way to deal with that. But in this Amendment we are concerned with the whole future of telecommunications, with aspects which have not yet been thought of at all.
      We are not here dealing with the old system of telephone lines and exchanges, but with the telecommunications of the future which can hardly be foreseen and at which the mind boggles. The Postmaster-General has been careful in the passage of the Bill to remove the upper limit of three million megacycles on his monopoly. He well knows that it is in the area of frequency spectrum that the new developments will come, which will make the present system of telephone communication by line and semi-mechanical exchanges totally out of date. There are systems which have not yet been thought of operating in frequencies which have not yet been developed, well above the frequency of light. The Postmaster-General well knows that it is on that aspect that the present system of communications might well be in danger in the future.
      He is saying that at all costs we must preserve the monopoly of the stage coach in case somebody in the future should invent a motor car. What will happen is not that the new Corporation will develop these new areas, but that it will use its monopoly to prevent their development. To take a simple case, at present the Postmaster-General licenses the ordinary two-way mobile radio—
      Mr. Stonehouse: How can the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) justify his remark that the Post Office would stand in the way of new development? Surely he knows that the Post Office is now in the forefront of new development. The p.c.m. system is only one example of this. The
      1648
      hon. Gentleman has no ground at all for that remark.
      Captain Orr: That is not quite what I said. I have no doubt—I have said this often before—that those at present in charge of the Post Office are interested in new developments—of course they are. I have no doubt that they would willingly work on these matters in their research establishment at Dollis Hill and elsewhere; they are at present very forward-looking. But at present they have competition. Where the Post Office has not itself been willing to develop, let us say, two-way radio as applied to ambulance services and taxi services, it is being done by private enterprise. The Post Office has not been willing to move into that sphere of activity. If the Post Office, rather than a Minister of the Crown, had been in the position of granting licences, I wonder what would have happened in the end. If it had been thought at the time that the development of this kind of communication would become a menace to the capital investment in line telecommunications, what would those devoted public servants in the Post Office have thought it their public duty to do? The argument is against monopoly, whether it be State or private monopoly. Those who serve the Post Office might think it their public duty to stifle any new development which might menace its present capital investment.
      There is not much hope of getting the Postmaster-General to change his mind. His dogmatism on the subject is notorious and has been displayed on many occasions. But I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be steeled in their determination, when we return to office, to remove the licensing power from the Corporation and put it into other hands. Like the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), I would prefer them to be the hands of an entirely independent body. But this Amendment seeks to put it in the hands of the Minister, and that seems reasonable, as the Minister is responsible to the House. The Minister may issue licences without reference to the House, but he is subject to Questions in the House as to whether a licence is fair as between the Corporation and a competitor.
      All that we seek is a fair system. It is not fair if the new Corporation, controlling the largest amount of capital in

      1649
      the country and one of the largest employers of labour, is left in the position of being able to stifle all competition and hold up the extension of modern methods of communications in the future. I hope that the House will reject the Minister's proposition.
      Mr. Thorpe: I desire to make two brief comments on the arguments advanced by the Postmaster-General. For a long period, I thought how lucky I was not to have been involved in the Committee stage, but I realise now how much interesting political dogma I have missed.
      The two points are those on which the right hon. Gentleman based his argument. My first comment is that his diagnosis of the Parliamentary rights of this House is inaccurate. The second is that his logic is severely at fault.
      With regard to the first, he talks about the necessity for Parliamentary control, which I understand he concedes. Obviously it is necessary for this House to be able to control excesses, whether they be of the Post Office Corporation or of the Postmaster-General. If the right hon. Gentleman attaches importance to that, let us see what the situation is. It is that, if the Amendment were rejected, a licence could be granted by the Post Office, provided that it was within the general terms issued by the Postmaster-General.
      The suggestion in the Amendment of the other place is that it is the Minister himself who may grant a licence. Therefore, it is not left within the generality of terms which may have been laid down five or 10 year before. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that a specific licence granted by a Minister is more readily the subject of a Parliamentary check, control and debate than one issued by a Post Office Corporation which may coincidentally fit in with general terms previously issued, conditional or unconditional.
      Mr. Stonehouse: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood my point. It is the intention of this House, through the Post Office Bill, that the monopoly now enjoyed by the Postmaster-General should be transferred to the Corporation. My point was that a future Minister could undermine that monopoly in a way that the House does not approve. By the techniques suggested in the Amend-
      1650
      ment in another place, it would be possible for certain sections of the network to be creamed off as a result of unilateral ministerial decision. That is what I want to prevent. I believe that this House intends that the Post Office Corporation should continue to enjoy the existing monopoly.
      Mr. Thorpe: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I make only two comments. First, the right hon. Gentleman has touched on the second point to which I am coming, namely, that his logic about the powers of the Postmaster-General is wrong. Before the Assistant Postmaster-General shakes his head, perhaps he will do me the honour of listening to what I have to say before deciding whether he agrees or disagrees.
      The other point is that the Minister has said that a Postmaster-General may cream off the service contrary to the wishes of the House. It seems a strange argument that a Postmaster-General will, by the acceptance of the Amendment, be able to drive something through the House against the wishes of the majority. If the Minister was the issuing licensor, it would be less likely to happen than if it was done through a general authority which could have been set up five or ten years before. I cannot accept the logic of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Nor could he if he looked at it realistically.
      It is quite extraordinary. We are saying that the Minister becomes far more answerable because it is his responsibility in each case. He cannot merely say that there was a general authority issued, that there were certain conditions laid down, that those conditions have been satisfied, and, therefore, it is not a matter for him.
      The right hon. Gentleman's first argument, that the Minister can in some strange way cream off the market without reference to the House of Commons, by the very definition of it, is of no account. The fact that he has personally to issue the licence and to justify it makes him far more accountable to the House.
      Coming to the right hon. Gentleman's second argument, that the Minister's powers of monopoly must be divested and given to the Post Office Corporation, he seems to have failed to understand that he may have a monopolistic power now, he may have the power to license, but he

      1651
      is not an operator. The great difference is that he is not an operator. He does not have to provide the Post Office lines to transmit broadcasting from the West Country; he is not responsible for seeing whether Caradon Hill has the necessary television boost to carry a good picture. This is done by a third party. Sometimes it is the B.B.C., sometimes the I.T.A., and sometimes, indeed, it is a relay service. This is the point where the right hon. Gentleman's logic falls down.
      The right hon. Gentleman is saying that he wishes one body to have the power of licensing and the power of operating. Lord Thomson once said that he had the power to print money. But the powers that are given here not only to operate, but to license as well, would, by comparison, qualify Lord Thomson for supplementary benefit. That is the power. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman's logic is totally fallacious. He is saying, "I have monopolistic power at the moment, but I give it to the various broadcasting authorities, whether in public or in private service, whether a public corporation like the B.B.C. or the Post Office or the I.T.A. or the relay services." He is now trying to amalgamate those powers and give them to one organisation which will also have the power of licensing. This is wrong.
      It is frightening when a Postmaster-General, opposing an Amendment which is brought forward, first gives a totally fallacious appraisal of the parliamentary situation and proves that he has failed to appreciate the powers which he exercises and proposes not only to delegate those powers but to delegate the operation of those powers as well. If that has been the logic behind his thinking, I can understand why he has failed to appreciate the advantage of the Amendment.
      Mr. Bryan: I shall not add much to the arguments which have been put forward, because they could not have been put in a more powerful way by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and by the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe).
      11.15 p.m.
      The Postmaster-General spoke as though we were all agreed that the monopoly as now enjoyed by the Postmaster-General should be transferred in precisely its present form to the new corporation. This is not what we all thought in Committee upstairs. We thought that this was an opportunity to have a close look at this monopoly before passing it on, because of the new situation which has been described by the right hon. Gentleman. We thought that a much closer look was required, for the very reason that no Minister would have his eye on this monopoly.
      As to the erosion of monopoly, we do not see any great danger there. We would far rather see the Minister in a position to adjust the monopoly as he saw fit, with Parliament overlooking him the whole time, than have the monopoly rigid in the hands of the Post Office year after year. The whole technical situation in industry will alter over the years, and still this rigid monopoly will be held by this corporation, whereas if the final appeal, or licence, is in the hands of the Minister, he can adjust it from time to time, and I am not in the slightest frightened of this threat of erosion of monopoly.
      I think it worth pointing out that the C.B.I. has taken the trouble to write to the Minister of Technology asking him to press this point with the Postmaster-General, again pointing out what Lord Halsbury said in another place, namely, that in a technological age like this advances are made at such a speed that one simply cannot have a monopoly in so rigid a form as this.
      I think that the case has been well put once again. It is fitting that this very last debate in this long discussion lasting since November should return to the attack on the rigidity of monopoly. I think that that is the most important evil that we have been fighting, and we have failed so far to destroy it. I now suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we oppose the Minister in this Motion.
      Question put:—
      The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 132.

      Division No. 343.]

      AYES

      [11.18 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Anderson, Donald

      Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

      Beaney, Alan

      Archer, Peter

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Bence, Cyril

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Hannan, William

      Molloy, William

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Harper, Joseph

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Blackburn, F.

      Haseldine, Norman

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Murray, Albert

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Neal, Harold

      Booth, Albert

      Hilton, W. S.

      Newens, Stan

      Boston, Terence

      Hooley, Frank

      Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip

      Boyden, James

      Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)

      Norwood, Christopher

      Brooks, Edwin

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Ogden, Eric

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Howie, W.

      Oswald, Thomas

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

      Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

      Palmer, Arthur

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

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Buchan, Norman

      Hunter, Adam

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Cant, R. B.

      Hynd, John

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Carmichael, Neil

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Pentland, Norman

      Coleman, Donald

      Janner, Sir Barnett

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Concannon, J. D.

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      Probert, Arthur

      Cronin, John

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Rankin, John

      Dalyell, Tam

      Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

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

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Judd, Frank

      Rose, Paul

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Kelley, Richard

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Dempsey, James

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

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Dewar, Donald

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Silverman, Julius

      Dobson, Ray

      Lawson, George

      Slater, Joseph

      Doig, Peter

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Small, William

      Dunnett, Jack

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Loughlin, Charles

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

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

      Luard, Evan

      Taverne, Dick

      Eadie, Alex

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

      Edelman, Maurice

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      McCann, John

      Tinn, James

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      MacColl, James

      Tuck, Raphael

      Ellis, John

      MacDermot, Niall

      Urwin, T. W.

      Ennals, David

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Varley, Eric G.

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      McGuire, Michael

      Wallace, George

      Faulds, Andrew

      Mackie, John

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Fernyhough, E.

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Wellbeloved, James

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Whitaker, Ben

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Ford, Ben

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

      Forrester, John

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Freeson, Reginald

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

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Ginsburg, David

      Manuel, Archie

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Marks, Kenneth

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Gregory, Arnold

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Winnick, David

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Mendelson, John

      Woof, Robert

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Millan, Bruce

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Mr. Ioan L. Evans and

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Mr. Neil McBride.

      NOES

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Goodhew, Victor

      Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian

      Carlisle, Mark

      Gower, Raymond

      Astor, John

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Gurden, Harold

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

      Clark, Henry

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Cooke, Robert

      Harris, Reader (Heston)

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Corfield, F. V.

      Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere

      Balniel, Lord

      Dean, Paul

      Hastings, Stephen

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

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

      Hawkins, Paul

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Hay, John

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

      Drayson, G. B.

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Bessell, Peter

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Heseltine, Michael

      Biffen, John

      Eden, Sir John

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Biggs-Davison, John

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

      Holland, Philip

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Emery, Peter

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Hornby, Richard

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Farr, John

      Hunt, John

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Fisher, Nigel

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Braine, Bernard

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Fortescue, Tim

      Kimball, Marcus

      Bryan, Paul

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

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

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Kirk, Peter

      Burden, F. A.

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      Kitson, Timothy

      1654

      1655

      Lane, David

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Peel, John

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Lawler, Wallace

      Percival, Ian

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Temple, John M.

      Longden, Gilbert

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      MacArthur, Ian

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Pym, Francis

      Waddington, David

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Marten, Neil

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Wall, Patrick

      Maude, Angus

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Mawby, Ray

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Wiggin, A. W.

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Royle, Anthony

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Monro, Hector

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Scott, Nicholas

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      More, Jasper

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Wright, Esmond

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Sharpies, Richard

      Wylie, N. R.

      Murton, Oscar

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

      Younger, Hn. George

      Neave, Airey

      Silvester, Frederick

      Nott, John

      Speed, Keith

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Stainton, Keith

      Mr. Anthony Grant and

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Stodart, Anthony

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill.

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

    Clause 29

      EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY OF THE POST OFFICE, ITS OFFICERS AND SERVANTS, IN RELATION TO POSTS AND TELE COMMUNICATIONS
      Lords Amendment No. 13: In page 32, line 6, at end insert:
      "( ) No person engaged in or about the carriage of mail and no Officer, Servant, Agent or Sub-Contractor of such person shall be subject except at the suit of the Post Office to any civil liability for any loss or damage in the case of which liability of the Post Office therefor is excluded by subsection (1) of this section."
      Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      The object of the Lords Amendment is to extend to carriers of mails certain exemptions from liability in respect of the carriage of mail enjoyed by the present Post Office and transferred to the new Post Office by Clause 29 of the Bill. We recommend that this Amendment be accepted because we have concluded that this change, while improving the law, will have no significant effect on the ordinary user of the postal services.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 47

      MAKING, BY THE MINISTER, IN CON SIDERATION OF THE EXCHEQUER'S BEING RELIEVED OF CERTAIN LIABILITIES WITH RESPECT TO PEN SIONS. OF PAYMENTS TO TRUSTEES APPOINTED BY THE POST OFFICE
      Lords Amendment No. 15: In page 43, line 11, leave out "amounts" and insert "amount".
      Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with this we take Lords Amendment No. 16, in page 43, line 12, leave out second "to".
      Mr. Slater: The Amendment puts the verb "amounts" into the plural because its antecedent is the plural noun "proceeds".
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 52

      RATING IN ENGLAND AND WALES
      Lords Amendment No. 17: In page 46, line 14, after "(a)" insert "by order".
      Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: I call the attention of the House to the fact that Privilege is involved in all the Amendments from No. 17 to No. 35. I have suggested that

      1657
      we take all these Amendments, from No. 17 to No. 35, together.
      Mr. Stonehouse: I agree, Mr. Speaker.
      Members of the Standing Committee will remember that I gave an undertaking that there would be a discussion with the local authorities associations about the rating valuation for the Post Office network and railway. Discussions took place between officials, and the Amendments which were moved in another place are brought forward to honour the agreement that was reached with the associations. They provide for a general revaluation to meet the points that have been raised by the associations. They have been welcomed by the associations, and I commend them to the House.
      Question put and agreed to—[Special entry.]
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 66

      HARBOUR CHARGES ON MAIL-BAGS
      Lords Amendment No. 36: In page 54, line 27, leave out from "mail-bags" to end of line 29 and insert:
      "whrich, when in the United Kingdom, are in the charge of the Post Office ".
      11.30 p.m.
      Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move, That this; House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: I think that it would be convenient to consider with it Lords Amendment No. 37, in Clause 67, page 55, line 26, leave out from "mail-bags" to end of line 28 and insert:
      "which, when in the United Kingdom, are in the charge of the Post Office ".
      Mr. Slater: The Amendments are the result of a suggestion for improving the drafting of the Clauses made to the Gov-
      1658
      ernment by the Chairman of the Port of London Authority.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 76

      CONSEQUENTIAL ADAPTATIONS OF ENACTMENTS
      Lords Amendment No. 38: in page 58, line 33, leave out "Order" and insert "Orders".
      Mr. Joseph Slater: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: I suggest that with it we take Lords Amendment No. 63, in Schedule 4, page 129, line 11, at end insert:
      "100B. As from the appointed day, references in the Parliamentary Writs Order 1944 (which lays down rules for the conveyance through the post of writs for parliamentary elections for constituencies in Great Britain) to the Pastmaster General shall be construed as referring to the authority."
      Mr. Joseph Slater: The Amendment is a paving Amendment for Lords Amendment No. 63, which transfers to the new Post Office certain duties imposed on the Postmaster-General by the Parliamentary Writs Order, 1944.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Bryan, Mr. Faulds, Mr. Ian Gilmour, Mr. Joseph Slater and Mr. Stonehouse; Three to be the Quorum.—[Mr. Storehouse.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

      EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
      Lords Amendments considered.
    Clause 1

      FUNCTIONS OF EDUCATION AUTHORITIES
      Lords Amendment No. 1: In page 1, line 24, after "suitable" insert:
      "in the ordinary case".
      11.35 p.m.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milan): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This is a drafting Amendment to new Section 1(2) of the 1962 Act as set out in the Clause. It clarifies the wording of the definition of activities in nursery schools and classes, and makes it consistent with the new definitions of primary and secondary education in Clause 1(2).
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 2: In page 2, line 24, after first "of" insert:
      "school education in public schools at which fees were being charged on the 25th November 1968 and of".
      Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not sure as to what is being grouped with this Amendment. We are certainly going to discuss at the same time Lords Amendments No. 15, in Clause 27, page 35, line 14, leave out from beginning to "Part" in line 15 and insert "Paragraph 7(2) of"; No. 16, in Clause 27, page 35, line 24, leave out paragraph (a); No. 17, in Schedule 2, page 38, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 39; and No. 21, in Schedule 3, page 48, column 3, leave out line 10. However, I am in doubt about No. 4, in Clause 1, page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      "(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 of the principal Act (as set out in subsection (1) above) where—

      (a) an education authority have, at any time in the year ending with 1st August 1970, provided school education in any school under their management for an out-with-area pupil and have charged fees in respect of that education, and

      (b) the said pupil is on 1st October 1970 in attendance at a class in a secondary
      1660
      school, or in the secondary department of a school, under the management of that education authority,

      the said education authority may charge fees in respect of any school education provided by them for that pupil in any school under their management at any time after 1st August 1970 when he is an outwith- area pupil:
      Provided that the education authority shall not have power under this paragraph to charge fees in respect of education provided by them for any pupil if a contribution in respect of such provision is payable to them by another education authority.
      In this subsection "outwith-area pupil" means, in relation to any education authority, a pupil who is not deemed to belong for the purposes of section 24 of the principal Act to the area of that authority."
      Mr. Millan: I think that it would be more convenient if we discussed No. 4 at the same time, and the Government Amendment to it, in line 2, after 'above)', insert:

      (a) the power to charge fees in public schools conferred on education authorities by the proviso to section 1(3) of that Act (as originally enacted) shall continue to be available to, and may be exercised by, education authorities after the commencement of this Act, so, however, that this paragraph shall cease to have effect on 1st August 1970;

      (b).

      Some of these Amendments are consequential on taking the group as a whole.
      Mr. Speaker: Then, if there is no objection …?
      Mr. Gordon Campbell: We would prefer to take No. 4 separately, Mr. Speaker, but the others grouped with No. 2.
      Mr. Speaker: That is what I thought in the first place. Then we will leave out Amendment No. 4 and the Amendment to it, and discuss Amendments No. 15, 16, 17 and 21 with Amendment No. 2.
      Mr. Millan: Lords Amendment No. 2 deals with the question of fee paying in local education authority schools, a matter which has been discussed at great length on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to cover these matters in any considerable detail.
      We on this side have, of course, taken the view that fee paying in local education authority schools is an anachronism. In any case, the payment of fees is not a

      1661
      major issue, but the fact that the payment of fees is bound up with the continuance of a selective system of secondary education, which it is the Government's pledge to see discontinued in favour of comprehensive secondary education. There is no doubt that the continuance of fee paying is incompatible with the move towards comprehensive education.
      Nor does the freedom of choice argument, which has been used in this context, seem to us to have any validity in the situation in which selection at the age of 12—whatever else may be the arguments for it—is inimical to any real freedom of choice for the parents concerned.
      The number of schools with which we are dealing here is very small compared with the number of schools providing secondary education, and indeed primary education, in Scotland as a whole. This whole argument about fee paying has been carried on at what I personally regard as a very exaggerated level.
      The Amendment is also rather curious because it does not attempt to reestablish the general powers of local education authorities in Scotland to charge fees in local education authority schools but would restrict that power to the schools at which fees were being charged at a particular date, namely, 25th November, 1968. It may be possible to argue in principle that local education authorities in Scotland should have this power, but whatever the arguments in principle, there can be very little justification for an Amendment which would restrict the power to a very small number of schools which happened to charge fees on that date.
      Apart from being unacceptable to the Government, the Amendment would also stand on its head the argument which the Opposition used on this issue all the way through our debates here and in another place. I therefore see no justification for the Amendment, either in principle or in its practical implications. As I said, we debated this matter at considerable length. I have, of course, read carefully the Reports of the debates in another place, but I read no arguments produced there which had not already been dealt with at great length in our debates here.
      1662
      The other Amendments, Nos. 15, 16, 17 and 21, are technical, and are completely consequential on Amendment No. 2. If the House disagrees with the Lords on Amendment No. 2, as I am asking it to do, it will also be necessary, to maintain consistency in the Bill, to reject these other four Amendments.
      Mr. Ian MacArthur: I greatly regret that the Government are seeking to reject the Amendment. As the hon. Gentleman has reminded us, this debate revives the argument which raged in the House and in the Scottish Standing Committee earlier this year. The more the argument continues, the more my hon. Friends and I are convinced that our cause is just and that of the Government unjust, and based on narrow political dogma and cheap and contemptible envy.
      The purpose of the Government's proposal is to remove the right of local authorities to charge fees in certain schools. There are few of these schools. Only two local authorities resist the Government's will, Edinburgh and Glasgow. But it is not the number of schools or of local authorities which matters. What does matter is that we now confront two important principles—the principle of freedom of choice in education and the right of local authorities to determine the pattern of education provided in their areas.
      These are two fundamental principles which the House must not lightly brush aside. The first, freedom of choice, is surely one we should respect in Britain, and it is enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights which the Government pretend to support. The second, the freedom of local authorities is one to which the Government pay lip service but which they are ready to override and crush if the will of the local authority happens, as in this case, to be in conflict with the educational dogma of the Labour Party.
      In all our debates, which have gone on month after month, the Government have not yet advanced a single education argument in support of their intention to crush local democracy. They object to selectivity, as the hon. Gentleman has reminded us, and yet selectivity in one form or another is present in every kind of education. They maintain that a fee paying system cannot be tolerated side by

      1663
      side with the developing comprehensive system of education. We do not agree.
      On this side, we believe that the strength of Scottish education is the variety it provides. We believe that the quality of Scottish education will be maintained and strengthened if local authority fee paying and comprehensive schools can develop together side by side to form a varied pattern in which parents have choice. The fees at these schools are not high. Indeed, many of the places are free, as the hon. Gentleman learned from us during the Committee stage. If the Government abolish these schools they will remove freedom of choice not from the rich, who can look elsewhere, to the expensive independent schools, but from parents who are less well off and for whom the local authority fee paying schools provide the only alternative form of education available to their children. The self-styled egalitarians opposite are removing freedom not from the rich, who can look elswhere, but from the poor.
      During our debates on this part of the Bill, the hon. Gentleman has been consistent in one regard. He has consistently ignored the questions which we have asked. He has not yet told us, despite repeated questions, what will happen to these schools. The fees will end in August next year if the Government
      are successful tonight. But that is not the extent of the Government's intention. We know from what he said that they propose to turn these schools into territorial comprehensive schools, despite the fact, which stares them in the face, that many of them are totally unsuitable for that purpose.
      Furthermore, the Government must know by now, because we have told them often enough, that, if these schools are turned into territorial comprehensive schools, they will become socially divisive because the children will come from wealthy, well-to-do areas. At present, on the other hand, the children are drawn from every part of Edinburgh and Glasgow. I have shown in earlier debates that they represent a social mix which all of us wish to see in our schools. That will vanish if the Government are successful in their proposal tonight.
      My hon. Friends and I wish to preserve the freedom of choice which parents in Edinburgh and Glasgow enjoy today. We also wish to preserve the right of local authorities to shape the pattern of education in their areas. We therefore greatly regret that the Government are persisting in their shameful intent, and we shall divide against it.
      Question put:
      The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 122.

      Division No. 344.]

      AYES

      [11.45 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Anderson, Donald

      Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Archer, Peter

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Dempsey, James

      Hannan, William

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Dewar, Donald

      Harper, Joseph

      Beaney, Alan

      Dobson, Ray

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Bence, Cyril

      Doig, Peter

      Haseldine, Norman

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Dunnett, Jack

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Bessell, Peter

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Bidwell, Sydney

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

      Hilton, W. S.

      Binns, John

      Eadie, Alex

      Hooson, Emlyn

      Bishop, E. S.

      Edelman, Maurice

      Howell, Denis (Small Heath)

      Blackburn, F.

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Howie, W.

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Ellis, John

      Hoy, Rt. Hn. James

      Boardman, H. (Leigh)

      Ennals, David

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Booth, Albert

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Hunter, Adam

      Boston, Terence

      Faulds, Andrew

      Hynd, John

      Boyden, James

      Fernyhough, E.

      Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)

      Brooks, Edwin

      Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

      Janner, Sir Barnett

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)

      Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

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

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Jeger, George (Coole)

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

      Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

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

      Buchan, Norman

      Ford, Ben

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)

      Cant, R. B.

      Forrester, John

      Judd, Frank

      Carmichael, Neil

      Freeson, Reginald

      Kelley, Richard

      Coleman, Donald

      Garrett, W. E.

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

      Concannon, J. D.

      Ginsburg, David

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Lawler, Wallace

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Gregory, Arnold

      Lawson, George

      Dalyell, Tam

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Molloy, William

      Small, William

      Loughlin, Charles

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Luard, Evan

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Murray, Albert

      Taverne, Dick

      McBride, Neil

      Neal, Harold

      Thomas, Rt. Hn. George

      McCann, John

      Newens, Stan

      Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

      MacColl, James

      Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip

      Tinn, James

      MacDermot, Niall

      Norwood, Christopher

      Tuck, Raphael

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Oswald, Thomas

      Urwin, T. W.

      McGuire, Michael

      Palmer, Arthur

      Varley, Eric G.

      Mackie, John

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Wellbeloved, James

      Maclennan, Robert

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Whitaker, Ben

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Pentland, Norman

      White, Mrs. Eirene

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Williams, Afan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Mahon, Dr. J, Dickson

      Price, William (Rugby)

      Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

      Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)

      Probert, Arthur

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Mahon, Simon (Bootle)

      Rankin, John

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

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

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Manuel, Archie

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Winnick, David

      Marks, Kenneth

      Rodgers, William (Stockton)

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Rose, Paul

      Woof, Robert

      Mendelson, John

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Millan, Bruce

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Silverman, Julius

      Mr. Charles R. Morris and

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Slater, Joseph

      Mr. Ioan L. Evans.

      NOES

      Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)

      Giover, Sir Douglas

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Goodhart, Philip

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Astor, John

      Goodhow, Victor

      Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)

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

      Gower, Raymond

      Peel, John

      Baker, Kenneth (Acton)

      Grant, Anthony

      Percival, Ian

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Gurden, Harold

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Balniel, Lord

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Harris, Reader (Heston)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J Enoch

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Hastings, Stephen

      Pym, Francis

      Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. & Fhm)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn, James

      Biffen, John

      Hay, John

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Heseltine, Michael

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Holland, Philip

      Royle, Anthony

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Hornby, Richard

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Braine, Bernard

      Hunt, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Brian, Paul

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Sharples, Richard

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

      Kimball, Marcus

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

      Burden, F. A.

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Silvester, Frederick

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, w.)

      Kirk, Peter

      Stainton, Keith

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Kitson, Timothy

      Stodart, Anthony

      Carlisle, Mark

      Lane, David

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

      Clark, Henry

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

      Temple, John M.

      Cooke, Robert

      Longden, Gilbert

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Corfield, F. V.

      MacArthur, Ian

      Waddington, David

      Dean, Paul

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Wall, Patrick

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

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Marten, Neil

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Drayson, G. B.

      Maude, Angus

      Wiggin, A. W.

      du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Eden, Sir John

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

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

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Emery, Peter

      More, Jasper

      Wright, Esmond

      Farr, John

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Wylie, N. R.

      Fisher, Nigel

      Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Younger, Hn. George

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Murton, Oscar

      Fortescue, Tim

      Neave, Airey

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Nott, John

      Mr. Reginald Eyre and

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Mr. Hector Monro.

      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 4: In page 3, line 16, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
      "(3) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 3 of the principal Act (as set out in subsection (1) above) where—
      1666

      (a) an education authority have, at any time in the year ending with 1st August 1970, provided school education in any school under their management for an outwith area pupil and have charged fees in respect of that education, and

      (b) the said pupil is on 1st. October 1970 in attendance at a class in a secondary school, or in the secondary department of a school, under the management of that education authority,

      1667
      the said education authority may charge fees in respect of any school education provided by them for that pupil in any school under their management at any time after 1st August 1970 when he is an outwith-area pupil:
      Provided that the education authority shall not have power under this paragraph to charge fees in respect of education provided by them for any pupil if a contribution in respect of such provision is payable to them by another education authority.
      In this subsection "outwith-area pupil" means, in relation to any education authority, a pupil who is not deemed to belong for the purposes of section 24 of the principal Act to the area of that authority."
      Read a Second time.
      Mr. Millan: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, after 'above)', insert:

      (a) the power to charge fees in public schools conferred on education authorities by the proviso to section 1(3) of that Act (as originally enacted) shall continue to be available to, and may be exercised by, education authorities after the commencement of this Act, so, however, that this paragraph shall cease to have effect on 1st August 1970;

      (b).

      This Amendment to the Lords Amendment will restore in subsection (3) of Clause 1 the original wording of the subsection which the Lords Amendment removed. It is consequential on the decision, which we have just taken, to abolish fee-paying that we wish to put the date of 1st August, 1970, back into the Bill. Hon. Members opposite will appreciate that if this Amendment is not made, the abolition will take effect within one month of Royal Assent. Therefore, I am sure that they will agree to the Amendment.
      Question, That the Amendment be made, put and agreed to.
      Mr. Milian: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended.
      I have already explained the Amendment, and perhaps I might now explain the effect of the Lords Amendment. This is a transitional provision and it enables education authorities to charge fees for outwith area pupils, who are defined in the Amendment, and who are in secondary departments on 1st October, 1970, and for whom fees were being paid in respect of attendance at a school belonging to the authority at any time in the year preceding the abolition of fee-paying generally.
      1668
      This transitional Amendment is meant to cover a particular situation. In Glasgow there are a fair number of pupils coming from outside the city and paying fees at Glasgow education authority schools. There is a smaller number of such pupils, but still a significant number, in the case of Edinburgh. After the abolition of fee-paying generally, a particular problem would arise with regard to these pupils.
      The providing authority—Glasgow or Edinburgh—might naturally be reluctant to continue to educate those children at its own expense as it bears no responsibility for them if fees are not being paid. On the other hand, the pupils concerned will come from authorities which might equally be reluctant to make payments in respect of them—which they would be entitled to do under the existing law—because they already make educational provision for these children in their own areas. If parents choose to send their children to another area, the education authority might take the view that there is no reason why it should be put to extra expense for them. Therefore, there might be a situation in which neither the receiving authority was willing to continue to educate these pupils at its own expense, nor the sending authority was willing to take responsibility for them.
      We have made it clear all along that we do not want that situation to arise. The best way to safeguard it is to include a specific transitional provision, which is what the Amendment does. It covers pupils in secondary education from 1970–71 onwards, including those whose last year of primary education was 1969–70. In other words, it covers the pupils who are most concerned and who would most be affected if there were a disruption of their education. Younger pupils are not covered, but these pupils are in almost exactly the same position as pupils from Glasgow and Edinburgh areas who are at present in the primary departments of fee-paying schools.
      I hope that, with this explanation, the House will agree to the Lords Amendment, as amended.
      12 m.
      Mr. MacArthur: As the Minister has explained, this is a transitional Amendment and it makes provision to cover the position of those pupils in outwith

      1669
      areas already at the schools at the time that fees are removed. I will not attempt to abuse your generosity, Mr. Speaker, or that of the House, by going again over the basic arguments. I simply advise my hon. Friends to accept the Amendment to provide for consistency in the Bill and for the transitional provision which I think should be introduced into the Bill.
      Question,That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

    Clause 6

      POWER OF EDUCATION AUTHORITIES TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO PERSONS PRO- VIDING EDUCATION, ETC.
      Lords Amendment No. 5: In page 7, line 1, leave out from beginning to "payments" in line 3 and insert:
      "( ) Notwithstanding paragraph (c) of subsection (1) above, the approval of the Secretary of State shall not be required for the making by an education authority, by virtue of the power conferred on them by that paragraph, of "
      Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are drafting Amendments which make it clear that any education authority's power to make payments to managers of schools other than public schools in respect of individual pupils whom they are sponsoring derives from the power in Section 25(1)(c) as set out in Section 6, and is not an additional power conferred by Section 25(2). Amendment No. 6 is consequential.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 7: In page 7, line 14, after "representation" insert "or additional representation".
      Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 9 make it clear that an education authority can have additional representation on the governing body of an educational establishment to which it is making payments.
      1670
      This covers additional representation as well as representation generally.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

    Clause 10

      HANDICAPPED CHILDREN
      Lords Amendment No. 10: In page 16, line 31, at end insert:
      "( ) if within the said period the parent requires them, under subsection (4) below, to issue to him a statement of the reasons for their decision in relation to the child, earlier than the expiry of the period of twenty-eight days from the date on which that statement was issued,"
      Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 13 extend the 28-day period for appeal for a parent against an authority's decision to issue a report to the local authority that the child is unsuitable for education in a case where a parent has asked the education authority for a statement of reasons.
      As originally drafted, the new subsection in Clause 10 provided that where, as a result of the ascertainment or review of a child receiving special education, it was decided that he was unsuitable for education, and accordingly there was a report made to the local authority, the report must not be issued earlier than 28 days from the issue to the parents of the notice intimating the education authority's decision, and that within that period of 28 days an appeal might be made by the parent to the Secretary of State.
      We are extending the period during which an appeal might be made to take account of the case where the parent might ask for a statement of reasons. The 28 days for appeal would then run from the statement of reasons rather than from the original intimation to the parent. In other words, we are providing an additional safeguard to the parent in the circumstances of this Clause, and I am sure that it will be generally welcomed
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 14: In page 21, line 22, after "provide" insert "or secure the provision of".
      Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This is a drafting Amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Subsequent Lords Amendments disagreed to.

    Schedule 2

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Lords Amendment No. 17: In page 38, line 44, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 39.
      Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 18: In page 41, line 10, at end insert:
      "In section 49 (power of education authorities to assist persons to take advantage of educational facilities) —

      (a) for the words "primary or secondary", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the word "school";

      (b) in subsection (1), for the words "Great Britain", wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the word "Scotland"."

      Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      This is a drafting Amendment to make the wording consistent with other parts of the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Lords Amendment No. 19: In page 42, line 17, at end insert:
      "In section 91 (incidental expenses of education authorities)—

      (a) in subsection (1), for the word 'duties' there shall be substituted the word 'functions';

      (b) in subsection (2), at the end there shall be inserted the following paragraph: —

      '(d) expenses incurred by the parent of any child in connection with any medical or dental inspection, or any medical or psychological examination, of that child, or by any young person in connection with any medical or dental inspection of that young person, under any provision of this Act'."
      Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      1672
      This adds a specific power to Section 91 of the 1962 Act giving the Secretary of State power to make regulations sanctioning payment by an education authority of expenses incurred by a parent in connection with medical and psychological examinations under Clause 10 of the Bill or by a parent of a young person in connection with medical and dental inspections under the 1962 Act in Clause 9 of the Bill.
      The point was raised in another place that the wording was not absolutely clear. To put the matter beyond doubt and to make it clear that education authorities can make these reimbursements, this Amendment was moved. I think that it is an improvement to the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to. [Special entry.]
      Lords Amendment No. 20: In page 45, line 2, at end insert—
      "( ) after paragraph (19) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
      "(19A) 'Enactment' includes an order, regulation, rule or other instrument having effect by virtue of an Act;";"
      Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.

    Schedule 3

      ENACTMENTS REPEALED
      Lords Amendment No. 21: In page 48, column 3, leave out line 10.
      Mr. Millan: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill: Mr. Gordon Campbell, Mr. MacArthur, Mr. Millan, Mr. Oswald and Mr. Ross; Three to be the Quorum. — [Mr. Ross.]
      To withdraw immediately.
      Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

      TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANK BILL [Lords]
      Considered in Committee.
      [Mr. SYDNEY IRVING in the Chair]
      Mr. Graham Page: On a point of order. Would you be good enough, Mr. Irving, to accept manuscript Amendments on this occasion?
      The Chairman: I was about to say that I have received some manuscript Amendments. If it would help the Committee, I would say that the first I have accepted is on Clause 4. I will therefore put the first three Clauses together and we can proceed to the first Amendment.
      Clauses 1 to 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4

      CONSTITUTION OF THE INSPECTION COMMITTEE
      Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, after "Parliament" insert:
      "and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
      This Amendment deals with a situation to which attention was drawn in recommendation No. 2 of the Law Commission. There is a body called an Inspection Committee with certain powers and duties given to it by statute in relation to Trustee Savings Banks.
      The Savings Bank Act, 1891, gave this Inspection Committee the power to write its own constitution, which it did, and in that year it laid a scheme before Parliament. That scheme has remained the same until now. The Inspection Committee has power to modify that scheme. It has never done so. But it seems probable that the power to modify is not a pcwer to make an entirely new scheme.
      The evidence put before the Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills was:
      "It seems that an Act is required for a new scheme to be made, and that is the main amendment recommended in the recommendation."
      The noble Lord, the Chairman of the Committee, summed up the matter in this way:
      1674
      "So your proposal is really this, that we abolish the rather obscure scheme which is not readily available to the public, and replace it with a statutory instrument which would be laid before Parliament and be available to the public."
      That is what has been done in Clause 4(8), and it is to subsection (8) that the Amendment is directed. The subsection provides:
      "The power to make a scheme under this section, and the power to modify it, shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall he laid before Parliament …".
      Where, under existing law, an Act of Parliament would be necessary to amend the scheme of the Inspection Committee or to bring in a new scheme, it will be possible in future to make that new scheme by a Statutory Instrument. But what the Bill does is to leave it to a Statutory Instrument which will be merely laid before Parliament. It does not add the normal Parliamentary procedure that such a Statutory Instrument may be annulled upon a Resolution of either House of Parliament. The Amendment would add that proviso to the power to change the scheme by a Statutory Instrument.
      If the Inspection Committee wished to exercise its power to make an order embodying a new scheme, it would have to lay the Statutory Instrument before the House, and that Statutory Instrument would be subject to the comparatively normal procedure of annulment by a Resolution of either House. I might have chosen to ask that the Statutory Instrument should be laid in draft and that there should be an affirmative Resolution before it was accepted, but I have chosen the most innocuous procedure, that of annulment. However, I urge that if we are replacing the need for an Act of Parliament by a Statutory Instrument, that Statutory Instrument should be given the formality of Parliamentary procedure, and it should be possible for any hon. Member to bring it before the House by means of a Prayer.
      12.15 a.m.
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Arthur Irvine): As the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) has just said, the Savings Banks Act, 1891, empowered the Inspection Committee to write its own constitution in a scheme which had to be laid before Parliament. It has power to modify the scheme, and the modification also has to be laid.

      1675
      The Law Commission did not say that if the Committee ever desired to make a new scheme an Act of Parliament would be required. By exercising its power to modify the existing scheme, the committee could, in effect, make a new scheme.
      The Commission's recommendation followed the law in providing that the new scheme and any modification thereof should be laid before Parliament. The change which it recommended was to make the scheme a Statutory Instrument, so that it would become published and readily available.
      I recognise the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument, and I have given very careful consideration to it. But it is a rather narrowly balanced matter as far as I am concerned.
      First, what is proposed in the Amendment is not in accordance with the Law Commission's recommendation. Second, by the same token, what is comprised in the Amendment has not received the consideration of the Joint Committee. The Law Commission and the Joint Committee have treated the proposal in the Bill as meeting the requirements of the situation, because it provides for the publication of the scheme and achieves the making available of the scheme by the method of a Statutory Instrument.
      Bearing these factors in mind, I am inclined to the view that my duty is to recommend the Committee to reject the Amendment, but I want to make it clear that I have given careful consideration to what the hon. Gentleman had to say. There is force in his argument. However, we are dealing with a rather special circumstance; namely, a proposal made in a consolidation Measure which has not been recommended by the Law Commission and has not received the consideration of the Joint Committee.
      The Law Commission and the Joint Committee recognise that the desirable objective of the Clause is achieved by the laying of a Statutory Instrument and the publication and ready availability of the Instrument by that means. I therefore recommend the Committee to reject the Amendment.
      Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) moved the
      1676
      Amendment on the ground of its merits. The Solicitor-General has indicated that, on the merits, he has no objection. His reason for suggesting that the Committee should reject the Amendment is that he thinks that there are procedural objections.
      It is on the procedural aspect that I am concerned to intervene. We are embarking on what is a totally new procedure; that is, we are discussing Amendments to a consolidation Bill which are outside the sphere of pure consolidation as such.
      In a way, it is rather unfortunate that this should be the first of the series of Amendments which my hon. Friend and I have submitted in manuscript. But it is important that the Committee, and perhaps ultimately the House, should decide what is to be our procedure in this kind of case.
      The Solicitor-General's argument is that the Amendment is not pure consolidation, and I agree, and that it is not one which has been recommended by the Law Commission or considered by the Joint Select Committee, and I agree with that, too. But if that argument is to hold, it means, in effect, that we are to be limited altogether to pure consolidation, or to matters which have been considered by the Joint Select Committee after recommendation by the Law Commission.
      The Law Commission is not a legislative body as such. It may, or may not, make good recommendations, having regard to the will of Parliament. It is important that it should advise us, but all it does is to advise us. The Joint Select Committee is a legislative body, but it considers these matters solely from the point of procedure. It is not concerned primarily with merits. Therefore, we are getting very near the point at which we are amending the law without permitting Parliament to consider the merits of the case at all, and I am anxious about this position.
      I do not wish to press the Committee to come to a decision on this matter by voting. I do not think that that will be necessary, but it should be put on record that the position is not satisfactory, that it may happen in future that more important issues than this will be raised. This is the thin end of a very broad wedge. I hope that some note

      1677
      will be taken of this debate, and that those who are responsible for ensuring that the procedure of the House is kept up to date will take steps to deal with this matter.
      I am not in any sense criticising the Chair. I am saying that these matters will need careful consideration elsewhere. Before the Amendment is negatived, I wish to put that on record.
      Mr. Graham Page: I am disappointed that the Solicitor-General feels that he cannot accept the Amendment. I am disappointed that he has put forward the argument that he has done in rejecting it. As I understand it, the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument is that on the merits the matter is fairly evenly balanced, but he is swayed by the fact that the matter was not contained in a report from the Law Commission upon which this consolidation Measure and its Amendments are based, and therefore it was not considered by the Joint Select Committee.
      I think that that is a strong argument in favour of the Amendment. It is surely for this House, when it is presented with a Bill of this sort, with Amendments based on the Law Commission's report, not to feel itself bound by the decisions of the Law Commission if it finds that the Commission has recommended one particular point without considering all the ramifications of that point. And if, in this House, we find that there is something further on the fringe of its original point with which we should deal, we should not be prevented from doing so by the fact that the Law Commission did not think of it.
      In this case, reading the Law Commission's report, and reading the evidence given to the Joint Select Committee, it is obvious that the minds of all those concerned went only to that point where they were endeavouring to replace the laying of the scheme before Parliament with a Statutory Instrument which would be laid before Parliament, and they did not consider the procedure after that point. Would Parliament then have any opportunity to consider the scheme? It would not have that opportunity, except by an early-day Motion, which is hard enough to have debated, and it is most unlikely that one could arrange any debate through the usual channels, whereas if it is the subject of
      1678
      a Prayer it is the tradition of the House that it should receive a debate.
      I do not wish to press the matter any further than to put it on record in this form. We must study the Law Commission Reports as they come through to us, even after they have been considered by the Joint Select Committee, and see whether there is any way in which we can offer some improvements at this stage in a Bill. That is what I hoped I had done in this Amendment. At least we have been able to debate the recommendations of the Law Commission, even if the Solicitor-General is unable to accept the Amendment.
      The Solicitor-General: I would wish to make it clear to the Committee that I have taken careful note of what has been said by the hon. Baronet and the hon. Member on this point, which is of some interest. In coming to the conclusion in this instance that the right course is to recommend that the Committee should reject the Amendment I have endeavoured to have every relevant factor in mind and to balance one thing with another. What has led me to the conclusion that I have reached is the aggregate of factors—first, that the Law Commission did not recommend; second, that the Joint Select Committee did not consider the point; and, third, and rather important in the spectrum, the circumstance that both the Law Commission and the Joint Select Committee recognised the extent of the objective, namely, the availability of publicity for the scheme, and that that objective is achieved by the Clause in its present form.
      Amendment negatived.
      Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 5 to 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 92

      USE OF CERTIFIED SAVINGS BANK BY .UNAUTHORISED PERSONS
      Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, in page 57, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
      (1) If any person, not being a trustee savings bank, takes or uses, in connection with any business carried on by him, the title of "savings bank certified under the Act of 1863,"

      1679
      "savings bank certified under the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1954" or "savings bank certified under the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1969", he shall be guilty of an offence.
      The Chairman: With this Amendment the Committee might wish to take the following manuscript Amendment, in page 57, line 20, at end insert:
      (3) Where an offence under this section which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
      Mr. Page: I was about to make that suggestion, Mr. Irving. It would be convenient to me if they could be taken together.
      The Chairman: So be it.
      Mr. Page: In this case I shall be able to carry the Solicitor-General with me, because I shall be using a somewhat similar argument to that which he used on the last Amendment.
      12.30 a.m.
      This Amendment was considered by the Law Commission and also by the Joint Select Committee. It relates to the penalties for pretending to be a trustee savings bank. In recommendation No. 20 of the report attention was called to Section 80 of the 1954 Act, which is similar to subsection (1) of Clause 92 as it appears in the Bill at present. The Law Commission pointed out that the present law penalises the shareholders of a company which pretends wrongly to be a trustee savings bank but it does not penalise the company itself or the officers of the company. It is entirely against the trend of modern legislation on this subject.
      Under all fairly recent Acts over the past 20 or 30 years we have, generally speaking, inserted in statutes where it has been necessary to make some act by a company an offence, a provision that the company may be prosecuted and, not only the company, but the officers of the company who are responsible for the company carrying out the act which is an offence. We have before us in the
      1680
      existing law relating to trustee savings banks a complete reversal of the modern legislative practice.
      The Law Commission recommended that we insert in place of that the modern Clause. What I call the modern Clause are the two Amendments which I have read out plus subsection (2) of Clause 92 as it stands at present.
      When this was put to the Joint Select Committee the evidence given to that Committee on page 20 of the report was to this effect, that the section is worded quite differently from modern Acts. The witness was referring to the existing law. He went on to say:
      "It has the effect that, for example, if a company which is not a trustee savings bank uses the title 'savings bank certified under the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1954' the company cannot be prosecuted, only the members of the company can be prosecuted, that is the shareholders. The directors as such cannot be prosecuted or any of the officers of the company unless they are shareholders"
      The Joint Select Committee seemed to consider this proposal favourably but to think that it was rather a large step for it as a Joint Select Committee on Consolidation Bills to take. The Chairman of the Committee said:
      "The question is whether we ought to make an amendment in what is primarily a consolidating procedure. It is a matter, as this is a recommendation, which can be debated in either House. I think we ought to draw attention to it."
      Lord Guest said:
      "I am in favour of taking it out and leaving the House to put it in if it wants to."
      The Chairman said:
      "They can always put it back, I suppose."
      The Joint Select Committee, having thought that this was a good idea, as I read the report, felt that it was not for it so take such a substantial step in amending the law but that it would draw the attention of the House to it.
      My Amendment would insert in the Bill exactly the recommendation which the Law Commission made, which was, in fact, printed in the first edition of the Bill as laid before another place.
      The Solicitor-General: I am glad to say that the Government will accept these Amendments, and we are grateful to the hon. Member for moving them. As he said, this is the implementation of a recommendation of the Law Commission,

      1681
      which makes it very agreeable to me to accept the Amendments. The hon. Gentleman has put forward the arguments compendiously and persuasively. This is recommendation No. 20 of the Commission.
      I was asked yesterday by the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) whether the table of derivations in the Bill would appear in the Act. I said that it would, but that answer has to be qualified. The loose copy of the Act will not contain the table, but it will appear in the bound volume of the Statutes.
      Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: May I thank the Solicitor-General? Half a loaf is better than no bread. I am not certain about the reason for this, but perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to tell me on some future occasion.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendment made: In page 57, line 20, at end insert—
      (3) Where an offence under this section which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
      Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 93 to 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
      Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.
      Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

      ROAD TRAFFIC
      Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1969 [draft laid before the House 10th July], approved.—[Mr. Bob Brown.]

      EDUCATION (FULBRIGHT SCHEME)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
      12.40 a.m.
      Mr. Esmond Wright: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for detaining you at this late hour, but I want to raise a matter which gravely worries all those teachers in schools and universities in this country who are involved in Anglo-American studies, teaching, research or scholarship, and which I believe imperils Anglo-American relations—the cuts in the funds made available to the United States—United Kingdom Educational Commission, known as the Fulbright Commission.
      I am grateful to the hon. Lady, the Minister of State, for being here, and apologise for keeping her, not least after a long day yesterday and her talk this afternoon to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee. But I am concerned, as I am sure many other people are, about the cuts.
      The House will not need to be reminded that the first Fulbright programme began as long ago as 1948, when, in accordance with the agreement of that year, the United States Educational Commission, as it was then called, was set up in the United Kingdom to administer American funds made available in Britain partly as a result of our war indebtedness but still more because of American generosity. We owe its inception to the imagination and good will to Senator Fulbright of Arkansas.
      Since 1948 the Fulbright Commission has had at its disposal about one million dollars a year. A large number of British scholars have been enabled to visit the United States, and a large number of American scholars have come to this country. It was extremely difficult to do this before the Fulbright Commission, and it was especially difficult for school teachers to have the facilities.
      That was the system until 1964, when the American Government tried to secure a foreign contribution, and bi-national Commissions were set up under the terms of an inter-Governmental agreement, Cmnd. 2697, in May, 1965. By this agreement, the British Government,

      1683
      like other European Governments, agreed to supply 20 per cent. of the programme's funds in the United Kingdom.
      In the last full year of this programme, 1968–69, the British contribution came to 180,000 dollars, and there was an American matching contribution of 690,000 dollars. The American Government then decided, in September-October, 1968, to cut the programme. It was already being affected by devaluation in any event.
      The Commission in London was first told to expect a 30 per cent. cut and then a 60 per cent. cut. In the end, a Congressional Appropriations Sub-Committee cut funds by 80 per cent. for all the European Commissions except Finland and Ireland, with whose Governments the U.S. Government have special relations in a real sense, in Finland's case largely because of the Second World War situation. In Britain's case, that has meant a cut in the American contribution for 1969–70, the year about to begin, from 690,000 dollars to 136,000. This was against the wishes of the State Department, which then requested every European Commission to ask its Government to keep their contribution at the original 1968–69 level, rather than to cut it in proportion. I understand that no representation was made to our Government on this head. If it was, it was certainly ignored. There appears to have been no consultation with the European Governments before the cuts were announced.
      In any event, the British Government cut their grant for 1969–70 by a matching 80 per cent., from 180,000 dollars to 34,000. Very few other European Governments have done this, Austria, France, Norway and Spain have continued their contribution at the old level, and Italy and Germany have increased their contributions.
      The United States-United Kingdom Educational Commission has had its funds cut for the year now beginning—the year for which students and professors will already be crossing the Atlantic—from 876,000 dollars to 178,000 dollars. It has been decided for this coming year, 1969–70, to renew grants only to American scholars who are already in Britain and to contribute some travel grants for school teachers who have already made
      1684
      arrangements for their salaries through other means, which means that the Commission will only be able, for the year about to begin, to maintain some 20 renewals and to contribute about 50,000 dollars for travel grants.
      The main forms of assistance have been suspended altogether. In the almost 20 years there have been some 80 to 100 American postgraduate scholars in this country. This coming year and thereafter there will be none. For the last 19 or 20 years there have been some 25 to 30 visiting American professors in Britain or in the dependent territories of the Commonwealth. In the coming year and thereafter there will be none. For the last 19 or 20 years there have been 200 travel grants to United Kingdom graduate scholars and university teachers. In the coming year and thereafter there will be none.
      This present attenuated programme will be the last year of the Fulbright Commission in this country. The cost of maintaining its headquarters will cost something like 50 per cent. of its revenue, and that is an impossible situation. I am in danger of becoming somewhat emotional on this subject and I should declare my interest. Before I was elected to this House I was a university teacher and an American specialist. I had a degree from Virginia before the war, and my first visit to the United States after the war was before the Fulbright programme. To do any sustained research, I had to contrive to get an American university teaching post in the summer and do my research at night or whatever other time was available.
      Since 1949 there has been a whole series of scholars crossing the Atlantic without suffering these handicaps, and the advantages of the Fulbright programme hardly need specifying, but perhaps I should mention that in the 20 years thus far of the programme this country has gained immensely.
      The American Government have contributed to the programme almost £6 million—to be precise, £5,915,175. Since 1965, when our own contributions began, we have contributed £252,000. In other words, it has been a one-to-24 relationship and obviously to our advantage. In the same nearly 20 years, 5,436 American students or teachers or professors have

      1685
      come to this country, while 6,867 British postgraduates or lecturers or professors have gone to the United States.
      I stress that this is a programme which particularly affects junior staff and postgraduate students. Full professors, to use American phraseology, do not need this sort of assistance. People who hold chairs can go to the United States usually by invitation. The programme is hurting the coming generation of scholars. Moreover, universities will be seriously affected by the absence of these visiting teachers and scholars, and the British Association for American Studies, of which I was, until two years ago, the chairman, will find its work handicapped. The association originally came into being very largely because of the Fulbright proposals
      The hon. Lady herself knows American universities very well, and I am sure that she will appreciate that this serious cut is coming at a time when there have been signs of alarm in some of the Foundations. A year ago, there was a serious proposal to cut the Harkness awards, which have been running for some 45 years. The Minister may well be aware of the efforts to persuade the Harkness Foundation to maintain these awards. This is a time when programme of international understanding among young people are probably more urgent than they ever have been, with issues like Biafra, Vietnam and race prominent in our minds.
      The cuts have occasioned great alarm in the. United States. I will not dwell on that, because it would probably not be appropriate for me to do so. I have no right to comment on the reasons why the American Government made these cuts, although I am bound to say that I deplore what seem to be their consequences. But the point I want to put to the Minister is fundamental.
      Communication is the life blood of all scholars, and we have been discussing another form of communication today. But the ability to cross the Atlantic has become one of the great features of the last 20 years. It is simply no longer possible for scholars on this scale to do this by reying on private foundations, although I would want to salute the Harkness Foundation—I was a Harkness scholar originally—and those individuals like
      1686
      John Thouron of Pennsylvania, who was born in Scotland but who now lives in Philadelphia, who have been generous in establishing the Thouron Foundation for the mutual exchange of British and American students.
      But educational cultural exchanges are now matters overwhelmingly for Governments. Indeed, they are instruments of National policy and I do not think that we need ask people to go back to the chance provided by philanthropy. Indeed, in a period when we have the Marshall scholarships and the Kennedy scholarships the message is the other way.
      The point I want to make is that Britain has acted in this matter out of line with other European Governments, and I cannot think that in a period when it is important to maintain and foster scholar exchange our own Government should be as parsimonious, as niggardly and as mean as they seem to be proving to be.
      I accept that Governments cannot create scholarship, but they can foster it. If there were more time I could list some of the individuals who have been of great value to both countries. There are some projects in physiology and heart disease which are now dependent on the steady traffic of people across the Atlantic.
      In cutting the Fulbright grant, the Government are hiding behind the form of words of the agreement, the four-to-one matching clause in the agreement. Other Governments in Europe have not acted in this way. The sum concerned is about £50,000 a year. The date is late.
      I repeat that unless we act soon, unless there is a sign on the part of Congress —a Bill is corning from the Representative from California before the American Congress on this point—the programme, already emaciated for next year, will disappear altogether. I am asking the Government to have second thoughts. I ask them to be as generous as the Governments of Italy, Germany and France, and to try to be as imaginative and as generous as Senator Fulbright was when he had this great and imaginative idea 21 years ago.
      12.54 a.m.
      The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I suppose that I may say that I share some of the emotion on this

      1687
      subject which the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) has, for although, unlike him, I was not a Harkness scholar, I was a Fulbright scholar and I therefore owe a great deal to the Fulbright Fund which made it possible for me to spend a post-graduate year in the United States, for which I shall be eternally grateful.
      Perhaps I should start by indicating precisely what the agreement covered, because there was one element in the hon. Gentleman's speech which may have tended to mislead the House. From the British point of view, the Fulbright scheme has always been essentially a method of assisting with travel grants and not a method of assisting with fees and accommodation. The hon. Gentleman's reference to teacher exchanges should not lead one to assume any change in the arrangements. They have always been applied exclusively to travel grants, with the authorities meeting the cost of salaries.
      As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the division of the Fulbright Commission since 1965—before that date the entire cost was borne by the United States—has been 80 per cent.—20 per cent., on the suggestion of the United States and on the basis of a clause drafted by the American State Department as between the United States and this country.
      It is fair to add—the hon. Gentleman said so much about what is in the Fulbright scheme that there is no need for me to repeat the facts—that one point should be remembered, that this division has been closely adhered to in terms of the value of, as distinct from the number of, scholarships awarded. For example, under last year's budget—that is, the one that has now been cut —the total expenditure that would have been spent on United States scholars and academics was about £¼ million, with £52,000 being spent on British scholars travelling to America. This is closely in line with the division of contributions as between the two countries.
      That is not to say that there should be a precise balance. I do not think that anybody is suggesting that the scheme should be run in this way. It is simply to underline the fact that the per capita expenditure on British scholars has in all cases been rather different from the per capita expenditure on American scholars
      1688
      and senior academics. I mention this because the hon. Gentleman quoted the figures of people involved and because it is reasonable to also quote the indications of per capita grants.
      We in Her Majesty's Government share the hon. Gentleman's feeling of concern about the major cut in the programme of the Fulbright Commission. I shall come to what he said about what we should do, but first it may help if I comment on the nature of the agreement, which the hon. Gentleman will find applies to other countries in different ways from the way it applies to us.
      For example, the hon. Gentleman referred to the Federal Republic of Germany. He may be interested to know that last year the balance of contributions by the Federal Republic and the United States was rather less than one-to-ten, the reason being that the Federal Republic had held over funds for use in a later year. This, while not reflecting on the generosity of the Federal Republic, puts the comparative figures for 1968–69 and 1969–70 in a different light.
      It is true that as a result of the substantial reductions in expenditure made by the American Government, and in particular by Congress, the position is that the United States contribution as from 1st April 1969 will be 136,000 dollars, and, on a ratio basis, this makes the British contribution about 34,000 dollars, the total being 170,000 dollars.
      The effect of this is serious. It means the ending of new scholarships to American scholars in this country and the ending of senior academic arrangements, a point of great importance. I appreciate what has been said about the opportunities for senior academics, and there can be no doubt that those who come under the Fulbright scheme form a valuable part of the exchange.
      What fundamentally survives on the reduced budget is, first, the extension of scholarships here to American students and, second, the teacher exchange. Despite the major cuts in the programme, I wish to make it clear that we are extremely grateful to the Commission for its decision to maintain the exchange of teachers, since great personal hardship would have been created had there suddenly been a decision to stop it.
      We are very much aware of the financial problems which the United

      1689
      States face at this time and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on their action. Nor would I wish to do so. It is fair to say that we are, after all, a Government who know what it is to face financial squeezes. While it would not be appropriate for me to lecture the American Government on this front, I might point out that there is more than one Government in the world who face financial difficulties of one sort or another.
      I should like to make two points. One is that in the Department of Education and Science we are now considering bearing the cost of the teacher exchange arrangements—that is, the travel costs—from our own funds in a future year. I wish that I could say that this was definite—I cannot yet say so—but I would like to give the hon. Member at least the assurance that this is being closely looked at, because it is an essential part of the programme.
      Second, we believe that there might be possibilities of savings in administration. The hon. Member mentioned the point about administration, which is now one-third of the total programme. He will know, because he mentioned the Harkness scheme, that a similar scheme, the Marshall scheme, is administered at little cost to the scheme by the Association of Commonwealth Universities. It might be appropriate for the balance of Fulbright to be administered in the same wary.
      I do not want anything that I have said to lead the hon. Member to assume that it will not be possible for the Fulbright arrangement to be reviewed and, indeed, perhaps increased, but this is subject not only to a renegotiation of the agreement but to renegotiation of the balance of awards under it. This is a crucial element in the whole which does not apply in quite the same way to other countries.
      The Fulbright scheme has unquestionably been of the greatest possible value,
      1690
      particularly in the years immediately after the war, and I should like to associate myself with the hon. Member's tribute to Senator Fulbright, who has always been a luminary on the whole American Congressional scene. I do not think that the position is quite as desperate as the hon. Member suggested. All the figures suggest that the exchanges between the United States and Britain have increased rapidly in the last few years.
      To quote only one figure, we estimate that in 1964 there were 816 American postgraduate students in British universities. In 1967, only three years later, the figure had gone up to 1,272, an increase of more than 50 per cent. There is reason to believe, although I cannot give later figures, that there has been a further increase in the academic year 1968–69. Again, there is reason to believe that the number of academic exchanges of senior people has shown a similar increase. The figures that the United States Embassy provides suggest a similar rate of increase —of the order of 50 per cent., or probably rather more—in the number of British postgraduate students attending American institutions.
      Therefore, although it is true that the Government would not 'wish to see the Fulbright programme disappear, and although we will certainly give due consideration to the possibility of being able to renegotiate the agreement and, indeed, to expanding the programme, I want to make it clear that there is now a much more massive exchange between the United States and Britain at the postgraduate, academic and post-doctorial levels than was the case when the Fulbright programme started. Therefore, I can at least reassure the hon. Member that there is reason to believe that the flow across the Atlantic, valuable as it is to both countries, has increased, is increasing and will continue to increase.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past One o'clock.

GAS
  Natural Gas
  Natural Gas
  Tall Buildings (Gas Supply)
  Tall Buildings (Gas Supply)
MINISTRY OF POWER
  National Coal Board
  National Coal Board
  Petrol Deliveries
  Petrol Deliveries
  Nuclear Power Station (South-West)
  Nuclear Power Station (South-West)
  Battersea Power Station (Air and Water Pollution)
  Battersea Power Station (Air and Water Pollution)
  Nationalised Industries (European Loans)
  Nationalised Industries (European Loans)
  British Steel Corporation, Hartlepool and Teesside
  British Steel Corporation, Hartlepool and Teesside
  Gas and Electricity Industries (Return on Capital)
  Gas and Electricity Industries (Return on Capital)
  Gas and Oil Exploration (Welsh Coast)
  Gas and Oil Exploration (Welsh Coast)
  British Steel Corporation (Tube Division Headquarters)
  British Steel Corporation (Tube Division Headquarters)
  Tin-plate Deliveries
  Tin-plate Deliveries
  Nationalised Industries (Capital Charges)
  Nationalised Industries (Capital Charges)
  Service and Retail Establishments (Selective Employment Tax)
  Service and Retail Establishments (Selective Employment Tax)
  Electricity Generating Capacity
  Electricity Generating Capacity
COAL
  Prices
  Prices
  Free Supplies
  Free Supplies
  National Coal Board (Price Increases)
  National Coal Board (Price Increases)
  Coal Mining Industry (Staff Recruitment and Wastage)
  Coal Mining Industry (Staff Recruitment and Wastage)
  Continental Shelf Act, 1964 (Production Licences)
  Continental Shelf Act, 1964 (Production Licences)
ELECTRICITY
  Farms, Mid-Wales
  Farms, Mid-Wales
HOUSING
  Greater London Council (Housing Expenditure)
  Greater London Council (Housing Expenditure)
  Rates (Unoccupied Premises)
  Rates (Unoccupied Premises)
  Flats, Macclesfield and Stockport
  Flats, Macclesfield and Stockport
  Rent Assessments
  Rent Assessments
  Rent Proposals
  Rent Proposals
  Tower Blocks (Safety)
  Tower Blocks (Safety)
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Rent Schemes
  Rent Schemes
  Local Authority Accommodation (Under-occupation)
  Local Authority Accommodation (Under-occupation)
  Blaydon and Whickham
  Blaydon and Whickham
  Flats, Stockport
  Flats, Stockport
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Water Supplies, Shropshire (Vennington)
  Water Supplies, Shropshire (Vennington)
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Redcliffe-Maud Report
  Redcliffe-Maud Report
  Local Government Changes
  Local Government Changes
  Chelmsley Wood Development
  Chelmsley Wood Development
  Water Supplies (Nitrate Fertilisers)
  Water Supplies (Nitrate Fertilisers)
  Public Participation in Planning (Report)
  Public Participation in Planning (Report)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Purchase Tax
  Purchase Tax
  Bank Credit (Scotland)
  Bank Credit (Scotland)
  District Tax Offices
  District Tax Offices
  Post-War Credits
  Post-War Credits
  Government Equity Capital
  Government Equity Capital
  Income Tax Forms (Welsh Language)
  Income Tax Forms (Welsh Language)
  National Savings Committee
  National Savings Committee
  Cost of Living
  Cost of Living
  Decimal Currency (Symbols)
  Decimal Currency (Symbols)
  Pay As You Earn System
  Pay As You Earn System
  Betting Offices (Test Bets)
  Betting Offices (Test Bets)
  Bookmakers' Transactions
  Bookmakers' Transactions
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  Royal Palaces (Staff)
  Royal Palaces (Staff)
  Brick Supplies (Angus)
  Brick Supplies (Angus)
  Departmental Expenditure (Wales and England)
  Departmental Expenditure (Wales and England)
  Royal Palaces and Parks (Expenditure)
  Royal Palaces and Parks (Expenditure)
  Contracts Directorate
  Contracts Directorate
  Procurement Policies and Staff
  Procurement Policies and Staff
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Community Relations Organisations
  Community Relations Organisations
  Civil Emergencies (Search and Rescue Organisations)
  Civil Emergencies (Search and Rescue Organisations)
  Crimes of Violence and Dishonesty (Detection Rate)
  Crimes of Violence and Dishonesty (Detection Rate)
  Peter Barnes
  Peter Barnes
  Procurement
  Procurement
  Police (Recruitment)
  Police (Recruitment)
  Metropolitan Police (Allegations)
  Metropolitan Police (Allegations)
  Crime Prevention (Manchester)
  Crime Prevention (Manchester)
  Road Vehicles (Spot-Checks)
  Road Vehicles (Spot-Checks)
  Police and Fire Service Awards
  Police and Fire Service Awards
  Offensive Weapons
  Offensive Weapons
SCOTLAND
  Hydro-Electric Board Computer Centre (Location)
  Hydro-Electric Board Computer Centre (Location)
  Land Tenure Reform
  Land Tenure Reform
  Dental Treatment
  Dental Treatment
  Culag Pier, Lochinver
  Culag Pier, Lochinver
  Private Woodlands
  Private Woodlands
  Forth and Tay Road Bridges
  Forth and Tay Road Bridges
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Football Matches (Crowd Behaviour)
  Football Matches (Crowd Behaviour)
  Secondary Education (Richmond)
  Secondary Education (Richmond)
  Boards of Governors (Minutes of Sub-Committees)
  Boards of Governors (Minutes of Sub-Committees)
  School Leavers (Readmission)
  School Leavers (Readmission)
RAILWAYS
  British Railways (Shipyard Orders)
  British Railways (Shipyard Orders)
  Llanelli—Shrewsbury Line
  Llanelli—Shrewsbury Line
  Level Crossings
  Level Crossings
ROADS
  Levens Park, Westmorland (Service Station)
  Levens Park, Westmorland (Service Station)
  Farnley Ring Road
  Farnley Ring Road
  Bridge, Kingsbury
  Bridge, Kingsbury
TRANSPORT
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Nationalised Undertakings (Ship Purchases)
  Nationalised Undertakings (Ship Purchases)
  WELSH WATER (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES)
  WELSH WATER (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES)
  LOWER JUDICIARY (SALARIES)
  LOWER JUDICIARY (SALARIES)
  ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NORTH-WEST (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, NORTH-WEST (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY)
  RHODESIA
  RHODESIA
  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
  SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (SEVERE WEATHER CONDITIONS)
  SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (SEVERE WEATHER CONDITIONS)
  RECORDS AND ARCHIVES (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES)
  RECORDS AND ARCHIVES (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES)
  COMMONWEALTH PREFERENCE
  COMMONWEALTH PREFERENCE
  INTERNATIONAL COMMODITY AGREEMENTS (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES)
  INTERNATIONAL COMMODITY AGREEMENTS (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES)
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
  MINORITIES, SELF-GOVERNMENT (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  MINORITIES, SELF-GOVERNMENT (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES)
  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITIES)
  PRESIDENT OF FINLAND (DISCUSSIONS)
  PRESIDENT OF FINLAND (DISCUSSIONS)
  MR. AUBREY JONES
  MR. AUBREY JONES
  MINISTERS (SALARIES)
  MINISTERS (SALARIES)
  NATIONAL BOARD FOR PRICES AND INCOMES
  NATIONAL BOARD FOR PRICES AND INCOMES
  WELFARE SERVICES (FOREIGN VISITORS)
  WELFARE SERVICES (FOREIGN VISITORS)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Non-industrial Civil Servants
  Non-industrial Civil Servants
  Salaries
  Salaries
  Recruitment (Advertising Expenditure)
  Recruitment (Advertising Expenditure)
  Government Departments (Computers)
  Government Departments (Computers)
  Recruitment (Target)
  Recruitment (Target)
  Executive Class Posts
  Executive Class Posts
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Employment Exchanges
  Employment Exchanges
  Industrial Wages
  Industrial Wages
  Electricity and Gas Industries (Redundancy Payments Act)
  Electricity and Gas Industries (Redundancy Payments Act)
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Blyth
  Blyth
POST OFFICE
  Sub-Post Offices (Robberies and Burglaries)
  Sub-Post Offices (Robberies and Burglaries)
  Pornographic and Obscene Publications
  Pornographic and Obscene Publications
HEALTH
  National Health Service Forms
  National Health Service Forms
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Dental Anaesthesia (Methohexitone)
  Dental Anaesthesia (Methohexitone)
  Medical Auxiliaries (Pay)
  Medical Auxiliaries (Pay)
TECHNOLOGY
  Little Staughton Airfield, Bedfordshire
  Little Staughton Airfield, Bedfordshire
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford (Engine Testing)
  Royal Aircraft Establishment, Bedford (Engine Testing)
  Car Sales
  Car Sales
BOARD OF TRADE
  Overseas Trade Fairs
  Overseas Trade Fairs
  Employment (Blyth)
  Employment (Blyth)
  Cellulosic Fibres
  Cellulosic Fibres
  Railway Carriages
  Railway Carriages
WALES
  Welshpool (By-Pass)
  Welshpool (By-Pass)

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

V-BOMBER FORCE: NUCLEAR ROLE TRIBUTES
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: 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 any message of gratitude was sent to the officers and men of the V-bomber force on relinquishing their responsibility for nuclear deterrence; and, if not, why not.]
THE Lord PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, on June 30, 1969, when the responsibility for the United Kingdom's contribution to NATO's strategic nuclear deterrent forces was transferred from the Royal Air Force to the Royal Navy, the Chief of the Air Staff sent a congratulatory signal to Strike Command. He referred to the maintenance, at all times, over a long period, of the highest state of readiness which the Royal Air Force has known in peace time. He congratulated the personnel of the V-Force on their unsurpassed demonstration of professional skill, dedication and tenacity and reminded them that the long hours of arduous duty in cockpits, crew rooms, dispersals, hangars and operations rooms had brought the reward of knowing that a vital task had been successfully concluded. On July 3, in another place, the Secretary of State for Defence also paid a similar tribute. I am sure that noble Lords would also wish to add their congratulations.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that most satisfactory Answer, which I am certain will meet with the greatest approval in all parts of the House. I wonder whether he would agree that the
762
contents or the substance of this message are very little known to the public, and the services these young men have rendered have been done in conditions of considerable obscurity so far as the general public is concerned. Would he consider giving this message a rather higher degree of publicity, if possible, so that its contents could be known to the nation at large?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, on the particular point of publishing the message, it was of course intended for the air crews and the other people concerned and was circulated directly to them. None the less, I agree there is merit in the noble Earl's suggestion. I think that one way in which this message could be known more widely is if, arising out of this Question, I were to circulate it in the Official Report. I entirely agree with what the noble Earl has said about these men. I have seen something of the V-Bomber crews and they were the most extraordinarily dedicated and efficient body of men, and no praise can be too high for their devotion to duty.
Following is the text of Congratulatory Signal from the Chief of the Air Staff to H.Q. Strike Command, sent on 30th June, 1969:
"For AOC-in-C from CAS. As you know the last white paper announced that this year the Royal Air Force will transfer to the Royal Navy the responsibility of providing Britain's contribution to the Strategic Nuclear Deterrent. I think it appropriate to remember that this task has meant maintaining, at all times throughout seven years, the highest state of readiness which the Royal Air Force has known in peacetime. The way in which QRA has been performed and the reaction of the Force to the operational demands of our plans and those of SACEUR has been an unsurpassed demonstration of professional skill, dedication and tenacity.
"The long hours of arduous duty in cockpits, crew rooms, dispersals, hangers and operation rooms have brought the reward of knowing that a vital task has been successfully completed. I send my congratulations to you and all under your command who have been connected with this very heavy responsibility over the years.
"But when QRA by the medium bomber force ends it does not presage a general relaxation in our readiness for operations. The future roles of the force will call for the same determination as you have shown in the past and the maintenance of high generation rates. When you set about your new and continuing tasks you can look with justifiable pride upon your past achievements and from them find inspiration for the future."

CHURCHILL MEMORIAL: PARLIAMENT SQUARE SITE
2.38 p.m.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To asked Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for the erection of a memorial, in Parliament Square or elsewhere, to Sir Winston Churchill.]
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government would be happy to make a site available for the statue in Parliament Square if sufficient money were forthcoming from public subscription.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I am very glad to hear that and I thank my noble friend. Would the Government provide an area sufficient not for a mere statue in the corner of the Square, but for a memorial which could be both suitably grand and exciting?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, quite an amount of consideration has been given to this matter. As noble Lords know, there are statues at Woodford, in the Guildhall and in Churchill College; the memorial stone in Westminster Abbey; a plaque commemorating the lying-in-state; and another statue is shortly to be erected in Westminster, in Parliament itself. The attitude of the Government on this matter is certainly one of sympathy. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that it is a question of the extent of further public interest. A voluntary committee is at work, and in the light of that committee's success the Government will certainly cooperate. I myself should hesitate to start specifying the form of a memorial. That is the kind of area which gives rise to controversy. Some noble Lords will have seen the correspondence in The Times. The Government really wait on events, sympathetically and willing to co-operate over Parliament Square.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that answer.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask what the noble Lord means by"sufficient money"? How much money would have to be raised before the
764
Government would consider making a site available?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not honestly know; it depends on what is proposed. A Committee is dealing with this question and there is an early-day Motion in another place. There is a Committee which I think the honourable Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, is connected with or is responsible for. First of all, the plans must go much further before one can say what it would cost, and presumably the amount of money that is collected may determine this.
The MARQUESS of ABERDEEN and TEMAIR: My Lords, is not the most appropriate place elsewhere, in Westminster Abbey? Is not a place waiting there for a statue of Sir Winston Churchill, in the Northern transept, where many Prime Ministers' statues appear? A column there is completely vacant opposite to the statue of Sir Robert Peel, and if it were occupied by a statue of Sir Winston Churchill it would complete most satisfactorily the aisle, which is full of statues of Prime Ministers. Is it not the case that a statue of Sir Winston Churchill would be very appropriate opposite that of a similarly important Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, of course this is not really a matter for the Government; it is for the Abbey authorities. I think there must—I say this with the greatest respect—be a limit to the number of statues. There is the very fine memorial stone in Westminster Abbey. Here again, this is why I think it is important to get public opinion and feeling on this matter. But no doubt the Westminster Abbey authorities will have noticed what the noble Marquess has said.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I am not quite sure whether this is the appropriate occasion to mention it, but I wonder whether it would be possible for Her Majesty's Government to ensure that the portrait of Sir Winston painted by Graham Sutherland, which was given to him by both Houses of Parliament, should finally find its way back to somewhere in this House?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not think that point arises on this Question, and I believe the late Sir Winston Churchill was not particularly

765
keen on the portrait—I still remember his very cryptic remark on the subject. But I have taken note of what has been said, and again I think this is a matter for the House authorities.
Lord SORENSEN: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the statue of the right honourable gentleman which exists in Woodford is in his own constituency, and is not nearly as good as it ought to have been?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I really cannot answer for Woodford.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I do not mind how many statues are put up to the late Sir Winston Churchill but I think we should remember that he did not win the last war by himself. He had men like Clem Attlee and Ernie Bevin. Not only that, but it is nice to see the adulation from the Conservative Benches—the Party which kept him in the wilderness throughout the whole of the 'thirties.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, these are all apt remarks in the atmosphere of the debate we had yesterday. I think Sir Winston Churchill was the first of all people to acknowledge the services of his colleagues and the achievements of the British people.
Lord ILFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would consider siting the new statue in the Cromwell Garden and removing the statue of Cromwell to a more appropriate place?
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, is there a body in existence which is in a position to make an appeal for the money which is required? I was not quite clear from the noble Lord's original Answer. It is not possible for people to bring out plans for a statue or a memorial until they know how much money will be available; and somebody must appeal for that.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I understand that there is a committee in existence and I think the best person to get in touch with is Mr. Tilney. However, if there is any further help I can give to your Lordships' House on the matter, I will give it. As I understand the position, there has been no public appeal as yet, and this is really what the Government are waiting for. If this is to
766
come about it should be as a result of some further spontaneous action, with the Government giving full co-operation.

WEST LONDON AIR TERMINAL
2.46 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: 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 any further steps have been taken to meet the long-standing and serious need for some direct and easy connection between the London Underground system and the West London Air Terminal.]
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, the London Transport Board and British European Airways have in the past jointly considered very carefully the possibility of providing a direct subway including, perhaps, a travellator—between the Underground station and the Air Terminal. Even without the travellator the cost would be at least £1 million. The high cost reflects the engineering problems that arise through the station and Terminal being some 400 yards apart and at quite different levels. In view of the relatively limited use that would be likely to be made of such a subway, the Government do not consider such expenditure would be justified. Other proposals have also been examined but all of them are considered to be too expensive, in relation to their benefits, to be justified in present circumstances.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask whether, in view of the fact that many tourists who arrive in this country have to carry their bags to the station, the noble Lord does not feel that the possibility might be considered of putting a new station underneath the Terminal itself, on either the Circle or the District Line? Also does not the noble Lord agree that the distance between that station and Gloucester Road station would be no more than, for example, that between Marylebone Station and Baker Street Station, which are a quarter of a mile apart, as are many other stations?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the suggestion of a new station was considered in your Lordships' House some 12 or 18 months ago, and I then pointed out that one of the difficulties is the very limited space for the provision of such a station. Also at that point there is a critical position in regard to the crossing of lines, some of them carrying fairly fast traffic, and this would have a major effect on the whole of the Underground system. Another point we have to bear in mind is that the Gloucester Road area is now being considered by the Greater London Council for major development, and it may well be that as a consequence of that major development some changes could be made to the Gloucester Road station, perhaps dealing in some part with the present difficulty.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us are disappointed with the first part of his Answer, because it is the same reply that has been received on more than one occasion in this House? The second half of my noble friend's Answer is extremely interesting, and we hope that something may take place. But can he say whether there is any prospect of the Railways Board or the London Transport Board taking a rail service—either Tube or overhead—out of London Airport itself? Some publicity has been given recently in articles in the Press to reports that this proposal was under consideration. Is my noble friend able to give any indication whether this is a "starter" or not?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sorry that I disappointed my noble friend, but at least I think he will agree that I am being consistent with the facts. My noble friend has drawn attention to the question of the building of a rail link from London to Heathrow. These proposals are now being considered by my right honourable friend, and naturally such a rail link would have a major effect upon the B.E.A. Terminal itself.
Viscount ADDISON: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether he will be willing to approach the London Transport Board again in order to have another look at the problem of building a platform, or two platforms, either on the Circle Line or on the District Line between Gloucester Road and Earl's
768
Court, both of which lines run underneath the terminal at Gloucester Road?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have already pointed out that this is a position where a number of lines cross and they carry very heavy traffic, some of it fast, through-traffic. This is a critical point and any change there would disrupt the whole of the Underground service. If my noble friend asks me to approach the London Transport Board naturally I shall be willing to do so, but I think the answer I shall give will be the same.
Lord FORBES: My Lords, can the noble Lord say if an estimate has been made as to the loss of revenue to the airlines due to the late arrival of buses from the Terminal owing to congestion on the roads at certain times?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is an interesting supplementary question though I hardly see how it arises from the Question on the Order Paper. However, I will write to the noble Lord.
Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU: My Lords, am I right in thinking that there is a review going on about the whole question of transport between Heathrow and Central London, in which case schemes like a monorail should be discussed and considered before any railway is decided upon?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord must be right, because this is what I said to my noble friend Lord Popplewell.
Lord BIRDWOOD: My Lords, might not the Government investigate whether, in view of the very large hotel development directly opposite the Terminal, it might be in the interests of the developers themselves to share the cost of any pause at the Terminal?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, in reply to an earlier supplementary question I said that the Greater London Council are considering a whole major scheme of redevelopment in the Gloucester Road area. This is a factor which I said would be borne in mind.
Lord BIRDWOOD: My Lords, I did not realise that the hotel was automatically part of that redevelopment.
Earl JELLICOE: My Lords, arising out of Lord Popplewell's supplementary

769
question, could the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, tell us when we can expect to learn the results of the proposals for a direct railway between Victoria Station and Heathrow Airport?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is a very involved question. My right honourable friend is giving urgent consideration to it, because, of course, many people are very interested in this matter. If there is any information I can give to the noble Earl, I will write to him.

SOUTHERN YEMEN GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC SERVICE PENSIONS
Lord TREVELYAN: 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 be responsible for the pensions of the indigenous civil servants formerly working in the Colony of Aden and the Protectorate of South Arabia.]
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government's consistent policy over many years is to regard overseas Governments as responsible for the payment of all public service pensions, including, in the case of independent Governments, the obligations of their predecessors. Consequently, responsibility for the payment of these pensions rests with the Southern Yemen Government.
Lord TREVELYAN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that not very informative Reply, may I ask him whether he does not agree that the British civil servants from South Arabia are being paid their pensions by the British Government; that this is probably the first occasion when British and non-British civil servants of a Colony attaining its independence have not been treated alike, and whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will give sympathetic consideration to the claims of men who have served the British Government loyally and who, as a result of that service, have either had to leave their country or been dismissed without pension by the successor Government? Finally, is it not time that the British Government made up their minds on this question?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a matter which naturally gives the Government and the Ministers immediately concerned considerable anxiety. On the other hand, we must maintain this principle that the pensions of overseas servants—that is, servants who have been employed on overseas government—should be paid by the responsible authority. If we were to break this principle, we might put in jeopardy many thousands of other servants who are in a similar position, and perhaps put in jeopardy, too, other civil servants who now are in colonial territories which may shortly receive their independence. We have a special obligation to our expatriate civil servants, and that is why special arrangements have been made for them. I am well aware of the noble Lord's concern, and I looked into this matter carefully this morning. If the noble Lord would allow me, I should like to take further steps with my right honourable friend to see whether something further can be done, without breaking the. principle of which I have spoken.
The Earl of SWINTON: My Lords, would the Minister consider, at the same time, while maintaining the principle which he has stood for that it is the local Government which ought to pay, that, after all, the moral obligation certainly is on Her Majesty's Government? Could not Her Majesty's Government look after these civil servants and then itself look to the foreign Government and insist that they pay the British Government?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords if we did what the noble Earl has suggested, it would, I think, encroach upon the principle which I have put before the House. I have said that I will look into the matter with my right honourable friend, and I suggest that perhaps the matter should be left there.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, would it be possible for the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, to put down another Question when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has looked into the matter, so that the whole House may know exactly what the position is?'
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is for the noble Lord himself to decide what to do. This is a very delicate

771
subject. Perhaps the House should leave it for the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, and myself to look into it, and then, if the noble Lord is not satisfied, he can use Question Time again for this purpose.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, in view of the fact that the final settlement with the Protectorate of South Arabia was only one sixty-fourth part of the sum originally demanded, would it not be a generous gesture on the part of Her Majesty's Government to make some provision for these indigenous civil servants, particularly when they happen to be political refugees?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am rather sorry that my noble friend has not taken the hint as to the delicacy of this matter and has sought to pursue it. I hope I have indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, my concern and that of the Government in this matter, and I hope the House will leave it there.

APOLLO 11 MOON LANDING: MESSAGE TO UNITED STATES SENATE
2.57 p.m.
Lord ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Private Notice:
To ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the unique and inspiring achievement of the moon landing by the American astronauts and its importance to human history, it would be desirable for this House to convey their admiration to the Senate of the United States of America?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I hope the House will agree that I was justified in allowing this Question on grounds of urgency, and certainly in relation to timeliness. Speaking personally, I very much welcome the noble Lord's suggestion. He and I have both had a great interest in this subject for many years, so he is perhaps not surprised that I should be so much in agreement with him. Strictly speaking, what he proposes would probably best be done by a Motion on the Order Paper. On the
772
other hand, if the House is in general agreement and there is no dissentient voice, I would certainly be willing to make the feeling of the House known by conveying a message to the Vice-President, who is the President of the Senate, to indicate our great admiration for this achievement. And whatever anyone may think about the best way of spending the money, I personally hope that this will be a real and vital unifying force for the whole of humanity.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I am quite sure that my colleagues on these Benches would wish to be associated with the action that the noble Lord has proposed.
Earl JELLICOE: My Lords, I am certain that what the noble Lord has suggested would equally meet the feelings of all our colleagues on this side of the House in admiration for an extraordinary technical and extraordinary human performance.
Lord SNOW: My Lords, I should like to support this suggestion, if I may, speaking as one whose belief in the future of space exploration is not unqualified. Nevertheless, I suggest that this is probably the most remarkable single technological achievement yet made by man, and also an example, which is more important, of really astonishing and enduring human courage, which helps to make us for once feel proud of belonging to the same species. I hope that this particular pride may give us the courage to attack more mundane problems, such as too little food and too many people.
Lord ST. OSWALD: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for his response, which does not take me entirely by surprise, I wonder whether I might add two observations which I did not think appropriate to include in the substantive Question but which I hope will be allowed under the Rules of Order. First, I should like to say how particularly and personally pleasant it is for me to have been able to address this Question to the Leader of the House in the person of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, knowing and sharing with him, as I do, his philosophical and cordial enthusiasm for this kind of endeavour, especially when it is crowned with triumphant success as in this case. Second, the universal nature of

773
the achievement was most beautifully expressed some years ago in certain words themselves a reflection of Zen Buddhism, which I beg leave to repeat:
"One moon and one only is reflected in all waters,
All moons in the water are one with the one moon".
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. We have gone so far out of order on this occasion, when clearly the House is tolerant in this matter, that I think I should be safe in saying that there will be no dissentient voices. I therefore greatly welcome the noble Lord's initiative. It is not for me to discuss what the future space policy of this country should be, but I noticed yesterday that at the time the astronauts blasted off from the moon a certain Member of Parliament, quite properly called Mr. Moonman, was on his feet in another place. I will certainly convey in the warmest way possible the feelings of your Lordships' House.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
3.2 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the extension of the Ombudsman principle at a convenient moment after half-past three. This will be followed by a Statement on the Textile Council's Report on Cotton and Allied Textiles by my noble friend Lord Brown. May I also remind your Lordships that dinner will be available again this evening between 7 and 8.30 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is it intended that the House will rise for a break during that time, or continue sitting?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I did not mention that, nor was it the intention of the House, as I understand it, to break.

CARDIFF CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
ESSEX RIVER AND SOUTH ESSEX WATER BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

AIR CORPORATIONS BILL
3.5 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Financial assistance for B.E.A by reduction of indebtedness and transfer of stock]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of KINNOULL: I wonder whether I may raise one point with the noble Lord this afternoon on Clause 1, which covers what B.E.A. is to receive. That, of course is the principal purpose of the Bill. As the Committee will know, this clause came under a good deal of criticism in another place on two issues. The first was the total secrecy of how the sum of £37½ million of compensation is arrived at between the Board of Trade and B.E.A. The second is the fundamental issue: is it right for the State Air Corporation to receive a public subsidy for the purchasing of British aircraft when others in the same industry purchase and operate, with profits, the same aircraft in direct competition and without subsidy?
May I turn briefly to the first issue, that of secrecy. As I have said, this matter was debated at some length in another place and I do not intend to

775
repeat all the arguments. The Government's reply in another place was that the sole reason for secrecy was to protect B.E.A.s commercial interest. As the debate went on, it was shown that in America the fullest information on types of aircraft, on routes and on airline operators, is given by the C.A.B. I understand that all this information is published monthly, and in no way does it appear to harm the operators commercially. Indeed, it does the exact opposite; it sharpens competition and it aids market research.
The damage of secrecy is something which we should feel worried about. It is certainly harmful as regards the aircraft involved; that is, the Trident 3B and the BAC 1-11 500. To foreign operators and possible purchasers it must appear that these aircraft must be secondclass aircraft which are uneconomic to run and a bad buy. This damage is suffered by the manufacturers in the aircraft industry, in this case Hawkers and BAC; but they, of course, receive no compensation. The worst of it all, as the Committee know, is that these aircraft are some of the finest British aircraft that have ever been produced, and it is only because they were the second choice of B.E.A. that they were condemned to this cloud of uncertainty.
In the debate in another place, during the Committee stage the Government appeared swayed by the continual arguments in favour of more full information; and Mr. Rodgers, answering for the Government, said when winding up on Third Reading on July 7:
"Secrecy is the enemy of wise decisions at all times, and I hope that we shall move increasingly in the direction of knowning a good deal more about why decisions have been made."—[Official Report, Commons, 7/7/69, col. 1117.]
He then went on to say (col. 1117):
"Perhaps I may add, in passing, that honourable Members who were on the Committee will remember the discussion on the question of B.E.A.'s accounts. I then said that I will be in touch with Sir Anthony Millward and convey to him that the Committee wished to urge him and his board to move in the direction of increasing disclosure, … and I think that this remains so, though the circumstances must be minimal. Hon. Members will be glad to know that Sir Anthony has readily responded to this approach, and despite the fact that the accounts for 1968-69 were already in an advanced state of prepara-
776
tion B.E.A. has undertaken to incorporate additional material."
Perhaps the noble Lord could go a little further to-day and tell us whether the Government will, in future, implement Mr. Rodgers' desire of publishing further information if and when compensation of the nature we are discussing today arises again. Secondly, could he advise us what further information B.E.A. are going to give us in their new Report?
The second fundamental issue is whether an Air Corporation should receive a subsidy on aircraft which others in the industry operate commercially successfully. The question that comes out of this fundamental issue is, what is happening to the subsidy? Is it being diverted to a less profitable area of the Corporation? The subsidy under Clause 1 covers the compensation payment for operating the BAC 1-11 as regards foreign sales the most successful civil aircraft since the Viscount. Can the noble Lord tell us this afternoon if, say in four years' time, with the benefit of hindsight, it can be shown that no subsidy has in fact ever been required, the Government will take powers to recover the subsidy?
I turn briefly to the amounts of subsidy. The Committee will be aware that there has been a good deal of criticism that the compensation (that is, the £25 million already committed and the £12½ million due to be committed in 1972 to 1975) is far too large. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us to-day about the £25 million which has already been committed; how much is to be paid out every year over the next four-year period and can the sum vary at the Government's discretion? Turning to the £12½ million additional payment to be made during the period of 1972 to 1975, could the noble Lord give us a clearer picture of on what criteria or basis this additional sum will be made available by the Government to B.E.A.?
While the noble Lord is answering these points, and perhaps looking through his brief, I wonder whether he could also reply to a further point which strictly has nothing to do with this clause but which I believe is of general interest. The question I should like to put to him concerns the appointment of the new Chairman of B.E.A. We have arrived

777
at a situation when we have a permanent Chairman of B.E.A. due to retire next March, and a temporary part-time Chairman of B.O.A.C. ready to give way at any moment. I do not believe that this situation is either good for management or for the Corporations. Could the noble Lord tell us what is in the Government's mind as to a statement on this subject, which I believe is long overdue.
3.14 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: It appears as though we are going to take this question of compensation on Clause 1, so, by leave of the Committee, I would put some points similar to those made by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, and perhaps press the Government for a little more clarification of this figure of what I understand to be £27 million plus an optional £12½ million to be paid to B.E.A. to compensate for the Government's insistence that they operate the Trident 3B. First, I understand, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to confirm this, that the compensation is directly related to the Trident and is not related to the BAC 1-11. I think there is no suggestion that B.E.A. were denied the opportunity to buy any aeroplane in place of the 1-11. Indeed, I understand that that aircraft was their first choice and that they are now very satisfied with it, although it is true to say that they had to wait until the stretched version was available. It may be, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would like to ascribe some of the subsidy on that account.
As I understand it, B.E.A.'s argument in favour of this subsidy was that the delay in delivery of the Trident 3B was such that they would be at a competitive disadvantage on some of the routes that they operated compared with their competitors, and for this reason they had to have a subsidy. I find that argument incredibly difficult to follow. If we accept that the Trident 3 will go into service, say, two years later than the Boeing 727, the stretched version, would have gone into service had they been allowed to order it, we then have to ask why it is that B.E.A. were at a competitive disadvantage in having to operate the smaller Trident l's and 2's on the routes on which they would otherwise have operated the 727. As I have said, I fail to see this competitive disadvantage, because if they are able to operate a smaller
778
aircraft on the route, then surety they will be able, within the maximum number of seats that they are allowed to offer, to operate a greater number of services per day, and thus surely offer a better service to the customer and perhaps be able to attract more custom on that account.
However, apparently that is not the situation. Indeed, in accordance with their request the Government are to make available these immense sums of money, simply because for two years they had to operate a smaller aircraft and thus apparently were not able to compete with the other carriers. I have often heard quoted the example of the London/Paris route, on which Air France operate the stretched Boeing 727, and B.E.A. have to operate—up to this time at least—the Trident l's and 2's. I fail to see how it is that B.E.A. are at a substantial competitive disadvantage—at least to the extent that they claim.
One other point I should like to make concerns the question of fuller information. I think it is widely and completely accepted that air carriers in general—not B.E.A. or B.O.A.C. in particular—ought to provide more information on the performance of their services on particular routes. We all know that in the United States this is already the case, and has been for many years, and has met there with widespread success and approval. The simple answer surely is not so much to obtain more detailed statistics through the medium of the Board of Trade, but for the Air Transport Licensing Board to issue licences on the condition that proper and regular returns, in the form that may be prescribed by the Board, are made. This would not require any additional legislation because the A.T.L.B. are already empowered to attach such conditions to licences, and indeed if they really wanted to do so they could vary all licences now to that effect.
Finally, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, to clarify the sum that has been agreed with B.E.A. to be paid by way of subsidy for this Trident operation, and ask him whether he will explain how this figure was arrived at, because I think this is the crux of the matter.
Lord BESWICK: Which figure?
Lord TREFGARNE: The figure of £27 million which we understand the

779
Government have agreed to pay B.E.A. by way of compensation for having to operate the Trident 3B aircraft. Was it simply the case that B.E.A. sent in their invoice for £27 million and the Government in no way questioned it? I hope the noble Lord will be able to clarify this point because it is a point of great importance.
Lord BESWICK: The two noble Lords, the Earl of Kinnoull and Lord Trefgarne, asked some very good questions. I cannot honestly say I am glad they have asked them because they are just a little difficult to answer—at any rate in this context. First of all may I say, and I hope they will take it as something that I say sincerely because I have said it so often and over such a length of time, that I agree with them that the maximum amount of information should be given on these matters. That is absolutely certain. This is something with which the present Ministers also agree, and the noble Earl quoted something which a Minister had said in the other place.
However, we are here dealing with a somewhat different situation. I believe it is not the kind of situation in which an air transport operating company should give the maximum possible information about its revenues and traffics to the new Air Transport Licensing Board. Here we are dealing with a position in which the Corporation wished to buy American aircraft. The Board of Trade, looking at the matter as a whole with all the national interests involved, decided that it was better that they should be asked to buy British aircraft. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, agreed with the decision that British aircraft should be bought. But, if we are to justify that decision, it is a little difficult to justify giving all the details if we are not going to say something which could be used in the markets of the world to disparage British aircraft. That is where the real difficulty and the real delicacy came in. It is for that reason, and that reason only, that the Minister in another place has not found it possible to say precisely how these sums were arrived at. It is a little disconcerting to have a public meeting on the Benches opposite, when I am trying to
780
explain the problem to the noble Lord whom, I hope, I shall convince in the end.
It was a little difficult to give the detailed sums. I do not understand the £27 million about which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, talked. It was, in fact, £25 million plus £12½ million possibly from 1972. We were talking, in the first place, of £37½ million. The noble Lord and the noble Earl are both concerned lest the Board of Trade are too generous to the Corporation. Now in order to meet this possibility, it was decided, instead of a sum of money of £37½ million over seven years, that it would be broken up into two tranches, one of £25 million over four years, with the possibility of a further one of £12½ million in the period of three years following 1972. This means that there is a greater control of this money. Nor was the £25 million to be given in one year; it was to be given in four separate amounts of £5 million, £4 million, £8 million and £8 million.
In answer to the noble Earl, there is provision in subsection (6) of Clause 1 for varying the amounts which were originally agreed. The idea of varying the amounts is to ensure that there would be a fairly even result over the four years. What we want to do, instead of making it possible to make a heavy profit in the one year, probably a less good profit in the second year, and a doubtful profit in the third year, is to even out the advances so that we get a fairly even return over the four years.
On the question of whether or not we are being too generous, may I say that this is not really a matter of new money. No new capital is being infused into the Corporation. The only real cash advantage to the Corporation would be the saving of interest on these sums. The £25 million is really the old capital which is being converted into a special account, and which will then be used as income over the four years in the amounts to be determined by the President of the Board of Trade. So again I think noble Lords were being a little over-apprehensive as to the generosity of the Department.
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, asked whether any compensation at all was due to the Trident 3B, rather than to the BAC 1-11. Of course, the Trident 3B will come into operation later, whereas the American aircraft would

781
have been available almost straight away. The loss of revenue will of course be greater in the case of the Trident 3B, if for no other reason than that it will be introduced three years later than the aircraft which B.E.A. originally wanted. Moreover, it will be a smaller aircraft than they originally wanted. It was on the basis of those considerations that the figure of £25 million was reached.
Lord TREFGARNE: Can the noble Lord confirm that no part of this £25 million is ascribed to the BAC 1-11 500 series, which B.E.A. have just now taken into service?
Lord BESWICK: I cannot confirm that. I think it would be wrong for me to say precisely how it is allocated. This is part of the commercial considerations which it was thought better, in the interests of the aircraft manufacturers, to keep out of publication. I am sorry, but I cannot give the noble Lord that information. But it is fair to assume that the greater part of it is due to the Trident 3B which, as I said, will come along much later than the Corporation originally wanted.
I have been asked about the £12½ million. The £12½ million, for which provision is made in 1972, will be advanced if it is thought that the competitive position of B.E.A. is still worsened by virtue of the fact that they have had to wait so long for these aircraft. But if things go well and if their returns justify it, it may well be that the £12½ million will not be advanced at all. I have been asked why it is that as from this date we make provision in the Bill for the possibility of an advance in 1972. The answer to that, as I have said, is that originally the sum of £37½ million was to cover a seven-year period, but it is now to be in two periods of four years and three years, and 1972 is the beginning of the second, the three-year period.
I was asked about the possibility of recovering any of this money in the event of things going very well. The answer to that is that, in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 3, there will be power under this Bill for the Board of Trade to recover from the Corporation sums in the reserves which are thought to be excessive. So with that additional power, I think noble Lords will feel on consideration that the Board of Trade are being very reasonable
782
in protecting the interests of the taxpayers. However, as I said, the taxpayers will not really be providing this money as cash, because they are only agreeing to an arrangement under which part of the old capital structure shall be used as income. With that explanation, I hope that we can now decide to agree to Clause 1.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Can the noble Lord say anything about the appointment of the new chairman?
Lord BESWICK: I had not forgotten that, but I thought we could probably return to it on a later clause, when I have had time to consider it.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Power to provide for investment of public dividend capital in B.E.A.]
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of KINNOULL: May I ask the noble Lord one or two questions on this clause. The Committee will be aware that this clause led a somewhat disjointed life in another place. In fact, it parted company with the Bill during the Committee stage, and I believe most of us thought that the Government had, for once, removed their dark glasses and seen the clear logic of the uselessness of this clause. But, to one's disappointment, on Report stage this clause was reinstated. It deals with the introduction of public dividend capital into B.E.A. on or after 1972; in other words, in four years' time.
Now public dividend capital is a subject which is rapidly becoming a hardy chestnut in all the new State Corporation Bills the Government introduce. I think that my noble friend Lord Bessborough will in fact be referring to this point some time later on to-day in relation to the Iron and Steel Bill. But there are, I think, four pretty valid and sound reasons why many of us object to its purpose as regards Clause 2 of this Bill. The first is that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries came down heavily against its inclusion as regards B.E.A. only two years ago, and they had a pretty good number of reasons against it. Secondly, it was clear at that stage that the Treasury, too, were against it. Thirdly, the introduction of public

783
dividend capital into B.O.A.C. was made, in 1965-66, only, as the Government then said, on a trial basis of five years. Fourthly, this clause asks us to agree to something which will happen in four years' time. All these, I believe, are sound reasons why, in their Committee stage, another place rejected this clause.
I think that to-day we are entitled to ask the noble Lord for a pretty full justification of the inclusion of this clause. Why, for instance, have the Government ignored the Select Committee's Report and recommendations, 1967? Why have the Treasury changed their mind? Why do we have to include this clause now, when it will come into operation only in four years' time? Why cannot we consider it in four years' time? What evidence from B.O.A.C.'s trial run is there to justify this Clause for B.E.A.? Finally, what good results will it bring about for B.E.A.?
3.33 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: I am asked to justify the provision of public dividend capital for B.E.A.; but, of course, this is not what the Bill does. The Bill makes provision for public dividend capital only if later, in 1972, it is agreed that this should be done. We are not here discussing the merits of public dividend capital or otherwise. We are discussing whether in this Bill, as there is a Bill going through Parliament, we should make provision in this way. I should have thought that it was reasonable so to do as, of course, the Bill deals with the reorganisation of the capital structure of the Corporation. This seems to be eminently sensible and efficient. The merits of public dividend capital—a fascinating argument which we might enter into at some later date—really do not arise on this question. The reason it is being done now in this way and why it was not done before is that it was thought we ought to experiment with B.O.A.C. first. That experiment has not been sufficiently long to enable us to come to any final conclusions. It is still at an initial stage, and we shall be in a better position to see what the experience is by 1972, when the provisions of this Act will require us so to do. I am informed, incidentally, that we are not ignoring the Select Committee. They were not really coming down against public dividend capital: they simply said
784
that in this case they did not think that this was the right way to do it.
There is one further point. The noble Earl asked me about the future position as regards the Chairman of B.E.A. I am sorry, but I am not in a position to give him any information about that; and I suppose he is not really expecting me to announce now who the next Chairman will be. The difficulty here, as I am sure the noble Earl will appreciate, is that we are now considering the future structure of the two Corporations in the light of the Edwards Committee's Report, and until decisions are made about the Edwards recommendation we shall not be in a position to say what kind of Chairman will be required for B.E.A. The situation will be rather different if B.E.A. is to be a completely separate Corporation from what it will be if B.E.A. is a part of the British Air Holdings Council or Board, as Edwards recommends.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Beswick.)
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed briefly to say at this final stage (and I am sure that many of my noble friends would agree) that the past achievements of B.E.A. do not go unrecognised, at any rate on this side of the House. The dominant share of the European market which they have built up against stiff competition from foreign operators is a tribute to their commercial enterprise. Their safety record is another factor which we all admire and are grateful for, especially those of us who travel with B.E.A.; and it operates, as we know, short-haul, often on an average fare of as low as £10, which in itself demonstrates the problems of management. If this Bill succeeds to help them to continue their course of success I, for one, can only wish them well.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for what he has said, and associate myself with the congratulations which he offers to the Corporation? Undoubtedly, as the Edwards Committee said, the Corporation's standing is very high in the aviation world, and I am sure that all of us are pleased to see that and are pleased to give them every encouragement and support, no matter what eventual decision is taken on the recommendations of the Edwards Report. May I also take this opportunity of saying how much I appreciate the co-operation of noble Lords opposite in dealing with the Bill in the way in which we have been able to deal with it, so that it can go forward and the necessary provisions can be made for the Corporation.
On Question, Bill passed.

NATIONAL MOD (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (No. 2) BILL
3.39 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Death grant]:
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 41, after ("deceased's") insert ("uncle, aunt,")
The noble Lord said: With those short words from the Lord Chairman, we have disposed of the great bulk of the Bill. But we now come to a very small matter in terms of money; although it could be important in certain circumstances. We have dealt with the £430 million and we now come down to something that could
786
amount in any one year to an extra expenditure of, at most, a few thousand pounds. Even so, it could in certain circumstances be important to those concerned. The point is that here we are dealing with an increase in death grant, in partciular the extension of death grant in respect of a person over 19 years of age who has been, to quote the Bill
"by reason of illness or disability of mind or body incapacitated for regular employment … "
and who then dies. The point of the Amendment is to extend the list of those entitled to death grant in respect of that person.
The Bill as drafted limits those to the deceased's parents and remoter issues; that is, grandparents and to any one of these with whom the child or person may have been living: the deceased's stepfather, stepmother, stepchild; the deceased's brother, sister, half brother, half sister, step brother or step sister. The point of this Amendment is simply to add "uncle or aunt". I have known of a case, and I have heard of others, where a child has been passed at an early age to an aunt or uncle to look after. The aunt or uncle has borne the full brunt of looking after the child. Sometimes these are very difficult cases. Sometimes the children grow to an abnormal size and are difficult to handle; and all too often in their early twenties they die quite suddenly. I should have thought that in such cases those who had been looking after the children all those years and above all, were taking the financial responsibility should also be included in the list. The parents may be dead or may be abroad; or they may have abandoned the child. This is a simple Amendment. I do not think I need say more about it. I beg to move.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for moving this Amendment. I would remind the Committee that the categories of relatives specified in the Bill are in fact those already included in the Unemployment and Sickness Benefit Regulations which set out those relatives for whom increases of unemployment and sickness benefit in respect of adult dependants may be paid. The proposed list is therefore one which has for long been in use in the insurance scheme. If one steps outside these categories there is no obvious limiting

787
criterion. It is important to be clear about what is being attempted in Clause 4. The problem of death grant for handicapped adults who have never been able to work and pay contributions has been a point of concern and criticism since 1949 when the grant was first paid. Despite very sympathetic consideration by all concerned, it was not thought possible to provide an insurance benefit accruing to someone who had never been insured. Lord Drumalbyn himself was one of those who examined this problem when he was a distinguished Minister of Pensions and National Insurance. A solution is feasible only through a different approach based on the view that it is not the handicapped person himself who needs an insurance cover towards meeting the cost of burial but the relatives who must bear the expense, since in these cases it cannot normally be met by taking out a private insurance policy or from assets acquired in life by the deceased. The Government are therefore extending the cover in this way.
Wherever the line is drawn, it will be possible to think of a potentially hard case. I do not doubt the facts that the noble Lord has given to-day are those of a hard case. The noble Lord cited cases of parents who went abroad and left the child. Clearly, in such cases the parents were responsible. It is their insurance and not the aunt's which is appropriate. It may be that circumstances would enable the adjudicating authorities to regard this as a temporary absence which could be ignored in determining whether the deceased was residing with his parents. If it was a long-term situation, the authorities would have to consider whether the deceased would have been residing with the parents if not living at school, hospital, or recognised home. While having every sympathy with the case that the noble Lord has given, I ask the Committee to consider that wherever the line is drawn there will be hard cases. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I know how difficult it is to depart from a recognised rule in these matters. But in this clause we are departing from a recognised rule: indeed, the whole point of the Clause is to depart from a recognised rule. I thought it might be possible to make a
788
special concession in the list in this way. It seems to me that the child in these circumstances is more likely to be dependent on an uncle or an aunt than in the generality of circumstances covered already by the Act. Obviously, it would be absurd to press this. I have an inkling that sooner or later there will be a concession on this point—one rarely gets it the first time. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Decimalisation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord REDMAYNE: Your Lordships will see that there is an italics Amendment in my name to leave out Clause 8. I have written to the noble Baroness to explain my reason, and I will briefly give it now for the Record. It is concerned with the need for employers to be able to express every social security contribution in terms of decimals at an earlier date than D-Day for decimalisation (which is in February, 1971). Many of them need, for good reason, I think, to be able to decimalise their pay slips by the beginning of the financial year 1970-71; that is, by April 6, 1970. Therefore it is important that in respect of the deductions for social security the Government should give the lead in expressing those contributions in terms of two places of decimals as from that date.
As some noble Lords will know, my particular interest in this matter is in respect of the distributive trades. Traders generally, and retailers in particular, want to take a lead in this matter by printing their pay slips in decimals from April 6, 1970, although they will continue to pay in sterling. The reason for doing so is obvious; for they, with the banks, transport and other service industries, have to take the lead in educating the public in handling decimal currency. It is their staffs, the employees of the distributive trades, who must first become familiar with decimalisation. Certainly in my opinion much benefit may be obtained by imposing on those staffs the painful necessity of reading

789
their pay slips in decimal terms, even though, as I say, they are paid in sterling. It will give them at least ten months before D-Day to become, in one sense, familiar with this problem.
I should like to say, because I think it is worth saying, that any paymaster, any personnel manager—any employer for that matter—in any industry will gain by adopting the same policy and will thereby avoid the many anomalies which can arise from a change in pay systems during the tax year. If they do not change at the beginning of 1970 they will be, practically speaking, forced to change in the middle of the financial year.
Most entries on a pay slip can be adjusted for adaptation to the decimal system by administrative action within a company, but these changes have to be put in hand now—changes in overtime rates, in discounts, in bonus rates, in subscriptions to sports clubs and so forth. All these have to be brought into line so that they may be expressed in the terms of a decimal equivalent. One has to start on that now, so that by April next year one is ready to convert all these factors into the new form.
The most complicated and, one might say, the most haphazard deductions of all are those arising from social security, and help from the Government in this matter is urgently needed. In part, the Government have been forthcoming. In another place it was clearly stated. In Standing Committee E on July 8, reported in column 151, the Minister said
"… it is intended that the National Insurance (Assessment of Graduated Contribution) Regulations"—
and so forth—
"should be amended with effect from 6th April, 1970."
That is very helpful so far as it goes, but we are concerned with the rest of the contributions. In a letter to me, dated only a week or two ago, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said—I will read one paragraph:
"The Department of Health and Social Security will, of course, do all that they can to assist employers with the transition—"
to decimalisation—
"and during the course of the legislation for the new rates of social security benefits and contributions the decimal equivalents or near equivalents of the new contributions will be announced so that employers will know, when
790
they alter their pay rolls for the new £s. d. rates, what the decimal rate will be."
That is encouraging. As this is the last stage of this Bill, I hope that the noble Baroness is armed with these answers.
I was not so encouraged by a previous comment in the Newsletter of the Decimal Currency Board which, in respect of flat-rate contributions, said, in the February, 1969, issue:
"Planning is on the basis that from D-Day there will be a fresh range of flat-rate rational insurance contributions expressed in £p … "
That did not seem to anticipate that we should have information about the equivalent from the beginning of next year. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell me that the issue of that document is now out of date. Having put this matter as clearly and as briefly as I can, I now hope to have a favourable and informative answer from the Government Front Bench.
3.55 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I would say, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, that I am very relieved by the fact that at one stage I taught mathematics. I cannot imagine more of a nightmare than trying to talk about contributions to social security expressed in decimal currency. I take the point made by the noble Lord about the advantage for employers of setting out in decimal currency the amount of flat-rate contribution in advance of February 15, 1971. The regulations to enable flat-rate contributions to be expressed in decimal currency as from February, 1971, will of course be made well in advance. They will be published by this autumn. But there are difficulties in sanctioning too soon the deduction from wages of flat-rats contributions in decimal form. It would mean, for example, that slightly different rates would be payable by employees, depending solely on whether the employers were maintaining records in decimals or pounds, shillings and pence in the period before Decimal (D) Day.
I did a little calculation to get some sort of example; I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, will have done a large number of these. Taking the normal and most average contribution of an employee at 17s. 8d. I would point out that if this were expressed in decimals it would of course be £0-883. If the employer worked to three decimal places

791
—we are talking about the intervening ten months—he would in fact lose very little on the difference. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Redmayne, will tell me that this is in relation to a very large number of employees and that the fraction is a very small one. May I say to the noble Lord that the Government are anxious to be as helpful as possible to employers, but there are a number of interests to be consulted, and I hope that he will appreciate that the Government are very concerned about making the position as straightforward as possible for employers in the position in which the noble Lord is.
I might help him a little by saying that in the Newsletter to which he referred there is a misprint. The paragraph he mentioned should read:
"Planning is on the basis that from D-Day there will be a fresh range of flat-rate national insurance contributions expressed in £-p. These will be exact or near equivalents … "
instead of "There will be exact or near equivalents … "That is some small comfort and it may clear up one small misunderstanding. I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate that the Demical Currency Board and the Department are anxious to smooth this period, and that therefore he will agree to withdraw this Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Before my noble friend deals with this matter further, may I ask this question? This Clause is couched in a negative form. It says:
"Regulations shall not be made under this section so as to take effect from a date earlier than the 15th February 1971…."
But the regulations could, of course, be laid very much in advance of that date. This, I think, would go a long way to meeting the point made by my noble friend. I think that what he had in mind was to make certain that the regulations are laid in very good time, even though the regulations have to comply with subsection (3) of the clause.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I appreciate the point, and therefore I think it useful for the Record that I should say that these regulations will be dealt with in good time. This, in fact, constitutes something of an assurance.
Lord REDMAYNE: I do not wish to delay the Committee. I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She is seized, of course, that "in good time" means before April, 1970, and nothing else. When she says that it seems likely that there will be a slight difference between the sterling contribution and the decimal contribution, will she accept that if all paymasters throughout commerce and industry paid in decimal coinage from April 6, 1970, they would be very much better off—not in money, but in terms of coping with quite a large problem? I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 11 agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Provisions to be substituted in Schedule 4 to National Insurance Act 1965]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 3 shall be agreed to?
Lord DRUMALBYN: I should like to ask one question on Schedule 3. I wonder how long the Government are proposing to retain the subdivision:
"(d) over the age of 18—
(i) if on 5th July, 1948, that person had attained the age of 55 in the case of a man or 50 in the case of a woman, "
Death grant is to be paid of exactly half as much as the grant "in any other case." I know that the theory here is that because of their age in 1948, they could pay only 10 years' contribution and so are entitled to a smaller death grant, and that the longer this goes on, the thinner it wears because of continuing escalation. This is known to be an irritant, and I hope that at some time or another the Government will make up their minds to abandon it.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I would remind the noble Lord that the grant is not intended to cover the complete cost of a funeral; it is intended to help. But I take the point he has made and I am sure that when further amending legislation comes forward, we will return to this point again.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Commencement and transitory provisions]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 6 shall be agreed to?
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask one question on Schedule 6? I am sorry that I have not given notice of this question to the noble Baroness, but I think she will be able to answer it easily. Part I of this Schedule deals with the date of commencement of the various provisions of the Bill. Considering that some dates at least are known, I wonder why they have not been put into the Bill. The date of coming into operation for benefits is November 3, and I understand that the date when contributions will come into effect has already been decided. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would tell the Committee when these provisions are intended to come into effect and to indicate why these dates have not been stated in the Bill.
Baroness PHILLIPS: The noble Lord has said that it would be simple to give a reply to his question, but I am afraid that it is not so simple. The date the noble Lord has given is the date referred to on Second Reading. I hope I am correct in assuming that the time when a Bill is introduced constitutes some statement of intent in relation to dates, and this may be the reason why they are not in the Bill. But I would not give this as other than my own personal opinion in this connection.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Remaining Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, in moving that this Bill do now pass, I should like to express my appreciation of the courtesy of noble Lords, particularly of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, which has enabled us to examine the Bill so carefully, and I ask your Lordships to accept the Motion that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Bill passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HEALTH SERVICE: OMBUDSMAN SCHEME EXTENSION
4.4 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement on the extension of the ombudsman principle which is being made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in answer to a Question in another place.
The Statement is as follows:
"At Questions on June 24 I told the House that the Government were considering urgently whether there should be an ombudsman for local government and also what similar arrangement might be considered for the National Health Service, and that I hoped to be able to make a statement shortly.
"I am now able to inform the House that the Government accept in principle that an ombudsman system should be by law established for investigating complaints of maladministration by local government. The activities of local authorities impinge upon the daily life of the citizens directly and over a wide range and the introduction of a system analogous to that of a Parliamentary Commissioner into the local government scheme would be a major extension of the citizen's right to seek redress. We envisage hat a local ombudsman system would be separate from the Parliamentary Commissioner system; that its scope in relation to local government affairs would be similar to the scope of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in central Government affairs; and that the independent reports would be considered by the appropriate local authority.
"The Government will therefore enter into discussions with the local authority associations and other bodies concerned with a view to introducing the necessary legislation; and will then present detailed proposals in the context of local government reorganisation.
"As to health service administration, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services informed the House on May 19 that he

795
was convinced that there was a substantial case for a health commissioner, though such an office should not be confused in its functions with the new hospital advisory service he is now in process of setting up. It will be necessary to consider, in consultation with the professional and other interests, how far the new service, when it is established, meets one side of the problem; the relationship of any commissioner to the new service; and also other problems of definition, for example where complaints may involve clinical matters. These are questions which the Health Ministers will be considering as part of the proposals now being worked out for the future administrative structure of the health service.
"I think that the House will be glad to have this Statement of the Government's intentions in this matter, which represent a further important step in the consistent line of policy which we have followed on grievance machinery for the citizen."
Earl JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement. I am glad to hear that the Government are going ahead with the idea of a Health Commissioner. May I put two questions to the noble Lord on the extension of the ombudsman system to cover possible maladministration in the field of local government? In the first place, could the noble Lord explain rather more fully why it is intended to separate the local ombudsman system from that of the Parliamentary Commissioner? There may of course be very good reasons for this: it may be inevitable. But on the face of it it would seem to be rather a pity that it is not possible to graft the new system in some way on to the office of Parliamentary Commissioner, especially in view of the prestige that the office has acquired under the administration of Sir Edmund Compton.
Secondly, it is said in the Statement that detailed proposals regarding the introduction of the system of a local ombudsman will be presented in the context of local government reorganisation. Does that mean, as I take it to mean, that we shall not get the local ombudsman
796
until we get Maud? If that is so, without back-tracking on all the arguments of the last few weeks, I would only remind the noble Lord that we may be waiting for the local ombudsman for quite a long time.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, I too should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. I am particularly interested in the proposal for a local authority ombudsman. I think that I am right in saying that my noble friend Lord Wade proposed such a post quite a long time ago, but there was then thought to be some objection to it. I am very pleased to find that any objections have now been overcome, and that we shall see our local government ombudsman in time. But I share the noble Earl's fear that, if we are going to wait until the recommendations of the Maud Committee are implemented, it may be quite a long time.
I am interested to hear about the ombudsman for the Health Service. I have never myself been particularly happy about the way in which matters are handled at the present moment; from the point of view of the person making a complaint, there is not a very satisfactory method of doing this. I am pleased to see that in future a person making a complaint will be able to feel that his case will be considered by somebody not directly involved. I am sure that this will make for better relations between the Health Service and the person most concerned—the patient.
4.12 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first, as is customary, with the questions from the two Front Benches. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, asked: why not give the work to the Parliamentary Commissioner? I agree with him that this is, on the face of it, a simple and attractive idea. We discussed this at considerable length when the Parliamentary Commissioner Bill was before Parliament. It was always envisaged that at some stage this ombudsman principle would be extended more widely. Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, in passing, that the Government have never been hostile to the idea. We merely wanted to proceed by sensible stages, and I think most noble Lords would agree that it is right to carry it out in stages. It will be some time, because this will mean a great deal of adaptation. The basic fact

797
is that reports of maladministration must be made to those who can put right what is found to be wrong; and in this case it must be the local authorities, who are responsible to their electorates and not to Parliament for their administration. This is the basic principle; but clearly there will have to be a lot of discussion to make the machinery satisfactory. It is to announce the beginning of these consultations that we are making this Statement.
As to the date when this extension will begin, I do not think one can say more than is in the Statement. I do not think that I shall be able to convert noble Lords opposite in their obstinate refusal to believe that it will be possible to introduce Maud at a reasonably early date. They have their date, and we have ours. But, without going over all the arguments on that, clearly, if there are to be these major reforms it will be much easier to apply the system on the basis of these unitary authorities, and it fits more naturally and easily into the Maud concept of local government. That is the Government's thinking in this matter.
Perhaps I should say one further word with regard to the Health Service. There is a substantial case, we believe—and the Secretary of State for Social Services has said so—for a health commissioner. But that does not imply that a final decision has been taken on it at the moment. The precise role must be worked out in relation to other developments, like the new hospital advisory service, the general procedure for handling complaints and the new administrative structure of the Health Service, on which the revised Green Paper has been promised. Consultations will be necessary with the doctors, nurses and others, and these must be held before a decision is announced, because difficult clinical issues could be involved.
Earl JELLICOE: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, but could I clarify one point with the noble Lord the Leader of the House? As I said, I did not wish to bring up the Maud timetable again. All I was anxious to establish by my question was whether the mention in the Statement that detailed proposals regarding the local ombudsman system would be presented in the context of local government reorganisation meant that we should not have the local ombudsman until the new
798
Maud local authorities are set up. The noble Lord in his reply has, I think, confirmed that that is the meaning of the Statement. Am I right in thinking that that is so?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not want to be too definite, because we shall have to see how the discussions go. It is too early to give a definite answer, but the intention is that the Government will pursue consultations as a matter of urgency and introduce legislation as soon as possible. I should not like to be absolutely hard on this point. Obviously, if there were a change of Government things would be different—
Earl JELLICOE: A lot might be different.
Lord SHACKLETON:—but this is the Government's present intention in this matter.
Lord KILMANY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Scottish local government will come within the scope of these proposals?
Lord SHACKLETON: Yes, my Lords. I understand that this will be a general proposal covering the whole of the United Kingdom, except Northern Ireland, where, of course, they have already advanced far along the line in setting up an ombudsman for local affairs. But, here again, there will have to be a great deal of discussion.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, following on that question, is it intended that there will be a separate ombudsman system for Scotland, and possibly a separate ombudsman system for Wales, or will it all be one single system?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, that is a question that I cannot answer at this moment. There are a number of ways in which one could set it up. It is even possible that if the Provincial Councils were set up (and no decision has been taken), there might be some link there. If the noble Lord will forgive me, I will not speculate further; but obviously what he has said sounds like natural development.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, even if this is early notice, his Statement will give great satisfaction? Is he

799
further aware that this was the one sphere—and I refer to the local authorities and the National Health Service—which many of us felt was missing from the responsibilities of the Parliamentary Commissioner? Lastly, is he aware that we are glad that the apparent willingness of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, when this subject was discussed some two years ago, to say that it would be looked again in so far as local authorities and the Health Services were concerned, has borne fruit? We are most grateful.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness, especially in view of her position in relation to the Council on Tribunals. I am grateful to her for reminding us—because memories are short in this matter—that my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack has played a big part in driving forward in a direction which the Party opposite had previously rejected.
Lord MITCHISON: My Lords, I sat for a good many years for a constituency which included seven local authorities in a new town, and none of them, therefore, was a large authority. I think this proposal is a very good one indeed and that it requires a lot of political pluck to do this at the moment. I hope that, so far as possible, the various Parties will try to co-operate on a matter of this kind, which does not seem to me to touch directly on Party politics but which does affect the good government of the country and, to a large extent, the lives of the ordinary men and women in the country. I speak with all the impartiality I am capable of but do not always show, and I say to the Government that I am very glad indeed that they have the pluck to do this.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, could the Leader of the House say whether the proposed health commissioner is likely to have powers to deal with clinical trials, disciplinary and pay matters concerned with the National Health Service? If so, will there be discussion with the Regional Hospital Boards, and the Whitley Council so that all these bodies can be consulted before action is taken?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his
800
question because it indicates that I had not made clear what I thought I had made clear; namely, that there will be the most exhaustive discussions in what is a very complex and difficult area, and I am in simply no position to say what pattern will finally emerge. No final decisions have been taken in this area. I welcome this question, because I think it is important that all those concerned in this matter should not get the idea that everything is cut and dried. Nothing in this particular area of the Health Service is cut and dried, other than the statement of the intention to proceed in this direction by discussion.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask one more question, which I think is a crucial one in setting up an ombudsman? Have the Government yet decided what the channels of communication are going to be? Will they be through Members of Parliament and local councillors, or what?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, these are all fascinating questions, and I wish I knew the answers to them. In this matter the Government are right to come forward, state their approach and the principles, and allow discussions to take place. This is part of the right approach to participation in this area. There are a number of possible solutions. I have my own ideas, but it would be a mistake to refer to these until we can see how the structure and procedure can be worked out. The Government would be very interested in the views of local authorities, and of any noble Lord who has views on this matter. There is no doubt that at a suitable moment we shall come forward with proposals, which I hope will be the subject of discussion and examination, rather than a dikt-at in this matter.
Lord KILMANY: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind the possibility of Members of your Lordships' House being a very useful channel for communication when the ombudsman is concerned, certainly in local affairs?
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, this is an area where there are a large number of willing candidates. I fully accept what the noble Lord has said about the experience of noble Lords in this matter. In relation to Scotland, my right honourable friend the Secretary of

801
State for Scotland will be very thorough in his consultations. These consultations will take place direct with the local authorities and the local authority bodies. If any noble Lord wishes to put forward ideas they will be welcomed; and we can even, in due course, debate the matter in this House.

TEXTILES: IMPORT CONTROLS AND FINANCIAL AID
4.23 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, BOARD of TRADE (Lord Brown): My Lords, with permission, I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade has made in another place on the Textile Council's Report on Cotton and Allied Textiles. It is as follows:
"The Government have now completed their examination of the Textile Council's Report on Cotton and Allied Textiles. The Report addressed a number of recommendations to both the Government and the industry, and these have been the subject of continuing consultations with the Council.
"The recommendations to the industry concerned in particular the need to increase the rate of re-equipment, to extend multi-shift working, and to develop closer technical and commercial links between the different stages of production and marketing. I attach great importance to these three requirements, and I am working closely with the Textile Council on their implementation.
"The main recommendations to the Government concerned future policy on imports and financial assistance to encourage re-equipment.
"On import policy, the Council recommended that the present quota system should be replaced by a tariff on imports of cotton textiles from the Commonwealth preference area at a rate not less than 85 per cent. of the most-favoured-nation duties. On cotton cloth, the main item of trade, this would mean a duty of 15 per cent. The Council believe that a tariff would be a better solution both for the industry and the country than a continuation of quotas. It would offer a margin of protection that was both stable and
802
predictable, so enabling the industry to plan ahead with confidence. A continuation of quotas, on the other hand, would not give the industry the confidence or the incentive to undertake the investment needed to make it more competitive.
"Imports of cotton textiles into Britain, the greater part of which enter duty-free, have now reached 53 per cent. of total domestic consumption. This is a far higher proportion than in any other major developed country. In these circumstances we have the alternatives of re-negotiating the present unsatisfactory quota arrangements, or adopting a tariff which would be broadly in line with those of other developed countries. The Government have decided that the right course is to introduce, as from January 1, 1972, a tariff on imports from the Commonwealth preference area on the lines proposed by the Textile Council. From that date the existing general quota system would be terminated; and the Government would consider the use of quotas only on particular products under the Long Term Cotton Arrangement of the GATT, and only if total imports of cotton textiles rose significantly above the present level and caused disruption to the market in those particular products. These decisions would, of course, be subject to any modifications that might be required if we joined the E.E.C.
"In reaching this decision I have taken account of the fact that a number of countries in the Commonwealth have rights to duty-free entry into the U.K. market; and I shall now initiate the necessary discussions with the Governments concerned. I am equally conscious, on the other hand, that cotton textiles have long been treated internationally as a special case; and this decision will not create a precedent for further departures from our traditional policy on Commonwealth trade in advance of any general charge of system which may be required by our entry into the E.E.C.
"The effect of the new arrangement should be to reduce imports from the developed countries which have benefited markedly from the existence of quota restrictions on imports from

803
the developing countries. There is no reason to think that, with the possible exception of India, the developing countries of the Commonwealth generally will be able to export less to Britain over a tariff of this amount than they would under a continuation of the quota system. So far as India is concerned, the Government will, when the time comes to determine the level of aid to India after 1972, take into account, against the background of India's general aid requirements at that time, any adverse effects on her exports arising from the tariff.
"I turn to the question of financial assistance to the industry. The Textile Council proposed that firms in the traditional textile areas should be offered the 40 per cent. rate of investment grant which is payable in the development areas. The Government have decided against this both on general grounds of regional policy and because in present circumstances, including in particular the position on public expenditure, we would not be justified in singling out this industry for financial assistance on such a scale.
"The Council also proposed that plant worked on a multi-shift basis should qualify for a higher than normal annual allowance for depreciation. The Government attach importance to any proposal which might increase the utilisation of new machinery, and the Inland Revenue are prepared to consider an application by the Textile Council for an increase in the depreciation allowances on textile machinery.
"In addition, the two consultants whom I have appointed to advise me on mergers between medium and small sized firms in the industry are in close touch with the I.R.C. They have seen more than 70 firms, and enough progress has been made to enable the I.R.C. to begin discussions on prospective mergers.
"The proposal to replace quotas by a tariff forms an essential part of a developing policy designed to help this industry to survive and compete in an international environment. I have already announced decisions on the structure of the industry which should give the large firms the stability they
804
need to proceed with their internal reorganisation and integration, while encouraging a much-needed process of amalgamation among the small and medium firms. To-day's decisions carry the policy a crucial stage further. Successive Governments have failed to come to grips with the industry's basic problems; and the industry itself has failed to adapt sufficiently to changing circumstances. I hope that the decisions that I have announced, provided they are accompanied by a clear determination on the part of both sides of the industry to carry out the changes recommended by the Textile Council, will enable the Lancashire textile industry once again to take its place in the forefront of British industry."
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. I am sure we shall all echo at any rate his last sentence. It is an unusually long Statement. I do not complain of that, because it deals with a very complicated matter, but I am sure we shall all want to digest it before commenting upon it in any detail. However, may I ask the noble Lord one or two questions? I am sure we were all glad of his assurance that the substitution of import duties for quotas in this case will not create a precedent for further departures from our traditional policy on Commonwealth trade. Of course, a very considerable change is involved here in Commonwealth Preference, and we are glad to have that assurance.
I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he would also give an assurance that, in moving over to the policy of duties in place of quotas, he is aware that this is going to place a very great deal more importance on what I think is called the Customs Duties (Dumping and Excise) Act, and it would be more important to make certain that that Act is used wherever appropriate. It has recently been amended and is important in this context. Thirdly, I should like to ask about the effect of these moves on the consumer of textiles. Can the noble Lord give any indication of what a duty of 15 per cent. on this very large proportion of cotton textiles is likely to mean in terms of the consumer? I think I will leave the noble Lord to answer those questions before I ask any more.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, with regard to the point about the substitution of tariffs and the implementation of a tariff policy against Commonwealth imports, I should like to reassure the noble Lord that it is very specifically not intended as a precedent. On the second point, the Board of Trade has now had nearly a year's experience of the new antidumping regulations and feels quite satisfied that these are adequate for the protection of the industry against unfair practices in this respect. We have gained experience and are already able to deal with these matters with even greater expedition than we have been able to deal with them in the past. We are not concerned on that account. On the question of the consumer, these are of course predictions, and the noble Lord will understand how difficult it is to make these predictions, but the experts have examined this matter and the economists have looked at it, and it is believed that the prices of imports from Commonwealth sources, which will now have to bear tariff, will drop by about the amount of the tariff. In other words, there is not expected to be a rise in prices resulting from this change.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask another question. The noble Lord has told us that it is expected to make this change in the system from quota to tariff on January 1, 1972. I assume from what he has said that it is not going to be necessary to adjust the quota, or certainly to renegotiate the quota, in the meantime. Is this so? Will the quota stay at its existing level until then? May I lastly ask a question about the noble Lord's statement that the Inland Revenue are prepared to consider an application for an increase in the depreciation allowances on textile machinery? Has this already been examined and is the level of the application to be made already known? Is this in fact saying that the Inland Revenue will agree to something that has already been decided on?
Lord BROWN: My Lords, the present quota arrangements expire in 1970 and will have to be renegotiated, therefore, in the interim period to fill the gap until January 1, 1972. We do not regard this as a difficult operation. On the question of depreciation allowances, I think it is
806
known that the authorities already have statutory authority in special cases to increase annual depreciation allowances up to 25 per cent. I understand that the present maximum depreciation allowance for three-shift working in the textile industry is 20 per cent., with lower amounts for two-shift or one-shift working. I cannot give an undertaking that the Inland Revenue will accede to the demand for 25 per cent., but the matter has been one of discussion and I leave the noble Lord to read the music behind the words, if I may put it in that way.
4.37 p.m.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, the Statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, was very comprehensive, covers a lot of ground and contains some startling suggestions. It will need a good deal of study by those who are familiar with the textile industries. I have no particular knowledge of the cotton textile industry because, as the noble Lord will be aware, the wool textile industry have elected to refrain from taking part in the Textile Council; but of course it is an allied industry, and whatever is decided for the cotton textile industry may have repercussions on the wool textile industry. It is quite a startling move that you should go from quotas to tariffs. It is one which I do not deplore—
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? The noble Lord is beginning to debate this Statement. We are fairly relaxed about this sort of thing, but I think this is becoming rather a debate. Could the noble Lord put questions?
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I readily accede to the request of the noble Lord the Leader of the House. However, the question which I was going to put with regard to obsolescence allowances required a preamble, otherwise one could not make the question clear. The point I want to emphasise is that the textile industries have been the subject of an altitude that they have been expendable, and this is now an attempt to improve the situation. The noble Lord made a distinction with regard to the obsolescence allowances. The point of my interjection is to ask him, if he will, to give particular thought to and to make recommendations with regard to, this fact. Although he said there was going to be increased obso-

807
lescence allowance for three-shift operations, it has long been the case in the textile industry that the obsolescence allowances, or the statutory allowances by the Inland Revenue, are far below what they should be if they are to permit a proper replacement of machinery.
With due respect to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, I think this is a proper moment to bring up this question, which has long been a matter of great disadvantage to the textile industry. When the development of new prototypes is so rapid, there should be a higher obsolescence allowance. That is what I want to take the opportunity of saying on this very long Statement. It is unusual for a Statement to be so long and it takes time to digest, but I do not want the point I have raised to be overlooked.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's question was: would I take note of the situation in the woollen industry, and the answer is that certainly I will take note. It will be a matter for consideration by the Board.

TRANSPORT (LONDON) BILL
4.41 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 8, line 22, after ("(e)") insert ("0')")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is the concession which on Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, undertook to make if I withdrew my Amendment to Clause 6 (1) (j). I am sure noble Lords will remember that I accepted the offer made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, but since then, from a letter I have received from the Minister of Transport, I understand that difficulties have arisen through the advisers in the Ministry of Transport changing their minds and now giving the opposite advice to that which they gave the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, when he made the concession to me. No doubt
808
the noble Lord will be able to explain what has happened. I beg to move.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, in considering Amendment No. 1 it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to the Amendments which are consequential to it; namely, Nos. 4 to 10. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, drew attention to the fact that the manufacturing powers of this new authority were not guarded by what are broadly referred to as the commercial requirements—or commercial clauses—of previous legislation; that is, that under the Bill the new authority, when they exercise their power to manufacture, should operate as though they were a commercial organisation.
In my reply to the noble Lord I said that in my view such a provision should be in the Bill. I think I should be frank with the House and say that my conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, were earlier than he has disclosed, because I had an opportunity before the Committee stage of drawing his attention to this particular omission. I suggested that if I were prepared to accept it, it would at least meet him halfway and perhaps we could avoid an unnecessary Division. Therefore I feel under an unusual obligation to the noble Lord in this matter.
I based my offer upon a brief that was made available to me, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will clearly understand that, apart from being highly complex, this is a Bill which has nothing whatsoever to do with my Ministerial duties; and it is a Bill which was, I think, received on Friday as we were to take the Committee stage the following Monday. But at least over the weekend I had an opportunity to read my brief, and it was after having read it that I made my offer to the noble Lord. I think where I went wrong in making my offer to the noble Lord was that I had not taken fully into account the question whether the manufacturing powers were for external purposes or for internal use.
In his Amendment the noble Lord suggests that paragraph (j), which is the only manufacturing power in the Bill, should be treated in a similar way to paragraphs (e) and (k), which in fact provide for the new authority to provide services to outside organisations or private individuals. Paragraph (j). which we are

809
now talking about, provides for the manufacture of goods for the Executive itself or any other national transport authority, or for the purposes of the Council. The commercial obligation on the nationalised transport authority under Section 134 of the 1968 Act—and I referred particularly in my speech to that Act—applies only to the manufacturing activities under Section 48 (2), that is to say, to the general powers of manufacture for the outside market, conferred by that section. It does not apply to the internal manufacturing activities of the nationalised transport authority; that is, manufacture for their own purposes and for those of any other member of the nationalised transport family.
These powers, which derive from Section 13 of the Transport Act 1962 have not the commercial obligation applied to them, but I must make it dear that in the view of the Government, given that the manufacturing activities of the new Transport Executive are basically of an internal nature, akin to those of the nationalised transport authorities, and they have no general power to manufacture for the outside market, it would not be in accordance with the Transport Act at present to apply these commercial obligations to those activities.
In Committee I also mentioned the Iron and Steel Act. In fact this does not place a commercial obligation, as such, on the British Steel Corporation, but it provides for the publication in detail of the accounts of any non-iron or steel business of the Corporation with an annual turnover of more than a quarter of a million pounds. This obligation, placed on the Corporation, while not identical with what I am proposing in the Government Amendments to Clause 12, is nevertheless to some extent relevant. It is also worth noting that the Post Office Bill, which recently received its Third Reading in Your Lordships' House, imposes a commercial obligation on the Post Office in respect of its manufacturing activities for the outside market but not for its own internal purposes. I must concede that the Post Office is slightly different from the various transport bodies, in that it is alone in its field and belongs to no family of authorities engaged in basically similar enterprises for whom it can conveniently manufacture. But this does not
810
remove the point that the Post Office Bill distinguishes clearly between the external manufacture, where the commercial obligation applies, and the manufacture for the purposes of the Post Office, where no such obligation obtains.
Given these circumstances—and I thought it right to explain at some length the position as the Government see it—I have not felt able to put down an Amendment in precisely the form which I indicated to the Committee and which the noble Lord himself has now put on the Marshalled List. However, . [ was extremely anxious, as was my right honourable friend, to fulfil, in as concrete a form as possible, the spirit of the undertaking which I gave to the noble Lord on that occasion. It was with this in mind that the Amendments to Clause 12 have been tabled.
Their effect is to oblige the Executive to publish in their annual reports details of their own or any subsidiaries' manufacturing activities, showing the turnover, the gross contribution to profit or loss, the method by which these calculations were arrived at and any other information about the activity which the Minister directs them to furnish. And this a tracts with it the further provisions that if the Minister then considers that the Executive's charges are too low in relation to that cost he can direct the activity in question either to be modified or to be discontinued. It will be open to any person who suspected the Executive of indulging in improper trading activities to make representations to the Minister who could investigate the complaints. In the Government's view, these mandatory provisions, by compelling the Executive to disclose details of any manufacturing activity and by opening the door for Ministerial intervention at any time, will in fact ensure that the Executive are not tempted to act in a manner that is unfair to potential competitors.
I again apologise to the noble Lord for any misunderstanding, for which I am entirely responsible, and I hope very much that he will feel able to accept that the additional safeguards which we now propose to prevent unfair trading will finally allay the fears which have been expressed and, in the event, will show them to have been unfounded. I think that in some ways these Amendments go

811
further than the commercial obligations as such would have done. Furthermore, they do so in a way consistent—and I stress this—with earlier legislation which has been accepted by your Lordships' House, in that the obligation to publish financial results in annual accounts and the possibility of Ministerial intervention are closely akin to the arrangements which will apply under Section 48 of the Transport Act to all the manufacturing activities of the nationalised Transport Authorities.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will feel that I have sought to meet the point which he made in Committee, and which I supported, because I felt that some provision should be made in the Bill in this matter. There have been difficulties, as I have explained, as to the method of achieving it, but I believe that the Amendments to which I have spoken, Nos. 3 to 10, more than meet the fears that undoubtedly exist in the minds of noble Lords opposite as to the manufacturing powers of this new Executive.
4.54 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the great pains to which he has gone to try to make amends for this unfortunate situation; and let me say immediately that I fully accept his apologies and recognise that there is no reflection of any kind on him. He has certainly argued his case extremely well. I have had over the weekend an opportunity to study the Amendments to Clause 12 which the noble Lord has put before us, and to consider what their merits are relative to the concession which the noble Lord now has to withdraw and, indeed, to my original Amendment. This I would just like to discuss now before we reach a decision on it.
This issue affects the manufacturing powers of this public corporation, the new London Transport Executive, and this matter of the manufacturing powers is something which carries a great deal of political feeling, both on the noble Lord's side and on mine, as to what is the right balance between, on the one hand a public corporation financed by public funds, and subsidised as necessary by public funds, and, on the other, private
812
enterprise, where public corporation meets it in competition. This of course was the objective of my original Amendment—and indeed of my objective to-day: to try to get what I think is the right balance. I am well aware that the noble Lord's and the Government's view is not the same as mine. I am trying to get what I think is the best balance. No doubt the noble Lord is trying to do the same.
As I see it, paragraph (j) of Clause 6 (1), which contains these manufacturing powers, amounts to pretty well unlimited manufacturing powers, and certainly a great deal more than manufacturing powers for domestic purposes—that is to say, for sale to other nationalised industries. Under subsection (1) 01 the Executive is given power to manufacture anything
"required for any of the purposes of, or of a subsidiary of, the Executive or any of the national transport authorities or for the purposes of the Council".
That is what the Bill says. That would apparently confine the power to manufacture entirely to domestic purposes. But when we look at Section 48 of the 1968 Act we see in subsection (2) (b) that these nationalised transport authorities will have power.
"to sell to outside persons, and for that purpose to purchase, anything which is of a kind which the authority or a subsidiary of theirs purchase in the course of some existing activity of that authority or subsidiary."
So it is quite clear that, with the powers of the 1968 Act behind this Bill, one of the nationalised transport authorities could purchase manufactured goods from the London Transport Executive or a subsidiary and then sell them in the open market, if it wished to. Therefore, this is not just manufacture for domestic purposes: it could be, through one of the other nationalised transport authorities, sale in the open market, and therefore in competition with private enterprise.
It is for that reason that I feel that there is great significance in the point I am arguing here, and why I feel that the safeguard I am seeking ought to be better than what the noble Lord has offered me. If I may remind the House, the original Amendment which I moved on Committee would have required that the London Transport Executive or its subsidiary should, before going into manufacture, discover whether the open

813
market had similar goods; and, if so, should get them from there. That was my Amendment. That was the Amendment, indeed, for which the Greater London Council asked. If I had got that I should have felt completely happy that we had secured the right balance between public authority and private business.
In the event, the noble Lord offered me what might be regarded, as he himself said, as second-best—what is called, I think, in the technical jargon, the commercial definition. This means that where a manufacturing business is carried on in those circumstances it must operate as if it were a commercial business; in other words, it must not only cover its day-to-day costs, but it must cover also its capital costs, as a private business would do. That concession which the noble Lord offered me (although, as he rightly says, it was only halfway to what I wanted) I felt that I had to accept, and in the light of that I asked leave to withdraw my Amendment. But the concession which the noble Lord is now offering, in his Amendments to Clause 12, obviously does not go anything like so far.
The effect of making these Amendments would be to require that the London Transport Executive should publish in their annual report details of their manufacturing activities under this heading. Let me say right away that I recognise that it is of value that they should disclose what they are doing for all the world to see. But, at the end of the day, the London Transport Executive are under no obligation to have made both ends meet about a particular manufacture, to have covered its costs and if they need some subsidy in the process of doing it it is not in any way considered a fault. Therefore, this is a very partial safeguard.
Let me say again that I appreciate that it is of some value. Clause 12, as drafted, does no more than give the Minister a discretionary power to do this. Clause 12 (3) says that the Minister may do it if he wishes to. What the Minister, or the noble Lord on behalf of the Minister, is offering is that the Minister should bind himself to do that. The point I am making, however, is that, starting from the point of my original Amendment which I felt made the right balance, we are going by easy stages
814
to a point in this Amendment which the noble Lord has put down to Clause 12 and which really is a most attenuated safeguard compared with the one which I thought was necessary to get the right balance; and I must say that I do not think that it goes far enough. I appreciate that great efforts have been made to try to make a concession which would meet the case. I also appreciate that the noble Lord has taken immense trouble, and has argued the case with great skill to show that this does do it. But it really does not, and I think that I have revealed to the House just how far short it falls.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is particularly concerned about how other nationalised industries, at least other transport industries, could use Section 48. I wonder whether it would help the noble Lord if I were to repeat what the Minister said in another place in Standing Committee A on April 17, 1969, on this particular point. I quote from column 156 of the Official Report. He said:
"The fear which the honourable Gentleman expressed"—
which is similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent,—
"in the course of his last speech is one which we can understand, but we think that it is not justified in practice. The London Transport Executive will be well aware of its responsibility, and will know that to use the provisions of the Act in this way would be wrong. None the less, it is right to make it quite clear that is not the intention of this part of the Bill. In exercising his powers under section 48 of the Transport Act, in relation to periodic approval of the National Transport authorities' proposals for manufacturing and other services under that section, the Minister would not consent to any such activities involving the London Transport Executive in this wav"
I wonder whether those last clear words of the Minister at least remove some of the fear that the noble Lord has himself expressed.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: I must again thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for trying to help me. I have indeed studied with great care these passages from the Committee stage in another place, and the subsequent arguments by my honourable friends who, in their own case, were not convinced that

815
the Bill was sufficient. The Minister's words are fine, but they are not in the Bill; and it is for this reason that I feel that there should be a better safeguard there than there now is. There is no doubt that the Bill, as drafted, combined with the 1968 Act would give the London Transport Executive power to manufacture goods to supply to another national transport authority, who could then sell in the open market; and the Minister could only catch up with that later. The Minister, in approving schemes under the later part of Section 48 which gives him power to approve schemes, would not know what these manufactured goods were going for. He may catch up a year or two later when he found out what they were doing: but certainly he would not be able to find out in the first place that that was what was going to happen to the goods.
There really is a chink here. I stress that I appreciate the trouble to which the noble Lord has been to try to meet me on this matter, and had I thought that his Amendment could in substance meet the point I was trying to make certainly I would have accepted it in good faith, especially after all the trouble which has been taken; but it really does not, and I think that the arguments I have produced show just how far short it falls. For these reasons, I am afraid I must tell your Lordships that in my view the Amendment on the Marshalled List ought to go in as a necessary safeguard to this particular clause.
5.7 p.m.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I greatly appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has said, particularly because his remarks classify the difference of opinion that there is between both sides of the House in this particular direction. Those of us who know something about London Transport know the difficulty that they have had in the past arising from the fact that they have not been able to manufacture; or, if they have sold some of their old buses, for instance, they have not been able to supply spare parts for those buses but have had to go to outside private people in order to provide them.
This is one of the publicly-owned undertakings that we often criticise for not, as it is termed, making a commercial suc-
816
cess measured in a profit or otherwise. This Bill, as it is, gives to this transport undertaking the opportunity to be commercially viable without putting on the tightening strings that are advocated by Lord Nugent, and usually by his colleagues. We have seen so much of this in the past.
A short time ago I had the privilege in Colombo in Ceylon of seeing how the public services operated. There one saw old London Transport buses still running under their red colouring, as buses do here to-day. When those buses were passed to commercial undertakings, who repaired and renovated them and sent them out to where there was a market, unless in the past London Transport have had a sufficient number of spares they were not able to supply spare parts when anything went wrong. Here in this Bill the London Transport Executive are given the opportunity to be commercially viable. Surely that is not wrong. If we accept the mixed economy of public and private enterprise in all these undertakings there is a case for public enterprises having the opportunity to make themselves commercially viable.
I think we cannot possibly bridge this difference of opinion between the two sides of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent and I have had many arguments in this connection. I think he joined me at the Chiswick works of London Transport and saw what was really developing and what London Transport themselves were capable of doing, but they still could not put any of those improvements on to the market, to help. To take a case in point, it is surprising what London Transport research people have done in so far as oil for buses is concerned. But this must be a commercial secret, as it were, to London Transport. I am probably a little wide in mentioning this fact, but it is indicative of what some of these publicly owned undertakings are doing, and surely they should be allowed to exploit it to the maximum.
I think my noble friend has gone a long way in the series of Amendments which he has put forward, and with which I agree. I think that when any publicly owned undertaking, and I include London Transport, do anything of this description it is right that a full explanation should be given in so far as their accounts are concerned, and that

817
they should be carefully investigated. Of course this is right, but giving them the opportunity is quite different, and I am not yielding to the noble Lord on the other side, who would prevent them making a success of their job.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, primarily this Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Nugent seeks to rectify the view that the London Transport Executive should not manufacture on a commercial basis. Page 8, line 22, of the Bill, where my noble friend is seeking to insert his Amendment, specifically allows for this very thing. My noble friend Lord Nugent has described the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd—which are being taken with this Amendment—as being only a partial safeguard, and I hope it would not be unreasonable to remind the House that under this Bill it is the taxpayers who are to be asked annually to pay the interest charges on the £270 million debt written off under the Bill. I am not seeking to be difficult when I ask whether Parliament can justify a burden like this, while allowing the beneficiary, the L.T.E., to manufacture in any way it likes.
After listening to what has been said, it seems that the argument turned mainly on the possible resale powers which may be attached to subsection (j). The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has repeated the undertaking which was given by the right honourable gentleman the Minister in column 156 in the proceedings in Committee. However, as my noble friend Lord Nugent has said, whatever the good intentions of the Minister, under this Bill there is no Ministerial control in this matter. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, whether it is the intention of the Minister to prohibit the outlet of L.T.E. goods through nationalised industries under Section 48 (4) (a) of the 1968 Act? Is that the exact point where the Ministerial control will come? If that is the Minister's intention, how can it be detected if the everyday goods—literally the nuts and bolts of life—which the L.T.E. are going to be allowed to make under this Bill, are finding an outlet thus?
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, did not complete the quote from column 156. May I quote the preceding paragraph,
818
where the Minister said, referring to the L.T.E.:
"It is not the job of the vendor to check the eventual use of every single item that he manufactures."
What I am asking the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is whether it is the job of the vendor. If under this Bill the Minister has no power to do it, whose job is it?
There is one other point which the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, led us on to. In paragraph (i)—and my noble friend Lord Nugent mentioned this both on Committee and today—the ability to supply spare parts for passenger road vehicles disposed of by the Execulive is given. This power is given if such spare parts are not for sale elsewhere. But this is a Transport Bill, and yet under paragraph (j), the paragraph we are discussing, the London Transport Executive will be able to manufacture anything and give a full spares after-sales service. But if the Executive wishes to dispose of old vehicles, the spares cannot be supplied if they are to be found on the market elsewhere. If the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, stands up, this is not unreasonable; if it does not, then paragraph (j), taken with paragraph (i), is not only inconsistent but absurd. It is true that this Amendment would not bring the two paragraphs in direct line, but it would at least make them understandable to both sides of the House.
On this side we suggest that the manufacturing powers given to the L.T.E. in the Bill as it stands will divert the Executive from its real objectives—one of them mentioned in Clause 1—to servo the transport needs of Greater London, and also to avoid the ghost of bankruptcy, which part of the Bill we welcome. Unamended these powers could be damaging to many other industries, and therefore it is to be hoped that possibly the Government may give this matter favourable consideration.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, with the permission of the House I would say one last word because I think that if I went beyond that I still would not convince the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. All I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is that I share with him the view that this new Executive

819
are going to have very big responsibilities and very many burdens to carry; and that is one of the reasons why we feel that they should be in a position to use all their assets to the maximum advantage. We have also put in provisions to see that they do not act unfairly, or trade unfairly, with private industry. My understanding is that under Section 48 of the Transport Act, if it was known by the Minister that such things were happening as the noble Lord has mentioned—that is that goods were being sent by the L.T.E. to a nationalised Board who were selling them on the cheap—then the Minister clearly would stop it. However, I just cannot contemplate these large nationalised organisations going into what I might call Petticoat Lane trading operations. I just cannot conceive of it. I do
not believe that a Bill could be drafted to prevent that happening if that is what some local manager or official decided to do. This Bill lays down the principles by which these authorities have to work. I have no doubt at all that those authorities will work within these principles.
I will not say any more because I do not believe, as on so many other occasions, that one can really convince noble Lords that their fears are merely fears of their dreams, and I must leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford.
5.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 64.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Daventry, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Ailwyn, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lambert, V.

Airedale, L.

Derwent, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Allerton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Ampthill, L.

Dundee, E.

Mancroft, L.

Amulree, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Atholl, D.

Eccles, V.

Merrivale, L.

Auckland, L.

Effingham, E.

Mersey, V.

Audley, Bs.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Molson, L.

Barnby, L.

Falkland, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Falmouth, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Belstead, L.

Geddes, L.

Rockley, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Gisborough, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bessborough, E.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

St. Aldwyn, E.

Boston, L.

Gowrie, E.

St. Helens, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gray, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Sandford, L.

Burton, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sandys, L.

Carrington, L.

Gridley, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Chesham, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Colyton, L.

Hawke, L.

Stamp, L.

Conesford, L.

Headfort, M.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Inglewood, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Vivian, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kilmany, L.

Wolverton, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Crook, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Archibald, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Leatherland, L.

Arwyn, L.

Energlyn, L.

Lindgren, L.

Beswick, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Birk, Bs.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

McLeavy, L.

Blyton, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Maelor, L.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Mitchison, L.

Brockway, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Moyle, L.

Brown, L.

Hankey, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Burden, L.

Henderson, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Chalfont, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Champion, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Popplewell, L.

Chorley, L.

Hughes, L.

Raglan, L.

Collison, L.

Kennet, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Royle, L.

Shepherd, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Rusholme, L.

Silkin, L.

Walston, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Snow, L.

Williamson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Sorensen, L.

Willis, L.

Samuel, V.

Stow Hill, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Segal, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wise, L.

Serota, Bs.

Summerskill, Bs.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 11 [Additional provisions as to control of Executive by Council]:
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 16, line 8, at end insert ("and consider any offer by that council to make a financial contribution to the Executive in respect of the provision of services for the carriage of passengers by the Executive's railways within, to or from that county")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment fulfils an undertaking given by me during the Committee stage to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. A county council may put forward a proposal to contribute towards railway passenger services run by the London Transport Executive to, from or within their county area. It is empowered to make contributions for this purpose under Section 136 of the Local Government Act 1948. This Amendment obliges the G.L.C. to consider such proposals from a county council before approving any submission from the L.T.E. for a substantial change in the general level and structure of their fares on the services in question. It is designed to focus both the G.L.C.'s attention on a possible reason for withholding approval of substantial increases in L.T.E. rail fares outside Greater London and the county council's attention on a possible means of influencing the G.L.C.'s decision. I beg to move.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, on this occasion I have much pleasure in accepting without qualification the Amendment which the noble Lord has kindly moved: it entirely meets the undertaking which he gave during the Committee stage. It will, I think, make a useful improvement to the Bill, and will be helpful both to the G.L.C. and to adjacent county authorities.
Clause 12 [Minister's power to prevent improper conduct of subsidiary activities]:
5.30 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 16, line 25, after ("on") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not sure whether I should ask your Lordships to accept this Amendment. I put this and a number of the following Amendments down to meet the fears of the noble Lord on Clause 6. However, the noble Lord has divided the House this afternoon and, not surprisingly, with his majority in this House, he has been able to carry his Amendment. I am not quite sure now whether he would wish me to go on and move what he referred to as "half a cake" or "half a stage". If the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is willing to support me in these Amendments (which meet his point to a certain extent, taking into account the view that another place may perhaps take of his Amendment) I am prepared to recommend to your Lordships that the House should accept them. I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I shall have much pleasure in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in this Amendment, although it has not by any means the substance which I should have liked to see as a safeguard. I said in my earlier speech that I recognised that it made some improvement. I thought the noble Lord was rather overdoing the heaping of coals of fire on my head in moving this. He would be the first to recognise that, had he offered me this concession in order to persuade me to withdraw my Amendment on the Committee stage, I should never have accepted it. I should have been bound to press my original Amendment to a Division at that time; and the fact that I asked that the concession that he gave me should go into the Bill was, I would have thought, no more than

823
reasonable. However, I will let that pass.
As to this Amendment, it gives something of value. It removes the discretionary part of Clause 12. Whereas the Minister could order that subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 12 shall apply to such activities as are mentioned in paragraph (j) of Clause 6, this will now be obligatory, and it will be there for all the world to see. This is a safeguard which will have some value and give some satisfaction, and I am very pleased to support it.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 4 to 10 are consequential on Amendment No. 3, which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, would wish to see in the Bill. It may be for the convenience of the House if I move them en bloc. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 16, line 28, at end insert ("or
(b) of any business of a description which the Executive are authorised to carry on by section 6 (1) (j) of this Act,
subsection (1A) of this section shall apply to that business.
(1A) In the case of any business to which this subsection applies")
Page 17, line 2, leave out ("such business as aforesaid") and insert ("any business to which subsection (1A) of this section applies")
Page 17, line 4, leave out from ("made") to second ("the") in line 6 and insert ("by the Executive or subsidiary in the course of that business are unduly low having regard to the cost of carrying on that business")
Page 17, line 16, leave out ("subsections (1) and (2)") and insert ("subsection (1A)")
Page 17, line 17, at end insert ("of that subsection and subsection (2) of this section")
Page 17, line 21, leave out ("(j)")
Page 17, leave out lines 28 and 29.—(Lord Shepherd.)
Clause 36 [Control of off-street parking]:
5.34 p.m.
Lord CHESHAM Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 46, line 4, after ("available") insert ("(not being less than the number available at any date on which such regulations are made)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is the only one standing in my name on the Marshalled List which is in the same form as the Amendment I moved at an earlier stage of this Bill. It is in the same form because, when I came to read Hansard, and to consider the reasons which were put forward and which led me, with some misgiving, to withdraw the Amendment on the last occasion, I found them to be, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who gave voice to these thoughts, even poorer than I described them at the time. In fact, it seemed to me that the reasons for objecting to this Amendment did not in fact apply to the substance of the Amendment. Therefore, I thought I could return with this Amendment, at least, again.
Your Lordships will possibly recall that I said on the last occasion that the purpose of this Amendment was to ensure that the number of parking spaces made available in off-street car parks in any area to be designated by the Greater London Council as a controlled area under this clause would amount to at least the number available at the date on which the regulation was made. I think that is only reasonable because, despite the pressure of traffic control, nobody has yet abandoned the principle that it is highly desirable to provide as much off-street car-parking space as can possibly be made available at the present time to relieve our traffic problems; and I cannot see any possible justification for taking powers to reduce the number of those spaces. It is not as if they have grown up piecemeal and willy-nilly, or grown like mushrooms. They have all come about because of rights of operation which have emanated and stemmed from planning consents, and they have been approved by the local planning authority. It must surely be right that we make certain that we preserve all the spaces available at the present time.
The noble Lord said on the last occasion that this would make it impossible for the spaces concerned to be allocated, as the Bill provides, between different classes of user—short-term, long-term, contract, casual, and so on. My Lords, it does nothing of the kind. It merely seeks to preserve the number of spaces already there when they come under regulations in this way. It seems to me entirely reasonable. I beg to move.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, says, this Amendment is identical to one that he moved on Committee stage. It concerns the powers of the Greater London Council under subsection (6) (a) to lay down maximum numbers of parking spaces at licensed parking places for (a) all or (b) particular types of parking. The Amendment seeks to provide that these limits on numbers shall be not less than the numbers existing at the date of the making of the Greater London Council regulations. What are the purposes of Clause 36? I could not help reflecting, as I was preparing for this debate over the weekend, when the Americans were achieving one of the most fantastic technological projects it is possible to conceive, that of putting a man on the moon, that they were able to do all that yet they have not been able to deal with their own traffic problems in New York and other major American cities. We may not be able to deal with ours, either, but at least we must make efforts. We believe, and so do the Greater London Council, that controlling off-street parking is one of the ways in which traffic management is possible. We believe that the Greater London Council should have the power to say how off-street car-parking should be used. I do not accept, and I cannot personally conceive, that the Greater London Council will come to the view that the amount of off-street car-parking in London is sufficient, or that it should be reduced. I am quite sure they will take the view that it should be increased.
The Amendment should be resisted on two grounds. First—and this was fully covered in Committee—it would prevent reallocations of spaces at car parks in controlled areas or parts of controlled areas falling within particular boroughs in situations where the G.L.C. had no wish to reduce the overall number of parking spaces. To take an example, the Council might wish to reduce the number of spaces which could be used by commuters in certain central areas while at the same time increasing the allocation for shoppers or residents. It would clearly be most undesirable if this were to be prevented by the Amendment.
Secondly—and here perhaps it would be as well to enlarge on what was said in Committee—it would make it im-
826
possible for the Council to reduce the overall numbers of parking spaces in particular areas. Although in the event they might not wish to do this in particular areas one could visualise situations in which this power might be very desirable in the interests of traffic management. It might, for example, be necessary to reduce the overall numbers of parking spaces in a particular part of a borough while at the same time making provision for a corresponding increase in spaces in another part of the same borough where the increase in road traffic could be fairly readily accommodated on the existing roads. There is no doubt that it must be possible when and if circumstances dictate, for these licensing controls to be able to bite on existing as well as future car parks.
There is adequate protection for the interests of existing operators. They have the safeguard of the Minister's "call-in" procedure on the regulations (and the Minister would certainly be particularly interested in any proposals to reduce the overall numbers of parking spaces in particular areas), coupled with the ability of objectors to make representations about these regulations and the Minister's power to hold a public inquiry. Finally, there are the compensation provisions to cover situations where operators suffer damage as a result of licensing decisions. This, of course, raises the very practical consideration that the G.L.C. will not be likely to decide to make cuts in the numbers of car park spaces in particular areas when it knows that at the end of the day this is likely to lead to the borough or boroughs in that area being subject to probably quite substantial claims for compensation.
My Lords, I have spelled out the question of compensation and the Minister's powers to show that this is something which must be very carefully considered by the authorities concerned if they were to reduce the number of parking sites in a particular area. But in present circumstances I cannot conceive of the G.L.C. reducing the overall number of parking spaces in Central London. But it may need to reduce parking space in one particular area if only to increase it in another, taking into account the flow and use of traffic. I would ask the House not to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, I was much struck by the noble Lord's analogy with the American achievement. We salute the moon programme; but I do not think that the Americans are unaware of their traffic problem. One thing they have not seen fit to do about it is to take powers of this kind—and neither has any other nation, so far as I am aware. Therefore I am right, and I think your Lordships are right, to be concerned about the introduction of these powers. I wish that the noble Lord had said something which had rather more regard to the facts of life and to the life of the individuals than: "Do not worry about this; because, after all, if the local authorities did this it would cost them an awful lot in compensation." I do not believe that this is a sound basis for legislation of this kind.
I cannot recall a single valid reason in his speech for not putting this Amendment in the Bill. The noble Lord churned out the same arguments as those produced in Committee—arguments which, as I said in moving my Amendment, had not convinced me in the slightest. They still do not convince me. I see no reason why this Amendment would prevent the changeover of spaces between commuters and short-term parkers; and I am not even sure that the noble Lord is correct in thinking that it could do so. I do not feel inclined to withdraw this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.46 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: The purpose of Amendment No. 12 is to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in Committee. He was concerned to ensure that where under subsection (7) of Clause 36 the local authority has reached a decision on a licence application, it should inform the applicant of the decision and the reasons for it at the same time. As I pointed out in Committee, I felt that the noble Lord's Amendment was slightly defective in drafting and I undertook to move an appropriate Amendment on Report. This is the Amendment. I hope the House will approve it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 30, at end insert ("at the same time as they inform him of that decision").—(Lord Shepherd.)
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, what I have to say about this Amendment is such as to have made it doubly distasteful for me to have had to take the view I did of the previous one. With this Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, meets an undertaking he gave on Committee. I am grateful that he has done so. The noble Lord has tabled other Amendments to meet similar undertakings. To save the time of the House, may I be permitted now to express my gratitude and appreciation for all of them. I acknowledge with appreciation the discussions which have taken place, and only wish that I could acknowledge with as full an appreciation in every case the results of those discussions. Those cases in which I cannot do so form the subject of a few remaining Amendments in my name. With the possible exception of Amendment No. 25 (to which I shall make a remark or two) I welcome these Amendments and in accepting them formally shall do so in a spirit of appreciation and gratitude.
Lord CHESHAM Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 47, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) In so far as any decision of a local authority under this section with which compliance is required by the operator of a public off-street parking place is to any extent in conflict with the terms and conditions of any lease, agreement for a lease or licence or contract entered into prior to the 22nd day of July 1969 under or by virtue of which the operator has or gives possession or right to the use of the premises or any part thereof at which the parking place is situate, then such terms and conditions shall to that extent be null and void, but damage as respects which a claim may be made to the local authority pursuant to paragraph 4 of Part IV of Schedule 5 to this Act by any person shall include damage suffered by that person by virtue of such annulment or voidance.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, of some size and substance, is similar to an Amendment I moved on the last occasion. There is an important difference which I will explain. This Amendment provides for the situation where compliance with the terms and conditions of a licence for off-street parking places is in conflict with the covenants and conditions attaching to the premises under any lease, agreement for lease or licence on which it may be held. There

829
are many car parks held under such agreements or licences or contracts, and those operating them could be put at considerable risk of frustration by the imposition of conditions under the regulations to be made under the Bill.
At the time when I moved my Amendment in Committee the noble Lord made the point that it would open the door to a great deal of potential abuse. That was the main and almost the sole piece of major advice that he gave to your Lordships; and your Lordships disagreed with the Amendment after a Division. I feel that if that Amendment had been in the form in which this Amendment now appears, your Lordships might not have disagreed to it. Therefore I thought that I should be justified in moving this Amendment in order to find out. The abuse which was foreseen by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was that if contracts could be frustrated and thereby attract compensation, people would create contracts in order for them to be frustrated. I think that the expression used by the noble Lord was to "fleece the authorities". No one wants that to happen and therefore I have included in this Amendment that its provisions would apply only to car parks operating under leases or contracts which are valid today. I have put in to-day's date to avoid any possibility of am/one being able to create a contract for the sole purpose of having it frustrated and therefore making themselves entitled to compensation. I think that the noble Lord had a point originally and that I have met it, and I beg to move.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, this Amendment is virtually identical to the one moved by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, during the Committee stage and which on that occasion was lost by a short head—in fact by one vote. It seeks to provide that where any conditions imposed in a licence conflict with the conditions of any lease, contract, et cetera, under which the operator uses the car park premises, the conditions of the lease shall be null and void and the lessor entitled to compensation for any damage thereby suffered.
The Amendment as now drafted refers only to leases entered into before July 22, 1969, and to this extent it obviates the risk inherent in the earlier Amendment of abuse by entering into a lease or contract
830
in terms designed to undermine the whole system. I fear that this Amendment also is unacceptable and for the following reasons. First, we believe that no provision of this kind is needed. We think that the rules of law about the frustration of contracts would apply to the obligations with which this Amendment deals. This means that the operator would be discharged from future performance where this would conflict with the terms of his licence and the courts would have power to make financial adjustment under the Law Reform (Frustration of Contract) Act 1943.
Secondly, this question of conflict with the requirements of the lease or contract can arise in planning law. A discontinuance order under the Town and Country Planning Act 1962 could require a tenant to discontinue activities which his lease requires him to carry on. But there is no specific provision in the planning Acts for setting aside a lease or contract. Thirdly the question of possible conflict with obligations or restrictions in posed by a parking licence is in no sense limited to leases, licences or contracts. Conflict could arise over other obligations; for example, obligations under a restrictive covenant binding on a freeholder To make specific provision in relation to one kind of situation would cast very serious doubts on other situations where the same problem arose.
Fourthly, by limiting the provisions as to leases et cetera entered into before a particular date, the Amendment implies that subsequent leases could override the requirements of a parking licence. This is clearly unintentional. Nevertheless it is a major flaw in the Amendment. It could provide a way for getting round the controls which the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, himself does not wish to see. In so far as the interests of a landlord or tenant are prejudicially affected by the decision of a local authority under Clause 36 they will, in appropriate cases, be entitled to compensation under the provisions of Schedule 5 to the Bill. In practical terms, operators have little to fear. The terms and conditions of any lease would, of course, be matters: hat a local authority would take into account, as would the Minister on appeal. A local authority might hesitate before laying itself open to the liability to compensate anyone with the sort of interest

831
in the land which would give him a compensation entitlement. For those four or five reasons I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, I think that is a worthy thought on the part of the noble Lord. I wish that the House would rise to its feet and inform me that it thoroughly understands the five reasons why it should not accept the Amendment. If that happened I should take off my hat to the House. Frankly, there is a technique (I absolve the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, from deliberately using it) which is known as"blinding with science". The noble Lord shakes his head, but in point of fact that is what has occurred on this occasion, so far as I am concerned. Through the maze of the somewhat legal tangle which the noble Lord has given, I simply do not think I am capable of reasoning it straight back again, having heard it once across the Floor of the House. It is too complex for that. What am I to say? May I ask the noble Lord this? Despite all the information about non-performance and so on, for which one could apply, can he tell me whether what he said means that if an operator is prejudiced, put to loss or suffers damage as the result of this action he has under the law a claim for compensation in some way? Yes or no? If the noble Lord can tell me that this was what he meant in the rather long passage that he gave, I may feel happier.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think I have made it clear in the past what is the position of operators when they feel that their business has been prejudiced by any of the consequences of this Bill. They have their appeal procedure. They have also, under procedures identical to the Town and Country Planning Acts, avenues for compensation within the law; means of obtaining compensation if it goes as far as that. If they have anything about which they feel they should appeal they have the procedure of appeal to the Minister. The Bill, in fact, as the noble Lord knows, goes further than merely the operator. A land-owner who may be prejudiced by this Bill also has protection and the opportunity for compensation. As I have said on many occasions, we have done our utmost to see that anyone who suffers as a con-
832
sequence of this Bill should, through the proper procedures, be properly compensated.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord answering, "Yes" to my question?
Lord SHEPHERD: Yes, my Lords, I am sorry that I had to use so many words, but the answer is, "Yes".
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, on the assumption that the noble Lord has answered correctly—and I am sure he would not have said otherwise—I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 47, line 26, after ("section") insert ("and to the provisions of Part V of Schedule 5 to this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Winterbottom, I beg to move Amendment No. 14 and at the same time would like to speak to Amendments Nos. 45, 46 and 48, which are consequential. The purpose of these Amendments is to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in Committee. He was concerned to cover a gap in the Bill as drafted, whereby an operator who was granted a licence on terms and conditions unacceptable to him and who appealed against those conditions could not carry on operating on the original basis pending the outcome of the appeal. The Government accepted that there was a point here that needed putting right.
The Amendments now drafted go somewhat further than the noble Lord's Amendment originally suggested. They provide that an existing operator who, when an area first becomes a controlled one, is granted a licence on conditions unacceptable to him and who appeals against the conditions, may continue to function as he was doing before the control applied, pending the outcome of the appeal. They also make similar provision for the case of an operator in a controlled area who holds a licence for a limited period, makes an application to the local authority for a new licence—either limited or permanent—and is granted a new licence on conditions unacceptable to him. He also will be able, should he decide to appeal, to continue

833
to operate on the earlier conditions pending the outcome of the appeal.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 47, line 39, leave out from ("subsection") to ("proper") in line 40 and insert ("the court before whom he is convicted may, if on an application made for the purpose by the local authority the court is satisfied that it is").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15 and at the same time speak to Nos. 16 to 19. These Amendments are again to meet a point raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. He pointed out, and the Government agreed, that the ultimate sanction of revocation of a licence for breach of conditions would more appropriately rest with the courts than with the local authority. I agreed with this in Committee. The Amendment to page 47, line 39, is the basic one that removes the decision from the local authority to the courts. It does so, which seems correct, on the basis that the court would be invited to act on the basis of an application by the local authority. The remaining Amendments are consequential.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18 and 19 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 47, line 44, leave out ("revoke") and insert ("make an order for the revocation of")
Page 48, line 3, after ("licence") insert ("in pursuance of an order")
Page 48, line 6, after ("giving") insert ("notice of appeal from the order or, as the case may be")
Page 48, line 10, leave out from ("given") to end of line 11 and insert ("until the effectiveness or otherwise of the order or, as the case may be the local authority's decision is finally determined in accordance with the relevant procedure").—(Lord Shepherd.)
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 48, line 28, leave out from ("modifications") to end of line 29 and insert ("as may be prescribed for the purpose, being modifications appearing to the Council to be necessary to ensure that the parking place is operated by or on behalf of the local authority with suitable provision as to the matters referred to in subsection (4) (b) and (c) (i) to (iv) of this Section in like manner as if it").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20. Fears were expressed during the Committee stage of the Bill that the Bill did not in fact place a tight obligation on local authorities, in relation to the operation of their own car parks, to comply with the framework of the G.L.C. Regulations for a particular area. The fear was that local authorities would so operate their own car parks as to compete unfairly with private enterprise car parks, using a latitude which it was alleged the Bill gave them. In reply I emphasised that the Bill was in fact drawn completely tightly on this point, and that the fears expressed were groundless.
In the light of the debate, I have looked at the matter again. There is no reason to change our earlier opinion on the drafting of the clause, Nor, indeed, do the Government think that local authorities would in fact behave in this sort of way. Nevertheless, purely for the avoidance of doubt and to ensure that any fears on the point are dispelled, an Amendment has been tabled to spell out more clearly in the wording of Clause 36 the obligations to be placed on local authorities. It must be emphasised that this involves no change of substance whatsoever or any alteration of these obligations; but it is of course desirable that there should be no misconceptions on this important issue. It is to be 'toped that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, who particularly raised this point, will find this Amendment acceptable.
6.7 p.m.
Lord CHESHAM Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 48. line 31, at end insert—
"( ) Not less than one month before publishing any proposal to make regulations designating an area in Greater London as a controlled area for the purpose of this section, the Council shall publish a report fully explaining its intentions and the reasons for the proposed regulations.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is akin to, but by no means the same as, the Amendment I previously moved. It is directed to the fact hat I believe that people should be better informed than they are. I have already said in another context to-day that these powers lead to regulations which have not been used anywhere in the Western hemisphere before, and I think we should

835
at least know what is happening. On the last occasion, I moved an Amendment to make the regulations subject to the Negative Resolution procedure in Parliament, and this was furiously resisted by the noble Lord. Not unnaturally, I have not returned to that in view of what was said, but it is only right and proper that where these powers are taken people should know what is going on. These powers are wide and sweeping and are unprecedented. According to the noble Lord on the last occasion, they are subject to Parliamentary control—presumably through the Parliamentary Question procedure, because I cannot think of any other form of control here, and I do not think it is too much to ask that people should know about these measures when they are brought in.
I am not talking entirely about people operating car parks but also about people operating temporary, or what I might call unofficial, car parks, such as using a field as a car park to take advantage of a nearby football match, a practice which I believe occurs in the neighbourhood of Twickenham at times and elsewhere in the Greater London area. If they are not aware of these regulations they may be put in the position of committing an offence without knowing that there is an offence there for them to commit. I do not think that my Amendment is difficult of fulfilment and it should not impose any intolerable burden on the Council. I do not think that we can rely here on the Press or on reports of council proceedings, and something stronger is wanted. I beg to move.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, as a general principle, I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord has said, but in the Government's view the Amendment is unnecessary, in that the arrangements already proposed in the Bill or dictated by the G.L.C.'s own internal machinery will ensure that the aim is achieved. In the first place, the proposed G.L.C. regulations would require Council approval, and thus a report would need to appear in the Council agenda. This is a public document, and secures substantial publicity in the Press.
Secondly, under an Amendment which I shall move in a moment, the Council are to be given a positive obligation in
836
respect of prior and formal—and, I stress formal—consultations on proposed regulations. What will these consultations be? We have clearly not specified them in Amendment No. 25, which we shall discuss later, because if we put in certain names there is always the fear that others not mentioned will be involved. It is clear to me that in this matter consultations are bound to take place between the R.A.C. and the A.A.; with the British Parking Association and, I should have thought, particularly when one thinks of the impact that certain regulations may have on particular shopping areas like Regent Street or Bond Street, with the Chamber of Commerce. These consultations would certainly cover major organisations representing users of the car parks and car park operators. There seems no reason why this consultation should not be entirely open, and will thus provide another opportunity for those interested to become aware of what is going on.
Thirdly, once the draft regulations are formally published, there is a six-week objection period during which anyone concerned may make representations on the regulations. All objections have to be transmitted to the Minister, and he may, if he thinks fit, call in the regulations; and, if he does so, he can order a public inquiry. This is the major opportunity for all relevant points to be thoroughly ventilated.
In these circumstances, the Minister feels that the Amendment is not required, and, indeed, places an unreasonable extra obligation on the G.L.C. The matters it seeks to cover will be fully met by the procedures that will in any case have to be gone through. I hope that, in the circumstances, the House will not accept this Amendment.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord has given us a long expose of certain things that are true in regard to other things, but I fail to see that they have anything to do with this. He has given us a long talk on what might be the object of Amendment No. 25, but in my view this does not in any way go to meet the point that I have tried to make in this Amendment, and this I should have thought the noble Lord would appreciate. I do not know, because the noble Lord did not say so, where else in the Bill this matter is covered. It

837
simply is not good enough to say that the public who need to be informed will be informed because it will have to go on the G.L.C. agenda, which is a public document. I do not know what the readership of the G.L.C. agenda is—perhaps it would be interesting to know that. The public at large do not study regulations when they are published.
I am delighted, of course, to hear that under another head the Council will consult my own organisation, and the A.A., and so on, from which I take it that it is proposed to leave this matter to those with whom the Council see fit to consult in due course. But I do not think that any of the bodies which are liable to be consulted are necessarily publicists in areas where there are people of many different kinds who wish and need to know that these regulations are to be made, and who may be put in a position of some personal jeopardy by innocently operating what I call an ad hoc car park, taking advantage of somebody else's event, without knowing anything about it. I cannot see any reason why this should not be publicised by such a report as I have mentioned.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, perhaps I may say a word or two on this matter. I wonder if my noble friend Lord Chesham is not taking a rather limited view of his Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has told the House what his Amendment No. 25 will do, which is most valuable in terms of consultation. But on the point my noble friend Lord Chesham picked up, that this would appear on the agenda of the G.L.C. and be in their report, the Press are present on these occasions and pick up anything that is of general interest; and there is no doubt that if anything new in this way is proposed by the G.L.C. the Press will pick it up and give it full publicity.
One is always up against the problem, with any innovation of this kind, of how to tell everybody. Even if the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, agreed that the G.L.C. should publish a report, there is no certainty that everybody would read it. We should be no further forward. I should have thought the fact that the G.L.C. themselves will have their proceedings reported, and that there is then this specific consultation, which means that those directly interested will be brought
838
into it, has gone quite a long way to meet my noble friend's point. I should have thought that he had done rather well in persuading the Government to go as far as they have. He seems to have done rather better than I have done on most points. I rather hope that he might accept this.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
6.18 p.m.
Lord CHESHAM Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 48, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) Before imposing any conditions in regard to the granting of licences to permit the operation of public off-street parking places, which relate to the matters described in subsections (4Xc) (i) (ii) and (iii) of this section, the local authorities shall require he applicants to display notices concerning the proposed conditions at the parking places of not less than thirty days.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment relates to the same sort of subject, but brings it down to a matter of more local detail. Where it is necessary for the local authority to publish details of their intended scheme, which is to be found in paragraph (1) of Schedule 5, you find the words, "together with a summary of their effect". I think that where a motorist is using a car park, and there are to be major changes in the conditions under which he may use it—they may be of time, price, hours of opening and so on—it is only right that he should know about it.
A similar Amendment that I put down I on the Committee stage introduced what I understood was an objectional principle, in that it brought in a statutory right to complain. This I have now removed, but I am after information. I have cured that problem, and it is at least reasonable that one should make certain that users of car parks are informed in advance of changes and alterations which may have an injurious effect upon their lives and their fortunes. I beg to move.
Lord MITCHISON: My Lords, I hesitate to intervene, but I have been here recently for quite a time. I was wondering when anybody was going to say anything about Schedule 5. What the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has done is to give us a little extract from Schedule 5 and to omit the part which I should have thought answered his difficulties. Not

839
only must there be a summary, which I should have thought would give anybody warning that something was happening—and the specific kind of things happening—but there must also be a place where someone who is interested can go and read the draft regulations. Surely, one cannot do any more than that, can one?
Lord SHEPHERD: I am grateful for the comments of my noble friend. I would accept that users have a perfect right to know what is going on and, if they have views, to put those before the appropriate authorities. As I have said before, these regulations will receive wide publicity; they will be required to be printed in anewspaper. I will refresh my memory on this point, and draw the noble Lord's attention to Schedule 5 which refers to one or more daily newspapers circulating throughout Greater London and says that in this newspaper or newspapers shall be published a notice stating what is proposed in the regulations. Local papers reporting matters concerning a smaller locality than Greater London are bound to take up such regulations and the effect they will have upon local users. If motorcar users have a complaint they have their own organisations, the R.A.C. and the A.A., or any other association. I see that the noble Lord is screwing up his face, but we have put these special organisations into the Bill to meet this particular point. The noble Lord wanted these user-associations to be consulted, and now the noble Lord screws up his face as though this does not meet the point.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords—
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will let me finish my remarks, may I say that we clearly must have some limit to how far one goes in circulating information. In my view, we have gone in the Bill as far as is practicable or reasonable. I see no reason at all why users will not know about the effect of these matters. At the end of the day, the issue will not be between the users, although they are clearly involved; the issue will be between the two parties alone; that is, the local borough and the car park operators. If there is any question of changing the number of places that are available in a car park that will not be done to cause incon-
840
venience to the users of that car park, but only because the local authority and the Greater London Council believe that changes are necessary in the light of traffic management.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I am bound to say that I do not feel very satisfied with the reply the Minister has just given. I should have thought that it stuck out a mile that the proper place to put up a notice about changes in carparking arrangements was at the car parking places concerned, quite apart from publishing information in newspapers. In exactly the same way, the proper place to put notices about British Railways' by-laws is on the platforms of the railway stations. That is where people who travel by rail can conveniently read those regulations if they want to. It would not be an answer to say that from time to time British Railways have their regulations published in advertisements in newspapers, because not all travellers by train read those particular newspapers.
Surely it is not unreasonable to have an Amendment down which says that arrangements for changes at car parking places shall be displayed in notices at those particular parking places where the people who use them will be able to read the notices, and know what is going to happen. I have never found a more sensible-looking Amendment to any Bill than this one, and I do not think we have had a satisfactory reply from the Minister.
6.27 p.m.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, I should not like the noble Lord to think that any facial expression I may have assumed was at something he directly said. Any expression that may have crossed my face I can assure him was occasioned by the most appalling width of the margin by which he completely failed to understand the object of the Amendment. The noble Lord is shaking his head, but what he has said indicates that this is so. I am asking that the time table should be put at the station. The noble Lord says that this is not necessary and that it can be put in the local papers. That is not the point. We have dealt with that under the previous Amendment. What I am asking for in this Amendment—and it is a perfectly right, reasonable and proper thing to ask for—is that people who use car parks where there are to be changes,

841
where they are no longer to be allowed in at certain hours, where the prices are going up or down, or where the time they may stay is being altered, should be specifically told.
It is no good the noble Lord saying that it has been published in the newspapers, because I am perfectly certain that whereas regulations, and the proposals to make them, will be published in newspapers, they will not publish definite announcements such as, "that the so-and-so car park in so-and-so street as from 12 p.m. next Friday it will cost you 4s. 6d. an hour to be there instead of 3s. 6d.
6.38 p.m.
Lord CHESHAM Lord CHESHAM moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 48, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) If the imposition of any condition in regard to the granting of a licence under this section to permit the operation of a public off-street parking place prevents the continued enjoyment of any contractual rights obtained prior to 22nd July 1969 in regard to the use of the parking place, the local authority shall
as previously. Furthermore, unless you have a local resident's permit, or some kind of qualification, you will not be allowed to come in before 9.30 a.m.", and so on. Those facts will not be told to people, and even if they are circulated, people using car parks do not all live in the area in which the car park is situated. I think this is a most reasonable point on which I am not prepared to let go.
6.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 22) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not Contents, 59.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Derwent, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Amulree, L.

Falkland, V.

Lambert, V.

Audley, Bs.

Fortescue E.

Lauderdale, E.

Airedale, L. [Teller.]

Gisborough, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Cowrie, E.

St. Helens, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Greenway, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Boston, L.

Gridley, L.

Sandford, L.

Burton, L.

Hacking, L.

Sandys, L.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Hawke, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigmyle, L.

Henley, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Jellicoe, E.

Vivian, L.

Denham, L.

Kilmany, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Granville of Eye, L.

Rusholme, L.

Archibald, L.

Headfort, M.

Sainsbury, L.

Arwyn, L.

Hill of Wivenhoe, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, Bs.

Bowles, L.

Kennet, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brockway, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brown, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]

Silkin, L.

Burden, L.

Silsoe, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Snow, L.

Champion, L.

McLeavy, L.

Sorensen, L.

Chorley, L.

Maelor, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Collison, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Crook, L.

Mitchison, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Energlyn, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Tayside, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Wells-Pestell, L.

Faringdon, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Williamson, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Popplewell, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Raglan, L.

Wise, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wooton of Abinger. Bs.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

pay compensation to any person suffering loss or damage as a consequence thereof. Any question as to the right to, or the amount of, compensation payable shall be referred to and determined by a county court or the High Court.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 relates once more to the position of a user of a car park where, in a rather similar fashion to that relating to the previous Amendment, his interest is in some way damaged by the frustration of a contract that he has

843
made for the use of a car park. This is not an unusual kind of occurrence, both for private individuals and in business. The Amendment is designed to provide for a position where the user of a car park (as against the case in the previous Amendment which related to the operator) is damaged in some way by his contract being frustrated by the regulations, as and when they may be brought in. Here, again, I have endeavoured to provide against the abuse which I understood a previous Amendment on the same lines could have created, and I hope I have adequately done so. I think that in the circumstances it is quite wrong that if individual users, of whatever kind, suffer in this way they should not be adequately catered for.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in what he finally said about a previous Amendment somewhat let the cat out of the bag, I thought, when he said that one must remember that the making of these regulations is a matter between the local authority and the operators. The implication is that this is something in which the user does not have any stand. If words mean anything, what his remark must have meant makes me doubly keen to move this Amendment, as I now beg to do.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the effect of the Amendment is to provide that, where any condition of a licence frustrates any contractual right in connection with the use of a parking place, then the local authority shall be liable for compensation to any person suffering loss or damage thereby. The sort of case in mind is where someone has a contract with a car park operator for a particular number of spaces at the car park, and this proves impossible of fulfilment because of the terms and conditions of the licence. This Amendment is unacceptable. It reflects, although in a different form, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in Committee. Admittedly the new Amendment rules out any question of abuse by a car park operator deliberately entering into a contract for the provision of parking space with the intention of frustrating the system, but in so doing it imports a basis for compensation that is quite new—and I stress this—in terms of the
844
related town and country planning legislation.
The concept is that the local authority shall be liable for any damage caused by the frustration of an existing contract for the provision of parking spaces. No such provision applies to a contract frustrated by the discontinuance of the town and country planning legislation; nor indeed, so far as we know, elsewhere in the general law. The existence of such a contract will of course be taken into account by the G.L.C. and by the Minister, on appeal, but the Government cannot accept that if, in the event, it is decided that a particular contract must be avoided in the overall public interest, this decision should carry with it compensation requirements of the kind that the Amendment provides. I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I must join in on this Amendment because, unlike the replies given by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to the other Amendments to Clause 36, I am afraid that his reply here does not entirely convince me. It would be impossible for us to examine here all the ramifications of town planning law; nor would it be fair to expect my noble friend Lord Chesham to deal with it all. Nevertheless, I think my noble friend has made out a good case that where, for instance, some private person has made a contract—let us say for a year, for three parking places in a particular garage—and then, for good reasons, the G.L.C. decide that this particular parking site must be closed down, or reduced, so that the contract has come to an end, it seems to me that the contractee, having paid in advance, is entitled to some compensation for losing the benefit of, say, six months—or it might be nine months—of his contract, where he has paid out quite large sums of money in order to reserve those places.
This is a perfectly reasonable case in which to ask for compensation, and I cannot understand why the noble Lord has been given advice to the effect that it just cannot be considered. I should have thought that the noble Lord's advisers in the Ministry of Transport might have looked at it further. It is just common sense that there should be compensation in such a case, and to provide for it in some

845
way. I hope that the noble Lord may feel able to look at this Amendment again.
Lord M1TCHISON: My Lords, I rise only to say that I should have thought the answer was again to be found in Schedule 5. There is a long series of provisions about compensation, headed "Right to compensation in certain circumstances". I may have the sense of the Bill all wrong, and the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, may have it all right; but it looks to me to be very odd to put in an entirely independent right to compensation here, and in very large terms. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, has really considered what addition is made by his Amendment to Part IV of Schedule 5?
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, I hope the House will accept that I should not be quite so incompetent as to put this Amendment down, and to put this amount of effort into moving it, if I thought the situation was adequately provided for in the Schedule. Therefore I will return to the Amendment. As I have said, the whole of the emphasis here—and this makes me, for one, pretty annoyed—is that in this transaction the user does not count. I do not like that attitude, and I do not suppose that many of your Lordships will like it. But the noble Lord has, perhaps rather innocently, confirmed this and we have now had it confirmed all through these Amendments: that the attitude is: '"We do not want the user to be informed of what is to happen in principle or in detail; we do not want him to be compensated." The noble Lord has now confirmed that this is a matter between operators and the local authorities in the interests of traffic control, and the user is to be regarded as a nonentity—as non-existent in the matter. Clearly I shall get nowhere with this Amendment, but I will not withdraw it.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should like to refute what the noble Lord has said. All through this Bill we have sought to protect the position of the operators and land owners, and anyone who may be involved in the property. But, clearly, in a matter like this one cannot go too far, in the course of either compensation or even, perhaps, consultation—in the sense of consultation with any individual who may park a car in a particular car park. But later on in the Bill we have included special statutory
846
provision for consultation with organisations that represent users. For the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, to say what he has just said either shows ignorance of the Bill, deafness to what has been said in this House, or he is prepared to put before this House a travesty of the truth.
6.49 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, we are on the Report stage, and the noble Lord who moved this Amendment has made the two speeches to which he is entitled and then the Minister, having made one speech (to which he was entitled), without seeking leave of the House made not just another speech but a speech in which he attacked the noble Lord who moved the Amendment with a charge of ignorance. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment has exhausted his opportunities for reply, and I think that is rather unfortunate.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I speak again with the permission of the House? If I did not seek permission on the second occasion then I ask the House's forgiveness. As the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, himself knows—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, does not—when one is a Minister dealing with a Bill at Report stage one is often obliged to get up and down, and perhaps on occasion one tends to forget that one should seek the consent of the House to speak a second time. So far as attacking the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, is concerned, if I did, I have known him long enough over many years in your Lordships' House to know that he will not take any offence.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if I need it, which I think I do, I would say this. I hope my shoulders are broad enough and my understanding of the noble Lord deep enough to be able to resist his attacks, which have always been quite welcome. What I said was based on what be himself has recently said and which he will find when he comes to look at Hansard to-morrow morning. Therefore, I was justified. If this be thought a counter-attack, I would say that I think he is entirely wrong and misguided to keep confusing it with the Amendment on consultation, with which it has nothing to do; it is nothing to do with the case at all. If I have said a wrong thing, then he has laid a red herring.
Lord SILKIN: My Lords, we have a very long agenda and we have gone through less than half of it. May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to set a good example and adhere to the rules of the House, and confine himself to the number of speeches to which he is entitled and not ask the House for permission to make further speeches? Otherwise, we shall have an all-night sitting.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Schedule 3 [Disposal of certain statutory functions of London Board]:
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, in view of what my noble friend Lord Silkin has said, I will move this Amendment very briefly. It is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 64, line 31, leave out from ("under") to ("shall") in line 32 and insert ("section 25 of the London Transport Act 1969".—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Control of off-street parking]:
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I undertook at Committee stage to say whether provisions could be put into the Bill that the Greater London Council should consult with representative organisations before regulations were made. The purpose of this Amendment is to implement my promise. I could make a much longer speech, but in view of the situation I hope the House will accept this Amendment with these few words. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 71, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("they") in line 20 and insert ("Before deciding to propose the making of regulations under section 36 of this Act with respect to any matter, the Council shall consult with such representative organisations as they think fit and, if after such consultation they decide to make such a proposal").—(Lord Shepherd.)
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I briefly thank the noble Lord, as one of those who pressed him to make this concession. I think it is a very valuable one and I am most grateful to him for making it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 71, line 28, leave out ("thirty days") and insert ("six weeks").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of these Amendments is to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in Committee. The Government cannot go quite as far as Lord Chesham asked. We are anxious that the process of considering the regulations should not be unduly protracted and thus delay the whole process. But we can accept that some extension would be reasonable, and the Amendments provide for the periods in question to be extended to six weeks and 12 weeks respectively. I beg to move.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, I want briefly to acknowledge what the noble Lord has done. This is obviously a case where politics is the art of compromise, a compromise I am happy to accept. I would apologise to him that my attention was momentarily diverted when he moved the previous Amendment. Although it does not go quite as far as I hoped, or even as the noble Lord claims. I am grateful, none the less.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 27. 28 and 29.
Amendments moved—
Page 71, line 39, leave out ("sixty days") and insert ("twelve weeks")
Page 72, line 2, leave out ("sixty days") and insert ("twelve weeks")
Page 73, line 3, leave out ("sixty days") and insert ("twelve weeks").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, this series of related Amendments are tabled to meet a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in Committee. The point at issue raised by the noble Lord's Amendment was that where under paragraph 9 of Schedule 5 a holder of a licence had discontinued making parking spaces available to the public for a period of not less than two years, the local authority's power to revoke the licence should only be exercisable immediately after the expiry of that period—that they should not, in other words, be able to

849
come in at a later stage when the provision of normal parking has been resumed, and hold the earlier failure against the operator. The Government accept that this is a valid point, not only in relation to the provisions of paragraph 9, but also in relation to the provisions of paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 (1) where, again, as the Bill is at present drafted a similar situation could in theory arise. The effect of the Amendments is to provide that in each case the notice of revocation is of no effect unless it is served within three months of the end of the relevant period. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 74, line 5, at end insert ("then, subject to paragraph 12A of this Schedule")
Page 74, line 12, after ("licence") insert ("then, subject to paragraph 12A of this Schedule")
Page 74, line 20, leave out from ("satisfied") to first ("the") in line 21 and insert ("at any time that for a period of not less than two years beginning with that date")
Page 74, line 24, after ("place") insert ("then, subject to paragraph 12A of this Schedule")
Page 74, line 29, at end insert ("subject to paragraph 12A of this Schedule")
Page 74, line 30, leave out from ("if") to ("begun") in line 31 and insert ("there has been a period of not less than three years since that date without that development being")
Page 74, line 33, leave out from ("if") to ("completed") in line 34 and insert ("there has been a period of not less than seven years since that date without that development being")
Page 74, line 35, leave out ("at the expiration of the period of") and insert ("for a period of not less than")
Page 74, line 47, at end insert—
("12A. Where notice under paragraph 9, 10, 11 or 12 (1) of this Schedule is given after the expiration of the relevant period referred to in the paragraph in question the notice shall be of no effect if it is given more than three months after the expiration of that period,").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, on Committee stage raised the question of surface sites and I had to indicate to the noble Lord that we could not accept his Amendment. In considering the debate, however, it appeared to the Government, on looking at the provisions of paragraph 19, that there was perhaps
850
one case not covered: that of the situation where no actual work on the development had started but a contract had been let. The Amendments are designed to meet this position and to correct what would otherwise have been an anomaly in terms of related legislation. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 39 and 40.
Amendments moved—
Page 77, line 34, after ("(iii)") insert ("either")
Page 77, line 37, after ("out") insert ("or a contract (other than a lease) has been entered into with a person carrying on a business consisting wholly or mainly of the execution of building operations or of building operations and engineering operations whereby that person has undertaken to erect in the course of that business at the said premises a building or structure as a place for the provision of parking spaces for motor vehicles.").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
7.0 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 41 and 42. The purpose of these Amendments is to meet, although in alternative form, a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. He sought to secure than the period within which an operator was able to lodge a claim for compensation under paragraph 21 of Schedule 5 should be extended from six to twelve months. I made it clear that the compensation provisions were closely akin to provisions in the Town and Country Planning Acts; that this analogy was in the Government's view right, and that the Amendment should thus be resisted. In the light of Lord Chesham's arguments, we have looked at the position again. The Amendment now tabled goes a long way to meet it, and does so within the framework of town and country planning legislation. It provides that if within the sixmonths period a claimant makes an application to the Minister for an extension of time the Minister may, if he thinks fit, grant it. This gives the Minister discretion to allow for particular circumstances without giving an overall extension of the period. The Amendment follows a broadly similar provision in Regulation 19 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1969. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 78, line 36, leave out ("six months of") and insert ("the period of six months or

851
such longer period as may be allowed under sub-paragraph (1A) of this paragraph beginning with').
Page 78, line 48, at end insert—
("(1A) If within the period of six months preferred to in sub-paragraph (1) of this paragraph any such person as is referred to in that sub-paragraph has made an application to the Minister for that purpose and has given notice to the local authority of the making of that application, the Minister may, if he thinks fit in the circumstances of the case, direct that the said sub-paragraph (1) shall apply in relation to the decision in question as if for the reference in that sub-paragraph to six months there were substituted a reference to such longer period as the Minister thinks fit.").—(Lord Shepherd)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 44 and I would speak also to No. 47. The purpose of these Amendments is to meet a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in the Committee stage. He pointed out that as the Bill was drafted the provisions of Part V of Schedule 5 dealing with permitted unlicensed operation pending appeal did not cover the case of an operator who had appealed to the High Court on a point of law under paragraph 17 (2) of the Schedule. This applies both in the case of an existing operator when an area becomes subject to control and to the case of an operator who holds a limited period licence and applies for a further licence. These Amendments rectify the position. They do so by providing in each case a reference to the local authority's decision becoming finally effective under the procedure in Part III of the Schedule. This form of words sweeps up the possibility of an appeal to the High Court on a point of law. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 2, leave out from ("thereafter") to end of line 4 and insert ("until either the local authority's decision becomes finally effective under the procedure provided for by the said Part III or the licence is granted").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have already spoken to the remaining Amendments, Nos. 45 to 48. With the agreement of the House perhaps we can take them en bloc. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 81, line 4, at end insert—
("24A. Where in pursuance of the application referred to in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 24 of this Schedule the person referred to in that paragraph is granted a licence, he shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (10) of the said section 36 by reason of contravening or failing to comply with any of the terms and conditions specified in the licence under subsection (4; (b) and (c) of that section—

(a) at any time before the expiration of the time for giving notice of appeal under Part III of this Schedule from the decision of the local authority as to those terms and conditions; or

(b) if such a notice of appeal is duly given, at any time thereafter until either the local authority's decision becomes finally effective under the procedure provided for by the said Part III or (he terms and conditions specified as aforesaid in the licence are varied as a result of that procedure.")

Page 81, line 13, after ("expiry)") insert ("(i)")
Page 81, line 25, leave out from ("thereafter") to end of line 27 and insert ("until either the local authority's decision becomes finally effective under the procedure provided for by the said Part III or a new licence is granted").
Page 81, line 27, at end insert—
("(ii) where he is granted a new licence in pursuance of the application aforesaid, he shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (10) of the said section 36 by reason of contravening or failing to comply with any of the terms and conditions specified in that new licence under subsection (4) (b) and (c) of that section—

(a) at any time before the expiration of the time for giving notice of appeal under Part III of this Schedule from the decisions of the local authority as to those terms and condition; or

(b) if such a notice of appeal is duly given, at any time thereafter until either the local authority's decision becomes finally effective under the procedure provided for by the said Part III or the terms and conditions specified as aforesaid in the new licence are varied as a result of that procedure.").—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14):
Lord SHEPHERD: I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, in moving that this Bill do now pass I would only wish to thank the noble Lords, Lord Nugent of Guildford and Lord Chesham, who have, at least from their side of the House, borne the weight of this Committee. I should like to express grateful thanks for the manner in which they have conducted their business. We have dealt with a large number of Amendments in, in my view, a relatively short time, particularly taking into account the technical nature not only of the Bill but also of the Amendments. I thank both noble Lords and also the House for the way in which this Bill has been expedited.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Shepherd.)
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I briefly respond to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and thank him for the patient and expert manner in which he has dealt with the many technicalities, and the many Amendments which were moved, both in Committee and on Report, and also for the successful way in which he deputised for his noble friend Lord Winterbottom, whom I hope is now recovering. Had his back had to stand this Bill as well he would truly have been in trouble. We are most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for all the trouble that he has taken.
Lord CHESHAM: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. It might have been thought from certain exchanges this evening that I had not received considerate treatment, so far as my Amendments were concerned; but I should like once more to express appreciation of the way that many of my points have been met, although, naturally, perhaps not to the fullest extent that one might have wished, and some not at all. But I appreciate what has been done on this Bill, and I wish that I could say "Hullo" to the regulations that are liable to transpire as enthusiastically as we shall say "Goodbye" to the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOUSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.9 p.m.
The JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lord Hughes): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Hughes)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved to add to the Schedule:
Page 61, line 11, at end insert—
("The Post Office Act 1969 (c.)
48. In paragraph 83 of Schedule 4 (adaptation of enactments)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), after the words "1966" there shall be inserted the words "or Part I of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969";

(b) in sub-paragraph (2), for the words "51 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966" there shall be substituted the words "14 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969";

(c) in sub-paragraph (3), for the words "51 (4) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966" there shall be substituted the words "14 (4) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1969", and for the words "that Act" there shall be substituted the words "the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment amends the Post Office Bill, in the light of the provisions of the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Paragraph 83 of Schedule 4 to the Post Office Bill at present contains certain protections for Post Office apparatus affected by procedures under Part III of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966. Since the provisions relating to clearance areas in Part III of the 1966 Act are being repealed, it is necessary to insert references into the Post Office Bill to housing treatment areas which the Housing (Scotland) Bill introduces. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41, hiving been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, in moving that the Bill do now pass, I should like to pay tribute to the way in which it

855
has been dealt with by your Lordships on both sides of the House. I can recall few measures, and certainly no other Scottish Housing Bill in recent times, which has met with a warmer reception and been given such a speedy and unruffled passage through this House. The changes that we have made have been small, but they should all serve to improve the Bill. I hope that the welcome which the Bill has received generally will be a good omen for its effectiveness as an Act. I do not need to stress further the importance which the Government attach to the problems with which the Bill needs to deal. Legislation cannot by itself, of course, solve the problem. Our hope must be that the Bill can provide a framework for co-operation by all concerned—local authorities, owner-occupiers, private landlords, tenants, the building industry and housing associations—in ensuring that we make real progress towards getting rid of the slums which have been with us far too long in Scotland. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Hughes)
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dundee was extremely sorry that he could not be here for the Third Reading. He wished me to say how very much obliged he was to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the very great care with which he has dealt with this Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

HOUSING BILL
7.11 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord STONHAM): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kennet I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Stonham)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 32 [General powers exercisable by local authority in general improvement area]:
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 1:
856
Page 18, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert ("Where a local authority have declared an area to be a general improvement area they may, for the purpose of effecting or assisting any such improvement as is mentioned in section 28 (1) of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I think I can probably, with common agreement, expedite the proceedings of the House. Let me explain. I tabled an Amendment to Clause 32 in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was good enough to accept the idea underlying my Amendment in principle, but said that it could be better drafted. At his suggestion I withdrew my Amendment. I should like to express my gratitude to him for having assisted me with the drafting of Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. So far as I am aware they fully accomplish my object, and I understand that the draftmanship is much more satisfactory to the Parliamentary draftsmen than my poor effort. That being so, I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Lord STONHAM: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for his remarks, and for the understanding way that he has dealt with the matters of immediate moment. As the noble Lord said, this Amendment arises out of the point that he raised at the Committee stage, and there has been collaboration with regard to the drafting. As the drafting is impeccable, and the sentiment was already accepted, I would advise your Lordships to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 11. leave out from ("acquire") to end of line 12 and insert ("compulsorily any land within the general improvement area or adjoining that area").—(Lord Brooke of Cumnor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68 [Payments to owneroccupiers and others in respect of unfit houses purchased or demolished]:
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 40, line 29, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

857

("(a) the house was purchased or vacated after 23rd April 1968, in pursuance of an order within the meaning of paragraph 4 (1) of that Schedule; or

(b) the house was purchased after that date in pursuance of an order made under paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Land Compensation Act 1961;").

My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I fear that the House may get into greater difficulties. This Amendment is linked with Amendment No. 8. These two linked Amendments were briefly discussed in Committee, and the reason I have tabled them again for the Report stage is because the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said in Committee that he would look at the point again, I feel sure that he will have done so, but unfortunately he is not here to give us his observations after his re-examination of the point.
This is a highly technical matter, and I have a feeling that I might be wasting the time of your Lordships by explaining it in detail when the noble Lord is not here. My main purpose in moving it is to re-examine the subject of the Amendment with his help. If your Lordships wish I will continue, but it may be that if the noble Lord arrives I shall have to repeat parts of my speech.
We are dealing here with an agreed improvement—I mean agreed between all parties and all concerned—in the compensation payable to owner-occupiers of houses which are declared to be unfit. The point at issue is to get the right dividing line in time between those houses which will benefit from this clause and those which cannot benefit because they are, so to speak, too late. I say that it should depend on whether completion of the purchase of the houses by the local authority, or the vacation of the house by the owner, whichever it might be in the particular case, had taken place by April 23, 1968, which I believe was the date of publication of the Government's White Paper on which this Bill was founded. This is a clear-cut event. It is well understood by all those who will be affected. The owner has no doubt when the purchase of his house was completed, or when it was unavoidable that he should vacate it.
At this stage I should like to pause to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to your Lordships' deliberations. I fear
858
that in all the circumstances, if the noble Lord will give me his attention, I must briefly repeat what I have been faying, because I think that is the only way to do justice to the point at issue. I trust that I shall not be out of order by being guilty of repetition—certainly no: vain repetition, because I want these Amendments accepted.
I had explained before the noble Lord was with us that Amendments Nos. 3 and 8 were briefly discussed in Committee. I have tabled them for the Report stage because the noble Lord said in Committee that he would look at the point again. He will be aware of the point at issue. It is to get the right dividing l: ne in time between the houses which will benefit from the new arrangements in Clause 68, and those which cannot benefit. I am saying that it should depend on whether completion of the purchase of the house by the local authority had, or had not, taken place by April 23, 1968. I was saying that that was a clear cut event. The date on which the purchase was completed, or the date on which they vacated the house under a clearance scheme, is well known not only to the local authority but in particular to the owners of the houses. The Government say that there should be a different dividing line, and that is what is in the Bill at present. The Government say that it should depend upon whether the proceedings leading to the purchase, or vacation of the house, have, or have not, commenced by April 23, 1968.
My proposal, of course, would cost the local authorities more money, but it is the course which the local authorities want Parliament to take, because they see that the course proposed by the Government will be demonstrably unfair as between one owner and another. My proposal to amend the Bill has the backing both of the Greater London Council and the Association of Municipal Corporations; and those two bodies, between them, must be concerned with by far the greater part of all the houses likely to be affected by Clause 68.
There are many areas which were declared clearance areas before April 23, 1968, but in which few houses, if any, have so far been acquired. That has happened through sheer pressure of work in council offices and in town halls, and we fully understand that. If the Bill stays

859
unamended, all those owners whose houses have still to be purchased will be denied the benefit of the new compensation terms. They will not be able to question why, when they find neighbours whose houses are bought on the very same day getting the benefit of the new compensation terms, simply because their area was declared just after and not just before April 23, 1968. No solution of this problem can be guaranteed to eliminate all anomalies everywhere. That is common ground. But what I am proposing would ensure that there was no possibility of any anomalies arising in respect of any houses that have been purchased or vacated under a slum clearance scheme, after the date of the White Paper. That is what the local authorities want, and it is they who will have to pay the extra money. So I urge the Government to agree to these Amendments. I beg to move.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of HOUSING and LOCAL GOVERNMENT (Lord KENNET): My Lords, I must apologise for not being in my place when the Report stage of this Bill began. I think there has been a breakdown in the electronic arrangements by which we are summoned according to the course of business in the House. I hope that the House will accept my apology.
The noble Lord's Amendment, which is at present before the House, affects the transitional arrangements bringing into effect the major part of the scheme which comes in the Schedules, and I know he will agree with me if we discuss now the merit and substance of his later Amendment to Schedule 5.
At an earlier stage he asked whether the Government would have another look at this matter, especially in view of the fact that the larger authorities, the Greater London Council and the Association of Municipal Corporations, wanted an Amendment of the sort which the noble Lord has moved. This we have done, and we find continued difficulties in accepting this approach to the matter. It seems to the Government that the date proposed in the Bill is the most logical and defensible one for the introduction of the change; that is, on the declaration of the compulsory purchase
860
area as a whole. To go further back would certainly have capricious effects.
If everything turned on the timing of the purchase of the unfit houses themselves, owners of houses in the same compulsory purchase order would get quite different treatment. Houses in orders confirmed many months before April 23, 1968, would become eligible if the owners, for one reason or another, had been successful in spinning out the negotiations for purchase. They could have done this by appealing to the Lands Tribunal. The lucky owner-occupiers would be those who had been obstinate and had opposed the local authority at all stages, employing whatever delaying tactics they could. The unlucky owner-occupiers would be those who had co-operated with the local authority and had perhaps not opposed the order, or had been willing to sell by agreement. It would obviously not be right that owners of property in the same slum clearance area should be compensated on a different basis, especially if those who get the better deal are those who have been spinning things out and making difficulties, while those who get the worst deal are those who have been going along with the process of housing rejuvenation which is involved in all this.
It is true that the larger local authorities would like to do what the noble Lord proposes in his Amendment; they would like freedom to be more generous in this respect. The smaller local authorities, however, would not. It is of course the duty of Parliament to look after everybody, both the smaller authorities and larger ones, and the poorer local authorities would find real difficulty about this. We are talking about quite a large issue. The best estimate I have been able to obtain is that there are as many as 10, 000 owner-occupiers who would be affected by this Amendment. So this is a substantial matter.
In conclusion, I should not fail to remind your Lordships that since there is Exchequer subsidy involved, by reason of the cleared land subsidy where there is new housing to be built, this Amendment would involve a charge on central Government funds. No doubt the noble Lord will consider whether it would be right for this House to make an Amendment which would change the amount of

861
money which central Government are bound to provide to achieve the purposes of this clause. Having said all that, I should like to sum up by saying that we have had another look at this matter, and the difficulties seem as great as they did the last time round. The problem is really that the Amendment would introduce capricious differences between one owner-occupier and another. I really think that this would not be a good way to go about this matter and, on hearing what I have had to say this second time, I hope that the noble Lord may agree with me.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having carried out his promise to look at this matter again, even though his further look has been noticeably unfruitful. He thinks that the effect of my Amendment would be capricious. But I think that the effect of the Bill as it stands will be capricious. I have the local authorities in general on my side. The noble Lord takes the view, which is a common view in Government Departments, that those owners who have not instantly agreed to all the terms of compulsory purchase orders are rather bad men, who ought not to have as favourable treatment as those who have instantly signed along the dotted line. I do not think one can make those moral distinctions at all. However, I quite see that the Government are not prepared to yield on this matter, and in the circumstances I have no option but to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.27 p.m.
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 81 insert the following new clause:
Price payable on enfranchisement of leasehold house, 1967 c. 88
". The Leasehold Reform Act 1967 shall have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect, as if in section 9 (1) (which provides for the price to be paid by a tenant on an enfranchisement under the Act to be calculated on certain assumptions, by reference to a sale of the reversion in the open market by a willing seller) there had been inserted after the words 'a willing seller' the words '(with the tenant and members of his family who reside in the house not buying or seeking to buy)', and as if at the end of section 9 (1) there were
862
added the words 'The reference in this subsection to members of the tenant's family shall ne construed in accordance with section 7 (7) of this Act':
Provided that this section shall not have effect where the price has been determined (by agreement or otherwise) before the passing of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this proposed new clause would reinsert into the Bill the clause providing for the exclusion of the tenant's overbid from the assessment of the price of enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act. The Clause is in an improved form, excluding the bid not only of the tenant but also of members of the tenant's family living with him. At this stage I do not want to run through all the arguments which we had both on Second Reading and in Committee on this difficult and contentious matter. I should simply like to remind your Lordships of the main lines of the situation.
A Great many freeholders have been asking more than they had been before the recent decision by the Lands Tribunal in the Custins case. Some have been putting up their prices by a very large sum, several hundred pounds—in one case even £1, 000—no doubt relying on the expense of bringing an appeal to the Lands Tribunal to deter the tenant from appealing. But, quite apart from those large increases, there have been a great many other cases in which the prices have gone up by smaller sums as a result of the Custins decision. These cases have been not only of individual houses but also of estates owned by large freeholders where houses covered by an enfranchisement notice have had their prices put up by reference to the Custins decision, no doubt following professional valuation advice.
It may be that the cases which have been brought to my right honourable friend's attention are those where the increases which are being asked are above the average, but in this connection I think it is relevant to remind the House that a Queen's Counsel who spoke on the Opposition side in the House of Commons, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, thought that the tenant's overbid would be very slight. I also cannot help remembering that Lord Silsoe said in this House on Second Reading that the clause as I then moved it would produce tiny benefits. Such

863
amounts are one thing, but the heavy increases being asked for by some landlords following the Custins case are another thing.
I said before that I did not mean to go too deeply into the matter and at this stage I shall not. The situation is the same as it always was. The law was going along in one way, enfranchisement prices were at a certain level, there came a decision in the Lands Tribunal and the prices suddenly jumped up. In the view of the Government, that was a matter to be regretted. This clause was therefore inserted into the Bill in order to maintain the leasehold enfranchisement prices at about the level at which they were before. The way the Government conceive is the right way to do this is to ensure that the tenant's bid over and above the open market price for the merger value should be excluded, and that is what this clause does. We believe that this is fair—no more than fair and no less than fair.
I am therefore moving this clause again, which was inserted in another place and was deleted here by a majority of one on Committee stage. In the course of so doing I am incorporating in the new clause which I am proposing to move back a small Amendment suggested by the Opposition side in the House of Commons. It is my hope that since our lively debate last week the noble Lord and his friends, having thought about this subject again, as indeed we on our side and the Government have, may have come to the conclusion that it will be tolerable to continue the basis of these valuations as it was before the Custins case, and will now be prepared to accept the re-insertion of this clause with one minor amendment in it. I beg to move.
7.33 p.m.
Lord SILSOE: My Lords, I am afraid I have already spoken three times on this clause and I should have liked very much to say that I had nothing to add; but there are a number of your Lordships here who have not been present on any of the other occasions, and so I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, gave a reasonably short explanation of what the Clause is about. The major difference between my own views and those of the Government is as to what this is about. The noble Lord, Lord
864
Kennet, has this evening talked about people asking for more money since the Custins case. I am sure there is some evidence, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that attention has been drawn to the more obvious and large instances.
May I just remind your Lordships—I am afraid I have not the exact figure in my mind, but I am not very far wrong in what I am going to say—that in Custins case itself, which concerned a house of considerably larger value than the values generally applicable in, for example, South Wales, figures were given. One of the things the Tribunal did in the course of their judgment was to pronounce on certain disputes between the tenant's view and the landlord's view, and they set out in detail what, in their view, the adjusted figures were, as explained by the tenant and the landlord. The tenant, it will be remembered, was asking for the tenant's bid to be excluded, but when that was adjusted by the Tribunal the difference between the two figures as between the tenant and the landlord in that case was of the order of £50.
I cannot accept the view that there has been any justification for large increases in figures because of this decision. What I can say is this: that if the decision is that the tenant's bid—I leave out for the moment the family—is removed, the figure which is payable by the tenant for his freehold, the site value, will be less. But there is no possible justification in anything in that judgment for increasing the figure. Indeed there is no evidence that any case has gone to the Lands Tribunal since. Greedy people, it may be, are asking for more—I know not—and no doubt the Minister has heard of such cases; but to think that there is any justification for an increase since the Custins case is wrong. What this Amendment is about is not that there would be an increase, but that there would be a reduction if the Amendment was carried.
That is my first point; and I have said right the way through that it is very difficult for the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the Government, and still more difficult for me, to prove anything in this matter because no one has any statistics and no one knows whether there has been a case. I think there has not been a case at the Lands Tribunal since. So I start

865
in that way by saying that, from my experience, any idea of an increase because of Custins case is right out, and if anybody went to the Tribunal they would soon be told so.
But I am not asking for this Amendment to be rejected on the ground that it is, if I may rudely put it, a small baby or a large baby; I am asking for it to be rejected on quite wide grounds of policy and fairness. I speak with apologies to those who have been kind enough to listen to me before, but the main principle of the Act (which I consider, with all due respect, is binding upon this House) is that the landlord owns only the site and the tenant owns the bricks and mortar. I had not heard anybody, least of all myself, try to argue, in this House, or in the House of Commons, or in the Lands Tribunal, that that principle has been breached. What was being decided in this case—and it is this which has boiled up in this great excitement—is what was the site value of this house in North London. My Lords, just to put this question in perspective, what did the Tribunal say it was? The Tribunal said that it was £500. It also found that, but for the Act of 1967 the figure would have been over £3, 000; so the landlord has lost quite a lot of money by virtue of the Act, and I cannot attack that in any degree. But now the argument is: should it be £500 or, say, £450? There is no case, I repeat for the third time, for going up.
If I may follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I will not go through all the points, but there are two major points on this clause that I should like to raise. The first is that it was thought by the Government that the Tribunal were breaching the principles of the Act of 1967. The Minister, the Secretary of State for Wales, said so; the Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry said so. I have ventured to say already that they have not breached it in any way whatever. This is a Tribunal which is now always used by Government and Opposition alike in every case concerning disputes on land values. When the need arises, in an Act of Parliament, for the provision of a body to arrive at fair settlements between members of the public over the value of land, there is no alternative suggested by Government, Opposition or anybody else, to the Lands
866
Tribunal. And the Lands Tribunal have said in their judgment that if this Amendment is moved and carried (again the noble Lord will perhaps allow me to leave out the family for the moment) the terms of compensation will not be fair. They have said so in unambiguous terms.
The Amendment asks that the bid of the tenant should be removed from the consideration. The Tribunal dealt expressly with that point; they decided, as a matter of law, that the tenant's bid ought to be included. But they decided also—quite apart from law—that if that bid was excluded the terms of compensation would not be fair terms. Section 1 (1), the very first section of the Leasehold Reform Act provides that the tenant may a;; k for the freehold on "fair terms" of compensation. Those very words, "fair terms", are in the very first subsection of the Act. It seems curious to me that when that judgment has been given by this very distinguished and experienced Land Court (if I may call it that), the Government should go out of their way to move an Amendment in direct contradiction to that Court's findings—and in exactly opposite terms with the addition of the word "not".
It is because of that point that I venture to say that this House ought not to have second thoughts: that it ought to follow the decision arrived at in Committee, however small the Committee that made the decision and however small the majority. If I may say so (having had little experience of these matters), we who support this view have had rather bad luck whenever the matter came up for discussion. Last time there were only 45 Members in the Committee. I do not know how many noble Lords are present now; but obviously there are not a great many. None the less, having regard to the fact that the Government are deliberately inserting that which the Court—the only Land Court in this country—has said would produce unfair results, I do not feel that I can give way. I cannot say that I will have second thoughts unless the noble Lord in his final reply gives some better reasons than before. I understand that I can speak on Report stage only once. I shall keep to the Rules, but I hope that, if by any chance something comes up that I have not dealt with, somebody

867
else will take up the point for me. If necessary I will ask for leave of the House to speak again. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, was for many years my "boss". He will, I think, speak up for my view. I worked under him for a great many years on these matters. I will not, if I can avoid it, ask for permission of the House to speak again. As this will be my last remark, I would say that I cannot see my way not to divide the House.
7.44 p.m.
Lord SILKIN: I am sorry to have to disagree with my former assistant; but this is a very simple issue. The question is: What was the intention of the Government in passing this legislation? What did they lead the House to believe? I am quite prepared to accept that the Act was inadequately drawn and did not altogether express the views of the Government, so that the Lands Tribunal were in a dilemma and had to interpret the Act as best they could. But as I understand it, what they had to do was to put a value on the site.
If you are going to include the owner of the site as a bidder you are going to get an artificial value. It will become artificial for two reasons. First, because an owner in possession will naturally tend to bid considerably higher for the freehold than an outside person who is buying it at market value. He will gain security and he will have the benefit of having a freehold instead of a leasehold. Secondly, he will gain by the fact that some of the values of the ground rent and the lease are always less than the value of the freehold. In other words, a person acquiring a freehold gains considerably more than the mere price he has paid for the ground rent. Therefore, a lessee will tend to give considerably more—and it will not be a matter of £50—than the site is worth. Sometimes he will tend to bid, and be forced to bid, considerably higher. Very often he will be forced to pay considerably higher than the true value of the site.
The purpose of this Amendment, as I understand it, is to ensure that the owner, the lessee, is paying merely the true value of the site. The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, referred to experiences. There have been no cases before the Lands Tribunal; but
868
it so happens, strange as it may seem, that I am still in practice, and I have had quite a number of these cases before me. I can assure the House that a great many landlords are asking far higher prices for a freehold than could be justified in any circumstances. But for the fact that my clients get good advice from me they would be forced to pay dearly in order to get the freehold. In some cases I have known landlords to ask twice as much as the freehold is worth.
I think that the Government are doing the right thing in putting forward this clause, ensuring that their intention is being carried out and that the lessee will be required to pay no more than the value of the freehold. I am not commenting on the merits of the Bill. I had my doubts whether it was fair to assume that the bricks and mortar belong to the lessee; but that is not the issue. The noble Lord accepted that in Committee. If, therefore, the freehold is the only thing we are valuing I ask the House to agree that it should be valued fairly and not on a scarcity or arbitrary value.
7.49 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, is setting himself up against a judicial tribunal. There has been a firm determination by the Lands Tribunal (which is the highest judicial tribunal to which the matter has so far been taken) because the Government stepped in without waiting to see whether there would be any appeal against the Lands Tribunal's judgment. But there was none.
I realise that the decision of the Committee last week was taken with very thin numbers. I do not in any way criticise the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for again putting down the Clause in a somewhat altered form so as to get a decision in a fuller House. I do criticise him in that he was reported over the week-end to have said, in connection with last week's vote, that there had been an extraordinary use of hereditary privilege in the interests of the great landlords. He may have been misreported, but he was reported in two national newspapers as having used words to that effect. It seems to me a most extraordinary interpretation of the votes that were cast here last Wednesday evening. I really

869
do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, or the noble Lord, Lord Holford, who both spoke strongly against the Government, were actuated by a desire to assist the interests of the great landlords. I am quite sure that my noble relative, who also voted, was not. Indeed, it really is an attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the public if the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, thinks it right to insinuate that a vote such as that was taken in the interests of the great landlords.
While I say that the noble Lord is acting wholly reasonably in putting down this Amendment again, it appears to me that in the light of the decision of the Lands Tribunal it would not be complete unless he added to the clause a provision that in Section 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 the word "fair" should be left out and the word "unfair" should be inserted. What that Section says is:
"This part of this Act shall have effect to confer on a tenant of a leasehold house, occupying the house as his residence, a right to acquire on fair terms the freehold or an extended lease of the house and premises—"
and so on. Now, of course, the question arises, what are "fair" terms? Fortunately for us that has been decided by a judicial authority. In its decision the Lands Tribunal said:
"We do not think that the exclusion of the tenant would result in a fair terms sale, because a price which was calculated on a basis which ignored the price which a tenant would be prepared to pay would not be on fair terms."
That is the judicial judgment on this matter.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was anxious to assert last week, Parliament can, of course, alter the law in any way it thinks fit. But it cannot alter these decisions about fairness and unfairness so as to create an inconsistency. We have a judicial decision that "fair terms" means including the willingness of the tenant to buy. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is reintroducing this clause, the purpose of which is to get the price fixed with the exclusion of the tenant or members of his family seeking to buy. That has been stated by the Lands Tribunal to result in a sale that would not be on fair terms. The Leasehold Reform Act requires that the sale should be on "fair terms". It seems to me, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, is quite right in criticising this clause as he has.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, last Wednesday evening I begged noble Lords opposite not to vote in favour of excluding Clause 80. My appeal was in vain; we were defeated by a majority of one—a fluke Division—because there were only 45 Members of your Lordships' House present. I am going to repeat my appeal to-night more earnestly than I did on Wednesday, for two or three reasons. I speak as a Welshman, and we Welshmen, particularly those of us in South Wales, are very interested in this debate; far more interested than we were in what took place in this Chamber last night, because Welshmen in South Wales have suffered the iniquity of this system for so long.
Let me give one example which is common in South Wales. A terraced house in Swansea was bought by a working man for £1, 000. He spent £800 on providing modern amenities. At the end of the leasehold he received only the £1, 000 that he paid for it originally, and so he was literally robbed of £800 If I robbed any person of £800, I am sure that I should be sentenced to many years of imprisonment. But here is daylight robbery, and it has happened in Swansea, not once or twice, but hundreds of times. I could give example after example.
I beg your Lordships to support the Amendment for another reason. I heard the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, say on one occasion in this Chamber that the Conservative Party in the House of Lords would never reject anything that was mentioned in the Labour Party Manifesto in the 1966 Election because obviously the people had voted for it by giving a majority to the Labour Party in the other place. This matter was mentioned in the Labour Party Manifesto. I. was definitely declared that this Housing Bill would be introduced in the House of Commons. Therefore I am going to beg noble Lords to be true to their own Leader.
Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is not present this evening, but I am sure that noble Lords will recollect what I have just said regarding what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said. I am quoting from memory, but the noble Lord said, very definitely, that if there was anything in the Election Manifesto, and if the people had voted in favour of it,

871
then on moral grounds they could not reject what the Government proposed to do. The Government have promised that they would do this and so, on the grounds given by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, I say to-night that noble Lords opposite have no moral grounds for rejecting the Amendment proposed by my noble friend.
Thirdly, we all believe that the Government must have been hurt last night as a result of what took place here. But they will be hurt far more if this Amendment is defeated. We had a hint of that from the Prime Minister in his speech in Durham last Saturday evening. Are we going to repeat what happened last night? Are we going to anger the Government unnecessarily into taking a certain action? If so, I can only say that, at some date, children in the schools of this country will be asked, "What happened in the last week of July, 1969?" And the answer will be "Man went to the Moon for the first time—and the Tories in the House of Lords committed suicide."
8.0 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, perhaps I may have another word on this matter before the Question is put. The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, has said that he is not too happy about this proposed new clause and he wishes to divide the House against it. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said that he thought the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, was quite right. I deduce, therefore, that if the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, pursues his intention of dividing the House against this Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, will advise his noble friends to follow the noble Lord into the Division Lobby. If I am wrong about that, I hope the noble Lord will interrupt me. It may be he has in mind that I might say something that would affect his judgment in this matter. I am anxious not to say anything which would provoke the noble Lord into this course, if he did not already have it in mind.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, presses this Amendment, I shall follow him into the Lobby. My noble friends will do what they wish. I do not think, however, they will be influenced by the awful threat that the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, has just uttered, indicating that
872
it is a most unforgivable thing for the Opposition to provoke a Government.
Lord KENNET: No doubt they will be much influenced by the direction in which they see the noble Lord walking. For the third time round on this point, the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, said that there has not been a case relevant to this matter before the Land Tribunal since Custins.
Lord SILSOE: I said that I hoped there were not. Perhaps I am wrong.
Lord KENNET: Perhaps I can correct him. There have been two. There has been Hall's case where the Tribunal came roughly to the same conclusion and there was a third case last week. I have only seen the full report of the judgment this morning and so I should not comment on it but, at first glance, it appears to fall into line with Custins. This is the interpretation which is being given by the Lands Tribunal to the law as it stands at present. The Committee will not want me to repeat for the third or fourth time that there is no possible criticism of that.
The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, also said that there was no excuse for increased enfranchisement prices due to the Lands Tribunal decision. It may be that he is right. I do not know; I cannot judge about this. A Goverment should not survey the social scene and say for what feature of it there is an excuse. It has to survey the social scene, see what is happening, see that it is in accordance with what it conceives to be social justice; and if it is not in accordance with that, it must propose to Parliament that the law should be changed. Maybe there is no excuse for increased prices since Custins but there are increased prices. The City of London Corporation, no doubt acting on professional advice, and the professional advisers no doubt with copies of Custins in their pockets, have been putting up prices on at least one whole estate by between £100 and £200 per house since this decision, and no doubt as a result of it. I have already quoted odd cases of prices going up £1, 000. There is absolutely no doubt that this is happening. Whether there is an excuse for it, I do not know. I cannot take that into consideration. What concerns me and must concern Parliament is that it is happening. The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe,

873
said that the Government were deliberately inserting into the law something which the Lands Tribunal had said would have unfair results. Here we come back to the basis of the whole matter. The law says that the Tribunal shall make a fair settlement. The Tribunal has made two or three settlements now and this shows their interpretation of the word "fair" and its validity as written in the Act. The result has been that prices have gone up, that the leaseholder is disadvantaged and the freeholder is advantaged. Therefore the Government come to Parliament and invite Parliament to change this. That is the result of the word "fair". I am not saying that we want to write into the law something which, because it no longer uses the word "fair", is unfair; that would be absurd. I merely say that the result of injecting the word "fair" in its context of the words in the Leasehold Enfranchisement Act is something which the Government consider socially undesirable and invite Parliament to share their view. They therefore propose instead a more precise definition. This word "fair" is vague.
If, on the other hand, it is laid down in law that a hypothetical bid by the sitting tenant, the leaseholder, and his family living with him, is not to be taken into account in assessing the price for enfranchisement, then we are laying down something which Parliament has not only a full right to lay down but also something more precise. What I am advancing here is an increase in precision for the guidance of the court. My noble friend Lord Silkin, with his vast experience of these matters, said that if we included the owner in the market, we shall get an artificially high value. That is the nub of the matter. It is precisely in order to get rid of that artificially high value that the Government now propose to exclude the owner from the market.
To come to the main point, let us stand back for a moment and consider what has been happening. The Leasehold Enfranchisement Bill was introduced with a certain formula for settling this matter. It ran in a certain way for a certain length of time. Prices were set, enfranchisements took place and a fair level was established. There was then a case before the Lands Tribunal, the Custins case, followed up by two more,
874
as a result of which prices went up. The Government then proposed to charge the law by an Amendment in another place. The Amendment was not opposed by the elected Members of the Opposition. Indeed, the only criticism they had of it was that it should have been introduced earlier and they added a refinement to it, which would make it even tougher—this question of families, which on the invitation of the Opposition in another place I have included in this Bill. The Bill came here. The Opposition moved against it and succeeded in throwing it out by one vote at Committee stage.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, the noble Lord said that the Opposition moved against it. The noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, moved againstant and the Opposition Whips were not on for that Division.
Lord KENNET: I accept the noble Lord's correction most willingly. Of course, the Opposition did not move against it: the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe, moved against it and the Opposition supported him in his move and went into the Lobby in his support, and thereby achieved its rejection by a majority of one vote.
Lord SILSOE: My Lords, does the noble Lord not think that an effort by an independent person in winning at all is rather fine? Whe does he run down one vote?
Lord KENNET: Nothing could be further from my intention than to run down the noble Lord, Lord Silsoe. My battle is with the Opposition. The noble Lord moved as he thought fit. The Opposition have supported him. I am taking issue with the Opposition. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has taken me to task for using the words "an extraordinary use of hereditary privilege" and asked me whether I wanted to duck out of it. I do not, and repeat it. It is true, no doubt, that among the Opposition Peers who went into the Lobby against this Amendment and in support of the freeholders last week there were those who are not here by hereditary right; but I believe there was more than one who is here by hereditary right, and since the Amendment was carried by one vote then I assert, without fear of contradiction, that it was carried by hereditary privilege.

875
What happens, therefore, is that the Opposition come out at this point in defence of the great freeholders against the leaseholders of this country, against the Labour Party in another place and against the Labour Party in this House, none of which is surprising, but lastly, and this I do find astonishing, against the kind of Conservatives who can get themselves elected to another place and who welcomed this change in the Bill
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.20 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 81 insert the following new clause:
At the end of section 6 (4) of the Rent Act 1968 there shall be added the following:
". Provided that for the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that if the said alteration has effect under section 19 of the General Rate Act 1967 only as from a date later than the appropriate date and a certificate as to the manner in which the hereditament
when it was introduced there—perhaps I am going too far and should say, the kind of Conservatives who omitted to oppose it and suggested improvements to this change in the Bill when it was introduced in another place.
8.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 47.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Garnsworthy, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Archibald, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Rusholme, L.

Arwyn, L.

Hughes, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Kennet, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beswick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Serota, Bs.

Birk, Bs.

Lindgren, L.

Shackleton. L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bowles, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Brockway, L.

Silkin, L.

Brown, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Sorensen, L.

Burden, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stonham, L.

Chalfont, L.

Maelor, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Collison, L.

Mitchison, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Crook, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Walston, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peddie, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Energlyn, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Williamson, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Raglan, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Denham, L.

Lothian, M.

Auckland, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Beauchamp, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Merthyr, L.

Belstead, L.

Falkland, V.

Milverton, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Falmouth, V.

Monson, L.

Bessborough, E.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Boston, L.

Gisborough, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Gray, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Greenway, L.

Runciman of Doxford, V.

Burton, L.

Headfort, M.

St. Oswald, L.

Chorley, L.

Henley, L.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Holford, L. [Teller.]

Sandys, L.

Conesford, L.

Inglewood, L.

Silsoe, L. [Teller.]

Cranbrook, E.

Jellicoe, E.

Strang, L.

Crowther, L.

Kilmany, L.

Vivian, L.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale, E.

in question should have been treated in the valuation list has been obtained by the rating authority from the valuation officer under section 9 (3) of the General Rate Act 1967 and applies to the appropriate date, the rateable value shall be as stated in the certificate (if so stated), for the purposes of all proceedings instituted whether before or after the passing of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come from the realms of broad controversy into a highly technical matter. I will explain the Amendment to your Lordships as briefly as I can. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will be familiar with the point at issue, and

877
I trust he will correct me if I make any slip in my explanation in view of its complexity.
The Rent Act 1965, which has now been consolidated into the Rent Act 1968, made rent regulation and all that goes with it, including security of tenure applicable to houses and flats whose rateable value on March 23, 1965, was under £400 in Greater London, or £200 elsewhere. There was a general revaluation for rating purposes which took effect on April 1, 1963. But, of course, there is a procedure for appeal against rating assessments, and at any given date there will always be a lot of rating assessments subject to appeal. I would ask your Lordships to consider an appeal initiated in May, 1965. That might well be a proposal claiming that the 1963 valuation was wrong and had been wrong from the beginning; that is, right back to April, 1963. The appeal might succeed. That would then establish that the assessment ought to have been lower ever since April, 1963. But so far as recovery of overpaid rates is concerned, that would have retrospective effect, under the law, only back to April 1, before the date of the appeal. So a person whose rating assessment was raised in 1963 to something like over £400 in Greater London might appeal in 1965, and might have the assessment reduced to something under £400.
Then the question arises whether his property is subject to rent regulation or not. Though the assessment has been found to be wrong from April, 1963, for rating purposes he would benefit only from April 1, 1965. But how should the property be treated for Rent Act purposes? In Section 6 of the Rent Act 1968 the critical date is March 23, 1965, nine days earlier than when the new valuation comes into effect so far as payment of rates is concerned, in the hypothetical case that I have mentioned. But the finding on appeal shows that the valuation has in fact been wrong ever since the new valuation lists first came into effect in 1963—two years earlier. That being so, it would seem just that for Rent Act purposes the assessment should be treated as having been under £400, and not over £400, on the critical date in the Rent Act; that is March 23, 1965. The purpose of my new Clause is to put that beyond doubt. I am sure
878
it is the course of justice, and I hope the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, On the surface there is so much to be said for the noble Lord's Amendment, but there are difficulties about it. Let us look first at the purpose of the 1965 Act, which created the rent-regulation system. This was, as Mr. Crossman said on Second Reading in the other place, to restore protection to those who had lost it through the 1957 decontrol. Rating revaluation having intervened, the old rateable value limits (£100 in Greater London and £75 elsewhere) were no longer applicable, and new limits had to be set. These limits—£400 in Greater London and £200 elsewhere—were deliberately set high to preclude any risk that any dwellings decontrolled in 1957 might not be covered by the new limits. In other words, a safety margin was allowed.
We realised that this margin would bring within protection some dwellings which had never been subject to control, but we thought that this was preferable to risking the exclusion of any which had been controlled. So a number of tenants of dwellings within the new limits which were never formerly controlled have obtained Rent Act protection by luck, and not of purpose. My right honourable friend has received no evidence to suggest that the chosen limits have failed or are failing to achieve their object. That is, any dwelling formerly subject to control and not in the meantime structurally altered or improved is still outside the Rent Act protection.
I come now to the question of the appropriate day for determining whether the dwelling does or does not fall within these limits. This, as the noble Lord has said, is March 23, 1965, the publication day of the Bill. I should like to stress that on that date the current valuation lists had been open to the public, for the purpose of varying the proposals, for two years. Anybody who thought his dwelling had been over-assessed, and to whom outgoings on accommodation mattered enough for him to wish not to pay excessive rates, had had ample time to ascertain his rights under rating law and to put in proposals for re-assessment. It was never the idea that people should be enabled to seek variations in

879
rating assessments for the purpose of getting dwellings inside or outside Rent Act limits.
When the Rent Bill of 1965 was introduced it contained the provision—as indeed did the noble Lord's Rent Act of 1957—preventing any re-assessment applied for after the introduction of the Bill from having effect for Rent Act purposes. So in each case the appropriate date was the date of the Bill's introduction. Although during the passage of both Bills this restriction was slightly modified, in both Bills it was still deliberately left impossible for anyone to alter his Rent Act position by applying for a re-assessment. So what is proposed in this Bill, as unamended, is in this respect the same as was proposed and carried through by the noble Lord in his 1957 Rent Act. Houses and flats assessed at something above the £400 and £200 limits, which on re-assessment might come below them, are in point of fact houses and flats of which there is little scarcity, and the person who is able to afford the market rent of such dwelling should have little difficulty in finding other accommodation at about the same value.
Moreover, at the time the 1965 Act was before Parliament, and when it came into force, there may have been—and I am sure there must have been—a number of tenants of dwellings of this sort who would have liked security of tenure but who, recognising that the Act would not or did not give it to them, accepted that fact, and have since vacated their homes on the expiry of their tenancies. These people might well reasonably feel aggrieved if the Government were, four years later, to turn round and reverse the position.
What we are being asked to do is to alter a considered provision in rent legislation at the last minute, and in the utmost haste. No Amendment was proposed on the Committee or Report stages in the other place, or on the Committee stage in this House, and this Amendment appeared for the first time on yesterday's Order Paper. What we are being asked to do is to alter the position in rent law in order to extend the security of tenure to a few people who, if they had obtained it in 1965, would have done so only through the luck of the safety margin,
880
and whose failure to benefit from that margin resulted from their own previous lack of concern with the rateable values on their dwellings.
I do not think this would be right and, whether it is right or not, I am sure the noble Lord will realise that with the timetable we have—the Bill going to the House of Commons to-morrow or the next day and back to us in two or three days—it would really be impossible to consider all the ramifications of this Amendment, which I think run rather wide. They would run into leasehold reform law and they might run wider. It would take longer than the two or three days we have on the timetable we all agreed, to see whether this would be acceptable for other reasons outside the immediate purpose for which it is moved. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord may agree that the matter should wait to be pursued, if it should be pursued, which I very much doubt, on some other occasion because it is simply too late to do it now.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will think that the noble Lord has confirmed my original statement that this is a technical and complex matter. I trust he will not hold it against me that it has been raised at the Report stage of this Bill. Of course, I recognise the inconvenience in that to the Government. But I am sure he will accept my assurance that it was brought to my notice only at a late stage last week, and there was no case of my holding it back and springing it on the Government. It was brought to my notice, and it appeared to me to be an important matter which Parliament should consider in the context of this Bill. I will of course examine very carefully what the noble Lord has said and consider what to do next if he states firmly that nothing can be done about it in this Bill.
I am not inclined to accept his argument that, because a house was valued at over £400 in Greater London in the 1963 valuation, that necessarily proves that it had not been under rent control at an earlier stage. The noble Lord will, I am sure, be aware from his London experience that there were some very large increases in valuation when the 1963 revaluation succeeded the 1939 one.

881
I accept of course that a well-informed and well-advised person would have considered whether to appeal against the 1963 valuation at an earlier stage than 1965, but the noble Lord is as well aware as I am that there are masses of people who do not immediately turn to a solicitor or to a valuer when a new valuation comes out, and are somewhat slow in investigating what their rights of appeal are until it may happen that somebody comes along and in conversation they discover that they have a right of appeal of which they had not previously been even aware.
I appreciate that if this change in the law were to be made it would go more widely than the terms of my Amendment. To seek to press this Amendment might only add to the complexity of matters by putting into the law something which went half way and not the whole way; and I quite appreciate that the Government in another place would not be able to accept that. I hope the noble Lord will appreciate that I am not prepared to go all the way with his arguments, which to my mind gave less than full value to the merits of the proposed clause, and more than full value to the difficulties in changing the law. But I accept at once his argument that it would be almost impossible to get any amendment of the Bill to this effect completely right in the very short time we have; and there is common agreement that it is desirable that this Bill should receive the Royal Assent before the Recess. In these circumstances, while I am not dropping my interest in the matter, I am willing to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 90 [Citation, construction, commencement and extent]:
Lord KENNET Lord KENNET moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 50, line 20, leave out ("and 81") and insert ("to (Price payable on enfranchisement of leasehold house)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Committee stage of this Bill we agreed that the provisions affecting leasehold law should be brought into effect immediately, rather than to wait for the usual month for the drawing up of circulars and regulations. Since we have just carried back into the Bill a provision affecting lease-
882
hold law, I should now move an Amendment, which will bring that leasehold provision into line with the other ones—that it should come into effect immediately, rather than waiting for the customary month. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Savings and Transitional Provisions]:
Lord KENNET: My Lords, this is a highly technical and complex matter. It affects transitional provisions and it is the sort of thing that comes to light during the passage of a Bill through Parliament and the sort of thing for which we have several stages for consideration of the Bill. I think there can be no doubt about it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 34, at end insert—
(". The repeal by this Act of sect on 49 of the Rent Act 1968 does not affect the operation of that Section in relation to any dwellinghouse while such a condition relating to the rent of the dwelling-house as is mentioned in that section requires to be observed.").—(Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 laving been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14): Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NORTHERN PENNINES RURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD ORDER 1969
8.37 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Northern Pennines Rural Development Board Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before this House on July 1, be approved. Part III of the Agriculture Act 1967 provides the power to set up these Boards. It was announced initially that there would be only one or two Boards, and this will be the first. The powers and the functions of a Rural Development Board are set out in Sections 45 to 55 of the 1967 Act. The area chosen for this Board is some 3, 000 square miles of hills and uplands stretching from the Scottish Border to the Skipton Gap. It is a sparsely populated area, containing no town above 2, 500 in size. Agriculture

883
of an upland rearing character predominates; but out of some 6, 000 farms less than one-third are up to the commercial level of size as defined in the Act. Forestry is active in the North of the area but much less so in other parts. The area also includes two National Parks, and I am sure we can look forward to useful co-operation between these bodies and the Board.
If the House approves the Order, the intention is that it should be made to come into operation next month. Certain of the Board's powers will not come into effect until three months later. This breathing period should permit the Board to ensure smooth operation and to avoid delays. I hope that all of us will wish well to this new Board, and, under the chairmanship of Mr. T. J. Cowen, M.B.E., I certainly wish it every success. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Northern Pennines Rural Development Board Order 1969, laid before the House on July 1, 1969, be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
8.39 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I certainly think that we should wish this Board well. It is going to affect the lives of a great many people and have very wide responsibilities. I shall be only brief now, as the noble Lord who introduced the Motion was brief, but it would be wrong to assume that because there has been much less official opposition to the setting up of this Board than we have seen in Wales, it has received a general welcome locally; because that is not so. It is not just something of concern to local authorities, the National Farmers' Union and those who may receive grants; it is something which will affect a great many people, and many of them are apprehensive about how it will work in practice. It appeared to us, when we debated the provisions of the Agriculture Bill in this House, to be a very elaborate way of doing a number of good things and a number of less good things.
I do not think I am alone in disliking this ever wider spread of Boards which are projections of the central Government, over which local people have no control or say whatever, unlike their
884
county councillors. And here may I say, in passing, that four more such Boards are being set up under the Development of Tourism Bill which we shall be discussing in a few minutes. Think of the patronage which is spreading ever wider across the country! Having said that, I should like particularly to commend the noble Lord on the appointment of the chairman. I think that here we have a man who commands general respect, and we are much more fortunate than in the appointment which has been made in Wales and which has attracted so much criticism.
I am sure it is right to look at these Boards as something coming with great good will on the part of the late Minister of Agriculture, whose brainchild they are; but, none the less, they are very political in their whole framework. It is a pity that this particular Board should have had its boundaries drawn so as to build its area up to 3, 000 sq. miles. This is an enormous area, and it includes a number of corn-growing farms and considerable areas of lowland which in fact bear no relation to hill land at all. An area of that size is bound to throw up a large number of administrative problems. I conclude as I began. I wish it well, I appreciate the difficulties and I think the Government underestimate them. I hope indeed that one or other of the ombudsmen will be responsible for looking after the interests of Her Majesty's subjects in this particular field.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful to learn that the noble Lord, who knows this area very well and whose feeling for it I know and appreciate, wishes well to this Board. To some extent I can understand the apprehension that he voiced. This is a far-flung area, far removed from Whitehall, and I can well believe that many people living up there feel that Whitehall is getting a little nearer to them. They may be somewhat apprehensive, but I think their fears are not firmly based. As the noble Lord has said, the local authorities were consulted and they gave positive support, or they expressed no strong view either way. The Farmers' Union, which after all ought not to be ignored in this matter—
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene very briefly? I think the local

885
authorities were much moved by the fact that this Board would have a certain amount of finance, which they have not got, and would bring something into then area and undoubtedly do some good.
Lord BESWICK: The noble Lord is explaining why they welcome it and give it positive support.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, that is another side.
Lord BESWICK: I am also saying that the National Farmers' Union were in favour of this Board, and whatever the reason—and I think it to be a good reason—the noble Lord should not overlook that. I am glad that the noble Lord commended the appointment of the chairman, but I hope he does not mean by that commendation that he does not approve the appointment of the other members of the Board.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I do not know who they are.
Lord BESWICK: Without exception they are local people who will have the interests of the local people at heart, and if the Board is to be successful then certainly it will have to take into account the feelings of local people up there. The noble Lord, as is his custom, has voiced his opinion very strongly. When I read it I am sure I shall read much more carefully the fact that he welcomes the institution of this Board and that he wishes i it well. And that, I hope, will be echoed by all others in the House by giving this Motion their unqualified approval.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEVELOPMENT OF TOURISM BILL
8.45 p.m.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment) on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee (on Recommitment).—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Champion in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [General Functions and Powers]:
Lord BROWN Lord BROWN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 36, after ("Act") insert ("but subject to subsectons (2A) and (2B) of this section").
The noble Lord said: I hope it may be acceptable if, in moving Amendment No. 1, I speak also to No. 3. I propose to speak briefly, giving a longer explanation later if it proves to be necessary. The effect of these two Amendments would be to change the conditions under which national Boards are permitted to advertise overseas, from the existing situation in the Bill, where they can do it with the agreement of the British Tourist Authority, to the new situation (if the Amendments are passed) where they would advertise overseas on behalf of the Authority. The reason for this is that it seems sound that the Authority should be regarded in the eyes of the outside world beyond our shores as the body responsible for attracting tourists to this country. It would permit the national Boards to approach the Authority, and it is agreed that they should take part in these special forms of advertising particular to their own areas on behalf of that Authority. I beg to move.
Lord DRUMALBYN: We are grateful to the noble Lord for having put down these Amendments, which go a long way towards meeting points that we made in Committee elsewhere. I think perhaps in talking of advertising he is drawing it a little too narrowly. After all, what we are here talking about is encouraging people to visit Great Britain as a whole. But we take his point entirely, and I do not think we need delay or ask him for a further explanation. Those of us who were on the Committee know what he is talking about, and if anyone else wishes for an explanation I am sure the noble Lord will be willing to give it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 44, at end insert—
("( ) to establish committees to advise them in the performance of their functions;").
The noble Lord said: This is a point that we discussed in Committee elsewhere. Subsection (2) gives the Tourist Board power to do anything for the purpose of discharging the functions conferred on it by this clause, or which is incidental or conducive to the discharge of those functions. Then it goes on to mention three powers which they could not possibly do without and which, therefore, it seems somewhat unnecessary to mention. To these I am adding one which they could do without but which I believe they ought to exercise. We attach a great deal of importance to it.
May I refer to the Countryside (Scotland) Act. I am afraid that I do not have the comparable Act for England, but I am more familiar with the Scottish Act. Clause 4 says, much more elaborately:
"The Board shall have the following powers"—
and (a) is the most important one—
"(a) where it appears to the Commission that it would assist them in the exercise of their functions to establish, promote or assist in the establishment of committees or other appropriate bodies to promote a system… "
I have put down this Amendment in the shortest possible terms. If the noble Lord would prefer me to say:
"to establish, promote or assist in the establishment of committees"
I would willingly move a manuscript Amendment for that purpose. But it seems to me that this is an Amendment which we ought to move because we think it ought to be in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord GEDDES: Much of the concern in the travel industry arising from the presentation of this Bill to Parliament has been that the new British Tourist Authority might live in an ivory tower remote from the industry itself. It is of the greatest importance in the running of the tourist industry that there should be constant contact between the authority responsible and the trade as a whole.
I am sure that this Amendment, if approved, would give a great deal of encouragement to the industry that they will be brought into consultation and still be a part of the machinery directing the industry of which they are a part. I support the Amendment.
Lord BROWN: I hope that this Amendment will not be pressed. We are all agreed that the Tourist Boards will need to maintain very close links not only with interests concerned with providing tourist facilities and amenities, but also with a wide range of trade, travel and, I should emphasise, consumer interests. For this purpose, the Tourist Boards will obviously have to establish appropriate consultative and advisory machinery. In fact, it would be impossible for the Tourist Boards to carry out their functions effectively without wide co-operation and generally accepted consultative machinery. It was with this point very much in mind that subsection (4) was added to the Bill in another place, which calls upon the Tourist Boards to establish consultative machinery.
If we are not careful other Bills which do not give power will be construed as producing a situation where the body concerned is not permitted to set up committees. It is quite clear, and I do not think noble Lords on the other side are arguing, that the Boards have power to set up committees; there is no argument about it. I take it that the object of the Amendment is to make it amply clear that they can set up committees, but if one has to put into every Bill where people have powers a special clause to say that they have, I suggest we are embroidering the legislation unnecessarily. I hope we can avoid a Division on this and get on with the rest of the Bill, because it is really unnecessary. That is my total plea against this Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I think the noble Lord has to some extent hoist himself with his own petard in this argument. As I have shown we have already something in the Countryside (Scotland) Act; and I have no doubt in the Countryside Act as well. If this is the argument, we ought to put it in the Bill, because it is in the Countryside Act and unless it is in the Bill it may be thought that they do not have the powers here. So the noble Lord's argument rather recoils on him, but I quite understand that his brief was written before he had heard my argument.
I think the noble Lord ought to give way on this. There is no reason why he should not. It may be that, strictly speaking, the words are unnecessary, but

889
so are (a), (b) and (c)—"to promote or undertake publicity in any form"—how could they do without that? "To provide advisory and information services"—how could they do without that? "To promote or undertake research"; that is of the very essence. We are asking for something that we think it is important to highlight. We think it is something they may not be ready to do unless it is in the Bill.
It is not true to say that subsection (4) covers this. That talks about consultation with persons and organisations. They can do that one by one. We want to have something similar to the British Travel Association, which is a very widely based body representing any number of different interests. We want a similar body in each of the three countries. We cannot for the life of us see why the noble Lord should be so obdurate about this. I am sure the noble Lord will make very much better progress if he can give way occasionally on points like this. He may say that it is unnecessary. He must admit it will do no harm. We think it important. Surely he can give way.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, knows, I feel a great deal of sympathy with a number of the Amendments down in the name of himself and his noble friends, but in my view this is not really important one way or the other. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brown, that the Boards have powers, and that they will use them. The Amendment does not make the powers mandatory; it does not mean that they are any way more likely to be used because they are in. Judging by the fact that the Government quite clearly see that committees should be established, and presumably will pass their views on, even if they are not read in the Reports of our proceedings and those of another place, I with great respect urge the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that we might drop this and move on to some of the really important matters in the Bill.
Lord INGLEWOOD: I am sure that the trade would greatly appreciate the inclusion of these words, and those men and women who are going to be asked to sit on these Committees will feel, human nature being what it is, if these
890
words are in, that they are being asked to do something more important and they will take more trouble, and it will be of great advantage to everybody.
Lord BROWN: To end the argument I am prepared to give way. It does not make the least difference to the Bill. I was trying to prevent something quite unnecessary going in. But as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, says, it is not mandatory. I just do not believe that it will make a whit of difference to those who sit on these Committees; I doubt whether anybody who sits on Committees looks to see if the Bill appointing the statutory body has powers to do it, let alone a permissive power like this. If others are agreed, I am prepared to accept the Amendment in order to get on to the more important parts of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BROWN: I beg to move Amendment No. 3 which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("none") in line 10 and insert—
("(2A) Only the British Tourist Authority shall have power by virtue of subsection (2) of this section to carry on any activities outside the United Kingdom for the purpose of encouraging people to visit Great Britain or any part of it but this subsection shall not prevent the other Tourist Boards engaging in such activities on behalf of the Authority.
(2B)").—(Lord Brown.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BROWN: I will deal with this Amendment, No. 4, very briefly and give a longer explanation if required. Subsection (4) of Clause 2 requires all four Tourist Boards to have regard to the need for appropriate consultations with other persons and organisations, including regional and area travel associations, when exercising their functions under Clause 2. This Amendment takes account of the criticism in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that subsection (4) of Clause 2, as drafted, could not be taken to cover consultation between the Boards themselves in addition to their consultations with other organisations. This Amendment will meet his point. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 27, after ("consultation") insert ("with the other Tourist Boards and").—(Lord Brown.)
Lord DRUMALBYN: I would say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, and for accepting the last Amendment. It is very gracious of him and we thank him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 27, after ("with") insert—
("(a) the other Tourist Boards, and any of the Tourist Boards may agree together to establish common services, where it appears to them desirable in the interests of economy or efficiency or for the maintenance of common standards throughout Great Britain;
(b)").
The noble Lord said: The Committee will see that the first words of this Amendment as printed are identical with those that have just been inserted, but the Amendment goes on further. I hope that perhaps the Deputy Chairman will be good enough to assist us by accepting a manuscript Amendment to delete the words that we have already inserted. This Amendment would then read:
"(a) any of the Tourist Boards may agree together to establish common services, where it appears to them desirable in the interests of economy or efficiency or for the maintenance of common standards throughout Great Britain;".
We were agreed in Committee that there would be need for common services to be established, but (I paraphrase the Government's objections; the noble Lord may even think I parody them a little) the Government objected to the Amendment we put down on the ground, first, that it was unnecessary because the power to establish common services already existed in the Bill; and, secondly, that somehow or other it was derogatory to the authority and the independence of the three country Boards to mention common services at all.
My noble friend Lord Geddes moved an Amendment which would have allowed the four Boards to establish common services by agreement between each other. This of course implied that all the Boards would have to be involved in each such common service. My noble friend established that some common services will be
892
desirable, and I think that this was accepted. There is however a danger that the Boards, in their desire for independence, will fight shy of establishing any common services. This is a danger. We think they should establish some of the common services to which my noble friend referred in Committee, and that it is right to say so in the Bill. This is the purpose of the Amendment. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Champion): I think I should tell the noble Lord that I can accept a manuscript Amendment only if in fact I have a manuscript in my hand. I think the first thing I had better do is to put this Amendment and then accept the manuscript Amendment as an Amendment to this particular Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Before the noble Lord opposite speaks, I wonder whether I can ask for guidance, because the unfortunate thing is that we have just carried an Amendment. Ought the Amendment to relate to the Bill as it is now, after we have just amended it or to the Bill as it was before we amended it?
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Clearly, we can only amend the Bill as it has already been amended. So that any manuscript which the noble Lord hands in must have relevance to the Bill as it now stands.
Lord BROWN: I wonder whether we could have a little give-and-take over this. I have just moved an Amendment in response to comments made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to draw attention to the need for the Boards to consult together. I do not think there is any dubiety or argument at all that there is under the Bill as it stands a situation where the Boards, with or without this Amendment, may indeed get together to run common services. That is not in dispute. So that we have a similar sort of point that we had on Amendments Nos. 1 and 3; it is a question of whether we should put it in the Bill. I wonder whether the noble Lord would not think it better to leave it to the common sense of the Boards to get on with it.
As we have already agreed to put into the Bill words saying that the Boards

893
may consult together if they so choose, would it not be sufficient to leave it at that and not further to embroider the Bill with another permissive clause drawing attention to something that common sense will dictate they will do, especially with a bit of nudging from the Authority on which the Chairmen of the four Boards sit together, if they think this seems appropriate? They have only to read this debate to know that it is entirely in order for them to provide these common services. I think that if we are going to get sensible members of these Boards it will at once occur to them to do so. I would ask the noble Lord whether he would not see fit to withdraw the Amendment so that we can get on with the more serious part of the Bill.
Lord DRUMALBYN: To put ourselves in order, I am quite prepared to move as an Amendment to my Amendment, to leave out "the other Tourist Boards and". However, I think that on a little give-and-take basis we can agree not to press this. We have made it clear that the Boards will be expected to set up common services. After all, I take it that at the end of the day the appropriate Ministers can get together and make the Boards get together and set up common services by direction. In these circumstances, I will ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [General schemes of assistance for tourist projects]:
9.5 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 42, after ("Board") insert ("and with such organisations as are mentioned in subsection (4) of the preceding section").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment concerns a point that arises out of an Amendment that was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther. In Committee he wanted to know with whom hotel proprietors would have to deal in regard to general schemes for tourist projects. It emerged that after the schemes were made they would have to deal with the appropriate Tourist Board, but it was still not clear how they would be consulted when the British Tourist
894
Authority had a general scheme under consideration under this clause.
Clause 2 (4) says that the Tourist Boards
"shall have regard to the desirability of undertaking appropriate consultations with persons and organisations, including those mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, who have knowledge of, or are interested in, any matters aflecting the discharge of those functions"
This Amendment would place an obligation on the British Tourist Authority to consult those organisations, including those mentioned in subsection (3); that is to say,
"organisations discharging functions corresponding to those of the Boards in relation to particular areas within the countries for which the Boards are respectively responsible."
The Authority would be placed under the obligation to consult those organisations "who have knowledge of, or are interested in," the particular tourist project under consideration.
This is the purpose of this Amendment. We think there should be such a duty, because we do not see how the British Tourist Authority is going to be able to prepare these schemes without such consultation; and we think that it is right to lay down in the Bill that, just as they have to consult with the three Country Boards, so they should have to consult with the national organisations, as well as with the country organisations concerned, if it comes to that, if they are separate from the national organisations. I think the Amendment makes sense, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept it. I beg to move.
Lord BROWN: This is a rather more serious matter. Again I will speak shortly. This Amendment imposes on the Authority a requirement to consult, and they would have to consult an extraordinarily wide range of bodies since there would be an obligation to consult any and every organisation with knowledge or an interest in anything affecting the Authority's proposals, regardless of whether particular organisations in fact wished to be consulted on this particular matter. It is the word "knowledge"—
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I intervene, just to ask the noble Lord whether that would be so in every case? He is saying that in this particular case the British Tourist Authority would have to consult everybody who is interested in

895
any of the matters affecting the discharge of their functions. That cannot be the meaning. That cannot be the meaning of subsection (4). It must mean that in each case the Authority would consult on a particular issue with those interested in that particular issue.
Lord BROWN: If you talk about the Tourist Boards you have to read Clause 2 (4). That does not lay an obligation, but by the terms in which this proposal comes forward there would be an obligation. It is a rather serious matter to put the Tourist Authority in a situation where they would have to choose among the organisations. They could not see them all, and it would then be open to one which they had not consulted to claim that the authority was ultra vires. I am warning the noble Lord that this could be serious. Clause 2 (4) is a permissive power, but this Amendment imposes an obligation, and I suggest that it is rather a serious thing for the British Tourist Authority, when it comes into existence, to be saddled with this obligation. I think it will cause them a great deal of bother. The wise thing is to leave the clause as it stands and leave the Authority to decide with whom to consult. I think we can trust it to do that.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I begin to think that we are in Alice in Wonderland in this Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, has given way on an Amendment where one would have thought that any sensible person looking at the Bill would have known they could set up committees. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has given way on what seemed to be a much more important point, and not so obvious at all, about consultation in regard to setting up joint services, which is not by any means to be taken for granted. On this particular point it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Brown, is absolutely right. Clause 3, as amended by this Amendment, means that for any scheme provided for the giving of financial assistance, the Board have to consult all the organisations which have been mentioned in a previous subSection in a purely permissive way. I urge that this Amendment be withdrawn.
Lord MITCHISON: With great respect, so do I. These seem to me to be entirely different matters. In subsection (3) of the previous clause the obligation
896
is only to have regard to the desirability of co-operating, and so on, but here we are dealing with general schemes of assistance and there is going to be an absolute condition in regard to that. It is really a fantastic condition. It is reasonable to provide that you ought to have regard to the desirability of cooperation with organisations, and so on,
"undertaking appropriate consultation with persons and organisations, including those mentioned in the last foregoing subsection, who have knowledge of, or are interested in … "
but if you are going to make that a condition of taking action you will spend all your time consulting with organisations who may be said to have some quite slight interest in the matter. I suggest, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that he is asking for something which is practically impossible. I am sure he and his noble friends want to see this Bill through and want to make it workable, and they left it quite workable so far as Clause 2 is concerned. In my submission this would make Clause 3 quite impossible in a large number of cases.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I have listened to these arguments, and it seems to me that this Amendment has been drafted rather too widely. I hope the noble Lord, however, has taken the point of it, and in deference to the arguments that have been put I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Execution of particular tourist projects]:
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 9, after ("except") insert—
("(a) after consultation with the company in which the shares or stock are held, and
(b)")
The noble Lord said: This is a matter that we discussed on the Committee stage, and the Amendment we then put down was thought to call on the Government actually to pass legislation which in fact was illegal. I appreciate that point. Subsection (2) says:
"Financial assistance under subsection (1) (a) of this section may be given by way of grant or loan or, if the project is being or is to be carried out by a company incorporated in

897
Great Britain, by subscribing for or otherwise acquiring shares or stock in the company, or by any combination of those methods."
Subsection (4), which this Amendment seeks to amend, says:
"A Tourist Board shall not dispose of any shares or stock acquired by it by virtue of this section except with the approval of the relevant Minister and the Treasury."
The point, which I am sure the noble Lord thoroughly appreciates, is that if for example a Tourist Board had taken shares in a company which amounted to, say, 25 per cent. of the equity, and was then proposing to dispose of them, it might be giving effective control of the company to the people to whom it disposed of the shares. After all, it does not follow that the shares would be sold on the open market; they might easily be disposed of in a block.
I thought of putting down an Amendment in more complicated terms, to say that if there were equity shares involved a special resolution of the company should be obtained, and that in any other case the approval of the company as well as of the Treasury should be required. But it seems to me that the least one can ask here is that there should be reasonable consultation with the company, to make certain that the Tourist Board is not going to embarrass the company by the way in which it disposes of the shares. One hopes that this would be the intention of the Government, in any case, but intentions do not always work out properly. I appreciate that in some cases there is a need for secrecy. On the other hand, it seems to me only fair that, as the money has been provided in consultation, there should also be consultation when the Government get their money back through the Tourist Board's disposing of the stock or shares.
I hope that, even if the noble Lord is not able to accept these words, he will be able to give us an assurance on this matter, because it could be of very serious concern to a company. It would be very odd if the Government had set out to help a company and then by the way in which they liquidated that help, were to do grave harm to that company. I beg to move.
Lord BROWN: I think I can positively assure the noble Lord that the Government have a say in this matter, and that they will insist that if a Tourist Board owns shares in a company it should
898
discuss the disposal of those shares with the company before doing so, because that is obviously a sensible thing to do, even from a pecuniary point of view. With some little experience of business myself, I should never think of disposing of a packet of shares in a company without first going to the board of that company, because it might very well mean that one did a deal which was marginally above the market price. They might be prepared to agree to that in order to ensure that the shares were placed in hands which were friendly to the management of the company. I have absolutely no doubt that a Tourist Board will behave in this way, and if that assurance is satisfactory I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I think the assurance is very satisfactory, so far as it goes; but is there any reason why the Amendment should not be made?
Lord BROWN: I think that this is a very marginal matter and, in view of the fact that it has received further support from the Liberal Benches, I will say that we accept it. The only reason I had against putting it in is that it puts the Government in quite a different position from the ordinary equity holder in such a company, and puts an obligation on the agent of the Government to consult, which is not normal in the case of share-holders. However, it is a marginal point and I think it would be a good thing to insert it, so I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Grants for provision of new hotels]:
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 31, leave out ("hotel") and insert ("project")
The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which also follows a point raised during the Committee stage, when we on this side expressed doubt about

899
the phrase, "after the completion of the hotel". We are talking about the time when the person who has incurred eligible expenditure shall be entitled to receive a grant—and he is entitled to receive it "after the completion of the hotel". We expressed doubt about whether the phrase was sufficiently clear because we felt that an hotel might be built in several stages, and that the first stage might be sufficient to qualify for a grant. It is the first stage which is "the project" that we are talking about. Admittedly, of course, there has to be an hotel in being before grant is payable because of the way in which Clause 7 is drafted, and that is quite right. But the phrase "the hotel" suggests that the hotel must be in its final form before grant is payable.
This is not a point we have thought up: it is a point which has been put to us. The people who have put up an hotel which would have qualified for grant want to make certain that they will get the grant even although there are further stages before the hotel is finally completed. So we suggest that it should be sufficient to have completed "the project", and to avoid any confusion we should prefer to see the word "project" substituted for the word "hotel". I beg to move.
Lord CROWTHER: Before the noble Lord replies, may I ask a question which I hope he will deal with in the course of his remarks. Objections were raised to another word in this clause, which at present refers to an entitlement "after the completion of the hotel". The point was made in Committee that the word "after", also, is rather vague, and the suggestion was made that it should be replaced by the word "on". The noble Lord, Lord Brown, undertook to look at this point as well as the other one. From the fact that there is no Amendment down in his name I deduce that his looking at it again has not led him to think that any alteration is necessary, and he must therefore think that the word "after" in this context bears the same meaning as the word "on".
For the benefit of noble Lords who did not hear the discussion on Committee, I would point out that this is not just a matter of idle semantics; there is a point of real substance here. It is
900
now 14 months since the White Paper was issued encouraging the hotel trade to undertake expenditure in the expectation of grant. Indeed, any company or person who builds an hotel in expectation of grant has to bear the heavy expenses of financing it until it is complete because—and I do not dispute this—grant is not payable until that time. The point at issue is that any such person may be very anxious indeed to borrow on the expectation of his entitlement, and for an entitlement to be a security that can be borrowed upon it must be precise. I shall be content if in reply the noble Lord would say with sufficient definiteness, and we have it recorded in Hansard so that we can wave it in the eyes of recalcitrant or dilatory Boards, that the intention here is that grant shall be paid as soon as may be on the completion of the project or hotel.
Lord MITCHISON: I am sorry to intervene again, but I really do not understand this Amendment. I am not sure what "the project" is meant to be. There is an hotel mentioned at the beginning of the subsection, but "the project" descends out of the blue. What is "the project"? Is it a half-baked hotel, or is it an hotel plus something else? I really do not understand. I am only speaking as a lawyer; a sort of draftsman, I suppose. When we come to the rest of the clause, it seems to me perfectly clear that if the authorities are satisfied that the hotel would comply with certain conditions, they can give a grant before the hotel is open, because the alternative is quite clearly stated in the text of the subsection. I am really not trying to get in the way, and I am not trying to be obstreperous over something which I think we all want to see put through—at least, that is what I gathered from Lord Drumalbyn's attitude. I would say that I regard this particular Amendment as thoroughly unsatisfactory, and likely to lead to a lot of trouble that is not intended; and if I may be allowed to say so, I rather hope that my noble friend will not accept it.
Lord BROWN: I wonder whether I could deal first with the point raised by Lord Crowther. The provisions of Clauses 7, 8 and 9 are not directed to the actual time when a person is to receive a grant but rather to the circumstances which give rise to his entitlement

901
to grant. After completion of the new hotel (or extension, as the case may be) there will be entitlement to a grant; and an applicant will be paid as soon as the administrative processes of checking the application and verifying the expenditure will allow. There is no question of thinking that "after completion" may mean any time up to the end of the century. The provisions in these clauses are not dealing with the actual time of payment but with the point of time from which the entitlement will exist. As there will be an entitlement as a matter of law, people will be able to compel payment of the money if there is any unreasonable delay on the part of the Boards in paying. This means, in effect, that immediately after completion—and what we mean by completion is what is set out in the Bill—the entitlement immediately arises. Delay that is unreasonable thereafter can be made a matter for the courts. He has a legal entitlement to it immediately if the conditions are met. I hope that that statement will meet the noble Lords' desires for reassurance for hoteliers.
Lord CROWTHER: I am entirely content. I propose to have the noble Lord's words framed.
Lord BROWN: I return to the Amendment. I do not wish to be derogatory to Lord Drumalbyn's drafting power, because I have good reason to know that it has been very potent, if I may use that word, in the past. But this Amendment with respect, would have no practical effect whatever. My noble friend Lord Mitchison is right. To say that this entitlement arises after completion of the project only raises the question of what is the project. To this, the answer could only be that it is the new hotel, which is what subsection (1) already says.
I think the noble Lord is worrying unnecessarily about what is meant by "the completion of the hotel". Obviously, in the context of this Part of the Bill the words relate to the completion of the hotel for which grant is sought, which may be the first part of what will later be a bigger hotel. I appreciate, of course, that an hotelier may have plans to extend a new hotel at a later stage. Let us suppose, for example, that a developer plans to build an hotel in two phases, the first containing 50 bedrooms
902
and the second containing another 25 bedrooms. He can apply for a grant on completion of phase 1 on the basis of a 50-bedroom hotel. Provided that the establishment is opened as an hotel and complies with the requirements of subsection (2) of Clause 7, he would get his grant. Phase 2 would then constitute an extension to this 50-bedroom hotel, which may or may not attract grant, depending upon whether it is carried out during the qualifying period of he incentives scheme, as defined in Clause 15. So if by "project" the noble Lord means a half-completed hotel, something which is not usable as such, then grant could not be given because the criteria for grant would not have been met. Grants are a shot in the arm to get more hotel bedrooms quickly, and "project" would serve a useful term in the Bill only if it were construed to mean hotel. With this explanation, and I hope assurance, that part-hotels, if they are in fact operable as hotels, will rank for grant, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am obliged to the noble Lord. I am bound to say that I cannot think of anyone who would have as a project to half-build an hotel. I think the purpose of putting down this Amendment has been served; because the noble Lord has kindly explained both to Lord Crowther and to myself the points which were worrying us. I would say that I used the word "project" because the noble Lord, Lord Brown, himself used the word at Committee stage and I thought it would do. As apparently it will not, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.30 p.m.
Lord BROWN Lord BROWN moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 6, line 41, after ("provided') insert ("at reasonable times").
The noble Lord said: With permission, I should like, in discussing Amendment No. 9, to refer to another Government Amendment to subsection (2); namely, Amendment No. 13. The requirements in subsection (2) of Clause 7 amount to a definition of the kind of hotel which is to be eligible for assistance under Part II of the Bill. These requirements are to apply in the case of grants for

903
a new hotel under Clause 7 and for extensions and improvements to existing hotels under Clauses 8 and 9; and also for consideration for loan assistance under Clause 13. I should say, in passing, that it is not material whether the establishment is actually called an hotel; what is essential is that it should satisfy these requirements. If it does, it is immaterial whether it is called an hotel, a motel, a guest house or something else.
The requirement in paragraph (b) is
"that breakfast and an evening meal are provided on the premises for persons staying at the hotel."
The hotel "must" have facilities—not "may" have—and the equipment for this purpose on the premises which may embrace more than one building. The requirement is intended to exclude from eligibility establishments which provide only bed and breakfast or some catering facility or merely make arrangements for guests to eat at a nearby cafe which is not part of the hotel premises. It is the hotelier who is to provide the meals on the premises even if he employs the services of a contractor in this connection. By limiting assistance to hotels which provide such meal facilities no criticism is intended of other kinds of tourist accommodation.
Concern was expressed in Committee that the requirement in paragraph (b) might mean that hoteliers were required to serve breakfast and an evening meal at unreasonable hours. My assurances that no such construction could be put on paragraph (b) did not convince the Committee, and I was persuaded to agree to the words which now appear at the end of subsection (2) in lines 9 to 11 on page 7. Having given further thought to the subject we consider that the concern about the provision of meals being required only at reasonable hours could best be allayed by adding such words to paragraph (b) as are proposed in Amendment No. 9. As a consequence, Amendment No. 13 proposes the deletion of lines 9 to 11 on page 7. They will no longer be necessary in relation to the question of reasonable times (which I think was the noble Lord's major point; in fact possibly the only point he made in Committee) and they have other defects which I did not fully cover in Committee.
The words
"and for the purposes of this and the next following section"
would imply some difference in the application of the requirements in paragraph (b) as between the grants as announced in Clauses 7 and 8, on the one hand, and grants under Clause 9 or loans under Clause 13, on the other. The words "on request" in line 11, on page 7, could also imply that meals need be provided only if they are ordered before booking accommodation at the hotel. I can assure noble Lords that if Amendments 9 and 13 are made, there will be no doubt that paragraph (b) in subsection (2) will simply mean that the Tourist Boards will have to be satisfied that breakfast and evening meals will be provided somewhere on the premises at reasonable hours for those guests who wish to have them. I emphasise "for those guests who wish to have such meals", because I am assured that there is no possibility of the requirement being construed to suggest that such meals have to be provided for all guests staying at the hotel, whether or not they wish to have them.
I am afraid that I have had to read a long note on this Amendment because it is a little complex. What I am saying is that I accepted an Amendment originally to incorporate the phrase "at reasonable hours", and in accepting it I inadvertently left out the idea of having meals on the premises. I also accepted an Amendment which, if it is reasonable for this clause, should also apply to others. My Amendments now put right the deviations which I did not see in the Amendment I accepted in Committee. I hope that noble Lords will accept this Amendment because it fully meets their original point.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has said, covers the main point. We were hoping that the definition of "provided" would go a little further than this and enable provision to be made by someone else though under the same roof. I am not sure whether or not this is still so.
Lord BROWN: If the hotelier gives a concession to somebody else to provide meals in his dining room, that would be all right. It is not a question of sending

905
guests to a restaurant across the way or ordering meals cooked across the way. He is allowed to farm out his catering as a concession, but the meals have to be done in his own premises.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I think this is a reasonable interpretation of the word "provided" and we raise no objection to this. The noble Lord has been generous with our mistakes and we will be generous with his.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Lord BROWN Lord BROWN moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 7, line 1. after ("establishment") insert ("(but including in every case the cleaning of rooms and making of beds)").
The noble Lord said: I wonder whether I need speak to this Amendment. I think this is a nice compromise between the arguments we had on Committee. The noble Lord succeeded in getting an Amendment inserted referring to the provision of "appropriate" services. We had some misgivings about this, because it left out such things as the cleaning of rooms and the making of beds, which is something to fasten on to when seeking for criteria for hotels. This Amendment incorporates the cleaning of rooms and making of beds and leaves undisturbed the magic word "appropriate", which the noble Lord was keen to see inserted in the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord and his colleagues will see fit to accept this Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: If I had an hotel room for one night, I would not mind very much if the bed was not made, but I would not stay a third night, if it was not made after the first night. Obviously, this is common sense and this is what we meant in Committee, although the words were allowed to fall out. I agree with the Amendment.
Lord CROWTHER: May I briefly say, from the point of view of the industry, that Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 13, taken together, would put the Bill in a much more satisfactory state, by the combined efforts of the Government and the Opposition, than it was to begin with.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.37 p.m.
Lord BROWN Lord BROWN moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 7, line 3, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: In devising the Hotel Development Incentives scheme in Part II of this Bill, we had to settle requirements for the type of establishment to qualify for assistance. This we have done in Clause 7 (2), which governs the minimum size of hotel in relation to the number of letting bedrooms and, thinking of overnight and short term visitors—particularly overseas visitors—we are requiring hotels to provide breakfast and evening meals on the premises, to provide lounge space, and hotel services such as the cleaning of rooms and the making of beds. We have seen no grounds for subsidising investment in bed and breakfast establishments or selfcatering accommodation, useful though such accommodation obviously is for tourist traffic.
We sympathise fully with the view that improved standards of facilities, particularly as regards bathrooms and lavatories, are very desirable. But we have stopped short of prescribing qualitiative standards calling for so many of this or that kind of facility. Instead, we strike a ratio of bathrooms to bedrooms, which is quantitative. The incentives scheme was devised for a range of hotels from the very modest one to the more luxurious. If we had tried to work out qualitative standards over such a wide field, we would probably still be working on the subject.
There is every incentive for those providing new hotels or extending existing hotels to attract grants under Clauses 7 and 8, to provide adequate bathroom and lavatory facilities, and other amenities, because the eligible capital expenditure to which grant is related can normally include all constructional expenditure and expenditure on the purchase and installation of all kinds of fixed equipment.
Even where no additional bedroom accommodation is provided, it is possible for an existing hotel to obtain a grant under Clause 9 for the purchase and installation of fixed baths, showers, bidets, wash-hand basins and fixed lavatory equipment. We have not in these oases been able to accept extra grant expenditure on building rooms to house such equipment but the provisions of Clause 9 will be of help to those existing hotels, who cannot extend their premises, in modernising their bathroom and lavatory

907
facilities and providing better washing facilities in their bedrooms.
But the requirement in paragraph (e) could operate harshly, and not only for hotels which have gone ahead with projects on the strength of the White Paper and the Bill as originally published last February. It could also operate harshly on those existing hotels which cannot readily be altered to meet the arbitrary standard in paragraph (e), because it requires the application of this standard not only to additional letting bedrooms, but also to those already in existence.
There are many ways in which adequate bathroom and lavatory facilities can be provided, depending on the standard of service and the amount of expenditure which the hotelier intends to provide. At the minimum, one would like to think that every new letting bedroom had at least a hand basin with hot and cold water. Going further, it is quite possible in existing accommodation frequently to provide a shower and—for the benefit of overseas visitors particularly—a bidet, even though it is not practicable to provide a completely separate bathroom. When it comes to the number of public bathrooms, this depends not simply on how many bedrooms are provided with completely private bathrooms, but how extensive the facilities are in the bedroom itself.
So on all counts I am sure that we should delete paragraph (e) from subsection (2), and leave judgments on the scale and quality of investment to hoteliers and developers. If in some cases an hotel's bathroom and lavatory facilities are not fully comparable with this standard, it can nevertheless provide reasonable comfort and efficient service to attract those whose requirements are modest or with limited purses.
I could give some examples to support what I have said, but I think I have said enough. Quite apart from the arguments of those who committed themselves under the terms of the White Paper, and who would be, so to speak, disenfranchised from grant by this Amendment, to add this criteria at this stage I think would be bad, because it involves quality standards which we have avoided like the plague throughout the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord INGLEWOOD: It is very disappointing to hear the noble Lord suggest that the one reference to a bathroom, except a reference in Schedule 3, should now be deleted from the Bill. He spoke a minute or two ago about this Bill being a "shot in the arm" to get more hotels quickly, and he spoke about accommodation for overseas visitors. I would submit respectfully that what overseas visitors find in this country is not only a shortage of hotel bedrooms, but also quality of a standard below that which they seek.
This Bill, apart from its many good points, has two considerable defects. The first is that in its zeal to encourage the building of new bedrooms it has entirely forgotten, or omitted to do anything to take advantage of, the opportunity to raise the standard, albeit in a very modest way, of the hotels of this country. It would be very pertinent in many cases to have some bait in this direction, or for some attention to have been paid to this.
The noble Lord referred to putting people under disadvantage, and he referred to the White Paper. Incidentally, I am glad that the White Paper has not been mentioned as often in this Committee stage as it was before. When I drafted this paragraph (e), I tried to ensure that it should not impose any burden on any reasonable hotelier, and that if it did exert any pressure on anyone it would be on the proprietor of an hotel which in the opinion of us all fell far below the standard that we should expect.
During our debate on the previous stage the noble Lord pointed to a defect in the drafting. He will see from Amendment No. 12 that I have tried to remedy this. I cannot see why he makes such a heavy burden of what I should have thought was a most useful addition to the Bill. It places no serious burden on any reasonable hotelier, but it gives an indication of the necessity of raising quality in this sphere of our hotel industry where it is most needed.
9.45 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: This has been a very useful Amendment that we have put into the Bill on the Select Committee stage. The object of the Bill is to define those kinds of hotels which should receive these grants, and it seems to me that this is worth while.

909
As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said, we dealt in the Committee with this question of the understanding which people have been acting on as a result of the White Paper. I should like to say, perhaps even more forcibly than the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that I do not think noble Lords should pay too much attention to this particular argument. I am very much in favour of the Government's announcing their intentions in White Papers and consulting the public on Green Papers. I have also great sympathy with the Government, because they want to get ahead with something rather quickly. But the Government must remember that it is Parliament itself which must make the decisions, and that it is not for the Government to come and tell us that we cannot make alterations at this stage merely because they have published a White Paper. That is cutting too many corners.
There is one disadvantage to this situation as it stands—at least I think so—and that is where an hotel proposes to remedy an existing defect, and put in enough bathrooms to make up the original ratio. But that is something which possibly the Government can amend at a later stage. I hope that this Amendment will be defeated and that we shall leave paragraph (e) in the Bill.
Lord MITCHISON: My Lords, I rise on only two points. The first one is that there is another mention of bathrooms, and many other things, in Schedule 3 to the Bill. They are fixed equipment for grants eligible under Clause 9. I only wish it applied here in this House, because there are quite a lot of things that are mentioned in that Schedule which would be rather useful in this place, including more air conditioning and so on.
The second matter that really worries me (and I know I was not on the Committee), from the point of view of one of the people who may have to work under the Bill, is the "Alice-in-Wonder-land" arithmetic of the Amendment. I just cannot follow it. I know that one can be very stupid over this—and I really mean "stupid". But, if on page 7, at the end of line 6, we insert the words on the Order Paper, then how will it read? It will read that there should be one water closet, for instance, "for every five bed-rooms", and "for any less number of
910
such bedrooms above a multiple of five". What exactly is intended? Does it mean you can do it for every five bedrooms, or for every 11 bedrooms, because that would be above a multiple of five, but not for every seven bedrooms? Is the noble Lord thinking strictly in terms of a multiple not necessarily by a whole number? If he is thinking that he ought to make it rather clearer. All I can say is it sounds a bit "Alice in Wonderland" to me. I am sure the noble Lord wants his bathrooms to be installed and also the Bill to read sensibly. It does not read sensibly if this Amendment is inserted.
Lord BROWN: I have to attempt to make the Committee agree that this Amendment should not be passed. It is really very important indeed. May I deal first with the White Paper argument? I know this question of the quoting of the existence of a White Paper—
Lord DRUMALBYN: May we get the Record right? This is an Amendment of the noble Lord. Is he suggesting it should not be passed?
Lord BROWN: I am sorry; I was looking at the wrong document. I am trying to argue that this Amendment should be passed. May I deal with the argument? Every Government are in a desperately difficult position over certain types of things which attract grant. If consultation does not take place with bodies, the likelihood is that the Government produce a very bad Bill, and rightly are criticised for it very heavily in the House. In any case, if the time between publishing the Bill and its passing is lengthy, then if there is a possibility of grant being paid subsequent to the passing of the Bill there is an interregnum during which people will not carry on with their business as is customary and will wait for the Bill to be passed to obtain the financial assistance.
If, on the other hand, one consults, it becomes known, and one may as well publish a White Paper to let everybody know formally what the position is. In that case, from the date the White Paper is published to the date the Bill becomes an Act, if you do not indicate that you are prepared to pay people for the buildings, or whatever it may be, on which they have spent money, then in fact you produce a stalemate with the industry

911
that is producing this particular sort of building—it grinds to a halt. It is no good saying that we should not put the White Paper to you in this House. These are the facts. We are unable—and no Government are able to escape this—to act in matters of this kind without bringing into the Bill clauses which make payment restrospective to a date before the Act comes into force.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: I weep for the Government. I deeply sympathise with the noble Lord, but I still maintain that, in spite of the terrible difficulties the Government find themselves in, it is for Parliament to make these decisions, and you cannot go ahead with this proposal.
Lord BROWN: I quite agree; I am not saying that Parliament should not make its own decisions. I am just trying to prevent Parliament from making an ass of itself; that is all.
May I now turn to one of my examples to demonstrate just how stupid it can be if it goes ahead and denies me this Amendment. Let us take this example: an existing hotel with forty bedrooms, all with hot and cold water in them, but only five public bathrooms and five lavatories. That is not an extreme example and there may well be a number of hotels in just this situation which have gone ahead in the light of the White Paper and the expectation of this Bill's being passed.
Lord INGLEWOOD: Would the noble Lord allow me?
Lord BROWN: It would be kind if the noble Lord would let me finish. It is rather difficult.
Lord INGLEWOOD: I am sorry.
Lord BROWN: To get an extension grant under Clause 8 for five additional bedrooms added to the forty I have named, the hotelier would have to provide at least four more bathrooms and four more lavatories in an extension for five more bedrooms. But he may not have done it. Why should he? He did not know of paragraph (e) in the Bill. It was not there. There was No intention of having it in the original Bill. It was tee stage this provision was added to the Bill, this hotelier is going to lose the not published. So, because at Commit-
912
grant which was the basis of his going ahead to extend his hotel. He is going to think it extremely unjust. He is not going to be very happy about Parliament, which has put him in this position.
If he put a private bathroom and a lavatory with each of the new bedrooms, he would still have to provide three more public bathrooms and three more lavatories to serve his existing accommodation. So if he put five more bathrooms and lavatories in with those five new bedrooms, he would still have to go on to provide three more separate public bathrooms and three more lavatories to meet the terms of the paragraph I now wish to have deleted.
I am pleading with your Lordships not to put those who have gone ahead in that position. It would be very serious indeed. We are not arguing about the advisability of putting more emphasis on the provision of bathrooms and lavatories. I agree entirely with the noble Lord. But we did not set out in this Bill to stimulate that in particular; although, as I have pointed out, any hotelier who builds an additional five bedrooms or more, and chooses to build five bathrooms along with them, will get grant for those bathrooms. It cannot be said that we have not given some encouragement in this direction if we are prepared to pay grant on the bathrooms. But, for the reasons I have given, we do not wish at this stage to make it a requirement of this Bill. I beg noble Lords not to reject the Amendment I am moving.
Lord CROWTHER: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Brown. I freely confess that in the previous Committee I was one of those who assisted the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, to insert in the Bill the words that the Government are now attempting to remove, but on further consideration I have come to the view that the Government are quite right, for two reasons: first, that in the rather intricate matter of business, if you put the various clauses together I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Brown, is entirely right in saying that it could lead to some highly anomalous situations if these words were inserted. But there is a further consideration of a kind which I hope will appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. Either the paragraph which he wrote into

913
the Bill, requiring a certain bathroom provision, has some effect or it has not. The only way in which it can have effect would be by removing from the ambit of grant an hotel which would otherwise get one. If it does not do that the words are meaningless and have no point at all.
Who would these people be who would be likely to be removed from the ambit of the grant if these words stand part of the Bill? They would certainly not be any of the large public companies on behalf of which the noble Lord sometimes accuses me of speaking. None of them would dream of providing bedrooms, in this Year of Grace, without a private bathroom for each one. The only people who would be cut out of grant—if there are any at all—if these words stand part of the Bill would be one or two small operators up and down the country who happen to have gone ahead with a project which would now just fall outside the ambit of grant and which would otherwise have been within that ambit. The only effect of leaving these words in, if they have any effect at all, would be to deprive one or two small operators of grant that they would otherwise have expected to receive. I support the noble Lord, Lord Brown, in his suggestion that the Bill would be better without these words in it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: The way the argument has gone I think there is no doubt that we have to allow the noble Lord his way in this, but I must say that we do so without much sympathy for the Government. I say that for two reasons. In the first place, if they had wanted to they could have mitigated the difficulty very greatly by amending Clause 8, so that the number of new bathrooms to be added would be related to the number of bedrooms to be added for an extension, and not to the total amount. They could have done that quite easily. The second thing—I know there has been only a short time but again this is not the fault of the Opposition, it is the fault of the Government—that is surely now an object lesson to the Government not to make these announcements of intentions in Parliament until they have the room for them in the legislative programme.
I believe that the Government intended to introduce this Bill last Session and they were not able to do so. Nothing
914
else makes sense. If they had done that. the plans would not have been far enough advanced for there to be any real difficulty such as the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, has referred to—and I agree with him that there would be hardship for some people if the Bill were to stay as it now is. But if the Bill had been introduced soon after the announcement was made in Parliament, at the same time as the White Paper, and carried through, it would have made sense. But, somehow or other, the Government keep getting into these administrative difficulties. In particular they keep getting their Parliamentary programme muddled up, and the result is that we simply cannot get sense cut of these things.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that Parliament has every right to change these things if it thinks fit, but we are bound to take into account—I would not say this to my noble friend because I am sure we all agree that the Government ought to have provided some qualitative test so far as bathrooms are concerned and this is a different kind of qualitative test from others—that if Parliament were to do this now it would cause hardship. Parliament is bound to take that into account at the present time. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, that we very much deplore this way of proceeding, and the Government must bear in mind that Parliament has every right to change these things if it thinks fit. The Government must not always expect that if they announce something in March of one year they can get their legislation through easily, without criticism, by July of the following year. It just will not do.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Champion): In the Division on the Housing Bill the number of Contents was announced as 53; this should have been 52. I gather that the decision is not altered by that announcement.
I cannot now call Amendment No. 12 to the Bill that we are now discussing. Amendment No. 11 having been agreed to.
Lord BROWN: I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, leave out lines 9 to 11.—(Lord Brown).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Grants for extension or alteration of existing hotels]:
Lord INGLEWOOD Lord INGLEWOOD moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 7, line 24, leave out ("five") and insert ("four")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 14. In my view, the second great shortcoming of this Bill is the line of demarcation which the Government have chosen between those who qualify for grant for work which they may do by way of additions to hotels and those who are excluded. I entirely see that some such line of demarcation must be drawn, and that there would be endless difficulty were it possible for every bed-and-breakfast establishment to claim to be a small guest house. It would clearly be difficult to know whether the work they were doing genuinely came within the work we all have in mind.
Nevertheless, the line the noble Lord has chosen, the minimum of five bed-rooms, means that the vast majority of small hotels in this country are bound to be excluded from any help at all, while there is no limit for those who wish to invest £1 million or more in a hotel drawing the 20 per cent., provided they satisfy the conditions. I must not say any more about bathrooms. I hope that the noble Lord will not come back and say I am here opening the door to all sorts of small miscellaneous establishments, because I am entirely at one with him here, and I will not make use of the dirty word he used in the Committee. All I am asking is that he should consider bringing the boundary line down from five to four.
I do not know whether all noble Lords will have worked out what this means. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, does not think anything I have said about larger companies is critical because they are naturally leaders when it comes to standards; but small hotels as well as large establishments now try to include private bathrooms where they can. To build on five bedrooms and five bathrooms, and
916
some water closet accommodation (though the noble Lord in a previous debate seemed to think that if 20 were double bedrooms, five water closets would be sufficient for 60 people) is surely going to run the proprietor into something like £20, 000—and it could be more. I should have thought a scheme like this ought to endeavour, especially with no limit at the top, to have at least the floor level brought down to include as many genuine hotels as it could.
I suggested in Committee a minimum of four instead of five extra bedrooms. Better still would have been three, plus two bathrooms, but I have not tried to repeat that on this occasion because I think there could be arguments against it. But I feel that the arguments in favour of four are sound, and I hope that the noble Lord may be favourably disposed towards this. I hope, too, that he will see how careful I have been on this occasion not to do anything which conflicts with, or puts any extra burden on, anyone who has been carrying out work in accordance with the provisions of the White Paper. The White Paper argument just does not come into the question. It is a common-sense argument and it is fair. I beg to move.
10.5 p.m.
Lord BROWN: I admire the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for the fight he has put up in the Committee and now in support of some of the things that I think are dear to us all. Let us have more bathrooms, certainly. Everybody is emotionally completely with him, and I think objectively, in regard to the small hotel. We all like these beautiful old inns of England, and perhaps of Scotland and Wales, too. We want to give them a better share. But the fact is that we want to provide more capacity for tourists. That is the object of the Bill. We should have preferred a higher minimum figure than exists in the Bill now. Certainly it would have been more objective. We dropped it to the present level because of certain sympathy for the smaller hotel and the comments that were made during consultation that we ought to let the small man in.
Now the noble Lord is wanting to drop it still further, and I have some sympathy with him. But if we do so, there is no question but that it will

917
increase the total cost of the scheme. I do not have an estimate of how much the increase would be, but it would be a very chancy estimate if one were to make it. But we are on a marginal point here, and it would need a considerable sum indeed. We are therefore most afraid of this Amendment on the financial prospects of greater expenditure. I am sorry in that I should like to have agreed with this, but when finance comes in at a time like this, when we are trying to conserve public expenditure, I am most concerned and I am afraid that I have to resist this Amendment, much as it emotionally appeals to me.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I have not a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord on his point about public expenditure, because so much of the argument that we have heard is that plans would have had to be made already before anything was likely to qualify for grant, because of the time factor. Of course what the noble Lord has said is true, in that one thinks of a number and then the Government have generally to stick to that number.
I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend in thinking that it would have been better to have dropped the limit a little. After all, he is quite familiar with the phrase:
"Mony a mickle mak's a muckle"
and the lower you drop it the more you will get. That is the whole object of the exercise, to get more; and the noble Lord has told us time and again that the whole object of the exercise is to get more accommodation for the tourist. I think he put up the opposite argument on a previous occasion, saying that if you put the limit too low you were not going to attract so many tourists by a small number of bedrooms, as you would if you raised the minimum qualifying number to a higher number.
Lord BROWN: I wonder whether the noble Lord would give way for a moment, because I want to make quite clear my own position. We want more bedrooms for tourists, but we want especially more of the medium and large sized hotels. That is where the shortage lies in the provision of accommodation for tourists. There is a grave shortage there. There is not so great a shortage,
918
if indeed one at all, in the very small hotels. So we have to give a priority there in regard to the somewhat larger establishments.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I appreciate the Government's point of view, which is diametrically opposed to that of my noble friend. This is the head-on crash. If you fix a low level you are going to get all the accommodation that will be provided proportionately anyway at the high level. The question is, how low is the level you are going to. The noble Lord says that expenditure is involved here. The Government can only make the shadowiest of estimates about what is the expenditure involved, and there is a lot to be said for what my noble friend wants.
If I could advise my noble friend, I think it would not be wise to press this Amendment in the present circumstances. My noble friend has made the point, and certainly he has put up a magnificent fight for the smaller hotels. But I doubt very much whether at this stage, because of the very short time factor, changing the number of rooms would have a big effect now. This is why I suspect the noble Lord's financial argument. I just do not think this is a runner. The real truth is that it is too late, as things have run, to make this effective.
Lord INGLEWOOD: Following what my noble friend has said, I think it is true that at this stage to-night it would be difficult for us to change this figure—not that I thought the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, were very effective. I am prepared to give him a year to run, and if then, when he can give precise figures about the cost and the progress, he does not do anything, I shall introduce a Private Member's Bill. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord CHAMPION): Before putting Amendment No. 15, I would point out that it appears that Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are competing.
Lord BROWN Lord BROWN moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 7, line 41, at end insert ("and any bathroom or bathrooms appearing to the Board to be provided in association with the bedrooms").
The noble Lord said: Subsection (3) of Clause 8 provides the Tourist Boards with a necessary discretionary power as a precaution against abuse of the provisions of Clause 8. Under this clause, an extension to an existing hotel must involve the provision of at least 5 additional bedrooms in order to attract grant. Such an extension may be provided in new buildings, by the alteration of existing premises or by a mixture of new building and alteration. In the generality of cases, expenditure eligible for Clause 8 grants will include all expenditure which the Tourist Boards consider to be of a capital nature. Thus capital expenditure can cover not only constructional and fixed equipment costs of the actual bedrooms, but also expenditure on extending or improving other facilities such as bathrooms, lavatories, lounge, dining and recreation areas, and kitchens.
But, as I explained in Committee, it is necessary to guard against the provisions of Clause 8 being abused in order to obtain more grant for the mere improvement of hotel facilities than could be secured under Clause 9. A simple example would be the case of someone merely designating "staff bedrooms" as additional letting bedrooms in order to obtain grant primarily in relation to expenditure on other improvements to the premises. Subsection (3) provides the Tourist Boards with discretion to exclude expenditure not attributable to the provision of additional bedrooms in cases where they are partly provided by the alteration of existing accommodation. It
920
is a necessary power, but the Tourist Boards will obviously want to see additional bedrooms provided freely since this is the main purpose of this hotel incentive scheme. Moreover they will recognise, as we do, the importance of adequate bathroom facilities to any increase in letting bedrooms.
However the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, expressed concern in Committee lest this discretionary power might be applied too tightly as regards bathroom facilities provided in conjunction with extra letting bedrooms provided by the alteration of existing accommodation. He withdrew an Amendment on the subject on the understanding that I would consider a suitable Amendment to cover the bathroom point without detracting from the essential purpose of the discretionary power in subsection (3). This Amendment is the result, and I commend it to the Committee. It makes clear that bathrooms associated with the provision of additional bedrooms provided by the alteration of existing accommodation will rank for grant. I hope the noble Lord is satisfied that we have done something in support of his plea for better bathrooms, and I beg to move.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I must thank the noble Lord for making this Amendment, and I am sure my noble friend is very grateful for it too.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
10.15 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 9 insert the following new clause:
Appeals under Part II
Any applicant for a grant who is aggrieved at a decision of a Tourist Board in any case falling under Part II of this Act, as to

(i) whether any expenditure which he has incurred is eligible expenditure;

(ii) the amount of grant which he is entitled to receive;

(iii) the date on which any construction or installation was begun or completed;

(iv) whether or not the applicant was the occupier or lessor of the hotel in question at the relevant time; or

(v) the repayment of a grant,

may appeal to the relevant Minister within thirty days of the said decision, and the relevant Minister shall, after affording the appellant an opportunity to be heard, either confirm the decision of the Tourist Board or give a direction to the Tourist Board as to action they shall take in accordance with this Part of this Act on the case."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to give a right of appeal to the appropriate Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, explained to us during the Committee stage that all appeals would have to be to the courts. He said that there was a legal title to the entitlement, and that any failure to provide that entitlement could lead to an appeal. Admittedly, appeals to the courts are normally given when there is a point of law involved. There may occasionally be difficulty about the meaning of a Bill, and it is right to leave to the courts a decision on a point of law: but that would happen anyway. Equally, and probably much more frequently, there is likely to be a dispute about the facts. A Board may quite easily be mistaken about the facts and, having made a mistake, is unlikely to budge from its decision, since nobody likes to admit that he is wrong. So there ought to be an appeal on fact to the Minister.
Of course, I cannot be sure that I have included all the points on which an appeal might arise. The worst aspect of this terrible way of legislating, taking all stages within one week, is that we shall have no opportunity of amending except by I a manuscript Amendment at this stage.
922
But if, as is quite likely, some Amendment is needed, it can be made when the Bill goes back to the Commons. What is important is to establish the principle of administrative appeal under this Part of the Bill, rather than have all matters going to the courts. This is most unusual in legislation and we are well accustomed to the administrative appeal. I beg to move.
Lord M1TCH1SON: I was not on the Committee, but this Amendment raises a general point and I am rather surprised at its coming from the Party opposite. We are all now quite accustomed to the idea of leaving Boards of various kinds to run their own businesses, and it seems to me that that practice would be interfered with by this Amendment. In effect, it would transfer the decision from the Board to the Minister whenever the hotelier chose. We are always being told that there are too many civil servants, that the expenses of government are too great, and so on; but we put a frightful lot on Ministers and Ministries nowadays, and, in principle, it is sound practice, when one can define quite clearly what is to be done, to leave the day-to-day running to Boards, such as the Railways Board or, in this case, the Tourist Board. On the whole, we have corns to accept that nowadays. That is the main point raised by this Amendment, and I should regard it as a serious mistake if the Government accepted it.
I repeat that I am puzzled why the Tory Party should bring this Amendment forward, since it seems contrary to their usual line of practice. To take a decision away from the Tourist Board and to give a right of appeal to the relevant Minister at the choice of the hotelier is tending to increase public expenditure, tending to increase the number of civil servants and tending to increase the minor duties of the Ministry. It is something which ought to be done only for some very cogent reason, but I cannot see what the reason is. Perhaps I ought to lave attended the proceedings of the Committee. I should then have learned, and I would accept a rebuke that it is my fault if I did not go and listen. But, off-hand, I cannot see what can be the reason for this Amendment. I should have thought everybody wanted these Tourist Boards to be effective, powerful, competent bodies, and, once they are accepted as

923
such, the reason for transferring decisions at the instance of the hotelier certainly tends to disappear. I therefore hope that my noble friend is not going to accept this Amendment.
Lord CROWTHER: May I perhaps enlighten the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison? I will not attempt to follow him into the doctrinal questions as between the Government Party and the Opposition Party, which do not concern me; but there are some very practical considerations which bear upon this issue and which it appears are not apparent to him. The Bill as now drafted allows the Tourist Boards, in deciding whether or not to give a grant, to impose any conditions they see fit. These Boards will not be in a state to determine what their conditions are going to be until, let us say, at the very earliest, about Christmas of this year, 1969. By then fully three-quarters—perhaps more—of those projects which are going to be entitled to claim grant by virtue of having started by March 31, 1971, will already have got beyond the point of no return. The hotel owners have gone ahead on the confidence of the White Paper that was issued in May, 1968; and relying on the good faith of the Minister. The purpose of this Amendment is to make sure that it is the good faith of the Minister that governs, and not the possible whims of Boards which are not yet in existence and will not be in existence until too late.
In the course of the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Brown, gave some fairly sweeping assurances (which went quite a long way to meet the fears that I and others feel about this matter), to the effect that if any of these Boards were to set conditions on grant that could not reasonably have been expected at the time of the White Paper the Minister would issue directions to overrule them. That, as I say, goes quite a long way towards reassuring those who are uncertain about this point, but I confess I shall be much happier with the complete assurance that this Amendment gives.
Nor, I think, subject to anything the noble Lord may say in his reply, can I see that the Amendment hurts the Government position in any way, because although it goes to a great deal of trouble to say so, it is really in substance
924
saying that if the Minister does not think that his (the Minister's) word is being carried out by the Boards he will say so. I should much prefer to see it down in black and white than to rely upon even the quite far-reaching assurances that the noble Lord gave in Committee.
Lord BROWN: I know that the noble Lord, Lord Crowther, has No intention of misleading the Committee, but when he says that these Boards can make almost any condition they like about these grants, he is going too far altogether. The criteria for grant are laid down very clearly in the Bill, and the amount of discretion the Boards are able to exercise is extraordinarily small.
Lord CROWTHER: I am sorry if I misled the Committee. What I meant to say—and I apologise, although I think I quoted the Bill correctly—is that in giving grant they may make such conditions as they see fit.
Lord BROWN: The criteria for grants to hotels are laid down in the Bill. We have been talking about them all evening. I am sorry; there is some deep misunderstanding here—but may I go on?
Lord CROWTHER: If the noble Lord will forgive me, may I quote Clause 12:
"In making a grant under this Part of this Act a Tourist Board may, subject to any directions under section 18"—
that is, directions from the Minister—
"… impose such conditions as it thinks fit".
Lord BROWN: That is under that particular Part, and that provides a discretion, but we have been discussing all the way through this Bill the criteria for grant, paragraph by paragraph. They are extraordinarily numerous. I said that there is some discretion but extraordinarily little in relation to the amount of prescription contained in this Bill as to the criteria for the sort of activities on which grant may be allowed. I was merely criticising the suggestion of the noble Lord, which I think I am quoting rightly, when he said that these Tourist Boards could do almost anything they liked in this respect—or words to that effect. I just wanted to remove that impression. I know the noble Lord did not mean to give that impression. There was no deliberate intention to mislead; I am well aware of that.

925
Coming to this matter of the appeal, we have here a sharp division of opinion. I want to put the case against the Amendment quite sharply because I should be very distressed if this Amendment were accepted. First, there is a sort of touching faith in the capacity of Ministers to take up the role of judges; to interpret Acts of Parliament. As a Minister I personally do not like the idea at all. There is no provision for proper representation or witnesses, and all the rules governing the procedure of the courts. I do not think that one should attempt to push Ministers into this position.
Secondly, supposing one did allow an appeal to a Minister by people who felt they had been aggrieved. I take it it would mean depriving people under this clause of the right to sue in the courts for money to which they felt they were entitled. Alternatively, if they are not deprived of the right to sue the Tourist Board in the court for that money, presumably what is intended is that, having taken the appeal to the Minister and lost it, they might then sue the Board—or is it the Minister?—in the courts. This is all very bothering to me. We cannot accept this Amendment to-night. I do not know where we end up with this sort of mix-up. I would beg noble Lords to think again before trying to pass this Amendment to-night. It is not clear what would happen. Even if this could be cleared up, the main argument, that one is putting Ministers in the role of judges in the interpretation of an Act of Parliament, remains. I hope that this Amendment will be rejected on those grounds alone.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I thought I made it clear that we were not putting Ministers in the position of judges on questions of law. This is clear from the way in which the Amendment is drafted. The points it mentions are all questions of fact, and not questions of law at all.
Lord BROWN: The noble Lord is well aware that the courts are just as used to dealing with questions of fact as with questions of law. They are dealing with questions of fact all the time, and many questions of fact go to the courts. Indeed, very often the procedure of the courts is necessary to deal with questions of fact which need interpretations just as much as questions of law.
Lord MITCHISON: May I far one minute thank the noble Lord below the Gangway for calling my attention to Clause 18? This seems to me to give the Minister a very considerable overriding power in proper cases, and I cannot see how these two things hang together. Clause 18 will allow the Minister to give the Tourist Board directions of a general character. It says in subsection (2):
"Subject to the provisions of any scheme … the relevant Minister may with the approval of the Treasury, give to a Tourist Board directions as to …"
This clause seems to me to deal quite properly—and I should have thought, with great respect to noble Lords opposite, much more in accordance with their own principles and practices—with the relations between the Minister, the Tourist Board and the people who are going to get a grant under this Act. I cannot understand how to reconcile the two. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that I am not trying to be difficult. This is a real point and, I think, a rather important constitutional point.
Lord CROWTHER: There is no dispute that the Minister can decide as between an aggrieved applicant for the grant and the Tourist Board. The whole point of what we are arguing about is whether he will or not. What the noble Lord, Lord Brown, said seemed to me largely to underline the assurance he gave to the Committee. If I did not misunderstand him—and he spoke very clearly—he gave a flat assurance that if the Minister came to the conclusion that a Board was imposing conditions which could not visibly be foreseen, he would intervene; and all this Amendment does is to spell that out in black and white.
10.30 p.m.
Lord BROWN: I wonder whether I may clear up this point? These assurances were given with regard to practices developed by the Tourist Boards in principle or conditions imposed in general which the Government felt to be improper. That is one thing. This Amendment deals with individual appeals by individual applicants who think they have been ill-treated. That is a different matter altogether. To look at going questions of practices by the Boards, and for the Government to amend them if they see fit, is one thing; but to investigate all

927
the details under which a single applicant wants to establish his right to an individual grant means, in my view, a proper judicial hearing. To impose this on Ministers would not, in my opinion, be a good thing.
It is the ordinary course of law that in Acts such as this Bill will become, if there are points of real difficulty of interpretation some of the unfortunates may have to take a case to court, and what is the proper interpretation of the law is established by a court decision. If there are these difficulties and one or two cases have been decided, the interpretation is made clear for the others. I hope that
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Rates of grant]:
10.38 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 9, line 43, after ("and") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: This was a matter which we considered in Committee but the Government were not very sympathetic. In this Amendment we are dealing with the higher level of grants that are available in development areas. The whole of Scotland is a development area, except Edinburgh, which is the main tourist centre in Scotland. Yet from the
there will not be such a need to have an interpretation by the courts. I cannot at this stage see any point at which this would be necessary; but if it is, that is the normal way in which these matters are settled in this country. Cannot we leave it like that, instead of plunging into something which might work extraordinarily badly? Minister as I am, I can say this: I think that if these cases go to Ministers regularly, some horrible mistakes are going to be made.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 35.

CONTENTS

Auckland, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Gray. L

Beauchamp, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Inglewood. L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Crowther, L.

Lothian. M.

Belstead, L.

Denham. L. [Teller.]

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Bessborough, E.

Drumalbyn. L.

Boston, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Burton, L.

Falkland, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Falmouth, V.

St. Oswald, L.

Conesford, L.

Geddes, L.

Sandys, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gisborough, L.

Vivian, L.

NON-CONTENTS

Addison. V.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Archibald, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Segal, L.

Arwyn, L

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Serota, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hughes, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Birk, Bs.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Shepherd, L.

Bowles, L.

Maclor, L.

Sorensen, L.

Breckway, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stonham. L.

Brown, L.

Mitchison, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Champion, L.

Peddie, L.

Strabolgi. L.

Collison, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Flummer. Bs.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Energlyn, L.

Raglan, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

point of view of grant Edinburgh is to be treated differently from every other city, town and hamlet in Scotland. Under Clause 11
"… the grant payable under Section 7 or 8 of this Act in respect of any expenditure shall be of an amount equal to—

(a) twenty per cent. of that expenditure; or

(b) £1.000 for each letting bedroom.. whichever is the less;".

But in a development area, it is to be 25 per cent. or £1, 250 per letting bedroom, whichever is the less. Surely it is absurd to encourage hotels to be built just outside the Edinburgh city boundaries when they ought to be in the centre of the city. I feel that the Government must not be hidebound about this.
There is not the slightest reason why Edinburgh should be excluded from the higher rate of grant for the purpose of encouraging the building of hotels merely because it is excluded from the benefits of the Local Employment Acts. This is not a Bill to provide employment for persons living in an area; it is a Bill to provide accommodation for people coming from outside the area. Edinburgh is the nerve centre of Scotland for the tourist industry, and Edinburgh badly needs as much additional hotel accommodation as is likely to be encouraged by the higher rate of grant.
I hope that the noble Lord has had time to reflect on this, and will agree that for the purpose of this Bill the Scottish development area will include Edinburgh. I believe that this is absolutely right in these circumstances, because Edinburgh has been losing employment from the closing down of industries, apart from certain very specialised industries. But that is not the real point. The point of this Bill is to provide accommodation for tourists coming to Edinburgh, which is a totally different matter. Edinburgh, as I have said, is the centre of tourism in Scotland, and it is absurd that one small area in the whole of Scotland should be excluded from the higher benefits under the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord BROWN: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will not mind my saying that I did not do justice to the arguments on this Amendment at the Committee stage. Let me recite one or two points. First of all, there has been a rapid development in the position of Edinburgh as a major tourist centre in the last few years. I will not bore your Lordships with the figures, but the number of tourists has gone up substantially. This development will be boosted still further by the holding of the Commonwealth Games in the city in 1970, to the cost of which the Government are contributing £750, 000. There is undoubtedly a process going on to some extent in Edinburgh whereby industry is being attracted to the areas adjacent to the city, because just outside Edinburgh the development area exists. The reason why industries are being attracted is that if they move to points not far outside the centre of the city they get twice the in-
930
vestment grant; they get regional employment premium and they get relief from selective employment tax. These an: substantial effects. And there is no reason why industries should not move outside, because a factory does not necessarily need to be in one particular position to produce goods.
Now let us take the case of the hotel, which is rather different. I did not draw sufficient attention to it before. If a hotel moves into the development area, it will not get release from S.E.T.; it will not get twice the investment grant; it will not get regional employment premium. The only advantage it would get in financial terms for moving into the development area surrounding Edinburgh would be a grant of 25 per cent. instead of 20 per cent. Is it imaginable that a hotelier, who naturally wants to have his premises situated as near the centre of this city as possible, would move six, seven, eight miles outside in order to get 5 per cent. more grant? I do not think there is any possibility of his doing so. He would lose far more than that in the lower rates he could charge for tourists staying at his hotel. I do not think the financial incentive arguments work in this case. It would be a serious matter for the Government to begin nibbling the edges of quite different legislation for the purpose of this Bill. On this ground, I hope that the noble Lord will think twice about this Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I have thought about this Amendment for a very long time, and I have always come to the same conclusion. I do not think it can be said that we are in any way nibbling at the edges of the Local Employment Acts. All one is doing is to introduce a higher rate of grant for the development areas. I am not sure that there is any justification for that at all in the context of the tourist industry. What I am arguing is that if this is going to be done for the whole of Scotland, it should be done also for Edinburgh. It seems absolutely absurd to have a differential of this kind. Obviously, the Government are not going to give way on this, and: i we press the Amendment now it will merely be reversed in another place, so I do not propose to press this. I have expressed my point of view, and I shall leave it at

931
that. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 16 agreed.
10.48 p.m.
Lord BROWN Lord BROWN moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 16 insert the following clause:
Registration of tourist accommodation
"—(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for the registration by the Tourist Boards of, or of any class of, hotels and other establishments in Great Britain at which sleeping accommodation is provided by way of trade or business.
(2) An Order under this section may in particular make provision—

(a) as to the form and contents of the register or registers to be maintained under the Order and as to the establishments to be registered therein;

(b) for requiring the person carrying on an establishment which is required to be registered to furnish, at such time or times as may be specified in the Order, to the body responsible for registering it such information as may be so specified;

(c) for the charging of annual or other periodical fees for registration;

(d) for the issue and display of certificates of registration and the display of signs indicating that an establishment is registered;

(e) for the inspection of establishments and for powers of entry for that purpose;

(f) for exemptions from any of the requirements of the Order;

(g) for securing compliance with any requirement of the Order by the imposition of a penalty not exceeding a fine of £200.

(3) If provision is made by an Order under this section for the classification or grading of the establishments entered in a register, the Order shall also make provision—

(a) for requiring the criteria in accordance with which the classification or grading is carried out, so far as not prescribed by the Order, to be determined from time to time by the British Tourist Authority after consultation with the English Tourist Board, the Scottish Tourist Board, the Wales Tourist Board and such other organisations as appear to the Authority to be representative of trade and consumer interests likely to be affected;

(b) for the publication of any criteria so determined;

(c) for enabling the person carrying on an establishment registered with any Tourist Board to make representations to the Board before any classification or grade is
932
accorded to the establishment and before its classification or grade is altered or cancelled.

(4) An Order under this section may contain such supplementary and incidental provisions as appear to Her Majesty to be necessary or expedient, and may authorise the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales to make regulations as respects England. Scotland and Wales respectively for such purposes of the Order as may be specified therein: and the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 shall apply in relation to any such regulations as if they were made under powers conferred by an Act of Parliament.
(5) An Order under this section and any regulations made thereunder may make different provision for different cases and, in particular, provision may be made for an Order to come into force at different times in relation to, or to different parts of England. Scotland and Wales respectively.
(6) Any Order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament and may be revoked or varied by a subsequent Order under this section.
(7) A Tourist Board maintaining a register by virtue of an Order under this section shall have power to publish, or make available for publication, any information furnished to it by virtue of the Order and any information as to any classification or grade accorded under the Order to any establishment; and such information may be published or made available for publication cither gratuitously or for consideration."
The noble Lord said: There is, without question, a deep cleavage of opinion on the two sides of the Committee on this additional clause. It was Clause 17 in the Bill as originally drafted. I do not propose to cite all the reasons why the Government wish to see in this Bill legislation which will enable, if a decision is made after due consideration and consultation, orders to be made calling for compulsory registration of tourist accommodation. It would take a considerable amount of time at this late hour to explain all the reasons. Certainly, members of the Committee know that the Government think that enabling legislation to this effect is necessary because in the long run it would be of great assistance to the whole tourist industry. I know very well that members of the opposite Bench think differently about it. They succeeded in removing the original Clause 17 from the Bill on Committee stage. If my opposite numbers on the Conservative Bench stick to their original opinion, I would propose that without further ado we should divide on this matter and settle it, without spending any

933
more time reiterating the very long arguments which we shall have on this matter if we proceed to argue it.
Lord ERROLL of HALE: The noble Lord, Lord Brown, introduces a new and interesting principle to your Lordships' House; namely, that because we have had a chat on it in a Committee of your Lordships' House, there is no need to debate it in full on the Floor of the House. It is very important, as we have had only one previous Committee of this type in your Lordships' House—that on the Gaming Bill—that we should be careful to watch the precedents which, whether wittingly or unwittingly, we may establish. I think it is very wrong, if I may suggest it, for the noble Lord to say that there is really no point in having discussion on the Floor of the House on this very important matter because it has been debated in the Committee—where a very small number of noble Lords were able to be present, although I realise that those who were not Members of the Committee could have sat and could have spoken.
It is quite a different matter to debate this question in your Lordships' House, where of course the discussion is recorded in Hansard, which is far more widely read than the Committee Hansard, which is read by only a few people, if they are able to get hold of copies. I have had great difficulty in getting my own copies because Her Majesty's Post Office is not the establishment it used to be—but that is by the way. I think it is most important at this stage, this being only the second Bill to be considered in a Committee room (and a very hot, stuffy Moses Room it was, too, all last week), that there should be no truncating of debate in your Lordships' House on an important matter of this kind. So I do not propose to follow the noble Lord's invitation to be brief and say that all this has been debated before. Of course it has. And it is quite right that it should be debated again, because we are now on the Floor of your Lordships' House where these important matters should be debated.
It is a matter of great importance because we carried a vote against the Government, although we did not have the in-built Tory majority which has always
934
been thrown at us in every debate. Here was an impartial Committee, drawn from all parts of your Lordships' House, and on the merits of the argument the vote went against the Government of the day. So I make no apology for detaining your Lordships for a few minutes at this late hour to-night—even though I, like most noble Lords, would much rather be somewhere else—in reiterating the arguments which caused us to defeat the Government on this particular Amendment.
I will now proceed to do so, without, I hope, being too long. First of all, there are a number of very good systems of hotel registration in this country undertaken voluntarily. The Automobile Association runs a very good hotels register; the Royal Automobile Club does the same. A number of bodies run very good registers of restaurants, such as the Good Food Guide, the Egon Ronay Guide. A number of local authorities are compiling registers; in particular, the local authorities in Cornwall are compiling a register of hotel accommodation on a voluntary basis, for those wishing to go to Cornwall. There is another very good one up in the Lake District, and there are others. But the Government, in this particular clause which they wish to replace into the Bill, want to have a statutory register of all hotels in the country, for purposes which they have never indicated very clearly. They will not allow anybody to stay out of the register. It is to be a compulsory register.
We know from our observations and experience that many a good little restaurant has been ruined by being written up, and there may be a number of hotels who say, "Thank you very much; we do not want to be on the register. We are running our little show and it is going very well. We don't want to be on the great big list and find we have coach-loads of people coming to us because we are registered. We want just to run our own little business in our own little way." We are told that we in this country must have a register because other European countries do the same. But in actual fact only four Western European countries bother to have a register; and nobody ever uses the registers, as we full well know. In the case of Italy, the register weighs 5½ lb. and is 8½ in. long by 8¼ in. wide; it is

935
the sort of document no tourist travelling by air would think of putting in his brief case, even if he could carry it without having to pay excess baggage.
Advanced countries which do not have this absurd compulsory registration system include the United States of America—who are not a bad lot, really. They have not yet compiled a registration system for the moon, and I am quite sure they will not do—though if the noble Lord, Lord Brown, were there he would probably want it. Canada does not have it; Finland does not have it; Sweden does not have it; Holland does not have it. And Switzerland, probably one of the most advanced countries from the tourist point of view, which knows a lot about hotel management, does not have this system of compulsory registration. So there is no case in saying that other countries do it, therefore we must do it, too. None whatsoever.
Then we are told by the Minister that this is merely enabling legislation; that they are not actually going to do it. But, of course, when the next stage comes, that of the Order in Council, it will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, so that we shall never have a chance to debate it unless we raise a row about it: we shall be told that Parliament has already approved the concept. Enabling legislation to my mind, particularly when it is of a compulsory nature, is just as dangerous as actual legislation without the waiting period of an Order in Council.
So what we are doing tonight is to discuss whether every little hotelier in this country should be dragooned into being registered, compelled to pay a levy—of course euphemistically described in the Socialist Bill as a "fee". It is not a fee; it is a levy, and the Government might at least have the honesty to call it what it is. Then, finally, if some poor little chap says "To hell with this system!", he will be fined £200 for failing to comply. Why? Why must he be compulsorily registered and graded—that is the word used in the Bill: "graded". It is not merely a list of numbers of bedrooms, numbers of lavatories, price per room. The proposed register is going to include a grading system. Grading means "listing according to merit". It involves a qualitative assessment by a Tourist
936
Board, which if this present Government survive will of course include Aubrey Jones, the proper quota of trade unionists and all the other people who go on this sort of bandwagon, who will agree, according to their concept of luxury or non-luxury, where an hotel should stand in the list, whether the hotel wants it or not.
I repeat: Why? Because the noble Lord, Lord Brown, tells us that other countries do it. Because Italy does it; because Austria does it; because Spain does it. What is so fascinating is that although this Labour Government dislike Spain so much they should quote Spain as an example of what we ought to do. Portugal does it—and they dislike Portugal almost as much as they dislike Spain. But when it comes to a compulsory comprehensive hotel register, because the present Government want it then everything these countries do is inevitably right.
But what is the point of this compulsory register? A dream; an unnecessary dream; a wasteful, expensive, bureaucratic exercise. If there are going to be qualitative assessments, as I think there ought to be in a field of this sort (and it is rather fun that there should be), let the A.A. book say that one hotel is 4-star, and the R.A.C. that it is only 3-star. This is all part of the fun, to have a bit of differentiation. The Oxford English Dictionary gives one definition of a word: Webster's Dictionary gives a slightly different definition. We do not want one single, central, compulsory compilation run by a Tourist Board. What is the point of it all?
We are told that the Government do not know how many hotels there are in the country. Why the hell should they know?—I beg the pardon of noble Lords for using that particular phrase, but I was feeling rather strongly about it, because I have met this point in other fields: this sort of compulsive desire to have a complete register, whether it be of machines for decimal conversion or of hotels or other things, and I submit to your Lordships that there is no need for a compulsory registration. By all means let those who are willing to be registered, who are willing to be regimented, who are willing to be graded, agree to it and pay the fee, or the levy. But it is the

937
compulsory element to which we on this side of the Committee take the gravest exception.
11.0 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: I was absolutely delighted with the performance we have just witnessed. The power, both in Second Reading and in this Committee, to whip up excitement over what one would have thought to be rather a humdrum affair, has never been surpassed in my experience. The noble Lord actually had me sobbing into my handkerchief at the end of his very moving speech about a man born to succeed being frustrated by the Society for the Preservation of Rural England and the Traffic Commissioners from putting up hotels. We have had a tremendously impressive demonstration of how you can make politics about what is really the Post Office Directory. We think you should not be able to have a telephone without being in the Post Office Directory. It is not a matter we feel very strongly about. I think the emotional case has been very enjoyable, but somewhat overdone.
There are three items in this Bill: the first is the setting up of an Authority, done frequently by the Tory Party and often done very well. The second is the giving of grants. As a farmer I am certainly not against that; I am surprised if there is any doubt about it. And the third is having a factual list of what is available. How one can make an ideological case against that I do not know. I have heard it done and I think it is marvellous, but it is absolutely extraordinary because there is No ideology in the matter at all.
I am in favour of a factual list—which is what we are talking about—for three reasons. The first is that the customer thereby can find out the facts. The second is that such people as the Good Food Guide and Egon Ronay, who do this admirable grading—we have never suggested that the Government should do it and I think it is absolutely wrong the Government should do it—will be able to do their work much more cheaply, and those who list general things, like the A.A. and others, will have to spend much less money. The Bill is an enabling Bill. If the Tourist Boards think it is too expensive to produce a register of this kind they will say so and will not be
938
bound to do it. If, as we think, it can be done for something in the neighbourhood of £200, 000, they will probably say it should be done. I think that if grading were excluded it could be done inexpensively, and it would be a great help to the customer from abroad who wants to know what hotels there are, and also to people at home. I sometimes want to go to hotels and I never know where to stay because the facts are not clearly stated. I do not wish to cool off the atmosphere. I think we should try to continue to make this political, and I have done the best I could.
Lord ERROLL of HALE: May I point out that the Amendment the Minister is proposing to introduce specifically says that the establishments shall be graded.
Lord DONALDSON of KNGSBRIDGE: But it is enabling.
Lord BROWN: The noble Lord Lord Erroll of Hale, gave a truly histrionic performance, but I was not convinced by it. He objected to my trying to shorten the debate, and if he wants a debate we must have it; it is the right of the Committee to demand it. The proposals in this clause stem from the hard fact that the information about hotels in this country is inadequate. Our accommodation guides offer foreign travel agents and independent visitors a selection of some 8, 000 hotels if they look at enough guides, but there may be between 12, 000 and 17, 000 hotels with 10 bedrooms or more, and probably over 30, 000 if one takes account of the smaller hotels and guest houses. These are lost so far as the records are concerned; we do not know where they are or what they are. It is not surprising that people talk about shortages of accommodation and difficulty in making bookings. It is net surprising that even at the height of the tourist season there are hotels and guest houses operating at less than full capacity. It is because the visitor does not know where to find the capacity. And this is one of the benefits of having a register, to know of the existence of hotels of particular categories.
It may be said that we have managed so far. Perhaps we have, in catering for about 5 million visitors last year. But France and Italy each get some 12 million and Spain 17 million; so we are not

939
at the top of the league by any means. During our discussions in Committee a great deal of emphasis was laid on the need to improve standards of hotels. Indeed, as members of the Committee will remember, an Amendment was proposed designed to withhold grant from hotels which did not meet certain standards. Comprehensive registration of all hotels offers a less harsh method of achieving improved standards. If details of facilities are published, hotels with poor facilities will have a motive for carrying out improvements.
Let me say a word about the question about grading raised by the noble Lord. I gave a quite clear exposition in Committee to the effect that the Government do not have in mind grading on the basis of subjective factors. Grading, to them, is a process of ordering the categories of hotels in the light of the existence of concrete things that distinguish them—so many bathrooms, so many bedrooms, and so on; but not on much subjective reaction to the taste of their food or the soundness of their wine, et cetera. The Government view this as being a very "dicey" thing to do, and I should be totally against it.
I know, too, that some interests who themselves publish selective guides are concerned about how a national system of registration would affect them. I believe their fears are unjustified. Selective guides, such as the Michelin Guide, flourish in countries with comprehensive national systems, such as France. This country, too, will always need selective guides. But this House should know that there is a range of independent opinion which strongly supports this clause. Let me recite some of them. The existing Scottish and Wales Tourist Boards support compulsory registration. The British Motels Federation recommend the proposals. The British Federation of Hotels and Guesthouses Association recommend registration. The South-West Economical Planning Council recommend the proposals, and so did the Board of Trade Hotel Loans Advisory Committee. Very important indeed, the Consumer Council not only encouraged us to go ahead with these proposals at the time, but have recently reaffirmed their support for Clause 17 of this Bill. The voice of the consumer is most im-
940
portant, and we ought to take account of it and to have a proper registration so that people can get accommodation of a much wider choice than they would have today. I personally would strongly commend this Amendment to the Committee for the reasons which I have given.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Surely the noble Lord is not right in saying that the Consumer Council want registration just by itself. Registration by itself cannot help the consumer at all; it is only if you have classification and grading, the whole thing. We have been told that registration may go ahead by itself, or there may be classification and grading as well later, but that the main thing is to get the registration done. We have been told that even that is not essential if the same effect can be achieved voluntarily. But it is perfectly plain to us all that if this clause goes through there will be registration. It is the easiest thing in the world for the Board to do as soon as they come in. This is a permissive power, and it will take place. They will immediately want to know how many hotels they have to deal with, so that they can make their projects for the future.
The difficulty about registration—and I think the noble Lord must sympathise in regard to this—is that as soon as you get this sort of registration and classification and the information that is required for the classification, then immediately you get people thinking, as the Scottish Board was thinking, of taxing the number of beds. That is what worries people. That is what happens It is a new way of raising taxes. It happens every time. This is what is feared, and the noble Lord must have sympathy with that fear. If we were to be given an assurance that this registration would be purely for information, purely for the preparation and assistance of hotels, purely for the benefit of the increasing tourism, we should be quite happy. But if we are going to have levies on beds or something of that kind in order to raise finance, or if some sort of tax system were to arise, something out of the blue like S.E.T., something wildly extravagant and improbable like that, we do not want registration. That is what it amounts to. We would rather not have it. Every time there is registration there is trouble. Look at the teachers in Scotland just now, for

941
example. Registration means trouble. That is the fact of the matter.
Before the noble Lord says anything more I must say this. We all know why the Government are moving this clause back into the Bill at this time, and it is that they cannot be bothered to make the Amendments that would be necessary if it were kept out. Otherwise it could have gone as the opinion of the Committee to the Commons, instead of coming up at this impossible hour of the night when we do not get a representative vote. That is the point. I am bound to say that we do not like the handling of the Bill and we do not like this clause. However, it would be absurd for us to take this matter to a Division at this stage, and, in the circumstances, we simply have to agree to the Government putting it back.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Notification of prices of accommodation]:
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of LISTOWEL): Before I call Amendment No. 21, 1 thing I should point out that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 22.
11.12 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 15, line 4, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) An Order under this section may in particular make provision

(a) for the inspection of establishments and for powers of entry for that purpose;

(b) for exemptions from any of the requirements of the Order;

(c) for securing compliance with any requirement of the Order by the imposition of a penalty not exceeding a fine of £200")

(3) An Order under this section may contain such supplementary or incidental provisions as appear to Her Majesty, to be necessary or expedient, and may authorise the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Wales to make regulations as respects England, Scotland or Wales respectively for such purposes of the Order as may be specified therein.
(4) An Order under this section and any regulations made thereunder may make different provision in different cases, and in particular provision may be made for an Order to apply to the whole or any part of Great Britain or to come into force at different times in relation to, or to different parts of, England, Scotland and Wales respectively.
942
(5) No Order shall be made under this section unless

(a) a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House;

(b) The relevant Ministers are satisfied that the purposes of the Order cannot effectively be secured voluntarily.")

The noble Lord said: I had to draft this Amendment immediately after the Committee stage on Friday afternoon to get it down at all. At that time I did not know that the Government were proposing to move back the old Clause 17, and it was an attempt to do what we had some reason to fear the Government might not be prepared to do—to make sense of Clause 18. I do not want to pursue that aspect, but I should like to draw attention to two points which are included here and which were not in the old Clause 18—Clause 17 as it now is.
The new subsection (4) in my Amendment gives power for an Order, and any regulations made thereunder, to make different provision in different cases. In particular, provision may be made far an Order to apply to the whole or to any part of Great Britain. This may be covered (I do not know) by the phrase "different provision in different cases", but it is not what one would have in mind by the use of that phrase. It is too important an aspect, we feel, to be covered by that phrase. If this is what is intended, we think it should be stated specifically.
Then, instead of saying that any Order made under this clause shal1 be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, we propose that it shall be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. The second point (in my subsection (5) (b)) is one that was raised in Committee: that this particular clause, "Notification of prices of accommodation" should be brought into effect only if the relevant Ministers are satisfied that the purposes of the Order cannot effectively be secured voluntarily. As I say, we had some discussion about this in Committee, and I do not propose to go over this again; but I should like to know what the noble Lord's reactions are to this. He has put us in an impossible position by moving back the old Clause 17 again so far as the Amendments we would like to see to Clause 18, because we already had them down and

943
it was too late to change them. He has put us in an impossible position, which is one of the reasons we do not like the noble Lord's putting back Clause 17. At any rate, perhaps he would comment on the special points we have raised.
Lord BROWN: I am sorry if we put the noble Lord and his friends in an impossible position: I can assure him that that was not the intention. On the first point, I assure the noble Lord that the Bill, as it stands, without this Amendment, meets the point he has raised about being able to differentiate between various parts of the country. I have gone into this matter very carefully and there is no question about that.
On the question of the Affirmative rather than the Negative Resolution procedure for an Order, the Government believe that the Negative Resolution procedure is appropriate on matters of this kind, because there may be a series of test Orders relating to private schemes in various parts of the country. We are very tentative about the registration scheme, although noble Lords opposite are apparently quite convinced that we are going ahead immediately on a wide scale. I assure them that what they believe is not the case. There might be a series of Orders gradually testing this out.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I think we are on a different point. The noble Lord is speaking as if we were now talking about the clause which he has just moved back. We are, in fact, talking about the notification of prices of accommodation.
Lord BROWN: I am sorry; that is quite right. Nevertheless, precisely the same point applies here: that there might be tentative Orders and it would be very embarrassing to deal with each of them, as we build up our experience, by the Affirmative Resolution procedure.
On the last point, I submit that it is unnecessary to ask the Government to assure Parliament that voluntary procedures will not work, because no Government would go to the trouble of making an Order in Council imposing a statutory duty to display prices if it were not necessary to do so. It is implicit in any Order imposing a statutory obligation that the purpose cannot be achieved except in that way, and the clause was
944
intended to meet requests from all shades of opinion that hotels should be required to show their prices as a measure of consumer protection. If a hotel could opt out of the requirement to display its charges, it is implicit that the option would be exercised by the very sort of establishment against which the consumer needed protection. I have dealt rather cursorily with the points raised by the noble Lord, but I hope he is satisfied. At least he knows now what is the Government's attitude on this point.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I think he has met the points I had in mind. It was obviously tempting to me, when I had to put down this Amendment to make sense of Clause 18, to spell them out. But I do not propose to press this, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Fixed equipment eligible for grant under section 9 of this Act]:
11.18 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 21, line 25, leave out ("and lavatory equipment") and insert (", lavatory equipment and extensions to sewerage necessitated thereby.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is on a point which my noble friend Lord Inglewood raised during the Committee stage, and the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Brown, was that this matter in the case of a new hotel would be covered under Clause 7. But I am not sure whether the question of equipment would be covered under Clause 9. These items should be covered in the sense that they are equipment, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to assure us that that is so. I beg to move.
Lord BROWN: Sewerage would not be covered under Clause 9, but it would be covered under the clause concerned with adding to the number of bedrooms in a hotel, if in the course of such an extension bathrooms were added which required additional sewerage. So hotels which need to add sewerage because of

945
an extension in the number of bedrooms will get the grant, but hotels which simply want to add pieces of fixed equipment will not find themselves getting grant on sewerage, because they are not included in the list. I admit that this is somewhat arbitrary, but a limit as to what one allows by way of equipment has to be drawn somewhere, and sewerage being a difficult thing to define it has not been included. But hotels can get it when they extend their number of bedrooms by five or more.
Lord DRUMALBYN: The trouble is that sewerage is a very expensive item, and there is this upper limit on the expenditure per bedroom—the expenditure per bedroom or the 20 per cent., whichever is the less. But, subject to that, can the noble Lord assure us that it would be covered within the overall expenditure?
Lord BROWN: Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14):
11.22 p.m.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Beswick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, before we pass the Report stage, I should say that there was one Amendment, Amendment No. 22, which I now submit as a manuscript Amendment and which should have been moved on Committee stage. Despite the severely troubled look passing over the face of the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, I understand it is in order to move this Amendment on Report stage; therefore, on behalf of my noble friend, who would be glad to answer any questions concerning it, I beg to move this manuscript Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 5, leave out ("16A") and insert ("Registration of tourist accommodation").—(Lord Beswick.)
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is the noble Lord going to give us an explanation?
Lord BROWN: My Lords, this is now a purely manuscript Amendment, concerned with the wording of the Bill rather than any matter of substance. By Amendment No. 21, Lord Drumalbyn was proposing to revise the present subsection (2) to Clause 17. If he had been successful, the Government Amendment would have fallen. I had reasoned out that if we succeeded in getting "16A" into the Bill this would not be necessary. Having failed to move it, I then got a note from the Box saying that I ought to have moved it. I have not had time to reason out just why it ought to be moved. However, it is verbal in its effects. My note is quite useless to me. I ask noble Lords to accept that this is a necessary Amendment merely to put the Clause into good effect.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we are very willing to accept the noble Lord's assurances.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Brown.)
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, before we actually part with this Bill I should like to express on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Brown. He has tried extremely hard—we are conscious of this—to explain different Parts of the Bill to us that we have wanted to question. In spite of some differences between us from time to time he has maintained his geniality and has been very helpful throughout. I felt that I should like to say that because, while we much regret that he found it necessary to move back this clause which caused so much confusion in a later stage, we feel that he has done his best to assist us in very difficult circumstances.
I do not think it would be right to pass this Bill without mentioning how difficult the circumstances have been. I think it was unfortunate that we had to have our second experiment with a Public Bill Committee in these very difficult circumstances. We have been under very

947
severe pressure the whole time. We sat for five days up to Friday. Now, on Tuesday, we are carrying through the whole of the rest of the stages. We are, after all, supposed to be a revising Chamber, among other things. We cannot do our task properly under that kind of pressure. I hope that our efforts are appreciated on all sides. We have really done our best to facilitate getting this Bill through. I hope it is appreciated, but I cannot help feeling that we might have done a better job if we had had more time.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, I always enjoy conducting a Bill through the House when the noble Lord is sitting opposite. I am grateful to him for his kind remarks.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

IRON AND STEEL BILL
11.29 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of Listowel in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Public investment in the Corporation otherwise than by way of loan]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: I am sorry to detain your Lordships at this late hour—all I can say is that this is not about sewerage. I should like to take this opportunity of saying something on Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill; something, that is to say, regarding the reduction of the Corporation's commencing capital debt and also on the question of public investment in the Corporation; and particularly in connection with the £700 million which will be deemed to have been paid by the Minister to the Corporation on the vesting date. I should add immediately that there are a number
948
of Amendments which I might have put down similar to those moved in Standing Committee and on Report in another place. The other place spent about 15 days on this Bill but we have had only last Friday and to-night.
With the exception of the Amendment to Clause 5, I have not put down any other Amendments, but I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, how the figure of £700 million came to be fixed. I was glad to be able to give him notice of most of the questions I shall ask on this and other clauses. I should like to know what were the criteria in arriving at this figure of £700 million. I know that the noble Lord pointed out in his opening speech on Second Reading that the Corporation had asked that the £700 million of the commencing capital, or some two-thirds of its total long-term debt, should take the form of public dividend capital such as was adopted for B.O.A.C. as an experiment in 1966.
I am not now going to repeat my criticisms of the concept of public dividend capital as I did this very fully on Second Reading. Nor am I threatening to reduce it by way of Amendment. I know that the Government take the view that this form of capital is appropriate for those nationalised industries which are fully viable but which are subject to fluctuating returns because of their trading conditions and the nature of their assets. I accept only too readily that public dividend capital is quite different from the capital used in public companies and, as I say, I will not repeat the strong criticisms which we have made of it as a bogus kind of capital with the dividends paid by the taxpayer.
The noble Lord said on Second Reading that initially the Minister will accept that as a minimum all profits after clearance of any losses—and I underline those words—shall be paid as dividends until the Government have received by way of dividends and corporation tax a sum equivalent to the interest which would otherwise be paid on public dividend capital had it been in the form of fixed interest capital.
I now come to the second question which I should like to ask the noble Lord to-night. It is this: what dividend do the Corporation in fact expect to pay? I know from what the noble Lord said

949
that it is for the Corporation to make a proposal about payment of dividend on this public dividend capital each financial year, though the final determination will rest with the Minister after agreement with the Treasury. I should like to know, therefore, in addition to how much it is expected will be paid out by way of dividend, who really is the manager in this respect. Is it the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and the Board of his Corporation who decide this, or is it in fact the Minister after agreement with the Treasury? I think it is very important to know who the manager really is. Decisions of the Corporation will be considerably inhibited if they always have to refer back to the Minister in taking decisions. Like the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, I certainly would be willing to trust the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and his Board to make the right sort of decision.
Lastly, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it is expected that the Corporation will make a profit; or is it expected that it will make a loss? The noble Lord referred on Second Reading to the clearance of losses. I wonder how much these are expected to be. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would give me answers to these four questions which I have put to him.
Lord SHACKLETON: I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for his restraint at this time of night and for giving me notice of some of these points. He said that he was not going to repeat his criticisms of public dividend capital, although he could not refrain having a stab at it; and he made one rather remarkable statement, but it may have been a slip of the tongue, about dividends being paid by the taxpayer. Perhaps when the noble Earl looks at Hansard he may realise that there was a slip at that point.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: Ultimately this can be said to be the case; but I will not go into it in detail now; and it was threshed out elsewhere.
Lord SHACKLETON: I can only say that ultimately it will not prove to be the case. The noble Earl asked me a question to which it is extraordinarily difficult to give the clearcut, scientific answer which the noble Earl would expect—how was the figure of £700 million capital
950
arrived at? The Corporation propose to convert £700 million of their total longterm capital of £1, 000 million into public dividend capital. A proportion of two-thirds of so-called equity capital—I share the noble Earl's doubts over the use of the word "equity"—to one-third of fixed interest capital, was in line with the proportion in industry generally in this country and among some of the Corporation's major competitors. The Minister considered that the figure proposed by the Corporation was acceptable.
This is very much a matter of judgment. Any noble Lords who have been concerned in company management will know that there is no fixed proportion. I would not say that it is just a figure plucked out of the air, but nor would I say that there is a hard and fast criterion which can be applied. In the judgment of those very experienced people who manage the Corporation, this was the appropriate figure, and it was one acceptable to the Minister and to the Treasury. This is not, I would admit, an extremely enlightening answer and I apologise, but it is a truthful answer.
I have also been asked for further explanation of the statement I made in my Second Reading speech about the clearance of past losses before profits are paid as dividends. I admit that I looked at this at the time and wondered whether there was some deep and hidden meaning. Rather is it a blinding glimpse of the obvious. We have in mind that the Corporation should be allowed to set profits against any accumulated losses since vesting date before profits become payable as dividends. We are so accustomed to having complicated subjects wrapped up in seemingly innocent phrases that I am happy to say that this was as innocent as it appeared.
The noble Earl asked me what dividend the Corporation expect to pay. I rather think that he has in mind the rate, or average rate, of dividend. I really would like to help on this point and I have gone into it rather thoroughly. Paragraph 10 of the Memorandum on the Bill (Cmnd. 4022), which I am sure the noble Earl, who has been very assiduous in this, has studied, says that the Corporation were expecting, on the capital requirements and internal resources forecast by the Corporation, to pay some £125 million in dividends in the three years from September, 1968, to September,

951
1971, and £295 million in the five and a half years from September, 1968, to March, 1974. These figures were based on the Corporation's original price proposals and will be affected in the early period, though we hope not over the whole period, by the abatement of their proposals. The noble Earl will remember that there was some abatement.
To arrive at the percentage of dividends to be paid, these dividend figures need to be expressed as a percentage not necessarily only of the £700 million, but of the total amount, including any additional dividend capital that may be paid to the Corporation, and we do not know what this further amount will be. The Government have not yet decided in what form the additional finance will be provided to the Corporation and therefore I am afraid that it would be unrealistic to seek to express the absolute level of dividends shown as a percentage.
If noble Lords are saying that it is time we got clarity in these matters, I would remind your Lordships that it is not long since the Corporation were set up and it is remarkable how rapidly they have got themselves organised. I assure the noble Earl that we certainly intend to keep him or any other noble Lord informed on this matter as it develops.
The Earl of KINNOULL: May I interrupt the noble Lord for one moment? It is surely remarkable also how quickly the Corporation has borrowed large sums of money. I think this is a pertinent point made by my noble friend.
Lord SHACKLETON: I do not know whether the noble Earl was here for our Second Reading debate, but I explained what the money was wanted for. I do not know why it is that when money is raised for investment in private industry it is regarded as entirely respectable, but when a nationalised industry is raising money for investment it is thought that somehow the taxpayer is being "done down" by it.
I was asked one important question by the noble Earl, as to who finally determines the dividend. He said that he would be willing to trust Lord Melchett. Those of us who know Lord Melchett have a high regard for him and undoubtedly trust him and his advisers as men of great capability. But I em-
952
phasised in our debate last Friday that the capital reconstruction was not intended to be an easy option. Clause 2 of the Bill accordingly makes it clear that the final decision on the dividends to be paid by the Corporation shall rest with the Minister. The Corporation must make a proposal about the dividend initially, but it is for the Minister, after consulting with the Corporation, and with the approval of the Treasury, to determine what level of dividend should be paid. This seems to me to be entirely consistent. After all, the Board of a company may propose a dividend, but in the last resort the shareholders have the say, and however much we may trust a particular body it is one of the essences of public organisation of this kind that it is for the Government to watch out for the public interest and determine the matter.
I think noble Lords on the other side have been concerned about possible criticism that we might be giving them too easy a run. I can assure noble Lords that, if there was any temptation in that direction, certainly my right honourable friends at the Treasury, whether Mr. Diamond or others, are not inclined to make easy assumptions. I do not doubt that this will be arrived at as a result of sensible calculations and sensible exchanges.
I think I have answered most of the noble Earl's points, but if I have missed anything, he can either ask me now, or I will write to him. I hope that I have given some information.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the further information that he has given. I think it was a worth while exercise from both our points of view. I do not think I will make any further comment.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Limit of borrowing by, and investment in, the Corporation]:
On Question, whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: Again I have put down no Amendment to this clause, but I should like to ask the noble Lord a question regarding the capital borrowing powers of the Corporation. As we know, under the principal Act borrowings by the Corporation were not to exceed £300 million, but in

953
July of last year this limit was raised to £400 million, and under Clause 3 of the Bill a new limit or £500 million is fixed, the same clause empowering the Minister to raise the limit to £650 million. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton when these tremendous increases in the borrowing powers were likely to stop. I also referred to the new steel developments at Scunthorpe and at Redcar on Tees-side. I should like to ask the noble Lord how much of this £500 million which the Corporation will now be entitled to borrow will be taken up by these new developments. How long, in fact, is the £500 million expected to last?
I have here a Press release of July 11 by the British Steel Corporation in which it says that the rolling mills at Scunthorpe will cost an estimated £130 million, and that the iron ore terminal at Redcar, Tees-side is likely to cost £15 million. It also says that a study is now in progress to develop either an ore terminal on the Humber at a possible cost of £5 million, or a rail link with Redcar to supply ore to Scunthorpe. All this is a little vague, and I should be grateful for more details of the Corporation's capital investment programme over the next five years. Is it all going to dribble out piecemeal, or can we expect to have a more comprehensive statement from the Government or the Corporation?
The borrowing powers have already increased twice, and now under this Bill they will increase a third and possibly a fourth time. I should like to know to what extent this money will be invested abroad. I am not quite certain whether I gave the noble Lord notice of this question. I should be interested to know the answer to it. Will the money be invested in Europe, for example? I have heard that there may be a possibility of investing in Holland. The point I want to make is that the Government are piling up all these debts just at a time when they should be reducing them. I pointed out on Second Reading that this country's total debts abroad now amount to over £6, 000 million. They are a millstone hanging round our necks for years to come.
The noble Lord admitted on Second Reading, rather blandly I thought, that the real effect of this borrowing was to convert short-term debts into long-term debts. As I told your Lordships on Friday, the Financial Secretary to the
954
Treasury said only last Wednesday that it must be recognised that our short-term debts should now be paid on a long-term basis. The millstone will hang for a longer time round our necks. I do not think this is good enough, and nor does the world at large. Already the Germans are having second thoughts about lending the sums asked for in respect of certain of our nationalised industries, and I spelt this out on Second Reading. Are the Government really happy about our large scale borrowing abroad, or are they being rather complacent about it? How much do they expect to obtain from overseas, and at what rate of interest? These rates have certainly been going up as a result of scarcity of capital, and I am much disturbed by these borrowings.
11.48 p.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must say that the noble Earl does his best to disturb foreigners in the matter—and anyone else. Some of the questions he asked were fair enough; others were not entirely fair. Let me deal straight away with the last point—the question of investing certain monies in foreign countries. I cannot say what countries they will be; it will entirely depend on the particular trading and investment needs of the Corporation. They may wish to protect their raw material sources. They may also wish to arrange for certain preliminary processing of materials, but there is no particular intention for a major investment abroad. The contingency allowance of £150 million allows for investment abroad, but there arc no specific proposals before the Minister at present; and this is the sort of flexibility which any corporation or company would wish to have in the interests of its trading success. On the question of the difference between medium-term and long-term borrowing, here again there is no precision in these matters. In general the Government take the view that the longer the term of the borrowing the better, but any movement away from immediate or short-term borrowing is to be encouraged as a means of rephasing debt; and I think that the funding of our debt is something of which the noble Earl will approve.
The noble Earl is tackling me in an area of such complexity that I am tempted to read out the very lengthy briefs I have on these various subjects,

955
and even the rather lengthy explanation that I supplied to the noble Earl earlier. However, probably the best thing I can do is to deal with certain particular points. I should like to set them in the background—because this is the crucial matter—of the investment programme. I should mention that the first borrowings under the 1967 Act were designed in the light of assumptions about what would be needed. In the event, the Corporation's requirements turned out some £100 million greater than had been expected. This is the main reason why further powers were needed earlier, and why more was needed now.
I was asked also how long the £500 million is to last. The Memorandum to the Bill, in paragraph 10, indicates that the limit on borrowing by and investment in the Corporation of £500 million is designed to last until September, 1971. But I hope noble Lords will not try to create a picture of a profligate Corporation just drawing money in and spending it. What they are doing is investing it in vital industry to this country; and this is a pattern that must go on both in private and in public investment.
I should like to say a little more in relation to the investment programme. As I explained in my Second Reading speech, it is impossible to say now exactly what steel plant will be built, exactly where, and to make exactly what products. But the general pattern is clear. I should like just to develop my earlier remarks a little further. The Corporation's brochure, Finance for Steel, showed that their projected capital expenditure up to 1973-74 will be £875 million. Of this sum, £100 million is needed for working capital, £50 million for projects under way, £100 million for small projects costing under £100, 000 each, and another £100 million for projects costing between £100, 000 and £500.000 each, which are of a comparatively routine nature. This leaves about £500 million for major capital expenditure, and this expenditure will produce crude steelmaking capacity totalling 30 million tons a year by 1975, compared with about 25 million tons now.
This figure is made up as follows. First, perhaps two-thirds of the total will come from a comparatively small number of plants producing carbon steels in bulk. These plants will be near deep-water
956
ports, and preferably near supplies of coking coal, and will be on a scale that will allow full advantage to be taken of the economies of size in the modern steel industry on which we are all agreed. They will use the most modern equipment; all of them, for example, will be based on the Litz-Donowitz steel-making process—the so-called L.D. process. These plants will be based on existing works; but it has not been decided where all of them will be. Port Talbot and Tees-side are, however, already undergoing major development, including the installation of Litz-Donowitz steelmaking. The Corporation have recently proposed a major scheme for development at Scunthorpe (and I will say a little more about that in a moment), again related to the capital sums involved, which is in their capital investment programme now being considered by the Minister of Power. There will also have to be further substantial expansion of strip-mill capacity.
Secondly, about half the remaining production will come from smaller integrated hot metal works, including specialist plants making high-value carbon or alloy steels; and finally there will be several scrap-based works, each of about a million tons capacity, located in or near scrap-producing areas like the Midlands. I have so far mentioned only plant producing crude steel as well as finished products. There will also be a limited number of works making only finished products from semi-finished steel made in the steel-melting and primary rolling works I have described.
Let me just say a further word about Scunthorpe, which brings us back to the investment total. The total cost of the Scunthorpe development, including working capital, is £153 million. This is under one-fifth of the Corporation's total investment programme and working capital requirements for the years to 1973-74, which is £875 million, the figure I have already mentioned. To meet this £875 million we have allowed for the Corporation to borrow or receive as p.d.c. £315 million, raising the rest from their own resources. It is not of course possible to say, for each component item in the £875 million, exactly how much will come from external resources and how much from the Corporation's own cash flow. I am sorry to race rather rapidly through this explanation. I think

957
I have been able to give some information which has not been given quite so explicitly before, and I shall of course be very willing to provide any further information at a later stage.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: Again I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving us that information, which I do not think emerged in another place, or on Second Reading here.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [The Corporation's financial duty]:
11.58 p.m.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH The Earl of BESSBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) The operation of section 24 of the principal Act shall be amended so that in addition to the provisions therein the Corporation shall in its annual statement of accounts present details of the rate of return both on the total net assets of the Corporation and on the net assets of each of its principal regional or product groupings as is for the relevant period determined under subsection (1) above.")
The noble Earl said: A similar Amendment to this was put down as a new Clause 1 on Report stage in another place, but as I indicated on Second Reading I think it goes better at the end of Clause 5, concerning the Corporation's financial duty. The effect of this new subsection will be to require the Corporation, in its annual statement of accounts, to present details of the returns, both on the total net assets of the Corporation itself and on the net assets of each of its principal regional product groupings. In effect I should like to keep the product groups as separate accounting units and to require the Corporation to define the financial target in each case.
I explained all this on Second Reading and made the point that when a Corporation is virtually a monopoly and is dividing itself up into monopolistic groupings, customers of the Corporation will want some insight into the trading activities of the group. A public company would have subsidiary companies, each of which would give separate returns. Fuller disclosure of information is to-day, as the noble Lord knows, a general trend, and I should like to see this spelt out in the Bill.
958
It is true that the noble Lord, in replying to me on Second Reading, gave me certain assurances on this question. He added that he would convey my point to his right honourable friend but said he did not know how far the Government would go in this. He said that it was a matter for the British Steel Corporation and he was sure, having seen their publications and the amount of information they had already given, that they would do their utmost to provide all the information possible.
The Minister in another place gave similar assurances, which I certainly welcome. None the less, I think that the requirement to give such information with regard to the financial results of the product groupings would be desirable. However, if the noble Lord does not like the precise terms of the drafting, I should be very happy if the Government would be willing to put forward an Amendment in their own terms giving effect to the same intention. I know that there may be drafting difficulties and legal difficulties in regard to my present text, but I should like to see this requirement written into the Bill. If the Government would table a similar Amendment, I would, of course, withdraw my own. I beg to move.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I should like to support my noble friend in his very persuasive argument and I trust that the principle of this Amendment will be accepted by the Government. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that I was not here last Friday; some of us, surprisingly, have to earn our bread and butter outside, particularly from this side of the House. As my noble friend said, a similar form of Amendment was moved in another place, although it went a good deal further than the present Amendment, and at that time there were in fact, rather noticeably, six speakers in favour and only one against, that being the Government spokesman. The principal aim of this Amendment is to lay a statutory duty on the Corporation to provide full information not only on the central organisation of the Corporation but also on its major subsidiaries. This proposed statutory duty is not a wrecking Amendment; nor is it an unnecessarily wasteful duty. It is a duty, I would submit to the Government, Which the Corporation

959
would in any case welcome, and I do not think personally that the Government disagree with the principle. It is a reasonably sensible and, I submit, essential duty.
Its advantages are obvious. In the first place, it brings a form of discipline to the Corporation; secondly, it lets us all see what is the true financial position of the Corporation's subsidiaries at any time; and, thirdly, lets us all judge the viability, profitability and efficiency of all the major activities of the Corporation, and weigh up the earnings on capital and all the other financial criteria. The argument between my noble friend and the Government, if they decide not to accept this Amendment, is not on the general principle, so far as I understand it, but more on the very narrow issue of whether or not this duty should be written into the Bill.
Even at this late hour, I may perhaps remind the Committee that in another place the Government's reasons for refusing the Amendment were based on three arguments. In the first place, the Amendment was called impossibly vague and legally meaningless, but so far as one can see this Amendment is certainly not vague; it is, I believe, strikingly clear. The wording perhaps may need improvement, but with the Government's help I am sure this could be achieved. So far as being legally meaningless is concerned, I think one can say that it is not very uncommon with a number of recent Government Bills for some of us to feel that they are Bills which are legally meaningless—such as the Land Commission Bill, which has been particularly difficult to understand for many of us. Again, I think one could take the example of Section 17 of the Companies Act and find that a similar form of wording could be used for this Amendment.
The second argument made in another place was that their main concern was with the central body and to a lesser extent with the results of its different activities. I really felt that this argument was, to say the least, most futile. If there is any future trouble over the Corporation's finances, what will happen? The Government surely will wish to know immediately the reason for the losses. So one simply says: "Why should not we all know the reasons
960
and have the information? Why not make the information available now?"
The third and final argument which the Government advanced was that the Corporation have no product grouping in operation at present. Again, I feel that one can dismiss this argument as neither very sophisticated nor convincing. The Government spokesman then turned, one might say rather smartly round, to say that Section 25 of the 1967 Act, the major Act:
"was expected to be brought into effect soon and so requiring details of turnover and estimate profits".
Finally, the Government spokesman, during the Bill's passage through another place, when pressed why the Corporation were not bound to produce half-yearly statements similar to those required by the Stock Exchange, replied—and again I quote:
"It is my intention to approach the Corporation with a view to its publishing this information".
Surely this is a rather watery way of agreeing to step into line with the principles of the Companies Act, that Act which of course ensured that there should in future be full public disclosure by both private and public companies and, one assumes, by State Corporations.
As I said at the beginning, I do not believe that the principle of providing further information divides us. The real point is simply whether or not the duty of supplying further information should be laid down as a statutory duty: whether we should rely on the Minister's vague undertaking or the Corporation's present policy, both of which can be changed, or whether a simple statutory duty, costing nothing, damaging not one wit of the Corporation's work, should be written into the Bill and giving the investors in this the largest industrial enterprise in this country, involving I believe over 1, 000 million of capital, a small safeguard that their money is being properly used, and is seen to be so used. This is an issue upon which I hope that my noble friend will stand firm if the Government are unable to accept the principle. During the Second Reading of this Bill my noble friend was accused by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, of being too fervent. I must say that during the last six hours of waiting for this Amendment to be called, my fervour has increased hour by hour.
12.3 a.m.
Lord SHACKLETON: The noble Earl said he hoped I would not say that this Amendment was meaningless. I certainly shall not say that. I just do not think it happens to bear the meaning that noble Lords opposite put on it, and I am in some doubt whether to reply to the Amendment or to the noble Earls. I think I had better do both, even at the risk of taking a long time. I am delighted to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, who is, I know, something of a night bird in this House (he can always be relied on to keep going) that his fervour is still strong, and I will try to match this in the energy of my reply. I must first of all, however, warn him that if ever there is an unreliable statistic as to the value of a particular view, it is a measurement of the number of speakers on one side or the other. If he studies the statistics on Committee stages, whatever Government may be in power, he will always find that the Government of the day are outnumbered 10 to 1 in the number of speakers. This is part of the nature of our system of Opposition and Government.
This Amendment is very similar to part of a new clause which was proposed on the Report stage of this Bill in another place, where its effect was debated and the Government's reasons for not accepting it were recited by my honourable friend the Minister of Power. In the course of that debate—as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said—he gave assurances first that Section 25 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1967, requiring details of turnover, estimated profit, and estimated capital employed for different activities, would be rought into effect soon; secondly, that the financial objective, or duty, to be laid upon the British Steel Corporation under Clause 5 will, like those of other nationalised industries, be fixed as soon as possible and announced to Parliament. Moreover, though he could not agree—and I hope noble Lords will agree because there is always the risk that one day they will have responsibility in this area—to a duty to prescribe financial objectives for subordinate groupings, he could give an assurance that the Corporation will be expected to publish details in their statement of accounts of the returns earned by the Corporation as a whole.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Could I just correct the noble Lord? He said that his right honourable friend said that Section 25 would be brought in; in fact what his right honourable friend said was "Section 25 is expected to be brought in". There is a vast difference here. Is the noble Lord saying now that it will definitely be brought in?
Lord SHACKLETON: I am not sure whether he was using it in a nautical sense. It is rather like "intention to proceed", which means something different to the Navy, and it may be that the words I used in this House bear a different significance. I can only say that I have firmly stated what I am in fact authorised to state, but if there is any lack of clarity on this point I will certainly be prepared either to correct it or to expand it, or even to answer a Question.
In view of those assurances, and a further undertaking by the Minister to approach the Corporation with a view to the publication of unaudited half-yearly statements similar to those required by the Stock Exchange in accordance with the undertaking given by companies in the private sector having a Stock Exchange quotation, the proposed new Clause in another place was, by leave, withdrawn. However, I do not complain of the action of noble Lords in bringing it up again. As the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, said, whatever the Amendment may say, our aims are similar.
The noble Earl again (and I appreciate this) was kind enough to give notice in our debate on Second Reading of his interest in reviving part of the proposed Clause in the form of an Amendment to Clause 5. I said, as he mentioned, that I would convey to my right honourable friend the particular point raised by the noble Earl regarding the provision in the Corporation accounts of information on the product groups equivalent to that now being provided on the financial results of the publicly-owned companies. The various accounts, the ones they publish already, are so heavy in size that I am afraid I have not brought them into the House. There is no doubt that a vast amount of information is given. I think it is a little ungracious to suggest that we ought to initiate the standards required of companies in the private sector, when I think it must be acknowledged that

963
nationalised industries have been pacesetters in this field.
I should like therefore to rehearse the very serious arguments for resisting this Amendment. First of all—and I know the noble Earl's difficulty in these matters, and anybody in Opposition is in this position—this Amendment would not in fact achieve its purpose because it is based upon its reference to a determination made under Clause 5 (1) in respect of the net assets of each of the Corporation's regional or product groupings. Subsection (1), as written, does not provide for the determination of anything other than the rate of return on net assets which the Minister considers it is reasonable for the Corporation to achieve. There is no mention of subordinate divisions or groupings.
Be that as it may, there are more fundamental reasons for rejecting this Amendment, and it is here that I somehow find myself parting company with what I thought the noble Earl was advocating. It would appear that the Amendment was drafted with two things in mind; first, the determination by the Minister of separate financial objectives for the Corporation's regional or product groupings; and, secondly, the publication of financial objectives in the accounts. I turn to the first of the two points—the fixing of financial objectives for regional and product groupings. The reference to "regional and product groupings", I am sorry to say, is really of no use at all as a description. It just does not stand up, unless we are prepared to go into a series of definitions which would not be appropriate in an organisation which must be dynamic and changing. The difficulty that the movers have found themselves in can be appreciated, because the Corporation have announced that they are considering the possibility, subject to the Minister's consent, of changing from a largely regional, subordinate organisation to one based on products. But even if this difficulty were removed, a reference to a "product grouping" would, I fear, still be legally meaningless.
More important, however, is the fact that the only statutory body which we are dealing with here is the Corporation itself, and the Minister would not wish to be under a statutory duty to determine—and this is one of the effects of the Amendment—the rate of return earned
964
by any subordinate organisation within the Corporation. Whatever the noble Earl has said—and I thought he said something to this effect—1 very much doubt, whether, on reflection, he would want this degree of direct interference in the internal organisation, as opposed to the overall picture. It is not even certain whether each of the subordinate groupings will be intended by the Corporation to break even, or whether the Corporation will be concerned with the central result. Noble Lords who have been in business will be well aware that subsidiary organisations with separate accounts are sometimes organised in companies whose financial results are entirely determined by policies taken in the rest of the organisation. Certainly the Minister's chief concern must be with the central result, and he would not wish to take powers to determine separate financial objectives for the different subordinate bodies in the Corporation's organisation.
It could be that one reason behind this Amendment as drafted is that, with only a central financial objective, the Corporation may be in a position to subsidise one activity from another. I think I can deal with those fears by pointing to the fact that the Corporation published detailed turnover and profit and loss accounts and balance sheets for its different activities at Appendix B at the end of its 1967-68 accounts, and, as my right honourable friend confirmed in another place, Section 25 of the 1967 Act, requiring details of turnover, estimated profit and estimated capital employed is expected to be brought into effect soon. I accept that we shall have to get that point clear. But I think it is going to be brought into effect. This publication should be a sufficient safeguard against cross-subsidisation of diversified activities. I should be very willing, if I have any doubts on the strength of the undertaking which I have given, to inform noble Lords and, if necessary, to reply by Question and Answer.
As to the second main point, the publication of financial objectives, I suggest that as drafted the Amendment appears to require publication only of the financial objective prescribed by the Minister in the accounts, and not, apparently, of a statement of progress towards achieving it. On the former point,

965
we have already given undertakings that the financial objective of the British Steel Corporation will be announced to Parliament. This was stated in another place and an assurance was given. I have already mentioned that the Corporation will publish details in their accounts.
I have thought carefully about this matter because we have had this sort of argument before, and I am not at all averse in principle to writing into legislation the kind of safeguards that we all want to see; but I submit that in view of the assurances given this Amendment is unnecessary, and, since the Government cannot agree to a duty to prescribe financial objectives, which is the effect of the Amendment, for the subordinate groupings, the question of the publication of that aspect in the accounts does not arise.
However, I appreciate that what the noble Earls are really after is the maximum amount of information, and I have drawn the attention of my right honourable friend to the concern expressed in your Lordships' House that information should be published in the Corporation's accounts about the results of its subordinate groupings, and he has assured me that he will have this matter in mind in his discussions with the Corporation on the form of their consolidated accounts. As the new organisation has not yet even been set up, however, it is impossible to go any further at this stage; but I hope the assurances I have given meet the concern of the noble Earl.
I am sorry to have spoken at length, but it is a complicated subject. I think we are agreed on the purpose. I think the assurances I have given are as practical as possible in the circumstances as they apply now. I know both noble Earls will be vigilant in the future, and if the Corporation accounts do not give the sort of information they want I shall expect to hear from them; and I expect the Minister will also hear from the noble Earls' honourable friends in another place.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving us that detailed reply. I think it was very useful, and worth giving. I am also grateful to my noble friend for having supported the Amendment so cogently. From what the noble Lord has
966
said, I think he accepts the principle and the intention behind this Amendment, and that indeed our aims are similar. I was glad to hear him refer to the details which are given in the 1967-68 accounts, and the details which are likely to come in the future. Clearly, at this hour there would be no use dividing the Committee—in any case I do not think then: is a quorum. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14):
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I would make only one or two very brief remarks. I am grateful to noble Lords for their co-operation. I want to emphasise that the capital structure we are proposing does not by itself improve the efficiency of the industry or its financial return, but we are satisfied that after the heavy initial losses—we discussed how they came about—there is a strong case for this reorganisation. I would again draw attention to the safeguards, for there are safeguards. The first is the policy on public dividend capital. I have mentioned that. The second safeguard is the financial objective. The other main purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the dissolution of the publicly owned Steel companies. I know that there will be some regrets at this; but we have given the reasons. I stress that the famous names will still be capable of being used. But it is the firm recommendation of the British Steel Corporation that this is how they should proceed. Behind the provisions in the Bill is the search for greater efficiency. I commend this Bill to your Lordships for a Third Reading.
Moved, That the Bill now read 3a.—(Lord Shackleton).
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, with the indulgence of the House I should like to make it clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that whatever

967
criticisms we on this side may have made of this Bill we wish nothing but success to British Steel. We hope that Lord Melchett will make of his Corporation a model of a nationalised industry—if any nationalised industry can be a model of industry.
We were not able to stop the nationalisation of steel despite the fact that we did not like it. We do not like this socialistic tendency to nationalise all those industries, the commanding heights of the economy. We do not think it is healthy to do so; and, by and large, the returns on capital have not been satisfactory. We get more offices and bureaucracy and, I fear, less efficiency. My noble friends made all these points and more during the passage of the 1967 Bill and I still think that the Government clearly underestimate the value of retaining company names. But since we have to accept what the Government have done, I can only hope that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will make the British Steel Corporation effectively competitive internationally in what is still a competitive world—even if British industry in general under the present Government seems domestically to become less and less competitive.
It was very sad to read in The Times Business News this morning of the British Steel Corporation's recent strike losses, which I gather amounted to nearly 150, 000 tons. It seems that five out of the 72 blast furnaces are out of action because of strikes at two of the biggest plants; and that three out of five blast furnaces at Port Talbot are out of action. Other details were given—
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, is the noble Earl blaming this on nationalisation?
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, what I was about to say, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, realises this, was that we might express the hope that this strike will be resolved at the earliest possible date. We must all have at heart the success of the British steel industry at home and its success as an exporter abroad.
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I will not reply to the noble Earl's political remarks. We have heard them so often.
968
They still show a great lack of understanding of what goes on in the world. But I would just give one more piece of information about the unofficial strike at Port Talbot. This is worrying; but there is some encouragement in the fact that a meeting took place yesterday between the men's unions and the General Purposes Committee of the T.U.C We must all hope that the strike will shortly be settled.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

CONSERVATION OF SEALS BILL [H.L.]
12.30 a.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Close seasons for seals]:
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 23, leave out ("31st July") and insert ("31st August").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this clause provides for the close seasons for these two species of seals protected during their breeding season. Most of the common seals pup during the months of June and July but a few carry on through the month of August and I am advised by the National Environmental Research Council that it is advisable to extend the season over which they are protected to the end of that month. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Orders prohibiting killing seals]:
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, it is implicit here that the Minister would act only after consultation with the Council, but I am advised that it is better to make it explicit. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 5, after ("where") insert ("after consultation with the Council").—[The Earl of Cranbrook.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BURTON Lord BURTON moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 10 insert the following new clause:
Entry upon land
".—(1) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Council, authorise in writing any person to enter upon any land for the purpose of

(a) obtaining information relating to seals for the purpose of any of the functions of the Secretary of State under this Act;

(b) killing or taking seals for the purpose of preventing damage to fisheries by seals.

(2) Any such authorisation shall specify

(a) the land to be entered upon;

(b) the period, not exceeding eight weeks, during which the power of entry upon the land may be exercised;

(c) the purpose of the entry;

(d) the number, species and age of seals that may be killed or taken where the purpose of the entry is to prevent damage to fisheries by seals.

(3) Any such authorisation may impose other conditions on the exercise by the person authorised of the power of entry or the manner of giving effect to the authorisation.
(4) The Secretary of State shall give not less than forty eight hours' notice, or in the case of an authorisation to enter upon land for the purpose of killing or taking seals not less than twenty eight days' notice, to the occupier of any land of his intention to issue an authorisation and of the purpose of the authorisation; and in the case of an authorisation to enter upon land for the purpose of killing or taking seals the Secretary of State shall have regard to any representations that might be made by the occupier and shall not issue the authorisation if before the expiration of the notice the occupier satisfies the Secretary of State that he has killed or taken the number of seals which the Secretary of State proposes to specify in the authorisation.
(5) Any seals killed or taken by a person authorised under this section to enter upon land shall belong to the Secretary of State and may be disposed of as the Secretary of State thinks fit.
(6) Any person authorised under this section to enter upon any land shall, if required by the occupier of that land, produce his authority and may take with him upon that land such other persons as may be necessary.
(7) If any person wilfuly obstructs any person authorised by the Secretary of State exercising a power of entry under this section, he shall be guilty of an offence.
(8) Any reference in this section to the Secretary of State shall, in relation to England and Wales, be deemed to include a reference to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and any reference to land shall include land covered by water."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing
970
in my name. Though it is a lengthy Amendment, I feel that it is self-explanatory and needs no further description by me—which may be of some relief to your Lordships with less stamina than the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that the Amendment meets the points which were made and which received the approval of the vast majority of your Lordships during the previous stages of the. Bill. Any legislation on animals seems to raise passions, and when legislation on such attractive animals as seals proceeds with such harmony I feel that a word of appreciation is due for the help given by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham; the officials of the various Ministries; the National Trust and the N.E.R.C.; and congratulations are due to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook. Their help and co-operation has produced what I hope your Lordships will agree should now be a useful Bill. I beg to move.
Lord STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, for his kind reference to the help that my officials have given in this matter. I intervene now only at the request of my noble friend Lord Chorley who mentioned to me earlier—I was going to say this evening, but it is now yesterday—that he will be unable to attend the end of our proceedings; and he asked me to express his regret.
Your Lordships will recall that at an earlier stage of this Bill my noble friend Lord Chorley, on behalf of the National Trust, opposed the inclusion in the Bill of powers of compulsory access:, although everyone else accepted the Amendment in principle. On that occasion I asked the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Burton, to withdraw their Amendments because although the Government (as I said on Second Reading) very much wanted provisions in the Bill for the right of access under proper conditions, the Amendment then proposed was not, in our view, wholly suitable; and I offered to help in the drafting of another Amendment if that one was withdrawn. Happily, this was done and we now have the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Burton, and which, in the Government's view, is eminently satisfactory.

971
I would also add that in the interim we have had discussions with representatives of the National Trust and I think that the new clause which has been moved by the noble Lord should now provide for every possible eventuality and will not allow any encroachment on the rights of anyone, including the National Trust, which could be resented by anyone; and that what is now proposed will be in the best interests of the whole objective of this Bill which I think is generally supported not only by animal lovers, but also by all those who want to see proper protection for fishing interests.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 10 insert the following new clause:

Giving of notice
".—(1) Any notice required by this Act to be given to any person shall be duly given if it is delivered to him, or left at his proper address, or sent to him by post.
(2) Any such notice required to be given to an incorporated company or body shall be duly given if given to the secretary or clerk of the company or body.
(3) For the purposes of this section and of section 26 of the Interpretation Act 1889 the proper address of any person to whom any such notice is to be given shall, in the case of the secretary or clerk of any incorporated company or body, be that of the registered or principal office of the company or body, and in any other case be the last-known address of the person in question.
(4) Where any such notice is to be given to a person as being the person having any interest in land, and it is not practicable after reasonable enquiry to ascertain his name or address, the notice may be given by addressing it to him by the description of the person having that interest in the land (naming it),
972
and delivering the notice to some responsible person on the land or by affixing it, or a copy of it, to some conspicuous object on the land."—(Lord Burton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14):
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In doing so, I feel that I should express my grateful thanks to noble Lords who have helped ! me to make this Bill as satisfactory as I think it now is, meeting, as the noble Lord, Lord Burton, said, some of the objections which were raised during the course of its progress here. I hope that at some future date it may pass through both Houses as an agreed measure which everybody will accept.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
Lord SHACKLETON: My Lords, I should like to extend my personal congratulations to the noble Earl.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE WATER BILL
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before one o'clock.