Sitting of 7 May 1969

Preamble
The House stet at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  ABERDEEN CORPORATION (FISH MARKET) ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Aberdeen Corporation (Fish Market) (to be proceeded with under Section 7 of the Act), presented by Mr. Ross (under Section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 152.]
  EDINBURGH TRADES MAIDEN FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Edinburgh Trades Maiden Fund (to be proceeded with under Section 7 of the Act), presented by Mr. Ross (under Section 7 of the Act); and ordered to be considered upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 153.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  DEFENCE

    B.A.O.R. (German Civilian Employees)
    Mr. Roebuckasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many German civilians are employed by the British Army of the Rhine; and what is the estimated cost for the current year.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Denis Healey): At 1st April, 1969, the latest date for which figures are available, some 27,800 whole time and 1,640 part-time locally engaged civilians were
    422
    employed by the British Army of the Rhine. Of these some 21,800 whole time and 1,130 part-time were German nationals. The estimated cost of all locally engaged civilians to be employed by the British Army of the Rhine in the current financial year is £33,800,000 including £28,800,000 in respect of German nationals.
    Mr. Roebuck: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that that is a very large number and, when added to the number of dependants, gives Rhine Army an exceptionally long tail? Will he institute an inquiry to see what can be done to reduce the number? Will he bear in mind the possibility of employing wives of British Servicemen in some of these jobs to reduce the costs across the exchanges?
    Mr. Healey: Wives of British Servicemen are employed where that is suitable. The proportion of civilians to military in Germany is only half as high as the proportion of civilians to military in the British Army as a whole. Secondly, in Germany 80 per cent. of our forces are in one Corps and forward units. It makes sense to use highly professionally trained soldiers for military duties and leave the less military duties as far as possible to civilians.
    Mr. Goodhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind in any notice that he takes of his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) that the numbers have already been cut to such an extent that in Germany soldiers are employed on menial tasks?
    Mr. Healey: If he compares the menial tasks carried out by soldiers six or seven years ago with those carried out today, the hon. Member will find that there has been an enormous reduction in Germany.

    Married Quarters (Segregation of Families)
    Mr. Roebuckasked the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent it is his policy to segregate the families of seamen, privates and airmen from those of noncommissioned officers when allocating married quarters.
    The Minister of Defence for Administration (Mr. G. W. Reynolds): There

    423
    is no policy of segregation but when an Army unit is allocated multiple blocks of hirings, junior and senior other ranks are customarily housed separately.
    Mr. Roebuck: While recognising that different standards of accommodation may properly represent different rewards for different responsibilities, will my right hon. Friend do everything possible to discourage artificial social barriers between the families of N.C.O.s and junior ranks? Will he consider what was said by Kipling:
    "the Colonel's Lady an' Judy O'Grady Are sisters under their skins."
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be short.
    Mr. Reynolds: They may well be sisters under the skin, but the whole social life develops round different buildings in the compound.

    Alert (Troop Movements)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Defence how long it is estimated to take to move the brigade from the British Army of the Rhine, stationed in the United Kingdom, all the reserves required to bring the British Army of the Rhine up to war establishment, the Third Division and other troops earmarked for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to their war stations on an alert being given.
    Mr. Healey: It is not our practice to disclose details of operational contingency plans.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: While I do not, of course, expect the Minister to do that, can he say whether he is satisfied after the technique of Czechoslovakia that these troops can be moved in due course?
    Mr. Healey: Yes. If I may comment on the Question, as already stated Six Brigade can carry out its move in days. The time it took to deploy all the forces to which the hon. Member has referred would depend on whether they were concurrent or consecutive, and how long it took the division to move to war stations would depend on where it was. This is essentially a division which can be used by SACEUR where the commander wishes in the light of circumstances at the time.
    Mr. Rippon: Apart from the Brigade and the Third Division and problems of moving them and difficulties of increasing tension in certain circumstances, how many of the 60,000 reserves needed to bring B.A.O.R. up to wartime establishment would be immediately available?
    Mr. Healey: We would expect them to be immediately available to move from stations in England. The time it took them to get to their units would compare quite favourably with the time it took Germans to get to their stations, and our reserves are better trained than the German ones.
    Mr. Paget: Has my right hon. Friend considered—I am sure he has—the slight awkwardness which results from the fact that the Russians could get to these deployment positions a lot faster?
    Mr. Healey: I recall that before the Czech crisis the Russians took a very long time to move their reserves to their units in Eastern Europe. The importance of having as many people as possible on the ground all the time is one of the many answers to the extraordinary argument in The Times in recent days.

    Phantom Aircraft (Radar)
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for Defence why United States rather than British radar sets are being installed in Great Britain's Phantom aircraft.
    The Minister of Defence for Equipment (Mr. John Morris): No suitable British radar system would have been available in time. We therefore chose a system which had been developed for the U.S. Navy Phantom.
    Mr. Dodds-Parker: Will the Minister of Defence ensure that any future avionics, if not designed in this country, can at least be built here and supplied to our forces?
    Mr. Morris: Yes. These are matters that we take a great deal of account of. A great deal of British equipment is in the Phantom. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology has announced, Ferranti has been given a contract for the long-term support of the radar equipment installed in British Phantoms.

    Helicopters (French Guided Missile)
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Secretary of State for Defence in what circumstances he decided to purchase the French SS11 anti-tank guided missile for the purpose of arming British helicopters.
    Mr. John Morris: The SS11 is being bought because it is the only proved system now available to meet an urgent operational requirement in B.A.O.R. The question of weapon systems for the next generation of helicopters will be considered in the light of all the operational and financial factors, and the capabilities of Swingfire will be taken into account.
    Mr. Hastings: When will this Government accept that when it comes to ordering defence equipment we do not owe France or any other country a living, particularly when, as in this case, there exists a perfectly good British alternative with a markedly better guidance system? When it comes to placing follow-up orders, will the Government ensure that Swingfire gets them?
    Mr. Morris: I know that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about this issue. The plain fact of the matter is that the British alternative is not now available. We have an urgent operational requirement. The hon. Gentleman, who has criticised the SS11, should know that it it is now used by the Navy; it is used by Navy helicopters. It is not obsolescent; Swingfire in an airborne rôle has not yet been developed or tested.

    Young Servicemen (Morale and Conditions)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received from the National Council for Civil Liberties about morale and conditions in the Services; and what reply he has sent.
    Mr. Reynolds: The National Council for Civil Liberties has asked to be associated with a recent request from the Parliamentary Civil Liberties Group to discuss with me the question of young Servicemen. I have advised the Group that I am prepared to examine and subsequently discuss with it detailed complaints; and I have kept the National Council for Civil Liberties informed.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are the Government aware of a report and connected activities which tend to tamper with the morale and loyalty of Her Majesty's Forces? What advice has been taken from the Law Officers of the Crown?
    Mr. Reynolds: I am aware of quite a number of things, but on the information that the hon. Gentleman has given the House now I would not like to say it has anything to do with what he is talking about. If he cares to let me have details, I will certainly look at them.
    Mr. Driberg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not tampering with the morale and loyalty of the forces to recognise that 15-year-olds who sign on for 12 years without really knowing what they are doing should be released, or given the option of release, at 18 in accordance with the Report of the Latey Committee?
    Mr. Reynolds: This matter, as my hon. Friend well knows, has been and is still being examined by the Government. Despite all the publicity there has been, I am still surprised at the very small number of such cases in which there is hardship which has been so far forwarded to me in the last two years.

    Expenditure (Gross National Product)
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now publish the latest figure of the percentage of the gross national product represented by this year's Defence Estimates.
    Mr. Healey: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) on 1st May, which was, I think, about 5¾ per cent.—[Vol. 782, c. 266–7.]
    Mr. Goodhew: Does not this figure omit entirely the American aircraft bought on the never-never to be paid for later under a Conservative Government? Does it not also omit the back-dated increase of pay for the forces which will no doubt come in due course? How can the right hon. Gentleman think that this is an honest figure to give to the House and the country?
    Mr. Healey: If the hon. Gentleman read HANSARD regularly, he would find

    427
    that the other figures were also given in the Answer made to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Is it not a fact that, if we cut our proportion to that for the rest of Western Europe—that is, 4 per cent.—this would mean £650 million a year to be spent on other and better things?
    Mr. Healey: The European average is 5 per cent. We intend to get down to that in three or four years' time.
    Mr. Rippon: Does the Secretary of State agree from what he has just said that 5¾ per cent. is not the honest figure and that the honest figure is that which was given, as he says, in the Answer he has mentioned—a figure which he has not quoted?
    Mr. Healey: I quote it now. It is about 6 per cent. That was the figure given in the earlier Answer. However, this is not money spent by the Government or raised by the taxpayer. I will deal in more detail with this point when I reply to Question No. 12.

    Royal Air Force Rôle (Buccaneers)
    Mr. Goodhewasked the Secretary of State for Defence what changes in the rôle of the Royal Air Force have been made to enable it to use Buccaneers as the backbone of its strike reconnaissance capability between now and the late 1970s.
    Mr. John Morris: Our defence effort will in future be mainly concentrated in Europe and the Buccaneer will provide a satisfactory overland strike/reconnaissance aircraft in the European theatre until the middle seventies. Following the phasing out of the carriers, the Royal Air Force will take over from the Royal Navy responsibility for operating Buccaneers in the maritime strike rôle.
    Mr. Goodhew: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that only last year the Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force made it clear that the V-bombers required supplementing by a Spearhead type aircraft, which was to be the F111, and that the cancellation of the F111 left a serious gap? The Under-Secretary said, further, that the Buccaneer Mark II was not in the same class as the F111. How can the hon. Gentleman pretend
    428
    that the R.A.F. can carry out the same rôle now?
    Mr. Morris: The hon. Gentleman is aware that although the F111 would have remained operationally viable beyond the middle 1970s, and although the Buccaneer has some shortcomings as compared with the F111 range, they are of less importance now that the emphasis of our defence effort is concentrated in Europe.

    Service Pay
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Defence when he now expects to receive the report on Service pay from the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
    Mr. Reynolds: I hope that it will be possible for the Board's report to be published, concurrently with an announcement to the House of the Government's views, about the middle of next month.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: As the Government first referred this to the National Board for Prices and Incomes in November, 1967, and as after the interim settlement in May, 1968, they have therefore had a year, can we be assured that when this settlement comes it will not be yet another interim settlement but will be a final one which will put the Services on a pay and salary scale commensurate with their equivalents in industry?
    Mr. Reynolds: I do not know as yet what will be the contents of the National Board's report. As the hon. Gentleman will remember, in May of last year the Government asked the National Board to give us its final report by the end of May of this year. I am confident that the National Board will meet that target. Thus, the report will come during the Parliamentary Recess. I am merely asking for about two and a half weeks for the Government to consider the report, to take a decision, and to make a statement to the House.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: If the principle is comparability with the civilian rates and the civilian rates have ipso facto already been sent to the Prices and Incomes Board, what is the point of referring Service pay for the second time?
    Mr. Reynolds: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is anticipating what might be in the report. I do not know in any detail what the National Board is likely to report. I suggest that we wait until we get the report and the Government's views on it. Then I have no doubt that hon. Gentlemen will wish to discuss the matter in detail.
    Mr. Ramsden: Is it not extremely unsatisfactory when Ministers continue to dissociate themselves from responsibility for the eventual level of Service pay and push the question on to the National Board, when everybody knows that it is a determining factor in the level of recruitment, which at present is very unsatisfactory?
    Mr. Reynolds: I made it perfectly clear in the recent defence debates that the Government must accept responsibility for the level of Service pay and any effect that it has or does not have on recruiting. We have asked the National Board for advice. We expect to receive that advice by the end of this month. It will take some time—about two and a half weeks—for us to consider the advice, take a decision, and then report the matter to the House.

    Recruitment
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewingasked the Secretary of State for Defence what were the final other rank recruiting deficits in the last financial year for each of the three services.
    Mr. Reynolds: 2,300 for the Royal Navy; 10,700 for the Army; 2,000 for the Royal Air Force.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that a shortfall of 15,000 in the very modest target which was set by the Government is a devastating revelation in view of the dangerous situation which exists all over the world, a determining factor in the level of recruitment, which at present is very unsatisfactory?
    Mr. Reynolds: I would not say that it was devastating or desperately serious for this sort of thing to happen in one year. It is far from satisfactory. We hope to get it right. I announced in the defence debate some of the measures we are taking: and, with the report which we
    430
    expect shortly to receive from the National Board, we hope to get matters right later on this year.
    Mr. Murray: To put these figures into perspective, will my right hon. Friend publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the annual shortfall since 1951?
    Mr. Reynolds: If a Question were to be tabled, I have no doubt that the information could be provided.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for manning the forces in the event of sufficient volunteers for all Regular forces not being forthcoming.
    Mr. Reynolds: As I have told the House before, we are not planning for the hypothetical situation of a breakdown in the voluntary system. It is better to emphasise the fact that the Services have a clear and worth-while future, and that young men of the right quality are assured of an absorbing and rewarding career.
    Mr. Goodhart: Since recruitment is still deplorably low—with the Army 15,000 men short of its established strength—has the right hon. Gentleman asked the staff to prepare contingency plans for the introduction of selective service?
    Mr. Reynolds: I answered that in my main answer. No, Sir.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Do the Government plan any further economies in defence spending in this matter? If so, how can they say that the reorientation of defence policy is completed?
    Mr. Reynolds: The economies in our plans have all been announced to the House in the last 18 months or so.

    Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders
    Mr. Edward M. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a further statement on the future of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, in light of the Second Report from the Committee on Public Petitions.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. James Boyden): No, Sir.
    Mr. Taylor: Did not the Report, by accepting more than I million valid

    431
    signatures, demolish the critics of the petition? Does it not bring our system of Parliamentary democracy into disrepute if the Government are not prepared to find a place for the Argylls in their future planning, in view of this massive demonstration of public feeling?
    Mr. Boyden: The hon. Gentleman asked me what light the Committee on Public Petitions had shed on the petition. The Committee said that there were I million signatures. I have never disputed that.
    Mr. Manuel: Could my hon. Friend state, in the light of the scrutiny which was made, how many inaccuracies and actual forgeries were discovered?
    Mr. Boyden: Fortunately, that is not a matter for me.

    United States Aircraft (Purchases)
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the estimated increase in the total sum of the defence budget for 1969–70 if cash was paid by Great Britain on delivery for aircraft purchased for the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy from the United States of America and on the percentage of the gross national product devoted to the defence budget.
    Mr. Healey: £73½; million and under 0·2 per cent.
    Mr. Marten: On a study of the previous Written Answers, should not the answer be much nearer £200 million, and, if that be so, is not the statement that defence expenditure has been reduced rather misleading?
    Mr. Healey: With respect, it is not. The answer is £73½ million, and under 0·2 per cent.
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Defence what sums were spent on United States aircraft in 1968–69 and what sums he intends to spend in 1969–70 and in what ways he is contributing to imports substitution.
    Mr. John Morris: In 1968–69, £48 million, and an estimated £50 million in 1969–70. These amounts represent the repayment of sums drawn under the
    432
    American aircraft credit, together with payment of interest, cash payment for certain spares not covered by the credit agreement, and the payments arising from the cancelled contract for the F111. They do not include the cost of British-produced items.
    On the second part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the reply I gave to the hon. Member on 13th November last.—[Vol. 773, c. 378–9.]
    Sir G. Nabarro: But has not the economic position worsened since 13th November last, and is it not the duty of the Minister of Defence to try to make a contribution, a real financial and economic contribution, to the policies of his own Government in matters of import substitution?
    Mr. Morris: One is always conscious of the need for import substitution. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is now suggesting—whether we should cancel delivery of the Hercules or the Phantom. The Hercules has already been completed, and the Phantom order is well on its way to completion.
    Sir Ian Orr-Ewing: What is the sum now outstanding for the remaining purchase of United States military aircraft? Have any British Government ever spent so much foreign exchange on not having weapons with which to equip their forces?
    Mr. Morris: The hon. and gallant Member for Winchester has a Question down today for Written Answer about the sum outstanding. I am sure that he will not object if I give part of the Answer now in reply to the hon. Gentleman. The sum still outstanding on amounts borrowed up to 30th April, 1969, is £237 million.

    Royal Naval Dockyards (Reorganisation)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the future of Whitley Committees in the planned reorganisation of Royal Naval Dockyards.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy (Dr. David Owen): This question is now under review, and I shall consider changes as the reorganisation develops.
    Mr. Judd: Will my hon. Friend agree that in the modernisation of the yards communication and consultation are crucial, and that if this is to be successful the Whitley Committees will in future have to be chaired by the general managers, with their increased responsibilities?
    Dr. Owen: To stimulate productivity, it is our intention that general managers will be given greater powers in their yards; they will, however, exercise these powers within their own departments, and their position in relation to the Whitley Committees will, as I have already said, be considered in this context.
    Mr. Bostonasked the Secretary of State for Defence what consultations are now taking place following his recent announcement about reorganising Her Majesty's Dockyards.
    Dr. David Owen: Consultations are now taking place between the Navy Department and the Departments of Economic Affairs and Employment and Productivity.
    Discussions have also been initiated with the dockyard Whitley representatives on both the national and local levels. In addition we have held a symposium about the details of the decisions concerning the dockyards. This symposium was attended by members of the Whitley Councils and Committees and by a number of district union officials.
    Mr. Boston: Will my hon. Friend accept that the humanity as well as efficiency with which this reorganisation is being carried through is very commendable? What progress is being made in the talks with the trade unions, particularly on the question of retraining men made redundant? When will the outcome of the talks be revealed?
    Dr. Owen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. We have laid great emphasis on the need to get adequate retraining facilities in agreement with the trade unions in the discussions which have arisen over the whole range of the current dockyard review, and the progress made is satisfactory.
    Dame Joan Vickers: What is the expected rundown in the labour force during the coming year?
    Dr. Owen: If the hon. Lady will put down a Question on that, I will endeavour to answer it.

    Portsmouth Dockyard (Accident Rate)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the accident rate in Portsmouth dockyard during the past year.
    Dr. David Owen: In 1968, there were 458 accidents to industrial staff in Portsmouth dockyard. The great majority of the consequential injuries were of a minor nature. Nevertheless, we are not relaxing our efforts to improve safety, and, as my hon. Friend knows, a Yard Safety Committee has recently been established.
    Mr. Judd: Is this not a deteriorating record of work safety, and, at a time of modernisation in the yards, is it not most unsatisfactory? Will it receive the closest possible attention?
    Dr. Owen: I am not complacent about any accidents. As I have said, we are looking at the matter closely. We have instilled into the dockyard industrial labour force a safety consciousness of a pretty high level, and our record compares very favourably with that of outside industry.

    Working Dogs
    Mr. Burdenasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many working dogs are employed by Her Majesty's forces in the United Kingdom; and what saving in the cost of feeding alone will result from the decision to feed them on canned meat.
    Mr. Reynolds: Including those being trained, 758.
    The main object of the change was to provide a better and consistent diet. Economy was not the primary aim, though there should be modest economies as canned meat is easier to store, handle and prepare.
    Mr. Burden: Was the assessment of cost carried out before the recent increase due to 22½ per cent. purchase tax, and is it the Government's policy to feed working dogs on pet food?
    Mr. Reynolds: Tenders will go out for the type of food which we require for these dogs. As the Ministry of Defence does not normally pay purchase tax on supplies for defence purposes, it makes no difference when the costing was done.
    Mr. Burdenasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the working dogs employed by Her Majesty's forces in the United Kingdom are attached to establishments where there are catering units.
    Mr. Reynolds: Many of the working dogs employed by Her Majesty's forces in the United Kingdom are at establishments where there are catering facilities. It is not possible to be more precise without detailed inquiry.
    Mr. Burden: As their normal food, or the food upon which they have been fed in the past, will be available, was advice from veterinary inspectors or veterinary surgeons taken into consideration in the switch to pet food or tinned meat rather than the diet the dogs have been used to in the past?
    Mr. Reynolds: The food which they have normally been having will no longer be available because it will not be purchased in future; it was fresh meat and other materials. A scale has been worked out for the amount of meat and other materials which dogs of different weights require. We are now applying that. There will be no wastage of food in establishments with catering facilities because any waste is sold as pig swill. If the hon. Gentleman wants the dogs to have that, he ought to look at what it does to the pigs.

    Army Detention Barracks
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Defence if his review of the conditions and opportunities of work in Army detention barracks is now complete; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Boyden: No special review of Army detention barracks has taken place, but the probation service has been assisting detainees returning to civilian life, both during their detention and afterwards.

    Naval Detention Quarters
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Defence if his review of the conditions and opportunities of work in Naval detention quarters is now complete; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. David Owen: We have decided that the number of hours spent by detainees in their rooms will be reduced. All detainees will have discussion periods as well as lecture periods. Detainees will in future eat and talk together, and the standard of food has already been improved. More visitors will be permitted. The effect of these changes, which will be introduced over the next few months adds up to a considerable modernisation of the Royal Naval detention quarters.
    Mr. Driberg: I thank my hon. Friend for that welcome announcement of improvements. Can he say something about the tasks performed in these detention quarters? May we take it that it is not now only the archaic task of picking oakum which is available to some of these men?
    Dr. Owen: I assume that my hon. Friend refers to the teasing out of short pieces of ordinary stranded rope. As I have said in the House before, what is done in this establishment is to make mats and fenders which are used by Her Majesty's ships. This work is, therefore, productive and of assistance to the Fleet. In any case, men do not remain indefinitely on this work but go on to perform other duties around the establishment, and on entering stage IV, which is after about 84 days, they go out daily to work at their trades on Her Majesty's ships in the dockyard.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the hon. Gentleman pay a tribute to the staff at naval detention quarters for all that they do to help the men who have to serve sentences there and for the results which they achieve?
    Dr. Owen: I gladly do that. The Report of the Working Party which looked into the whole question of detention quarters concluded that very valuable work had been done in the past.

    Concorde Aircraft
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Concorde aircraft he proposes to order for delivery in the mid-1970s to replace slower troop-carrying jet aircraft.
    Mr. John Morris: None, Sir.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Before the Government commit themselves to buying jumbo jets or other American troop-carrying aircraft for the 1970s, would it not be a good idea if they set about thinking that British aircraft should be employed, such as the Concorde, which is at least largely British, as an alternative to pouring out our treasure to buy foreign machines which we can build ourselves in the first place more cheaply and more efficiently than any American firm can build them?
    Mr. Morris: I am not sure when the hon. Gentleman discovered this new form of indignation. The Military Aircraft (Loans) Act was discussed in 1966, and it is not recorded that the hon. Gentleman voted in any Division on it. Second, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands the purpose of the Concorde. Third, as regards British transport forces in the air, our present force is now composed of new aircraft and will not need replacing for some time.

    Infantry Divisions (Recruitment)
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for Defence what is the shortage in recruitment to the infantry divisions of the British Army; and what is the difference between their peacetime and war establishments.
    Mr. Boyden: On 1st April, 1969 the infantry was deficient in strength by some 2,400 soldiers. Infantry divisions do not have peace and war establishments; however the difference in this respect for each infantry battalion is about 100 soldiers. Some battalions also receive a further increment from TAVR Reservists.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that this puts us in a very grave position? This is one of our teeth arms, and to be 2,000 short is a grave situation, particularly as we lack reserves. What is he doing about it?
    Mr. Boyden: The hon. Gentleman should not exaggerate the situation. In the last few weeks, recruiting has picked up.
    Mr. Ramsden: If infantry divisions do not have peace or war establishments any more, can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government are working on the basis of three companies or four companies for infantry battalions?
    Mr. Boyden: It varies between the divisions at the moment.

    Gurkha Brigade
    Mr. Scott-Hopkinsasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many Regular British officers will be in the permanent cadre of the Gurkha Brigade on 1st June, 1969; and what are his plans for recruitment to the brigade.
    Mr. Boyden: 163. On officer recruiting to the brigade, I have nothing to add to my letter to the hon. Member of 31st March. We shall continue to recruit sufficient Gurkha soldiers to maintain our target strengths.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that by phasing out the permanent cadre and having only temporary officers going to the Gurkha Brigade, it will lower the level of recruitment, and is it not disastrous? When we are 10,000 short in the Army and 2,000 short in the infantry brigades, surely it is madness to cut the Gurkha Brigade?
    Mr. Boyden: I do not accept either of those two points. It is a reflection on the short service officers to make that remark. Several of the corps in the Gurkhas are run by seconded or short service officers.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Biggs-Davison.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: rose—
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Hon. Members: Wait.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Biggs-Davison—[HON. MEMBERS: "Point of order."] Order. The point of order was not raised.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the Government show some Commonwealth solidarity and consider stationing some British Gurkhas with the Australians and New Zealanders in Malaysia after 1971, and will the Government do nothing to discourage the recruitment of these splendid soldiers?
    Mr. Boyden: There is a great deal more Commonwealth solidarity now than there was in the days when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in office.
    Mr. Rippon: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we regard his answer as very unsatisfactory and that a Conservative Government will seek to review the position as soon as we have the opportunity and try to put right the damage that present Government policy has done?
    Mr. Driberg: Since the Gurkhas seem actually to enjoy serving in H.M. Forces—
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: So do many other people.
    Mr. Driberg: —and since they make very good soldiers, anyway, why confine them to the Gurkha Brigade? Why not bring some of them to the United Kingdom to replace the reluctant teenage Servicemen whom my hon. Friend will not release?
    Mr. Boyden: That would raise many difficult problems, and I doubt very much whether the Gurkhas as a whole would like it.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the still unsatisfactory nature of all those various replies, I beg to give notice that I will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Defence at what strength he now plans to maintain the Gurkha Brigade after 1971.
    Mr. Boyden: As announced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 16th January, 1968, the Brigade of Gurkhas is being reduced to a strength of 6,000 men by the end of 1971. Its future after that date will depend on conditions at that time.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the strong feelings in the House and in the country as expressed a few minutes ago? Will he have particular regard to the pleas of his hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) and reconsider this deplorable decision to reduce the brigade?
    Mr. Boyden: The hon. Gentleman exaggerates what is said to be the feeling in the House.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are great differences in our recruiting position which have developed since 16th January, 1968, which is 16 months ago, and that we are now 15,000 men short? Following the question of the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg), will he not undertake to open negotiations in Nepal to see whether we could not recruit an additional 6,000 Gurkhas, who are the best possible auxiliaries to the British Regular Army?
    Mr. Boyden: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman should read what his right hon. Friend said about this situation in 1963.
    Dr. Gray: Has my hon. Friend had conversations with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development on the effect of this reduction on Nepal's external balance of payments in view of the remissions which have always been sent by Gurkhas to their relatives and dependants in Nepal?
    Mr. Boyden: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence for Administration has been to Nepal three times and this matter has been very much under consideration in his discussions with the Government there.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory and frivolous nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Aircraft Carriers
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will now make a statement on the rôle to be played by aircraft carriers in the early 1970s.
    Mr. Bostonasked the Secretary of Slate for Defence what further consideration he now proposes to give to the rôle of the aircraft carriers after 1971.
    Mr. Mayhewasked the Secretary of State for Defence what rôle is now proposed for H.M.S. "Ark Royal" in the seventies.
    Sir F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Defence when it is intended that H.M.S. "Eagle" shall go out of active service in accordance with Her Majesty's Government's policies in regard to aircraft carriers.
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will consider making available H.M.S. "Ark Royal" for international peace-keeping purposes when she is phased out of operational use with the Royal Navy in 1972.
    Mr. Healey: The Government's plans for the aircraft carriers remain unchanged; that is to say, they will be phased out of their present fixed-wing flying task after the withdrawals from Malaysia, Singapore and the Persian Gulf have been completed in December, 1971. As we have said before, no decision has yet been taken about their future after that date.
    Mr. Brooks: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the fact that well over £32 million will have to be spent on the refit of the "Ark Royal", it would be the height of madness to get rid of her when she still has an operational potential, which I understand will persist into the middle 1970s?
    Mr. Healey: I do not think that that is the case. When the Government decided not to continue the carrier force, it was because the running costs annually and the cost of replacing carriers as they became obsolescent were out of all proportion to the military value which could be obtained, particularly once we decided to leave our bases east of Suez.
    Mr. Boston: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there has been confusion in some Press reports about the future of the carriers? Would he clarify the position and confirm that an alternative way of dealing with this would involve greater cost with no greater benefit in terms of our defence policy?
    Mr. Healey: If one decides to retire an equipment from its existing rôle, it is possible to scrap it, to sell it or to give it a new rôle. Each of those possibilities is still open for the carriers, particularly the smaller carrier "Hermes", whose overhead costs when operating are very much less than those of the larger ones like "Eagle" and "Ark Royal".
    Sir F. Bennett: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate what vessel or type of vessel will replace the aircraft carrier which has been carrying out anti-evasion of Rhodesian sanctions patrols off Mozambique, once the carriers have been withdrawn?
    Mr. Healey: The functions which were carried out by a carrier in the Beira patrol are being carried out very satisfactorily at the moment by Shackleton aircraft.
    Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend give serious consideration to the possibility that this ship might form part of some future peace-keeping exercise, and will he explore with the Committee of 33 how it might be done?
    Mr. Healey: As my hon. Friend knows, we are very anxious to assist the United Nations in any practicable way in its peace-keeping operations. However, this possibility has never been raised with us, and I would doubt whether it made sense to use a ship of this size and complexity in the rôle to which my hon. Friend refers.
    Mr. Rippon: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we on this side of the House share the anxieties expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Brooks), and will he confirm that the Super Harriers will be available for operations from these aircraft carriers and perhaps from other ships after 1971?
    Mr. Healey: When the Pegasus engine is up-rated, which is what I assume the right hon. and learned Gentleman means by Super Harriers, the Harrier will be available for any purpose which is considered suitable at the time. One such purpose might be operating from the decks of ships. However, I doubt whether it would operate from the decks of larger ships, because the advantages of the short take-off would be lost by using a very long runway.

    Western European Defence
    Mr. Brooksasked the Secretary of State for Defence whether the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has yet discussed the effects on West European defence of the United States' decision to proceed with a thin anti-ballistic missile system and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Healey: No formal discussions have been held on the decision announced by President Nixon on 14th March, but as with the many other subjects of common interest in N.A.T.O., some informal discussion has taken place. I am unable however to disclose details.
    Mr. Brooks: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that for the Americans to invest £3½ billion in a system designed to protect the Minuteman missile sites is bound to increase tension, is bound to accelerate the arms race, and may well involve a strategic reappraisal of the whole cold war situation, which would be very damaging to us? Is he aware that in The Times this morning there is a report that apparently the President of the United States, in certain circumstances involving this so-called safeguard missile system, might delegate his authority to order the firing of these weapons?
    Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend must recognise that the Soviet Government are proceeding with the deployment of their anti-ballistic missile system. I know that the American Administration are deeply anxious to negotiate with the Soviet Union a mutual agreement that neither side will deploy new strategic weapons, offensive or defensive, such as the A.B.M. system. But the rationale given by President Nixon for the deployment of this system is to ensure that America never has to fire strategic weapons systems first. I should have thought that that was an objective which commanded the support of all hon. Members.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am delighted to hear the right hon: Gentleman say that. Since our security as well as that of the United States rests upon an invulnerable second strike, what is wrong with the Americans guaranteeing that that second strike should be effective?
    Mr. Healey: With respect to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend, it is not for me to decide at the moment whether the American decision is wise in the light of America's problems. Certainly the rationale presented for the system is one that commends itself to both sides of the House.

    Regimental Pay Office, Edinburgh
    Mr. Stodartasked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he took to find staff to man the Regimental Pay Office in Edinburgh, so as to avoid its closure.
    Mr. Boyden: None Sir.
    Mr. Stodart: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the remarkable proposition he put in a recent letter to me that there was not sufficient expertise in Scotland to man this office? Is he aware that representatives of the Civil Service have said that there is a nucleus available of 35 men with records experience and 80 with experience in pay offices? What is wrong with that?
    Mr. Boyden: It is the relocation of pay and records offices that is the point of the reorganisation. If the Conservative Government had not closed the records office at Perth in 1964, there might have been enough people available but there are not now.
    Mr. R. W. Elliott: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is great irritation in the development areas at the Government's failure to choose them for the establishment of these offices? So far, only one development area has been chosen for such an office. This is at Exeter, where the unemployment rate is half that of the North-East of England, where we have excellent computer training services.
    Mr. Boyden: There are many other factors to take into account than regional policy. In relation to broad regional policy, in the saving of 900 jobs through the reorganisation, 800 will come from London and the South-East, which will be a substantial contribution to regional policy in general.

    Naval and Air Bases, Mediterranean
    Mr. Hastingsasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the

    445
    naval and air bases now used by British forces in the Mediterranean; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Healey: The bases mainly used are in Gibraltar, Malta and Cyprus. I refer the hon. Member to recent statements on the Defence Estimates for fuller information.
    Mr. Hastings: Will the right hon. Gentleman list those former British bases and facilities, both naval and air, used by the Russian fleet in the Mediterranean area? Would it not include Alexandria, Port Said, Luxor, Salum, Mersa Matruh, Aswan, Cairo West and Habbannya, for a start? Has not our withdrawal from that area benefited no one and nothing so much as Russian imperial ambitions?
    Mr. Healey: As the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)—whom I see back on the Opposition Front Bench for the first time—will recall, it was the Conservative Government's responsibility that the bases in Egypt and the surrounding area were abandoned by the British Government at the time. But the fact is that they have not been taken over as bases by the Soviet Union.

    "Leander" Class Frigates (Radar Spares)
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Gilesasked the Secretary of State for Defence what action he intends to take to expedite the supply of radar spares for "Leander" class frigates.
    Mr. John Morris: In general, there is no difficulty about the supply of radar spares for "Leander" class frigates. A redesigned power unit is currently being installed in one of the radar sets fitted on these frigates, and adequate shore stocks of this unit are now held to meet any emergency requirements.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Not in general perhaps but in particular there is a great shortage. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that this shortage is not due to a general rundown in stocks and spares or war stocks through the economies of the Government?
    Mr. Morris: I can give that assurance to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. There was no rundown of spares. Indeed, the reverse was the case. This concerned
    446
    the installation of a new set in place of an old set. In the particular case which I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has in mind—H.M.S. "Danae"—a replacement ordered failed on test. The position for the future is satisfactory.

    Service Careers, Officers (School Visits)
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Gilesasked the Secretary of State for Defence how many local authorities currently decline to allow service careers officers to visit schools in their areas; whether he has written to these authorities; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Reynolds: There are currently about 16 areas in which local authorities decline to allow careers officers to visit schools. The Services recruiting organisations continually take all possible measures to achieve full co-operation.
    Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Will the right hon. Gentleman not think again as to whether it would not be constructive to write to these authorities and urge them to allow careers officers to pay such visits? May I point out, without carping, that he may find these authorities more liable to help now that so many more of them are in the hands of the Conservatives?
    Mr. Reynolds: We are constantly in touch with the local authorities on this. The list of authorities is continually changing. It does not consist of the same authorities all the time. As one would expect with any list of local authorities at present, the majority of them are Conservative.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one school has become closely associated with a certain vessel in the Royal Navy? Will he encourage this kind of association between schools not only with vessels of the Royal Navy but also with R.A.F. units and regiments in the Army?
    Mr. Reynolds: We have to consider the cost, both in particular and in general, but I am certainly prepared to encourage this kind of association. But policy in the schools not only towards Service visits but also towards visits by industry is a matter for the local education authorities and the head teachers concerned.

    Home Defence
    Mr. Ramsdenasked the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has for defending vulnerable points in the United Kingdom during a period of severe tension in Europe;
    (2) what plans exist for organising home defence in the United Kingdom should conventional war break out in Europe.
    Mr. Healey: It would not be in the public interest to give details of such plans.
    Mr. Ramsden: Will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that nothing that has been said, certainly today or in the recent defence debates, has sufficed to allay the considerable public anxiety which exists about the apparent inadequacy or absence of plans for safeguarding the home base in the event of trouble developing abroad? Will he take steps to allay that anxiety?
    Mr. Healey: I think that the right hon. Gentleman grossly exaggerates the degree of public anxiety. Anxiety has not been expressed to me in any form by any member of the public.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways of defending a vulnerable home base would be to bring home B.A.O.R. and save £220 million at the same time?
    Mr. Healey: No, Sir. I take the opposite view, as I explained in the last defence debate, and it is a view which at least commanded the support of the Front Bench opposite. A situation in which there might be a threat to the home base is more likely to arise in Europe and we can best meet that by concentrating troops on the Continent.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: If a foreign Power flew a civil aircraft loaded with commandos into London Airport, how would the right hon. Gentleman deal with the situation?
    Mr. Healey: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to answer that supplementary question.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to review the provision made for
    448
    home defence following the recent acts of sabotage in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Healey: None. Our plans for home defence relate to general war.
    Mr. Goodhart: Does the right hon. Gentleman still believe that an internal sabotage campaign would not coincide with a grave emergency abroad? Does not the lesson of Ulster underline the folly of slashing our reserve forces?
    Mr. Healey: On the contrary, as I have explained in previous debates, tens of thousands of regular Servicemen will be available in Britain in case of war. The problem in Northern Ireland at the moment is being dealt with by a few hundred infantrymen partly because in Northern Ireland a large part of the police are caught up in duties which have no parallel, and would have no parallel, I hope, in this country.
    Mr. Rippon: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is wrong to say that there is no public anxiety about the state of our home defences? Where are these tens of thousands of troops to come from if we are also committed to Europe? Has he seen what the Under-Secretary of State had to say recently—that all we have for home defence is the Household Brigade and storekeepers? The N.A.T.O. treaty places upon each country its own responsibility for home defence, and we are the only country in Western Europe which is making no proper provision for home defence.
    Mr. Healey: We debated this in detail on the Defence Estimates and the House found against the right hon. and learned Gentleman. But as I said earlier, tens of thousands of professional Servicemen will be available in Britain in case of war, and I mean that this would be so after all those troops committed to N.A.T.O. for service outside the United Kingdom have left the United Kingdom.

    Peace-Keeping Operations (Training)
    Mr. Luardasked the Secretary of State for Defence what training for peacekeeping activities is undertaken by Her Majesty's forces.
    Mr. Healey: Peace-keeping activities call for high standards of discipline, basic training and morale. These qualities are

    449
    developed in our military schools, staff courses and colleges for all our forces whether serving on peace-keeping or other tasks.
    We also take account of the experience already gained in United Nations' and other peace-keeping operations.
    Mr. Luard: Would not the Secretary of State agree that the previous belief that the permanent members of the Security Council were not likely to be involved in peace-keeping operations can no longer be held in view of British participation in Cyprus and the proposals for contributions by the permanent members in the Middle East? In view of the extensive preparation and training carried out in some other countries, notably Scandinavian countries, for this purpose, would he not agree that it would be valuable if we undertook special training for these purposes and co-operated with other Governments to that end?
    Mr. Healey: British forces are extraordinarily well trained for peace-keeping duties, as is proved by the way in which they compare with the contributions by other countries to peace-keeping forces. I do not think that anyone who has visited Cyprus will dispute that. There was a Question about training with other countries which was put a month ago when I explained some of the problems and difficulties.

    West Germany (Nuclear Weapons)
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Defence if he will now make a statement on his discussions with the West German Government regarding the use of nuclear weapons.
    Mr. Healey: The Anglo-German study designed to establish guidelines for the tactical use of nuclear weapons by N.A.T.O. will be considered at the Ministerial meeting of the N.A.T.O. Nuclear Planning Group at the end of this month.
    Mr. Allaun: While my right hon. Friend may believe that this collaboration gives N.A.T.O. greater control over future German nuclear activity, is it not possible that Bonn enthusiastically supports it for exactly the opposite reason?
    Mr. Healey: Everything is possible, but I am convinced that the activities of the Nuclear Planning Group have done
    450
    more to deal with the serious problems of nuclear control within the Alliance than anything that has previously happened. I think that the work which we are now doing is making a major political as well as military contribution to the solidarity of N.A.T.O. and peace in the West.
    Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that if discussions with the West German Government on the subject of the possibility of any control, or partial control, by the West German Government over nuclear weapons in Europe should occur, they will not be regarded as confidential and that the House will be fully informed?
    Mr. Healey: There is no question of giving control of nuclear weapons to anybody who does not possess nuclear weapons now. The purpose of the study which we are carrying out in the Nuclear Planning Group is to ensure that all members of the Alliance share a common doctrine on how these weapons should be used if their use ever became necessary.

    Beira Patrol (H.M.S. "Eagle")
    Sir F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the aircraft carrier H.M.S. "Eagle" will be returning to the Beira sanctions' patrol; and during her absence what vessel or vessels are carrying out her duties.
    Mr. Healey: I have no plans to make further use of aircraft carriers on the Beira Patrol. The patrol will continue to be carried out by destroyers or frigates and Shackleton aircraft of the Royal Air Force.
    Sir F. Bennett: Where do the Shackle-ton aircraft operate from and at what cost, in terms of both cash and foreign exchange? Second, would the right hon. Gentleman care to comment on the efficiency of the present system, as petrol in Salisbury under sanctions costs rather less than petrol in England without sanctions but under his Government?
    Mr. Healey: As is well known, the aircraft operate from Madagascar and have done so since the beginning of the patrol. The patrol has been totally effective for its purpose, which was to prevent any oil from reaching Rhodesia through Beira.
    Mr. Paget: But now that so much oil is reaching Rhodesia from other sources that the Rhodesians can do without rationing, why should we go to the expense of maintaining this nonsense?
    Mr. Healey: The overwhelming majority of my hon. Friends and at any rate members of the Liberal Opposition believe that support for a United Nations resolution of this nature is essential to the good name of this country in the world.
    Mr. Hastings: Will the Secretary of State now answer my hon. Friend's question and tell us what the actual cost of the nonsense is?
    Mr. Healey: I could not do so without notice, but the House will remember that I gave the figures of the cost in answer to a Question some months ago. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to give the figures again, perhaps he will put down a Question. It raises a subject different from that of the Question on the Order Paper.
    Mr. Judd: Will my right hon. Friend note that there are many hon. Members who resent the fact that this excellent operation, although we should like to see it extended, is described by hon. Members opposite as nonsense?
    Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir.

    Barbados Oceanographic and Meteorological Experiment
    Mr. Gresham Cookeasked the Secretary of State for Defence what study he proposes to make of the results of the Barbados Oceanographic and Meteorological Experiment; and what assistance is being given by the Meteorological Office to the project with a view to gaining an understanding of the global atmosphere as a basis for predicting the weather two weeks in advance.
    Mr. Reynolds: The Meteorological Office is not taking part in this largely American experiment. The results, and those of similar experiments in which the Office will participate, will contribute to our research into the general circulation of the atmosphere.
    Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Americans are putting a tremendous effort into this work and have come to the conclusion that the
    452
    Windward Islands and Barbados may be the centre of the atmospheric circulation of the Northern Hemisphere? Would it not be as well if the Met. Office took part in this experiment, or helped?
    Mr. Reynolds: We shall be doing similar work in other parts of the North Atlantic with other European countries in the next two years or so. We shall receive full reports of the American experiment in the Barbados area, as other countries will receive reports of our work. We shall learn much more from those reports than we should from sending one man as an observer with a large number of American ships spread over a large area of sea.

    B.A.O.R. (Cold-Weather Clothing)
    Dames Joan Vickersasked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress is being made in the planning of the improvement of the cold-weather clothing to be issued to the troops in the British Army of the Rhine in place of the parka jacket; and when this will be available.
    Mr. Morris: It is not intended to replace the parka jacket, which will be issued as necessary for use in very cold conditions. Trials will, however, begin this year of a quilted waistcoat type garment, which will give added warmth in conditions not cold enough for use of the parka jacket.
    Dame Joan Vickers: What does the hon. Gentleman mean when he says that trials will begin this year? When will the equipment be ready? Is not this a matter of urgency in view of the expedition to Norway last year and the difficulties suffered by our troops there?
    Mr. Morris: The issue of Norway is a completely different question. For Arctic warfare we have been using clothing designed in Canada. The whole range of combat clothing for temperate areas, including for the B.A.O.R., has been under review and prototypes of improved garments have been introduced and limited troop trials will begin in July, 1969. Because the trials have not yet begun, it is not possible to say when any clothing approved will come into service.
    Mr. Ramsden: How can the hon. Gentleman say that my hon. Friend's Question is irrelevant? Do not our forces have a new rôle on the flanks of N.A.T.O., in Arctic regions? Is it not a

    453
    matter of some urgency that they should get the proper equipment? Can we have, if not today at any rate soon, a rather more comprehensive and relevant statement?
    Mr. Morris: I invite the right hon. Gentleman to read the hon. Lady's Question. I answered that Question. She also raised the issue of Arctic clothing and that is an entirely different matter.

    Blowpipe Missile
    Mr. McMasterasked the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the trials and evaluation of the Blowpipe missile; and if he will place a production order for it as equipment for the British Army.
    Mr. John Morris: Development of Blowpipe is being undertaken by Short Brothers and Harland under arrangements agreed with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology. It is proceeding satisfactorily but is at too early a stage for any firm production order. Plans are being made to ensure rapid production to meet the Service requirement provided the development stage is satisfactorily concluded.
    Mr. McMaster: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that a production order for the British Army of this ideal weapon would greatly assist overseas sales? Is he aware that it is a weapon of great export potential?
    Mr. Morris: The hon. Member is perfectly right, and I hope that he will take some comfort from the last part of my original Answer. I cannot go any further at this stage.

TRANSFER OF QUESTIONS
Sir F. Bennett: On a point of order. May I now raise with you, Mr. Speaker, a point of order of which I have given you prior notice, and which in view of Minister's remarks in answer to my last question, suggesting that if I had put a Question down to him he would have answered it, I was very tempted to raise during Question Time, but instead bowed to your original advice that this was inappropriate?
On 1st May I put down a Question on the very point which he then mentioned,
454
the cost of the British patrol in Madagascar. I put the Question to the Treasury on the first day which would ensure an Answer on 20th May. I put it in to the Treasury because the best advice I could obtain was that it would answer this Question and not the Ministry of Defence. It was not until Tuesday morning that I received notification that the Treasury was to transfer this Question to the Ministry of Defence, because it thought that it would be appropriate for that Minister to answer.
I thereupon went to the Table Office which, quite procedurally correctly, advised me that, had I received notification of transfer by Monday, before the House sat, I could have put the question down to the Minister of Defence for a verbal reply on Wednesday 7th May. The Table Office said that as I did not receive the notification of transfer until Tuesday afternoon, it was then too late for me to put such a Question to the Minister for today. I was told that my only remedy lay in leaving it for the Defence Minister to answer as a Written Question on 20th May or for me to leave it indefinitely until Questions on Defence came to the top of the list again.
I know that you have no control over whether a Minister transfers Questions, Mr. Speaker, but I think that on behalf of every Member in the House some advice should be given by the Chair as to the celerity with which Ministerial Departments give notification of their intention to transfer Questions. Otherwise, we are put in the position when a Minister who does not want to answer a difficult Question—and I must admit I had some suspicions on this today—takes steps to ensure that the Question is not answered verbally, by the manoeuvre to which I have referred.
Mr. Speaker: I am never concerned with the motives of Ministers, which I am sure are the purest.
I am obliged to the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett) for having given me notice that he intended to raise this matter. The general point he makes, and it is an important one, was considered by the Procedure Committee in Session 1966/67. In paragraph 13 of its Second Report is said:
"It has been submitted to Your Committee that a Member's opportunity to ask a question for an oral answer is seriously prejudiced if

455
there is delay in informing him that his question is to be transferred from one Minister to another. … It has been consistently emphasised by the Chair that the transferance of questions is the responsibility of Ministers. But Your Committee recommend that Ministers should as a general rule, not later than two sitting days after the appearance of a question on the Notice Paper, inform the Member who has given notice of it of the fact that it is to be transferred, and to which Minister."
It does not seem on this occasion that the Department disregarded the Committee's recommendation, since notice of the Question was published on 2nd May, which was a Friday, and notice of the transfer was given on 5th May, which, being a Monday, was within the specified two sitting days.
All the same, this is a clear illusstration of the inconvenience which can arise if there is any delay at all in the transfer of Questions and I am sure that all Departments will use their best endeavours to avoid this. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Sir F. Bennett: I accept that notice was given, but one cannot know that unless one receives notification and I did not receive notification by post until 6th May, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that notice was given on Monday, but did not reach the hon. Gentleman until Tuesday.
Mr. Arthur Lewis: Further to that point of order. I am sure that the whole House will thank you for the Ruling you have given and the suggestion made to Departments. It is within the knowledge of most hon. Members that this sort of thing has been happening for some years now. Could the Department concerned not follow the admirable example set by the Table Office which, often within minutes and certainly within hours, sends a postcard to an hon. Member informing him that it wishes to discuss a Question, or that something is not in order?
Surely the Departments could send a printed card stating that they were transferring a Question? It could be sent within a matter of hours. If the Table Office can do it, the Departments can.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Departments will note the advice of the hon. Gentleman. May I say that the Table Office appreciates the tributes which the hon. Gentleman has paid to it.
Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. When the Committee recommends that the communication should be made with a Member within 48 hours, or two sitting days, surely that means communication to the Member, not the mere posting of a letter? It should be up to the Department, by telephone or otherwise, to find out where the Member is, and let him know. Could that be made clear?
Mr. Speaker: The House will agree that the sooner notice is given the better. If it is within the two days, even so much the better for the convenience of the hon. Member who may be disadvantaged if he does not know that his Question has been transferred.

RAIL ACCIDENT, MORPETH
Mr. Will Owen(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether he will make a statement on the rail accident at Morpeth earlier today.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Richard Marsh): Yes, Sir. I very much regret to inform the House that at 01.31 this morning the 19.40 sleeping car train from King's Cross to Aberdeen became derailed at Morpeth, Northumberland. Reported casualties are seven killed and 94 injured, but these figures have not yet been finally confirmed.
I know that the House will join with me in expressing sincere sympathy with the relatives of those who lost their lives and with the injured.
The emergency services were called for at once and the first ambulance arrived on the scene within nine minutes of the accident, a most creditable performance.
I am not able at this stage to inform the House of the cause of this tragic accident, but my Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways is at the site now and a public inquiry will be held as soon as possible.
Mr. Owen: I am sure that the House will join with me in my right hon. Friend's expression of sympathy to the relatives of those who have lost their lives or who have been injured in this regrettable accident.
It is at this moment too early to comment upon the cause of the accident, but I hope that the inquiry will help

457
to remove some of the rumours circulating this morning.
I am sure that the House would further like to convey its admiration to the citizens of Morpeth and the railway workers, and to the public services in the area who have responded so magnificently in this emergency.
Mr. Marsh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The inquiry will be in public and it will be a full inquiry.
I would certainly support the views which my hon. Friend has expressed on the remarkable speed and efficiency of the local services, including the police and ambulance services.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware—as, of course, he must be—that I have 24 years' experience of this excellent railway line? Will he say whether this terrible disaster was due to a defect in the railway line or in the train?
Secondly, can he give the names of the Aberdeen passengers who were killed and injured and say what provision is being made for them? I offer my sympathy to all who have suffered by the tragedy.
Mr. Marsh: With the greatest respect, I ask the House not to pursue that line of inquiry. This is a very serious accident. There will be an inquiry into its causes. At the moment, I propose to say nothing beyond that.
Mr. Dewar: I should like to associate myself and, I am sure, everyone in the City of Aberdeen with the expression of sympathy which my right hon. Friend the Minister has made to the families and friends of those who have been so tragically involved in this appalling accident.
My right hon. Friend will, no doubt, be aware that there is quite a deal of widespread concern not only about the specific accident, but about what appears, at least, to have been an increase in the number of derailments recently. Can he give an assurance that the public inquiry will be wide enough in scope to look not only at the specific causes of the accident, but at the general situation in this field as it is at the moment?
Mr. Marsh: The public inquiry will, of course, be able to take into account
458
any factors which it regards as relevant. I stress that, at the moment, no one is in a position to say what caused the accident. In view of its level of gravity, I think that the House would do better to leave the question alone.
Mr. R. W. Elliott: Will the Minister accept from all of us on this side of the House our association with his expression of sympathy with relatives of those who have been bereaved and for the injured? Will he fully appreciate that reports reaching us from the North Country during the course of the day have expressed the greatest admiration for the fire and ambulance services and the hospitals in Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Ashington, whose performance in this emergency has been highly commendable?
Mr. Marsh indicated assent.
Mr. Bessell: Is the Minister aware that my right hon. and hon. Friends on this bench would wish to be associated with the expressions of sympathy which have already been paid and to congratulate members of the public services who assisted so admirably and so quickly?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, during the inquiry, special consideration will be given to the question of increased speed of express trains and whether this is a cause, not necessarily in this case, but in general, of derailments?
Mr. Marsh: There will be a full inquiry into this matter. All possibilities will be investigated. Anything arising from that will be better dealt with after we have the report of the inquiry. In addition, there will, of course, be inquests.

COUNCIL OF EUROPE (GREECE)
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on the question of Greece and the Council of Europe.
As the House will be aware, on 6th May the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe passed by 13 votes to two, with three abstentions, a resolution on this question.

459
This resolution does four things. It identifies the Committee closely with Recommendation 547, passed by the Consultative Assembly on 30th January; it brings the conclusions of that recommendation to the Greek Government's attention—as was suggested by the Consultative Assembly—in order that the Greek Government may draw the necessary conclusions; it expresses the hope that the report of the Commission of Human Rights will be made available as soon as possible; and it declares the Committee ready to take a decision at its next meeting, until which time Recommendation 547 will remain on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers and of their Deputies.
There are several points about this resolution which I should like to emphasise. First, the resolution does not mean indefinite postponement, still less evasion, of this important issue. On the contrary, its effect is to set a time limit for the Greek Government to convince European Opinion that the evolutionary process towards democracy, which, in their view, they have begun, has either been completed or is within striking distance of fulfilment.
The reason why Ministers expressed the hope—and no more—that the Human Rights Commission would make available its report as soon as possible is that constitutionally it would be wrong for the Committee of Ministers to do anything that might suggest that it was giving this distinguished judicial body any kind of directive.
A number of my colleagues urged that no decision should be taken on the Greek question by the Committee until this report was available. There is no doubt that the report will have an important bearing on the Committee's final decision. My own view, which I expressed in the Committee yesterday, is that it is highly desirable that Ministers should have had time to study the report before taking their decision, but that this is not essential.
Finally, the resolution speaks simply of the next meeting of the Committee, without specifying when this meeting will be held. This is deliberate. In certain circumstances, my colleagues and I would be prepared to hold an extraordinary meeting to consider the Greek question.
460
I believe, therefore, that the outcome of yesterday's meeting was satisfactory. Much of the credit for this is due to the Chairman, the German Foreign Minister.
Mr. Rippon: May I assure the Foreign Secretary that his statement will be generally welcomed as being wise and prudent in present circumstances? Will he accept that it will be widely agreed that it would be constitutionally wrong and unfortunate if the Committee of Ministers did anything that might appear to prejudice or prejudge the findings of the Human Rights Commission?
While recognising, as we all must, that there needs to be a re-establishment of Parliamentary institutions and the rule of law in Greece at the earliest opportunity, and that we have a right to expect the Greek Government to show quick earnestness of its intentions in this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that when similar difficulties arose in Turkey, patience was rewarded and in due course Parliamentary institutions and the rule of law were re-established?
Mr. Stewart: I hope that the decision will be welcomed, because it is, I think, in line with the Recommendation of the Assembly, which spoke of a specified period and left Ministers to judge what the appropriate action to be taken and the specified period were.
As for the report of the Commission, I do not think that I am in complete agreement with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I remind him of what I have said: that while it would be highly desirable for the Committee of Ministers to be seized of the findings of the Commission before making a final decision, I could not regard this as an essential condition or a reason for unlimited postponement.
One of the reasons for the postponement yesterday—and I think that it was a valid reason—was that there was good ground for supposing that the report will be available.
As to the question of patience, this has been in my mind, too. It is a serious matter for any member-nation of the Council of Europe to have governmental institutions which are incompatible with the Statute. I agree, however, that it is reasonable to give time for the necessary changes to be made. I hope that they will be made.
Mr. S. C. Silkin: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the statement which he has made of Government policy is very much in line with the overwhelming view of the Assembly of the Council of Europe, and particularly what he has said about segregation of the issues before the Commission and the issue of qualification to remain a member of the Council of Europe?
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House, on behalf of the British Government, that if the Commission reports in good time before December the Government will urge that an immediate meeting of Ministers be held to deal with this subject?
Mr. Stewart: I agree with my hon. and learned Friend about the first part of his question. We sought to carry out what, I thought, was both the letter and the spirit of the Assembly's Recommendation, It is perfectly clear that the next meeting could not in any circumstances be later than the normal December time. If the Commission's report were available, and it were possible to hold the meeting earlier, the British Government would certainly be in favour of that being done.
Mr. Kirk: As one of those who was responsible for drawing up the resolution, may I associate myself with what has been said by the hon. and learned Member for Dulwich (Mr. S. C. Silkin) and assure the Foreign Secretary that this is wholly within the framework which we were trying to achieve? There seems to be some doubt about whether the unanimity rule applies in this case. Can the right hon. Gentleman clear up that point?
Mr. Stewart: That would, in the end, need to be answered by a lawyer, but it would not be my view—for what it is worth, not being a legal view—that one could hold that the unanimity rule applied here. It would not seem to me to make sense.
Mr. John Fraser: While I take the view that Greece should have been suspended yesterday, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his European colleagues on taking a most serious and important step in the right direction and giving, as it were, a suspended sentence to the Greek junta?
462
I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that the Commission's report is not an absolute precondition to a final decision. Can my right hon. Friend say that the final decision for suspension will be taken unless there is clear and unmistakable evidence of a return to democracy and not mere statements of intention by the Greek colonels?
Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for what he said in the first part of his supplementary question.
On the latter part, may I draw attention to what I said in my statement:
"… its effect is to set a time limit for the Greek Government to convince European opinion that the evolutionary process towards democracy, which in their view they have begun, has either been completed or is within striking distance of fulfilment."
Mr. James Davidson: May I express a very warm welcome for the right hon. Gentleman's statement and the hope that it has left the Greek junta in no doubt about the revulsion felt for certain aspects of its régime and its methods, which affront the principles of both N.A.T.O. and the Council of Europe?
Mr. Stewart: No doubt the proceedings and what was said at the Council will be brought to the notice of the Greek Government. I think that they will realise what is European feeling about this whole matter.
Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a large number of Greeks, many of whom were prominent in public life, who look to Britain and to the other democratic countries which make up the Council of Europe for continued moral support against the military dictatorship in their country?
Mr. Stewart: Her Majesty's Government, and, I think, Her Majesty's Opposition, made it very clear that we most earnestly desire to see the restoration of constitutional rule in Greece. This is our firm view, and we felt that the line which we took in the Council of Europe was the appropriate way of giving expression to it.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Recommendation 547 of the Assembly, on which the Ministers based their decision, was largely drawn up from a draft prepared by Conservative members of the delegation in the

463
teeth of opposition from Labour members of the delegation?
Would the right hon. Gentleman accept that Members on this side of the House are gratified that the Council of Ministers should have taken the same sensible and judicious attitude to this difficult problem?
Mr. Stewart: I must leave it to hon. Members to blow their own trumpets.
Mr. William Hamilton: Would my right hon. Friend say whether the Greek Government produced any credible evidence of progress towards democracy, as they alleged, what is the nature of the time limit given to them to complete that process, and whether, in the interim, arrangements have been made for the Greek Government to supply that evidence?
Mr. Stewart: As to the time limit, I made it clear that the next meeting of the Council of Ministers could not be later than December. In the resolution passed yesterday the Ministers expressed themselves ready to take a decision at that meeting.
The House will understand that the proceedings are confidential, but I do not think there is any serious breach of confidence in my saying that the Greek representative made a statement about what had been done and what was planned to be done in his country. I assume that that would happen also at the next meeting of the Council, and the Council would then have to judge.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: While giving one blast on the trumpet for the Foreign Secretary's efforts to obtain the restoration of constitutional rule in Greece, may I ask him to bear in mind, in this very difficult situation, the very important strategic interests involved and to do nothing which would prejudice the defence of Western Europe?
Mr. Stewart: I think that we all know very well that this consideration is in the minds of all of us. But we are dealing now with the Council of Europe, which has a Statute requiring certain principles of its members, and that is what is in issue.
Mr. John Mendelson: Apart from the position in the Council of Europe, and
464
with reference to the first part of my right hon. Friend's statement, does the Foreign Secretary recall that under his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. George Brown), and himself, those of us who have pressed the Government, either privately or publicly, to take a strong stand on our disapproval of the régime were always met with the reply that it is more wise to continue co-operation in the hope of the restoration of democracy?
Would my right hon. Friend accept that the people of Greece are being told by their Government that we approve of what is being done to them and would he in the near future make our real position clear?
Mr. Stewart: I do not think that there is now any doubt about our position. I know that there can be argument about whether, when a country has institutions which are incompatible with the Statute of the Council of Europe, one should proceed immediately to suspension or expulsion or take the view that continued membership of the Council may be helpful to the country concerned. It is right to take the latter view to begin with. All that I can say is that one cannot go on taking it indefinitely if no results occur.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker: I wish to make an announcement about the Ruling on privilege which I was asked to make yesterday.
The House will remember that yesterday afternoon, before the debate on the Finance Bill began, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) submitted that a breach of privilege was involved in the non-delivery of copies of the Finance Bill.
It is now my duty to rule on whether the non-availability of additional copies of the Finance Bill at the Vote Office yesterday constitutes a prima facie breach of privilege.
I have given this matter my anxious consideration, as I appreciate that there was serious inconvenience for some hon. Members when the Vote Office was unable to supply additional copies of the Finance Bill.
As the House knows, the procedure for printing all Bills is as follows. First, the

465
House orders the Bill to be printed and an order is duly entered to this effect in the Votes and Proceedings. As soon as the order is made, the Public Bill Office sends a final proof copy of the Bill to the printer and the Bill is then duly printed at St. Stephen's Parliamentary Press by Her Majesty's Stationery Office and thereafter published. The Controller of the Stationery Office has the sole authority to print and publish our Bills and other Parliamentary papers and he is answerable, of course, to Ministers.
As I indicated to the House yesterday, the Vote Office took delivery of 1,000 copies of the Finance Bill, and this was in line with the normal requirement for an item of this kind. But owing to circumstances for which the authorities of this House have no responsibility, delivery of additional copies of the Finance Bill did not take place.
As I told the House last week on a similar occasion—HANSARD, 2nd May, c. 1768—there is no question that the Controller of the Stationery Office was in any way negligent. The inconvenience which Members have suffered was due to circumstances beyond his control.
I must, therefore, rule that a prima facie case has not been made out by the hon. Member. In saying this, I do not, of course, prejudge the subject which he raised, and my Ruling does not prevent him, or any hon. Member, from carrying the matter further by any of the other courses which are open to him. All that I am now Ruling is that I cannot give this matter priority over the Orders of the Day.
Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: May I say how much I appreciate the care with which you, Mr. Speaker, have looked into this matter in an endeavour to help the House in the difficulty in which it was placed.
I appreciate that there is no breach of privilege in this instance, at least not of a prima facie nature, but I wonder whether it would be possible for you to instruct one of the Officers of the House to collect the copies of the Finance Bill which physically exist at the Stationery Office? If it were possible for you to instruct one of the Officers of the House to do that, I imagine that anyone who tried to obstruct him in carrying out the instruction of the House would be in
466
breach of privilege. This might be a way of getting copies of the Bill which we required to discharge our Parliamentary duties.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that my staff are taking every opportunity they can to secure further copies of the Finance Bill, and that they are doing their best to see that the House is not Inconvenienced in any way by circumstances which are at present outside our control.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): I believe that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) was right to raise yesterday the point that he did. Mr. Speaker, if you had ruled that there was a prima facie case of breach of privilege, I should have had to move a Motion to that effect.
I know that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned about not receiving publications. This is a delicate matter, and I think that all hon. Members appreciate why. I assure the House that active steps are being taken to meet every emergency. I hope that I shall not at this stage be pressed to go beyond giving the House an assurance that the authorities of the House are doing all they can to ensure that the business of the House is carried forward.
I should like to keep the House continually informed, by informal and official means. I assure right hon. and hon. Members that what I have said was the right thing to say in the circumstances. This is an extremely delicate situation. I shall keep the House informed.
Mr. Edward Heath: We are grateful to the Leader of the House for intervening and giving us an assurance that the authorities of the House are doing everything possible.
As I understood your statement on privilege, Mr. Speaker, you made it clear that the Stationery Office is responsible to Ministers. It is, therefore, the responsibility of Ministers, and, in particular, the Leader of the House, to ensure that the documents are available, if not in the printed form then in an alternative form. I am glad to note that the Leader of the House nods in agreement with that.

467
I do not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what steps the Government are taking, again for obvious reasons, but I give the right hon. Gentleman notice that if the Government put down business for the House and they do not provide the necessary documents, the House ought not to proceed with that business.
Mr. Stanley Orme: My only comment—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that he cannot question my Ruling. He may raise a point of order now, or he can raise a point on the statement of the Leader of the House.
Mr. Orme: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. I welcome the statement which you have made, and the emphasis which you have laid on the fact that you would not be put under pressure to take action which might only exacerbate the current industrial dispute.
I hope that every hon. Member, however he feels about this issue, will recognise that it is an industrial dispute and that it can be settled only through the normal industrial negotiations—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and that any form of pressure as suggested by hon. Gentlemen opposite will have the exact opposite effect.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Mr. Speaker, may we be told, either by you or by the Leader of the House, whichever is appropriate, about something which has not yet been said in this matter? What is the nature of the difficulty which has prevented the delivery of these papers? Everybody keeps referring to this as a delicate matter, and one which must not be spoken of. It seems odd that we should not be told what the difficulty is.
Mr. Speaker: I mentioned yesterday that there was an industrial dispute at Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I refused to comment on it yesterday. I refuse to comment on it today. A long time ago I decided to refuse to comment on anything in this country about which there were differences of opinion.
Mr. Heath: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you feel unable to comment, may I make it plain that we
468
on this side of the House absolutely repudiate the point of view put forward by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), and that the duly elected British Parliament is not going to allow itself to be impeded in its work by an industrial dispute?
Mr. Speaker: On behalf of the whole House, may I say that everybody in the House would echo the words of the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition that we regard the work of the British Parliamen0t as very important indeed, and that we regard interfering with it as something very serious indeed.

RHODESIA
Mr. David Winnick: On a completely different point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be possible for a statement to be made later today, either by the Leader of the House or by the Foreign Secretary, on whether any new Government action is to be taken on Rhodesia, in view of the great interest which the House has in the Rhodesian problem?
Mr. Speaker: That is most fascinating, but it has nothing to do with anything that is before the House.

FREE SPEECH COMMISSION
4.07 p.m.
Mr. Michael Foot: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a Commission to inquire into recent settlements of libel actions which may be contrary to the public interest.
I am not sure whether in seeking to introduce a Bill to establish a Commission to inquire into recent settlements of libel actions which may be contrary to the public interest I am required to declare an interest, but I gladly do so. I am the managing director of Tribune, a newspaper for which all hon. Members place their regular orders with their newsagents.
In another sense, too, I should declare an interest, in that I am responding to an appeal made by a writer in the New Statesman. I quote what was written in the issue of 7th March by Mr. Anthony Howard. I think that he set out the

469
position very clearly, and that what he said summarises the incentive behind my Bill. He wrote:
"Increasingly of late libel actions have tended to be disposed of by undertakings being given that the complainant will not be mentioned again or at least criticised in a particular context. We have rules against contracts that are in restraint of trade. Why does no one ever worry about arrangements that are clearly in restraint of free discussion?"
That is the principle about which I am concerned, and I can perhaps illustrate the practice which appears to be spreading by applying what has occurred to some hypothetical instances. If the Prime Minister, or the Leader of the Opposition, were to make a settlement with a newspaper insisting that in future that newspaper should neither directly nor indirectly reflect on the competence or the integrity of the Prime Minister, or the Leader of the Opposition, as it might be, in future publications, I think that everyone would say that that was an extraordinary demand. Indeed, the Prime Minister' has only to indicate to one of his minions that he wants a script from the B.B.C. to be told that he is acting like Torquemada.
But that is precisely the demand which Mr. Derek Marks, the editor of the Daily Express, has required from the newspaper Private Eye in the recent settlement of a libel action. He has required that there shall be no reflection directly or indirectly in future on his editorial competence or integrity.
To take another example, if the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod), who has a special knowledge of newspaper matters, were to insist in a settlement of a libel action that in future the newspapers concerned should never refer to him in any context whatsoever unless they had prior approval from him in writing, I think that we would regard that as an extraordinary demand, and one that it would be most uncharacteristic of the right hon. Gentleman.
But that is precisely the demand which Mr. Nigel Lawson, the editor of the Spectator, has insisted upon in the settlement of a libel action with Private Eye. Or if I were to insist that, as part of the settlement of a libel action, in future nothing defamatory or malicious were to be printed about me either, say, in the Daily Mirror or in the New Statesman, in my
470
opinion that would be a most improper demand for me to make.
But it is the case that Mr. Paul Johnson, the editor of the New Statesman, in a libel settlement with Private Eye, has insisted that nothing defamatory or malicious shall be printed about him in that newspaper in future. Nobody should say that that is all right, because, in fact, in the law courts on a numbeh of occasions defamatory statements have been shown to be justified or fair comment in the public interest. Therefore, to insist in advance that such a condition should be accepted is, in my opinion, a restriction on the proper area of free debate.
In the case of the New Statesman, the original demand of the editor to his fellow editor of Private Eye—if I may describe him in that comradely manner—was that there should be no mention whatsoever in any context whatsoever of the editor of the New Statesman or of the New Statesman itself.
I am not at all concerned here with the libels or the alleged libels which may have led to these actions or to these proposed actions in the courts. That has nothing to do with the matter. What I am concerned about solely in this proposed Commission is attempts being made—whether made by newspaper editors or by politicians—to inhibit or prevent future criticism. That seems to me to raise an entirely different principle.
Since I mentioned this matter elsewhere some days ago, and since my statements there have been fully upheld in a letter to The Times, which has not been contraverted in any way by the editors concerned, I have also had the information from a most eminent journalist on the other side of the Atlantic that in the United States, where there is a written constitution which lays down rules about free discussion and free debate, such a settlement of a libel action would be forbidden. It would be considered to be contrary to the public interest there, and in my belief it is contrary to the public interest here.
One of the difficulties about the situation is that nobody knows how extensive this practice may be. It is only by accident that some of the settlements have come to light. Some may have been made in the courts, in which case they have been published, but many may have been

471
settled before they ever reached the courts, and for all we know there may be a large number of settlements of this character which have been demanded from newspapers and which are preventing free discussion and inhibiting free debate, which I believe should prevail.
I therefore ask leave for a Commission to be established to discover how prevalent this system is and to make recommendations to ensure that the abuse shall not continue. On a number of occasions in the House I have made a defence of some of the activities of Fleet Street. It has not always had an entirely popular appeal here.
In Fleet Street we are inclined to extol John Wilkes and all his glories, and certainly he played a great part in establishing freedom in this country by challenging the privileges and presumptions of the House of Commons. Indeed, John Wilkes was himself a splendid "yellow" journalist who ran a newspaper which would make Private Eye look like a parish magazine. But if John Wilkes, as well as engaging in that sort of trade, had insisted for himself on the kind of protection which these three editors have claimed, he would have made himself the laughing stock of London.
I conclude in these terms. Newspaper editors and proprietors demand, quite rightly in the name of freedom, that politicians should have pretty thick skins. But if anybody raises a finger against them—or applies a foot to them—their cheeks can become as delicate as damask. We should have a fairer system all round. There should be free speech for all within laws of libel governing the whole situation, but with no secret compacts preventing free debate. I submit that this Commission should be established by the House of Commons.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Michael Foot.

FREE SPEECH COMMISSION
  FREE SPEECH COMMISSION
  Bill to establish a Commission to inquire into recent settlements of libel actions which may be contrary to the public interest, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon 9th May, and to be printed. [Bill 151.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Clause 1

      FUNCTIONS OF EDUCATION AUTHORITIES
      4.15 p.m.
      Mr. Speaker: I have published, as usual, my selection of Amendments. The first Amendment selected is No. 1, in page 3, line 22, leave out from 'on' to end of line 24 and insert '1st August, 1970'.
      I suggest that with that Amendment we should consider the following Amendments:
      No. 2, in line 24, at end insert:
      'being a date not earlier than two years after the commencement of this Act'.
      No. 3, in line 24, at end add:
      (4) No order under subsection (3) above shall be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by both Houses of Parliament.
      No. 32, in page 30, line 25, leave out from 'until' to 'and' in line 27 and insert '1st August, 1970'.
      No. 33, in line 36, leave out from 'until' to end of line 38 and insert '1st August, 1970'.
      The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 22, leave out from 'on' to end of line 24 and insert '1st August, 1970'.
      May I apologise in advance for the depth of my voice.
      Clause 1(3) provides that the power to charge fees in local authority schools in Scotland will continue until a date appointed by an order made by Statutory Instrument. One of the Amendments at present under discussion suggest that that date should be as late as at least two years after the passing of the Bill, but I feel that our suggestion is right. The effect of the Government Amendment is to abolish fee paying in those schools from 1st August, 1970.
      I announced on Second Reading that fee paying in education authority schools

      473
      would be abolished from that date, and the Bill will expressly provide for that and there will be no need for a Statutory Instrument. The change will ensure that all concerned know precisely when fees will be abolished, and the education authorities concerned will have as much notice as possible to enable them to decide on the future of the schools concerned. Indeed, when we had the rate support grant negotiations with local authorities earlier this year we took in the point and made arrangements in respect of the next two-year period for the finances involved. The local authorities already know the Government's intentions.
      The authorities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, which are the only authorities which will have fee-paying secondary schools after the end of this Session, have already been asked to bring forward proposals for the integration of the schools within the comprehensive system, and when the Bill is enacted we propose to press the authorities again regarding these proposals. In considering any proposals I, as Secretary of State, will have very much in mind the need to avoid hardship to the pupils already at fee-paying schools, and parents may be assured that I shall be as much concerned as are the responsible education authorities to ensure that any reorganisation is effected in an orderly manner with due regard to the interests of the pupils and the staff.
      Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 are consequential. They depend on the timing of the abolition of fee paying. When we printed the Bill in November we were still in discussion with local authorities. My hon. Friend met them in December. That is why we did not put the date in the Bill right away.
      Part of my answer to the Opposition Amendment is that it is obviously undesirable, in the interests of the schools and pupils concerned, that uncertainty about their future should continue. A reasonable time has been allowed for authorities to make proposals for the future of these schools and, particularly, for the integration within a comprehensive system of secondary education of the schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh which are fee-paying and selective. If the abolition of fee paying was delayed for at least another year, the authorities might be tempted to delay still further
      474
      their submissions of proposals, and this would be to the detriment of the pupils concerned and of the beneficial effect of reorganisation.
      We have debated the principle at considerable length on Second Reading and in seven sittings of the Committee. Now, we are debating a narrow point. I am glad the Opposition have accepted the principle and that their concern, too, is with the timing.
      Mr. Ian MacArthur: The right hon. Gentleman is jumping to conclusions prematurely.
      Mr. Ross: I am following the logic of the Amendments. Indeed, hon. Members will appreciate that delay in implementation for a lengthy period would be quite wrong in the circumstances. The Government have made up their mind, and we have told the local authorities and the people of Scotland.
      Mr. Esmond Wright: I must correct the Secretary of State in an assumption that anyone on this side has accepted any principle at all. As I have frequently said, the essence of Conservatism is precisely that it is unprincipled. But I deal with this, because the Secretary of State asked us to, in a narrower sense. He is telling us that he is introducing a date. This was not known to us—and I wonder whether he knew it—in Committee, from 30th January to the middle of March. The assumption was that a Statutory Instrument would implement this part of the Bill.
      Mr. Ross: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here for the Second Reading, but I announced it then.
      Mr. Wright: I was here on Second Reading and took part in that debate on 21st January.
      The Secretary of State asked us to be specific, so I will be. The insertion of the date of 1st August, 1970, by which fee-paying schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh should be abolished, is unwise and totally mistimed. New boundaries are being planned for local authorities and the whole character of education, whether comprehensive or otherwise, is bound to be reconsidered. There is the issue of the place of direct grant schools and of schools outside the public sector.

      475
      The Public Schools Commission is about to report on the place of grant-aided schools in Scotland. There is the beginnings of a debate—to my taste, all too late—about the rôle in Scotland of sixth-form colleges. If there is a rôle to be played by these denuded, broken institutions, as they will be after 1st August, 1970, perhaps it would be as sixth-form colleges. We have been able to discuss none of these issues, and, because this will be an Act of Parliament, it will be impossible to do any of these things—in particular, to see that Glasgow High School or the Royal High in Edinburgh become the sixth-form colleges which they might well have become.
      I therefore suggest that the right hon. Gentleman's timing is bad. I realise that I am speaking to a scholastic expert—as of 13 years ago. Every item in the Bill gives evidence of the antiquity of the principles which we are being reminded are at stake. I look forward not to 1st August, 1970, but to some other date, about which perhaps he knows more than I, when he may well have to return to his original profession as a school teacher in Scotland—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will not be out of order if he speaks about the Amendment.
      Mr. Wright: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
      There is a number of issues and a number of principles at stake even in this apparently tiny suggestion of a precise date. This cannot be considered without considering the character, the quality and the whole function of these relatively few schools in two cities. I admit that we are not discussing principles or the character of comprehensive education, because that is not the debate between us. The character of Scottish education has always been comprehensive. One of the tragedies of the Bill is that it represents the intrusion of English educational dogma into a debate on Scottish education.
      We must consider that, as of 1st August, 1970, a small number of schools out of a total of well over 3,000 will, in some degree, be legislated out of existence by decree of this House and the Secretary of State. For a host of reasons, this brings the question of their fate 16
      476
      months from now to crisis point. These are old schools. I notice the absence of the only two Etonians in the ranks of the party opposite, one of whom is the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), so I hesitate to say anything about comparisons with Eton—but Glasgow High School is older than Eton and has a history as great and as distinct as Eton's. The Secretary of State will not need to be reminded that that school has provided two Prime Ministers for the United Kingdom this century.
      To say that it has defects would be a challenge. A striking feature of the six Committee meetings on this point was that at no moment was a single vestige of criticism made of the quality of those schools. I would have listened with some sympathy if it had; none was made, nor could it be made. These are impressive traditional institutions. In education and, I think, in politics, one defies tradition at one's peril. A school represents far more than simply the men and women who teach there and the boys and girls who study there. There is a quality about the place which is fundamental and should be preserved—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the subsection. We are discussing whether subsection (3) shall come into operation on 1st August, 1970, or two years later. The hon. Gentleman must address himself to the timing.
      4.30 p.m.
      Mr. Wright: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is because I am so concerned about 1st August, 1970, and what will happen to those schools thereafter, and the contrast between the present and the future, that I am raising the point about the importance of their quality and character.
      Mr. A. Woodburn: If Mr. Speaker permits, would the hon. Gentleman explain that very many distinguished people all over the world come from other schools in Scotland, including a Prime Minister from Lossiemouth?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Speaker would not permit him to do so.
      Mr. Wright: I now want to deal with a second point which is fundamental to the date of 1st August, 1970. In his all-too short speech, the Secretary of State

      477
      said that local authorities knew already about this decision and date and that they have been asked frequently to bring forward comprehensive proposals. I submit that that is very much of an understatement. Is it not a fact that since August, 1965, there has been pressure from the Government on local authorities to make these precise changes, which they have remained unwilling to carry through?
      At a time when this Bill is in danger of becoming an Act, it is ironical that the local authorities of both Glasgow and Edinburgh are still firmly opposed to the whole proposal. When the Secretary of State says that the principle has been accepted, it has not been accepted by this side of the House, and certainly it has not been accepted by either of those two local authorities.
      I submit that in putting in this date and this Amendment, there is a serious threat to the whole character of local government in Scotland.
      Mr. Donald Dewar: Would not the hon. Gentleman accept that there is at least as strong an argument in favour of the changes? Even in the present municipal elections, it is clear that the majority of the electorate do not agree with right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. After all, the Labour Party and the Scottish National Party polled more than the Scottish Conservative alliances, and they are both heavily committed to the Bill.
      Mr. Wright: Again, I doubt whether that is entirely germane to the subject under discussion. If it were, I would suggest that what is true of Aberdeen as of last night is not true of Glasgow, and it is Glasgow and Edinburgh with which we are concerned.
      As we see it, this is not only a threat to local government. It brings into question the influence of the central Government on the freedom of a local authority to make its own educational proposals. I have looked through the corporation's minutes, and I know of nothing—
      Mr. George Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker ruled earlier that all that we are discussing here is a date. The principle is already in the Bill, and
      478
      there are no other general arguments such as that which the hon. Gentleman is advancing. The argument is simply as to when.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. He anticipated me by one or two seconds.
      Mr. Wright: Then may I return to the point that I was making, since it is of relevance to the right hon. Gentleman's constituency in that the future of Edinburgh's schools is threatened?
      As a result of this date, in one area of Edinburgh there will be a curious concentration of schools which will result in a serious threat to truly social comprehensive education. If I am allowed to, I will develop that point in a moment.
      By putting in this date and making it part of the Act, there is a real threat to local authority control of education. What worries me is how far this system can continue. What is to stop the Secretary of State, assuming that there is time in a congested timetable, bringing forward similar proposals for direct grant schools, independent schools or any other school outside the State system?
      Mr. William Hannan: If there is a danger to local authorities in the Bill, how is the danger lessened or dispelled by the fact that the date is to be two years' hence? Will not the danger be the same then?
      Mr. Wright: Am I to understand from the hon. Gentleman that there will be an election before then and that matters will be reversed? If he says that, I welcome it.
      Mr. Hannan: I said nothing of the sort.
      Mr. Wright: There is a danger in legislation which is binding on two distinguished and old local authorities, Glasgow and Edinburgh, and their choice about what they believe is proper for the education of their children.
      If this date goes through, we shall face a new social problem in Glasgow after 1st August, 1970. Where is Glasgow High School to move? It cannot stay in the gradually dying city centre of Glasgow. It will have to move, at a

      479
      cost which is carefully omitted from the somewhat fanciful estimates mentioned by the Under-Secretary of State earlier in our debates.
      Plainly, this situation is developing already in Edinburgh. There is a real problem that after August, 1970, the comprehensive character of Glasgow's and Edinburgh's education will be worsened rather than helped. There is a real danger of the disappearance from the city centre—and any product of Glasgow's schools and university should know it as well as I do—
      Miss Margaret Herbison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright), and I seek your guidance. I am sorry that I have to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, because I know that he has not a great deal of experience in this House. However, we have spent a long time in Committee discussing principles, and we shall waste further time, when there are other valuable educational matters to be discussed, unless the hon. Gentleman sticks to the terms of the Amendment.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will stop any hon. Member who is out of order. At the moment, I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) is in order.
      Mr. Wright: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that this is a real issue, and I assure hon. Members that I am not wasting time on the point. We are discussing a matter which is fundamental to Glasgow and Edinburgh. The right hon. Lady taught in their schools, and she must know that far better than I do.
      After 1st August, 1970, there will be a further social problem created, not eased, by this legislation. I am worried about the future of those schools, about the cost to the local authorities and the Exchequer, and about what is likely to happen to parents after August, 1970. Surely they will gradually move into the snob areas—the West Ends of the two cities—and they will exacerbate the social problems of those cities.
      There are real problems implicit in this choice of date and in the Amendment. Moreover, there is the very serious
      480
      fact—I was about to say "tragedy"—that after this date one form of comprehensive education is destroyed. Too often, hon. Members opposite and educationists in general talk about comprehensive education as if it involved the character of a single school. After August, 1970, a type of school will be destroyed in Glasgow and Edinburgh and, in that sense, comprehensive education itself is weakened.
      I come now to a point which I raise with some hesitation. Whenever one mentions the word "religion" or "Catholic", there is a buzz through any audience. I am trying to speak on this objectively. I would like to be assured that there has been genuine consultation with Glasgow's Catholic community, which constitutes a third of the population. We are emphasising dates, but there is another date which must be borne in mind. As I understand, there is an agreement which goes well beyond August, 1970, and makes the Dowanhill area of Glasgow sacrosanct to Catholic education up to the year 2008. The Under-Secretary was a little vague about it in Committee. Perhaps he could be a little more explicit today, because the dates are important.
      I want now, very briefly, to raise one or two other matters because, implicit in the argument from this side of the House, there are other problems which are just as profound as those that I have already mentioned. I implied at the beginning of my remarks that there was a place for these schools after 1970 as sixth-form colleges. I wonder how much attention has seriously been paid by the Government to the rôle of the fifth and sixth forms in these schools. They are very large fifth and sixth forms. Where will they go in September, 1970, and onwards? Are they to be pushed into the already overcrowded schools in other areas, and, if so, which? Are they to be moved by bus—that awful feature of American school education which destroys the whole character of locality?
      The essence of the claim from the Goverment side is that there should be a sense of territorial community. The neighbourhood school thesis is at the core. The only way in which these schools can continue to function is to have organised groups of children moving in by bus, morning, noon and night. On the

      481
      scale to which this will increase after August, 1970, this will become a serious educational disadvantage.
      I believe that there are fundamental misconceptions here in any event. The major misconception is that after 1st August, 1970, these schools will in some curious way be transformed. In fact, they will have to remain selective. They will have to stream, because the whole character of school education involves selectivity and streaming. The Government are on a false wicket when they suggest that there is a trend to comprehensive education which can absorb these schools and improve them in doing so.
      What is at issue here is absolutely fundamental. These schools have trained and prepared what one can call the leaders in Glasgow and Edinburgh—not exclusively the leaders. One presses buttons and says "leaders", and one gets a chorus of groans; one says "elite", and one gets a chorus of groans.
      The purpose of education is to provide and train leaders, as it is to train everyone in a class or in a school. It is the job of schools to do the best for all their pupils. I suggest that this Measure will destroy that central function in these particular schools.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the principle of the Clause. We are discussing merely the time factor which the Amendment suggests. Perhaps the hon. Member will relate his remarks more specifically to that point.
      Mr. Wright: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you will gather from the whole character of what I am saying, I am suggesting that it is impossible to separate from the date at which the principles become applied the whole character of what will then happen to these schools. I believe that were there time in the Parliamentary calendar, this would not be by any means the end of the story.
      I am surprised that if it is dogma which motivates the Government, as I believe that it is, in this issue, it is these particular schools, with their minute fees of £20 and £25, that are under attack. I believe that the Government are motivated in this issue by both dogma and envy. These are the most malicious ways in which to bring forward educational proposals.
      Miss Herbison: Time and time again, we have had from hon. Members opposite the suggestion of very small fees. Did not the hon. Member or his friends, at the big meeting which they had in Glasgow, find out that the outwith fees will go up to £155 a year, which will affect my constituents who travel in to these schools?
      4.45 p.m.
      Mr. Wright: I recall that the right hon. Lady made that point effectively in Committee. I appreciate the point, but these are a relatively small number of pupils compared with the overwhelming number in the centre of the City.
      I believe the Amendment to be ill-conceived and mistimed. I ask the Government whether they can assure us that there are significant groups in Glasgow and Edinburgh who are asking for this proposal that as of 1st August, 1970, these schools should cease to be fee-paying. Have the headmasters asked for it? I know that they have not, because I have a document which I could cite. Have the corporations of the two cities asked for it? Of course not. Have the pupils concerned asked for it? Of course not. Have the parent/teacher associations asked for it? Most certainly not. Indeed, I have a memorandum indicating that no fewer than 1,750 ex-pupils of Glasgow High School are against the proposal that as of 1st August, 1970, their school should cease to be fee-paying.
      No one is in favour of this proposal. I have heard no one in Glasgow or Edinburgh expressing anything but contempt for it. It is for these reasons, because no one is in favour of it, that I shall be asking my hon. Friends on this side of the House to oppose the Amendment and to oppose the date.
      Mr. Willis: We have just had an example of a university lecturer's approach to a specific problem.
      Mr. Wright: On a point of order. Since the word "lecturer" has been used, may I correct the right hon. Gentleman? The title is professor, if the right hon. Gentleman must use it.
      Mr. Willis: That makes it even worse. If that is the way a university professor applies his mind to a specific proposition, heaven help us. It is no wonder that

      483
      people hold up their hands at university professors and we get the woolly emanations that we do from a number of these gentlemen.
      Nine-tenths of the hon. Member's speech did not relate to the proposition concerning the date. Nine-tenths of his speech would provide a very good argument against his own Amendment, which suggests that the date should be
      "not earlier than two years after the commencement of this Act"
      Nine-tenths of the hon. Member's argument was a rebuttal of his own Amendment.
      I am amazed that the hon. Member should have come to the Dispatch Box and said what he did—or perhaps I should not have been amazed. I have been a Member of the House a long time and I have heard the Tories so often that I ought not to be amazed. In my innocence, however, I always expect rather more of the Tories than they give, but perhaps I am wrong in that expectation.
      We are asked now to say that the change should take place on 1st August, 1970. It is about time that it took place. It is about time that local authorities were given a specific date by which to bring it into operation. As far as I know, the Government have been trying to deal with this matter in an amicable way with the local authorities concerned for three or four years. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has, I know, had consultations with Edinburgh Corporation—and, I suppose, with Glasgow, too—on this matter.
      Let us not beat about the bush. Edinburgh Corporation would never bring this proposal into operation on its own.
      If we believe that in the interests of the country as a whole this principle should be established throughout the country, as all Governments have done when they believed something was in the national interest, we should say to the local authorities that it has to be done by a specific date. If Governments think that a thing is right and proper, introduces a certain element of social justice, and is good for the country as a whole, all Governments tell local authorities what to do. A local authority has very little power to do anything except
      484
      through the power given to it by the House of Commons.
      Mr. J. Bruce-Gardyne: Will the right hon. Gentleman address himself to the point that if, instead of accepting the Government's Amendment, we accepted the Amendment in the names of my hon. Friends an opportunity would be given to the country to decide whether it agreed with the Government's present view of what is in the country's interests? If it agreed the Government could then go forward, but if not the Government would not got forward with the proposal.
      Mr. Willis: This was in the Labour Party election manifesto in 1966 and in 1964, when we swept the Tories out of power in Scotland. The hon. Member ought to be praising my right hon. Friend for keeping the promise he made to the electorate, not criticising him. Hon. Members opposite are apt to say that a proposal has not been in election addresses, but this was in our election programme.
      Mr. George Younger: Does this interesting new principle cover prescription charges, which the Labour Party said it would abolish and which it has, in fact, increased?
      Mr. Willis: We are discussing this matter contained in the Amendment. I am prepared to discuss other matters at the appropriate time. I am prepared to discuss anything with hon. Members opposite for they are so easy to meet and beat. We have had approval for this proposal. Why should we wait for another election? Hon. Members opposite have put forward an Amendment referring to a two-year period because they are sufficiently misguided as to think that they will form the Government after the next election. This is another of the hallucinations from which they suffer. They hope that they will be able to avoid bringing this reform into operation, but we are pledged to do so. I am, therefore, glad that my right hon. Friend proposes to put the date in the Bill which will enable us to do this and to see that local authorities carry it out.
      What a load of nonsense the hon. Member for Pollok talked. He talked about abolishing fee-paying schools. We are not abolishing any schools, but abolishing fee-paying. The Royal High

      485
      will still be there with the same buildings and masters and, for the time being, the same children. Naturally, one is always changing educational patterns. This goes on all the time. My right hon. Friend said that he was fully conscious of his responsibility in respect of particular children. We shall have the same school with the same equipment and all the expert guidance and teaching staff. All we have said is that we would abolish the fees.
      Mr. MacArthur: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be announcing an entirely new doctrine and flying in the face of everything that was said by the Secretary of State in Committee. Is he trying to inform the House of Commons that if we allow this Amendment to go through all that will happen will be the abolition of fees and that the schools will continue in their character and traditions for all time? If so, he is completely contradicting his right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Willis: I was saying that when the change takes place this is what will happen. In non-fee-paying schools we are always changing particular uses and the channels through which children obtain their education. This takes place all the time and I should have thought that it would appeal to the hon. Member for Pollok. In Edinburgh, such-and-such a school has its purpose changed and different children go to it to meet the latest educational ideas put into operation by the corporation. It is a load of rubbish to talk about abolishing history. I am amazed at the hon. Member.
      Mr. Hannan: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) has spent too much time on television.
      Mr. Willis: Yes, when he is not running the Glasgow Herald.
      Mr. Hannan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that towards the end of his professorial career in Glasgow the hon. Member spent far too much time on television?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is departing too much from the Amendment.
      Mr. Willis: I thought that the hon. Member was spending his time in the offices of the Glasgow Herald. Obviously, he is getting out of touch with his profession and ought to go back to it to get more in touch.
      486
      The date in this Amendment is a much better one than that in the Tory Amendment, because it would mean that we would keep our promise. It would also mean that Edinburgh and Glasgow Corporations would know that this change would happen on a certain date. Then it would be open to them to take the necessary steps to see that it took place with as little trouble as possible and to see that the problems to which hon. Members opposite have referred will not arise. The trouble has been that there has been nothing definite. There has always been the hope in the breasts of many Edinburgh councillors that somehow they would get around this—somehow they would last out for five, 10 or 20 years until the Tories got back into power.
      I congratulate my right hon. Friend on putting in the date 1st August, 1970, and I shall be pleased to support the Amendment.
      Miss Harvie Anderson: I did not have the privilege of being a member of the Committee. Nor did I have the good fortune to catch Mr. Speaker's eye on Second Reading. Therefore, I hope that on this Amendment I shall be allowed to make clear that I strongly disapprove of the Clause and the purpose to which the Amendment refers.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must address her remarks to the Amendment.
      Miss Harvie Anderson: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I was keen to get on the record the words you allowed me to get there.
      While I had not the privilege of being on the Committee I was engaged on something which is particularly relevant to the date 1st August, 1970, which may be more fruitful than the proceedings of the Committee on this Bill, namely, deciding the future boundaries of all Scotland. In my privileged position as a member of the Royal Commission on Local Government, although I have no intention of going into detail I can say that the main purpose of that Commission is to redraw the boundaries of all Scotland.
      I hope that in debating this Amendment hon. Members will recognise that this has been going on. We are discussing a Government Amendment which

      487
      emanates from the same Government that set up the Royal Commission on Local Government and which proposes to abolish fee paying in certain schools by 1st August, 1970, in the full knowledge that by that time completely new boundaries will have been drawn for Scotland.
      5.0 p.m.
      It is possible that, as the Secretary of State optimistically suggested, local authorities will have submitted plans for the use of the buildings which are concerned with the date proposed in the Amendment. It is equally probable that any alteration in boundary would affect such a local authority's determination in this respect. It is serious that one of the buildings concerned is a particularly good one. If, on 1st August, 1970, it ceases to function in its present form and since, as the Secretary of State said, local authorities are charged with the duty of determining what should happen to the building. I want to know one or two things from the Under-Secretary.
      The Secretary of State said that the local authorities are themselves to decide upon the future of the schools. In the process of making proposals no assurance has been given as to where local authorities will stand either as regards the cash for the replacement of the buildings if they have to be erected elsewhere or as regards any compensation for providing, in a totally different place, the extra school places which may be required as a result of the Amendment. I shall come later to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) in connection with sixth forms.
      The Secretary of State brought out a second and equally important point—namely, the hardship to the pupils presently in these schools. If the Government are genuinely interested in education—some of the expressions used by hon. Members opposite in this debate cause one to doubt that—one would at least expect from the Government a definite assurance that the children concerned will not suffer educationally.
      Mr. James Dempsey: How can they suffer?
      Miss Harvie Anderson: They can suffer easily. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman, who did not have the courtesy to rise to make that interjection, will think about his own sixth forms.
      Mr. Dempsey rose—
      Miss Harvie Anderson: I will not give way. I will finish this first.
      If a child is coming up to an important examination, the last thing that is wanted is a change in his curriculum or his teacher. It is nonsense for hon. Members opposite to suggest that there will be no change, except the abolition of fees. Whatever proposals they make, local authorities, even those which have the utmost good will educationally—and these are the vast majority—will be hard pushed to put forward a scheme which avoids the interruption of the education of the children of whom I am speaking. If there is one thing more emphatic than any other in this whole matter, it is that the sixth form education in these schools is that which has produced for Scotland the outstanding successes of successive generations.
      Yet this sixth form, whatever size it may be, is to come to an end in its present form on a specific date—1st August, 1970. This can have no educational merit. I am, therefore, forced to the conclusion that, as all Scotland has now realised, this is a piece of political chicanery put forward under the guise of education. So, on 1st August, 1970, the full facilities for the first-class sixth form education provided in these schools will cease in its present form.
      The Secretary of State told us that local authorities have still to make their proposals. We do not even know what alternative will be available. We know that some children will undoubtedly be going elsewhere. If one of the proposals is that from 2nd August, 1970, these schools shall suddenly reconstitute themselves as sixth-form colleges, that is a very curious proposition, for two reasons.
      First, as my hon. Friend said, there will be much more complicated travelling arrangements than there are under the zoning arrangements, although they certainly entail travelling in many places. It should be recognised that in the more sparsely populated parts of Scotland every education committee is deeply concerned about the effect upon children who

      489
      have to travel long distances to and from school.
      Mr. Willis: This is nothing to do with the Amendment.
      Miss Harvie Anderson: Will the right hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Standing Committee throughout and who has already had his opportunity to speak, kindly allow me to develop my theme?
      Mr. Willis rose—
      Miss Harvie Anderson: No, I will not give way. The right hon. Gentleman had ample opportunity. These buildings, unique in Scotland, will be used to less than the best advantage as from 1st August, 1970.
      I oppose the Amendment, for two reasons. First, by setting a date, the maximum disruption is being caused to the education of the children who will then be in the schools.
      Mr. Willis: Rubbish.
      Miss Harvie Anderson: Time will tell. The right hon. Gentleman will not have to present this to his electorate. If he had to, he would not be returned to tell the tale.
      Secondly, it is a very remarkable thing to say that from 1st August, 1970 the offer of parents who willingly pay fees in their rightful belief that they should exercise every opportunity for their children will no longer be accepted and, in the same breath, to take higher fees from people needing spectacles and teeth—fees which they can ill afford to pay. That is a second thing which makes such a mockery of the abolition of fee paying under false pretences.
      Finally, selection is one of the questions which will arise consequent on the passing of the Amendment if, in the regrettable event of the Government's holding on sufficiently long, it is passed. On Second Reading, I made it plain in an intervention that people who
      "believe that as a result of this Bill there will be social equality and academic equality in Eastwood and Easterhouse".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1969; Vol. 776, c. 350.]
      will be proved sadly wrong.
      I believe that by the operation of this part of the Bill and by placing a definite date on the closure of these great schools
      490
      in their present form the social and educational inequalities which most of us—including, curiously enough, some of us on this side—would like to see abolished will be exaggerated.
      As I believe that selection in some form will remain, by whatever name it is called, I believe that there is a good deal less wrong with this selection which enables those great schools to hold the record which they have, even if it costs parents something in sacrifice to send their children there. I am sure that selection will continue, whatever the Government try to do under the Bill, so I support the opposition to this Amendment, which I regard as wholly ill-conceived and contrary to true educational interests.
      Mr. Dewar: I have listened with some amazement to the speeches which we have heard so far from the Conservative benches. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) seemed to bring a confusion of mind to the problems of education in Scotland which, to be fair to him, he did not bring to the machinations of the early Tudors.
      I was sorry, for example, to hear the hon. Gentleman sneer at my right hon. Friend's record in education. If he so values practical teaching experience in a discussion on Bills of this kind, he must look with despair upon his own benches, where, I understand, teaching is wholly unrepresented, at least at school level.
      At one point, the hon. Gentleman argued, or appeared to argue, that these fee-paying schools would be abolished root and branch de facto, on 1st August, 1970. A minute or two later he was explaining with great vehemence that, because of the innate virtues of selection and streaming, it was impossible to destroy these schools but they would march on indissoluble and unbowed, whatever the wicked Labour Government might do.
      Next, the hon. Gentleman said that these schools could not succeed if one did not have selection because they would have no catchment area to feed them as ordinary comprehensive schools. Shortly afterwards, however, he said that it would be unfair to ask people presently at these schools to bus out to other centres of education. Although I do not necessarily agree that they would be asked to do that,

      491
      the whole point of the hon. Gentleman's argument is that they must bus in now because there is no population in the immediate area to serve the schools.
      Those are small points, but they are symptomatic of the confusion in the hon. Gentleman's mind, caused, I charitably assume, by his efforts to make propaganda points within the narrow limits of order of the present debate. It did him no credit.
      I was surprised to hear that there had been no criticism of these schools in Committee. I take the hon. Gentleman's word for that. I was not a member of the Standing Committee, so I cannot say. I should have expected there to be plenty of criticism, on a number of grounds. What we are asked to do by the Opposition, on this Amendment, is to allow these schools to run on in an unreconstructed state, as presently constituted with their present methods of entry and fees, for at least two years longer than the Government intend.
      I assume that there lurks in the back of their minds—it was openly expressed by the hon. Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne)—the thought that they may be able, for a combination of reasons, to get back into power and reverse the trend. In other words, what we are invited to do is to contemplate the continuance of these schools indefinitely. That is what the argument is about.
      I am not prepared to contemplate that continuance. I shall not argue at length the basic merits or demerits of the schools. I say only—I put it in, so to speak, vestigial shorthand which, I am sure all those who attended the Standing Committee will understand—that I accept that these schools are socially divisive. I accept that anyone who has moved among them or has examined their composition recognises that they are largely middle-class orientated. Almost anyone accepts that an I.Q. can be taught.
      A child with a middle-income background, coming from a background with a good basic vocabulary, with books readily available and with an academic tradition in the home, can be given an enormous advantage, even though it is argued that the basis of entry to these
      492
      schools is nominally not social class but ability. A self-perpetuating system is developed which keeps the schools forever established upon a comparatively narrow class basis.
      The hon. Member for Pollok argued that there was no attempt by any responsible body of opinion—I assume that he excludes us as in some way irresponsible—to preserve that basis. Let him talk to school teachers. I thought it significant that one body which he did not quote was the Educational Institute of Scotland, which came down strongly in favour of the abolition of fees and a changed system of entry to these schools, saying that the schools existed to perpetuate the advantages of segregation, with class-mates of the same background, and then talked of the common charge of snobbery.
      I might not be so blunt as to call it the common charge of snobbery. In my view, people delude themselves into thinking that there are positive advantages to be derived from this form of education. However, the opinions of the Educational Institute of Scotland are a little more representative and impartial than those of, say, the parents who are concerned about and connected with these schools specifically and who, understandably, have a vested interest in arguing for their continuance.
      Mr. Wright: The hon. Gentleman asks for the views of the E.I.S. I shall quote from its memorandum:
      "Where the school has exceptionally well equipped premises, however, a highly efficient staff and a long tradition of fine academic achievement, one would hope that these resources could be preserved intact; the breaking up of a good school can hardly be regarded as furthering the progress of education."
      5.15 p.m.
      Mr. Dewar: That is not dealing with the question of fees. That statement of the virtues of a school, an unexceptionable statement, would not preclude the use of such a school and its facilities, if they are sound, changing the method of entry and trying to build a new and good school which is much more broadly based socially and educationally, using and continuing the traditions inherited from the previous school. There is no inconsistency there at all. If the hon. Gentleman has read the E.I.S. memorandum properly, he can have no doubt on which

      493
      side of the argument it has come down, and come down very firmly.
      I have listened with care to the arguments put up by the Opposition. Some of them, I suppose, might almost be described as relevant, though all of them are bad. I take one or two of the most outstanding. The hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson)—she was not the first—talked about the reorganisation of local government. Once again, the Government are invited to go into a state of paralysis while waiting for the Wheatley report to appear, for the debates to take place, for a consensus to be reached, and for legislation to be pushed through.
      Apparently, we are invited to accept a situation in which there can be no legislation on a wide range of matters in Scotland until that long and inevitably laborious process comes to an end. But that would be intolerable, and the suggestion can be made only because hon. Members opposite are unable to think of anything else to put up as an argument to delay the House in this matter.
      I might even have had some sympathy for the argument if the Bill were drawing local authority boundaries for some sort of educational purpose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not discussing the Bill. We are discussing an Amendment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks a little more closely to that Amendment.
      Mr. Dewar: Certainly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      The argument put up by the Opposition is that we ought to delay for two years until we have the report on local government reorganisation in Scotland. I am pointing out that that is not a valid argument. The simple reason is that what the Government are trying to do is to set a date admittedly before the report will be implemented or, perhaps, even discussed at length, but that is of no importance because Glasgow and Edinburgh are the only two areas involved.
      Never mind how local government is reorganised in Scotland, Glasgow and Edinburgh are bound to be the centre of, or perhaps the sole components of, a new local government unit. It is not a question of drawing new boundaries and discovering that they will not coincide
      494
      with something which will emerge from Wheatley. It is a completely different situation.
      We are abolishing an educational anachronism which has survived with disastrous effects in only two areas of Scotland. We are not here discussing administrative boundaries. Therefore, Wheatley is basically irrelevant.
      Mr. Willis: And we have no guarantee that the Government will accept the recommendations of the Wheatley Committee.
      Mr. Dewar: That is so, but in any case it does not seem to me that the argument is of importance here.
      Second, the hon. Member for Pollok argued with some eloquence that what is proposed here is a threat to the independence and freedom of action of local authorities. I can see the force of that argument, and I am not entirely unsympathetic to it. It is always extremely difficult to draw the line; there is always a balance to be struck between local and central Government. That is a platitude with which no one will disagree.
      It has been rightly pointed out that whether the change is put off for two years this question remains. If the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) had said that this is not a right that central Government should have, that they should not be able to impose on local authorities a scheme of this nature, and that the Opposition object to this root and branch, and pledge themselves never to do anything like it when they return to office, that would have been fair and we could have had a realistic argument. But he did not do so. He merely said, "We do not like this provision, and we want to push it as far back as possible". His amendment does not argue about the fundamental right of central Government to set a date by which fees are to be abolished, and therefore again it seems to me that the argument falls.
      Mr. N. R. Wylie: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is an abuse of power to introduce such a change a few weeks before the Government go out of office?
      Mr. Dewar: Very often as I walk around the Parliament House I am struck

      495
      by the air of unreality in the place, as though it were divorced from what is happening in the real realms of society. I worry considerably about the hon. and learned Gentleman, whom I respect, and I suggest that he goes out and talks to people and uses his eyes and ears. He will then realise that that is not a point of great substance.
      However, it leads me to the more important point behind all the arguments by the Opposition. They have said in effect, "Give us two years, and we shall beat Labour. We shall be back in, and everything will be all right." In tandem with that goes the argument that the Labour Party has no mandate for introducing an early date for abolishing fees and that the people of Scotland—or perhaps it would be fairer to say the people of Glasgow and Edinburgh, who are really involved—do not want the change to be made.
      I do not accept either proposition. If we have the misfortune of the Conservative Party winning the next General Election, it would be a piece of obtuse nonsense to say that it did so because of the question of fee-paying schools in Glasgow and Edinburgh. The next General Election will be won on a United Kingdom scale for a whole plethora of reasons. Hon. Members opposite are saying that within six months or perhaps a year or two of winning a General Election, but certainly halfway through their term in office, no Government should implement any controversial legislation, just in case there has been a shift in public opinion which will manifest itself at a General Election at an indeterminate point in the future. That is a lunatic proposition which would not for a moment be entertained in private conversation at a serious level by a single hon. Member opposite. I do not see why they should insult the House by trying to argue it now.
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair to the House. I do not think that anybody would suggest that a Government in their last two years in office are not entitled to introduce highly controversial legislation, but the circumstances of the present Government are exceptional. It is clear that they have lost all support in the country.
      496
      That is the argument for saying that they should not introduce controversial legislation.
      Mr. Dewar: I think that the hon. Gentleman's constituency lies between the cities of Aberdeen and Dundee, so I am possibly less sympathetic to that point coming from him than I would have been two or three days ago.
      But let us take the argument seriously and analyse it. If we are talking about Glasgow and Edinburgh and the electoral situation, hon. Members opposite are on very weak ground. In 1968, for example, we had the first signs of a violent swing in Glasgow's elections, the main beneficiaries of which were the Scottish Nationalist Party. In invite hon. Members to look at the minutes of Glasgow Corporation for 27th September, 1968 from which they will see that the Scottish Nationalist Party is absolutely committed to the abolition of fee-paying in schools. It is quite clear, and I revel in the fact, that in 1969 the Scottish Nationalists have received a very severe electoral check, but I do not imagine that any hon. Member opposite will say that this was as a result of their stand on fee-paying schools.
      The exact details of the votes cast yesterday are not available yet, but the general position is clear. Two parties, the Labour Party and the Scottish Nationalist Party, are committed publicly to the abolition of fees at an early date and one party, the Conservative-Progressive mongrel alliance, is opposed to it and tries bravely to make it an electoral issue. It may be unfair, and not valid argument, to make this point, because of the multiplicity of election issues, but I am trying to counter the kind of thesis advanced by the Opposition in going in for arid numbers games and talking about popular mandates. We find that the parties that supported my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench obtained the majority of the votes cast in Glasgow's municipal elections.
      Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about arid figures, he should at least get his facts right. He has not done his homework. The Scottish Nationalist candidate in one ward in my constituency specifically said that he was against the abolition of fee-paying

      497
      schools and the candidate in the other simply did not mention the question of education in his election address.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall not pursue the discussion on yesterday's elections in Scotland too far on this Amendment.
      Mr. Dewar: I shall not pursue it, Mr. Speaker. The personal eccentricities of individual Scottish Nationalist candidates would defeat almost anyone.
      I merely refer the House again to the Glasgow Corporation minutes for 27th September, showing that the motion moved by the leader of the Scottish Nationalist group was strongly in favour of the abolition of fees at an early date. I am only trying to point out to hon. Members that if they try to argue in terms of a mandate they will find themselves in considerable difficulties for the reasons I have given, which I think are clear.
      I am very tempted to become embroiled in the incredible arguments the hon. Member for Pollok advanced on the nature of comprehensive education, but I do not intend to delay the House. I make no bones about the fact that I would like to see a complete change in the method of entry and character of the schools. I cannot see how the removal of fees would militate against comprehensive education. The great problem of comprehensive education in Glasgow and Edinburgh is that in Edinburgh about 37 per cent. of secondary school children are opting out and going to fee-paying schools of one sort or another, while in Glasgow the proportion is as high as 15 per cent. One cannot run any kind of meaningful comprehensive system faced with that situation. It may be that that is something of which hon. Members opposite approve, but I object to their prating on here about their definition of comprehensives in the face of such facts. I hope that the House will not contemplate allowing the situation to drift on in the hope that at a future date the Conservatives will be able to stultify the present unfortunate and divisive educational situation.
      The hon. Member for Pollok talked about the dangers of middle-class housing grouped around what the occupiers consider to be suitable schools with a suitable social tone, as though at present
      498
      we do not have middle-class ghettoes—there are perfect examples. It might be advantageous if they congregated around schools within the city boundaries, when at least the occupiers might be able to bear some of the rate burdens they are too keen to escape at present.
      There is no doubt that at present we have an educationally and socially divisive situation, and equally one that is divisive in terms of housing pattern. It is not possible to argue, as the hon. Gentleman did, that by destroying these schools we shall in any way make the situation one whit the worse.
      I am clear in my belief that the Bill is a good one and should therefore be implemented quickly and that the Government Amendment should have the support of the House. We should not continue the present situation. Reference has been made to the High Schools of Glasgow's memorandum circulated among hon. Members, which said that the present system should not be replaced except by some other system of "proven worth". The question is, proven worth for whom? Many of those arguing for postponement of the implementation of this provision are thinking about the vested interests of people attending these schools alone. Of course we must consider them and ensure that there is a proper phasing-out so that individual children are not victimised, but it is essential to think of the good of the education system as a whole, of the kids who, for a variety or reasons, do not get the chances which, as most people attending these schools would admit, of privileges and advantages. We have to think on this wider scale and that is why I support the Government Amendment wholeheartedly.
      5.30 p.m.
      Mr. Anthony Stodart: It is surprising that the Secretary of State should have said that his motive in introducing the Amendment was one of kindness in order to put Edinburgh Corporation out of its uncertainty. Kindness is not a virtue with which I particularly associate him so far as Edinburgh is concerned. Many people in Edinburgh would also disagree with his observation.
      Despite what the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) has said

      499
      about the results of the local elections yesterday, I say categorically, because I believe it to be true, that the extra votes given to the Progressives and to the Conservative candidates in the city of Edinburgh were in some part at least inspired by the campaign on this matter, which played a prominent part in the election literature and at all the meetings held by those parties. This is arguable, of course, but I believe that it is a valid assumption.
      On the Amendment, we are arguing about three different dates—that is the nub of the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) said that she wanted quite a lot of information from the Under-Secretary of State. She was not a member of the Standing Committee. I was. One of the many depressing features of the Committee stage was the general refusal and disinclination of the hon. Gentleman to answer a lot of categorical questions put to him. In so doing, I believe that he prolonged the Committee stage. A great number of questions remain to be answered, and that is why I believe, unless the hon. Gentleman intends to turn over a new leaf tonight, that it would be better to have the later date rather than earlier dates.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) put many detailed questions in Committee about the future place of the present fee-paying schools in Glasgow in a comprehensive territorial set-up. No answer was given to him by the hon. Gentleman. I, too, asked many questions, reasonably important ones, on both Second Reading and in Committee, and I would have thought it only prudent and essential practically to look at the future, for example, of the Royal High School in Edinburgh, which happens to be in my constituency, if it is to go comprehensive either at some specified date—as was originally provided in the Bill—or on 1st August, 1970, or two years from the commencement of the Bill as an Act.
      What sort of questions is one entitled to put to which we want an answer before one of these dates? I go solely on what I am told by people I believe to be authorities on education—that the Royal High School, with 750 pupils, is too small to be a proper comprehensive school. It is
      500
      generally accepted, I understand, that about 1,700 is the ideal figure. The school has been built at considerable expense for boys only. The Minister might say, Very well. Build another 750 places for girls. Then we would have about the right size." I suppose that this would cost another £1 million, but this is an area which is rapidly becoming over-schooled while there is a shortage of accommodation elsewhere. Not one observation was made by the hon. Gentleman about the Royal High School throughout the Committee stage.
      The hon. Gentleman has told us that the initiative will rest with Edinburgh once the Bill goes through, and today the right hon. Gentleman said categorically that he would be pressing Edinburgh and Glasgow again to let him have their views. The clear implication is that the Government have not had but want to get some proposals from these cities and, having got them, will consider them. I want to quote what the hon. Gentleman said in Committee, because this is a matter of considerable relevance and importance. He said:
      "I told Edinburgh Corporation a very long time ago, and Glasgow Corporation, that if they would put up proposals for the integration of these schools within the comprehensive system, looking at the position seriously, if they would bring proposals which they said had to be modified considerably, because of their practical problems, I would be prepared to look at those problems as sympathetically as I could. That offer still stands."
      Now follow the really important words:
      "Neither authority has brought forward any kind of proposals, and I have not been able to talk with them about the practical problems."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 13th February, 1969; c. 235.]
      I have a letter from the Convener of the Education Committee of Edinburgh Corporation dated 9th August, 1968, and I want to quote what he said:
      "Some 18 months ago Edinburgh Corporation submitted to the Secretary of State for Scotland its proposals for the implementation of a comprehensive system of secondary education in the City as required by S.E.D Circular 600."
      In no circumstances, if that is true, can it be said by the hon. Gentleman that Edinburgh Corporation has made no kind of proposals. One of these statements is false—it must be—and I suspect that, since one of the four points which, I am informed, were made by Edinburgh Corporation in its proposals included the

      501
      retention of the fee-paying Royal High School and James Gillespie's School, he dismissed it out of hand and said that none of the other three were of any validity. It may be right for him to do so, but it is not right for him to say that he has not had any kind of proposals from Edinburgh Corporation. That he is on the record as saying, and it is completely and absolutely denied by the convenor of the education authority.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milan): What I said in Committee was that I had asked both Edinburgh Corporation and Glasgow Corporation if they would put forward proposals for the integration of these schools within the comprehensive system, and that is precisely what I have said they have not done. There is no misunderstanding between me and the Edinburgh Education Authority on this matter. I happened to meet the convener subsequent to the letter which the hon. Gentleman has quoted, and there is no misunderstanding between us.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) is going a little wide of the Amendment.
      Mr. Stodart: I have made it clear all along that this debate is about dates. There is clearly a misunderstanding. But if there is misunderstanding, if there is exploration to be done, it is better to be done within the later date rather than to have to hurry the matter and cram it in before 1st August, 1970.
      The hon. Gentleman has not satisfied the Opposition that he has made any effort to meet the constructive proposals of the corporations, and until he convinces us of this and until he answers some of the questions as to how the High School is to fit in we shall demand that he is given more time before operating this provision.
      Mr. Dempsey: I have been studying the Amendment and I am surprised that the debate should have touched on so many subjects—the reorganisation of secondary schools, transport services, the grading of school children and everything else except the shortage of teachers. This indicates the barrenness of the Opposition's argument. They have no case to submit, but they have to say something and so the hon. Member for Glasgow,
      502
      Pollok (Mr. Wright) starts the ball rolling by introducing all these irrelevancies. He did not deal with the Government's Amendment, which suggests that this provision should be introduced by 1st August, 1970.
      I am not happy about the Amendment. My criticism of my right hon. Friend is that he is waiting too long. I used to think that he was firm and stern, a man of great conviction, but he is bending to the Opposition too much, and I dislike that because they have treated his kindness as a sign of weakness.
      I see no reason why fee paying should not be abolished at an early date. The main purpose of fee paying has not been mentioned by the Opposition. They have not had the honesty of purpose or the temerity of conviction to mention it. Fee paying is the perpetuation of privilege. What experience have hon. Members opposite of organising fee-paying schools and then abolishing fee paying? Have they ever had to undertake that task? Have they seen it in operation? Have they studied the implications?
      Mr. MacArthur: I have.
      Mr. Dempsey: I have. In the early months of 1946, when I was a new member of Lanarkshire Education Authority, we abolished fee paying in the second largest authority in Scotland, larger than Edinburgh. Incidentally, our election address mentioned our plan to do so. The electors gave us a mandate to do so and we did it. We did not have this awful reaction which the hon. Member for Pollok has mentioned, this serious situation, this catastrophe in modern education, this pitching of young people out of school, this intolerance in administration, this bureaucracy. They did not exist. The whole system was administered by humane Labour members of the local authority. My colleagues in the House are as humane as those in Lanarkshire and will operate this provision with the same humanity.
      5.45 p.m.
      We ended the problem. Pupils were coming from all the far corners of that county and were occupying places denied to local pupils of greater ability, greater knowledge, with better results and much more capable both physically and mentally. There was no room at the inn

      503
      because the fee payers were occupying the places.
      This is what happens in fee paying schools. There can be no reasonable argument against equality of opportunity in education. Why should not ability be the determining factor and not the depth of the parental purse? Surely that is the proper approach to education. If we decide that we want to produce the leaders of our society in the next generation of citizens, we should fix dates when fee paying can be abolished and when merit will be the sole criterion for admitting pupils to various schools.
      This has nothing to do with the reorganisation of secondary education, but that is what the argument has been made to be. Whether there is reorganisation or not, the abilition of fee paying would not affect the situation one iota. Whether there were still selective schools or comprehensive schools, the situation would not be affected by the abolition of fee paying. This is a local authority school, a publicly owned school and the ratepayers and taxpayers are already paying for it, for the teachers and the buildings, and will continue to do so. At the same time, he who pays the piper should call the tune and merit will be the qualification for admission, not the privilege of finance.
      Mr. John Brewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Dempsey: I am tempted not to do so because the hon. Lady the Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) refused to give way to me. However, I will be a gentleman and give way.
      Mr. Brewis: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how he would judge merit for entry to these schools?
      Mr. Dempsey: I have explained that it would not be by depth of pocket. It would be the ability of the pupil. I am sure that the hon. Member does not require me to lecture him on ability, although I could give a jolly good lecture on ability. Ability is a method whereby we determine the standards of pupils. I believe that it should be based on the whole of a child's scholastic career and not on an hour's examination. I hope that after August, 1970, this is what we shall be introducing. Finance will disappear
      504
      as an interest, the power of privilege and the power of reports will be abolished. I am sorry that we have taken so long to move. I can understand that they should have been slower in Edinburgh—they have always been slow to move—but I am disappointed that Glasgow has not acted more quickly. Some authorities fixed dates and they did not wait a year or 18 months. They did it in a few months. We took the decision and abolished such schools within a few months.
      There was no chaos, no school strike, no parental disorders, no protest meetings. Even some of the Conservatives on the councils voted for this policy; they were far-sighted enough to realise that the inevitability of development within society would mean that children in our schools should be offered real equality of opportunity so that they could play their part, mentally and physically, in being educated to become future successful citizens. In essence that is the basis of getting rid of privilege and yet another social inequality.
      I am amazed to hear some hon. Members opposite accusing my right hon. Friend of interfering with the rights of local authorities. They should be the last to do this. I vividly recall in the 1950s suggesting that we should have an experiment in comprehensive education in the new town of East Kilbride. This was rejected by the then Secretary of State for Scotland as being totally unacceptable. These were the dictators and autocrats of the 1950s, yet they complain today, although my right hon. Friend has a clear mandate on this issue.
      In addition, he pays roughly 50 per cent. of the cost of education. In that event he should have some say in the provision of education. That is what he is doing, and my only regret is that he is not doing it quickly enough. It will give me the greatest pleasure to strike another blow for the elimination of privilege from our schools in the Lobby this evening.
      Earl of Dalkeith: As many of my hon. Friends wish to take part in this debate, I shall be very brief and confine my remarks to one main point. I have always had a sneaking admiration for the way in which the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) always goes down with all

      505
      guns firing. I was particularly interested by his seated comment about how he has been advocating the principle involved here for half a century. This is typical of the attitude of the Labour Party to this problem. It is an old doctrine which they adopted many years ago, and they are stuck with it. It is one of the few pledges which they are redeeming, it is a pity that they could not have chosen some better ones.
      My one point about the timing of this operation relates to the question of who should decide a matter of this kind.
      I am convinced this is a matter for local decision, yet the octopus of Whitehall will not release its stranglehold, even in this quite legitimate field of self-determination. If devolution is to mean anything at all I would have thought that this was a case where the people involved should be allowed to make up their own minds. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, South (Mr. Dewar) expressing a certain amount of sympathy for this point of view.
      The choice of August, 1970 is a matter of the greatest regret. It is clear that the Government have selected this so as to jump two guns. They are trying to jump the gun of the next General Election, so as to implement this as a dying act before they are thrown out—as they know that the decision will be reversed—and they are also trying to jump the gun of the Royal Commission's Report on local government. They know perfectly well that there may be a recommendation for larger local authority units and it would be impossible to deny to such units the sort of decision-making involved here.
      The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East tried to get out of his difficulty by saying that this was in the national interest. No phrase has been quite so overworked in the last few years as "the national interest". Almost any diabolical deed that the Government have chosen to do has been excused on the grounds that it is in the national interest. Resentment against this kind of treatment, the defiance of the right of people to express themselves and to have their opinions carry weight is something which was quite clearly shown last night in the local election results. There is no doubt about it that the people of Edinburgh
      506
      considered this point about the abolition of fee-paying schools very seriously.
      Mr. Willis: They considered it so seriously that 30 per cent. of them did not even bother to vote.
      Earl of Dalkeith: It was a sufficient number to show emphatically what sort of government they wanted. I regretted that more did not choose to vote.
      It seems almost unbelievable that any intelligent body of men could so persistently defy local opinion in such a matter. I can only assume that it is only because they are hell-bent on their own destruction and are now performing the final contortionist act of hammering nails into their coffin, while lying inside it.
      Mr. Alex Eadie: We have argued this in Committee, and I have a vested interest to some extent. The arguments so far have shown that we are not talking about privilege as such but about a few people who will have a privilege in education. We are talking about buying a senior secondary education. I have discovered that many people are so disgusted with the system of education in Edinburgh that they are moving into my constituency, where we abolished fee-paying, post-primary schools a long time ago. I am worried, because this creates pressures in my constituency—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have to remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing an Amendment dealing with the timing of abolishing of fee-paying schools in Scotland. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to the Amendment.
      Mr. Willis: Further to that point of order. Surely it is in order for my hon. Friend to argue that he will be relieved that in August, 1970, this pressure on Midlothian will be removed?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Up to this point the hon. Gentleman has not referred to the Amendment.
      6.0 p.m.
      Mr. Eadie: I will try to follow your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will deal with the Amendment by saying that pressures are being created. I had a discussion with a young professional man, an architect, living in the City of Edinburgh. In his case it was not a question of finance. He could afford to pay

      507
      for a fee-paying school, but because we had the system that within this type of post-primary education an I.Q. test is applied and probably only a child with an I.Q. of over 110 can win a place his children were not considered to have a sufficiently high I.Q. to win a place at that fee-paying school.
      That young man was a sensible individual. His approach was to come into the area of a progressive local authority like Midlothian, where we do not operate the 11-plus or have any bars to post-primary education. This is relevant to the Amendment, because it relates to expenditure on education. There is talk about the brain drain, but when we operate fee-paying schools and the system of the 11-plus—or, in Scotland, 12-plus—this is probably the biggest brain drain which we have ever created.
      I remember hon. Members opposite saying that their party stood for democracy of opportunity and aristocracy of achievement. How on earth, therefore, can they argue that in post-primary education we should not have a system which provides democracy of opportunity and aristocracy of achievement, when the system of their choice is based upon fee-paying schools and the taking of intelligence tests?
      The Opposition lost their argument in Committee. Today, they have put forward an Amendment to try to argue the case again. The elections have demonstrated clearly that although they may have won on other issues, they have not won on the question of education. What perturbs me is that they are bringing this matter before the House afresh when their arguments have already been overwhelmingly defeated. I am convinced that when we go into the Division Lobby tonight, we will overwhelmingly defeat them again.
      Mr. Galbraith: I do not intend to speak for long because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I regarded the Secretary of State's manner in introducing his Amendment as being entirely casual. He behaved as he would have done in his old days as a teacher in front of a class—"Do not ask questions. Take it from me that I am right".
      We are discussing an important matter which has not been explained at all
      508
      clearly. I did not have the advantage of being in Committee, but as far as I am aware, it was not explained there why the date should be 1st August, 1970. Why was not this date in the Bill originally? If the Secretary of State has had a change of mind, why did he not tell us in Committee? Why wait until the last minute, on Report, to introduce an important date like this? We have been told from the benches opposite that it has nothing to do with the local elections If hon. Members opposite expect us to believe that, they expect us to believe anything.
      I cannot help feeling that orginally the Secretary of State, rightly, did not want a date in the Bill, for proper administrative reasons, because he realised what difficulty it would cause. Had he wanted a fixed date, it would have been in the Bill earlier or introduced in Committee. Having seen, however, the extent to which opinion in the country is against him, he wishes to make sure of imposing his will on the country before a general election takes place. For purely party political reasons which have nothing to do with education, the right hon. Gentleman is speeding up the process which, originally, he thought should take time.
      The process of integrating the schools, if it has to take place—I wish that it did not—is a complicated matter. It cannot be done quickly. There certainly is not time to do the job properly by 1st August, 1970. The Minister is as well aware of that as I am.
      What is to happen, for example, to Hillhead High School? Only 25 per cent. of the pupils come from the immediate locality. The remaining 75 per cent. come from all round the place. There simply are not enough people living in that part of Glasgow, which is already densely populated with schools, to fill that school. What is to happen to it? We have had no guidance from the Secretary of State how it is to be dealt with. Is it to become a sixth-form school, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) suggested, or will there be an immediate move by fee-paying parents into the area so that other people will have to move out, thereby putting up the price of housing and causing another social

      509
      revolution, which will be much more socially divisive, as happens in America?
      All this is to happen before 1970. The Under-Secretary of State keeps scratching his nose. I wish that he would listen—because we want answers—and not just doodle or whatever he is doing. Has this been thought about? How can a change like this be carried out in so short a time?
      Reference has been made to another school in my constituency, Notre Dame, which has an agreement with Glasgow Corporation to remain a selective fee-paying school for another 60 years or so. What is to happen there? If an exception is to be made for it—as it should; it should be able to carry on as at present—why make an exception only for that school? What about other schools in my constituency which are in exactly the same position? Is there to be an exception or not?
      Mr. Hannan: Will the hon. Member make clear his attitude to Notre Dame school? Is he saying that the existing agreement should be continued?
      Mr. Galbraith: Yes. I am sorry if I have not made myself clear, but I am speaking quickly because of the time. The existing situation should continue at Notre Dame, and at other similar selective schools in Glasgow should be allowed to continue. The whole thing is being rushed forward for political and not for educational reasons. Surely, effect should be given to the views of local authorities, or does the Government's right hand not know what their left hand is doing?
      Upstairs the other day, we had a debate on whether local authorities should be the final court of appeal in local planning matters. The Government argued strongly that they should and that the local authorities must be trusted in planning matters. On education apparently, they must not be trusted. The Secretary of State must tell them what to do.
      The local authorities are trying to keep down their rate burden. They do not want this additional burden put upon them. If anything is wrong with education, it is a lack of money. The Government are deliberately doing something to reduce the flow of money into education. The cost of these school fees is
      510
      small, less than many people pay on cigarettes, and most people could well afford to pay them.
      I tried to interrupt the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar) during his speech, but he would not give way until somewhat later on a less important point concerning Scottish nationalism. The hon. Member referred to the right of the Government to interfere with the local authorities. We accept that Parliament must be supreme—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.]—at the end of the day.
      But is it right to interfere with the desire of parents to make sacrifices for their children? That is what it comes to. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South seemed to resent parents taking an interest in their children's progress. He was rather scathing about middle-class families taking an interest in their children and trying to produce excellence. He wishes to stop this before the new system is properly operating. The wise thing in this matter, when nobody knows whether the new conception of comprehensive schools will work well—
      Mr. Dewar: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that my argument was that, unfortunately, middle-class parents who take an interest in education are allowed to opt out. I should like to see their intelligent interest and energy channelled into the State sector of education so that the general level can be raised by their efforts in pressuring the Government.
      Mr. Galbraith: The hon. Gentleman cannot even understand the basis of freedom. He talks about parents being allowed to opt out. If they wish to educate their children in that way and to make sacrifices in that way, why should they not be allowed to do so? This is the great divide between the hon. Gentleman and myself, and we shall not be able to resolve it in the remaining couple of minutes that I intend to take.
      The wise thing in a situation such as this, when a new form of comprehensive education is being introduced, is not to move too quickly, not to bring the date forward unnecessarily soon for electoral reasons, which would seem to me the only reasons why it is being introduced at this last minute, but to compare the products of the comprehensive schools in the new towns, where there is nothing competing

      511
      with them, with those of the fee-paying schools in the existing old towns and slowly make a decision on the right thing to do instead of, at the eleventh hour, introducing for party political reasons this monstrous proposal to speed up a process which cannot be speeded up.
      Mr. Hannan: Since the principle of the matter was discussed fully on Second Reading and in Committee, and since many of today's speeches seemed to me to be outside the Amendment—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has been very diligent in ruling on this matter.
      Mr. Hannan: I am glad to hear that. It gives me the assurance that I can speak for one and a quarter hours on the principle—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has not ruled that discussion of the principle was in order. It is in order to make incidental references to the principle in agreeing with or opposing the Amendment.
      6.15 p.m.
      Mr. Hannan: I do not wish to enter into a debate with the Chair, but the Amendment suggests that the date should be brought forward, and the principle has been touched on by other speakers.
      I should like to deal with the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith). It would seem a silly way for Members on the Government benches to proceed by making political capital out of an Amendment on a Bill which will have such dire effects on the population. The hon. Gentleman should not worry about the future of the Government. I do not think that he is worried about the Government's welfare. He is worried about the ending of what is known to be privilege.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) talked about the Government clinging to old principles. But the principle which we are considering is already on the Statute Book; it has been the practice in England and Wales for 34 years. The hon. Gentleman, who no doubt was moved to speak because of his interest in the Educational Institute of Scotland, will agree that the E.I.S. is without doubt in favour of the Bill and to
      512
      have the principle introduced in Scotland at as early a date as possible so that the same benefits may be enjoyed in Scotland as are enjoyed in England and Wales. The principle was introduced in the Education Act, 1944, not by a Socialist Government but by the present Lord Butler.
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) introduced some tendentious evidence from a circular issued by the E.I.S. which dealt with school buildings rather than with the Bill. The E.I.S. Journal of 8th November last says:
      "It is odd, to say the least of it, if not downright shameful, to find a heated public argument going on in Scotland about a modest step towards equality in education which was achieved in England and Wales apparently without any fuss 34 years ago."
      Later it says about the Bill:
      "This will simply reproduce in Scotland the position that already obtains in England where such powers were abolished by the Education Act, 1944. The only fee-paying schools left in England since that time have been the independent and the direct grant Schools".
      Later it says that the problem of integrating fee-paying schools with local authority schools is difficult.
      The convenors of the education committees in Glasgow and Edinburgh have made it clear that they will enter into talks on this matter. But the principle has been conceded. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) has conceded the principle of fee paying. That is not the issue. The issue is selection and selective schools—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The issue is whether this proposal should come into operation on a certain date or some other date.
      Mr. Hannan: I accept that, Mr. Speaker.
      The number of young people staying on at school after 15 years of age is increasingly becoming a problem not only in this country but in other European countries. There are forecasts that the time may not be far away when a very large proportion of young people will stay on at school. In that event, the physical difficulties of accommodating children of that age must be solved. The earlier the necessary power is given to the Secretary of State, the better.

      513
      In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian), absolutely floored the Opposition on the principle of fee paying—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Under-Secretary of State floored them on the principle in Committee, he cannot floor them now.
      Mr. Hannan: It is because my hon. Friend did that so admirably that I say that the sooner he has power to put these admirable principles into practice the happier I and my hon. Friends will be, and I shall have great pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: I do not agree with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) that the debate on the principle involved here resulted in a victory for the Government. My impression was that my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) flattened the Government.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. Honours are now even.
      Mr. Taylor: As the hon. Member for Maryhill said, this is a question of a date, and we are concerned with the mechanics. I wonder whether the Minister and the Government have given careful consideration to the mechanics of bringing forward the date.
      In his excellent contribution my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) asked what had changed between the date of the Bill being published, on through the Committee stage, and now. Why is it that we did not have a date then, but we have one now? I think the House must know what has happened in the interval. Yesterday at the municipal elections in Glasgow and Edinburgh the Government were hammered, with this matter being a key issue. There has also been a disastrous slump in the Government's standing in Scotland. The result is that the Government know that unless they introduce this Amendment and get a decision on it before the next General Election there will not be another Socialist Government for at least a generation, and this issue will therefore die.
      514
      I believe that that is why this Amendment has been introduced. But whether that is so or not, if the Amendment is accepted the Government will find themselves faced with enormous practical difficulties, and I counsel the Minister to withdraw the Amendment until such time as he is able to appreciate the practical difficulties in which he will become involved.
      If, as a result of abolishing fees by 1st August, 1970, we are faced with the introduction of comprehensive schools throughout the local authority areas, and if this results in a massive increase in local authority spending due to the provision of buses and other forms of transport to take children from one end of a city to the other, or from the centre of a city to the outlying areas, will the Government make good the increased expenditure? Because of the present burden on local rates, I believe that it would be unreasonable to bring in so quickly a provision which will have a substantial effect on the spending of local authorities as a result of bussing hundreds, or perhaps thousands, of children into our city centres to enable them to attend these schools. Will the Government foot the Bill?
      If the Minister insists that before this proposed date local authorities must submit plans for comprehensive education, perhaps he will answer three questions. First, will he accept any form of selectivity in these schools? If Glasgow says that it cannot do this unless it has one, two, three, or perhaps four, non-fee-paying schools, will the Minister be flexible about this? Second, if Glasgow puts forward a proposal for schools which are not entirely territorial, but which cover much wider areas, will he consider such a proposal? Third, if Glasgow says that it accepts this proposal but it wants to have within its school accommodation for single-sex schools, will the Minister be flexible in his approach to that proposal?
      The Minister said in Committee—and we were grateful for the assurance—that those who were in the schools now would be allowed to work their way through them. Will this concession apply to those attending the Glasgow fee-paying schools but who live outside the local authority area? Will they be allowed to continue at these schools? If they are in the primary sections of these schools, will

      515
      they be permitted to go into their secondary departments?
      If the Government intend to bring the date forward, we must be told how the mechanics will work. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions, even if only by saying "Yes" or "No". Will he accept any form of selection? Will he accept a school which is non-territorial? Will he accept single-sex schools? What will be the position, legally and financially, of children who come to these schools from areas outside the local authority area? Will they be allowed to work their way through them?
      Mr. Speaker: We cannot on this Amendment deal with that. We are dealing with whether it should be one date or another.
      Mr. Taylor: This is a question of fees and outwith fees. Reference has been made to the abolition of fees paid in the normal way. What will be the position of outwith fees?
      We cannot go into detail, but in his excellent speech the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey)—and I know that he was speaking sincerely—said that the Government were entitled to fix the date at 1st August, 1970, in the same way as he had fixed a date for Lanarkshire when he played a prominent part on the local authority because it had a mandate for what it was doing. If there is one reason for postponing this date until at least 1971, it is that the local authorities directly concerned were given a clear mandate only yesterday. They were told that people wanted the kind of policies promoted by the Progressive Conservative Alliance. Our policy is to fight to the end for our own form of education, which is known to us, and is accepted by—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not drift back to the elections. I know how keen he is on them, but he must come to the date proposed in the Amendment.
      Mr. Taylor: I have asked my questions, the Minister has heard them, and I hope that he will answer them.
      Mr. MacArthur: I think that the House will agree that we have had a very useful
      516
      and reasonably wide-ranging debate on this question, and I hope that the House may before long be able to come to a conclusion.
      Before making my speech may I, on behalf of my hon. Friends, and I am sure on behalf of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, too, welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) to the Opposition Front Bench. This is the first occasion on which my hon. Friend has spoken from this Front Bench, and he continues the distinguished tradition which he established on the Front Bench in Committee upstairs.
      The proposal to write a definite date, 1st August, 1970, into the Bill is entirely new. We had not heard of this before. When he moved the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State suggested that it would be convenient to have a precise date in the Bill so that local authorities would know what the Government's intention was, so that they would know what was to happen to them and to their schools on a definite date.
      The Government's intention was made known during the Second Reading debate in January. The Secretary of State made it clear then that fee-paying would be abolished by Order, to take effect in August, 1970. There was no suggestion then of an Amendment to alter the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) said, forcefully as always, there was no suggestion during the Committee stage, which went on for weeks, that a specific date would be written into the Bill. Why, then, was it that only two weeks ago we saw this Amendment on the Notice Paper? Why was the Secretary of State overwhelmed by this sudden brainwave just two weeks ago?
      I suggest that the reason for the Amendment is not only to jump the gun twice over, as my noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) suggested, that is, jumping the gun of the General Election, and jumping the gun on local government reform, but to attempt to spike the guns of the next Government. The House will recall that we have pledged to restore to local authorities the right to charge fees at these schools, and I shall return to this in a few moments.

      517
      Clearly, the reason for the Amendment is to try to embarrass us by making it more difficult for us to honour our pledge. This cheap and disgraceful attempt to hamper the next Government is an abuse of power, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) so rightly said in his intervention. But it does not embarrass us on this side of the House in the least, as the House will shortly hear in detail.
      6.30 p.m.
      Mr. Hannan: The hon. Member has given an assurance that the Conservatives will restore fee paying. Has he the permission of the Leader of the Opposition and the Shadow Cabinet to say that?
      Mr MacArthur: If the hon. Member would be good enough to await the statement which I have indicated that I will make shortly, he will hear the answer to that question. I would not make a statement of that kind without full agreement.
      We are also debating Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 and I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it would be convenient if we divided once on the three Amendments.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member asked me, and I gave a half promise on the subject, but, on examining the Bill, I cannot allow a Division on either of those two Amendments. Once the first Amendment is carried, the other two fall.
      Mr. MacArthur: I understand the point, Mr. Speaker, and I am obliged to you for considering it.
      The other two Amendments are different in scope. Amendment No. 2 in the name of my hon. Friends and myself, proposes that the Order which would be introduced under the Clause as it stands should not take effect until two years after the passage of the Act. Our reason for making that proposition is to provide added protection for local authorities and for the parents of the children in these schools.
      If the Prime Minister decides to go on with his goings on, he could continue—I am sorry to depress the House—until the spring of 1971. Our two-year period was carefully chosen to take us beyond the time of this, the Prime Minister's dream—and the country's nightmare. We certainly do not accept the principle of
      518
      the change, and our Amendment would be a way to avoid the change altogether. I say that because a Conservative Government would not be lunatic enough to abolish fee paying in these schools and totally to change the character of these excellent schools, as the Government propose to do. That is the difference between us and hon. Members opposite. The difference is that we are not wedded to this narrow and thoughtless political dogma. The difference is that this crazy change would not be forced on local authorities by a Conservative Government.
      The debate has shown yet again that the Socialist Party is bound by dreary dogma in the questionable cause of a bogus egalitarianism. In moving the Amendment the Secretary of State said that when the Bill was enacted it was his intention to "press" local authorities for their proposals—a sinister word. He has already tried to beat local authorities to their knees to make them comply with the Government's instructions, whether they agreed with the Government or not. He said that he intended to press them further. I tremble when I think of what that pressure might involve.
      The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) implied that all that would happen on 1st August, 1970, was that the fees themselves would be abolished but that for the moment the schools would continue unchanged in every other way. Perhaps that will be so on 2nd August, 1970, and 3rd August, 1970, but what will be the position in August, 1971, August, 1972, and the years thereafter? It is clear that the character of these schools will be totally changed if the Government have their way.
      The Secretary of State said that he will press local authorities for their proposals. In his weak and ineffective replies to our questions in Committee, the Minister said that he expected local authorities to come forward with their proposals, but that they had not yet done so. But the local authorities in Edinburgh and Glasgow have come forward already with their proposal—vigorously and vocally. Their proposal is, "Leave our schools alone". That is what they propose.
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is drifting into the merits of the Clause. We are discussing whether the Clause shall come into operation in

      519
      August. 1970, or two years after the passing of the Act.
      Mr. MacArthur: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. The local authorities would cry, "Leave our schools alone on 1st August, 1970".
      Many questions were asked in Committee about the difficulties which would face local authorities on 1st and 2nd August and thereafter, and they were not answered. Questions have been put again today. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) asked what the position would be of the Royal High School in Edinburgh. That is the kind of question which must be answered.
      It is all very well for the Government to say that on 1st August fee paying will be abolished, but their intention is to go far beyond the abolition of fee paying. They expect the local authorities to change the character of these schools completely and to bring them within the comprehensive system. How do the Government expect local authorities to be able to carry out that instruction? How do they think that the Royal High School can become a territorial comprehensive school?
      The Government are asking for the impossible. If they are requiring the local authority in Edinburgh to change the character of the Royal High School to remove this illusion of privilege and social divisiveness about which we have heard, I point out that they will not achieve their objective in that way. If they turn that High School into a territorial school, they will be making it more socially divisive and removing totally from the school the wide social mix which exists in it and in the other fee-paying schools under the present fee-paying system.
      Mr. John Rankin: On a point of order. The hon. Gentleman says that certain things are impossible. A few minutes ago he said that the question was whether this action should be taken on 1st August, 1970. As he has confined his scope to that date, will he say whether these steps are impossible on 1st August, 1970?
      Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order. I have advised the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire
      520
      (Mr. MacArthur) to confine his remarks to the Amendments.
      Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) misses the point. What we propose should happen on 1st August, 1970 is that the schools should be left alone to carry on the fine contribution which they are making to the variety of education in Scotland. We have equivalent problems in Glasgow, some of which have been mentioned today. Some of my hon. Friends referred to the problem which confronts the Notre Dame School in Glasgow. What are they to do on 1st August? What sort of proposal can they make to the Government? The Government are asking the impossible.
      I suggest to the Minister—and I put the suggestion in the form of a question—that he is placing that school and that local authority in a very difficult position. Reference was made in Committee to a contract drawn up between the corporation and the religious order which teaches in the Notre Dame School. The Minister was specifically asked what were the terms of that contract and how he expected the corporation unilaterally, at the Government's request, to break a contract of that kind. This question relates directly to 1st August, 1970, because an answer must be given to the local authority.
      In Committee, after some days of questions, the Under-Secretary of State said:
      "I understand that there is some kind of agreement between the education authority and the trustees of the Convent of Notre Dame. I am not clear about the details of that legal agreement, but I make the same point about it as I have made in relation to other schools. If there are special difficulties in schools, I expect the education authority to let us know about them."—OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee; 18th February 1969, c. 283]
      But, with respect, the Government have been apprised of this problem by us and the local authorities repeatedly and all that the hon. Gentleman can do is repeat in his parrot fashion, "I expect the local authorities to come forward with proposals". He is asking for the impossible and it is shameful that he should persist in this sort of argument.
      I take a contrary view to that of the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis)—
      Mr. Willis: Thank goodness.
      Mr. MacArthur: I believe that the quality of this proposal is quite the reverse of that which he described. I regard it as wrong, improper and socially unjust. If this change is made on 1st August, 1970, the disappearance of these schools will widen social divisions in education and weaken the varied character of education in Scotland. We oppose the Amendment also because it removes freedom of choice from parents—not from privileged people, as has been suggested, but from parents who cannot afford to send their children to independent fee-paying schools. The Government are removing choice not from the rich, who can look elsewhere, but from the many poorer parents who send their children to these schools—
      Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is still talking on Clause 3, which is already part of the Bill. All that we are discussing is whether this provision shall come into operation on 1st August, 1970.
      6.45 p.m.
      Mr. MacArthur: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker.
      If the Government persist in asking local authorities to produce impossible proposals by 1st August, 1970, they will deny those authorities the right which they should have to determine the shape of education in their areas. I warn the House that in this Amendment we see the beginning of an assault on freedom and independence in education.
      I referred earlier to the pledge of my right hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) on Second Reading, which I repeated in Committee—that we would rescind any Order made under the Clause as it stands, abolishing the right of local authorities to charge fees in these schools. I wish to state now that, if the present Government succeed in their aim in this Amendment, the next Conservative Government will introduce the amending legislation which will then be necessary in order to restore to local authorities the right to charge fees if they wish to do so.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: We have heard, from the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur), the usual speech, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.
      522
      Unlike hon. Members opposite, I have had some impatience with the Government. In this matter of the abolition of the fee-paying schools, they have acted in a Hamlet-like fashion. Impressed by the opportunity for doing what needed to be done, they have not seized it. My only reluctance has been to support them in their original intention to bring forward the date by Order. I therefore entirely welcome their decision to make this action effective on 1st August, 1970.
      Hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have tried to attribute a political motivation to the Government's action, have tried to have the benefit of two arguments which are mutually incompatible and inconsistent. First, they have said that this is unpopular and therefore it is to be rushed through. They cite as evidence last night's results in the local government elections. But, at the same time, they say that, just before another General Election, we are bringing forward the Bill to prevent the Opposition from undoing it. If hon. Members opposite are right and this is unpopular with the electorate in Scotland, surely they will stand to benefit from this, if they are right in assuming that the election will follow immediately after. This is a bogus argument and has nothing to do with the issues.
      The hon. Gentleman suggested that it is up to the Government to suggest what form of reorganisation will be necessary after the implementation of this Measure. On the other hand, he suggested that we should be censured for depriving local authorities of the right to decide their own fate in this matter. These arguments, too, are inconsistent. It is up to the local authorities to come forward with proper proposals to implement the principle which the Government have outlined. It is not that they have not been given time to do so. This principle has been a plank of Labour Party policy for years and it has been known for years that the Government intended to give legislative effect to it. Discussions have taken place, opportunities for representations have been given, and these opportunities have been cast carelessly aside by the very authorities he mentioned. Hon. Members opposite have sought to have the best of completely inconsistent arguments.
      This firm date will help to concentrate the minds of those local authorities on

      523
      which we rely to bring forward a satisfactory and equitable solution to this outstanding problem, which has been the cause of dissatisfaction and heartfelt discontent in those areas with fee-paying schools. I ask hon. Members who have objected to the date: what kind of forward planning have these authorities already done? Surely in the light of the Government's declared intentions—this Government are not known for their pusillanimity, whatever else—they must have done some forward planning. Or do they prefer not to bring forward the planning because that would expose the utter weakness of their objections? It is now clear that the time has come to act.
      Mr. Milan: The Amendments are comparatively narrow, but, as you have noticed, Mr. Speaker, they tend to merge with rather wider arguments involved in the proposition of the Clause for the abolition of fee-paying—now with a fixed date. I will not attempt, even if that were in order, to go over all the strands of this argument about fee-paying, because we considered them exhaustively in Committee. But the difficulty of answering, even the kind of points put by the Opposition to-day is that they still have a completely ambivalent attitude towards comprehensive education and the processes of selection.
      It is their inability to bring themselves to firm conclusions about these matters which gives rise to the confusion that was demonstrated, for example, by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) and which was exposed so devastatingly by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Dewar). If only they would clear their minds about the basic issue, we might have a meaningful argument about comparatively minor matters concerning the precise date on which this decision should be made.
      The confusion is not helped when we realise that, despite the high sounding views that we had even today from the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) there are only two education authorities in Scotland involved in this—Glasgow and Edinburgh The hon. Gentleman's own education authority has no fee paying schools and
      524
      not the slightest intention of having any, whatever the next Conservative Government, if there is one, legislate about fee paying in local authority schools.
      It is also remarkable that the hon. Gentleman has been able to say that the proposition that fee paying will be reintroduced has the support of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and the English members of the Shadow Cabinet. It was an English Conservative Minister of Education, Lord Butler, who introduced similar legislation in 1944. The period of notice which he gave to the English local authorities was considerably less than that which we are giving to the Scottish local authorities in this legislation.
      Mr. MacArthur: We went over all this in Committee. It is impossible to compare the Scottish position today with the English position some years back. What is critical is that two of the largest authorities in Scotland oppose the Government's policy utterly.
      Mr. Millan: That adds nothing to what he has already said today, and what he said today added very little, in any event.
      There is a simple reason for putting the date in the Bill. It is that the date has been announced already. It was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading, and there seems to be every argument for removing any possible uncertainty about the Government's intentions in this matter. The best way of doing that is to put the date in the Bill, and that is what we are doing by this Amendment.
      The hon. Gentleman seems to think that there is something dastardly in a Government frustrating the wishes of a future Government made up of hon. Members who are at present in opposition. Apart from the assumption in that argument that there will be a change of Government, which I think it is foolish to make, this Government and any other are perfectly entitled to produce certainty in their legislation and to say, "We have made this decision. We have debated it exhaustively. We want it to be a firm one and not one which may rest on the good will of any Government who may follow us". If hon. Gentlemen opposite ever form a Government they can introduce different legislation. But there is

      525
      no reason why we should not have absolute certainty in the Bill, and that is what we are doing by the Amendment.
      In any case, the cost of the abolition of fees has been taken into account already in the recent rate support grant regulations and in the negotiations leading up to them. Therefore, the authorities concerned are compensated for the abolition of fees in the regulations on rate support grant which we have already put into operation.
      There were a number of positively bizarre reasons produced by hon. Gentlemen opposite for deferring the date beyond 1st August, 1970. The most extraordinary was the proposition that we should do it because the Royal Commission on Local Government is sitting at the present time. The hon. Member for Renfrew, East (Miss Harvie Anderson) said that the boundaries of local authorities in Scotland—indeed, she said, the boundaries of Scotland—would all be changed before 1st August, 1970.
      I know that this Government act with great speed on the recommendations of Royal Commissions, but even this Government will not be able to change all the local authority boundaries in Scotland before 1st August, 1970. Some hon. Members opposite were wondering whether we should have the Royal Commission's Report before 1st August, 1970, let alone whether legislation would be put into effect.
      Miss Harvie Anderson: The hon. Gentleman does me some injustice. I read an extract from the remit, which was to redraw the boundaries. I did not suggest that any legislation following that would be in force by 1st August, 1970. I merely said that it was relevant, which I believe it to be.
      Mr. Millan: I do not think that it is relevant. In any event, the hon. Lady said what I have just attributed to her.
      The argument which she drew from the Royal Commission situation does not stand consideration. From the arguments that we have heard coming from the Opposition benches on this Amendment, one would think that there has never been a case of fees being abolished in local education authority schools in Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member
      526
      for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mr. Dempsey) demonstrated that it has been done in Lanarkshire over the years, in respect of a very large number of schools, It has been done in Glasgow. More recently, it has been done by the Renfrew-shire education authority with effect from the end of the current session. The hon. Lady seems unaware of this or has not taken it into account. Incidentally, Renfrewshire is not even Labour-controlled.
      All these impossible practical difficulties have been overcome by Renfrew-shire, by Glasgow and by Lanarkshire in the past, and they will be overcome by the authorities concerned when this legislation is enacted.
      That is the general answer to the points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) about the situation at schools in Edinburgh. I have met the education authority in Edinburgh on more than one occasion. I asked its members at my first meeting with them whether they wished to discuss individual schools in Edinburgh to see if it was possible to integrate them into a comprehensive system. The then convener said that he had no intention of producing proposals to that end and that, if the Government wished to do this job, they would have to legislate. That is precisely what we have done.
      Exactly the same position applies in Glasgow. I offered members of the Glasgow education authority the opportunity of discussing all the individual schools in detail. They were unwilling to do that, and the situation remains that, once the Bill is through, we shall in the first instance expect to receive proposals from the education authorities. We shall discuss the proposals with them. We shall discuss the practical problems involved and, if there are any which are difficult of solution, I hope that they will be dealt with sympathetically. If that has not got through to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor), it is clearly understood by the education authorities concerned. They are expecting the abolition of fees on 1st August, 1970. They know the position, and nothing that we are doing today or have done in the Bill has surprised them. Therefore, the practical

      527
      difficulties that have been mentioned will not arise.
      I commend the Amendment to the House.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 177, Noes 136.

      Division No. 197.]

      AYES

      [7.0 p.m.

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      O'Malley, Brian

      Archer, Peter

      Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

      Orbach, Maurice

      Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

      Hamling, William

      Orme, Stanley

      Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

      Hannan, William

      Oswald, Thomas

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Harper, Joseph

      Padley, Walter

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Paget, R. T.

      Barnett, Joel

      Haseldine, Norman

      Palmer, Arthur

      Beaney, Alan

      Hazell, Bert

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Bence, Cyril

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Pardoe, John

      Bessell, Peter

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Park, Trevor

      Bishop, E. S.

      Hooley, Frank

      Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

      Blackburn, F.

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Pavitt, Laurence

      Booth, Albert

      Howie, W.

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Boston, Terence

      Hoy, James

      Pentland, Norman

      Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Perry, Ernest C. (Battersea, S.)

      Boyden, James.

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)

      Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

      Hunter, Adam

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.

      Buchan, Norman

      Janner, Sir Barnett

      Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

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

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Probert, Arthur

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Rankin, John

      Carter-Jones, Lewis

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

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Chapman, Donald

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Richard, Ivor

      Coe, Denis

      Judd, Frank

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Coleman, Donald

      Kelley, Richard

      Robertson, John (Paisley)

      Conlan, Bernard

      Kenyon, Clifford

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

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

      Ryan, John

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Kerr, Russell (Feltham)

      Sheldon, Robert

      Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)

      Lawson, George

      Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)

      Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Leadbitter, Ted

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

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Silverman, Julius

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Slater, Joseph

      Delargy, Hugh

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Small, William

      Dempsey, James

      Luard, Evan

      Steel, David (Roxburgh)

      Dewar, Donald

      Lubbock, Eric

      Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Dickens, James

      Lyon, Alexander W. (York)

      Symonds, J. B.

      Dobson, Ray

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

      Doig, Peter

      McCann, John

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Driberg, Tom

      MacDermot, Niall

      Tinn, James

      Dunn, James A.

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

      Tomney, Frank

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

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Urwin, T. W.

      Eadie, Alex

      Maclennan, Robert

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      MacPherson, Malcolm

      Wallace, George

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Manuel, Archie

      Watkins, David (Consett)

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

      Mapp, Charles

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Ewing, Mrs. Winifred

      Marquand, David

      Wellbeloved, James

      Fernyhough, E.

      Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

      Whitaker, Ben

      Finch, Harold

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Whitlock, William

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Mendelson, John

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Millan, Bruce

      Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)

      Forrester, John

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

      Freeson, Reginald

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Molloy, William

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Gardner, Tony

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Ginsburg, David

      Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Grey, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Gregory, Arnold

      Moyle, Roland

      Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

      Neal, Harold

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)

      Newens, Stan

      Mr. Alan Fitch and

      Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

      Ogden, Eric

      Mr. Neil McBride.

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      NOES

      Astor, John

      Black, Sir Cyril

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

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

      Blaker, Peter

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

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Batsford, Brian

      Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

      Brewis, John

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Carlisle, Mark

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter

      Clark, Henry

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Clegg, Walter

      Cooke, Robert

      Hunt, John

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Costain, A. P.

      Hutch:son, Michael Clark

      Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

      Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Irvine, Bryant Cadman (Rye)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Crouch, David

      Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Currie, G. B. H.

      Jopling, Michael

      Royle, Anthony

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Dance, James

      Kimball, Marcus

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Eden, Sir John

      Kirk, Peter

      Sharples, Richard

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Kitson, Timothy

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

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

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Silvester, Frederick

      Emery, Peter

      Lancaster, Col. C. G.

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

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

      Eyre, Reginald

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

      Foster, Sir John

      MacArthur, Ian

      Speed, Keith

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Maclean, Sir Fitzroy

      Stainton, Keith

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      McMaster, Stanley

      Stodart, Anthony

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Goodhart, Philip

      Maude, Angus

      Tapsell, Peter

      Goodhew, Victor

      Mawby, Ray

      Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

      Gower, Raymond

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

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

      Grant, Anthony

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

      Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret

      Grant-Ferris, R.

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

      Gresham Cooke, R.

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      More, Jasper

      Walker, Peter (Worcester)

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      Murton, Oscar

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Wall, Patrick

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

      Heave, Airey

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Wiggin, A. W.

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Hiley, Joseph

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Wright, Esmond

      Hill, J. E. B.

      Peel, John

      Wylie, N. R.

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Percival, Ian

      Younger, Hn. George

      Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

      Pike, Miss Mervyn

      Holland, Philip

      Pounder, Rafton

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Hordern, Peter

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Mr. Bernard Weatherill and

      Hornby, Richard

      Prior, J. M. L.

      Mr. Hector Munro.

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Pym, Francis

      It being after Seven o'clock, and there being Private Business set down by The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS,
      530
      under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business), further Proceeding stood postponed.

  GREATER LONDON RADIO AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call on any hon. or right hon. Member to speak, I have to announce that I have not selected the Amendment standing in the names of the hon. Members for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) and Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck), nor have I accepted the Instruction in the name of the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill).
  This will not affect the debate in any way. Points which could be made on either the Amendment or the Instruction will be in order on the Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: This is a Private Bill promoted by the largest local authority in this country, a local authority which is sometimes rightly regarded as the prototype for the new type of regional authority which is likely to emerge from the Redcliffe-Maud Report.
  I mention that in opening because I suggest that if we are to talk and think seriously about devolution of authority to regional governments we have, if we are to be honest with ourselves, to be prepared to look with sympathy and helpfulness when these great regional authorities come forward with proposals involving legislation.
  I am not, of course, being so silly as to suggest that for that reason we should not look very closely at any legislative proposals they bring forward, but with this development of large regional bodies, if they are to be successful, a certain amount of co-operation and an attitude of basic helpfulness on the part of this House would be extremely helpful to their development.
  The House, of course, is not being asked at this stage to give final approval to these proposals. This being a Private Bill, if the House in its wisdom decides to give it a Second Reading, it will then
  532
  go in the normal way in respect of Private Bills to one of our Select Committees sitting quasi-judicially hearing evidence and argument. All that is necessary at this stage is for the House to consider whether or not these proposals should be given the opportunity of being subjected to this normal procedure for Private Bills.
  The time for final decision would come much more conveniently after the Bill has been to a Select Committee, after evidence from those who are affected, or think they might be affected, has been heard. After there has been the opportunity at leisure for a Select Committee to give the Bill the searching analysis which those of our colleagues who serve on these Committees unfailingly give, then it will be for the House with the advantage of the Committee's report, on the Third Reading, to look at what I accept are the very important issues it raises.
  For that reason, and also for the reason that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey (Mr. Rossi) will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, towards the end of the debate, with a view to dealing with points raised in it, I do not propose to detain the House at this stage at any great length.
  But I think I owe it to the House to give a quick summary of one or two of the most important features of what, in many ways, is an extremely interesting essay in private legislation. The essence of the Bill is that it seeks to set up a Greater London Radio Authority appointed by the Greater London Council for the purpose of providing local radio programmes in and for Greater London. The Authority, it is proposed, should consist of a chairman, deputy chairman and not less than eight other members. It is the intention of Greater London Council before making those appointments to consult both the Government of the day and the London Boroughs Association about suitable individuals for this very responsible task.
  Substantially, the proposed structure of the authority is modelled on that which Parliament approved some years ago in respect of Independent Television. There will be the Authority, with the G.L.C. in this case rather than the Postmaster-General, making the appointments, with its responsibilities for standards of programmes, and so on, and

  533
  the same system, broadly, of programme contractors competing for the right to send out their programmes. In terms of radio it proposes broadly to follow the Independent Television model.
  There is one difference of importance. As the Greater London Council will be in this context in the position which the Postmaster-General holds in respect of Independent Television, the Bill provides that none of these powers shall be exercised unless and until an application has been made to the Postmaster-General, if I understand it aright under either Section 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1949, or the old Telegraph Act 1869, for a licence.
  The Authority would not have power to operate services without a licence from the Postmaster-General and compliance with any conditions which the Postmaster-General may see fit to attach. I hope that the Postmaster-General will accept that this is designed to meet the important consideration in respect of his responsibilities over control of wavelengths involved in our international responsibilities and his obligations as Postmaster-General. It is important at this stage to stress that the licence and the conditions under it are a condition precedent, so the Bill proposes, to the operation of the powers which are sought.
  Mr. Eric Lubbock: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Greater London Council has any particular wavelength in mind? He will know that there is a great shortage and that we have the right to use only those wavelengths which are allocated to us by international Convention.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes. I was going to deal with wavelengths. I accept that this is a very important point.
  It is hoped that it will be possible to operate in the medium band. This is a matter essentially for the Postmaster-General, and, of course, he would almost certainly lay down in his licence which particular bands would be available. Given the fact that the stations will be of relatively lower power, as they will be designed to serve only the Greater London area, it appears that there are bands available, perhaps somewhere in the neighbourhood of 194 or 202 which could be used for this purpose. This is a point for the Postmaster-General after
  534
  the Bill has become law and when a submission is made for a licence.
  Some thought has been given to the matter although Greater London Council would not claim to be technical experts in it. Those experts, of course, are in the Post Office. I am sure that the House would wish to show proper respect for them in that capacity.
  Subject to this, the final control being with the Postmaster-General, it follows the model set up for Independent Television. I should have thought it difficult to argue that a system which works in respect of Independent Television could not equally work in the allied field of radio. I do not, of course, overlook in saying that that the original Act dealing with independent television was a matter of acute controversy in this House. I am inclined, however, to think that that controversy has very much died down.
  The present Government have operated that legislation for the last four-and-a-half years, which would seem to suggest that they have found it not unsatisfactory. Indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer availed himself of it to increase in his Budget the levy payments on advertising revenue—they were originally worked out when I was at the Treasury—and, I have no doubt, found it very helpful to get these further revenues to tap. Therefore, I hope that I am not raising any general issue of controversy when I say that the machinery which has been proved in the field of television is being used as the model, with this one exception, and some minor ones, for the scheme proposed, after a good deal of thought, in the Bill.
  I do not need to spend time in arguing the theme about local radio generally. I think that this is generally accepted in Britain. It is generally accepted that interest in local affairs and in local government, which we must all admit is not in many parts of the country as intense as we should like it to be, will be stimulated, and that local feeling, local patriotism, local interests, would be well served by local radio.
  In respect of London, there is the very special point of the significance of traffic problems and the need to deal with them quickly which makes a medium of quick communication throughout the London area to citizens generally of very considerable value. There is this additional factor,

  535
  therefore, which makes local radio in London of very particular importance.
  I must face the point—I come to it now—that this proposal differs from the experiment which the Postmaster-General is conducting in, I think I am right in saying, eight provincial cities, in respect of the method of financing. The proposal here is that the expenses of operation should be ultimately financed out of advertising revenue. I do not want to detain the House by a long doctrinal argument about whether sound radio should in general be financed out of advertising. It is a matter on which opinions differ. I do not think that it is necessary to argue the general case this evening.
  I would only say, in passing, that I myself have never been quite able to see why, if advertising is a proper financial support for television, it is an improper one for radio; or, indeed, to see why if advertising is a proper financial support for the Press, including all the most serious journals—The Times, the Economist, and the rest of them—it should be improper support for radio broadcasting. I do not need to argue that general case which, I think, in any case is inappropriate to private legislation.
  The circumstances of London are special, in view of the very large area and the very high concentration of population in it, the obviously high cost compared with services in a provincial area of providing such a service, and also, if one is considering alternative means of finance, the high level—touching a sore point—of London rates and the undesirability of adding to them. Therefore, I am not asking the Postmaster-General to swallow his principles or his general argument, though I notice that his White Paper does not rule out advertising as a means of support. It is admirably fair and judicial on the point.
  I am asking the House to consider simply this proposal as private legislation in respect of London, in respect of which, after a good deal of thought, this method of financing is suggested. Whatever the Postmaster-General's own views, may it not be the case that alongside his present experiment in the provinces on another basis of financing it would be a very useful experiment to see how we got on in London on this basis so
  536
  that a comparison between the two methods of financing to see which were the advantages and which the disadvantages would in due course become possible?
  There is no doubt but that there is a real demand for a service of this sort, apart from the practical points I have mentioned, such as traffic management. Radio Caroline and the other illegal activities have at least indicated that there is a very strong demand for musical programmes. The House will also want to weigh the fact that the elected representatives in London in local government have decided that this is the way that they, as elected representatives of the locality, would like to see this service provided.
  I know that the Press has some apprehensions from the point of view of advertising revenue. I have the greatest regard for the local Press, particularly in London, and especially because we are very well served in this respect in my constituency. But I do not believe that the Press stands to suffer from this. Nor is this view universal in the journalistic world. Indeed, as I understand, both evening and local newspapers in London are very interested in the opportunity of participation in this service.
  There is something complementary between the mass of small advertisements which are carried in, and which are the main source of revenue of, the local newspapers and the totally different type of advertisement, designed for a wide public on a very short-time basis, which is alone suitable for radio. There is a great deal to be said for the view that local radio, by stimulating interest in local news, will stimulate the demand for local newspapers and so help them, both directly on their circulation and indirectly in respect of their advertising.
  I leave it with the House that this is not intended to be anything but helpful in respect of the local Press, and that the Greater London Council would take it very much amiss if it thought that any damage would result. Indeed, it seems that the contrary will be the case.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the very experienced view of the Director of the Newspaper Society as to the effect on local newspapers?
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Yes, and I have also considered the contrary views put forward on behalf of the Society of British Advertisers. This is a technical and expert matter. My experience has taught me that technical and expert opinions are apt to differ. I have already conceded that there are contrary views. It at least comes to this, that the evidence is very far from being one way on the matter. I will leave that aspect of it there.
  There is provision, quite properly, for the Greater London Council to obtain some of the proceeds after the expenses of the Authority have been met. It is intended and desired to use these for purposes for which finance otherwise might well not be forthcoming in connection with the council's ever-increasing concern with patronage of the arts—the need and desirability of helping young painters and encouraging young and progressive artistic developments. There is a wish to use the proceeds from this source for this purpose to an extent which perhaps might not be proper if it were placed upon the rates.
  You, Mr. Speaker, have indicated that you are not calling the reasoned Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill). I might, however, just refer to the question of religious minorities. It is intended that the Authority should set up a religious advisory committee, whose job would be to ensure that all religions of any considerable following, or even quite small following, should get their proper share in representation. Certainly, a high degree of religious tolerance is the wish of the Greater London Council, as I am sure it would be of the House. The Bill contains provisions on the lines of the Television Act for maintaining standards of propriety, decency and tolerance, and I hope that the House will think they are adequate. If it does pot so think, they can well be improved in Committee.
  This is a serious proposal, put forward by a great local authority. The question for the House is—is this a matter which should, having been carefully thought out and presented to the House by the greatest local authority in the country, be given the proper treatment for a Private Bill—consideration by one of our Select Committees? I hope
  538
  that the House will come to the conclusion that that is the right procedure and that we should reserve our own final decisions until, as the result of the report of one of our Select Committees, we are better informed than we are tonight.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that, as it can see, many hon. Members wish to speak in the debate. I hope that speeches will be reasonably brief.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Roy Roebuck: Contrary to the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), I believe that if it were enacted this Measure would have a most serious effect on local weekly newspapers. It is, therefore, perhaps appropriate if I declare a very indirect interest as a newspaperman, although it is many years since I was financially engaged in any way with local weekly newspapers and I have never had any financial connection with weekly newspapers in the Greater London area.
  The right hon. Gentleman suggested that we should let the Bill proceed through the normal stages, but I do not take that view. It is a thoroughly bad Bill which should not be given the dignity of death by a thousand cuts in Committee, but should be snuffed out at 10 o'clock tonight in the Division Lobby.
  The motive force for the Bill is not that of providing a wide variety of entertainment, information or culture for Londoners, but of providing private profit for a small number of individuals who will package rubbishy entertainment for the people of London. That is why the Bill commands so much support from hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is a long time since the traditions of service to the community and noblesse oblige fled from the benches opposite. They fled with the influx of what a noble Lord has described as the hard-faced men who now dominate the Conservative Party. That is what the Bill is all about. It is an attempt to make private profit for a small number of individuals.
  If the Bill became an Act, the consequences would be as follows. First, it would implant the kiss of death on a number of local newspapers in London

  539
  because their advertising would be drained off to the new medium. This would reduce the sources of news about local affairs, and have a most unhappy effect on local democracy. There are already far too few local newspapers in the Greater London area; some boroughs have only one. The result of the Bill's being passed would be that those members would be reduced still more drastically, and the public life of the Londoner would in consequence be made much worse.
  The second ill-effect I see from the passage of the Bill would be that it would open the door to other councils dominated by the same sort of people as now dominate the Greater London Council, and we should have a number of similar Measures, with disastrous results all over the land. That would threaten much of our local and provincial Press, to which some hon. Gentlemen opposite pay lip service when it pleases them and when they think that it is in their political interests to do so. It is recognised both by the Newspaper Society, which represents the newspaper owners, and by the National Union of Journalists, that this would happen, because the sources of advertising are not inexhaustible. It is impossible for us to have a vibrant local Press and local commercial radio. One can have one or the other, but certainly not both.
  The right hon. Gentleman told us that he did not think the local newspapers need worry about advertising, but did not produce any facts to substantiate that argument.
  Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has ever been to America, but there he would find very strong local radio and a very strong local Press as well.
  Mr. Roebuck: I will come to the hon. Gentleman's point shortly. I was about to advance to it and give the House some facts about advertising.
  At present, 42 per cent. of the advertising revenue in this country goes to the newspaper Press and 23 per cent. to magazines, making 65 per cent. Of the rest, television takes 25 per cent. and posters 8 per cent., and 1 per cent. goes to Radio Luxembourg and 1 per cent. to the cinemas. If we are to have commercial
  540
  radio it is clear to me that there must be a switch of some of that advertising revenue from newspapers to the wireless.
  In Japan, 5 per cent. of all advertising is taken by commercial radio. In Australia, the figure is 10 per cent., and in the United States the wireless takes 9 per cent. If there were a switch of that nature in this country many local newspapers which at present only just manage to exist would go out of existence. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman talking about the participation of some newspapers in schemes like this. It is clear that not all could participate, and even those which did would not be recompensed for the amount of advertising they would lose under this sort of Measure. If the right hon. Gentleman does not believe that, I suggest that he should talk to some of the people in the Newspaper Society about it.
  No one suggests, I hope, that local radio does not have a most important part to play in the life of the community. I believe that it does, because by local radio a new lease of life can be given to many community activities such as amateur dramatics and choirs. But it can never be a substitute for the local weekly newspaper covering local events, particularly council affairs, in great depth. The news bulletin, which one presumes there would be on local radio under this Bill, would be a fleeting thing; it would be ephemeral. People would listen and perhaps forget; but they have their local weekly newspaper in the house all week, and they can refer to it and talk about it to their friends. If the local newspaper went out of existence in exchange for this sort of medium, the public would suffer greatly.
  If local radio were established by commercial interests I cannot see those interests wanting to foster and sponsor such things as local dramatic society performances and local choirs. They would not want that sort of thing at all. They would want a packaged, canned, saccharin sort of product from the United States.
  Therefore, I believe that the right way to proceed with local radio is along the lines of the experiments now being conducted by the British Broadcasting Corporation, in which my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General takes such a keen

  541
  interest. These experiments are going on in many places, including Brighton, Merseyside, Sheffield and Leeds, with the active co-operation of the local Press. The indications are that the experiments are very successful. These services, which are complementary to those of the local Press, are no threat to the Press because they do not drain away advertising revenue. The experiments are backed by both the Newspaper Society and the National Union of Journalists.
  I wonder why there is such haste by the Greater London Council to produce such a Bill now. Would not it have been far wiser to wait until we could evalauate these experiments? Possibly the Conservatives are in such a great hurry because they think that they will lose the next council elections in Greater London, and want to get the Bill on to the Statute Book beforehand. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may wish to advance other reasons.
  You have asked for short speeches, Mr. Speaker, so I conclude by saying that I believe that under the Bill the public at large would get no benefit, but that there is a distinct possibility of fortunes being made by a small number of people. For those reasons, I ask my hon. Friends and right-minded hon. Members opposite to join me in the Division Lobby later to defeat the Measure, which I believe is obnoxious and harms the public interest.
  7.39 p.m.
  Mr. Bernard Weatherill: We have listened to a rather hysterical outburst from the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck). One wonders how out of touch people can be. Evidently he does not remember the outcry aroused as a result of the closing down of the so-called pirate radio stations. They proved the need for and popularity of services other than those provided by the B.B.C.
  I have not heard, certainly in my part of the world, that local newspapers oppose the scheme in any way. Indeed, my understanding is that at least two major London newspapers are strongly in favour of the Bill.
  You have allowed me, Mr. Speaker, to speak to the Instruction which I put down and, since the point is a narrow one, I can accede to your request that
  542
  speeches be brief. I do not wish the House to take it from my having put down the Instruction that I am in any way opposed to the Bill. I strongly support it. In my view, it is exceedingly important that our capital city should have a radio station, or two radio stations, of its own. It is high time that this happened. I take comfort from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said about the Advisory Committee on Religious Broadcasting, and it is about that that I shall now speak.
  The eight experimental stations which have already been set up have proved popular. They provide a service to the communities which they cover, and they fill a gap which, inevitably, the national networks cannot fill. The great advantage of local radio is that it engenders a kind of community spirit, and it can and does cater for minority interests and groups. In putting down my Instruction, I had in mind the minority religious interests.
  In starting a new venture, we have a new opportunity to interpret the "main stream" theme of policy which was laid down about 50 years ago in circumstances very different from today. In paragraph 282, the Pilkington Committee said of this policy:
  "The concept provides, in our view, a useful practical device; but there is a risk that it will be too narrowly interpreted. Nor can we ignore the fact that the question of what churches are in the 'main stream' is determined by the B.B.C., and by the I.T.A., after consultation with the C.R.A.C. This leads to the anomaly that responsibility for recommending the continued exclusion of churches seeking admission to the 'main stream' rests with representatives of those churches already included."
  In other words, in this narrow field we have a kind of monopoly situation.
  We live now in a different kind of age in which many new religions and religious beliefs have grown up. Therefore, I hope that if the Bill goes forward to the Select Committee and is ultimately passed time will be found in religious programmes not only for the old "main stream" churches but also for large minorities such as the Jews and the newer churches—I use the word in its broadest sense—such groups as the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses, and, in particular, perhaps, the Christian Scientists who one might almost

  543
  say form a kind of main stream church nowadays, with about 3,000 churches all over the world and an internationally famous and respected newspaper. If the Bill is passed, the Christian Scientists would have 70 or 80 churches within the area which it would cover.
  My object, therefore, is to urge that we widen the interpretation of the theme of "main stream" churches, including the newer religions and beliefs and also, since London is such a cosmopolitan city, religions which are much older even than Christianity—Hinduism, Buddhism and Mahommedanism. At a time when we are seeking to create harmony, a better understanding of one another's religious beliefs and religions would go a long way to help.
  We all believe in choice. In my view, it should go beyond purely material things. I recognise that the point I make is narrow, but I believe it to be important, and I hope that it will commend itself to the House.
  7.45 p.m.
  Mr. Terence Boston: I was sorry that in an otherwise characteristically moderate speech the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill) saw fit to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) for his passionate speech. My hon. Friend feels passionately on this matter. It is no bad thing to feel passionately and to express oneself passionately on some subjects. I noted also the moderate tone in which the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) spoke in opening the debate, a bit deceptively moderate, I thought, because in its very moderation it avoided, for reasons which he explained, the central issue regarding the establishment of local radio stations, whether commercial or non-commercial. For a reason which I shall develop in a moment, I regard this as an issue which cannot be avoided, even though we are dealing here with one specific proposal relating to one part of the country.
  I am one of the group of hon. Members who have joined in pressing for local radio stations. I was interested to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that it is now widely accepted that local broadcasting has a considerable part to play. I share
  544
  his view. I am certain that it has. Yet this development has taken place over a comparatively short time. In a lot of the evidence presented to the Pilkington Committee it was said that there was not much support in various parts of the country for the idea of local broadcasting. Those of us who have for a long time felt, as I believe the right hon. Gentleman has, that local broadcasting could play a useful part both in broadcasting developments and in serving the community sometimes forget that there was in the past that tendency not to regard it as a popular move.
  However, the last few years, and the past 18 months in particular, have shown that once one starts some form of venture of this kind one begins to see what the response really is. There has been a very real response to the local broadcasting experiments to which my hon. Friend referred. I was delighted when this Government decided to give the B.B.C. the go-ahead for the local radio experiment instituted in November, 1967. Perhaps I should declare an interest here—not a financial one I hasten to add—in that I worked for the B.B.C. for some time.
  The eight local radio stations set up since November, 1967, in various parts of the country have already had considerable success. There is no doubt that the case for local radio stations has been well and truly established. It was suggested that some before they were set up that they would deal solely in news bulletins and that one would have endless news throughout the day. In fact, these eight stations have demonstrated that they can produce a great variety of programme material, gathering in people to participate on a whole range of different forms of entertainment and topic.
  It is clear from a recent speech by Lord Hill of Luton, Chairman of the B.B.C. Board of Governors—whose views will surely appeal to hon. Members opposite—that the response has been very good He said:
  "One of the most encouraging aspects of the local radio experiment is the lively reaction it has provoked from audience. In the local stations the telephone is never silent and the post is always heavy.
  "Better still, the door is constantly being pushed open by listeners coming to express their views over the air about some current local controversy."

  545
  Lord Hill was referring to one of the most successful stations, Radio Leeds, which has shown outstanding enterprise in the organisation of its programmes. One of the most significant things about the response to these local stations has been the considerable measure of response from the young as well as from older people.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: But the response which the hon. Gentleman rightly describes can only come from people who happen to have V.H.F. sets.
  Mr. Boston: That is the case at the moment, but I do not want now to go into the question of wavelength problems, which are considerable. What has emerged since local stations were established—and this is a point which we must bear in mind—is the substantial growth in the purchases of V.H.F. sets.
  The station at Leeds has, in addition to its response from others, been having a substantial response from young people. Before these stations were established the sceptics were saying that they would not fulfil a need for the younger people. This has been amply demonstrated as not true, particularly in the experiment which Radio Leeds ran only a few weeks ago in handing over to teenagers in the city the running of the station on a particular occasion.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East mentioned, the local broadcasting experiment being carried out by the B.B.C. is to be evaluated and we expect that my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General will be making a statement about the outcome in due course. Then will be the time to decide the whole future of local sound stations. What are we being asked to do in this Bill, however? This is where the right hon. Gentleman narrowed his argument too greatly. We are being asked to deal with London in isolation, and this in itself poses very big questions. If we are to set up local broadcasting at all, we have to do it for the country as a whole, dealing with the whole principle, including whether or not we set it up on a commercial or non-commercial basis or as a mixture of the two. It also poses the question of how many stations.
  There have been one or two remarkable suggestions, notably by the Shadow
  546
  Postmaster-General—not even now taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—for 100 commercial stations. We would need to know in which places or areas these stations would be set up. There would be the problem to which the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has alluded—that of wavelengths, which is a very important point. There is also the whole question of the sources of finance. Again, there are the matters to which my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East referred—the position of the local Press and of how the stations would be made publicly accountable.
  It would be quite wrong to deal with this important development in broadcasting in only one part of the country in isolation. Further—and here I may offend some of my hon. Friends from London constituencies, although I hope not—I think that it would be far better, once we start establishing local broadcasting stations on a permanent basis, to begin with other parts of the country than London.
  London has the benefit already of a great many things which other centres do not have in the form of entertainment. A lot of the existing radio and television programmes are geared to this part of the country, and there is no reason why not, since it contains one-sixth of the population. But Londoners can already enjoy a variety of things and it would, therefore, be better, once we start establishing permanent stations, to start building them in other parts of the country. I am doubtful, at this early stage at least, whether a London radio station would be a good thing, because London is more of a region than a locality. I doubt whether, at the moment, London as a whole is really suitable for a local radio station.
  The Bill contains some reference to the possibility of more than one programme being transmitted, although there is a useful provision which would avoid conflict. What would be unfortunate would be a proposal for a whole series of radio stations serving different localities in London. Only limited resources are available for the country as a whole to devote to any particular venture, of which the proposal for London radio is just part. To set up local broadcasting in meaningful terms for London would mean a series of stations, and

  547
  that would involve giving London a disproportionate amount of the resources available. There may be a case later on for establishing a station or stations in London but not at first.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East referred to the question of whether there should be a commercial basis for local radio. Far too many people are apt to give the impression that if local radio were to be set up on a commercial basis the public would be getting it free of charge. A lot of humbug and hypocrisy is spoken on this point. Of course the listeners would be paying for it just as they would if we set up public service broadcasting. They would be paying for it through the goods they bought because of the cost of advertising, which would be increased. This point should be made clear to the public.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the views of the local newspapers. I share his fears that commercial radio would undoubtedly syphon off advertising revenue. The Press is not in a very strong financial position and there is no doubt that the limited amount of advertising revenue available in the localities would largely be syphoned off by local radio stations operating on a commercial basis. The bulk of the evidence given by the local Press interests to the Pilkington Committee was against the setting-up of local commercial stations.
  One of the pieces of evidence, given as it happens by a director of a newspaper in my constituency, the late W. R. H. Coleman, a director of Walter J. Cole Limited, was:
  "Such stations would directly compete with 'local' newspapers for their revenue with the possibility of casualties on both sides.…
  Any diminution of revenue would result—and has already resulted in the case of the many newspapers which have closed down—in large scale unemployment, since the size of newspapers is directly related to the quantity of advertising.
  … since the B.B.C. could possibly improve the present regional services by the establishment of a limited number of additional stations, I believe most 'local' newspapers would be content to give their support to this, subject to a review after five years. I do."
  That is just one quote from the many pieces of evidence submitted to the Pilkington Committee.
  It is significant that more recently local newspaper interests have not changed
  548
  their views as a whole. It is worth giving in some detail the statement made by Mr. William G. Ridd, a director of the Newspaper Society, when he said in a letter to the Financial Times on 1st January:
  "According to an economic survey of 108 provincial newspaper companies conducted for the Newspaper Society by independent accountants, 20 per cent. of the companies surveyed would have made a loss (before tax) if those companies had lost 10 per cent. of their advertising revenue. … No uncertainty about that. It is conservative to estimate a mere loss of 10 per cent. advertising revenue from the introduction of a competitive medium in the form of commercial local radio. …
  The Newspaper Society does not retract from its long-held view that the B.B.C. should continue to conduct local radio."
  That is an authoritative view from local newspaper interests.
  Another important matter is that of local authority control. There is no doubt that many of us would feel that local authorities should play a part in the running of local stations if they were set up and in the contributions being made to them. But it would be a dangerous departure to put the whole of the control into the hands of local authorities. As is clear from the Bill, a local authority would have the ultimate sanction, because Clause 3 and the Schedule provide for the appointment of the chairman and deputy chairman and other members by the authority. This would be a powerful position for local authorities in this influential medium. While one would hope that local authorities will play a part when local broadcasting stations are set up on a permanent basis, it would be a great mistake if local authorities were to have the overall control.
  I come finally to the running of the stations themselves. This is a sensitive medium, and I mean "sensitive" in political terms. Over the years the B.B.C. and, more recently, the I.T.A. have established a whole series of safeguards and procedures for making sure that programmes are balanced politically, both in terms of subject matter and content and participants. If we were to have a multiplicity of commercial stations all over the country, it would be difficult to see that each station at all times maintained a careful political balance. For that reason, I would much prefer local broadcasting stations, when

  549
  they are set up, to be set up under the aegis of the B.B.C.., so that they can have the built-in safeguarding procedure which the B.B.C. has established over the years.
  For the reasons I have given, I believe that it would be wrong to consider this part of the country in isolation, and I therefore hope that the Bill will be rejected. However, I look forward to hearing from my right hon. Friend a little later in the year, and I hope that he will allow the B.B.C. to go ahead with permanent local stations.
  8.5 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Silvester: I begin by declaring an interest in that I am employed by an advertising agency, but in that respect I have no financial interest in the Bill, because we are specifically excluded from taking any part in the authority which may be set up. It may be useful for me to refer to the advertising side of the Bill, because I have been impressed by the completely wrong interpretation of the way in which the Bill would affect radio, television and the Press which has been inferred by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) and the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck).
  They have both described a situation envisaging a sort of static world of advertising, a sort of static activity in which we use simply the media to which we have become accustomed. This is a false interpretation. Advertising has traditionally extended, and I hope will continue to extend itself, into new media as they become available. Provided it conducts itself properly, there is nothing but advantage to the public in its extension in that way. Both hon. Members fell into the fallacy of attributing to the introduction of new media trends which would have continued in any case.
  For example, most of us would regret the demise of general interest magazines like the old Picture Post. It died after the introduction of independent television, but it would be unwise to attribute that demise to the introduction of independent television. The circulation figures for the magazine before the introduction of independent television show that between 1949 and 1956 its readership fell from 9·6 million to 5 million. The hon. Memmer for Faversham quoted figures in
  550
  connection with local papers just balanced between profitability and loss. I wonder whether he could take those figures and give a reasonable interpretation of what is to happen to those newspapers with or without the introduction of commercial radio.
  Unfortunately, some of the very small local newspapers will inevitably decline, but the introduction of local commercial radio will not accelerate that decline. The sort of advertising revenue of which we are talking for Greater London radio is likely to be less than that already creamed off the market when Radio Caroline and Radio London were at work, and it would be difficult to show that more local newspapers were killed as a result of the introduction of those radio programmes.
  Mr. William Molloy: Would not the hon. Gentleman concede that those radio stations were cheating, that they cheated those who provided the music by making no contribution to them, as the B.B.C. and the I.T.V. regularly do? That was the real crime of the pirates.
  Mr. Silvester: I am not discussing the crime of the pirates. All I am saying is that the total revenue devoted, perhaps improperly, to succouring the pirates was not responsible for the killing of any local newspapers.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Harrow, East that the effect on local newspapers is the most important aspect of the matter. The figures for regional newspapers show that they held a 20 per cent. share of total advertising revenue over the last seven years, and they have held this share at a time when advertising revenues have been increasing, so that the total of advertising revenue available to them has increased from £44 million to £87 million. About £40 million of this comes from classified advertising.
  I do not believe, and I doubt whether many hon. Members believe, that the local radio station will take a predominant share of that advertising. If there is a danger to this market, and the figures bear this out, it comes not from local radio but from the highly specialised development of trade and technical magazines. The growth in the share of classified advertising is particularly marked

  551
  here. That arises because there is an increased demand for specialisation. This Bill proposes that there should be one or two radio stations to cover the whole of London, and I do not believe that these will be a contender for this advertising. Where local newspapers will be most vulnerable is in display advertising, which accounts for just about the other half of their income.
  Here again, in the last few years they have held their share. Their share declined last year, as did their total income, but that was primarily the result of the squeeze which hit advertising as a whole in 1967. Taking the share of the gross national product which has been taken by advertising, it has been growing from 1957 up to 1966. It fell back in 1964 but that hit all newspapers, not only local ones.
  There is some evidence from what happened after the introduction of Independent Television that the fears which had been expressed then were not justified. As a result of the increase in media available there has been an increase in the total amount of advertising placed. I am not saying that one or two specific newspapers in specific areas will not go under. They may well do, but not because of anything arising from this Bill. It is possible to envisage a campaign which would use local radio in London for a chain of stores, for example, operating in the area, and which would also require to be backed up by advertising for a specific local store in the local newspaper.
  Contrary to what the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) was saying, that it is too big, the danger to local newspapers would come if the area became too narrow. Then there would be a real chance of local newspapers suffering. It is for this reason that I urge this House to accept this Bill in respect of the Greater London Council. In Greater London the situation is totally different from towns operating under the present B.B.C. scheme. There is a very large area, providing totally different circumstances. It would provide an opportunity to see whether there is a really viable case for a commercial radio station over a substantial area. The hon. Member for Faversham said that we should not start
  552
  in London because it is not fair. There are a lot of things going on in London. Why should London have all the joy? This is a deplorable attitude. I am not saying that we can do only this now, and something else perhaps a few years later. I want to see the thing moving.
  I have no objection to the eight stations continuing if they are a success, and the reports I have heard are that they are a whale of a success. By all means let them go on, but I cannot see that the argument should extend to the stifling of this opportunity which the Greater London Council wishes to create.
  I have spoken a lot about local papers, but we ought also to consider the local population. It is common ground in this House that the need for local radio is well-established. The sort of flair which was developed by the iniquitous pirates in commercial radio was also well recognised. It has certainly been adopted, to some extent, by Radio 1. At my by-election I had a candidate who stood solely on the grounds of "Let's have pop pirate radio".
  Mr. Molloy: What happened to him?
  Mr. Silvester: He lost his deposit, but that was only because I had the farsightedness to support him in that. We have obviously come a long way since the debates in the House on the Television Act, 1964, when someone said that the Bill was the enemy of a reasonable culture in broadcasting and television. I do not think that anyone believes that commercialism has that effect. The introduction of advertising clearly has to be very carefully controlled. At least three Clauses in the Bill are devoted to the careful control of advertising and of the programmes. This is a reasonable way of going about it.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, East should not use emotive terms like "packaged canned stuff from America". If he reads the Bill he will see that there is a provision in it for the adequate use of British material.
  I have, therefore, three reasons for supporting the Bill. The first is because a great authority, properly elected, even if hon. Members opposite do not like it, wants to try an experiment which will harm no one. That is a perfectly laudable activity for a local authority. Secondly, it is providing a service which

  553
  the public clearly wants and one which is likely to be provided more slowly if we leave it to the B.B.C. and local authority-supported stations. The third reason, and it is the least of my reasons, is that it may provide revenue which could be used for the arts and local bodies. It is the least of the reasons, because I do not think that the sums involved will be very substantial.
  For these reasons, I hope that the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.
  8.16 p.m.
  Mr. William Molloy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) upon a courtesly delivered speech, and I must also congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I know that when he wishes he can deliver a speech in a most ferocious and thrusting fashion. It usually means, when he delivers his arguments in that way, that he is very confident about what he is saying. This evening he was very beguiling and I wondered whether it was because he knew that he had to put over a difficult case and was hoping that by being moderate and appealing for understanding he might "pull a fast one".
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not succeed. He did not refer a great deal to the commercial aspect of the Bill. People who enter into this sort of activity are not primarily concerned with either the status or the standing of the service they provide, but, quite rightly, are in it to make money. Here I congratulate Lord Thomson of Fleet, who said that a licence to run commercial television was a licence to print money. He has never retracted that remark. It now seems as if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite want to "get in on the act", with a licence to print not so small change.
  This view is not confined to Members on this side of the House. The Confederation of British Industry is jointly responsible with the International Publishing Corporation for the editorial policy of British Industry Week. In a feature article, on 18th April, entitled "Broadcasting's Future: Freedom or Licence?", it had this to say in its conclusions:
  554
  "Can an Independent Broadcasting Authority effectively restrain commercial local radio from following the appalling examples of American radio and dragging B.B.C. Radio after it? The answer probably lies in one's view of human nature. The Conservative case is not helped by the knowledge that many of the loudest propagandists for local commercial radio stand to gain financially from its inception."
  We have to look at this very carefully. We are creating something new in broadcasting. Although it angers me at times and irritates me at others, I am, nevertheless, proud that it was we who provided one of the finest forms of broadcasting the world has ever seen—the B.B.C. What is more, the B.B.C. has changed its character to meet the times without changing its integrity. That is vital.
  While I agree that local broadcasting would be good in principle, we must examine the matter in the context of the national interest. Once we say that, we are confronted with many questions. Some right hon. Members opposite have seemed almost to imitate a fifth-rate bingo caller in crying out that the number of stations should be 100 and without saying why it should not be 99 or 101. This is not a sensible way of dealing with an important question like the establishment of local radio. We must ask how many stations and what areas are to be covered.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) pointed out the difference between a city like Leeds or Leicester, which, I understand, has one of the experimental stations, and a large conurbation like London. If local radio is established, I hope that we shall have one in the Borough of Ealing which will not necessarily come under the control of the G.L.C. or be directed by the G.L.C. That would be having direct local control over a proper form of local radio. I hope that some hon. Members agree with that, irrespective of whether it is run commercially or by the B.B.C.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham touched on the question of limited wavelengths. This can be a dry aspect of debate, but I am sure that hon. Members on both sides will acknowledge that the effect on national broadcasting of the use of wavelengths for local purposes is an extremely important aspect. We cannot dismiss these problems too lightly. We should give them the degree of importance to which they are entitled.

  555
  For whose benefit would local radio be established? Would it be for somebody to make money out of advertising or for the community it is to serve?
  Mr. Gresham Cooke: Would the hon. Gentleman ask exactly the same question about local newspapers? Do not they live on advertising? Would the hon. Gentleman take away the right of local newspapers to go on "printing money"?
  Mr. Molloy: It is a nasty slur on the people in the printing industry to say that they have been printing money. I quoted a statement by a noble Lord. There is no analogy between local newspapers and the power of broadcasting. I hope to say a few words about that later.
  In the medium of broadcasting, we must pay attention to public accountability. We must ask: public accountability by whom and to whom? We must ask how local radio can best serve the local communities for which it is designed. Parliament has a responsibility in this context. I part company from the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames in looking at this matter in the narrow context of London. I do not mean that London is a narrow context, but we have a responsibility from the point of view of the nation as a whole to make sure that we create something good which can spread throughout the country.
  Therefore, the interests of local communities must be taken into consideration. Surely we must define those local communities. The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames would say that Kingston has many interests which might be similar to, but not exactly the same as, those in Ealing. I should like to see local broadcasting based on the Borough of Kingston or say on the Borough of Ealing. This is an argument not primarily against the idea of local broadcasting, but for not automatically accepting that the Greater London area is the local community.
  I have posed a number of questions, and I believe that an effort has already been made to find some of the answers. I refer to points which have been made about the experiment being made by the B.B.C. In November, 1967, the B.B.C.
  556
  launched its local radio experiment. I understand that eight stations are transmitting. Let us consider briefly how they function and how they are organised. I understand that each station serves its own town and area and cannot be heard outside its area. This is what encourages me in the view that there could be local radio for Kingston and local radio for Ealing. That might be a possibility. It is worth investigating. The experiments now taking place will help the right hon. Gentleman and myself in assessing the practicality of what I am proposing.
  From the reports that we have had, the stations generally have been a success. Here we have common ground. Both sides of the House are ready to accept that the principle of local radio is good and we can be assured in our judgment by the experiment being carried out by the B.B.C. These local stations have stimulated discussion on a vast number of local problems and matters of local interest. No doubt they have also committed some errors. Probably some mistakes have been made. Let us consider these matters in detail so that when the service is expanded we can enhance those things which are fine and which should be enhanced and rectify the errors and eliminate the things which have gone wrong.
  The basic concept is that each station should reflect the character of its own neighbourhood. There should be a local broadcasting council to keep an eye on what is going on, to which representations could be made and which would be generally responsible and answerable for policy.
  What is happening in the local radio experiment might not be possible if local radio were to be run on a commercial basis. The existing eight local radio stations are entitled to the free use of programmes from the four national networks of the B.B.C. This is an important aspect. I also believe that to the extent that there is no direct interest in a particular aspect by those who run the local broadcasting, this can be a very good thing.
  My idea of local radio broadcasting is that it should reflect the interests of the people in their ordinary associations. In the Borough of Ealing we have a number of local associations in Northolt and Greenford, including, for example, the

  557
  British Legion and the gardening association. These local associations, however, could not have a proper say in a designated area as large as Greater London.
  In an emergency, the local radio can sometimes play a great part. In Northolt and Greenford, for example, we were opposed to the former Conservative Government's proposals for a D-ring road. We continued our opposition when the present Government took over. We were helped enormously by our local newspapers. By presenting the case and explaining the issue to people, local radio could have made its contribution, but I doubt whether it could do so properly had the area which it served been too large.
  The argument has been whether local radio should be commercial or should be run on B.B.C. lines. I prefer the latter, but there is another reason to be considered. Is it not a fact that in the nation today we have a welter of advertising? Wherever one goes, there is some form of advertising. I am not opposed to advertising. I believe that we must have it. We have almost the two extremes, from the dignified to the absurd and from the responsible to the repugnant.
  We see advertising on trains, the underground, buses, cartons, papers, magazines, television and the rest and I believe that at some stage we ought to say that this is enough. I believe that it is enough and that if people in advertising were challenged about it they, too, would agree. It is also costing the country an enormous amount of money.
  There is also a real danger to local newspapers and I do not see why we should destroy one element of the local media in creating another. I hope, therefore, that having enjoyed the high quality of broadcasting which has been provided on a national scale by the B.B.C., we do not rush in foolishly and establish a commercial system which cannot attain those high standards. We should allow the experiment to continue and properly examine in depth the future of local broadcasting. What we do in the establishment of local radio could either enhance or mar the future. I believe that the experiment should be examined, because it is being produced by a source—the B.B.C.—which is still
  558
  the pride of this country and the envy of the world.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. Philip Goodhart: I hope that the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) will forgive me when I say that I thought there was a large dollop of hypocrisy in a great deal of what he said. There is, however, a tendency for hypocrisy to creep into a lot of our speeches on broadcasting. We like to assume that the public as a whole want programmes of a high intellectual level and long for cultural diversification. Unfortunately, however, we have to face the fact that a large part of the public plainly want programmes which I would call trash. A large section of them seems to want continuous pop music, interspersed occasionally with the grunts and mutterings of disc jockeys.
  When I drive to the House in the morning I often have to listen to Mr. Jimmy Young's programme which we know runs T.T.T.—Through Till Twelve. Mr. Young's rather inane jocularity I find particularly jarring. But it is of value to me, because I tend to leave my house in a rather somnolent frame of mind, and by the time I arrive here I find that my nerves are jangling and when I go into Committee I am ready to attack Ministers tooth and nail.
  My reaction to Jimmy Young is plainly not representative of that of the country as a whole. It is obvious that thousands of housewives like, and indeed adore, the sort of programme that he puts out. What I never want to do is to deprive them of this sort of programme, but what I do not see is why the B.B.C. should pay to put this out.
  We know that the B.B.C. is short of money. We know that it has many plans for distinguished programmes covering many subjects which it feels it cannot undertake without a substantial increase in the licence fee or a substantial increase in Government subvention.
  It therefore seems right and proper that instead of trying to ape the worst of Radio Caroline, which B.B.C. 1, and, regrettably, part of B.B.C. 2, seems to be doing, there should be a progressive retreat by the B.B.C. from this field. It should concentrate its resources, which are necessarily scarce, and will always be under pressure,

  559
  into such fields as Radio 3 with the continuous programme of serious music, where the B.B.C. has a contribution to make which no one else can duplicate.
  To me, the most serious part of this debate is whether local newspaper interests will be affected. I have been a journalist, and perhaps some of my children will be journalists, and when it comes to a choice between local radio and the local Press, then I say unhesitatingly that I choose the local Press. I think that most hon. Members would do so, because we are dependent to a large extent on local newspapers for communication with our constituents. Local newspapers print our speeches when the national newspapers do not. They inform our constituents that we attended the opening of this school, and the opening of that garden fete, and I should be loath to see the local Press disappear.
  I do not believe that the introduction of local broadcasting will have the calamitous effect which some people fear. When local broadcasting comes on a regional basis—and here I share the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) that regional broadcasting is much less of a threat to the members of the newspaper society than real local broadcasting—we will find that the audience for this local broadcasting is a young one.
  The advertisers on these stations will aim their advertisements at a youthful section of the community. It will not be the local newspapers but the magazines aimed at that age group in the community which will be affected, and I worry about their fate a great deal less than I worry about the fate of the local newspapers. We shall see a reduction in advertising, but primarily in the magazines catering for adolescents, and we may see a transfer of advertising from Radio Luxembourg, which is not a bad thing, either.
  I do not believe that the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Faversham are valid. Nevertheless, there may be some grounds for them, and I therefore suggest that we have an experiment. Before we move to commercial sound broadcasting throughout the country, surely we should have an experiment in one area—and where better than London, because here we have a strong local Press,
  560
  which is less likely to suffer than is the local Press in most areas if things go wrong, and here we already have an obvious regional identity. We have in London the greatest local authority in the world. When they say that now is the time to go forward with an experiment, we should heed their advice.
  8.43 p.m.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: This will be a relatively brief intervention, and I shall address myself mainly to the speech of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in presenting the case for the Bill.
  The right hon. Member was at his most reasonable and persuasive and could have deceived anyone about the real nature and purpose of the Measure. At one stage, he even attempted to present it as a contribution to the modernisation of local government. Of course, it is nothing of the kind. Notwithstanding the attractive clothing in which it was dressed by the right hon. Gentleman, the Bill is deeply objectionable to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It is certainly not an extension of municipal ownership—one would not expect that from the Conservative Party—but a means of opening the road to private interests in local radio.
  The Bill begs almost all the questions which will face my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General when he evaluates the local radio experiment which has been conducted by the B.B.C. In particular, the Bill begs the questions of finance and of wavelengths. The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) was right to press the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames on the question of wavelengths. The right hon. Gentleman's answer to that question, which involves very complicated issues, was much less than convincing to anyone who has taken a serious interest in it. It cannot be too strongly emphasised that the best use of the limited number of wavelengths available is one of the principal questions which will have to be examined by my right hon. Friend.
  On finance, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman for his view on the extent to which the source of finance affects the nature of the service. I should have thought the whole House would agree that the experiment of the B.B.C. in eight

  561
  localities has been at once exciting and extremely promising for the future. No one could say that any of those eight stations has detracted in any way from the very high standards of the B.B.C. There must be hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have taken a close interest in the B.B.C.'s experiment in their localities, who see the dangers of the Bill and should, in all conscience, allow time for the B.B.C.'s experiment to be properly evaluated before voting for a Bill like this.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Gentleman poses the very pertinent question: does the source of finance affect the quality of the service? Is not the best method to try, and then to contrast an advertisement-financed service in London with the B.B.C.'s otherwise-financed service in the provinces and form an objective judgment on the facts when we know them?
  Mr. Morris: This is one of the central questions. Those who contribute finance to a service like this will have a loud voice in dictating the policies to be pursued. What I had very much in mind in raising the question of finance was an extract from an article in a recent series in The Guardian about radio in the 'seventies. The author, Vincent Brome, was warning people about the low standards of American radio, under the title "Dread Spectre of U.S." He gave as an illustration the following experience:
  "Listening, on one occasion, to a broadcast of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony, as the Ode to Joy came lyrically to its close there was a suitably reverent pause and then I heard a seductive woman's voice murmer huskily—'Would you care to make your arm-pits charm-pits?'"
  For my part, I believe that, in local radio, the commercial element is best excluded.
  Evidence has been quoted from the Newspaper Society and from the Confederation of British Industry. I should like to quote what has been said by those employed in the newspaper industry, in a resolution passed by an overwhelming majority at the annual conference of the National Union of Journalists in Douglas, Isle of Man, on 18th April last. The resolution said:
  "That this Annual Delegates' Meeting opposes the introduction of local commercial radio. It calls on the Government to take
  562
  steps to introduce local radio on a permanent basis by the B.B.C. It believes that commercial radio would be the death knell of many local newspapers."
  So it is not just the opposition of the Newspaper Society that we have to consider. The employees of the newspaper industry regard measures of this kind as a threat to their livelihood.
  I should have thought that all of us admire the local newspapers, which make a significant and valuable contribution to the quality of life in their localities. Thus, I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members opposite to vote according to their real feelings on the Bill. I ask them to have regard to the fact that a local radio experiment is now being evaluated by the B.B.C. and will then be evaluated by the Postmaster-General. Let us not beg questions which must arise in those evaluations.
  If we have regard to this important factor, I am certain that the House will reject the Bill.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mrs. Jill Knight: I intervene only briefly in the debate because eyes other than Southern Region ones are looking at our discussion with enormous interest. They would be keen to know what was to happen if a Bill relating to London were passed, hoping very much that the principle would spread to their region, too.
  There is no doubt that the Government have every intention that the Bill will be defeated. I suppose that this ought to surprise no one. The Government have a perfect penchant for giving the British people neither what they voted for nor what they want. To expect them suddenly to give the people something that they would really like for once would be hoping for too much.
  The Bill would give the people in the Greater London area what they want. It is as simple as that. It would give it to them at no cost. In that connection, I take issue with the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston). If he went shopping and bought a given product, one brand of which was well advertised and one that was not, he would very likely pay more for the one which was not advertised, because the demand created by advertising tends to keep down prices.

  563
  We have heard a great deal tonight about local radio, and even hon. Members opposite seem to agree that it has been a success. However, one important point has not been made, and I am amazed if hon. Members opposite do not know it. It is that the money available for local radio is not forthcoming in the amounts which were expected.
  The hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) almost threw up his hands in horror at the thought of private interests entering local radio. Either he lives a very sheltered life, or he has not done his homework. Many local businessmen were approached and asked to donate money to run local radio stations.
  Mr. Alfred Morris: My point was about the real nature and purpose of the Bill. It is not to improve local radio. It is an attempt to serve private interests.
  Mrs. Knight: It is more simple than the hon. Gentleman appears to think. It cannot be accepted that at one moment businessmen are wicked self-seeking capitalists and at the next are good enough to finance local radio. To say that there have been no interests of a private nature in local radio is quite wrong.
  In my view, and, I am sure, in the view of the vast majority of people, local broadcasting should be financed by advertising revenue and not out of public funds, from the proceeds of increasing licence fees, which are heavy enough already for a great many, or in any way which pushes up the rates demanded from local residents.
  I support the Bill strongly because experience has shown that such competition would improve standards of broadcasting. We have before us the experience of television. Before we had commercial television, the standards of B.B.C. television were very low. It was the competition of commercial television that pushed up those standards and forced the B.B.C. to realise that there was another channel; that people could look elsewhere. It was only that competition which improved the B.B.C.'s television standards.
  Reference has been made to the effect of advertising on American radio. Radio there has changed very much in recent months, and I wonder whether any of
  564
  those who have referred to it in such disparaging terms today have listened to American radio recently. I returned from America only last week. While I was there, I did a very great deal of listening, particularly while I was travelling, and I thought that the intrusion of advertising had very much altered. The wide range of programmes available amply compensated for the small amount of advertising to which I had to listen.
  I cannot accept the argument that if we have local commercial radio, local newspapers will die. I am convinced that people will still take their local newspaper for the advertisements, the "small ads" particularly. Listening to a short advertisement on the radio, one does not know whether one has the words just right, and so on. It is far better to have a local newspaper to refer to, particularly for the "small ads". No one would pretend that revenue from these advertisements would be taken from the newspapers by local radio. I have more faith in local newspapers than have hon. Members opposite. Come what may, they will survive, particularly if they have good feature articles.
  It has been said from the other side that politics would rear its ugly head in local radio. That is a false accusation against local radio. Advertisers know very well the danger there is in coming down on one side or the other politically, and would not for one moment countenance any imbalance. The danger is much more likely in circumstances where local councils actually control local stations in a manner which the Bill specifically precludes.
  I shall, as thousands outside this House would, if they could, support the Bill with keen enthusiasm.
  8.58 p.m.
  Mr. Joseph Ashton: What we are arguing about tonight is not the merits or demerits of local radio, but how it should be financed. Before coming to this House in November, I had extensive experience in local Radio Sheffield. As a member of the council, I pushed very hard to get the necessary finance for Radio Sheffield, and then tried to take an active part in it because I was interested in the experiment.
  The present method of finance is not good. The sum provided in Sheffield is

  565
  about £50,000 per annum, and that is high compared with the amount provided for some other local radio stations. It is about the equivalent of ½d. rate. I do not know what is the product of a penny rate in the area of the Greater London Council, but I expect that it will be about £1 million. If I am right, the £½ million produced by ½d. rate would be sufficient to run a local radio station quite adequately.
  There are very great dangers involved in asking a local radio station to rely on commercial advertisers to keep its financial head above water. With the present local radio station, there is an air of participation. One might call it a parochial air, but it is the air which people in a city have when they talk of local government, or something like that. I appeared on Radio Sheffield many times. It never entered my head to ask for a fee, or even for my bus fare. I know many people who appeared on local Radio Sheffield who actually lost working time, but never asked for expenses for the couple of hours they lost. The story would be very different if the local radio station were commercial, because then no performer would be prepared to lose time from work in order that a commercial company might make greater profits.
  I have heard problems debated on local radio which would not be debated on any commercial programme. One on Radio Sheffield discussed why local shops did not employ coloured assistants. Names were freely bandied about of shops which did or did not do so. That debate would not have taken place if the shops had been paying for the advertising because there would be great pressure from the shops so that they should not be embarrassed by it being known that they were not employing coloured labour. There would be a tendency to shy away from programmes which caused local controversy if they affected local advertising. Advertising Heinz Baked Beans might be all very well, but local shops following a programme which is given regularly for Pakistanis would be difficult. I listen frequently to that programme and I have heard the name "Enoch Powell" mentioned quite often.
  I am not particularly worried about the effect on local newspapers, for if there were local commercial radio probably local newspapers would run it. It would
  566
  not be the local family newspaper that did this, however, but the chains of local newspapers in the provinces. Soon we would be on the slippery path leading to a very few people controlling all the methods of communication. In the cities local radio is doing a well worth while job. It provides a good service to local labour exchanges in giving notice of vacancies. I do not think we would get that on commercial stations. Who would pay for it? In Sheffield every local drama group gets its programmes advertised free and every local school performance or performance by the university groups has a free "plug" in a programme called "Billboard". The help given to these non-profit-making bodies would not be forthcoming from commercial radio because everyone would be expected to pay.
  I admit that there are sometimes difficulties over programmes where members of an audience are expected to participate by phoning their views. Sometimes a person might phone, "Don't forget to visit the local Mecca tonight where Big Bill's group is appearing". That is a hazard which one has to accept, but if it happened frequently on a local commercial station people would still be phoning, but not on a direct live line as at present. Somehow this would have to be filtered and prepared before it was broadcast.
  People working in local radio are doing a magnificent job. They work very long hours, many more than those in most trade unions or businesses would work. They are dedicated people who are prepared to do anything for their station. For instance, it has been reported when one of these people has finished work and is driving home he may see a fire and he would go back to his local radio station to switch on and report the fire. These people are entitled not to have a Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. Too often local radios are attacked by local politicians and the B.B.C. makes a poor case in their defence.
  We have to get into perspective the cost of local radio. One can be run efficiently at the cost of two libraries, or perhaps three. Would anyone object to the cost of three libraries going on to the rates? Of course they would not. The number of listeners to local radio, even if it is transmitted on V.H.F., is much greater than the number of readers that

  567
  the two or three local libraries would have.
  I believe that the case has not been properly presented for local radio. The educational content of the programmes has not been assessed by local authorities, which two often have tried to make political capital out of it. The time has come for a proper assessment to be made and for the petty political squabbles in relation to local radio to be ended. I hope that a policy decision will be taken soon so that the people working in local radio can be given the stability in their jobs to which they are entitled.
  9.1 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Berry: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who treated us to his personal knowledge of the running of a local radio station. It is always interesting to listen to somebody who has worked in the institution about which one is talking. However, the hon. Gentleman did not contribute as much to the debate as I would have hoped. He compared the cost of running a local radio station with the cost of running two or three libraries, but he did not say where the money was to come from. I hope to learn from the Postmaster-General before long where all the money for these local stations is to come from.
  The hon. Gentleman suggested that local radio stations, if they carried commercial advertising, would not concern themselves with local controversy. That is nonsense. Newspapers involve themselves in controversy all the time, but they carry advertising and they mention shops by name. So I do not think that this point made by the hon. Gentleman was sound or helpful.
  We are all in favour of the concept of local radio stations, but what we are not sure about is the form which they should take. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), in an interjection, pointed to our major problem, which is this: why should there not be this second type of local broadcasting at the same time as the other experiment is still proceeding? I should be much happier about the other experiment if I knew where the money was coming from.
  568
  In the White Paper, the then Postmaster-General listed a number of local bodies and institutions which he hoped would contribute to local stations. I have attempted without success to question him and his successor over the last 18 months. I suppose that we shall now have to wait until later in the year before he tells us exactly where the money is to come from. I still believe that after the initial B.B.C. payment it will come from the ratepayers, although the White Paper emphasises that this is not the Government's intention.
  Hon. Members opposite have expressed their very understandable fears about the effect of local radio on newspapers. I can speak from a little personal experience here. I shared their views strongly in another light 15 years ago when commercial television started. I then had great doubts as to what the effect would be on newspapers. In fact, advertising has increased enormously since those days. As one of my hon. Friends so cogently pointed out, the number of classified advertisements has increased to a terrific extent.
  The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Boston) quoted some percentages. I would much rather have heard from the hon. Gentleman what the percentages were over a period on a total figure, because I believe that advertising has risen so much over these years as to indicate that the same thing will happen again, namely, that there will be a greater volume of advertising and the local papers—I, too, am fortunate in having very good ones in my constituency—will not suffer. The fact that the Bill is so carefully worded as to give them a chance of participating in these new local stations will be beneficial to them. I do not think that the effect that local radio will have on local newspapers need worry us. I am convinced that local newspapers will not suffer, although I understand the fears of the Director of the Newspaper Society.
  I am delighted to see from the Bill that the programmes are to be of high quality. I am delighted to see from Clause 11 that there are to be advisory committees which will concern themselves with religious programmes, educational programmes, and so on.

  569
  The last sentence in the very interesting speech made by Lord Hill, from which quotations have already been made, describes so well what we are talking about. Lord Hill said:
  "Moreover, encouragement can always be given to the adventurous to attempt to achieve something new. Experiments do not always work the first time, but they are the only way advances can be made. They are an essential part of the process of aiming at a level of excellence."
  I believe that by giving the Bill a Second Reading tonight we should give the Greater London Council a chance to achieve that excellence which will be in the interests of all Londoners.
  9.10 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I believe that the right hon. Gentleman the Postmaster-General will wish to intervene in this debate, so it may be convenient if I say a few words now from the Opposition Front Bench to precede him.
  We are the only people in the English-speaking world not to have commercial radio. Therefore, when a local authority, the local authority of our capital city, proposes a scheme of this sort—a pilot scheme, not a pirate scheme—it is right that we should consider it carefully on Second Reading of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) reminded us that the Bill will be considered in detail by a Committee well able to sift the facts and judge whether there are any strong objections to a scheme of this kind.
  Nevertheless, we can consider at this stage the principle of local authority commercial radio and whether it would be so damaging to our society that we ought not to let a Measure of this sort through on Second Reading. We ought to consider whether we can reasonably obtain the advantages which other countries are obtaining from commercial radio without damage to our way of life here.
  When I said that we are the only people in the English-speaking world not to have commercial radio, I did not include in the "we" the Isle of Man. We can turn to the experiment there to see whether it is effective, and whether it is undermining the morals of the public
  570
  or the finances of the Press in the Isle of Man. The reports which I have are that it is doing neither of the latter.
  I am not sure whether the opponents of the Bill really think that it proposes some squalid commercialism. The Postmaster-General will agree that the Post Office itself descends into squalid commercialism, if it be such, in selling advertising space.
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): The Post Office descends into commercialism, but not into squalid commercialism.
  Mr. Page: I am pleased to have that confirmation from the right hon. Gentleman. The Post Office uses revenue from advertising space, and it makes use of advertising by all media, including television.
  However, we should try to approach this subject without bias or exaggerated phrases—with which, perhaps, I was teasing the right hon. Gentleman rather than being serious. We should approach it without bias on either side. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), and my right hon. Friend in an intervention, reminded us, we have in television at present the non-commercial B.B.C. and the commercial I.T.V., and we can compare those two services. On the other hand, we have non-commercial local radio but we have no commercial local radio with which to compare it. If there is no valid objection to trying such a comparison, let us try it through a responsible body such as the Greater London Council.
  First, then, is there any valid objection? I do not think that any objection on technical grounds has been put forward in the debate, I understand that there is no objection to London local radio on those grounds, but the Postmaster-General will, no doubt, tell us if there is some technical objection. Second, on the cost aspect, can it be made self-supporting? There is no doubt about that. Indeed, the complaint seems to be that it will make a profit, though whether for the contractors on it or the local authority running it is irrelevant at the moment. That much be sorted out as the administration of the Bill is considered.

  571
  But I should have thought that it would be very simple for local commercial radio to make a profit on a charge per thousand basis of about 2s. to 2s. 6d.—I understand that Luxembourg charges Is. 6d.—if it provided that service during daylight hours when Luxembourg is not giving a service. There is no doubt that there is a very strong demand for this sort of service, and we should not be hypocritical, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) says, about what the demand is. It may be a demand for a type of service to which we do not all enjoy listening. But it is a service which the pirate stations proved was very popular and in great demand.
  Thirdly, on the question of whether there is any valid objection, would it cause damage to the legitimate interests such as the newspapers and particularly the local newspapers? I appreciate the arguments of the hon. Members for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) and Faversham, but I am not sure that they should weigh with us in considering the proposition put forward by the Bill. If radio is a medium which provides more effective advertising in certain spheres than local newspapers, I doubt whether we should by Statute prevent or limit its use. Therefore, I would not base my argument on saying that it will not take any advertising from the local newspapers. I only say that that is not a good argument for local commercial radio. However, we heard a very informed speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Silvester), who said that the local Press would not be the loser.
  This is a Private Bill, but should we treat it in isolation or as a precedent for something further? Again, we should not be hypocritical. Obviously, if we accept the Bill, it will be a precedent. It will be a model for expansion into other local radio services. I am not afraid to consider it from that point of view—from the point of view of national development.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames said that London was a prototype of regional government. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West said that it is unique in that there is no other local government body quite like London, we must look
  572
  forward to regional government in one form or another, and it may well be necessary to consider new forms of revenue for local and regional government. This may be a very useful experiment and precedent in the collection of a new form of local revenue. For that reason, I am not sure that it is wise to earmark this revenue for any particular purpose or to base our argument for the Bill on the belief that any profits made by the local authority will go towards this or that—sport, culture, or whatever it may be. We should try this as a new form of local revenue.
  It would follow that the control authority, if appointed by the local authority, might be suspect. I should like to see eventually a control authority centrally appointed for all local radio stations operating on a commercial basis. Such an authority would ensure what the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) wanted—status and standing for the service being provided. One looks to the authority to provide that. But I do not think that anyone is prepared to argue that the status and standing of B.B.C. television is so much greater than that of I.T.V. It is the authority which looks after that and it would do so for local commercial radio.
  On a Private Bill, it is traditional for the Opposition Front Bench to sit on the fence. Therefore, I should preface what I am about to say by assuring the House that we have no Whips on this side of the House. But I hope that the House will feel that we can, by this Bill and the activity it will authorise, examine whether that which has suited all other English-speaking countries—local commercial radio—is worth adopting here and that we can give the Bill a Second Reading.
  9.20 p.m.
  The Postmaster-General (Mr. John Stonehouse): A common thread throughout the speeches on both sides has been support of the concept of regional or local broadcasting. This is a welcome new development. If we had had this debate a few years ago, local radio would not have had the sort of support it has received tonight in most of the speeches. It is a compliment, I believe, to the eight radio station experiment that the B.B.C. has been conducting during the last 18

  573
  months, and I endorse the compliments paid to that experiment during the debate.
  The B.B.C., the staff of the stations and the chairman and their advisory committees in the various localities have done an excellent job. There is no doubt that they have managed to convince not only the public who have the advantage of listening to their programmes, but also a great and wider public, particularly informed and interested authorities in this House, of the advantages of this type of broadcasting.
  Despite that common thread, there has been a sharp difference of view about how local broadcasting should be implemented. Most hon. Members opposite who have spoken support the Bill and, through it, are supporting, therefore, the concept of commercial broadcasting. Most of the speeches on this side have been against commercial broadcasting in favour of awaiting the full evaluation of the experiment now being conducted.
  The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made a speech of moderation and has had the tribute of the House for it. He said that there is no reason why the Bill should not go to a Select Committee for further consideration. I beg to disagree with him. I believe that if the House were to give the Bill a Second Reading it would be tantamount to accepting the principle of local authority broadcasting and commercial broadcasting. It would follow that other municipal authorities would want to emulate the example of the G.L.C. and establish similar broadcasting authorities so as to take advantage of the precedent to which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) fairly referred.
  The big objection to the Bill being given a Second Reading is that it would pre-empt the fair evaluation of the local radio experiment being conducted by the B.B.C., with the House of Commons deciding that local radio was to be established by municipal broadcasting authorities and financed by advertising. I believe that the House and the country are not ready to make such a decision before the full facts of the B.B.C.'s experiment are known.
  Mr. John Page: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider accepting
  574
  the Bill on the basis of a three-year experimental period?
  Mr. Stonehouse: There are objections to that as well. I detected a note of experiment in several speeches tonight. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the advantage of the experiment in the Bill. The hon. Member for Waltham-stow, West (Mr. Silvester) referred to an experiment. There were several indications of experiment. But I have studied the Bill in detail and I have seen nothing about experiment in it. It would establish a fully fledged Greater London Radio Authority and, as the House well knows, once such authorities are established by law, they develop a momentum of considerable dimensions.
  Who could say that the I.T.A. was still an experiment? It is part of our established broadcasting fabric. Similarly, the Greater London Radio Authority, if established, and if, as I think it would be, followed by a Manchester Radio Authority and perhaps a Glasgow Authority, would become an established framework which it would be most difficult, if not unwise at that stage, to attempt to dismantle. So I dismiss the suggestion that this could be considered an experiment, and it would be unwise of the House to approach the subject in that frame of mind. We have to consider the principles which the Bill would establish.
  Mr. Silvester: Will not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that if the experiment continued, it would do so only because it had been successful? The example of the I.T.A. is a case in point. We would not wish to close down something which had been successful. It is an experiment only in the sense that it is the first. If it were successful, it would continue.
  Mr. Stonehouse: It would be built upon solid vested commercial interests which would wish it to continue and it would be next to impossible to dismantle it once it had been established for some time. It would, therefore, be unwise for the House to rush in to approve a proposal of this character which, as the hon. Member for Crosby has said, would establish a precedent.
  It is important that we approach the eight-station local radio experiment review with a clear mind. If we were

  575
  to pass the Bill, I doubt whether that review, which I am hoping to conduct in July, could be conducted fairly. The House expects a fair review of that experiment and the station staffs expect a fair review. I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) who, in an interesting speech in which he drew on his own experience of the Sheffield experiment, spoke of the dedication of the station staffs to the experiment. If we were to pass the Bill, it would be a blow to those station staffs who have hung on in order to see a fair and complete evaluation of the experiment. They would feel that the ground was being cut from under their feet before the experiment had been correctly evaluated.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Why does the right hon. Gentleman say that these devoted staffs—and I accept their devotion—would feel badly treated because a totally different system was being operated by way of contrast? If they have confidence in their system, surely they should value the opportunity to contrast it with another system so as to judge which is better.
  Mr. Stonehouse: The local staffs do an outstanding job. One extremely well known local official is Mr. Sidey, of Radio Leeds, who has published some of his ideas, so I think I am entitled to quote his name. There are many such people serving these stations and they have a public service philosophy. They are not motivated by commercial considerations, and they would feel that the whole local broadcasting experiment would be ruined, in its public service context, if a commercial base was established. Certainly if local authorities have a vested interest in the commercial considerations motivating the programme companies, because they would get an income from it, they would not be able to operate the type of public service broadcasting entailed in the type of experiment being conducted in quite the same frame of mind.
  The passing of the Bill would preempt the evaluation of the radio experiments that we are hoping to conduct in July. The Bill is also open to grave objections of principle, first, because it involves, for the first time, the devolution of the broadcasting authority. The
  576
  Bill would enable a public authority to set up a radio service in the metropolis and empower the Greater London Council to appoint members of the authority—it is true after consultation with the Postmaster-General—but the actual authority for appointment would be with the G.L.C.
  This raises a completely new constitutional concept in broadcasting. The House would want to consider long and carefully before it went down this road of establishing devoluted broadcasting authorities. It involves a fundamental departure from the constitutional basis on which have depended the broadcasting policies pursued in the past, by Governments of whatever persuasion. The rather lukewarm support given to the Bill by the hon. Member for Crosby shows that the Conservative Party has turned its back on something which it always accepted as a fundamental principle, namely, national broadcasting authorities to protect the national asset of broadcasting frequencies, and to ensure national standards which are, as has been acknowledged, second to none in the world.
  Mr. Graham Page: I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman that while I may have sounded very moderate in what I have said, I am not lukewarm in any way. I am very warm in my praise for the Bill. I do not think that he could have heard what I said about the centrally controlled authority. I said that I hoped the Bill would be amended to the extent that the authority would be appointed centrally, and not by the local authority.
  Mr. Stonehouse: I said that the hon. Gentleman was lukewarm because he has not made clear how this venture, which he intimated would be an experiment, although it is not in the Bill as such, would line up with the observations made by the hon. Member for Howden (Mr. Bryan) about 100 broadcasting stations linked with the I.T.A. There is a good deal of confusion on the other side of the House. If the hon. Member is now indicating that he supports the Bill wholeheartedly, I do not believe that he is entitled to do so, because there has been inadequate consideration on that side of the House about its implications. There are important considerations here, to do with

  577
  the constitutional nature of the proposal. The G.L.C. would have power to establish the broadcasting authority and appoint and dismiss its members. Hitherto, this power has been reserved for the central Administration.
  Second, the authority would be answerable to the G.L.C., and hitherto all broadcasting authorities have been answerable to Parliament, to whom their annual reports are presented by the Postmaster-General. Third, the surpluses earned by the authority would be applied as the G.L.C. directed, whereas surpluses enjoyed by the I.T.A. are applied as directed by the Ministers concerned. This new concept, although it may appear to have some attractions, has very serious dangers, and it would be most unwise to accept this breach in our existing constitutional practice in such a piecemeal fashion, as the Bill suggests.
  The Bill is open to another grave objection on principle. It opens the door for a large-scale development of commercial sound broadcasting, which hitherto this country, apart from the Isle of Man, has turned its back on. This could have effects on the standards of sound broadcasting, and I am very doubtful whether the minority interests which the hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill) defended would be protected if the primary motivation of the broadcasting companies that would be established as a result of the Bill is to maximise the audience so as to maximise the advertising income.
  One of the wonderful results so far established by the eight-station experiment we have discussed is that the stations have been able to break out into experiment in a great variety of ways without having to worry about maximising the audience, as was the case with the pirate radio stations.
  Several of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) referred to the effect on local newspapers, some of which are in a highly marginal condition. There is no doubt that if we had local radio advertising on a wide scale many such newspapers would collapse. Although we are interested to hear the observations of the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West, who spoke from personal experience in this connection, I would refer the House to the Report of
  578
  the Royal Commission on the Press, published in September, 1962. In paragraph 269 the Commission reported that in its opinion
  "If local sound radio financed from advertising revenue were to be introduced … the provincial newspapers would probably be seriously injured. The bulk of broadcast advertising is at present national advertising, and the provincial newspaper, particularly the evening and the weekly, is fairly secure in its hold on local advertising. An outlet for local advertising on the air would alter this position."
  The House must weigh up that advice very seriously before allowing local radio advertising to be conducted on the lines suggested in the Bill.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why what he has quoted from the Royal Commission's Report is entirely the opposite of the experience of other countries, such as Australia, the United States and Canada? Local papers there do not suffer as a result of the existence of local radio.
  Mr. Stonehouse: I am not so certain that that is the case, but it is the general view in the newspaper world, almost without exception, that if local radio advertising were allowed newspaper finances would be severely affected. I have received deputations on the subject from many representatives of the Press, and I believe that they know what they are talking about.
  There has been a reference to the question of wavelengths. I do not want to take up much time on this, but to put the position in perspective I would like to say something about it. First, the deployment and use of frequencies must be fitted into a long-term and comprehensive strategy. There can be no conceivable doubt for those who choose to listen after sunset that the medium wavelength is congested to a point that interference is spoiling the sound services in many parts of the country.
  It is not good enough to refer to the medium wave as being available for local broadcasting during the daytime, because in mid-winter sunset arrives at about 3.30 p.m. The right strategy is to make increasing use of v.h.f. Most countries are moving in this direction. I believe that in Spain there has been a clear directive to this effect.
  Hon. Members may recall that as long ago as the early 1950s the move to v.h.f.

  579
  was started. It was right then and I believe that it is right now. If we could have a general service on medium wave for local radio, it would, of course, command higher audiences at the outset, but as local radio becomes more established on v.h.f. I believe that people will be able, and will want, to acquire more v.h.f. sets, which are not all that expensive. I do not accept that they are out of bounds from the expense point of view. I believe that the quality of reception would also be improved, not only for the local radio, but for all the other broadcasting stations.
  It is of significance that in the towns where the local radio experiment is being conducted, sales of v.h.f. radio sets have increased appreciably. In those towns, from the figures I have so far seen, a very high proportion of the population can receive these programmes.
  I believe that the Bill is an ill-conceived proposal. If we were to accept it tonight, it would pre-empt the evaluation that we must conduct of the local radio experiment in July. It is open to fundamental objections on principle. For these reasons, I advise the House to oppose the Bill.
  9.43 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Rossi: The debate has been marked by a number of interesting and informed speeches from both sides of the House and hon. Members will, no doubt, forgive me if in the time that is left to me I do not take up all the points which have been mentioned. I will, however, try to deal with the main lines of attack against the Bill, but before doing so I would like to refer briefly to the plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Weatherill), who asked for consideration to be given to minority religious opinion.
  In Clause 11 of the Bill there is provision for the establishment of a committee of representatives of the main streams of religious thought in the United Kingdom. That committee is to advise the authority on religious matters. I say only "advise". It will be for the authority itself to decide what weight to give to the advice which it receives. I feel sure that when the authority sees the light of day, as I have no doubt it will one of these days, despite the depressing remarks of the Postmaster-General, the remarks
  580
  of my hon. Friend will be taken into account.
  The main line of attack which has been made against the Bill is on the quality of the programmes that would be likely to result from commercialism. That attack was led by the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck), supported by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), but their prejudice has so blinded them that they were not able to read the print in the Bill. If they had done so, they would have realised that they were talking a great deal of nonsense.
  Clause 3 says that the authority has a duty to provide
  "a public service for disseminating information, education and entertainment."
  Moreover, it has a duty to provide programmes of a high quality, and that is further defined, because Clause 5 says that there must be nothing in the programmes
  "which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling."
  That is a statutory duty in relation to the quality of the broadcasts, and if the authority does not comply with those requirements there will be a breach of statutory duty, with all the legal consequences which flow from that.
  In addition, there must be sufficint time for
  "news and news features, particularly on matters of local interest",
  and, to answer another point made from the benches opposite, there must be due impartiality in relation to matters of political or industrial controversy.
  Mr. Molloy: The hon. Gentleman referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Roebuck) and myself. What is his reply to the fact that the opinions we expressed were supported by British Industry Week, a magazine produced by the Confederation of British Industry?
  Mr. Rossi: There are many interests involved all arguing one way or the other. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, because I have very little time in which to answer all the points which have been raised.
  I am suggesting that there are sufficient safeguards in the Bill to ensure

  581
  a high standard of broadcasting, and that there is no need for the fear which has been expressed that because the financing is to be by commercial interests, rather than out of public funds, there will necessarily be a deterioration in standards. The protection is provided by the Statute itself.
  One of the significant things which flowed from the remarks of hon. Gentlemen opposite was that whilst they were against commercial radio, they were nevertheless virtually unanimous in favour of local radio. Attention was drawn in particular to the valuable experiment being conducted by the B.B.C. But what has not been drawn to the attention of the House is the fact that seven out of the eight local authorities concerned in that experiment said on 26th March, 1969, that if the B.B.C. were to continue to operate local radio stations after the end of the experiment financing must be varied so that the burden carried by the local authorities is very materially reduced.
  Mr. Ashton rose—
  Mr. Rossi: I cannot give way. I do not have much time left.
  The prospect is that local radio must be financed either out of rates or by increased licence fees. Either of those means of raising funds would be unwelcome to the general public, and the danger of providing funds out of rates is that this method gives rise to a degree of political control which would not otherwise exist. This must be borne in mind if the ratepayer is to be responsible for the local radio station.
  It is to meet those dangers that the G.L.C. has proposed the structure of an independent authority not requiring support from public funds. The authority appointed by the G.L.C. would be analogous to the I.T.A., with the G.L.C. taking the place of the Postmaster-General. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman that he is not very keen on having his functions taken away from him and decentralised, but we must also consider this matter against the concept of the decentralisation of government generally. This is an important constitional issue, but modern thinking is towards regional government, and in the G.L.C. we have already set up a regional government with its powers expanded.
  582
  This type of activity could well be handled by regional government.
  I am not suggesting that necessarily every local authority in the country would have the ability or even the desire to run a local radio station, but if, following the report on local government reorganisation, which we are awaiting, there is to be set up a number of regional governments of considerable size throughout the country, it may well be considered that this would be an appropriate function for them to perform. There would be no harm at all in starting with the G.L.C. to experiment in that field, so that when the other regional governments were set up they would see whether the experiment had been successful.
  The Bill provides that part of the advertising revenue will go directly to the G.L.C. It is the intention of the G.L.C. to use that advertising revenue for the promotion of the arts, of music, of opera and of ballet, and to give encouragement to London talent, to give an outlet to struggling artists. Money would be provided from this source to help them with their work, and the local radio station would offer a medium through which their work would be heard. Educationally and in the arts that could be extremely valuable to the culture of the nation.
  A number of hon. Members attacked the Bill on the subject of advertising, but almost all their remarks were based on the Pilkington Report of 1962, since when there has been the experience of commercial television. Great fears were expressed at the outset about the effect of commercial television advertising on local and national newspapers, but those fears have proved to be unfounded. The hon. Member for Harrow, East spoke of the danger of the switching of advertisement expenditure from local newspapers to radio, but I do not think that that would happen. It is more likely that greater sums of money would be spent on advertising, because there is nothing like advertising to encourage advertising.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) made the point that the type of advertising on radio is different from that in the newspapers. Weekly local newspapers, in particular, require leisurely reading. This is complementary rather than in competition

  583
  with the quick news flash which one would have on the radio, and the advertising would be complementary, too. It has also been pointed out that the type of audience sought for radio advertising would be different from that sought in respect of newspaper advertising.
  It is possible that at the very beginning, in the experimental stages, there would be a drop in local newspaper advertising, but as my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester), Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) and Southgate (Mr. Berry), all hon. Members with considerable personal experience in these matters, indicated, the experience of the national newspapers is that in the long run there would be no appreciably detrimental effect to local newspapers from sound radio, and, in fact, they could well benefit.
  Another comment is about the quality of advertising and comparisons with America. I would refer those who make this criticism to the Bill. If they had taken the trouble to read it they would have seen that these objections, too, are unfounded. Clause 10 provides for a code of advertising. If hon. Gentlemen know anything about the code which affects I.T.A., they will know what a valuable protection it is in that sphere, and there is no reason why it should not operate in the same way here. Clause 11 provides for a committee to advise on advertising, with consumer representation, to deal with misleading advertisements. There is also to be a medical advisory panel to deal with questions of medical advertisements. Schedule 2 provides distinctly that advertisements must not be excessively noisy or strident and must be confined to the beginning and end of the programmes or to natural breaks.
  If hon. Members had taken the trouble—[Interruption.]—to inform themselves of what is in the Bill, we should have been spared many of the speeches—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for an hon. Member to speak against a background of conversation.
  Mr. Rossi: A number of hon. Gentlemen, and the Postmaster-General, referred to wavelengths. The right hon.
  584
  Gentleman repeated paragraph 32 of his White Paper and spoke of allotted wavelengths. Article 8 of the Convention on European broadcasting, the Copenhagen Plan, makes it possible to make applications for additional wavelengths. Under the Convention 288 stations were allotted, but there are now 877, all legally registered with the International Communications Union by virtue of Article 8. This can all be done by low-powered stations, where power is limited to achieve the desired coverage, and highly sophisticated aerials.
  These are not insurmountable technical problems; a feasibility study has shown that it is possible to have local stations of low power covering the Greater London area, which would comply with the Copenhagen Plan, if the right hon. Gentleman invoked Article 8 and obtained permission—as he did for Cyprus, which is operated on the same wavelength as Radio Luxembourg, from a one-kilowatt station. These things can be done.
  I therefore urge the House to give London what London wants. The Greater London Council sees no reason why the B.B.C. should have a monopoly in local broadcasting. The Council intends that there should be a minimum of two independent stations, each offering a service throughout Greater London. With two or more stations, each would develop its own character, and will try to serve all Londoners in a way that a monopoly station cannot. It would try to reflect the life of London, and Londoners would have great variety, opportunities for experiment and free choice across the range of stations. The programmes would be of local origin and interest and would not draw, as do the B.B.C. experimental stations for much of their time, on national programmes. I urge the House to accept the Bill.
  9.55 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Ogden: Of the last four speakers, three have been from the Conservative benches. I make no criticism of that or of the Chair, but they cannot then complain if someone from this side tries to take part in the debate at this late stage.
  First, as the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) was speaking—
  The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Sydney Irving)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put:—
  Question put, That the Question be now put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes 109.

  Division No. 198.]

  AYES

  [10.0 p.m.

  Astor, John

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Pounder, Rafton

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

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Pym, Francis

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Hawkins, Paul

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Holland, Philip

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hornby, Richard

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Braine, Bernard

  Hunt, John

  Royle, Anthony

  Brewis, John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Sharples, Richard

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

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

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

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Jopling, Michael

  Silvester, Frederick

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Kimball, Marcus

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

  Carlisle, Mark

  Kirk, Peter

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Clark, Henry

  Kitson, Timothy

  Speed, Keith

  Clegg, Walter

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Stainton, Keith

  Crouch, David

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stodart, Anthony

  Currie, G. B. H.

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Maude, Angus

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Dempsey, James

  Mawby, Ray

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Eadie, Alex

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

  Ward, Dame Irene

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

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Emery, Peter

  Monro, Hector

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Errington, Sir Eric

  More, Jasper

  Wiggin, A. W.

  Eyre, Reginald

  Murton, Oscar

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Foster, Sir John

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Calbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Neave, Airey

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Goodhart, Philip

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Wright, Esmond

  Goodhew, Victor

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Wylie, N. R.

  Gower, Raymond

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Grant, Anthony

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Percival, Ian

  Mr. Brian Batsford and

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Mr. John Page.

  NOES

  Archer, Peter

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Luard Evan

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Forrester, John

  Lubbock, Eric

  Barnett, Joel

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Beaney, Alan

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  McCann, James

  Bishop, E. S.

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Gregory, Arnold

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Booth, Albert

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Manuel, Archie

  Boston, Terence

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Mapp, Charles

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

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Buchan, Norman

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

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

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Molloy, William

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Coe, Denis

  Hamling, William

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Coleman, Donald

  Hannan, William

  Neal, Harold

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Hazell, Bert

  Newens Stan

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ogden, Eric

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  O'Malley, Brian

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Hooley, Frank

  Oswald, Thomas

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Horner, John

  Paget, R. T.

  Delargy, Hugh

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Dewar, Donald

  Hoy, James

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Doig, Peter

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

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

  Hunter, Adam

  Probert, Arthur

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

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

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Richard, Ivor

  Ellis, John

  Judd, Frank

  Rose Paul

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

  Lawson, George

  Sheldon, Robert

  Fernyhough, E.

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Finch, Harold

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Silverman, Julius

  Small, William

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Woof, Robert

  Steels, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Tinn, James

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Urwin, T. W.

  Winstanley, Dr. M. p.

  Mr. Roy Roebuck and

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Mr. Joseph Ashton.

  Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 108, Noes 134.

  Division No. 199.]

  AYES

  [10.9 p.m.

  Astor, John

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

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

  Hawkins, Paul

  Pym, Francis

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Hiley, Joseph

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

  Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin

  Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)

  Holland, Philip

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Hornby, Richard

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Hunt, John

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Royle, Anthony

  Braine, Bernard

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Brewis, John

  Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Sharples, Richard

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Jopling, Michael

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

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

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Silvester, Frederick

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Kimball, Marcus

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Kirk, Peter

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

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

  Kitson, Timothy

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Carlisle, Mark

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Speed, Keith

  Clark, Henry

  MacArthur, Ian

  Stainton, Keith

  Clegg, Walter

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Stodart, Anthony

  Crouch, David

  Maude, Angus

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Mawby, Ray

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

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

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

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

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Emery, Peter

  Monro, Hector

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Errington, Sir Eric

  More, Jasper

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Eyre, Reginald

  Murton, Oscar

  Wiggin, A. W.

  Foster, Sir John

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

  Neave, Airey

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Goodhart, Philip

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Wright, Esmond

  Goodhew, Victor

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Wylie, N. R.

  Gower, Raymond

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Younger, Hn. George

  Grant-Ferris, R.

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Percival, Ian

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Mr. Brian Batsford and

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Pounder, Rafton

  Mr. John Page.

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  NOES

  Archer, Peter

  Eadie, Alex

  Hooley, Frank

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Horner, John

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Ellis, John

  Hoy, James

  Barnett, Joel

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

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Bishop, E. S.

  Fernyhough, E.

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Booth, Albert

  Finch, Harold

  Hunter, Adam

  Boston, Terence

  Fitch, Alan (Wigan)

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Boyden, James

  Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

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

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

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

  Forrester, John

  Judd, Frank

  Buchan, Norman

  Fraser, John (Norwood)

  Kenyon, Clifford

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

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Lawson, George

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Coe, Denis

  Gregory, Arnold

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Coleman, Donald

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Lever, Harold (Cheetham)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshir, W.)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Luard, Evan

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Lubbock, Eric

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)

  McBride, Neil

  Delargy, Hugh

  Hamling, William

  McCann, John

  Dempsey, James

  Hannan, William

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Dewar, Donald

  Harper, Joseph

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Doig, Peter

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Dunn, James A.

  Hazell, Bert

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Manuel, Archie

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

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Mapp, Charles

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Pentland, Norman

  Tinn, James

  Mendelson, John

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Urwin, T. W.

  Millan, Bruce

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Probert, Arthur

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Molloy, William

  Richard, Ivor

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

  Whitlock, William

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Rose, Paul

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Neal, Harold

  Sheldon, Robert

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Newens, Stan

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

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Ogden, Eric

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Woof, Robert

  O'Malley, Brian

  Silverman, Julius

  Oswald, Thomas

  Slater, Joseph

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Paget, R. T.

  Small, William

  Mr. Roy Roebuck and

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Mr. Joseph Ashton.

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put:—
  That the Proceedings on Government Business may be entered upon and proceeded with
  at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Mellish.]
  The House divided: Ayes 125, Noes 103.

  Division No. 200.]

  AYES

  [10.20 p.m.

  Archer, Peter

  Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)

  Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

  Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

  Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

  Neal, Harold

  Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

  Griffiths, Will (Exchange)

  Newens, Stan

  Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Ogden, Eric

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hannan, William

  O'Malley, Brian

  Barnett, Joel

  Harper, Joseph

  Oswald, Thomas

  Beaney, Alan

  Hazell, Bert

  Paget, R. T.

  Bishop, E. S.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)

  Blackburn, F.

  Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

  Pavitt, Laurence

  Boardman, H. (Leigh)

  Hooley, Frank

  Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

  Booth, Albert

  Horner, John

  Pentland, Norman

  Boston, Terence

  Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

  Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

  Boyden, James

  Hoy, James

  Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Probert, Arthur

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

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Rhodes, Geoffrey

  Buchan, Norman

  Hunter, Adam

  Richard, Ivor

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

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Rose, Paul

  Coe, Denis

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Ross, Rt. Hn. William

  Coleman, Donald

  Judd, Frank

  Sheldon, Robert

  Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

  Lawson, George

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

  Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

  Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

  Lestor, Miss Joan

  Silverman, Julius

  Davies, Ifor (Gower)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Slater, Joseph

  Delargy, Hugh

  Lomas, Kenneth

  Small, William

  Dempsey, James

  Luard, Evan

  Steel, David (Roxburgh)

  Dewar, Donald

  Lubbock, Eric

  Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)

  Doig, Peter

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

  Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

  Dunn, James A.

  McBride, Neil

  Thomson, Rt. Hn. George

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

  McCann, John

  Tinn, James

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

  Macdonald, A. H.

  Urwin, T. W.

  Eadie, Alex

  Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

  Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

  Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)

  Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

  Edwards, William (Merioneth)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Watkins, David (Consett)

  Ellis, John

  Manuel, Archie

  Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

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

  Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy

  Whitlock, William

  Fernyhough, E.

  Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

  Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

  Fined, Harold

  Mendelson, John

  Willis, Rt. Hn. George

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Millan, Bruce

  Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

  Forrester, John

  Miller, Dr. M. S.

  Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

  Galpern, Sir Myer

  Milne, Edward (Blyth)

  Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)

  Molloy, William

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gregory, Arnold

  Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

  Mr. Alan Fitch and

  Grey, Charles (Durham)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Mr. Walter Harrison.

  NOES

  Astor, John

  Braine, Bernard

  Carlisle, Mark

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

  Brewis, John

  Clark, Henry

  Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

  Brinton, Sir Tatton

  Clegg, Walter

  Batsford, Brian

  Bruce-Gardyne, J.

  Crouch, David

  Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton

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

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Berry, Hn. Anthony

  Bullus, Sir Eric

  Dalkeith, Earl of

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

  Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

  Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

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

  Emery, Peter

  MacArthur, Ian

  Scott-Hopkins, James

  Errington, Sir Eric

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

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

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maude, Angus

  Silvester, Frederick

  Foster, Sir John

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Sinclair, Sir George

  Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

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

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

  Glover, Sir Douglas

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Smith, John (London & W'minster)

  Goodhart, Philip

  More, Jasper

  Speed, Keith

  Goodhew, Victor

  Murton, Oscar

  Stainton, Keith

  Gower, Raymond

  Nabarro, Sir Gerald

  Stodart, Anthony

  Grant, Anthony

  Neave, Airey

  Stoddart-Scott, col. Sir M.

  Gresham Cooke, R.

  Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

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

  Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

  Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian

  Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John

  Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

  Osborn, John (Hallam)

  Walker, Peter (Worcester)

  Harvie Anderson, Miss

  Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

  Ward, Dame Irene

  Hawkins, Paul

  Page, Graham (Crosby)

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Hiley, Joseph

  Pags, John (Harrow, W.)

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Holland, Philip

  Percival, Ian

  Wiggin, A. W.

  Hornby, Richard

  Pike, Miss Mervyn

  Williams, Donald (Dudley)

  Hunt, John

  Pounder, Rafton

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Pym, Francis

  Wright, Esmond

  Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

  Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

  Wylie, N. R.

  Jopling, Michael

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Younger, Kn. George

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)

  Kimball, Marcus

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Kirk, Peter

  Boyle, Anthony

  Mr. Hector Monro and

  Knight, Mrs. Jill

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Mr. Timothy Kitson.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
  As amended (in Standing Committee), further considered.
  10.25 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We now come to the unnumbered Amendment on page 4231 of the Amendment Paper, with which I suggest we take Government Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 38, 43 and 50, all of which seem to my innocent eye to be drafting Amendments.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Clause 3

      POWER OF SECRETARY OF STATE TO PRESCRIBE STANDARDS FOR, AND TO APPROVE, PREMISES, ETC., OF EDUCATIONAL ESTABLISHMENTS
      Mr. Millan: I beg to move,
      That Clause 3 be divided into two Clauses, the first consisting of page 4, lines 24 to 34, and the second of page 4, line 35, to page 5, line 14.
      I think that it is suitable to take the Amendments together, because basically this is a series of drafting Amendments.
      The Amendments discharge an undertaking I gave in Standing Committee that the proposed new subsection (2) of Section 19 of the 1962 Act should more properly be included in Section 20, as an hon. Member opposite had suggested. I said that his point had validity and that I thought it better to make this transfer. The series of Amendments puts the appropriate subsection in Section 20 of the 1962 Act, rather than in Section 19, and I am sure that that will be acceptable to the House.
      Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman has explained that the purpose of these Amendments is to honour an undertaking he gave in Committee and I am grateful to him for them. They fully discharge that undertaking. The point is that the sequence of requirements laid down in the Clause as it stands is unsatisfactory. We pointed out that it would make more sense if a separation of the kind now proposed was made. I am obliged to him for following our proposal.
      While I appreciate his response, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not
      594
      felt able to respond in the same way to some of the proposals we made about the need to rephrase Clause 1. I hope, however, that, when the consolidating legislation which we expect sees the light of day, the whole scope of education legislation in Scotland covered by this Bill and other Acts will be much simplified.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Further Amendments made: No. 4, in page 4, line 24, leave out 'subsections (1) and (2)' and insert 'subsection (1)'.
      No. 5, in page 4, line 26, leave out 'subsections' and insert 'subsection'.
      No. 6, in page 4, line 35, leave out '(2)' and insert:
      In section 20 of the principal Act (acquisition of land and execution of works), after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection:
      '(1A).—[Mr. Millan.]
      Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 10, leave out "by regulations made by the Secretary of State".
      The effect of the Amendment is to remove the requirement that the form and content of all applications for approval for school building projects must be prescribed in regulations. Under the present School Building Code, which is not the subject of regulations but an administrative handbook, the matter of the form and content of applications is dealt with in this non-statutory way.
      If we were to leave the Clause as it stands, we would have to prescribe the form of statutory regulation and this is obviously inflexible and unsatisfactory. It is easier to do these things by administrative document than by Statutory Instrument. The form will still be prescribed and, in accordance with Section 145 of the 1962 Act, will be prescribed by the Secretary of State. But it will not be done by way of Statutory Instrument. This is, therefore, basically a drafting Amendment to keep the requirements in line with present practice, which works satisfactorily.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 6

      RESTRICTION OF RIGHT OF PARENT TO APPEAL REGARDING SELECTION OF COURSE OF SECONDARY EDUCATION FOR CHILD
      Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 7, line 29, leave out Clause 6.
      This Clause 6 gave rise to a certain amount of debate on Second Reading and in Committee. I made it clear on Second Reading that it was a matter of judgment whether there should be a restriction of what is an extremely limited right of appeal to the Secretary of State by a parent who is dissatisfied with the course of education that the authority is prescribing for his child.
      In view of what I said on Second Reading, I was somewhat dismayed when, during the Committee stage, the Opposition blew this up into a great issue of principle and pretended that the Clause represented a tremendous diminution of parental rights, which it did not. The number of appeals to the Secretary of State from parents against a decision about the courses to which their children had been allocated which are not made at the actual date of transfer is very small, and in the five years up to 1968 was only 23.
      In any case, nearly all of those were subsequent appeals by parents who had originally appealed at the transfer stage and who had then been given certain assurances and who had appealed again when they felt that the authority had still made the wrong decision rather later in the education of the children. We are, therefore, dealing with a small number.
      The Clause was included in the Bill because, as I have explained, in the comprehensive system it is difficult to make these judgments about the allocation to courses when, in any case, in some comprehensive schools the whole idea of allocation to courses is no longer a valid concept. Another reason for the introduction of the Clause was to meet practical difficulties. Nevertheless, there was obviously a feeling on Second Reading and in Committee that there might just be certain cases where that right should be maintained. I said that I would consider the matter and I have concluded that the simplest way to deal with it would be to eliminate the Clause.
      596
      I should have preferred to try to produce a rather better version of Section 29 of the 1962 Act than we now have, but the drafting is difficult. In all the circumstances, although not working completely satisfactorily, Section 29 gives a reasonable kind of practice and the simplest thing to do is to leave it alone, and therefore eliminate Clause 6.
      The argument in Committee, particularly in view of what I said on Second Reading, was wildly exaggerated and I hope that the fact that we have now eliminated Clause 6 will not be represented by the Opposition as a tremendous victory, for it is not. In all the circumstances, it is simpler to eliminate Clause 6, and I now commend that course to the House.
      Mr. Younger: I hope that the House will agree to the Amendment. However, I am astonished by the Under-Secretary's unfailing ability to make something sound ungracious when it does not need to be. He must admit that, in spite of what he said on Second Reading, if there had not been strong argument and pressure in Committee, which is precisely what Committee stages are for, it is extremely unlikely that he would have changed his mind.
      It is most ungracious of the hon. Gentleman to make it appear that in some way we have abused the procedures of Committee by pushing this argument hard and persuading him to make the change. He is making out that he is too proud to be told that there is something slightly wrong with the Bill as introduced, and if that is so we are wasting our time by going through Bills with such care.
      I do not want to be churlish in return. Most of my hon. Friends will be pleased that the hon. Gentleman has accepted the points which were put to him in Committee. As one of those who spoke on the Clause in Committee, I must say that if he had not made this change, apart from the reasons which he has adduced, it would have been not merely awkward but extremely damaging to the interests of people who had to move from one part of the country to another, possibly from England to Scotland, and who found their children in the middle of their school careers in the new area having to take a course which the parents did not regard as exactly right. It is most

      597
      important that they should not be prevented from having the right to appeal against what the new education authority in the new environment decides about a child's education.
      I hope that the Minister will agree, and I say this in the most generous spirit that I can, that this has been a useful exercise, and that it is just the sort of exercise that a properly run Committee stage in a properly run House, such as this, should engage in to improve Government Bills. I welcome the Under-Secretary's conversion to the point of view put in Committee, and hope that the House will agree with him, and my hon. Friends who made the point in the first place.
      Mr. W. H. K. Baker: Unlike my hon. Friends the Members for Ayr (Mr. Younger) and Galloway (Mr. Brewis) I did not have the good fortune to be a member of the Committee, but I think that the Government are right to take this provision out of the Bill. The Under-Secretary made a case that was answered in his opening remarks, when he said that there were 23 appeals. Even if there had been one appeal to the Secretary of State that would have been a justification for taking this Clause out. It is vitally important that the rights of the subject are protected and that he should have access to the Secretary of State, who is the highest authority in Scotland in matters of appeal. The point about the move from one locality to another, put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, is another excellent reason for its deletion, and I am delighted to see that it is being removed.
      Mr. Woodburn: In case my hon. Friend thinks that the Conservatives have been imagining possible reasons, I would like to assure him that in one case in my constituency this was a vital means of removing what would have been a grave injustice. A teacher had been away ill, there had been all sorts of changes in the class, and a number of children were deprived of the chance of going on to secondary education, because of the failure of the education authority to give the requisite education.
      The mother complained to the headmaster, and was actually threatened with a slander action for alleging that the teacher had not done his job. Fortunately,
      598
      she appealed to the Secretary of State and an arrangement was made whereby the child went on, as arranged originally by the education authority. The children's ability proved that they were capable of taking secondary education and the appeal was justified.
      10.45 p.m.
      Mr. MacArthur: I am sorry that the Minister should have moved the Amendment in the terms which he chose. I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) that when we are making such good progress on Report it is regrettable that the Minister should, quite unnecessarily, introduce a note of churlish graciouslessness into his speech.
      I agree very much with the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), that even if there are only one or two cases in which the parents' right of appeal is abolished, as it would be under the Bill as it stands, that would lead to great injustice.
      The Under-Secretary of State made light of the effect of the Clause by saying that there were only 23 cases of appeal. I know this because I was able to elucidate that information by a Question to the Secretary of State. Indeed, when we debated this matter in Committee, it was I who called attention to the small number of appeals—only 23—over the last five years. To underline the point, I said that it was not the number of appeals which mattered. The critical factor is the existence of the right of appeal. Indeed, it is the existence of this right which has encouraged many local education authorities in Scotland themselves to review the course and the school selected for children.
      Very often, Members of Parliament have complaints from constituents about the school selected for the secondary education of their children. It is often the practice of Members of Parliament, not to write to the Minister about it, but to take up the case locally with the local education authority. Very often, the local education authority says, "Of course, we will review the decision which we have made about the child after the child has spent a year or so in the secondary school." Sometimes this leads to the transfer of the child to a school which is more to the parents' choice. This is encouraged by the existence of that right.

      599
      There is another point. I suggest that as comprehensive education develops in Scotland it will be necessary for parents to have the right of appeal—
      Mr. Woodburn: The Minister agrees.
      Mr. MacArthur: Yes, but in such churlish terms that it is reasonable that we should explain why we believe it to be right that the Clause should be deleted.
      I remind hon. Members opposite that when we raised the matter in Committee, there were only four Labour Members of Parliament present. Indeed, we were forced to call attention to the small attendance by Labour Members so that the sitting was suspended and the Government Whip went out to fetch other Labour Members in, because we were defending an important principle: the right of appeal which parents had enjoyed. Certainly, the Minister has accepted our view by reintroducing the right of appeal.
      It is reasonable that having put our names to the Government Amendment, we should explain why we believe it to be right that the Clause should be removed from the Bill. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) was certainly an assiduous attender in Committee. He spoke repeatedly, and we were delighted to see him, but he was one of only four at the time. There are many other hon. Members opposite present tonight who did not hear the arguments advanced in Committee. I see no reason why I should not advance them again, and I will do so briefly.
      It is important that this right of appeal should be preserved as the comprehensive system develops. We know from the Minister that he now recognises that selectivity in education is no longer a sin, as it used to be in his eyes, and that there will be selectivity of one kind or another in the comprehensive system. It follows that children in many comprehensive schools will move from one course to another during their secondary education, and it seems reasonable to us on this side that parents should continue to enjoy the right of appeal which previously they had enjoyed in Scotland. Many parents may think that the course selected for their child is inappropriate,
      600
      so it is reasonable to protect the right of appeal.
      We are also trying to encourage industrial development in Scotland. Both sides of the House want this and are agreed that it must involve mobility of labour. People will move to better jobs, taking their children to the area of another local education authority—many of them in midstream in their education—and the parents should not be denied the right of appeal to the Secretary of State, if they do not like the choice of education in the new area. Many people return to Scotland from abroad. It is likely that, when a Conservative Government are elected, many thousands of people who have emigrated from Scotland under this Government will want to return, bringing children of school age. They should have this right of appeal.
      I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has seen reason at last. I regret that he spoke in that churlish way, but I am grateful to him for responding, even with that lack of grace, to our powerful arguments in Committee.
      Mr. Millan: I deliberately introduced the Amendment in the way that I did, because of the background to it and because of the amount of humbug with which the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) spoke about it in Committee. When winding up the Second Reading debate, in answer to the point of the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) I specifically said:
      "… I have some sympathy with the points which the right hon. Gentleman made, and I look forward to having the matter debated in Committee. To my mind, it is by no means a question on which the balance comes down wholly on one side."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 1969; Vol. 776, c. 374.]
      I think that that was a reasonable and gracious way in which to answer those points on Second Reading.
      Nevertheless, in Committee, before I even had a chance to speak about this matter, the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire made a speech full of humbug, talking about Ministers' "total carelessness" about the wishes of parents, and how the freedom of parents was being eroded by the Bill. If he wishes to talk about gracelessness, I could quote many examples from his own speeches in Committee. So I said today that I

      601
      was not going to have this change made out as being a tremendous victory for the Opposition against a dogmatic Minister who was determined to erode the freedom of parents and who was forced into a concession only by the brilliant speeches of hon. Members opposite.
      That is a complete travesty of the situation. If the hon. Member thinks that I will let him get away with that, he will believe anything. That is why I spoke as I did. I am delighted that we are now in a state of amity and brotherhood and can now accept the Amendment.
      Mr. MacArthur: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that he did little in Committee to win any confidence from us that he had any belief in parental freedom of choice. Our debates, up to column 400, on this matter were concerned largely with the removal of parental freedom of choice. Nothing the Government said in the early debates on the Bill gave us any confidence in the Minister's interest in parental freedom of choice, and—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Member is making a long intervention.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10

      HANDICAPPED CHILDREN
      Mr. Wright: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 9, line 25, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
      This is a somewhat familiar phrase both in the House and in Committee, but I will try to ring a few changes on the usual form in which the proposal is made. In this Clause we reach what is, next to the unfortunate and contentious Caluse 1, the major Clause of the Bill, and one which I believe in history, if I may refer to that subject in the light of remarks this afternoon, will perhaps become a most important feature of this legislation.
      There are some compelling reasons why the House should be reminded—members of the Standing Committee will not need reminding—of the reasons why we pressed this matter to a Division in Committee. Unless my colleagues and I are satisfied tonight, we shall press it again.
      602
      We are suggesting a single word change because we believe that it will strengthen the Act and the right hon. Gentleman's own powers under the Act. The Minister's explanation at the end of the Committee stage was somewhat tortuous—I think that I quote him correctly—that "may" really includes "shall". I can only say that to me that does not make grammatical sense, though it may make some sort of tortuous administrative sense to him.
      May I suggest some reasons why I believe that the Act would be strengthened if the word "shall" were used? I accept that the Minister did not make this point—at least to my recollection—but it is the new Section 63, which follows this Section, which causes the difficulty about the choice of a compulsive word against a permissive word, because in Section 63 there is to be power as regards children who have not reached the age of five but a duty in respect of children over the age of five. I presume that it is the extension of an interest in handicapped children before the age of five which leads the Minister to have this rather general power rather than a power of compulsion.
      May I rehearse for the Minister—he will not need too many of these reminders—some of the reasons why, in Committee, we said that this proposal would strengthen the Bill? In all the previous Acts, including the Act which we are amending—the 1962 Act, which was itself a derivative of earlier Acts—the word "shall" appears. I should like to hear the Minister explain—we were not told in Committee—why there should be this change, which, in our view, weakens his powers and what the authorities can do under the Act. The Mental Health (Scotland) Act, 1960, used the same word.
      Over the last 15 to 18 years—this is in no sense a partisan matter—there have been a great number of working party reports on the whole problem of handicapped and maladjusted children, and if a single theme has appeared from them, we all agree, on both sides of the House, that it has been in the direction of early diagnosis and treatment. I will specify only one tragedy for many families—deafness, which, if not discovered early enough,

      603
      can often appear to be mental retardation. It is very important, particularly for Grade 3 deaf children, that they should be found to be deaf as early as possible.
      Now, there is a phenomenon today. Wherever there is maladjustment, or physical or mental handicap, or deafness, maternal care somehow increases in proportion to the degree of trouble in the family, and sometimes I believe that parents—particularly mothers—are ultra-maternal. We are on an important point here. I believe that the Social Work (Scotland) Act, and the provisions of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be stronger if there is a chance, particularly for G.P.s, to be able to have contact with schools or school doctors before the age of 5 so that it is possible for some degree of early diagnosis to take place.
      11.0 p.m.
      Let me, further, put to the Minister a point which I put in Committee. It is very important that this piece of legislation should attract the interest of the teaching profession. I do not need to remind him of the gloomy statistics—the fact that as of January, 1968, there were 731 certificated teachers employed in special schools, whether education authority or grant aided, and that 53 per cent. of these were over the age of 50, and only 8 per cent. under the age of 30.
      Again, in Committee we rehearsed this point. It would strengthen the Minister's powers of recruitment of teachers—and these figures will become steadily worse as the years pass—if there were this element of compulsion and the word "shall" were there instead of the word "may".
      My final point is that it is also important that we should enlist in this field the voluntary societies that are very much concerned, and, indeed, have been the pacemakers where Scotland is concerned. I know that this is an issue which interests some hon. Gentlemen opposite in a very real sense—
      Mr. Willis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May we have your guidance on what is in order under this Amendment? All we are asked to discuss is whether there should be an obligation on the Secretary of State to make regulations defining several categories of pupils, and to make special
      604
      regulations, or whether it should be left to the Secretary of State. Instead of this we are getting one of these sweeping professorial surveys of the world in which nothing very definite is said on the specific point under discussion.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is correct in the sense that we are discussing whether it should be mandatory or not, but I have not yet decided that the hon. Gentleman is out of order.
      Mr. Wright: I was coming to my final point, that by introducing this element of compulsion the Act would be stronger. It would enlist the already active work of the voluntary societies. I was about to pay a tribute, before I was interrupted, to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan), who put his name to this particular proposal during the Committee stage. I mention this simply to emphasise that this is a bipartisan indication of our wish to strengthen this bit of legislation. It is an important proposal. I shall be very interested to hear from the Minister, but without satisfaction on it I am bound to say that this merits a decision.
      Mr. Hannan: On a point of order. I wish to make it clear that without any consultation, bipartisanship or agreement about names going to the Amendment, it just so happens that I did put down an Amendment quite unknown to the hon. Gentleman. There was no collusion. I want to make this clear.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the House quite understands.
      Mr. Woodburn: I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) is not going to subject us to the debate which I have heard for 30 years on "may" and "shall". As the Secretary of State I have had to defend the use of "may".
      The hon. Gentleman's argument did not seem to have anything to do with whether it was "may" or "shall". He said that this would increase the power of the Secretary of State. How does the hon. Gentleman arrive at that conclusion? By the use of "may", the Secretary of State has power to do something if he so desires, but the obligation is laid upon the local authorities to do something, and

      605
      the hon. Gentleman is insisting that the Secretary of State should tell them how to do it.
      The Secretary of State may have to do that if the local authorities do not do what they are required to do, but the duty is placed on the local authorities by the use of the word "shall". The Secretary of State is asked to intervene only if he finds it necessary to do so.
      I hope that the House will not have to suffer this argument again. I agree that this side of the House has been responsible for many hours of debate on this subject, but hon. Gentlemen opposite claim that they have some intelligence, and some sense of business-like procedure. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not business-like to waste time on this issue. The two words mean the same when used in relation to the powers of the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Millan: I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) put the matter very well, because in this context "may" and "shall" mean virtually the same.
      What the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) said about early assessment, the rôle of voluntary societies, and so on, may be true and commendable, but it has little or nothing to do with the Amendment. I remind the House that what we are doing here is restating in modern form the provisions of the 1962 Act dealing with handicapped children.
      The modern practice in legislation of this sort is to use the word "may" rather than "shall". I need not go into an authoritative statement by quoting references from other statutes, because we use the word "may" in other parts of the Bill. For example, in the new Section 2 of the 1962 Act, which deals with the standards and general requirements "to which every education authority shall conform in discharge of their functions under section 1 of this Act" the phrase used is that the Secretary of State "may make regulations". To allow that to go through and then to quibble about the use of the word "may" here, when all that we are dealing with is defining the categories of pupils requiring special education, seems extraordinary and quite absurd.
      606
      It is not as though there were not in existence regulations which do precisely what the Secretary of State is given power to do in this Clause. It is not a question of the Secretary of State being unwilling to make regulations and requiring an injunction of Parliament to force him, willing as he may be, to make these regulations. The present regulations date from as far back as 1954. I am referring to the Special Education Treatment (Scotland) Regulations, 1954. What is more, these regulations are specifically preserved by paragraph 2 of Schedule 4, which is the transitional Schedule. There is, therefore, no question whether the regulations may be made. They were made by hon. Gentlemen opposite as far back as 1954, and I think that that exposes the absurdity of the argument that we have heard this evening.
      All that we are dealing with is the wording of the Clause, and we are here following modern practice in using the word "may" and not "shall". There is nothing sinister about this. This argument has been gone over many times in the past, and I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that it is not necessary to make the change they propose. If the wording is changed here, the Clause will be inconsistent with everything that is otherwise stated in the Bill, and as no good comes from doing that I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter and withdraw the Amendment.
      Mr. Younger: The Minister has produced a most interesting doctrine. However, I am not completely sold on either word. On his argument, if the putting in of the word "shall" would make no difference because the regulations are made already, and if the regulations are preserved in Schedule 4, what is the point of the new Section 62? It would appear that it is providing for something which is already provided and which is preserved already in Schedule 4.
      Mr. Millan: It is necessary because we are eliminating the previous provision in the 1962 Act and restating it in more modern drafting terms—and, as I understand it, with the agreement of the House. Therefore, it is necessary to have it, but the practical position is not changed.
      Mr. Younger: I appreciate that intervention, but it still seems very odd, and the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be slightly inconsistent.
      It was delightful to see the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) in the rôle of poacher turned gamekeeper. He has spent longer arguing "may" and "shall" than any other hon. Member on either side of the House. I take it that his new rôle means that never again will he feel it necessary to argue the merits of "may" and "shall". He has now said that it is a sterile and useless argument which should not be pursued.
      Mr. Willis: I was always engaged in an argument of substance, and I always kept strictly to the point.
      Mr. Younger: That is probably the most startling statement to come from either side. I could spend two hours proving with chapter and verse that the right hon. Gentleman's claim is quite unfounded, but I do not want to waste the time of the House.
      The doctrine that "may" and "shall" mean the same will lead us into some very strange arguments in future Bills. It would be better to acknowledge that there is a difference, and state quite clearly that "may" is now the modern way of putting it. I am certain that we shall find a difference in future Bills.
      Miss Harvie Anderson: The Minister is rather optimistic in using the covering phrase "modern drafting" for this wording. I have never believed that "may" and "shall" mean the same. In this case, it is true that the duty of local authorities is laid down by regulations, but what the Minister has failed to remember is that it is only a few years since the children with whom we are dealing came under these regulations for the first time.
      There was a definite delay on the part of local authorities in making what was considered to be adequate provision, and some authorities took much longer to do so than others. I do not think that the Minister will quarrel with that factual statement. If the regulations applicable at the time had been in the permissive form of this Clause, there would
      608
      have been further delay in identifying these children and getting special provision for them.
      The Under-Secretary may assume that adequate provision is now made for these children and that the general public recognise the need for speedy identification, but I wonder whether he really thinks that to be the case. A whole range of new factors enters into the subject including, for example, defective children, for whom almost no provision has been made.
      Some local authorities will be quicker than others in providing for these new factors as and when they come within the scope of medical knowledge, and it may well be useful for the Secretary of State to have in the Measure the word we suggest rather than the word already written in. If the change in the wording means a difference of even six months in the education of these children it is well worth making.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman will treat this Amendment a little more seriously, and realise that there is substance in it.
      11.15 p.m.
      Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Although I have not heard the entire debate, I have had the good fortune to hear both the Minister and the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), and I am sure that most of the main points will have been covered by them. The word "shall" would place a clear obligation on the Secretary of State to do something very quickly, and to make sure that there is a regular requirement for this defining to be done.
      I have in mind not so much the need to make special provision, but the question of where one should draw the line where special provision is required. Many hon. Members will have been interested in a very important case which has been considered recently in Glasgow to decide whether a child needed special education or could be accommodated in a normal school—
      Mr. Millan: That has nothing to do with this Amendment.
      Mr. Taylor: I hope that the Under-Secretary will explain how it does not

      609
      have anything to do with the Amendment. The Bill states that the Secretary of State
      "… may make regulations defining the several categories of pupils requiring special education …".
      I therefore think that the case has particular relevance. When one defines categories, one draws lines.
      I am well aware of the very excellent facilities that are provided in special schools. I have been round some of them in Glasgow. Many of us are proud of the very special provision made for special individual cases of physical disability and other disabilities. Because of the great advances made in this direction in recent years there has been a tendency to try to draw lines in such a way that we do not make special provision for these children who have these disabilities, but who could attend normal schools.
      If the Amendment were accepted, it would be a clear message from this side and, I am sure, from many hon. Members opposite, that we not only want these regulations brought forward, but, perhaps, redefined. There have been conflicting views in the Glasgow case I have mentioned, a great deal of sentiment and of reconsideration of the functions of the special schools, and a feeling that the time may have come for redefinition.
      If we want to redefine it means making new regulations. If we incorporate in the Bill that the Secretary of State "shall" make regulations there will be an obligation on him to do this regularly as and when required. I hope that the Glasgow case will make the Government and those with special knowledge of these matters in the S.E.D. think carefully again about the question of defining the category. Our aim should be that as many children as possible, bearing in mind physical, mental and other abilities, should be in normal schools and as few as possible in special schools.
      Without seeking to detract from the excellent work done for handicapped children, it is very important for the welfare of all the children concerned that we should be seen to be trying to bring as many as possible, irrespective of minor handicaps, into normal schools. We have discussed comprehensive schools. It would not be in order to go into that again, but it was emphasised
      610
      that the aim of education of all sorts in Scotland was to try to have a community type of school where children who are less gifted and those who are more gifted can come together and benefit. If we are looking for an ideal kind of community school, a basic feature should be that of having as many children with different abilities and differences in faculties both mental and physical coming in.
      The implications of the important case in Glasgow should make the Under-Secretary think carefully again about whether there is a case for redefining categories.
      Mr. Hannan: Is the hon. Member now prepared to admit the principle against which he and the Opposition argued earlier?
      Mr. Taylor: I have been careful not to go beyond the boundary of order, but the hon. Member is trying to draw me over it. If he gained the impression that I said I was in favour of universal territorial comprehensive schools, that was not my intention. I pointed out that the hon. Member has put forward an argument for a community school—many hon. Members hold these views sincerely—and when applying the argument to ranges of ability, it should include ability of handicapped children.
      Although the Under-Secretary replied in a courteous way as he always does to questions of this sort, he did not realise the full implications of what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Wright) had said. We say that there is a case now for reconsidering the question of redefining. That is why I should like the word "shall" to be used. "May" is inadequate. We want to show a clear guiding light emphasising that the time has come for the Minister to make regulations, that he shall make them and keep in mind the possibility, desirability and significance of redefining the special categories of pupils who require special education. I hope that he will reconsider his decision and accept the Amendment.
      Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I have become increasingly impressed by the arguments which have been advanced in support of the Amendment, in particular by the arguments which have just been advanced by my hon. Friend

      611
      the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor). The Minister seemed to base his argument on the contention that it was modern practice to have "may" and old-fashioned to have "shall". That is not an adequate explanation or justification. It is not sufficient for the Minister to say that we must have "may" because it is trendy, ton-up and mod. There are many things which are trendy, ton-up and mod, but which some of us do not like—for instance S.E.T. I have no doubt that the Minister would justify that as being trendy, ton-up and mod, but it is not a sufficient justification for us. The Minister must produce a more logical reason why the House should reject the very reasonable case which has been made.
      The Minister's only other argument—that it would be wrong to change "may" to "shall" in this Clause when the Bill is littered with "may's" elsewhere—is not valid, because this Clause is of special importance and sensitivity. There was much in the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart about the need to keep in the Secretary of State's mind at all times the possible desirability of redefining the regulations. I was especially impressed by what my hon. Friend said about the children who are on the borderline of being handicapped. This struck a special chord with me, because I have very direct personal involvement in such a case in my family with a child who, due to deafness, may or may not be over the borderline.
      I agree with everything my hon. Friend said about the importance of trying to ensure, wherever possible, that such children should be able to be educated in the normal school. This is precisely the area where a need to keep a close watch on the regulations and a constant willingness to consider the case for redefining them by the Secretary of State is so important. That is why there is in this instance alone a good case for substituting "shall" for "may", to pinpoint in the mind of the Secretary of State and of the S.E.D. the importance of keeping this issue constantly under review.
      For these reasons, I hope that the Under-Secretary will think again. I trust that he will advance a better explanation than that he advanced earlier,
      612
      which was that "may" was fuddy-duddy but "shall" was with-it.
      11.30 p.m.
      Mr. Millan: I shall not go over the question of drafting practice, but I have two other points to make. First, on the question of flexibility and the need to keep the regulations up to date—which I entirely accept—it does not make the slightest difference whether we put in "shall" or "may". If we say here that the Secretary of State shall do something, rather than just have power to do it, all he would have to do to meet that injunction would be to produce regulations once. That is all. He would not have to keep them up to date or redefine them from time to time.
      In any case, the regulations have already been made. Therefore, all that hon. Members are saying, in effect, is, "Have another look at the 1954 regulations and see whether they should be brought up to date". In fact, the matter is already under constant consideration. Moreover, we are providing a whole new Clause of about 11 pages to improve ascertainment procedures, to give better appeal procedures for parents, and the rest. It is absurd in these circumstances to suggest that we are not aware of the need to keep the regulations up to date.
      However, if it helps the House, I give an undertaking that when the Bill goes through I shall look at the regulations again. If I feel that they need redefining, I shall be happy to do that. But, as I say, whether we put in "may" or "shall" makes no difference whatever in the long term from the point of view of keeping the regulations up to date.
      Now, a word about the case in Glasgow to which the hon. Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) referred. Lest there be any misunderstanding or any suggestion that changing the wording here would make the slightest difference in a case of that sort, I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I know that case very well. I have read the lengthy note and interim judgment of the sheriff on the case. It is a long and interesting document, and I have read the entire note. I assure the House that the argument with which we are dealing now is absolutely irrelevant to what might have happened in the case of the boy Charles Dornan of Glasgow.

      613
      That ought to be put on record in case there is any feeling that, by sticking on this point, one is in some material regard making it more difficult to deal with borderline cases. That is not so at all. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
      The point is a narrow one. For the reasons which I have already explained, we ought to stick to the wording as we have it in the Bill.
      Mr. MacArthur: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) and the House will be grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for referring so sympathetically and helpfully to the Glasgow case, a very worrying case, to which my hon. Friend referred. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman also for saying that he will look at the regulations again in response to the debate tonight.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) reminded us that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) had trodden this ground before. It is a well trodden path indeed. I recall his long speeches, delivered so quietly, on the great question of "may" or "shall" in a Bill. When he himself referred to those many occasions in the past, I was reminded of the medieval chronicler who recorded the appearance of a creature from a loch in the West of Scotland, concluding his note by writing, "This creature has been seen before, and always great trouble for Scotland thereafter". This creature has been seen before many times in Scottish Committees, with great and lengthy troubled debates thereafter.
      The question before us is of a different order. This is not a trivial game of words. There is here a matter of very real substance which the House should consider sympathetically. The point the Minister and other hon. Members opposite have perhaps overlooked is that what we are doing in the Clause is not to introduce a new proposal. We are not now considering a new Bill, which was the case when the right hon. Gentleman caused all the trouble in days gone by. We are considering what is in effect an amendment to an existing Statute. The opening words of the Clause remind us
      614
      that what follows replaces Sections 62 to 66 of the principal Act, the Act of 1962. It is for that reason that I believe the Amendment has special merit.
      The Clause deals with a particularly sensitive part of the Bill—the problem of handicapped children and the sort of education they should receive. As we enter this part of the Bill we all recognise that no question of principle divides the parties; on this part of the legislation we are at one. It is because this is so important and so sensitive an area that the opening words of the Clause should not in any way represent a weakening of the Secretary of State's involvement with this essential aspect of education.
      In Committee I referred from time to time to the difficulty that would confront local education authorities, officers of local authorities, and people outside generally—not least, perhaps, parents of handicapped children, who will study the Bill when it becomes an Act. They will turn to Section 10, and it will refer them to the 1962 Act. They will at once see a change in the wording. That change may seem trivial to us in the House who understand these things so well, but it will be critical to people outside when they see that the obligation on the Secretary of State has been removed. The "shall" has been changed to "may"; the requirement has become a matter of permissiveness, and no more.
      It is just because those words appear at the beginning of this critical part of the Act that I believe we should take particular care before we change them. If the Minister is trying to be trendy as my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) suggested, this is not the moment, and this is certainly not the part of the Bill in which to be trendy. The moment for that might well come when we have the consolidated legislation to which all of us look forward.
      We are making for so much confusion now. We are making life more difficult for the people outside who must handle such legislation. We shall make for greater confusion if we make a change of wording which, first, is totally unnecessary, and, second, is substantially misleading to those who have to interpret the laws passed by this House.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

      Division No. 201.]

      AYES

      [11.38 p.m.

      Astor, John

      Hawkins, Paul

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

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

      Holland, Philip

      Royle, Anthony

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Hunt, John

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

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

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

      Silvester, Frederick

      Braine, Bernard

      Jopling, Michael

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Brewis, John

      Kershaw, Anthony

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

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Kirk, Peter

      Speed, Keith

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Kitson, Timothy

      Stodart, Anthony

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

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      MacArthur, Ian

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

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Walker, Peter (Worcester)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Clark, Henry

      More, Jasper

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Clegg, Walter

      Murton, Oscar

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Neave, Airey

      Wiggin, A. W.

      Eyre, Reginald

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

      Wright, Esmond

      Goodhew, Victor

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Gower, Raymond

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Grant, Anthony

      Percival, Ian

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Pounder, Rafton

      Mr. R. W. Elliott and

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Mr. Hector Monro.

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Pym, Francis

      NOES

      Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Barnett, Joel

      Hannan, William

      Newens, Stan

      Bishop, E. S.

      Harper, Joseph

      O'Malley, Brian

      Blackburn, F.

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Oswald, Thomas

      Booth, Albert

      Hazell, Bert

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

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

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Pentland, Norman

      Buchan, Norman

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

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

      Hooley, Frank

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Coe, Denis

      Horner, John

      Richard, Ivor

      Coleman, Donald

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Rose, Paul

      Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Hoy, James

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)

      Huckfield, Leslie

      Sheldon, Robert

      Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)

      Hunter, Adam

      Slater, Joseph

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Small, William

      Dempsey, James

      Lawson, George

      Tinn, James

      Dewar, Donald

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Urwin, T. W.

      Doig, Peter

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)

      Luard, Evan

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

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

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Eadie, Alex

      McCann, John

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Edwards, William (Merioneth)

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

      Ellis, John

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

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

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Fernyhough, E.

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Mendelson, John

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Millan, Bruce

      Mr. Alan Fitch and

      Ford, Ben

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Mr. Neil McBride.

      Forrester, John

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Motion made, and Question put, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.—[Mr. Millan.]:—
      The House divided: Ayes 70, Noes 82.
      The House divided: Ayes 80, Noes 72.

      Forrester, John

      Luard, Evan

      Richard, Ivor

      Grey, Charles (Durham)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Rose, Paul

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      McCann, John

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William

      Hannan, William

      Macdonald, A. H.

      Sheldon, Robert

      Harper, Joseph

      Mackintosh, John P.

      Slater, Joseph

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Small, William

      Hazell, Bert

      Mendelson, John

      Tinn, James

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Millan, Bruce

      Urwin, T. W.

      Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Hooley, Frank

      Milne, Edward (Blyth)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Horner, John

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Watkins, David (Consett)

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

      Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)

      Hoy, James

      Newens, Stan

      Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)

      Huckfield, Leslie

      O'Malley, Brian

      Willis, Rt. Hn. George

      Hunter, Adam

      Oswald, Thomas

      Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.

      Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

      Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

      Lawson, George

      Pentland, Norman

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)

      Mr. Alan Fitch and

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Rhodes, Geoffrey

      Mr. Neil McBride.

      NOES

      Astor, John

      Harvie Anderson, Miss

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

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

      Hawkins, Paul

      Royle, Anthony

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Holland, Philip

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Hunt, John

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

      Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John

      Hutch son, Michael Clark

      Silvester, Frederick

      Brewis, John

      Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)

      Sinclair, Sir George

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Jopling, Michael

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

      Bruce-Gardyne, J.

      Kershaw, Anthony

      Smith, John (London & W'minster)

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

      Kirk, Peter

      Stodart, Anthony

      Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.

      Campbell, Gordon (Moray & Nairn)

      MacArthur, Ian

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

      Carlisle, Mark

      Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross & Crom'ty)

      Walker, Peter (Worcester)

      Clark, Henry

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Clegg, Walter

      Monro, Hector

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Dalkeith, Earl of

      Murton, Oscar

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Davidson, James (Aberdeenshire, W.)

      Neave, Airey

      Wiggin, A. W.

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

      Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael

      Williams, Donald (Dudley)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Osborn, John (Hallam)

      Winstanley, Dr. M. P.

      Galbraith, Hn. T. G.

      Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Glover, Sir Douglas

      Page, Graham (Crosby)

      Wright, Esmond

      Goodhart, Philip

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Younger, Hn. George

      Goodhew, Victor

      Percival, Ian

      Gower, Raymond

      Pounder, Rafton

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Grant, Anthony

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Mr. Jasper More and

      Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

      Pym, Francis

      Mr. Timothy Kitson.

      Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)

      Bill, as amended, to be further considered Tomorrow.

  AGRICULTURE (SPRING TRAPS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till Tomorrow.

  UNION MEMBERSHIP (PERSONAL CASE)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Harper.]
  11.58 p.m.
  Sir Cyril Osborne: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the servants of the House for raising an Adjournment debate at so late an hour, and I am sorry for myself, too, but I wish to raise a case of petty trade union
  618
  tyranny against a constituent of mine which has been going on for 18 years, and which I am sure responsible trade union officials would not wish to continue. I have been in correspondence with the Ministry for many years about the case and we have got no further, so I promised my constituent that I would raise it in the House, and I feel morally bound to do so.
  The man is so nervous about his future employment that he has begged me not to disclose his name. All other particulars I am prepared to give, and his name and address are known to the Ministry. This constituent was trained in a Leicester training centre in 1951 and passed out as a trainee fitter, first-class, in that year. He tried to get a job when he was discharged and was unable to do so because he could not obtain membership of the A.E.U. I did my best for him in 1952, and, as a result of the publicity given to his case, the local officials

  619
  softened their attitude and allowed him to earn a living.
  For eight years he carried on his job as a fitter-turner and did excellent work, which is a tribute to the training which he had received. Then the firm closed down and he had to seek another job. Luckily, he got an appropriate job with the Central Electricity Generating Board. The union gave him a Section I card, which made him a full member, but after he had been only a week in his job the local official demanded his card back. This made it impossible for the man to get the proper job for which he was qualified.
  He is not an anti-trade unionist. He wants to join the union and to be a good fee-paying member. After he had been in his latest job for only a week, the local secretary demanded his card back and said that he would be classed as a dilutee. That was after he had done six years of practical work, which seemed to him a grave injustice and makes the training centre certificate almost worthless. But he liked the trade and decided to stick to it. The people in the power station said that he was a good man. From time to time when the charge hand was not there he was made charge hand, he was such a good fellow and did his work so well.
  Then, there was another change and a new charge hand had to be appointed. He applied for the post but did not get it. That was the luck of the draw. But the A.E.U. shop steward got the job and then told this man that he would not take orders from a trainee. This is the trouble: the man is classed almost as a second-class citizen—a trainee. The shop steward suggested to the others that they should treat him the same.
  The man would not accept what he calls the victimisation which resulted and he appealed to me again. He is now with the Grimsby power station, which may be closed before long. He has been offered other jobs because of his good record. He is a good workman, no trouble with his workmates and perfectly satisfactory to his employers. But because he will not be given his full trade union membership card, he cannot get a proper job. It is against this petty tyranny that I want to protest on his behalf.
  620
  I come to the background of this matter. Back in 1952, the local paper said this of him:
  "Though he holds a Government certificate of proficiency, which seems to qualify him for a skilled job"—
  Mr. X—
  "has tried in vain since March to get work as a centre lathe turner. He went through the Ministry of Labour training course. 'Then', he said, 'my troubles began. After starting with a job in a non-union house I found nobody would take me on without a union card. What it amounts to is that I cannot get a job without a card and the Amalgamated Engineering Union refuses me a card unless I have a job. If the Government vocational training scheme is producing any more dead-end kids like this, it is wasting public money'".
  That is the protest I make. The report continued:
  "A Ministry of Labour spokesman said in London last night"
  —this was in 1952—
  "The engineering unions co-operate closely with the department in placing trainees. Cases of difficulty occasionally arise, however …"
  I know of 5,000 cases, from the Department. The newspaper report continues:
  "and the Ministry will certainly inquire into this particular case".
  That was in 1952. They are still inquiring. They have still done nothing for my constituent, who feels that he has been unfairly victimised.
  In 1960 my constituent wrote this letter to me:
  "In 1952 you made it possible for me to obtain work in the engineering industry by forcing the A.E.U. to honour its agreement"
  —that is what I am after: that they should honour their agreement with successive Governments—
  "by making me a member after I had taken a Government training course. The work I obtained after that I held for five years until the power station, at which I was, closed. I applied for skilled work with the Electricity Generating Board and was selected from a number of other applicants. Immediately the union knew about this they made the employer sign a paper to say that if there were any redundancy I should be the first to go. This situation will arise in the next few years. I am not upset about this, but it means in fact I can never settle in any job no matter how good I may be."
  That seems grossly unfair. He continued:
  "But the A.E.U. rule book clearly states that a man can enter section 1—full membership—if he produces satisfactory evidence of having worked five years at one or more of the fully skilled trades—"

  621
  He has been doing it for 17 years, but according to my constituent the rule book says that after five years he is entitled to a full membership card. He has done 17 years and he is still victimised and still denied the right to earn his living.
  He said:
  "—of which I have done eight years."
  —at that time.
  "I applied and got section 1 membership, but later it was taken back from me. I do not know if I am blacklisted because you helped me before."
  If that is so, it is a scandal and a reflection on membership of the House.
  Over the years I have done my best to help this man. I put down a Question to the Minister on Monday, 22nd January last year to ask
  "… which of the craft trade unions have guaranteed to him that they will accept for membership of their union men who become competent through the Government training centres, and be allowed to fill the skilled jobs for which they have been properly trained."
  That is the raison d'être for the centres. If when they have passed through the centres, the men are not allowed to get their cards and are not allowed to earn their living through the skills which they have acquired, then we are wasting public money in keeping these centres open.
  The Parliamentary Secretary replied:
  "All the unions concerned with the acceptance of men trained at Government Training Centres are co-operating at national level."
  That is true. There is no trouble at national level. The trouble is at local level. He continued:
  "They are unable to guarantee that all such trainees will be accepted by their district committees or local branches, but in fact very few trainees are prevented by trade union opposition from taking up employment in their training trades."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd January, 1968; Vol. 757, c. 23–24.]
  The trouble is at local level. It is with the little local Hitlers—and I do not say that offensively—the little men who abuse the power which they have, against the wishes and traditions of the trade unions. I cannot see any responsible trade union official wanting to deny a trainee the right to earn his living.
  I have a letter of 15th May, 1968, in which the Government say there are 5,000 cases in the country of this nature, and yet the Parliamentary Secretary says there are very few cases. There are 5,000 cases known to the Ministry at the
  622
  present time who, like my constituent, are denied the right to a living.
  To support his case, my constituent produced a letter from the Central Electricity Generating Board dated 30th January last year, which says
  "You will know that you have been employed as a mechanical fitter since February 1958"
  that is his second job
  "and the superintendent has been satisfied with your work as a fitter and has upgraded you to chargehand on a number of occasions. Your exact status in your union is a matter for the union to decide, but the Board regards you as a skilled craftsman."
  If after 16, 17 or 18 years a man is regarded as a skilled craftsman, it is a scandal that he is not allowed by some local official to earn his living and act as a skilled man. He wrote to me again on 22nd April this year, because the man is worried almost out of his wits by his own future and the future of his wife and children, and he says
  "After 17 years as a skilled man I am still smitten by a dilutee tag, as the superintendent said he could sack me tomorrow and start a new apprentice and have the backing of the A.E.U. When I asked him to prove this, he showed me a letter from the A.E.U. telling him they could supply him with a time-served man."
  This is unfair to the type of good men being turned out of the training centres.
  I then had a letter from the Ministry of Labour dated 15th May, 1968, when I had raised the matter again privately. I have a long list of correspondence on this case. The Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to say this:
  "I was greatly distressed to learn of Mr. X's difficulties."
  I should think he jolly well ought to be. This is 16 years after the man had qualified and been passed out as a good craftsman. This is the core of the problem, and this is on the Department's own paper
  "Grimsby is, I am afraid, one of a number of areas, of which the worst are Manchester, Tyneside and Scotland, in which there has been some resistance to particular grades of Government Training Centre trainees, especially general fitters and centre lathe turners. It is still true that very few trainees in Great Britain as a whole are, in fact, prevented by trade union opposition from working in their training trades."
  In one paragraph of the letter it says there are very few, but later on in the

  623
  same letter it says there are 5,000 of them. The letter goes on
  "Official T.U.C. policy is doing its best to overcome such resistance"
  I am grateful for that, and I believe they are honest in their attempts at headquarters to end this scandal—
  "and to this end has gone on record in the T.U.C. Economic Review of 1968 as saying: 'There is no justification for any general bar on the acceptance of adult trainees in any area of the country'."
  This is what the T.U.C. believes. The Parliamentary Secretary then adds:
  "It would, however, be unrealistic to expect attitudes of those areas which tend to be resistant to certain categories of G.T.C. trainees to change overnight."
  It is ridiculous to talk about their attitude changing overnight when in this case I have been pressing for 16, 17 or 18 years, and I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that my constituent has shown the greatest patience in this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary went on to say:
  "There has recently been a certain amount of criticism within the Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers itself of this system, and I understand that the A.E.F.'s Conference in Eastbourne during the last week in April a move to give immediate skilled status to 5,000 dilutees"—
  that is the 5,000 which the Department acknowledges—
  "and at the same time to end the Dilution Agreement, was narrowly defeated."
  This is the tragedy. Responsible trade union leaders want to put this injustice right, but certain of the irresponsibles will not let them do it. The letter goes on to say:
  "Had it been successful, it would have regularised the position of existing dilutees without, however, providing any safeguards to future G.T.C. entrants into the engineering industry."
  All I am saying is that the 5,000 admitted by the Department shows the size of the national problem. I am speaking for my own constituent.
  My constituent wrote to the Department of Employment and Productivity, and on 27th May last year he received this extraordinary reply:
  "The real difficulty is, as you know, that under the long-standing Dilution Agreement … men who have acquired their knowledge of a skilled trade through G.T.C. training have no automatic right to full skilled membership."
  624
  This is what I am asking for, that they should have an automatic right, because if they do not they are denied the right to earn a living by using the skills which the Government have given them.
  The letter went on to say:
  "… it is our hope that it will make helpful recommendations … that men trained at G.T.C.s are fully accepted as skilled after a reasonable period of practical experience in industry."
  The trade union course is 5 years. I do not know what the Department thinks about this, but my man has had 17 years' experience. Does not the Minister think that a card ought to be granted to him?
  My constituent was not satisfied, and he wrote to the Department again. In its reply of 26th June the Department put its finger on the matter when it wrote to my constituent:
  "I do not think I can explain the findings of the Royal Commission's Report, insofar as they affect your particular position, better than by quoting the relevant passage in paragraphs 345 to 348. It runs as follows:
  'Paragraph 345. We had evidence from a number of sources of obstacles being placed in the way of employment as skilled workers of persons trained at Government Training Centres.
  Paragraph 346. We find it deplorable that such difficulties should be encountered'."
  I say a hearty "hear, hear" to that on behalf of my constituent.
  "Paragraph 347. We think it wrong"—
  and I agree—
  "that dilutees should be regarded as a class whose status, work and pay can at any time be drastically reduced."
  Finally, the letter said:
  "The recommendation about an appeal procedure in cases of arbitrary refusal of admission to a trade union, or the skilled section of a union, would require legislation, and the Government will announce in due course, in the light of consultations, its decision about whether to introduce legislation on these lines."
  When are we to get that legislation? That is a promise that it is to come. When will it be introduced so that this injustice can be put right?
  My man is frightened of losing his job. He is frightened of giving his name. At the end of a long letter to me he said:
  "… if you get me full union recognition and get rid of the dilutee tag I think after all this time I shall believe in miracles again."
  He is a human man who will say that.
  I beg the Minister, because of his own recollection of unemployment in Jarrow

  625
  when he was a boy, to help men like this to obtain proper union cards which will enable them to earn decent livings.
  12.20 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity (Mr. E. Fernyhough): I have, of course, some sympathy with the constituent of the hon. Member for Louth (Sir C. Osborne). But I hope that he will appreciate that he supported a Government from 1951 until 1964 when his constituent suffered the same disability that he has raised tonight, and although I am sure his Government shared his feelings about what he regards as the great injustice to his constituent, even his Government were not able in the period from 1951 to 1964 to do anything which would remove his constituent's grievance.
  So I think that we start off by accepting that this is not a problem which has arisen as a consequence of the indifference of this Government—
  Sir C. Osborne: Agreed.
  Mr. Fernyhough: It has been with us throughout the post-war years.
  However, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will readily accept that his Private Notice Question about training centres was, to put it mildly, exaggerated He must know that 75 per cent. of the men who go through training centres are placed in positions before they leave the training centres. Another 15 per cent. are placed within three months of leaving the training centres. By and large, I hope that he will not again suggest that we should close down the training centres—
  Sir C. Osborne: I am not saying that.
  Mr. Fernyhough: But the hon. Gentleman has suggested this.
  Sir C. Osborne: No.
  Mr. Fernyhough: He must never suggest it. We are looking at a relatively small problem, although I accept that, within these numbers, there is great human anxiety and apprehension. We are desperately anxious to resolve the problem.
  The hon. Gentleman read paragraphs 345, 347 and 348 of the Donovan Report. Perhaps I might read a little of the White Paper, "In Place of Strife".
  626
  which deals with problems of this kind and gives an idea of what the Government intend to do in the forthcoming legislation.
  On adult training, paragraph 51 says:
  "Both the Government and industry already train adults to the skilled level, and the need for this will continue to grow. However, in the engineering industry in particular, all such trainees are normally registered as 'dilutees' and opposition is still found in some areas to allowing them to exercise fully the skills they have acquired, or to have the appropriate status when they are empoyed on skilled work. … Acceptance of adult trainees is important not only in order to improve industrial efficiency and regional development, but also to ensure to all employees the right to advance themselves by training."
  Paragraph 52 goes on:
  "The Government attaches great importance to the review of dilution agreements to ensure that they do not impede the acceptance of adults trained to the skilled level (including Government Training Centre trainees). It believes that the least that is required now is the freer implementation of existing dilution agreements, but also that in the longer term these should be replaced by more flexible arrangements designed to see that men and women are employed according to their ability to do skilled jobs. For this reason the Government has welcomed the recent statement by the Central Training Council on the urgent need to develop new attitudes to training for skilled work, and is discussing with the T.U.C. and the C.B.I. the best way of making progress, on the problem of adult trainees. In addition it will be open to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Central Training Council to seek the advice of the C.I.R. on the industrial relations aspects of training problems, including dilution agreements."
  Paragraph 114 reads:
  "These reforms will provide additional safeguards for union members"—
  and the hon. Member's constituent is a union member:
  "and do much to enable unions themselves to escape unjustified suspicions, but for men to be seen to deal fairly with members it is necessary that the administration of their rules should be subject to independent review. This does not imply that there is any reason to suspect frequent injustice, any more than the creation of the Parliamentary Commissionery implies that maladministration is common in Government Departments. But it is right and healthy in a democracy that any powerful body should be subject to outside scrutiny where abuse of its power can most harm the individual."
  Paragraph 115 states:
  "Complaints against trade unions by individuals who have no access to, or have exhausted, the union's own appeals procedure will be considered in the first instance by the Registrar"—

  627
  This would be the case:
  "who will have the duty of advising the complainants and trying to promote an amicable settlement. In some cases where this cannot be achieved there is already a legal remedy in the ordinary courts, but in others there is no remedy at present. The Industrial Relations Bill will provide that complaints by individuals of unfair or arbitrary action by trade unions resulting in substantial injustice may be referred to the Industrial Board referred to in paragraph 62."
  Paragraph 116 states:
  "In cases heard by the Board, every opportunity will be given to the trade unions concerned to prepare their own answers to complaints. The object will be to ensure fair play and justice, rather than to put obstacles in the way of unions. If complaints are found to be justified, the Board will have power to award damages, or admission or re-instatement in a union."
  What we have said in the White Paper will go a very long way towards meeting this problem, but the hon. Member must
  628
  understand that much of this problem arises out of the fears and apprehensions, born of history, of the men concerned: men who are insecure; men who have suffered, as some people have in the trade union field, in days gone by. They know full well that they had to set up protective measures in order to look after themselves. We accept that that ought to be a bygone thing but, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is not easy, when prejudices are deepseated and longstanding, to make them disappear by, as it were, a wave of the wand—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Service Personnel, Buildings and Properties (Midlothian)
  Service Personnel, Buildings and Properties (Midlothian)
  Unidentified Flying Objects
  Unidentified Flying Objects
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
  Multi-rôle Combat Aircraft
  Service Pensions (Commutation)
  Service Pensions (Commutation)
  United Nations Peacekeeping Force (Aircraft)
  United Nations Peacekeeping Force (Aircraft)
  Brigade of Guards (Height Standard)
  Brigade of Guards (Height Standard)
  "Daily Mail" Air Race
  "Daily Mail" Air Race
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Royal Naval College, Greenwich
  Helicopters (French Guided Missile)
  Helicopters (French Guided Missile)
  United States Aircraft (Purchases)
  United States Aircraft (Purchases)
  Medals (Applications)
  Medals (Applications)
  S. G. Brown Limited (Sale)
  S. G. Brown Limited (Sale)
  Northern and Western Commands
  Northern and Western Commands
  Air Display, Abingdon
  Air Display, Abingdon
  Royal Navy (Ships)
  Royal Navy (Ships)
  Gurkhas
  Gurkhas
  Women's Royal Army Corps
  Women's Royal Army Corps
  N.A.T.O. (French Forces)
  N.A.T.O. (French Forces)
  Rhodesia (Beira Patrol)
  Rhodesia (Beira Patrol)
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Rum Allowance
  Rum Allowance
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sugar (Bulk Supply Contracts)
  Sugar (Bulk Supply Contracts)
  National Farmers' Union (Devon County Branch)
  National Farmers' Union (Devon County Branch)
  Annual Price Reviews (Metrication)
  Annual Price Reviews (Metrication)
  Fishmeal
  Fishmeal
  Foot-and-Mouth Epidemic (Compensation)
  Foot-and-Mouth Epidemic (Compensation)
TECHNOLOGY
  Shipbuilding and Ship-Repairing Industry (Aberdeen)
  Shipbuilding and Ship-Repairing Industry (Aberdeen)
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders
  Upper Clyde Shipbuilders
  S. G. Brown Ltd., Watford
  S. G. Brown Ltd., Watford
SCOTLAND
  Agriculture and Forestry (Fuel Duty Costs)
  Agriculture and Forestry (Fuel Duty Costs)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Glasgow Fire (Fatal Accident Inquiry)
  Glasgow Fire (Fatal Accident Inquiry)
  Glasgow (Municipal Transport)
  Glasgow (Municipal Transport)
  Motorists (Drink and Drugs)
  Motorists (Drink and Drugs)
  Aberdeen Common Good Fund
  Aberdeen Common Good Fund
  Education (Finance)
  Education (Finance)
BOARD OF TRADE
  Industrial Development (Wales)
  Industrial Development (Wales)
  Industrial Development (Scotland)
  Industrial Development (Scotland)
  Bulgaria
  Bulgaria
  Grimsby Trawler Owners (Representations)
  Grimsby Trawler Owners (Representations)
  Contracts (Report)
  Contracts (Report)
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Industrial Development Certificates
  Brewing Industry (Metrication)
  Brewing Industry (Metrication)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Western European Union (Delegates' Allowances)
  Western European Union (Delegates' Allowances)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Anguilla
  Anguilla
PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS
  House Building Costs (Selective Employment Tax)
  House Building Costs (Selective Employment Tax)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Ordnance Survey Maps
  Ordnance Survey Maps
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pensions
  Pensions
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (DELEGATION)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE (DELEGATION)
  Hull Docks (Unofficial Strikes)
  Hull Docks (Unofficial Strikes)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Disposable Income
  Disposable Income
EMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY
  Earnings
  Earnings
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Music and Dancing Licences (Church and Charitable Organisations)
  Music and Dancing Licences (Church and Charitable Organisations)
  Bedford Prisoners (Visits)
  Bedford Prisoners (Visits)
  Licences
  Licences
  West Midlands Police Force
  West Midlands Police Force
ROADS
  Furness Link Road
  Furness Link Road
POST OFFICE
  Licences
  Licences

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

R.A.F. AIRCRAFT IN GERMANY
LORD ST. OSWALD: 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, in view of the assurance given by the Lord Privy Seal on the 29th of April (col. 834 of Hansard) that the major problem of the dispersal and protection of aircraft of the R.A.F. in Germany had "surprisingly enough" not escaped the attention of the Chiefs of Staff, what immediate measures are being taken by the Ministry of Defence to rectify the present deficiencies.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTERROTTOM): My Lords, the recent emphasis in NATO on the need to consider possible situations below the level provoking a strategic nuclear response has led to studies by ourselves and by NATO staffs of the best methods of developing the protection of aircraft in Germany, and elsewhere. The problem is one of deciding the best mix of active measures, such as the provision of air defence missiles, and passive measures, such as shelters or dispersal off-base. Rapier is already on order for the Royal Air Force; this will lead to a great improvement in our defence against low-level air attack. The Harrier, of which there will eventually be four squadrons committed to NATO, will be able to operate from dispersed sites. We are actively considering what in addition should be done to improve the scale and nature of protection on the ground at the main bases, where, in Germany for example, there are already a certain number of revetments.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply
1178
to my Question, may I ask him whether I am not right in thinking that the noble Lord the Leader of the House implied that the four Harrier squadrons would in fact not be deployed in Germany at all—therefore this hardly arises from my Question—or is he saying that the method chosen of protecting some of the Air Force squadrons in Germany from low-level attack is not to keep them in Germany?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords; I do not think that my noble friend the Leader of the House said that at all. Harriers will be deployed in Germany. What we are talking about is a whole spectrum of measures, as I said, both active and passive, to meet the risk to these aircraft during a phase of war.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords., I am very grateful to hear that. In point of fact, I think the noble Lord will find that in column 834 of the OFFICIAL REPORT the fact that the Harrier squadrons would not be deployed in Germany is implied; and I hope that this was a slip on the part of the noble Lord the Leader of the House.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my noble friend never slips.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Well then you have!

SALES OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT
2.38 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, 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 on what basis foreign Governments are selected to be approached by serving officers of the Armed Forces detailed to promote the sale of British military and defence equipment.]
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to sell defence equipment to countries with which we have friendly relations, subject of course to considerations of security and economic and political factors. Within this policy we direct our sales activities both to those countries which have traditionally bought British equipment and to other friendly

1179
countries which have a requirement for defence equipment.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask whether the noble Lord could make it clear that questions of overall strategy, of assistance and encouragement to civilian trade, and, thirdly, of the balance of payments all operate within the reasoning of the explanation that he gave? Because what he has just delineated suggests that there are omissions in the activity of the seekers of arms.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords. I think we should be glad to sell arms to anyone, but obviously it must be within various limitations and various considerations—a limitation on the universal market in arms in this country.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on April 25 last the South African Government published a Defence White Paper which states that an expenditure of £1,000 million over the next five years is to be made for the defence of the Cape trade route? May we take it that the noble Lord's Answer means that the British Government, in the interests both of economy and of defence of trade routes which are vital to us, will now approach the South African Government in the hope that we may sell arms and equipment for the purposes set out in this White Paper?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords, that assumption cannot be made. In my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, I indicated that there were limitations on the sale of arms from this country. The limitation that applies to South Africa is a series of United Nations resolutions, culminating in the Security Council resolution of June 18, 1964. Since we are a member of that organisation and wish to see it succeed, that resolution is binding upon us.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is there a moral issue involved if you use a port for your survival but refuse to help defend it?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? Should there be any limitation or exception where the safety of the trade routes is concerned?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, trade routes pass through the oceans of the world and do not necessarily pass the end of the South African continent.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to say that the route round the Cape is not an essential to British survival in the event of war?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is a very wide question and I should think might be answered in the Defence debate. But I think that. in the limited term, the answer is that there are alternatives.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, may I asked the noble Lord whether his mind will go back to his statements in the Defence debate last week, that our overall strategy must be controlled by the absence of injury to our trade and balance of payments? How can he justify the statements which he first gave, having regard to the possible sales on the scale available to South Africa and Portugal? My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? He knows better than anyone the procedure of this House; if he wishes to ask a question, perhaps he will do so.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I was on the point of adding that even the Lord Privy Seal could hardly agree—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, it is not a question of whether or not I agree; it is a question of the procedure of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord was going on to make suggestions and he knows that that is not the issue. If he wishes to ask a question—and I say this with the utmost respect for his knowledge—he should ask the question.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is no need to interpret the resolution of the U.N. to which he refers as prohibiting the export of arms to South Africa for the purposes of external defence? And why do the Government hide behind this resolution, in the face of really sabotaging a vital British interest?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I should have thought that the opinion of the United Nations was perhaps more important to this country than many

1181
other considerations, such as the need to supply a limited amount of arms to South Africa. Her Majesty's Government are bound by the Security Council resolution of June 18, 1964, and there the situation stands as of now.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in the overall strategy we hope that we shall not supply arms to countries which do not recognise human rights?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to assure the House that the United Nations are capable to-day of protecting our trade coming round the Cape of Good Hope?
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal I will ask a direct question of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom. Arising out of the Defence debate last week, can he say whether this stubborn ideology applies to Portugal also, from whom we have lost a great deal of arms orders?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I was purely quoting a Security Council resolution.

GREECE AND THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half-past three my noble friend Lord Shepherd will be making a Statement on Greece and the Council of Europe.
SAINT STEPHEN, CLAPHAM PARK BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BRISTOL, CLIFTON AND WEST OF ENGLAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

WELSH AFFAIRS
2.48 p.m.
LORD MAELOR LORD MAELOR rose, to call attention to Welsh Affairs; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is now some years, I believe, since your Lordships' House discussed Welsh Affairs. It is particularly appropriate that we should do so this year, since the Principality will be well in the public eye as a result of the forthcoming Investiture of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. That historical event is going to put Wales definitely on the map, for it is estimated that about 500 million people throughout the world will have an opportunity to witness the event. The vast majority of those viewers will realise for the first time that Wales is a separate country and that the Welsh are a separate nation. It is surprising how few people appreciate this fact.
That ignorance is very pronounced on the Continent. When I visit various foreign countries I find that the people there believe that Wales is a part of England. I have found that to be stated and believed wherever I have been, except in Southern Ireland—and I emphasise Southern Ireland, my Lords. I was there three years ago, and one of the natives asked me, "What part of England do you come from?". I told him, "I don't come from England; I am a Welshman. I come from Wales". "Well," he said, "I am sorry for you in Wales". I said, "Why are you sorry for us?". "Well," he said, "You are nearer the buggers than we are". I do not know what he would have said this afternoon if he could have seen me surrounded by them.
I should like to remind your Lordships once again—I know that I am repeating myself, I have done so on two or three occasions and I see no fault in that. I follow the good example of St. Paul—and he was not an Irishman—who said:
"To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe."
We have all the essentials and all the characteristics of a nation. We have our own country, a country so well described by a Welsh couplet. Notice the vowels, the alliteration and the music of these words:
"Pa wlad wedi'r siarad sydd Mor Iân a Chymru lonydd?"

1183
Roughly translated into less musical words that means:
"What country, when all is said, Is so beautiful as peaceful Wales?"
Then we have our own language, as I have just proved, a language that is only spoken in two places, in Wales and in Heaven. I remember that when I mentioned this on the last occasion the noble and gallant Field Marshal Lord Montgomery said to me, in the tea-room, "Why don't you all speak English?" I am sure of one thing: the noble and gallant Field Marshal will be able to pronounce the name of every village in North Africa, but I would defy him to pronounce the name of that tiny village in Anglesey known as Llanfairpwllgwyn-gyllgogerychwyrndrobwll-llantysiliogogo-goch.
We have our own literature; Welsh books are published regularly. Next month there will be published for the first time in Welsh a book on Parliament. I will not divulge the name of the author or else the demand for the book will far exceed the supply. The number of Welsh readers, unfortunately, has dwindled during recent years, with the result that Welsh publishers find it difficult to make a living by publishing Welsh books. And in this connection, believing, as I do, that my words will be read by the Secretary of State for Wales to-morrow morning, and I hope by my compatriot the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I should like to make a special plea to them, if it is at all possible, to increase the grant for publishing Welsh books. Knowing the Secretary of State as I do, and knowing also of his love of Wales and for everything Welsh, I am sure that he will give a sympathetic hearing to my appeal this afternoon. Lastly, we have our own traditions and way of life.
Before I embark on the most important part of my speech, I should like to remind your Lordships of the debt Parliament owes to Wales. Wales has produced some of the most brilliant Parliamentarians of all times. One cannot ramble along the corridors of the Palace of Westminster without being reminded of this. The first and foremost was Oliver Cromwell. His name was not Cromwell; his name was Williams, and he hailed from South Wales. He assumed the name of Cromwell out of respect for
1184
his famous ancestor Sir Thomas Cromwell. But he constantly reverted to Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, told me the other day that whenever he signed any family document he always signed as Williams—and the noble Lord should know because he told me that he comes from the family. If that is so, I am only surprised that he is so comfortable among Tories. Then we have the immortal W. E. Gladstone. I am not going to claim him as a Welshman, but I would remind your Lordships that his home was in Wales and it was there that he received his inspiration.
I must also mention the famous David Lloyd-George. I am sure that the story, "From Llanystumdwy to Downing Street" would read far more romantically than even the story, "From log cabin to White House". I am pleased to see from the list of speakers that this afternoon his grandson is going to make his maiden speech. I am only hoping that the voice of his grandfather will be reverberating through this Chamber when he stands on his feet, because I am sure all will agree that the greatest orators of all time in the House of Commons were two Welshmen, David Lloyd-George and Nye Bevan.
Two Welsh Speakers have occupied the Speaker's Chair in the House of Commons. I cannot recall that a Welshman ever occupied the Woolsack, so some Prime Minister has slipped up in the past; but not the present one; because I contend that one of the most brilliant lawyers who ever occupied the Woolsack is sitting on it now—at any rate he was a short time ago.
We also provided Britain with the greatest King who ever sat on the Throne; I am referring to King Henry VIII. It is a great pity that that Monarch's achievements have been obscured by his matrimonial exercises. But I contend that Henry VIII, who could speak Welsh as plainly and as distinctly as I did just now, is the greatest King that ever sat on the British Throne.
I want to pass on to what has been achieved for Wales by the present Government. I maintain that the present Government have done more for Wales than any Government in history. I am sure of it. And in this respect I want to utter a word of warning to my fellow

1185
countrymen. I hope that no one in the Principality will be involved in the twaddle, "Wilson must go," because if Wilson goes—and I am speaking to my fellow countrymen—the Tories come in; make no mistake about that. Now I want to ask a question. What has Wales ever received from the Tories? I can answer the question: ruin, destruction, poverty.
A NOBLE LORD: Landlords.
LORD MAELOR: Yes. Can we ever forget Tonypandy? Can we ever forget that strike in Bethesda, North Wales? Can we ever forget the fact that every man and woman in Maerdy, in the Rhondda Valley, and every man and woman in Brynmawr were on the dole—every man and woman. That was under Toryism. That is why indeed a Tory M.P. is a novelty in Wales. If I were organising a bazaar I would ask a Tory M.P. to open it, because the crowds would come there to see the strange animal; he is a novelty in Wales. So I am hoping that my countrymen, whoever else does, will not turn their backs on this Government who have done so much for them. The present Government have done a number of things, and the name of Harold Wilson will be associated with Welsh history for all time, for he was the first Prime Minister to institute the Welsh Office and give the Secretary of State for Wales a seat in the Cabinet.
What have the Government done? I shall mention only three things briefly, because many of my compatriots want to speak. I should like to mention leasehold reform. I do so advisedly. Those of us who have been Members of the House of Commons will never forget how assiduously Mr. George Thomas, now Secretary of State for Wales, fought, and fought hard, for leasehold reform. It was a struggle for him. It was a struggle because the Tories believed in the leasehold system. This system was most pernicious in South Wales, but we had instances of it even in North Wales. It can only be described as a damnable system in the middle of the 20th century. The present Government introduced a measure on leasehold reform which has freed the leaseholder from the claws of the ground landlord. The leaseholder has not to worry that one day his home, in which his father lived before him, will be taken away from him.
1186
I turn now to the Government's industrial policy in relation to Wales. Unfortunately, for some years unemployment has been at a higher percentage in Wales than in the rest of the Kingdom. That has been due to the decline of the four major industries: coalmining, agriculture, steelworks and transport. Confronted by, this situation the Government declared practically the whole of Wales to be a development area. What a blessing that has proved! Due to the special grants which arc available to industrialists who a-e prepared to go to development areas, there has been a great demand for industrial development certificates from industrialists who wish to establish themselves in the Principality. Last year alone, 280 applications for certificates were approved by the Board of Trade. These covered 9 million square feet of new factory space and created 18,000 new jobs. If we consider the last three years together, we find that 24 million square feet of new factory space has been approved. Let me express it in this way: as much factory space has been approved in three years of a Labour Government as was approved in eight years of Tory government. That is quite natural, of course, because we have always thought that a Labour Government could do things at least twice as well as a Tory Government.
Let me remind your Lordships also of what this meant in terms of advance factories. Last year 15 advance factories were let in Wales; and this year, up to the present time, four have been let. That is approaching an average of two brand new advance factories a month in Wales during last year and the first three months of this year. As your Lordships know, the trend for years has been for industrialists to go to the Midlands and around London. That trend was intensified when it was believed that we were about to enter the Common Market. I am sure of this: that those industrialists would never have considered establishing themselves in Wales had Wales not been declared a development area. The industrialists thereby benefited themselves financially by going there.
Those factories will cause diversification of labour. There will be jobs to suit all types of worker, both male and female. For far too long Wales has depended on two or three major industries, every one of them unsuitable for female

1187
labour. That relates particularly to coal. If your Lordships want to know the story of coal in South Wales you should read the book recently published by my right honourable friend Mr. James Griffiths. You will find it a most interesting account of the collieries in South Wales. Thus, through the Welsh Office, the Government have brought about the beginning of a new Industrial Revolution in Wales, and as this new Industrial Revolution develops we shall see new prosperity following in its wake.
When Welsh affairs were discussed in another place about a fortnight ago I found, on reading Hansard, that the Liberal Member, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, had made an extraordinary pronouncement. I do not believe he meant what he said—he said it in the course of an interruption—but this is what it was:
"I should give up every grant for a factory in return for a first-class transport system."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 22/4/69; col. 375.]
What is the use of a costly new transport system if you have not the people to use the system? The depopulation of Montgomeryshire, which is represented in another place by the honourable Member, has been most acute for the last thirty years. It has been more pronounced in Montgomeryshire than in any other part of Wales. What has caused people to leave that beautiful county? They have gone in search of work—the same reason that prompted a million of them to leave Wales between the wars. Now this Government are reversing that trend and have established a series of advance factories to draw those people back home. I thank the Government for their efforts in this direction.
I cannot anticipate what other speakers will talk about, but so far as this Government are concerned in respect of Wales I wish to mention just one other subject; that is, housing. This Government, through the Welsh Office, have broken all previous records in the provision of homes for the people of Wales. In the course of the last four years about 90,000 houses have been built in the Principality. As we all know, human nature being what it is people are loath to leave their homes, even to live in another part of the same parish. I am therefore pleased to know that the Government
1188
propose to give new and higher grants to local authorities to enable them to help house owners to improve their properties and still be able to live there—to provide modern amenities for old houses which basically are sound in construction. I am sure that the present Secretary of State for Wales is greatly alive to this matter.
This morning I had the pleasure of meeting the Wales football team, and on behalf of my colleagues from Wales I was presumptuous enough to wish them every success at Wembley this evening. I was telling your Lordships just now that there is a difference between Wales and England. Some people would question this. Good Lord! they are likely to be made very much alive to it at Wembley tonight. I want Wales to win, and win handsomely.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, would the noble Lord also include the Welsh Rugby team that is going to New Zealand this month?
LORD MAELOR: Everything and everyone that comes from Wales and does well. I know nothing about rugby, but I was pleased to meet Wynne Davies this morning.
I am privileged to open this debate, but I must ask other speakers—because like the rest of you, even a Welshman has to eat, and I have also been asked to do a programme on T.V.—to forgive me if I miss one or two of you. I apologise in advance. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.11 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, for having put down this Motion and giving us a chance to debate Welsh affairs. He described most of your Lordships by what I thought was a highly unparliamentary term at the beginning of his speech, but he overlooked the fact that there are at least 13 of us, and one or two others that I can see in the House, who are on the same side as he is so far as our extraction is concerned, and who certainly cannot be described by that term. In fact, it is one of the best lists of speakers—certainly the longest in quantity, if not highest in quality—that we have ever had in a Welsh debate; and for that reason I am sure he is pleased with his Motion. May

1189
I take the opportunity of saying how much I also look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lloyd-George of Dwyfor.
The noble Lord gave us a witty oration. It was, I thought, a good demagogic performance; but he really was going a little too far in making such suggestions as he did that the Conservative Party had done nothing for Wales and that the Socialist Party had done everything. I do not believe for one minute that anybody in this House really believes that.—Indeed, he was not altogether accurate. If I recollect correctly, the Tonypandy Riots were in 1911, when the Liberal Party were in power, and the biggest increase ever in unemployment in Wales took place between 1929 and 1931 when his own Party were in power. I should also say that it is extremely unfair of him not to recognise the achievements of my noble friends Lord Brooke of Cumnor and Lord Brecon, when they were responsible for Welsh affairs; but my noble friend, who is speaking later, is well able to defend himself
I should like to speak of the problems of Wales in a rather more constructive and less Party political spirit. Like the noble Lord, I recognise that this is a very good year, a very suitable year, to have this debate, in view of the Investiture of the Prince of Wales, and I am sure that all noble Lords on this side of the House would like to join with me in sending our loyal best wishes to His Royal Highness Prince Charles in this historic year. Whether he emerges from his stay at Aberystwyth as a Welsh Nationalist, or whether the Welsh Nationalists come to recognise some of the true worth of this young man's character, does not really matter; but what I hope and believe is that the period he is spending at Aberystwyth will strengthen the already strong ties between Wales and the Monarchy, and in particular the close ties that have always existed between Wales and the Prince of Wales.
There can be no doubt at all when we discuss the affairs of Wales that the dominating issue must be that of employment. Many other subjects are of great interest and many other subjects are of great importance, but they are dominated, as indeed was the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, by the importance
1190
of employment. The run-down of the coal industry is now familiar to all of us, and in the last day or two we have seen some of the possible repercussions of manpower reductions in the steel industry. There is the threat to jobs at Ebbw Vale, where, according to the Western Mail, at least half the plants and 4,000 men's jobs may shortly be lost. These have been the industries on which Wales has depended for so long, and their run-down has now caused great problems.
Certainly the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, claimed, can boast that they have spent a great deal of money in trying to solve the problem. The figures given in the Report for Wales for 1968 are: Investment Grants £38 million; Loans and General Purpose Grants £10 million; Building Grants £7·8 million; Regional Employment Premium and S.E.T. Premium £14 million; and Training Grants £ ·3 million. That is a total of over £70 million in the year 1968, without taking into account any of the cost of building advanced factories, which is not given in the Paper. Certainly if money is the criterion alone, then the Government deserve their due; but surely we must relate it to the results achieved. The Secretary of State has proudly claimed to have created 53,000 new jobs in the past three years: in other words, an average of about 17,000 jobs r year, at a cost of £70 million in the year. That is £4,000 per new job created, without taking into account the cost of the advance factories. That is why some of us want to look at this policy closely to see whether the cost effectiveness is really correct.
In the process, Wales has been carved up into a number of different areas of varying priority. There are the special development areas in the coal mining districts; there is the remainder of the development area, which includes most of Wales except the coastal belt of South Wales and a small coastal strip in North Wales. Now we have another area, the grey area, as a result of the Government's conclusions on the Hunt Committee Report. It is not yet definitely outlined, but it is somewhere in South East Wales. Then we have the rest of Wales, without any priority.
Despite all this outpouring of money, despite all this scheduling of different

1191
areas, still the rate of unemployment remains stubbornly above that of England. The total numbers in employment are shrinking, and, more serious still, among those unemployed the number who are unemployed for more than eight weeks is beginning to rise. That is why we have to look critically at the Government's achievements and ask ourselves whether this is the best method of attracting industry to Wales. But my noble friend Lord Brecon, whose knowledge is unrivalled both in Government and in industry in Wales, is speaking later in the debate, and I do not want to pursue this particular subject any further, interesting as it is.
I would just make a few remarks on a particular area that interests me, and that is the state of the mining valleys where the population is dense and where the most serious effects are seen of the rundown of the coal and steel industries. I have no quarrel with the underlying Government policy, which lays stress on the importance of developing new industrial areas at the mouths of the valleys. Certainly, Aberdare would be in a much more serious position without the industrial estate of Hirwaun.
As I am mentioning Hirwaun, may I take this opportunity of paying a sincere tribute to Mr. Michael Sobell, who founded his fortunes on the industrial estate at Hirwaun and built up that magnificent radio and allied firm which is now part of G.E.C.? He has already given a large sum of money to help those in need at Aberdare, and he has also given over £330,000 for a sports centre. Equally, the Treforest Trading Estate has provided jobs for a great many workers from the valleys, and so in due time, I hope, will the new development schemes at Llantrisant.
But I would just make two points. The first is that, though I fully support the policy of these growth points at the mouths of the valleys, I hope that aid will still be given to individual enterprises that are prepared to put up factories in the valleys themselves. There is not a great number of suitable sites, but they are coming forward more rapidly now. The Derelict Land Unit of the Welsh Office is doing what I consider to be a splendid job, with the enthusiastic support of the local councils, and already
1192
schemes are in hand and sites are becoming available. So I hope that the overall policy will still allow the encouragement of industrial development in the valleys themselves.
The second point is that no industrialist will ever want to come to the valleys, nor will the workers there be able to travel to the new growth areas, unless we have better road and rail communications. It is possible to envisage a future in which the valleys would become largely residential areas, with the workers who live there travelling daily to their work in the industrial estates. But anybody who has had the misfortune to travel on any of the roads in a rush hour will find such a picure quite impossible to imagine at the moment. Good communications, both rail and road, are essential to the future well-being of these valleys.
I see with pleasure that the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, is to speak later in this debate. No one knows more than he about education in Wales. He is the chairman of what is, in my opinion, one of the best local education authorities in the country, and not only in the field of formal education; it is also a very generous authority when it comes to supporting voluntary activities.
I should like to make a short comment on the Gittins Report on Primary Education in Wales. I do not want to comment on those parts of the Report which substantially endorse the Plowden Report on English Primary Education, but there are two respects in which the Gittins Report differs from Plowden. The first is a little outside the subject of this debate, but I cannot help expressing my sympathetic approval of the Committee's recommendations on religious education. I was pleased to find that they had the same doubts as I expressed in the debate on religious education, which we had in November, 1967, about the strict statutory requirements both for religious instruction and for the act of worship in the primary schools. Of course their recommendations on that score received much more publicity than the fact that they also stressed that religious education should continue to hold a significant place in the primary school, and should be fully integrated in terms of a modern approach within the school programme.

1193
I found myself much less in sympathy with the Committee's recommendations on the place of Welsh in the primary schools. In my opinion, it is totally unrealistic to endeavour to create a bilingual nation through the schools. A language lives, or dies, in the home, and if it is not used at home no amount of schooling will ever achieve success. At one point the Gittins Report seems to realise this, and at page 239 it reads:
"Where neither family nor linguistic background support Welsh the chances "—
those are the chances of learning fluent Welsh—
"are very much poorer. As far as we can judge, the influence of the home is the major one."
I would agree with that.
But, despite that statement, the Committee endorsed the principle of fully bilingual education and recommended the progressive introduction of Welsh as a medium of instruction. To teach a second language to bilingual standards requires very considerable time and effort, and in my view what is required in teaching any language at primary school stage is to give a grounding to familiarise children with its basic sounds and meanings, to lay a foundation on which they can later study it in depth should they so wish. I am certainly not in favour of abolishing the teaching of Welsh in primary schools. I believe it to be generally desirable that those who live in Wales should have some knowledge of the Welsh language and Welsh literature. But I doubt the practicability of, "a positive policy of bilingualism in primary schools."
I think that our policy should be to meet parents' wishes, so far as possible. It seems to me right that if Welsh-speaking parents wish their children to be taught in Welsh it should be so arranged. Equally, it seems right that English-speaking parents who wish their children to be educated in English should have their way. When it comes to teaching a second language, then I believe that the local education authority is the best judge of the requirements of parents in its own area. I hope that Welsh will normally be a subject taught at primary schools, but not with the aim of complete bilingualism, and allowing time and attention to be given to other subpects, and maybe to other languages.
1194
If money is to be spent, there seem to me to be other and more important priorities, both in the educational field and in other fields. One comes to mind in the Report on the Ely Hospital. That was a horrifying Report, which came as a great shock to all of us who are proud of the achievements in Wales; end I must say that I was especially moved by the description of Villa 2—the villa where male children were lodged. But horrifying as these revelations were, I think we should be very chary of putting all the blame on the staff. Just to read of the conditions at Ely Hospital, aid of the habits of some of its inmates, gives one some idea of the terrible strain there must be on the staff who give long service in these institutions. It is very difficult for anybody who has not seen them and experienced them really to appreciate what those conditions are.
For example, the Report criticises the lack of toys in Villa 2, but I am told that immense quantities of toys have been supplied over the years, only to be smashed up as soon as they arrived. In addition, the fact that 50 children were crammed into this one ward meant that it was always the most subnormal children who set the pace, and that others who might much better have been lodged by themselves were influenced by the less normal. I should be more inclined to lay the blame on the community at large, on ourselves, who are prepared to close our eyes until these conditions are brought to our notice, and are unwilling to spend the money required on the provision of better buildings and better facilities.
Unfortunately, there still seem to be at large in Wales a number of people who, in my opinion, would be much better shut up in one or other of these institutions. I refer to those concerned with the recent outcrop of bomb outrages. I am sure that all of us deplore the use of violence for political ends, but while it is just possible to understand the misguided motives of those who blow up pipelines, it can only be described as the work of a criminal lunatic to send explosive parcels to the police through the post. All I hope is that those who are responsible will be found before any fatal injury occurs.
My Lords, I end by drawing the Government's attention to a very interesting opinion poll which appeared in the

1195
Western Mail of Wednesday, September 25, 1968. This analysed the voting intentions of the people interviewed, and showed that the Labour Party would receive 36 per cent. of the votes, the Conservative Party 30 per cent., the Liberals 10 per cent. and Plaid Cymru 12 per cent. But what was interesting about that poll was that when the figures were broken down into age groups it showed that in the youngest age group, from 21 to 34, the Labour Party would receive 28 per cent. of the votes, the Conservatives 30 per cent., the Liberals 11 per cent. and Plaid Cymru 20 per cent. A very significant fact in those figures is that in the younger age group in Wales—the Wales of the future—it is this Party, the Conservative Party, that has the most support.
3.31 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, on that unaccustomed and unusual note, I should like to start my speech. May I say, on the selective statistics which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has just given, that he did not break them down further, and that if he had done, it would have shown that in those statistics there was a division between the rural areas of Wales and the urban areas. If my recollection serves me aright, the Conservative Party did not do quite so well there. At all events, the figure for the Liberal Party was 25 per cent. so somebody must have done not quite so well.
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, for introducing this debate, and for starting it off on such a cheerful note. Again, I feel that some of his statistics, his facts, were not as strictly accurate as one would wish, and perhaps I can amend one or two in the course of my remarks. The first amendment I should like to make, although it has really nothing to do with the debate at all (but, then, nor had a lot of the noble Lord's speech), is that he said there had never been a Welsh Lord Chancellor. Surely Lord Sankey was a very distinguished Lord Chancellor. Lord Sankey came from Cardiff, and his relatives lived in my own town, Bridgend. I knew them extremely well—and very nice people they were. Lord Sankey was a Welshman, or was Welsh enough anyway; and, as I say, he sat with great distinction on the Woolsack. Surprising, too, from the point of view that the noble
1196
Lord, Lord Maelor, did not remember him, is the fact that Lord Sankey was a Labour Lord Chancellor, and subsequently became a National Government Lord Chancellor. Many of your Lordships will remember him.
As to the team that is playing at Wembley, I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, in sending good wishes from these Benches; as we do to the Welsh rugby team that is playing in New Zealand, particularly as three members of the team come from my own team, Bridgend, of which I am patron.
LORD BRECON: Three come from my club too, including the captain.
LORD OGMORE: Of course, I would not pretend to put my own claims as high as those of Newport, to which the noble Lord is referring. I may say that two of them no longer wear our jersey—I was about to say that—whereas all the three mentioned by the noble Lord still wear the Newport jersey.
As to the Investiture, I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, mentioned that, and also the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, because I feel that it is of some importance to your Lordships. I hope that it will be of gratification to your Lordships that so many Members of your Lordships' House will be taking part in the Investiture. That is, I feel, or should be, a great gratification to us and to those taking part. May I say that, according to the latest opinion poll, 90 per cent. of the Welsh are entirely in favour of the Investiture? They are delighted with the Prince. He is making an extremely good impression at Aberystwyth; and if the Press and the television would leave him alone for a bit, I am sure that he himself would be much happier as a normal student with his fellows in Aberystwyth. We are pleased and proud of him; and he is a Prince who, I am sure, will do for Wales every possible service in his power.
As to the violence, which has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, there have been four bomb incidents in the last three weeks, and I should like to support the noble Lord in what he said. I believe these are wicked and unChristian acts—and I repeat the word, "unChristian" in the hope that that goes down among them. It is of course very largely the same pattern as we see elsewhere. There is a real or imagined grievance, and this is seized upon by

1197
people who have ulterior motives. The way to combat it—apart from enforcing security, using the police and so on—is to remove the grievance. The Emperor of Abyssinia once said: "If you care for peace without justice, you shall have neither peace nor justice." I believe that that applies as much in internal affairs as it does in external affairs.
One of the solutions, one of the ways in which we can meet the real grievances which are seized upon, as I have said, by wicked people, is by devolution; and all Parties, I am glad to say, are coming round to this fact. The Conservative and the Labour Parties, which have been in power for many years, have established an administrative devolution to a very large extent. On this point I do not think that Lord Maclor gave as much tribute to the Conservatives as he might have done, because, after all, they established a Welsh Office, and Mr. Henry Brooke (Lord Brooke, as he now is) and Lord Brecon did a great deal, within the scope of that Office, for Wales. In my dealings with them, which were many, I found them most helpful so far as they could go. They never refused me anything if they could do it for me.
When the Labour Party came to power they quite rightly established a Secretary of State and a full Welsh Office. I was very pleased indeed, that Mr. James Griffiths was the first Secretary of State for Wales—he had been so long connected with Welsh affairs that it was a very fine gesture—and I was also very pleased that my old friend Mr. George Thomas was subsequently appointed Secretary of State. I must say that I have a soft spot for him because he, Lord Beswick and I were for some time colleagues together in the Ministry of Civil Aviation. From all I hear in Wales, and from my personal knowledge, both Mr. George Thomas and his staff are most helpful. They are doing their best; and if they are not able to do all they would like to do it is not their fault; the reason is that they have not the power to do it. Within the scope of their Office they are doing their best.
On the legislative side, of course, we are nowhere near so advanced as on the administrative side. Neither of the two Parties has as yet been prepared to give us the devolution on the legislative side that they have been prepared
1198
to give us in the administrative sphere. The Conservatives have not, so far, been prepared to have an elected Council or a Parliament for Wales. The Labour Government have not been prepared even to take the first step of an elected Council for Wales, although the Welsh Regional Council of Labour, I understand, has advocated that course. But Mr. George Thomas is a very persuasive man, as we all know, and I hope that he will be able to persuade his colleagues in the Cabinet.
So far as the Conservatives are concerned, Mr. Quintin Hogg, who as your Lordships know is the Shadow Home Secretary, has come out for a domestic Parliament for Wales. It is true that what he intends has not been very clearly defined. Quite naturally (I do not blame him), he has not gone into every detail, but he has come out for the general principle of a domestic Parliament for Wales; and, although that does not commit the Conservative Party, it certainly gives a very good indication, I feel, of what they are thinking on this proposal.
So far as we are concerned, the Welsh Liberal Party, of which I am President, we advocate a domestic Government and Parliament within a federal system in the United Kingdom, on the lines of my Bill, which your Lordships rejected on January 30, 1968. I cannot help feeling that the next time I bring it forward, if I do, I shall have support from both Front Benches, whichever particular Party happens to be sitting on one and the other. We believe—and I certainly believe very strongly—that domestic home rule is an essential basis for the revitalisation of Wales and for her political, economic, educational and social development. I do not believe this is another "gimmick," so to speak. In our opinion—and I want to emphasise this, as Lord Maelor did, quoting St. Paul—domestic home rule is an essential basis for development; that is, a domestic Government and Parliament for Wales.
A recent poll showed that 60 per cent. of votes polled were in favour of a domestic Parliament on the lines that I have indicated. Only a small number was in favour of a completely separate Government and Parliament such as is desired by the Welsh Nationalist Party. I want to make that point quite clear The

1199
Welsh people as a whole—or at least 60 per cent. of them—are in favour of the course that I am advocating, a domestic Government and Parliament of Wales within a federal United Kingdom.
My Lords, the Crowther Commission are just starting to sit. They have been six months gestating. For some reason the announcement of the composition took six months, and the chairman said recently that it would take two or three years to complete their work. That seems to me to be a great deal of time to take. I wonder whether we have that time to spare. After all, most of the facts are already known in the Government Departments. I am certain that Whitehall (which possibly already has the Report in draft) knows exactly what evidence is to be produced; and if Mr. Thomas were to chase round the Departments with a good whip he could get in the next month all the facts that the Crowther Commission will get. I therefore ask Mr. Thomas to put a whip also on the Crowther Commission to get them to complete their task well within two or three years.
There are two other points I wish to raise. First, economic development. I believe that radical re-thinking is needed. We in the Welsh Liberal Party have done a study, called Life to a Nation, which is worthy of consideration by the Secretary of State. It is based to some extent on the following principle. At the present moment industrialists, such as those mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, whose factories are scattered like confetti around Wales, are getting sops as inducements to compensate them for moving from England and elsewhere; to compensate them for the disabilities of operating in Wales. We say that this is the wrong approach. What is needed is to remove the disabilities. You will not then need the sops.
Any Government, whether they be Labour, Conservative, Liberal, Welsh Nationalist, or what have you, who have this present policy of a wholesale scattering of factories—particularly around the valleys, which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was talking about—will achieve very little, because the factories are put down in the places where there happens to be labour and not in the places where there happens to be a need
1200
for the factory. At the moment even the sops are inconsistent; because, as we have seen and as Lord Maelor mentioned, although he did not stress it, the industrial and urban areas in South Wales and the industrial and urban areas in parts of North Wales are not in the development area at all. That means to say that they do not got the grants, so that much of their industry tends to seep away North a few miles where they do get the grants.
My Lords, I managed to get a copy, the last one in the Printed Paper Office, of the Edwards Committee Report, British Air Transport in the Seventies. The Edwards Committee state that the location of industry is materially influenced by the degree to which air services are available. This point on the question of communications is the last that I wish to make. It is tied up with the location of industry, as Lord Maelor said. He was very critical of my learned friend, Mr. Hooson, who made an interjection, I gather, in the House of Commons on this point. I have always understood that it was not in order to quote what was said in the other place unless the speaker were a Minister, so I feel rather dubious about trying to defend Mr. Hooson over something that I have not seen or heard. But I gather that he said that communications generally were very important and that he would sacrifice some of these factories for good communications. I have no doubt that what he meant was what I have been saying: that communications are vital; that the location of industry is vital and that spreading factories around is not necessarily the right way.
I am convinced that first-class air communications are vital—not only communications generally, but air communications. Just recently I spent a few days in Aberystwyth. While there it came to me very forcibly how extremely vulnerable they were on this question of communications. Recently, a friend of mine saw off a friend of his from London Airport and then started back to Aberystwyth. His friend arrived in New York before he arrived in Aberystwyth. That is an indication of the sort of time taken in travelling. Many of the railways either have been or are going to be removed from large parts of Wales, and the roads are not capable of carrying the

1201
traffic that they have to bear. I believe that we should—and I think this is what Mr. Hooson meant, and I agree with him—sacrifice a great deal of the development finance in Wales for good, really good communications and particularly air communications.
In the Welsh University—and we have the pro-Chancellor here to-day—if the College of North Wales has to get a lecturer or to get people on courses from London, it has to send a car or a bus from Aberystyth to Wolverhampton or Shrewsbury to pick them up for the lecture and to send them back afterwards. The same thing happens to the National Library of Wales. And if any unfortunate manufacturer is in that part of Wales he has to do the same. I believe that the only solution to this question is an air link. I believe that if we had a really good system of air communications based on Rhoose, Speke (Liverpool) and Manchester, with air strips in suitable places in Wales such as Swansea, Withybush, Aberystwyth, Valley (Anglesey), Llandrindod Wells, Hawarden and other places, we could really get going with development as we want it in Wales. Unless we have this method of air communications I do not believe that we shall do so.
Forty years ago, when I was in Malaya, it took three weeks to get from Penang (where I was stationed) to places on the East coast. When I was there ten years ago it took two or three hours. Every little place, every town, Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, and all the rest, were all linked by air. If Malaya can do this, why cannot we in this country? Here we are in the second half of the twentieth century and still it takes me longer to get to my home in Wales than it took my grandfather eighty years ago. We are still in the nineteenth century! I believe that this is something that all Parties have to think about very hard. We have the Highlands and Islands air service in Scotland and we want something of that kind in Wales.
My Lords, I do not intend to speak any longer. There are a number of speakers. May I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, very much for his opening the debate, and may I also welcome the noble Earl, Lord Lloyd-George, whose speech we shall listen to with great attention—for I believe that his grand
1202
father was one of the three men of undoubted political genius in the political life of this country, so far, in the twentieth century.

GREECE AND THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE
3.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, with permission I will repeat a Statement just made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, on the question of Greece and the Council of Europe. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House will be aware, on the 6th of May the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe passed by 13 votes to 2, with 3 abstentions, a resolution on this question. This resolution does four things. It identifies the Committee closely with Recommendation 547, passed by the Consultative Assembly on the 30th of January; it brings the conclusions of that recommendation to the Greek Government's attention (as suggested by the Consultative Assembly), in order that the Greek Government may draw the necessary conclusions; it expresses the hope that the report of the Commission of Human Rights will be made available as soon as possible; and it declares the Committee ready to take a decision at its next meeting, until which time Recommendation 547 will remain on the agenda of the Committee of Ministers and of their Deputies.
"There are several points about this resolution which I should like to emphasise. First, the resolution does not mean indefinite postponement, still less evasion, of this important issue. On the contrary, its effect is to set a time limit for the Greek Government to convince European opinion that the evolutionary process towards democracy, which in their view they have begun, has either been completed or is within striking distance of fulfilment.
"The reason why Ministers expressed the hope—and no more—that the Human Rights Commission would

1203
make available their report as soon as possible is that constitutionally it would be wrong for the Committee of Ministers to do anything that might suggest that it was giving this distinguished judicial body any kind of directive. A number of my colleagues urged that no decision should be taken on the Greek question by the Committee until this report was available. There is no doubt that the report will have an important bearing on the Committee's final decision. My own view, which I expressed in Committee yesterday, is that it is highly desirable that Ministers should have had time to study the report before taking their decision, but that this is not essential.
"Finally, the resolution speaks simply of the next meeting of the Committee, without specifying when this meeting will be held. This is deliberate. In certain circumstances my colleagues and I would be prepared to hold an extraordinary meeting to consider the Greek question.
"I believe, therefore, that the outcome of yesterday's meeting was satisfactory. Much of the credit for this is due to the Chairman, the German Foreign Minister."
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this Statement and I think that the Foreign Secretary has come to the right conclusion, for the time being, on this question. There are only two general questions that I would ask the noble Lord. First, would the Government agree that the present régime in Greece is much more likely to make progress towards democracy if Greece is kept within the Council of Europe than if Greece is kicked out? The other question is about the Human Rights Commission. It is the duty or the purpose, of the Council of Europe to try to preserve human rights, and I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will continually impress upon their colleagues in the Council what might happen to human rights in Central and Western Europe if the Southern flank of NATO in the Eastern Mediterranean were to be lost by the expulsion of Greece.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Earl, clearly, has put his finger on the importance of Greece to NATO and to
1204
security in Europe. It is also true that human rights, the respect for human rights, if it is to last and survive, must depend upon all countries concerned acknowledging it and, if possible, developing it. In regard to the first supplementary question, whether the attitude of the present Greek régime is more likely to change if Greece remains within the Council of Europe than if Greece is expelled from it, perhaps only the Greek régime can give us that answer. But the Charter of the Council of Europe is quite specific, and this is the matter which has given concern to the Consultative Assembly and to the Ministers. I hope that the Greek régime will understand the strength of the view which exists not only in this country but throughout Europe and will seek ways and means to speed up their declared policy. They have declared a policy, but I hope they will speed it up and give us a sense of fulfilment.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement which we on these Benches certainly welcome, with perhaps one reservation. I should like to ask three questions. I may say that we particularly welcome the recognition by the Foreign Secretary that the report of the Human Rights Commission is not essential in this matter and that a decision need not wait for that report. I think our reservation is in our disappointment that the present régime was not suspended now. The Council of Europe is one of the few bodies founded on democracy and human rights; and this fact, and the fact that it is not just a pragmatic defence pact, is important. The three questions I would ask are: Were there any moves in the Council for immediate suspension; what was the attitude of the right honourable gentleman to such moves if there were any; do not the Government think that the Colonels have had more than enough time to restore democracy?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would agree with the noble Lord that the receipt and consideration of the report is not essential. But bearing in mind the importance of the judgment to be made, not only to Greece but to Europe as a whole, I should have thought that if the report could be made available in sufficient time it would be desirable that it should be available. Although

1205
the conference of the Committee was confidential, I understand that there was one country that would have been willing to have a decision taken, but that view was not pressed upon the Committee; and as the noble Lord will see from the Statement, the general consensus of opinion was on the line which is in the resolution. Regarding the attitude of my right honourable friend, I may say that we are committed to a policy that whatever we do should clearly be in the interests of the people of Greece; and that we should not do anything which would isolate the régime in Greece from the views, opinions and pressures that are exerted in democratic societies. We do not think, therefore, that the time given—and this resolution clearly does give time—will be wasted. I hope that it will not be wasted and that the Greek Government will understand the views of all the countries in Europe. My Lords, whether the régime has had enough time is a matter that, in the end, it will be for all of us to decide; but I hope, as I said last night, that sooner or later—perhaps not too late—we shall see a change in Greece.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that the present Greek Government has done more towards creating a peaceful atmosphere in Cyprus than any preceding Greek Government?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, clearly the noble Lord is going very wide. I hope that he will understand what is the position in Greece. True they have a new Constitution, but at least two of the fundamental principles of democracy, as we understand it—a free Press and freedom to organise political Parties—are to-day in suspense. So whatever may be the virtues of the present régime in Greece, clearly they do not stand up to what we understand to be democracy, or to what is one of the basic requirements of the Charter of the Council of Europe.

WELSH AFFAIRS
4.0 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Maelor for introducing his Motion this afternoon and grateful, too, to the Government for making the arrangements
1206
for this debate so soon after the publication of the Report on Welsh Affairs. My experience of Parliament goes back a good many years, and my recollection is that in another place we never had a debate until many months after a Report had been published, and by the time we Welsh Members had considered the Report we found that it was completely out of date and had no direct relevance to Welsh affairs. I hope that the Government will not weary in well doing and will not; be preoccupied with other affairs so as to forget the existence of Wales. And in that event we may hope to have another debate this time next year.
I want to say something about the Report. I commend the Government for their work, particularly for the industrial measures they have taken in Wales. The Government have attempted to do two things: first, to meet the decline in the traditional heavy industries of Wales by stepping up modernisation, particularly in the iron and steel industry; and, secondly, to provide for the rehabilitation to their former economic glory of the five ports of South Wales—Newport, Cardiff, Barry, Port Talbot and Swansea. At the same time they have been trying to combat the unemployment problem in Wales, which as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, still persists, by seeking to reverse the declining trends in heavy industries, in steel and coal, and at the same time to develop a basis of diversified economy.
If I may refer to my own county of Montgomeryshire, the introduction of light industries there is something that I have never seen before in the whole of my lifetime. And I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who invariably is fair, that I thought he was slightly Party political when he charged the Government with having spent huge sums of money at the taxpayers' expense to reduce the figures of unemployment by a few hundreds. I do not accept that contention. For the last 50 years the economic life of Wales has gradually unwound. The disappearance of lead and of the textile industry means that something like the major measures of this Government are essential to bring about the desirable economic changes in Wales if we are to retain the population there.
I would say a few words about Welsh education. I accept the Gittins Report

1207
on the provisions made for bilingual teaching in Welsh and English. On this matter I do not share the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I think it is desirable, if the Welsh are to retain their pride in their own culture and in their own nation, that they should have the medium of their own language to express to their children their own culture, their own history and their own sense of pride. Of course I do not wish the Welsh to be confined to the life of a peasantry. I want them to learn English and to go out into the world, to enjoy not only the superior joys of their own language but also the joys of English literature, and an increased fulfilment of their own personalities through the medium of the English language, which is so essential if they are to earn a living on the same terms as other people.
I would refer briefly to Coleg Harlech, one of the few adult educational institutions that exist in the United Kingdom. The others are Fircroft, in the Midlands; Ruskin, at Oxford, and Hillcroft College for Women, at Croydon. These colleges, by voluntary effort, are doing a first-class job to provide for those young men and women who by economic circumstances or by the tyranny of the 11-plus examination were severed at an early date from further education, with a second chance. My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder is a "second chancel". I myself, thanks to Fircroft, am the product of a second chance.
At Coleg Harlech we have 100 students studying, broadly speaking, the social sciences. Having been fortified in that field of education by a term of residential studies, they go out into the world. Only the other day I heard of a young bus driver from Aberdare, who, thanks to a little financial help from the Glamorganshire County Council, was able to get admission to Coleg Harlech. He won an open scholarship to Cambridge and there took a First-Class Honours Degree. He is still on the road to further academic honours. I am saying this about Coleg Harlech for this reason. The present Government, like the Conservative Government that preceded them, have made grants to the universities and voluntary schools, Catholic and Protestant, and to these adult colleges to which I have referred.
1208
But the anomaly is that, when it comes to building costs, while universities have a 100 per cent. grant, and voluntary schools an 85 per cent. grant, these colleges, including Coleg Harlech, receive only 50 per cent. I would say to the Government that if they want to defeat the Government of Plaid Cymru in Wales, they should consider increasing the grants to these adult colleges that are giving so many children of the working class a second chance, and bringing them up in terms of parity of esteem with universities and at least with voluntary schools.
Montgomeryshire, which is my own playing ground, has been pestered by a great deal of trouble in the last few years. The Clywedog Dam, the threatened damming of the Dulas Valley, the introduction of the Welsh Rural Development Board for the country farmers, are to the Montgomeryshire people incursions into, and a disturbance of, their way of life. Of course they are told, as they have been told in the Dulas Valley by the Severn Rivers Board: "You will be able to state your objections to the Inquiry." But they are not told that they must pay for their own legal representation.
My Lords, I should like to ask the Government: Why not consider extending the facilities of free legal aid to those people, not merely in Wales, but elsewhere, when they are faced with similar situations? When, for example, their homes are threatened, when their way of life is threatened, why should they have to pay heavy expenses in order to see that they get a chance of meeting the promoters on equal terms in the sphere of the legal profession? I would say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that if in his law reforms he will include free legal aid in the situations to which I have referred, he will go down in history, in Wales at any rate, as Gerald Sant y'r Gwalia.
4.13 p.m.
EARL LLOYD-GEORGE OF DWYFOR: My Lords, in rising to address your Lordships for the first time, I would ask for that indulgence which I believe is customarily granted to beginners. I should particularly like to thank the noble Lord. Lord Maelor, first for initiating this debate and thereby giving me the opportunity of making a maiden speech, and also for his kind words

1209
about my grandfather. I fear that I am going to disappoint him, but I cannot help feeling that the maiden speech in another place to which he referred perhaps did not reverberate as much as he might imagine. My Lords, I shall be brief and, I hope, non-controversial, though one cannot help thinking that. from an historical standpoint, it would seem that discussion on Welsh affairs in Parliament has not always been free from controversy.
I should like to refer to three separate aspects of life in Wales, some of which have already been mentioned in the debate. First, as a businessman, I have followed with great interest the discussions on new development and private investment in Wales. Having read the Annual Report for the year 1968. I thought that the part which dealt with new industrial development was very encouraging; and though the Report itself must inevitably now be out of date, the trend would appear to be continuing. I believe that on the most recent review of the position more than 50 per cent. of new factory floor space being applied for under industrial development certificates is on applications from firms already established in Wales. That is good news indeed, and it proves that it is from these enterprises in Wales that the new economic growth is coming.
But it therefore strikes me as even more anomalous that a businessman starting such a business, or wishing to expand his existing business there, and who needs medium-term finance, has no national banking organisation to turn to. I believe that this is not merely a matter of national pride, but a matter of straightforward common sense. There is a real and pressing need for such an institution in the Principality, and I believe it would remove one of those disabilities referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. In the first place, it would cater for the needs of those most closely concerned in this new development in the economic growth of Wales. Secondly, this economic growth would, I believe, of itself create confidence and thereby attract investment from overseas.
At the end of the First World War some 26 per cent. of the Welsh working population were engaged in the coal mining and metal mining industries, and some 6 per cent. were engaged in all
1210
other manufacturing industries. To-day that position has been exactly reversed, which is a tribute to the inherent skill and adaptability of the Welsh worker. Few countries, surely, could have undergone such a complete change on their industrial scene, from almost wholly basic industries to a wide diversification, and clone so with such tremendous success. That, I believe, is why such an investment institution would be viewed confidently from abroad, and why I believe it will come. It is reassuring to know that the finance panel of the Welsh Council have had the matter actively before them.
The second point to which I should like to refer is tourism in Wales, which in many rural areas, with agriculture and forestry, forms the whole basis of the economy. For far too long this industry was neglected in Britain as a whole, and rather viewed on the rough-and-ready basis that foreigners coming to this country must take pot luck. Things have improved somewhat, and the advantage to our trade position in the United Kingdom, as a whole, from overseas visitors is now well recognised. I believe that the figure for visitors to this country in 1968 was close to 3 million. But how many of these, I wonder, visited Wales. There are no turnstiles on the Severn Bridge, but I do not believe the figure was as great as it should have been. For instance, I see many American friends over here every year, and while most of them make a pilgrimage to Stratford-on-Avon, very few go a little further and see some of the most beautiful countryside in Europe.
One wonders why this is. It is possible that they have not been told about Wales in the first place, although I am sure that the Wales Tourist Board would refute this. More likely, I think, they have been depressed by the standard of accommodation available, which is not of a very high quality, and tourists the world over are becoming accustomed to much higher and more sophisticated standards of accommodation. It would seem to me imperative that high quality hotels, well sited, should be built in Wales, and that the level of loans and grants for this purpose should be raised from its present level. Furthermore, such building would not deface the countryside, as I fear sometimes do caravan sites, holiday camps and the like.

1211
One other factor which I believe bears on the tourist industry, as well as on other aspects on life in Wales to-day—and this has already been referred to in the debate—is roads. While many improvements have been made in this direction, I regret that there is no mention in the current Report of the need for a first-class North to South road. It can still take six hours to drive from Caernarvon to Cardiff, whereas one can go from Cardiff to London in a little under half that time.
Thirdly, I should like to say a word or two about the Welsh language. I am not Welsh speaking myself, but I know this to be my loss. Though the Welsh represent only 5 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom, by some miracle the ancient speech of the Britons has survived. The vitality of the language has withstood the severest of tests, tests of long centuries—some 19 of them—battling in turn against such powerful languages as Latin, French and English. May I take just one chapter in this long period? The Act of Union of 1542 and Henry VIII was, in my submission, in many ways an Act of great statesmanship, since it made Wales England's oldest ally and laid the foundation for her of good government; but by that same Act the Welsh language was banned in all official usage. Some forty years elapsed before Bishop Morgan's first Welsh Bible appeared.
To-day the language has not only survived, but is flourishing. Its literature is more versatile, and its students and readers are more numerous than ever. In spite of that, it is against this long history of denial and repression that one must see it. Adding to that the present-day influences on the language of mass media and the feeling of despair common to minorities throughout history, I think one can understand the line which has been taken by the Welsh Language Society. I am sure it is of great and urgent importance that the full intent of the 1967 Welsh Language Act be implemented as speedily as possible in respect of the public, official and legal life of Wales. If I might presume to quote further to your Lordships:
"Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom."
1212
Still on the matter of language, I hope it may not be considered out of place if I say that, in my view, by his readiness to learn the Welsh tongue the Prince of Wales has endeared himself to all of us at Aberystwyth, both town and gown. I would say, in spite of anything which your Lordships may have read to the contrary in the newspapers, there is no doubt that the vast majority of Welsh people are looking forward both to his Investiture and his four-day tour afterwards, with the utmost pleasure and anticipation.
4.23 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, it is my pleasant duty to congratulate the noble Earl on his maiden speech. As the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, and others have reminded us, he comes to us bearing a Welsh name that ranks high in Parliamentary history in this century. I doubt whether his grandfather would ever had sat on the Cross-Benches, but perhaps in the course of time the noble Earl may move one way or the other. I hope it will be to the Left.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, the right way.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, there are many bearers of great names in this House; they come with great names. In the long run they rank high or low in the estimation of this House by their own personal attributes. It is my hope the noble Earl will come to rank high. He has made a good start, and I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating him sincerely, and in expressing the hope that he will be a frequent contributor to the debates in this House. I would thank, too, my noble friend Lord Maelor for securing an opportunity to initiate this debate, and for his characteristically racey speech in opening it.
The area with which I wish to concern myself in this debate is South Wales, and in particular the part which virtually exploded population-wise with the industrialisation of the 19th century: an industrialisation based on coal and steel, which caused narrow valleys to he congested with houses terracing up the sides, and the floors of the valleys to be taken up by canals, railways, narrow roads, and a clutter of industrial plant; an industrialisation as narrowly based as the

1213
valleys themselves in the sense that development stemmed from coal and iron, and not, as we have been reminded this afternoon, from a diversity of industries. That is an industrialisation which saw the population of South Wales increase from about 100,000 people at the beginning of the 19th century, to 1¾ million by 1921.
With the decline of the coal industry since 1921, and the movement of the steel industry from the valleys to the coastal region, vast problems of the employment of people have been created, problems with which Governments—and I say "Governments" in the plural—local authorities and others have had to struggle for most of the inter-war years, and since the 1939–45 war. These problems really have been enormous for the diversification of industry. The bringing in of alternative employments does not happen as the result of a speech or two, or the waving of a wand, but only by deliberate planning, the expenditure of vast sums of public money, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has reminded us, and by the creation of conditions which will attract industrialists, and also enable the newly-attracted industries to survive and expand.
Much has been done, particularly by post-war Governments to cope with the problem. There is an outstanding record of success here, not always appreciated by those not in possession of the facts. I can well imagine that when my noble friend comes to reply to-night she will remind us of some of the notable successes—not all due to this Government, or to the Government of 1945 to 1951. For example, the Hoover factory at Merythyr Tydfil; the I.C.I. fibres factory at Pontypool, and the Board of Trade industrial estates at Treforest, Bridgend and Swansea. The industrial estate at Treforest, for example, I know very well. It happens to be within the boundaries of my own town. I can vouch for the tremendous success that that estate has had, and the advantage that it has brought to Pontypridd and the other valleys which converge upon Pontypridd.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the Treforest estate was one which was established by the Government of 1935–36?
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I thought I had fallen over myself to say
1214
that the Governments from both sides had done a good job of work in this connection. I am bound to say that I think the best job has been done by the Labour Government—of course I say that. There are exciting prospects, the prospects of the new Board of Trade industrial estates at Bridgend, Kenfig and Swansea. But perhaps the most interesting of all in this complex of change is the area of Llantrisant, where part of the Royal Mint is already in operation, and a vast expansion is projected. I regard the area of Llantrisant as a part of the development which must take place on the coastal plane, and adjacent to the mouths of the valleys, some of which, or some part of which, will become inevitably and inexorably dormitories for the employees of the industries established in that and comparable places. In this general connection I support the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that all development will not be concentrated on the coastal plain. There is still room for factories in some of the valley communities, and especially on sites rendered derelict by the closure of collieries. But this must be as a part of a deliberate policy, based on an evaluation of the social and human investment which otherwise might be wasted.
Much has been done, but the existing rate of unemployment demonstrates how much more needs to be done before a satisfactory state will exist in South Wales. Total unemployment in June, 1968, stood at 3·8 per cent. Male unemployment was 4·6 per cent.; and even though migration is running at the rate of 2,000 to 3,000 a year, taking into consideration likely future changes in the coal and steel industries it is estimated that there will be over the next few years an annual need for the creation of some 13,000 new male jobs. That is a tremendous task, my Lords. I must say that I did not think the figures of new jobs created recently were quite as high as those which the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, mentioned. The figure I have given, of 13,000 new male jobs, is at a rate three times more than the estimated rate of new male jobs created in the period from 1963 to 1966. And I am concentrating here on male jobs for, I think, an obvious reason.

1215
I think that when my noble friend Lady Phillips replies she will rightly tell us of the great increase taking place annually in Government expenditure on financial assistance to industry. That sort of expenditure will have to continue in an upward direction for many years to come. But financial assistance and the provision of factory space are not the only ways to attract industrialists to an area. They are attracted, too, and strongly, by the general environment in which they, and perhaps the key workers they will have to bring with them, will have to work and live. This is important. Environment is a matter of physical conditions and the general mental atmosphere prevailing in the area. I believe that in South Wales the physical environment is capable of exciting improvement, with the clearing away of man-made ugliness, the removal of tips in some instances, or their transformation into an acceptable part of the landscape. That, I believe, coupled with high standards of design in new buildings, would show that the valleys of South Wales are capable of becoming again areas which will impress by their inherent natural beauty rather than by the drabness of their heritage of the coal and iron age.
In this context I particularly welcome the new tool provided in the Housing Bill that is now before another place: for the first time it will enable Government grants to be made towards the cost of tidying up and improving the environment of groups of houses. The use of grant for this purpose will, I think, provide a useful aid to the local authorities in South Wales to do something which so badly needs to be done. In this connection, I look forward eagerly to the experiment, in which the Welsh Office and the local authority are co-operating, in the Aber Valley, demonstrating that the use of such money in this way can bring about a major improvement. This is to take place in the valley which runs from Caerphilly to Senghenydd, through Energlyn—a place not unknown to someone who will later be speaking in this debate. The Valleys are an exciting challenge to the architect and landscaper, but the necessary transformation cannot be accomplished just by the enthusiasm of a few visionaries, the professional expertise of the architect and
1216
the engineer and the powers of Government, central and local. It cannot and will not be accomplished unless the people want it, and are prepared to strive for it with patience and, above all, with determination.
I said something of that sort when I was privileged recently to open a conference in Cardiff of the Institution of Civil Engineers. The papers presented to that conference on the civil engineering problems of the South Wales Valleys should be made compulsory reading for everyone in central and local government and everyone capable of using the information which they contain. I read them, I must admit, with a feeling of stimulation and excitement beyond anything I have experienced for very many years. These papers made the possibilities of improving the physical environment of that part of Wales seem boundless, and somehow I feel that we must all rise to the challenge of these papers.
The other part is what I have called the general mental atmosphere prevailing. I am an Englishman who has been privileged to live happily in Wales since I was fifteen years of age. In the fifty-six years since then I have spent what I suppose has been the thinking part of my life, and have been moulded by the atmosphere in which I have lived, in a town at the foot of the Rhondda Valley. Many years ago a Welsh professor said to me, speaking of the Welsh as a people, "We are a peculiar people"—and of course he used the word "peculiar" in the sense of being different from the rest. Since then I have been looking for the differences, and such as I have been able to find have seemed to me to be due to environment rather than to anything innate in the characteristics of the Welsh people.
As I see it, nationhood is really a sort of group sentiment, based not on physical kinship or blood tie, but rather on the occupation of a country with climatic conditions inducing a definite mode of life, traditions that gradually come to be shared in common, and on social institutions and organisations. Of great importance in this connection is a separate language, even if that language is not generally used. That, of course, would apply to Wales, but they have a separate language of which even those

1217
Welsh people who do not speak Welsh are inordinately proud. When speaking of Wales we have to realise that this nationhood feeling is a factor to be reckoned with; and to satisfy it, without splitting this little Island into separate sovereign States, is one of the great problems awaiting solution by statesmen. And I think it will need statesmen to secure this sort of solution to this problem, which I regard as a great one. If the feeling of nationhood leads to excesses such as those of which we have recently seen emerging signs, industrialists will understandably be chary of moving to Wales, even though the financial and other attractions are many and powerful.
But, my Lords, to put it on a higher plane than possible economic advantage, how much better it would be, not only for England and Wales and England and Scotland, but for the peace of the world, if peoples gave more thought to and spent more time on emphasising the things that unite, rather than those that divide! I will end by urging the Government and local authorities to set about the task of improving the physical environment of South Wales within the shortest possible time; and by pleading with everyone, whether Welsh or English, to accept the challenge of our common humanity, which is to live together and together strive for human happiness.
4.39 p.m.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, may I also add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, on his maiden speech. No better occasion could he have for a maiden speech than a Welsh debate in this House. We certainly remember hearing—at any rate, I do—his noble uncle. Lord Tenby, who was a much-respected figure in this House and to whom we always enjoyed listening. I am sure that if the noble Earl comes and helps us on these days when we discuss our native land we shall all be very much delighted.
I am sorry that the noble Lord. Lord Maelor, is not in his place, but he implied that he was going to give one of his inimitable performances on television, which we shall all probably see tonight. He made the remark that Welsh is spoken in Heaven. I was going to ask him how he knows. Perhaps when he gets there he can let us know what language is spoken there. He also referred to the
1218
printing of Welsh books and the subsidies that are required for that purpose. I am glad to give him the fullest support in this, because it was a measure that the Conservative Government brought in during the 1950s, and we shall welcome any increased support that the Government can give. The noble Lord referred to the unemployment figure in Wales, and here I must defend the Conservative record. He must remember that the highest unemployment figure ever reached in Wales was when we had a Socialist Government in 1929–31. Perhaps the noble Lord has forgotten that.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, for mentioning my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, because he was the first Minister for Welsh Affairs who really came into Wales and set up a Welsh Office in Cardiff, which led to the progress which has been made ever since. I believe that at that time he knew Wales as well as any of us, in every way. Of course, this year is the Investiture year, of which we are all happy and proud. I only plead, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, that for the next few weeks when the Prince of Wales is at Aberystwyth, the television and Press coverage will give him some peace and let him enjoy himself among the young people at Aberystwyth and around the counties of Cardigan and Merioneth, and wherever he wants to go.
Naturally, we have heard from the Government side of the great progress which they claim to have made in Wales since they were elected in 1964. They have done many satisfactory things which will help Wales in the future, but I feel that we should perhaps take a more sober look at the results of their efforts where they concern employment and unemployment. I do not want to carp in any way on this topic, but I think we should look at the facts as we see them, because it is usual to compare results between Administrations, and I think this is right, particularly when it is in one's own favour.
The figures I wish to quote concern the jobs for people, and I do so because it is a very human matter. In the 1950s we had a particularly difficult problem in South Wales when the old tinplate works were closing down at an incredible rate and they were putting out of work many men and women, because many women worked in those tinplate works at that

1219
time. The Conservative Government of those days managed the economy of the country so that we were able to provide jobs for these people who were displaced and to increase the number of employees in employment in Wales at the same time. From 1959 to 1964 this figure increased from 928,000 to 977,000, an increase of 49,000 jobs in six years. In fact in the last four years the increase was 20,000. In September, 1965, just after the present Socialist Government came to power, the figure of people in employment rose to 991,000 because the policies of the previous Administration were still working through. But since that date there has been a reduction in the number of employees in employment regularly each year, and the last figure available, for September, 1968, shows that we have lost 53,000 jobs in those three years. Those are the figures which arc quoted in the official returns. Therefore, all the gains which the Tory Government were able to achieve in the previous six years have been lost by the Socialist Government in the last three years. In fact from 1957 to 1968 (this is coupling both Administrations) 28,000 fewer men were employed in Wales, while the figure for females rose by 57,000. Whether the men are working a little less and the women are working much more, I do not know, but that may be the answer.
I welcome the building of advance factories, and they will provide some jobs. But when one realises that all the Government factories in Wales employ only 66,000 out of a working population of nearly 1 million, one realises that the employment in these new advance factories will not make a great deal of difference to the total employment. The figure of unemployment is now about 40,000, higher than it has been for a very long time; and as has been said by my noble friend Lord Aberdare, the men unemployed for more than eight weeks has risen, according to my reckoning, from an average of about 10,000 in 1964 to over 22,000 in January, 1968.
What we must ask the Government at the present moment is, what are their plans to deal with the loss of jobs that has occurred? It is always sad that we do not get returns of the actual jobs lost through closures. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, will be able to
1220
give us some figures, but there is a considerable run-down of jobs in the steel industry. I know what is happening at Port Talbot and that with the building of factories something is being done, but there was a most disturbing piece of news yesterday about Ebbw Vale and the old Richard Thomas and Baldwin works. I was glad to see this morning that the Chairman of the British Steel Corporation has denied that there are any plans for closing down even part of these works. Those of us who know anything about the industries of South Wales realise that the time is bound to come when iron and steel will not be made in Ebbw Vale; it will remain on much the same lines at Trostre and Velindre, as a re-rolling mill. Therefore we should like to know what the Government have in mind to provide for the future years, it may be six or ten years, or something of that nature.
I think the Government made a mistake when they asked the National Coal Board to declare their intentions about their future plans. The Board were not ready to do so at the time and I think it created a complete lack of confidence in the mining industry. Many men have left prematurely. As I have said, I very much support the building of these small advance factories in the hope that it will encourage some of our young people who go to our universities and colleges of advanced technology to become real "entrepreneurs", to take those factories and start their own businesses, because it is only in this way that Wales can expect to develop its own industries in the years ahead. In fact, one might ask how many of the advance factories which have been let since this Government have been in office have actually been taken by Welshmen or by firms in Wales.
If one is going to build up a successful industrial life in Wales and provide the jobs for the future we must have the right communications in North Wales, South Wales and mid-Wales. I must say something about a particular road. from Ross to Newport, which I think has taken longer than any to build. It was started during the administration of a Conservative Government and it is still going on under the present Administration. It is a mere 30 miles of dual carriageway which was started in 1960 and which is expected to

1221
be completed in 1972–12 years to build 30 miles, an average of 2½ miles a year; and I am sad to see from the figures that since 1965 that average has dropped to 2 miles a year. This road is of vital importance to South Wales because it brings the whole of the Midlands and the North-West within easy reach of South Wales. May I ask the Minister whether she can possibly do anything to improve and increase the rate of getting this road completed, because so far as we are concerned in South Wales this is as vital to us as the Severn Bridge.
In the Welsh debate in another place the Secretary of State for Wales announced with some glee that a section of the M.4 from Gabalfa to near Bridgend, 17 miles of dual carriageway road of motorway or near motorway standard, would be started in 1972–73. This is most enterprising of the Secretary of State for Wales, because he knows that he will not then, in 1972–73, be Secretary of State for Wales, and that his Government will have gone too. So he is committing somebody else to do something after they have gone.
LORD HEYCOCK: My Lords, is it not true that every Government commits other Governments? The noble Lord's Government did.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I think that is true; but we usually carry it out. The Western Mail last week published a full report of the future development of the M.4 motorway to South Wales, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Heycock, will agree that it is vital for the M.4 to be taken through to Swansea, and possibly on to Carmarthen. What we saw the other day makes a pathetic picture of this piece of road, and it will not be completed until the 1980s or 1990s, or possibly 2000. There will be sections of motorway that were completed under the previous Administration, near motorway standards, dual-carriageways of varying standards, and two stretches of single-carriageway road.
Now that we have a Secretary of State for Wales who is looking after our roads for the first time (because the Welsh Office took over responsibility for them a short while ago) he has decided to build for Wales a new type of road which I can describe only as "mini-motorways". I hope that Wales is not going to be covered with mini-motorways
1222
when we ought to be connected to the full motorway system of the country as a whole. The real M.4 motorway, which will go North of Cardiff and not from Gabalfa to Bridgend, as announced in the other place, and the other piece of motorway North of Bridgend have not yet been put into the "preparation pool" in the Welsh Office. Again, one must refer to the rate of progress on that particular piece of road which the noble Lord, Lord Champion, knows very well, from Cardiff to Merthyr. So far as I can see, there is no hope of anything of any consequence being done, or of completion until the 1980s or 1990s. There is a short section being built at the present moment.
I am proud to be chairman of a company at Abercynon. We have two factories in the Rhondda Valley; we employ something like 2,800 people. We have built a factory in Germany, at a place called Werne, and if some of our staff want to go there they have to take a car from Abercynon to Cardiff, which is 18 miles and takes one hour; from Cardiff to London Airport, which is 180 miles and takes about four hours; from London Airport to Dusseldorf, which is 500 miles and takes one hour, and then to Werne, 75 miles on an autobahn, which they can do in one hour. Unless the industrialist can move in and out of the whole of South Wales and North Wales—and mid-Wales, to a certain extent, is important from the industrial point of view—we shall not get the industrialist coming in to help us with our economy.
In North Wales there must be a dual-carriageway road from Cheshire to Caernarvon. Unless such a road is constructed the tourist industry will not get the benefits; nor will the industries already there be able to expand and develop. We have heard, too, about Aberystwyth—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who spoke of the problems of getting there. What is needed here is a dual-carriageway road from Shrewsbury to Machynlleth. Perhaps I do not agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lloyd-George, on this point; I do not think that a road from North to South Wales is important for the economy of South Wales. I do not think the number of people who travel from North to South would justify such a road. I travelled the other day from my home in Brecon about 100 miles into North Wales, and in the whole

1223
distance I passed only about 60 cars. I think that we in Wales are an integral part of the United Kingdom, and unless we are connected by proper roads we shall not get our industries right.
The Government have failed to maintain the employment position since 1964 because of their economic policies. Although they have decided to build a large number of advance factories, these are not going to make a significant improvement in the number of jobs. There are of course other projects which the Government have brought to Wales besides advance factories, some of them very large indeed—for instance, the one that is going to Anglesey for the Aluminium Corporation. But will they improve the position overall when we remember how many jobs have been and still are being lost for one reason or another?
Again, the taxation demands of this Government have lost us many jobs in the service industries. S.E.T. now at 48s. a week for a man and 24s. for a woman has reduced the opportunities for many young people in the service industries. There was a time in Wales when everything was done to give a man a job. Now we are penalized—I almost said fined—48s. a week for doing so. The regional employment premium helps manufacturing industries, but if there were any sudden change in this it could have serious effects on employment. The investment grants, so-called, are really funds taken away from the industries and companies and repaid at a later date. It was taking eighteen months to get repayments, but it is now taking nine to ten months.
The investment allowances which we had previously enabled companies to claim against tax slightly more than the total cost of the capital expenditure. And, of course, in the old development districts an employer could write off all the capital expenditure against profits in the year of purchase or whatever period he chose. This was a deferment of tax payment and was extremely valuable to those who were starting or had a growing business. So, while we have had advantages in the development districts, I think that there are many disadvantages through the taxation system of the present Government. Corporation tax has increased from 40 per cent. to 45 per cent., which compares with an average tax rate for
1224
companies of about 35 per cent. before corporation tax came in.
My Lords, it is against this background of a better economic position that we shall find more work for the people in Wales. It is because the rates of interest have gone up—and they are higher than ever before—that the Government can tell us about regional employment premium and investment grants but we must set against them the very much worse taxation position that we have to-day. I hope that the noble Baroness, when she replies, will give us hope in Wales that the general economic position of the country as a whole will improve, because unless it does I do not believe that we in Wales can manage this problem on our own. But if she can do that, I am sure that we shall see employment in Wales rise and that industry will in the future come to us and develop.
5.0 p.m.
LORD ENERGLYN: My Lords, I should like to join in the welcome extended to the noble Earl, Lord Lloyd-George, and to extend to him my congratulations on his splendid maiden speech. I would continue where perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, left off. He and other noble Lords have referred to communications and finance. I should like to add two of the other elements necessary for any revival of industry in South Wales, namely, natural resources—materials, if you like—and fuel and power. May I first remind your Lordships of the fact that at the beginning of the last century, when geologists were first unravelling the structure, the nature and the age of the rocks of Wales, they gave them the names of the three principal Welsh tribes, the Cambres, the Ordovices and, of course, that fierce tribe of Boadicean vintage, the Silures. No matter now where geologists are mapping rocks anywhere in the world, those rocks are referred to as "cambrian", "ordivisian" and "silurian", regardless of the language of the country of which the map is being made.
I mention this point for several reasons. The first is that it indicates the international position which the rocks of Wales occupy in the study of geology all over the world. My second reason for mentioning it is to emphasise that the Western seaboard, with its ancient rocks, contains the mineral resources which have

1225
been such an important background to the history of this country as a whole. I do not want to make play over this as a sort of looking back on the past with the prospect of paying for it in the future, but rather that we should be prudent and not ignore them, because they may yet provide us with echoes or facets of salvation for which we may be extremely grateful in the not-too-distant future.
As the mining of such minerals declined, the miners were faced with the gloomy prospect of leaving their homes for employment elsewhere. This has been referred to many times, and I do not wish to make more of it except to say that no Welshman, or for that matter no Englishman, lightheartedly accepts this prospect. Indeed, the Welsh are particularly anxious not to leave the Principality—as it is now a complete Principality once again, we are proud to think—and a land often referred to as "a land of song" and unbridled hospitality. May I remind your Lordships that some of your forefathers, when they finished that angry discussion on October 14, 1066, took up residence in many parts of England and Wales; and in Wales they met with the bilingual hospitality of the Welsh. In itself, historically, it is, I venture to suggest, a lesson to the world, as a good example of lucrative, fruitful co-existence.
But, to be more serious, I mention this not only to bring out the hiraeth of the Welsh for their native land, but also to take some of the facts of life and try to use them to the good of all concerned. In the centre of Wales about 500 million years ago enormous thicknesses of sediment developed due to a depression in the earth's crust of about two miles in length. Such a depression in the earth's crust cannot take place without rebellious activities going on in the molten interior. As a consequence of this, mineralising solutions distilled their way upwards into these sediments, and therefore it is not surprising that minerals occur in central Wales. Your Lordships know as well as I that for centuries gold has been mined in one or two places in Wales, and particularly around what we geologists call "the Harlech Dome". This gold is not a freak; it is not an accident of a geological nature. It is a real signpost to mineral wealth underneath. I put it this
1226
way, if you will permit me, to indicate that here we may have beneath the rolling countryside of Merionethshire an untapped source of mineral wealth which would enable the present population of Merionethshire, about 45,000, to remain there for generations, if we can tap that mineral wealth. I therefore appeal to the Government, or to subsequent Governments, for the institution of sophisticated methods of survey which we now have, to explore this area in central Wales.
May I go South into Pembrokeshire, where I should like to think that ideas may provide 100,000 people with permanent residence in that lovely county. Right through the middle of Pembroke-shire there is a coalfield—a tangled, twisted mass of coal-bearing strata, so twisted and torn that it could not be mined to any great extent. Therefore there were no big coalmines in Pembrokeshire. But the coal there was of the highest grade anthracite known in the world; and if we look into the future, to the extraordinary experiments which are going on at the present day in the manipulation of carbon, this may well become a source of carbon for making long, strong fibres for the rejuvenation and hardening of plastics.
Associated also with this structure, runing out to sea—of course, as geologists we can only guess at this point, but we have evidence to indicate it—there is a great mass of haematite which we can now tap because of the existence of drilling rigs such as we see operating in the North Sea. Associated with this also is the considerable possibility of a gas field extending between Pembrokeshire and Eire; and maybe, too, a little drop of oil. So here is some future comfort of material value to South Wales. Now I come to South Wales proper. Pembrokeshire is really a gem apart of scenic value. I would have kept that quite happily. South Wales is renowned for coal. But may I remind your Lordships that there are many types of coal. If there is one thing that has made the South Wales coalfield famous all over the world, it is because it contains per square mile tore different types of coal than any other known coalfield in the world. That, in itself, might offer a future use in the selective extraction of chemicals; but that is

1227
a subject too complicated to discuss at the moment.
I should like now to turn not to the use of raw materials, but to the possibilities of obtaining cheap power. If we could have cheap power energy in South Wales it would be the greatest attraction that we could offer any industrialist in this country. Before I turn to that, however, permit me to make yet one more appeal on behalf of the miners, their homes and the places where they live and where they were born. What I appeal for is that work should be taken to the miners when these coal mines begin to close down. After all, that is where their roots are, that is where their hearts are; and if you want inspiration from them, that is the only way in which you will get it. To be practical, however, what is left when a colliery has closed down? There are two shafts, a cavernous plexus of underground workings, sometimes covering many square miles.
It so happens that the geographical situation in South Wales makes it almost unique, and that is why I am tempted to put this forward-looking proposition before your Lordships' House. We have a hole in the ground many hundreds of feet deep. If we allow this hole to remain static it will fill with water. This is the fruitful possibility. Hydro-geological studies will show that there is sufficient water here to produce hydro-electric power. How can this be done? As you descend a valley you go from colliery to colliery, and from the head of most of these valleys to sea level there is quite comfortably a fall of a thousand feet. Let me remind your Lordships that at Kariba it takes the holding back of 2,000 sq. miles of water by a 400-ft. dam to produce 800,000 horsepower. So when you multiply the 400 by roughly two or three, you can see the energy that is potentially involved in these deep mine shafts.
Our knowledge of the geology of this coalfield will enable us to show what should be the dying act of every coalmine in South Wales. The dying act of every coalmine in South Wales should be to join up through every seam of coal, through the 600 square miles or more of coal-bearing strata. I am now looking forward to the future, of course, but
1228
even to-day in certain of our almost ghostlike valleys—the Seughennydd Valley running up from Caerphilly has been referred to—this is a practical proposition. And when the costs are compared with the cost of producing nuclear and fuel-fired power stations it will be found that we have built what is virtually the Tennessee Valley underground, with 1,000 ft. of fall to give us energy of a kind upon which man has never been able to improve; namely, cheap, efficient, hydro-electric power.
If this or any other Government could look seriously at this problem, it may well be that in South Wales we have started a line of hydro-geological thinking which will revolutionise the development of hydro-electric power in this country which will bring the industries to the miners, who themselves will turn the valleys back again into green and lovely tributes to nature.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he could answer a question, as I have been following his most interesting speech most closely. In his most imaginative concept of the disused mine workings becoming the source of supply for hydro-electric stations, surely what matters about the water in the disused workings is the rate of inflow, because on that depends the rate of outflow, and on that point he was silent. When he referred to a head of water of 1,000 ft., surely he was taking the top of the workings, whereas the important thing is the head at the bottom of the workings. Perhaps he should subtract 200 ft. or 300 ft. from 1,000 ft.
LORD ENERGLYN: My Lords, I am so new that I do not know how to join up in my speech but if that is regarded as an interjection I will try to answer it as briefly as I can. The geological situation here is that you have about 1,000 ft. of water-bearing strata, and it is a common feature of every coalmine in operation that they have to pump many millions of gallons of water a day. I am not going to pull figures out of the hat because that would be too mystyfing, but it can safely be assumed that in any one valley there would be, I should guess, a comfortable 5 to 10 million gallons an hour at a minimum, and you have storage

1229
at the top of the valley for any volume of water you like to hold back by a dam. So if you look at any one of these valleys you will see that the glaciation of the valley has produced the natural cwm—that is where the word comes from—which can easily be made into a reservoir. Nobody lives in them, only the sheep, and the springs emerge all around. After all, this is the water that excavated the valley. As I say, I do not wish to go into details because this is not a technical institute, but the details have been worked out and I assure your Lordships that this is a feasible, practical proposition.
5.14 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Earl, Lord Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, but I would correct him on one point. I think he said that the Welsh language had at one time been banned. This is a common misconception. It has never been banned. Under the 1535 Act English was made the only official language of Wales, because the chief purpose of the Act was judicial and administrative, and judges only spoke English: so did administrators and, of course, not least, Parliament.
My speech follows on from that of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, because the last occasion on which we discussed anything to do with Welsh affairs here was when your Lordships, by a large majority, defeated the Government of Wales Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I made a speech that was, so I am told, far too long; and I was also told that I was too intellectual. I hope that that criticism will not be levelled at my noble friend Lord Energlyn. I said at the time that I regretted the length of my speech (and I shall not be nearly so long to-day), but I was attempting to get behind the reasons for the rise of nationalism in Wales—and in Scotland, too. It is no use people who live comfortably in Kent or East Anglia dismissing Welsh and Scottish nationalism as pointless, and then going on to say, "Well, these fellows are awfully silly; but we had better try and humour them somehow". There is much more to it than that. If there is an illness in the body politic, as I think nationalism is, it is not enough to treat
1230
the symptoms; one must try to find out the causes.
Does none of your Lordships think it strange, as I think it strange, that we are to-day discussing an area of Britain which contains only one-twentieth of the total population, yet has a special Secretary of State with a seat in the Cabinet? Why, and how, have the Welsh and Scottish obtained this "disproportional" representation? The nearest any English region has obtained to representation of this strength was when Mr. Quintin Hogg was appointed by the Conservatives as Minister with special responsibility for the North East; and that appointment was looked upon at the time by many as a kind of "gimmick". I think that he achieved quite a lot, but it was not a permanent appointment; nor was it intended to be.
Moreover, whatever the Welsh Nationalists may say, the result of the establishment of the Welsh Office has been to attract to Wales a greater proportion of central funds than the North-East, the North-West, or the South-West of England have managed to obtain. The Government are, quite rightly, pleased with what they have managed to do for Wales, although in many cases they have done this in the face of sober criticism. That is to say, they have induced car makers from Birmingham to produce parts in Wales or Scotland, which is not the best way of setting about producing cheaper cars. But I think it should be clearly understood that the economics of regionalism have nothing to do wish the rise of nationalism. A Welsh Office has managed to do better because it has pull where it matters.
To the advocates of regional government, I would point out that those who used to fulminate against Whitehall now fulminate against the Welsh Office. There has been no change there. Moreover, so far as one can see, the establishing of a Secretary of State has not gained a single extra vote. Indeed, the nationalists are stronger than ever—strong enough to frighten our man in Caerphilly. Surely there is something worth pondering on there; and it will concern a Conservative government if ever they take office. The reason is that the inspiration of Welsh and Scottish nationalism is not economics but historical romanticism. If any of your

1231
Lordships doubt that historical romanticism can inspire a highly emotional political force, may I draw his attention to the establishment of the State of Israel? Israel was created from reading the Bible—a history book. So woven into our Western culture are stories in the Bible, and especially into Jewish culture, that to many people—enough to matter—it seemed the natural thing to found a Jewish State where the Bible says there used to be one so many years ago. The world has to live with that artificial situation so created, but we know it would not do to try to create many more situations like that.
What would happen, for instance, if our Government claimed half of France because Henry II used to own it; or if the Anglo-Saxons insisted on returning to Germany? General de Gaulle is a historical romantic, and as a result got himself and France into some very awkward scrapes and postures. The heroes of the Welsh Nationalists are feudal chiefs and princes of 500, 600, 700 and more years ago. Their ideal is a pre-Norman Wales which, if it had not been for the oppressive English, would have developed through some unexplained process of historical determinism into a separate modern nation.
I see that Mr. Nigel Birch in another place described Mr. Gwynfor Evans as a bore. What I am trying to explain to your Lordships, perhaps very ineffectually, is that if you understand him he is not really a bore; he is a historical romantic. He seems to be a bore because he is not primarily concerned with practical politics. He is concerned with what Professor Stuart Piggott, in a most interesting recent book on the Druids, calls, "the past-as-wished-for". He is pursuing a dream even to the point where, if it came true, he would reduce the material welfare of the inhabitants of Wales whom he claims to represent. For it has been shown most convincingly that if Wales were cut off from England the standard of living would inevitably be much reduced. He and the Welsh Nationalists wish to drive out the English and to re-order events so that history can start again at some selected point in time when there were no Normans and no English in Wales, when the area which we call Wales would belong entirely to the Welsh.
1232
But if your Lordships look from the Peers' Gallery in the House of Commons towards Mrs. Winifred Ewing, the Scottish Nationalist, you will see that, although she is outstandingly pretty, there is nothing else outstanding about her. I cannot see anything particularly Scottish about her. There is nothing in the appearance or behaviour of Mr. Gwynfor Evans, or of my noble friend Lord Maelor, which would lead me to suppose that either was Welsh. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who is as Welsh as anyone, lives quite happily in London; and the surname of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, is "Bruce", which one connects with Scotland but is actually Anglo-Norman. My noble friend Lord Heycock, who is to follow me, tells me that his ancestors came from Worcestershire. In fact, nearly half the inhabitants of the South Wales coal valleys went there within the last hundred years from the neighbouring English counties of Worcestershire, Herefordshire, Gloucestershire, and so on.
The fact is, my Lords, that we are racially so mixed and culturally so homogeneous that such differences as exist are regional and not national. As one would expect, there is more difference in speech and manner between a Yorkshireman and a Kentishman, than there is between Shropshire and Radnor. Yet there is this persistent belief that someone who is born on one side or other of a boundary which is deemed to be a national and not a county boundary, is somehow magically transformed into a totally different kind of person from his neighbour who lives across the boundary, perhaps only a mile away. The inhabitants of Monmouth, who are claimed to be Welsh, are supposed to have more affinity with the inhabitants of Rhyl or Llandudno than with neighbouring Hereford or Gloucester. Such a supposition is patently mistaken, as would be obvious to anyone who lived in Monmouthshire, as I do, even if you did not know that Caernarvon was as far away from Monmouth as London, and much harder to get to.
Although these suppositions and postulations of national and racial difference are inaccurate, they would not matter if they were harmless. But they are far from harmless. One can see how emotional and explosive racial issues can

1233
become, yet here we are with the continued existence, and even emphasis, of national boundaries in this country, encouraging racialism within our own country. Antagonisms and tensions are being created and fostered because the historical romanticists persist in believing that the presence of a national boundary between them and their neighbours makes them different, and should make them enemies.
The Welsh Border was put there by Henry VIII, and for one principal purpose which I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. It was done to please the inhabitants, because at the time the drawing of a border was essential to the objective of getting rid of the Marcher Lords and enabling the King's Writ to run in Wales. Previous to that, there was little law and less justice; and to prove it there is hardly a house in Wales that was standing before the date of 1535. The Border served its purpose well. England and Wales became one country, a further logical amalgamation in the continuing process. The Border remained virtually ignored until it was revived by the nineteenth century Celticists and, I am sorry to say, by the measures taken by the grandfather of the noble Earl, Lord Lloyd-George. What was originally an administrative and legal device had become, through well-meant historical romanticism, a highly emotional division between like and like.
My noble friend Lord Merthyr had a Motion down on the Order Paper to redraw the Border by taking a plebiscite, parish by parish. That is a practical proposition and, failing all else, I would support him in it. Henry VIII's Border would take on a different shape; but then it was highly arbitrary in the first place. It would be far better, however, in my opinion, if the people in Wales would themselves decide to do away with it entirely. My noble friend Lord Maelor did not have to look far to find a number of distinguished Welshmen—indeed, distinguished Welshmen have been, and are, in important and influential positions everywhere. One cannot imagine the history of Britain without them; and without them history would certainly have taken a very different course.
But one must remember that had Wales been separated from England these men
1234
would not have had the opportunity to shine as they did. The union has enriched everyone. It has enriched England, Wales and the world. I want that situation to continue, because it is constructive. But as long as there remains what is counted as a national border between England and Wales, there will be a tendency to separatism; there will be this accent on differences, on disunity and antagonism, and that is destructive.
It is partly because I am a Monmouthshire man that I think in this way. Monmouthshire is an area which for centuries has been in dispute between the English and the Welsh, but I can tell your Lordships that this dispute is not necessary. To love it, and to be proud of it, and to love the people in it. I do not find it necessary to consider it as belonging to either country. The conception that Wales is a separate country from England is as profitless as it is to consider England a nation apart. They are not really separate nations; they are one country. And I hope that all men of good will will join together to make every effort to keep them so.
5.29 p.m.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, like some of the other noble Lords mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, I cannot claim to be of Welsh descent. My family originated in Cornwall, and my great-grandfather moved up from Cornwall to South Wales some 150 years ago. Since then we have remained firmly in Wales, and I hope that by now we have become firmly of Wales, because having been born in Wales myself, and having lived there all my life, I have a great love and affection for that country.
I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, has put this Motion before your Lordships' House to-day. We were all very entertained by his speech, as well as being most interested in it and in the speeches which followed. One of the matters that I should like to mention to-day is the question of communications, both road and rail. To deal with the railways first, I was talking to someone the other day and he asked me where I lived. I told him, "In mid-Wales", and he said, "Oh! You are in the trans. port desert". My Lords, how true that is! Because we now have only one rail-way line going through Central Wales, the line from Shrewsbury to Llanelli.

1235
There is now a proposal to close that line, which I think would be a tragedy, for it still serves a useful purpose. Even in these days there are still people who do not own a car, and there are still not enough bus services. If the bus services provided a useful and convenient alternative to the railways, the people would use them, but they do not.
The service provided by the branch lines also leaves much to be desired. The Central Wales line is, I believe, receiving a subsidy, a grant, pending a decision on whether it is to be closed. It is surely preferable that a line such as this, which provides a useful service to the rural community, should be kept in being, even if it has to be kept above the surface by means of a grant. The main-line services, I think, compare favourably with any in the country. I use the main South Wales line between London, Newport and Cardiff, and then on to Swansea, a good deal. Services on this line have been gradually improved over the past years, and they are now excellent. The new freightliner terminals at Cardiff and Swansea will, I think, help considerably towards the rapid transport of goods across the country, and I believe that everyone concerned with the handling and the transport of goods is glad to see those freightliner terminals come into operation.
Now, my Lords, I come to the roads. Here the story is not very happy, I am afraid. We have the M.4—or part of it—and the first few miles, leading out of London, lead one to expect great things, until one comes to a grinding halt near Maidenhead. Then one has to "flog" across country. Why on earth cannot we have a by-pass around Reading? That is one of the worst bottlenecks of all on the route to South Wales going towards the Severn Bridge. A by-pass around Reading is long overdue. Then as one approaches Wales one comes to the beginning of the motorway at Tormarton, with a lovely stretch of road over that very attractive and very impressive bridge to within a few miles of Cardiff. But at Tredegar Park one is brought back with a jolt to reality, because there is a tremendous volume of traffic along the A.48, and the existing road just is not adequate to cope with it.
1236
We have the Port Talbot By-pass, and we have the new bridge at Briton Ferry; but all these existing bits of motorway were planned and started years before the present Government came into power. The present Government, I think, have very little to show for the years that they have been in power, so far as our roads are concerned. Work is in progress on an internal by-pass at Cardiff. Cardiff itself is a very sorry story, so far as traffic is concerned: it is one of the worst bottlenecks in the whole of South Wales. I think that Port Talbot used to be the worst. Thank goodness! we now have the by-pass round that. The mantle of Port Talbot has now descended on Cardiff, and anyone who has had to sit through the rush-hour traffic in Cardiff will agree that a by-pass around the city is long overdue.
My Lords, the Government appear to be approaching this question of the completion of the M.4 in a very haphazard way. We have proposals for various bits of motorway, a radial road from Cardiff towards Llantrisant and a link between Cardiff and Bridgend. But it is all very fragmentary. There seems to be no organisation; there seems to be no planning behind all this. I can see our having to wait until some time in the 1980s before we have a complete motorway from Cardiff all the way to Swansea.
I beg Her Majesty's Government to bear in mind the crying need for the improvement of communications between South Wales and the rest of the country. It is all very well to talk of bringing new industries to South Wales, of building more factories. Those factories must have communications with the ports, with London and with the Midlands; and until the communications are there the industries will not be persuaded to come further into Wales than the present motorways reach. Firms are not going to stick their necks out by setting up factories in West Wales until they can see some prospect of being able to get supplies to their factories and their goods away from the factories. They are just going to settle their factories in South-East Wales, taking advantage of the present roads, until they see what is going to happen in the future.
The other subject I want to talk about is tourism. Tourism could be a much greater item in the Welsh economy than

1237
it is at present. In Wales we have scenery which is the equal of anything in Great Britain. Sometimes I take a little pleasure in telling my Scottish relations how lovely Scotland is: that it is so like Wales. It never fails to get a rise out of them. In Wales there is a tremendous potential for tourism, both with our own people and with those from overseas; and it is still nothing like fully developed. I wonder how much attention the British Travel Association's overseas offices pay to Wales and how much information on Wales they have available for the potential overseas visitor. Everyone has heard of Scotland. Scotland and the Scots have been very clever. They have built up around themselves over the years a sort of mystique; and certainly it has paid off with overseas visitors—and with Americans especially; they make a bee-line for Scotland as soon as they set foot on these shores. They go to see Gretna Green and Ben Nevis and Loch Lomond and all those other delightful places. But they do not realise—perhaps no one has ever told them—that there are places in Wales which are just as delightful and which, while perhaps not easier to get at, are certainly no more difficult to reach.
Since the beginning of March there has been a new grants and loans scheme for smaller hotels and guest houses, and this has been very useful, especially to those in mid-Wales. But although the Tourism Bill promises further grants-in-aid, the number of persons employed in catering and hotels in Wales, which rose to about 28,000 in 1965–66, was in 1967 down to 26,000. It is not hard to find the reason for this: it is the selective employment tax. It has been a real body blow to the hotel and tourist industry, not only in Wales but throughout the country, and it has resulted inevitably in reductions in the staff of the hotels. This in turn must have an inevitable effect on the standard of service; and if the standard of service deteriorates tourists just will not come to stay in those hotels.
A good many hotels in Wales, especially those along the North Wales coastal strip, are outside the development areas. They have to pay S.E.T. in full. The number of hotels within the development area is comparatively small; they, of course, get a refund. But there are
1238
certain places such as Porthcawl and the Gower where the hotels, in spite of their being within the development area, still have to pay S.E.T. in full because they are attached respectively to employment exchanges in Port Talbot and Swansea which, naturally, have populations greatly in excess of the 10,000 figure, which is the dividing line. So although the hotels in those places are within the development area, they get no refund of S.E.T. because they are attached to employment exchanges in large towns. I do not think that is equitable.
My Lords, this year is a very important one in Welsh history. On July 1 we are going to see the Prince of Wales invested in Caernarvon Castle. The interest which has been taken in this ceremony throughout the world has been enormous; the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, said that it was estimated that something like 500 million people all over the world would be watching the ceremony on television. I hope that the Government will do their utmost to see that, this year of all years, Wales can present a face to the world which will do her credit and which will do Great Britain credit. People will be arriving in Wales from all over the world, and most of them will be seeing Wales for the first time. It would he a shame if any of those people went back home with the wrong impression about Wales; with the impression, for instance, that it is a country divided against itself and that it is a poor relation of England. I am sure that that is not true. The Welsh are a proud and ancient people, and although, as I said when I started, I cannot claim Welsh descent, I am proud to have been born in Wales and to live there. I look forward—as I am sure does every Welshman in the country—to seeing this wonderful ceremony at Caernarvon in July.
I hope that the Government are not being unduly alarmed by the activities of a certain minority. At the same time, however many precautions one may take, there is always the possibility that some "nut"—there is no other way to describe these people—is going to do something very silly which might result in a terrible tragedy. I do not want to sound alarmist about this; but one cannot ignore the possibility. I just hope that the Government have the possibility in mind. My

1239
Lords, I think I have raised all the points I wanted to raise. I hope that I have not covered too much of the ground which may have been covered already by other speakers while I was absent from the Chamber.
5.50 p.m.
LORD HEYCOCK: My Lords, may I first express my appreciation in his absence—he may be doing a television programme at this moment—to my noble friend Lord Maelor for initiating this debate. May I also congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Lloyd-George. I shudder to think how I should have felt if I were the grandson of one of the greatest of Welshmen, making my maiden speech in your Lordships' House. I am certain that I shall be expressing the sentiments of everyone present when I say that the noble Earl made an excellent speech. If I may say so, he was himself and not a replica of his great grandfather. We shall be comrades in arms in the forthcoming Investiture. We are taking part in that ceremony and we have attended one or two rehearsals, so we have got close together.
My Lords, I should like to mention the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Moyle, regarding Coleg Harlech. I must declare an interest as I am the President of Coleg Harlech. I want to pay a tribute to a "clique" on the Benches opposite. For many years when adult colleges in this country wanted to extend their building programme, they had to do so on money resulting from appeals to the public. But in his wisdom Sir Edward Boyle, who a few years ago was Minister of Education and Science, decided that the Government should make a 50 per cent. grant to the building programme; and that is why we have been able to expand those institutions. The point I want to make is that if a Tory Minister can make a 50 per cent. grant, surely the present Minister can increase that sum. I should like him to take cognisance of that suggestion.
My Lords, I did not intend to enter into an economic argument in this debate. It was my intention to concern myself with local government reorganisation and the place of language in the present situation in Wales, But after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Brecon with whom I
1240
was associated for many years, and to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who I thought an extremely fair person, I concluded that they were rather bankrupt I of arguments if they had to go back to 1929 for an analysis of the unemployment situation in Wales. When I used to lecture on public platforms and I referred to "13 years of Tory rule", I was told by the Conservatives to forget all that and to "get on with your own job." So I thought that to go back forty years was going rather a long way back.
Between 1924 and 1939, with the exception of a short period when there was a minority Labour Government, the Tories were in power. I saw demonstrations by the unemployed during the years from 1931 to 1939, but I never saw any diminution in the unemployment in South Wales, even under the Tory rule. When the noble Lord, Lord Brecon, was illustrating the lack of initiative of the present Government in relation to economic development in South Wales, he must have suddenly thought, "Lord Heycock comes from Port Talbot; I had better be appreciative." In Port Talbot there is to be a run-down in the steel industry to the extent of 7,000 people being made redundant. But let us be fair to the present Government. In order to meet that run-down, which will show its effect by 1973, there will be the provision of subsidiary industry, with the co-operation of the local authority, to which I pay tribute for the provision of factory accommodation, and I am certain that the decline will be arrested.
What is happening in Port Talbot is happening further West in relation to development. The noble Lord, Lord Brecon, mentioned that there was a small tinplate works, an old family firm, which had played an important part in the life of South Wales. It went out of existence because there was a great concentration on strip mills, and that had an impact socially, culturally and economically in West Wales. As one who lives in the County of Glamorgan, I am happy to realise that the Government are appreciative of the decline in the basic industries and are making the necessary efforts to deal with the situation. I read in the Western Mail, which cannot be described as a Socialist document, about factories being opened regularly and being occupied by workers in that part of Wales.

1241
I can quote the Western Mail as a "handbook" in that context.
When we talk about transport, one would have thought that there would have been a pat on the back for Glamorgan from noble Lords opposite. Three years ago, when I was chairman of the appropriate committee, we had the vision to take over Rhoose Airport. That will have a tremendous effect on transport facilities in South Wales. We are already spending nearly £3 million on equipping the airport and by March, 1970, we shall have a runway of 7,000 ft. which will be able to cope with all the planes wishing to land there. Instead of going to London Airport, I hope that noble Lords will show their Welsh patriotism by patronising Rhoose Airport or Glamorgan Airport. In the general analysis of South Wales we might say that at least the Socialist majority on the county council had the vision to make this kind of provision for the economic future of Wales.
My Lords, I have gone completely off my prepared brief. It was not my intention to speak about economics. I never went to Fircroft; my education finished in a higher elementary school. I had not intended to go into the intricacies of an economic analysis of modern society, but whatever the Government in power, they must face their basic responsibilities. If all the problems had been solved during the 13 years of Tory rule there would be no economic and social problems in South Wales. The economic and social problems of any kind of civilisation are a continuous process. We do not know how the mechanics of a modern society entering the new technological age will work. Who can visualise where in the next fifty years there will be unemployment or full employment? Society changes its pattern from stage to stage and one cannot make that kind of debating point.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said that so many millions will be spent and that it took £4,000 to create one job. If it costs £40,000 to ensure that one man does not go on the dole, and have that soul-destroying experience for many years, the price will be worth paying. If we have to pay £4,000 to bring the miners to the seaboard where, logically, there will be the economic development of the future, I say let us pay the money.
1242
Let them be retained as a community; let them enjoy the cultural background against which they were brought up and to which they have made such a significant contribution. My great cry is that you cannot measure human comfort and human intellect by the pounds, shillings and pence that you spend. You can measure it only in terms of human happiness, and if the spending of money creates human happiness we should spend it. As I have said already, it was not my intention to discuss economics. I had prepared a speech to deal with local government reorganisation in Wales and the basic problem of language.
I listened attentively to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. His grandfather was a great educationist of the 19th century, on whose report was fashioned the Intermediate Education Act of 1896. That is why we have more intelligent people in Wales than in England; we had secondary education so many years before England had it, not necessarily because schools were State-aided but because the people of Wales were determined by their own efforts to get the best education for their children. We have been called an illiterate community, but the intermediate schools of Wales were the public schools of the working boys of Wales. I pay tribute to the noble Lord's grandfather, but when I listened to the noble Lord this afternoon talking about religious education I was shattered. I did not believe that it was possible in any way to line up with the Humanist Society.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me? Certainly I had no intention of lining up with the Humanist Society, and if the noble Lord will be kind enough to refer to the debate in your Lordships' House on religious education, he will see that that is very far from my position.
LORD HEYCOCK: My Lords, I withdraw that statement and I hope the noble Lord will pardon me. I am a newcomer to this House. I am not one of the big Welsh preachers and he whipped me off my feet and I am apt to forget the point. But what I would make clear is this. The decline in moral standards to-day due to the decline in the number of people going to church. I feel that we must see that schools to which our children go shall have a religious atmosphere. In this

1243
present materialist age it may be the only opportunity a child will have to acquire a real concept of religion. And if our Western civilisation is based upon Christian teaching and on the great moral beliefs of the Christian faith, then surely it is asking very little to see that our children shall have some contact with religion.
My second point is this. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said that he did not believe that a bilingual policy would meet the needs of Wales. I have a tremendous respect for the noble Lord, who is a friend of mine, and I am in no way being personally critical of him. I have spent all my life in Wales and I would say that the greatest political danger that exists in Wales at this moment—and it is explosive in more ways than one—is the question of language. In a civilised community there must be economic security and this can be subjected to cold, calculated analysis; but when it comes to language, we get an emotional atmosphere which is psychologically different from feeling on economic questions. To-day in Wales there is an emotional atmosphere in relation to language which is extremely dangerous.
We are nearing a century of State education in this country. There was the Foster Act of 1870, the Balfour Act of 1902, the Fisher Act of 1918, and the Butler Act of 1944. The basis of our educational system was the Foster Act, which laid down clearly, for good or for evil, conditioned I believe by the historical background of education in our country, that there should be duality in education in Wales. That meant that there should be State schools and what we then termed non-provided schools, and it was the right of every parent to exercise his or her own choice. Therefore I say that, arising from the historical tradition of education, there is the right for the parent in Wales to choose a school on language grounds.
To that end, in the County of Glamorgan we have continued that policy of duality. I am not speaking as a Welsh Nationalist but because I believe that this is an emotional situation and that language reflects the nationality, the traditions and the culture of a nation. If we take language from a nation, all those factors are destroyed. The Census shows that in the last few years there was a decline in the number of Welsh speakers. I
1244
have persuaded my Education Committee to follow a policy of bilingualism, aided not only by this Government but by the previous Government. And we find that there are English parents who send their children to Welsh schools. One of our most successful Welsh schools is in the most anglicised part of Glamorgan—that is, Barry. In 1939, we had one Welsh school. Now, we have 14 Welsh schools in Glamorgan, with around 3,000 children.
We may be cynical about the Welsh language and believe that it is in a state of decline, but I would say that to-day there is a stronger desire to learn the Welsh language than at any other time in the past fifty years. Everyone in politics in Wales knows that. For that reason, I believe that we all should bend our efforts to help in the provision of language teaching, so that if the Welsh language becomes extinct we may go down to the bar of history, and be able to plead that at least we tried to preserve it. We must take all the opportunities that present themselves.
Over the last ten years my Education Committee have spent over £40,000 to provide readers and textbooks, and this year we are spending £58,000 for research projects and in providing schools with tapes. It is a remarkable thing that secondary schools could get tapes for French, Spanish and all other languages, but never for Welsh, until we produced them ourselves. To-day, language laboratories are transforming the teaching of language. In that kind of context I would say to my noble friend—and I hope he was not reflecting the opinion of his Party—if we get bilingualism, if we can meet the situation which is so explosive by a logical approach. we can avoid the kind of situation in Wales which we have at the moment in Ulster. If we can eradicate these prejudices by meeting the needs of these people, I am fairly certain that we shall be doing our job.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to give way? I am grateful. I have been listening to the noble Lord without interrupting, because he was in full flight in his oratory, but he has totally misrepresented me and he has totally misrepresented anything that the Conservative Party stands for. I beg the noble

1245
Lord, if he would be so kind, to read my speech in Hansard to-morrow, and he will see that I said that the parents should have a choice; that those who wanted instruction in Welsh should have it. I said that the L.E.A.s were the best people to know what was right. I am afraid he has totally misrepresented me.
LORD HEYCOCK: But the noble Lord did mention the word "bilingualism". I have already quoted the phrase the noble Lord used.
LORD ABERDARE: With due respect, in the Report it is used to mean a second language, and bringing the second language up to the level of bilingualism.
LORD HEYCOCK: I shall read the noble Lord's speech, and if I have misquoted him I will withdraw. Being Welsh, one expresses one's opinion. As I say, I shall read with a great deal of interest what the noble Lord said, and if I am right I will remind him of it; but if I am wrong I will certainly apologise to him.
The next point that I want to make is on the question of local government reorganisation. I shall finish when I have made this point and I must apologise because I have to leave. Over the last twenty years there have been three attempts at local government reorganisation in Wales. The first one was by the late Nye Bevan, who, I am certain in my own mind, when the net result of his Commission came out did not agree with it and put it on the shelf. Secondly, under the regime opposite, in 1958 a local body was set up under the chairmanship of Sir Emrys Evans, and they reported until 1961. Then Mr. James Griffiths set up an Inter-departmental Committee who talked about evolutionary development of local government. The purpose of setting up that Committee was that we should at least accelerate the progress of local government reorganisation in Wales. Simultaneously to the setting-up of that body, there were set up a Royal Commission for England and a Royal Commission for Wales. The main idea of the right honourable Mr. James Griffiths was that, by using the reservoir of evidence that had been accumulated previously, we should probably get local government reorganised in Wales much more quickly than they
1246
would in England or Scotland, they having to wait for their respective Royal Commissions.
I find that we are caught up in events. First of all, we had the five counties, plus the three county boroughs. Then we had the six counties. Then there was a statement made by the Secretary of State for Wales in November of last year on the implementation of the proposals. The question I want to ask is this. The memorandum said that after the Royal Commission had issued its Report for England, we should have the opinion of the Welsh authorities. Does that mean to say, from inspired leaks of the Maud Committee, that the existing structure of local government of the six counties, plus the three county boroughs, will have to be dealt with?
One understands, whether it is true or no, that we are to have regional organisation. Does it mean that the role of local government in Wales is going to be recast; and simultaneously with this, meeting the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, a Constitutional Committee is being set up on which two eminent Welshmen are serving, and they are to examine the Constitution of Wales? Does it mean that in between those two factors, the Constitutional Committee and the imminent issue of the Report of the Maud Committee, all the work that has gone into the reorganisation of local government in Wales will go? I should like an answer to those questions.
I have gone off what I was saying—goodness gracious! All I have written, with all the care, has gone, because I listened attentively to the debate. I want to say that it is a great day for Wales. I am taking part in the Investiture. I wish frankly that we shall have the first-class contributions that have been delivered this afternoon on every facet of Welsh life, and that we shall have many more Welsh days such as we have had to-day.
6.14 p.m.
LORD ARWYN: My Lords, I feel like a damp squib after hearing the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, and the noble Lord, Lord Heycock. I left Wales about fifty years ago, and I have missed this fervour. It is the one thing that has been missing in my life. We are grateful to my noble friend Lord Maelor for initiating this

1247
debate. It is a long time since we had the opportunity of discussing Welsh affairs. I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, on his maiden speech, and I hope that his business commitments will not prevent him from taking part in debates which are well within his capacity.
Unlike the noble Viscount, Lord Swansea, and his ancestors, who left Cornwall for Swansea, I left Swansea for Cornwall; but I can still speak Welsh. I should like to read to your Lordships a quotation from the editorial in the Observer of March 12, 1967. It says:
"Over many centuries and until quite recently the English treated the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh much as the Germans have treated their Slav neighbours, with a mixture of ruthlessness and mockery."
This observation might be an exaggeration, and is not helpful, but the present attitudes by too many indicate that there has been some truth in the statement, and sufficient to excite deep emotional reactions, which can lead into seeking justification for the bitter attitudes that we are now experiencing.
An important major step forward towards giving the Welsh freedom to manage their own affairs has been made by this Government. The problem is now taken very seriously. The appointment of a Minister for Wales in 1951, and a Minister of State for Wales later, was a laudable attempt, and on the part of the Ministers concerned it was a gallant attempt, but not backed by sufficient power to achieve that which could or can be achieved from now on. If the new pattern succeeds and the administrative experience develops, there is no reason why we should not—most of us, at any rate—see the establishment of a Welsh Parliament. It is, in the meantime, imperative that Wales can prove that it can be a viable economic region.
During the course of our lives we are forced to divest ourselves of any emotional approach if we are to solve a practical problem. The main problem which requires solution is the safeguarding of work, so that the population of Wales does not continue to stagnate as it did for the 40 years between 1921 and 1961. During that period I think the increase in Wales was 1·8 per cent.; in
1248
England during the same period the increase was 26·9 per cent. There are many reasons for this stagnation. Like one million of my fellow countrymen, between the wars I also emigrated, as I said before, to Cornwall; but I have been able to get over it.
Wales provides first-class education for those who wish to take the advantage, but Wales is unable to provide all the outlets compatible with their ability. Can one wonder, my Lords, why the spirit of nationalism is on the upsurge? It is useless to try to stem this flood without offering practical solutions, and these must embody practical suggestions, if not complete plans, for encouraging the young people to stay in their own country. This was one of the points referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Brecon. It is a major problem with Wales, and we must never lose sight of it. To-day the universities are fed, and the colleges are fed, with brilliant youngsters; and the first thing they do is to look around to see what are the possibilities of having a job in Wales. And they find that the opportunities are very slim indeed. Any industrialists living outside Wales can prove this fact, because when we get applications for top-flight jobs, it is astonishing the number that come from Welsh boys.
In your Lordships' House we have a wide variety of experience, and if enough of us can make a contribution each in accordance with his own profession we shall not waste time in fruitless exercises or in trying to fan the flames of already over-heated emotions. It is easy to plunge into a welter of accusations, such as: why did the Ministry of Technology spend £580 million in England in 1967–68, and only £6 million in Wales? Or: why did the National Coal Board spend in Wales only 1 per cent, of its £3·7 million allocated to research and development? These are inflammatory questions, and I quote them not as my own requiring an answer at the end of this debate, but as the type of question which demands an answer if we are to retain our graduates in Wales.
I am now going to move more into my own province and, as a contribution towards solving this problem, to make a suggestion, supported by an observation within the capacity of my own experience.

1249
In my opinion the terms of reference of the Welsh Council are too negative to achieve the positive picture that I should like to see developed in Wales. For example, the protection of the national parks should not be held in protective isolation from a potential industrial development. My experience is that this is very dangerous ground, and that a great deal of emotion can be aroused on the subject. If such a development is found to be of material value to the economy of Wales—and I am referring in particular to base metals and trace minerals—these basic principles for the development and protection of the countryside should be incorporated into all plans before time and emotional activities are wasted by the community at large in opposing planning permission for such ventures, especially where vital industrial development is likely. In other words, my Lords, I am appealing for a Council of National Resources for Wales which would have real executive powers and financial resources to exploit to the full the maximum wealth of the Principality which has not yet been tapped. Like my noble friend Lord Energlyn I am interested and experienced in the development of minerals. The noble Lord, in his brilliant speech, gave an example of the expertise that is available if properly co-ordinated. I would once more make an appeal for an enlightened policy on the part of the Treasury in encouraging the exploitation and development of base minerals by "tax holidays", as in other countries.
I should like to conclude by making an appeal for better communications. This is something that is urgently necessary if we are to develop enough industry in Wales. A few weeks ago I travelled by a 4-seat helicopter 140 miles across the Welsh border in one hour. When I go from Bath to Aberystwyth by road, to visit my son, it takes over four hours. If you multiply that time by two, there and back, it means eight hours altogether spent on the road. By helicopter I can go there and back in two hours, and have six hours in which to work. This is the kind of speed which industrialists demand, whether they are top men in national industries or otherwise. Until these better facilities are available, industrial progress in Wales must be unnecessarily delayed.
6.25 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, for giving us the opportunity this afternoon of this wonderful debate. I hope that he is satisfied and that his patience has been indeed rewarded when he considers that he has had taking part in this debate to-day a number of ex-Ministers of great distinction, a chairman of an education committee, a former Deputy Leader of the House of Lords, and others.
I felt that I was taking part in a Welsh affair when I noticed at the Bar of your Lordships' House, the strong congregation of Members of the other place, and the fact that there were other distinguished Ministers who had also come to listen to the debate. Typically, too, I thought, there were the Welsh wives of the noble Lords who were here to participate: they sat to support their husbands during the debate. It all seemed to me like a wonderful Welsh affair. I thought that the stories told by Lord Maelor were reminiscent of the sort of stories I have heard all my life, and I feel that he will particularly enjoy the one of my late husband, when he was with three other Welshmen in Russia. They were watching one evening a magnificent performance of an opera, performed by some very elegant Russian company, and when the music fell very quiet a loud Welsh voice was heard to declare, "They do it much better in Treorchy". I felt, somehow, listening to this debate this afternoon, that whatever we try to do in England, "they do it much better in Treorchy".
My Lords, there is little doubt that we are talking about a nation, not about a region. We have been discussing the affairs of a nation. I was very happy that several noble Lords made references to the frightening prospect that is presented by the spread of nationalism. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, gave a brilliant analysis of many of the reasons that make nationalism so attractive. Nationalism is a very emotive word. We live in a large and very impersonalised society, and there is little doubt this is one of the forms it takes when people wish to identify themselves with a group. I am always reminded of the words of the song we have sung so many times in colleges and schools:

1251
"I vok to thee, my country"; and the second verse goes on,
"But there is another country, "I thought of long ago."
Surely, the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, is the one we should remember: that we are all people in the world, and the more we seek to emphasise our differences the more difficulties we shall encounter.
I was interested in the Parliamentarians whom the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, instanced. Cromwell was indeed a great Parliamentarian, and I am always reminded of his famous remark when he rode down Whitehall and one of his Generals said, "They cheer for you, my Lord". He said, "They would as lief turn out to see me hang". My Lords, every politician should remember that every crowd which cheers to-day may well be giving him a completely different salute to-morrow.
I should like to add my congratulations to those of your Lordships who have referred to the splendid maiden speech, of the noble Earl, Lord Lloyd-George of Dwyfor. He had the great virtue of clarity; he was very sincere. I always find that when one can take notes easily of a speech it is a good speech. If I may say so, with all due humility to the noble Earl, his speech measured up to this splendidly. I should, therefore, like to mention first the question of tourism, as he devoted some of his speech to this—as indeed did several other of your Lordships.
I agree that the Americans do not seem to know about Wales. One wonders what kind of an itinerary they have, as they seem to me always to ask for The Scotch House, Simpson's, Stratford-upon-Avon and Edinburgh. I hope that we shall be able to penetrate whatever are the particular offices which deal with tourism in America to show that if they come to Wales they will indeed find anything they can find in any other part of the world: the streams, the mountains, as well as the warmth of the Welsh people. The fact that we now have a Wales Tourist Board is a recognition that the Government understand and give due importance to the necessity of encouraging the industry of tourism. The grant
1252
and loans scheme that is in the Bill should be a welcome boost to hotel development and investment in Wales.
I am sorry that one of your Lordships felt that the hotels in Wales were not good. I must say that I have always been rather fortunate in that respect. They have one unique quality: that one is invariably served by Welshmen rather than by people from other parts of the world. They seem to like their own industry. But there is little doubt that the Tourist Board can inject all sorts of money and can stimulate local and regional development of the kind which will, we hope, make the tourist trade something to be proud of.
I feel that I must at once come to the support of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, because I too took part in the debate on religious education in schools. He of course took the view that religious education should be continued in schools. As I recall, he asked, quite reasonably, that this should be improved and enlivened and should be made a much more exciting force. To-day he referred to the Gittins Report. Again, if I may reiterate what he said, he seemed to me to make a very reasonable point: that the question of language in primary schools was considered in the Gittins Report and that he went along with most of the Report's recommendations.
The noble Lord had some reservations. For his information I would say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science in fact issued a circular to local education authorities following the production of the Gittins Report, and he gave his conclusions on the question concerning the teaching of Welsh in the primary schools, which of course was one of the major subjects of the Report. He endorsed the main principle, the principle of bilingual education, and invited the local education authorities to review their language policies, making an objective evaluation of the linguistic needs of their areas, consulting the teachers and taking full account of the views of the parents; and, having decided on their policies, to make sure that they were publicly known and understood. I feel that we can quite truthfully claim that Her Majesty's Government are following up the recommendations in the Gittins Report.

1253
I was delighted that at least two of your Lordships made mention of Coleg Harlech. Having spent a great deal of my working life in the work of adult education, I should like to endorse all that has been said by the two noble Lords who made the point. There is little doubt that many people, when given a second chance, blossom and flower; and I believe that if we could have far more attention given to adult education generally this would yield great results. I can of course give no undertaking on the question of the grant, hut will merely say that my heart is very much in this project and that I will add my word to that of your Lordships when talking to the Secretary of State.
Several noble Lords have made reference to the Welsh roads programme. The fact is that the present Government are spending more money on roads than ever has been spent before. We recognise the paramount importance of roads, and of good communications, obviously, to attract new industry to the Principality. But it is no less important to improve roads within Wales to enable the people of Wales themselves to travel quickly and easily to the new jobs which are being created. I was not quite certain that it would really take longer to reach Aberystwyth than New York. I think it is always a little dangerous to base one's timing on the exact flight time, because one has always to calculate the time taken in getting to the airport and from the airport. Certainly I have done the journey to Aberystwyth a little more rapidly than was suggested—perhaps I was fortunate. And we must remember that we can now very rapidly reach South Wales, whether we go by road, over the bridge—that wonderful piece of engineering—or by rail, as I do frequently.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I mentioned Aberystwyth. The journey was started from the airport, and so the journey time in getting to the airport would not come into the question of the time taken. I was making a plea for air communications, not road communications. I hope to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who is on the noble Baroness's left. And may I ask her to remind the Government that the Harrier is now in operation, and the
1254
Harrier is going to make a complete revolution in transport in this country?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I was coming to the point of air communications. Our strategy in relation to roads is based on improving the East-West roads, the arteries into Wales, and to improve the "travel to work" roads from the valleys to the growth centres in South Wales. I am rather surprised that some noble Lords did not see the recent announcement by the Secretary of State for Wales about the extension at the M.4 through to the Bridgend area.
I come now to the air services, which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, particularly mentioned. I have no doubt—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will appreciate this from what he said earlier—that the Secretary of State for Wales, and the President of the Board of Trade, will study his comments with interest. The Report of the Edwards Committee is being considered at present, and the views of the Welsh Council are being sought on the relevant aspects of that Report. However, I think the noble Lord will appreciate only too well that it is a very expensive business to establish and maintain airstrips in a large number of localities, and before embarking on these projects one would need to be satisfied that there really would be sufficient traffic to justify the expenditure. One of the luxuries of being in Opposition is that one can propose the building of an airstrip, or anything else, in places like Llandrindod Wells.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I say, although I do not wish to interrupt the noble Baroness, that this matter is vital to Wales. The noble Lord on her left will appreciate this. When he and I were in office we started the only international airport in Wales, which is Rhoose. We had all these arguments against us. I also opened Withybush, which is the only civil airport in West Wales. That is twenty years ago, and since then nothing has been done in this connection. Unless one gets on with it and faces these arguments, as we faced them then, I am afraid that nothing will happen.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords, I take the noble Lord's point. I think the noble Lord himself said how he had worked with the Secretary of State for

1255
Wales and knew his particular feeling in this connection, and he certainly will be taking note of the noble Lord's comments.
The question of Ely Hospital was raised. I think that the noble Lords who mentioned this subject—the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in particular—should know that of the 45 recommendations contained in the Report, 38 are in process of being acted on, particularly in relation to buildings and conditions generally. I would heartily endorse the point that the noble Lord made, that this is a responsibility of the community and we must all accept this.
The noble Lord, Lord Brecon, rather replied to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in one way, because he mentioned the report in the Western Mail that there had been a firm assurance given to the Member of Parliament for Ebbw Vale by Lord Melchett that no decision had been taken by British Steel Corporation on the future disposition of steel-making capacity in South Wales, and therefore no decision on the future of Ebbw Vale. So I hope Lord Aberdare will accept both my comment from this Box and the comment of his own noble friend.
A suggestion was made that aid should be given to industries which would be prepared to establish themselves in the valleys. There has never been any suggestion that such aid would be withheld. Indeed, it is the Government's policy to encourage by all means at their disposal the establishment of factories in the valleys. But since most of the valleys of South Wales are scheduled as special development areas the Government are in fact prepared to pay even more to an industrialist who is prepared to go there than to those who go to the mouths of the valleys.
I was fascinated, as I am sure all your Lordships were, by the project the noble Lord, Lord Energlyn, offered us of gold in the hills of Wales, as well as the carbon and hydro-electric power. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will look very carefully at this matter because I noticed the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, taking notes, and knowing what a keen businessman and industrialist he is I should not like to feel that he would
1256
get in before Her Majesty's Government in taking up these proposals.
The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, criticised what he called the scattering of factories like confetti all over Wales. The policy of the Government is to concentrate the major developments in the growth points, mainly along the line of the mouths of the South Wales valleys. At the same time, we are certainly not prepared to write the valleys off. This has never been the intention of Her Majesty's Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, made reference to the conference held in Cardiff a few weeks ago by the Institution of Civil Engineers. I understand that this was the first major conference to be held by the Institution in the 150 years of its existence, and it was a splendid initiative. We certainly endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, said: that we hope that the local authorities will read the papers and follow them up, and will act on the many suggestions which were forthcoming. I would certainly agree, as I am sure would all your Lordships, with the comment of the noble Lord that everything must be done to improve the living environment of the communities in Wales, and the Government hope that the provisions of the Housing Bill which is now under consideration in another place will make a major contribution to this end. The impressive progress made in dealing with tips and other industrial dereliction in the last two years is under the guidance of the Derelict Land Unit in the Welsh Office, and this has made a very good start. I thought perhaps to-day the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, would tell us of his vineries, particularly as I was reading recently of the orangeries in Margam; and there is no doubt that South Wales can produce many beautiful fruits in addition to the minerals, and so on.
The noble Lord, Lord Brecon, referred to economic affairs, as indeed did several of your Lordships. No one would deny, least of all any Member of Her Majesty's Government, that, important as are all the other issues which we have been discussing, the people of Wales, and particularly industrial Wales, have long memories of bitter days when in many areas there were more people unemployed than employed, and even those who were employed were barely able to scratch a

1257
living. I have heard my late husband speak of the only well-provided man being the relieving officer—and this is not going back to the days of the Industrial Revolution; it is within living memory. I mention this only to show why jobs mean so much to the people of Wales; why, in a way, they are almost sacred, and why it is so important that there should be an economic future for Wales.
I think we have to take heart from the fact that at the present time 96 per cent. of the insured employee population of Wales are working. Of course the figures have been higher and we are by no means complacent about the current situation, but the margin by which employment in Wales falls below the national average is equivalent to no more than 3 persons per 200 insured employees. When one takes account of the dramatic change which has taken place, and is continuing to take place, in the structure of industry in Wales, it is quite remarkable that the gap between Wales and the rest of the country is so small.
What makes me so sad is the fact that so little was done in the first half of the 1960s to prepare for the inevitable and entirely predictable decline in the manpower requirement of the basic industries of Wales—the coal, steel, agriculture and transport.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will allow me to interrupt for a moment, the number of people employed in the first half of the 1960s continued to increase every year; the numbers have started to decline only in the last three years. Those arc the official figures.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I will accept the figures given by the noble Lord, but I will check them and will certainly return to this subject with him, possibly by correspondence.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, there is little doubt that at the moment, with the industrial developments which have been approved, there is an estimated rise in the number of jobs at the rate of
1258
about 20,000 a year. This is a record of which the Government are proud. It will take time for the industrial development certificate approvals to be translated into jobs, but we are now be ginning to reap the harvest, and I hope that none of your Lordships will be so ungenerous as not to recognise that Her Majesty's Government are genuinely concerned that the people of Wales should remain within Wales. I believe that sometimes we think there is still a migration from Wales to other parts, but I am happy to say that there is now a healthy change in this trend and Wales is retaining more and more people in the younger age groups.
On the economic side. Wales is still facing difficult problems as the run-down in the older basic industries continues, as we have heard this afternoon. But these are largely short-term problems, and they are being tackled vigorously. Looking ahead there is no doubt that Wales has a very bright future: new industries are being established; new skills arc being learned by the very able people in Wales; major firms are moving in, and the Government are dispersing thousands of Government jobs to South Wales. I notice that my tax return application always comes from South Wales. The catalogue of the Government's achievements is truly impressive, and the Government's continuing measures of assistance to Wales gives solid grounds for an optimistic view to be taken of Wales in the '70s.
My Lords, I think we can look forward with every joy and anticipation to the important event which is to take place in 1969.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I apologise for intervening—the noble Baroness is very good in giving way. Before she leaves the economic subject and goes on to the interesting one on which she is about to embark, may I ask her whether she would like to make a comment on a matter that I mentioned in my speech—I did not hear anyone else do so, but they may have done. I refer to the Hunt Committee's Report on the question of the coastal strip in North Wales and South Wales, which in neither case is in the development area. The Hunt Committee merely said—rather feebly, I thought—that the Government should keep the position under close review. Are

1259
the Government in fact going to do something perhaps rather more dynamic than that?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the Government are of course, studying the Hunt Committee's Report at the moment, as the noble Lord will know, so I really cannot add anything more to this point. However, I can assure him, with all the sincerity of which I am capable, that any point he makes in this connection is taken note of, just as his comments on the air communications and the roads have been noted, because we appreciate his feeling for the people of Wales.
Several of your Lordships have made reference to the Investiture of the Prince of Wales which is to take place in July. It is very exciting, as the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, said, to feel that millions of people will watch the ceremony. It is a unique opportunity to sell Wales to the world. I can remember that so many times Welshmen with whom I was acquainted, and who travelled the world, came back and said, "There are no valleys, no rivers and no hills like those in Wales". My Lords, Wales is not only a country of great promise and great opportunity: it has people who have talents, warmth and great understanding. May I hope that this debate will be the first of many? One feels that the Scots have adequate time given to them, and I hope that from to-day we may go forward to yet another debate on that great country of Wales.
6.49 p.m.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, I am glad that I apologised in my speech this afternoon in advance that I should not be able to hear all the speeches. However, I did hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I can say to him, and he knows that I am sincere; "With all your faults, and they are very few, I love you still". Particularly I would say that when we remember in Wales our great debt to his father. The name of "Aberdare" can never be forgotten in the Principality. I heard also the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. I should like to answer some of the things he mentioned, but let us know just how Wales is getting on in Wembley.
1260
This has been a remarkable debate, for many reasons—in the first place, the interest shown by the Sassenachs and the Scots. The Chamber was full when I was on my feet, not because I was on my feet but because of the interest they had in the subject. Indeed, they asked me just now on television whether I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who apparently said yesterday to the Press that more interest was shown in this House than in the other place in Welsh affairs. I said that, judging from what I had seen this afternoon, I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. We have had thirteen speeches. When I put down this Motion I anticipated only some half a dozen, at the most. As I say, we have had thirteen speeches, and I am grateful to those noble Lords who have had to leave their native land and are now living in another country for coming here to-day in our support.
I was very pleased that we had the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Lloyd-George of Dwyfor, because, as I said in my own speech, in my opinion the greatest man who ever came to Parliament was the noble Earl's grandfather. I can never explain that man at all; I do not know, realising that he had only the elementary schooling at Llanystumdwy, how he was able to do what he did. I think that we heard the voice of Lloyd George in his grandson's voice this afternoon, and I can only appeal to the noble Earl to come here often and take part in our debates.
Then we were very pleased to have in the Chamber the four Ministers from the Welsh Office. There were three Ministers and one former Secretary of State for Wales, Jim Griffiths. I saw him sitting on the Steps of the Throne, accompanied by the present Secretary of State for Wales, George Thomas. In the Gallery I saw the Minister of State, Mrs. Eirene White and Ifor Davies, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Welsh Office. I was disappointed that we did not have a word from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I am not given to flattery, but I say here and now, as an ex-Member of the House of Commons before the Welsh Office was established, that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, was undoubtedly the best Minister we had to deal with Welsh affairs

1261
under the old régime. I am sorry that we did not hear his voice in our debate to-day. My Lords, my wife has warned me not to bring any Papers home; and it therefore gives me great pleasure to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NORTH EAST LINCOLNSHIRE WATER BILL
Brought from the Commons, read la, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at seven minutes before seven o'clock.